First, there's no doubt that Avalon and Wilson are well built, well thought out designs. They are quite different sounding. No one would confuse a Nola for a Wilson or an Avalon, etc. These are distinctly different sounding approaches.
Having carefully audited a long list of speakers at the price point, I went with the Metro IIs. If you've ever heard Quad 57s at their best, then add remarkably potent bottom end with very detailed top end extension that refuses to be strident or painful at high volume even with less than stellar recordings, then you have a Metro II. The upper bass/lower midrange, or the broad midband, is the heart of music. It's the specialty of the 57. There's little about either Avalon or Wilson that reminds me of the best virtues of a Quad 57.
There's no doubt that Avalon has better driver integration than the Wilson, IMO. However, the Nola is absolutely seamless. Remarkably so.
Another appealing virtue is their abilty to sound full range at low volume. They don't need to be pushed to deliver. I'll assume that the open baffle midrange has something to do with this. It's difficult for me to accept more conventional designs having become accustomed to a boxless midrange. I'll add that just about any incarnation of a dome tweeter irks me now after living with the ribbon in this speaker.
My room is 16' x 21'. I have them on the shorter wall, 6' out and 7.5' apart. They easily energize the space, far beyond my expectations. Before the Metro IIs I had Nola Viper Ref IIIs, which have double 9" woofers per channel. Somehow, some way, the Metros give nothing up to the Vipers in perceived energy. The Metros have as much kick and are faster. An upside is that I'm quite happy with 50 watts of quality tube power.
Happy hunting.
