I have the Cremona Auditor M, so take my comments with that personal bias. The M series, to me, balances the things that SF has always done well in terms of tone and texture, but balances those out with a nice dose of neutrality. I think the M version of the Auditor, in particular, provides more focused imaging and is punchier and bigger sounding than the original. I happen to think it also sounds faster. Those traits are also present in the Cremona M, of course. Depending on how large your room is, you might not even need to go for the floorstanding version. My room is pretty large (24 x 16) and I don't really feel like I'm missing anything on the bottom.
You're in a situation where you should probably find a local dealer to work with. You already know you like the original Cremona Auditor sound, so I'd see if you can borrow the Auditor M to do a comparison at home. Or you could take your speakers to the dealer and ask to do a comparison with the current Cremona M. It should at least help to inform your decision.
I had the original Cremona floor standing speakers and they were great.Yes they were different, a little soft and a tad boomy.That said I could listen to them 24 hours a day.I have listened to the M and thought it was missing the musicality of the originals and to much like every other speaker out there.I did change speakers and went to Devore silverbacks ,they have a little bit more detail and bass. The devore speaker is 8 ohm so easy on my shindo amps unlike the cremona. All I can say is that the original is one great speaker for the guy that just wants to relax and enjoy his music.
Our tastes may differ, but I think your observations are spot on. I don't know if I would go so far as to say the original Cremona was "boomy" but it certainly had a softer sound than the M. I will say that my Auditor Ms can be made to sound that way by changing something upstream.
The Silverbacks are fantastic speakers and I've heard them with Shindo gear too. If I ever go to an all-tube set-up, Shindo would be right at the top of stuff that I love. The other speaker I seriously considered was the Devore Nines before I settled on the Auditor M. In a different room, with different electronics, who knows? Two paths diverge in the audiophile woods!
Sonus Faber speakers sound nice, but nothing like real music. I can understand why you like them...however, audition all others in your price range so you get the biggest smile for your buck.
....disagree Stringbeen....that the The Cremona M's ( or Sonus Faber's in general ) are nothing like ''real music ''...which in itself is a very subjective dangerous statement as I attend at least 5-10 live concerts per year of varied musical approaches. I had Avalon Eclipse's for years and then sold them to buy the speaker that '' sounds just like live music '' the Harbeth 40.1's which lasted about 6 months in my home to buy the Cremona M's ( and listened to the original Cremona's ) as I found the original Cremona's to be a very warm / rich musical speaker.....The M's ''tighten'' up a few areas but add a little more speed and finess to the music - with my cabeling, electronics and size of room make up a very ''complete sound '' ....for me. Either one of the versions of the The Cremona's have a very beautiful sound....but just to say ; '' nothing like real music '' is not an acurate statement - because what does ????? Remember - as I once worked boards - anything that is amplified can be controlled and altered to suit one or everyone's tastes. You even said go out and listen....
I agree with the sentiment here. To generalize, the original Cremona are musical and very easy to listen to, like you Auditors. Cremona M are more "modern" and lean towards a detailed/analytic sound. The original can be finicky about what is driving them; the M less so. Your Edge would mate well with the Cremona, as it does with your Auditors. It is really up to your taste. If you like the original Auditors, you probably want the original Cremona. An audition of the M would probably tell you pretty quickly what you like best. The only thing that would replace our original Cremona is a pair of Strads.
Thank you everyone! Lots of food for thought here.
I also have Harbeth SHL5s here and and the little Auditors just sound much nicer to me, even though there is less bass.
I have directly compared cremona floorstander vs auditor M some time ago. if memory serves me well original version had more rounded sound and more calm, while M have more imediacy and was "faster" and litle bit hotter on top end. definatley better resolution.but still maintaining sonus faber schoold sound- crispy hights, dark, reserved uper midrange , warm upper bass and still very easy to ears when increasing volume.
Thank you Elviukai! The auditors really sound nice with a tube pre & a solid state amp. The tube pre really helps. I read & was told that they need stands, but I get great results with little 18-inch-high sturdy tables (firm, controlled, detailed, warm bass). And John Atkinson talked about some bite up top, but I hear very nice, maybe perfect highs, nice & liquid & still extended and listenable. Again, the tubes help a lot.
I use the cremora M's with Pathos integrated monoblocked. It's a great combination. I have not heard the cremoras. but ugraded to the M's from the concertos and do not find the M's too anaylitical. To my ears, with the Pathos, the M's have a rather warm overall texture, but certainly are still alive enough to convey a real sense of the music you're listening to.
I own a pair of cremona auditor. I use ASR Emiitter II Exclusive amp. Indeed, I also found that the bass is bloomy, but after i change my power cord. The sound becomes balance. You have to try to configure your cable or interconnect to achieve the balance. Furthermore, Cremona has better tweeter, mid and bass than M model. The problem with cremona is quite sensetive to position and little things in your system. You have to play around before you achieve balance sound. Configuration takes some time.
I own very old Minuettos and pretty recent Cremona Ms and have heard just about everything in between.
The M series did what pretty much every post above describes - tamed the mid bass energy and boosted the presence region, bringing the SF sound more into line with modern convention.
The older SFs were kinder to certain source components and electronics, certain rooms (tho not all), and - especially - certain recordings. The new versions are more neutral.
M better by a wide margin.
Yep, the Auditors are VERY sensitive to upstream things (like power cords and XLR/RCA choice), and positioning like crazy, but they do reward greatly when everything falls into place, like something I would guess to be much more expensive to my ears.
I'd also like to ask if the Guarneri Mementos are a real step up (though it seem there are a lot of these for sale each time I look).
Thank you everyone for taking the time to chime in here. I've never had a Sonus Faber before this and like I said, they sure do impress me more than I expected.
i have the original cremonas, ayre gear. last year i swithched to the analysis plus silver ovals. that seem to balance things out. lots of detail but still smooth. very happy with this combo.
Rgs92 - I traded up from the Auditor M to the GM and have never regretted the move. The GM is at least one step up compared to the Auditor M. Then I added a REL R-305 sub to that system - that was the perfect finishing touch.
Thanks for letting me know this.
Now I need to save my pennies for them.
It has been years since I listened to any other Sonus Faber, so I have no frame of reference here, but the Auditor M is one heck of a good standmount speaker.
It is perfect for small ensemble type music, strings and vocals e.t.c maybe not so good for others styles.
I have both the original Auditor and Auditor M right now and must say I'm a bit on the fence.
The M indeed loses some of that signature SF midrange magic, but does add a bit more detail (not WAY more as some claim), clarity, size, dynamics, extension, and has a really nice sweet and delicate top end. Not that the original is a slouch in any of these areas, but the M improves upon these things.
The original I would argue, is easier on the ears and more seductive -- it is a very unique middle ground between the old syrupy, super lush, rolled off SF house sound and a more modern "hifi", extended, neutral sound. For classical, intimate acoustic music, and raw vocals I think it is the winner.
For me, because I have very eclectic tastes in music that includes some electronica, hip-hop, and a lot of rock, I will probably go with the M. If I were more or less strictly classical and softer music of the like, I would probably stick with the original.
Of course, the amp you choose changes things. Another things for me is that I just settled on amp -- the VTL ST-150 -- which I like a lot for its rich, lush, emotive sound, especially with stringed instruments and vocals, but in compromise found to be a tad too dark. Well, that's in the shop right now so I haven't had a chance to hear it with the M, but my feeling is that the slightly brighter, hotter character of the M will balance out that bit of darkness.
I will say this: it has been said that the M is not as high quality physically as the original, and I think that may be true. The original stands are heavier and more solid with steel bases while the M stands are lighter and feel more plasticky -- disappointing for $1200! The finish looks a bit darker and richer with the original, but what stands out the most is material surrounding the drivers. The original has a nice, thick, elegant, deep grained leather (or at least looks just like real leather), while the M has a cheap, thin, dry leatherette. The ScanSpeak drivers also seem to be *physically* better quality than the M, though the M *might* sound better.
All in all I'd say if you're a longtime SF fan you'd probably like the original Auditors better than the M.
Wrong great on all music I never understood the statement does classical but not rock as good that doesn't make sense music is music if it works with jazz it works with rock simple.
When there is one instrument (loudspeaker) trying to emulate infinitely different instruments it will never be 100% accurate and one can expect some speakers to be able reproduce the sounds of certain instruments better than others. Make sense?