Cremona vs Cremona M

[1KW]

At the risk of a firestorm of contrasting opinions, I am starting this thread for those who are confused about this choice. I found that the original Cremona 3 way speaker vs the M 3 way speaker are very simillar in appearance and cabinet build differences are very subtle. The scan speak slit cut carbon drivers are still be using in other hi end speakers however the drivers in the M version are now alluminum for the woofers . Midrange in both speakers are still made from a carbon/wood pulp driver. The midrange and tweeters are packaged differently in the two speakers but are more simillar then different. Crossover in the original Cremona is supposedly better then the M. The new M version was created to allow for a sound closer to the new elipsa and to allow sonus faber to have an excuse for another price increase. I did not think either of these speakers sounds like the elipsa. The elipsa is better sounding to me and with its unique cabinet design makes it easier to place in a room as they should at a price that is nearly double the cremona . I did double blind testing using several different genre of music ie the speakers were switched back on and off alternating cremona and cremona m without me knowing which speaker was playing. I picked the original cremona over the M every time. The cremona gives up nothing to the M version as far as imaging, midrange details, bass and warmth. To me the M version was thinner sounding at volumes that I tend to listen to. I think that the original Franco Serblin version will eventually not be thought of as a used pair of speakers but rather a classic . The non M will be sought after as the M is not going to be as popular because it is now priced with speakers in a more expensive class .

[80B]

I heard the Cremona M (& SF for that matter) for the first time recently, and was very impressed.

[wanderfowl]

Originally Posted by 80B

I heard the Cremona M (& SF for that matter) for the first time recently, and was very impressed.

Just to be contrary, I've listened to SF speakers (Cremona M, Auditor M, and Elipsa) a few times, and have come to the conclusion that they're possibly the best out there for acoustic, jazz, and classical, but when I throw heavy bass at them (as in Rock or Electronica), they seemed a bit thin. Maybe a good sub could help them hold their own there, but I'm not sure they could ever be my sole speakers. Maybe if they had a set of B&W 800Ds next to them...

[PHC1]

All depends on system synergy and preference. Some will like the more extended but still smooth highs and a touch cooler/more neutral presentation of the "M" and the "Elipsa", some will like the slightly more softer and romantic sound of the older versions of Sonus Faber speakers. What they all still have in common is that gorgeous midrange since that is one parameter that the team works on extra hard and is the defining characteristic of Sonus Faber IMHO.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by wanderfowl

Just to be contrary, I've listened to SF speakers (Cremona M, Auditor M, and Elipsa) a few times, and have come to the conclusion that they're possibly the best out there for acoustic, jazz, and classical, but when I throw heavy bass at them (as in Rock or Electronica), they seemed a bit thin. Maybe a good sub could help them hold their own there, but I'm not sure they could ever be my sole speakers. Maybe if they had a set of B&W 800Ds next to them...

A speaker would have to be quite "colored" to reproduce most of today's dynamic range compressed Rock recordings with tolerable results.

[1KW]

I find that I have enough bass, it all depends on the room you auditioned them in. Were the speakers in the middle of a room or within 2-3 feet from the back wall, were you sitting the same distance from the speakers as they are apart ie a isosceles triangle ?