Avalon, Vandersteen... which to move to?

Thank you all for your responses (& don't stop just because I'm writing this!)- it is helpful to lean on your collective experience.

Sc53 and Scb6, I'm looking to move away from ProAc if I change, which is why I'm not auditioning other ProAcs (also, this is my 2nd set of ProAcs, so I feel I have some sense of their general sound). What I like about them is ease of listening & naturalness of voices... but there seems to be something funky about the bass- not as balanced as I'd like, maybe too heavy or something- which upgrades to other components has revealed. Male voices, e.g., don't sound as "natural" (whatever that is in a playback system) to me as female, and I think it's due to the bass issue. Also, I wouldn't mind more bass extension & detail. But most of all, I think there may be more "there" to be had with the right upgrade (as other component upgrades have in the past provided)... and Vandersteen & Avalon have made the cut to final consideration, the former because I've heard the 2CEs & was impressed (less so with the 3Asig, which was odd), & Avalon due to reccommendations.

Nas--

My experience with the 3A Sig has been the same as yours. I have auditioned it and was not impressed. In fact, based on that experience, I would take the 1C over the 3A Sig. I know it can sound better, but I haven't heard it yet. That's why I'm saving my pennies for a pair of 2CE Sigs instead of the 3A Sig.

Quick note on Vandersteen 2Ce Sig vs. 3A Sig.:
The 2s are much easier to set up in an average room size with moderate power, etc. They just sound fantastic in most systems/rooms. However, with a little practice you can easily set up the 3s to strut their stuff in the same room. One thing to keep in mind though is that the room will play a major role here. The 3s have more bottom end extension and will excite the room more than most speakers. So while I'm not surprised that you haven't heard them sound better I am disappointed.

The 3s are simply a much better overall speaker. I would not bother adding a pair of 2WQs to a pair of 2s. Instead I would use a processor preamp to put in a V2W and save the money. It's a great way to go. The 3s will still smoke them though.

As for comparisons, you have to make those yourself. All of the Avalon's I've heard sounded great, but were WAY over priced for the performance IMHO. Also, the bass and PRAT were not as good for me as the Vandersteens.

Good luck!

Whoa there! Man, everyone says that the Avalons are lean, no bass, no dynamics, or very little of these traits. I have not a clue how anyone could come up with that. Maybe, they heard them with a bad setup or lousy electronics or both. I have heard the Ascendents( I personally own the Radians) with an all Spectral setup( I also own an all Spectral setup, as well as an all ARC setup for contrast). It takes about 5 hours of very critical listening to get a true picture of what any Avalon speaker system can do, not an hour or a cursory listen. First thing you notice is the sensuous midrange,it is truly addictive. The topend, sounds anemic, but once you realize that everything is really there you will appreciate that the topend is extremely integrated with the midrange. The bottom end for the Ascendent is very good, not quite as good as the Radians, it is tight and tuneful but does not quite go as low or as loud as the Radians. If you are a fan of the cello than this is the speaker for you.Power, I heard it with 150 watts, it was plenty loud. The dynamics are very good, soundstage is excellent, imaging is beyond reproach. For a dynamic speaker, the transparency is not half bad, but like all dynamic speakers, they cannot compare to a good electrostatic. Are they worth $8K, that is really defined by its user value rather than its exchange value. However, for only $4k, you can buy a pair of Radians(used in mint condition) that will be as comparable or better.