Mixalis: As a former Kharma dealer, I speak from experience. The 3.2 is an excellent speaker that is very open with excellent detail and micro dynamics. It also goes fairly deep for a two way speaker. Most people add the subwoofer thinking that macrodynamics or impact will improve... it does not. All that happens is the bass goes a bit deeper and the midrange gets muddied up. What is lost is the beauty and seemlessness the speaker is known for.
I have heard the sub many times and it never is as enjoyable as the 3.2's on their own. If you want the woofers, go up to the Midi-Grand Ceramique. It is much better than the 32. plus the sub.
I have had three customers try the sub and all got rid of it.
If you are looking for big kick and slam, Kharma is not the answer.
i would like to add that my room is 15x 18 ft.....
will ill be happy if i get it.....???
please guys help me...!!!:)
actually you are telling me what i want to hear.....
thats what i am actually after...a little bit more slam and kick..the power maybe of a LIVE rock concert...not really macro...
anybody else who thinks that this maybe could be achieved with the sub.....??
As an admirer of the "fabulously musical" 3.2's,and having heard them loads of times(driven to the MAX with Lamm 2.1's though)I believe Jtinn is probably right on the money.I never liked the sub's blend,as these little GEMS are really special.Why mess up the magic.Working well is one thing.Greatness is another.The 3.2 is a great design,and having heard them in a perfect set-up,I DID think there was a sub present,when there was NOT!!My own program material(LP and CD)as well.....CLASSICS!!!!
Best of luck!!
I have only heard the 3.2's once at a dealer in San Diego, but I was predisposed to like them after all the positive press. They fit my bill exactly: great on acoustic music, beautiful timbre, wonderful soundstage.
When I finally got to hear them, I was very surprised. I put on a Coleman Hawkins quartet CD and if I hadn't known better, would have thought that Hawk was playing an alto instead of a tenor. There was just no bottom end or body to the instrument. For my money, a tenor better sound like a tenor or its not going to happen.
Maybe a sub would help, but the dealer was quite honest and said that even adding a sub to the Kharma's would not provide the body that was missing. He admitted that this speaker just would not work with my priorities.
is there anybody who thinks that a sub could give me i want...???a touch of weight...????live concert feeling,more slam on tympani...????
without losing the magic,the coherence...????
where r the owners....?????;)
hhehe...ok Randy its not THAT bad....lol
what im talking here is just a bit more weight......
im even thinking maybe a speaker and i/c cable would be the answer...
maybe valhala are a little bit lean for the kharmas....which is not the fuller sounding speaker in this world.....
any opinions from owners..???
The Valhalla is indeed a bit on the lean and dry side.
i would surely not match this with the Kharma 3,2.
The CRM 3,2 is a magical gem indeed, but if you want dynamics slam and a feeling of power with all the good things that the Kharma's do buy a used Talon Firebird !
it's a pity that the Talon factory seems to be out of business, but the Firebird is an amazing experience.
If you feel the need to add subwoofers to your CRM 3,2 buy two.
my experience though, but a second sub really is way to go no matter what system.
For that money though you get into Talon Firebird Diamond territory or the bigger Kharma CRM three way.
i like the CRM 3,2 big time mind you.
anybody with the 3.2...?????what cables do you use...????i would like to get some weight without sacrifing the transparency,resolution and the other great things of the valhalla...!!!have you heard the Acoustic Zen maybe????
Its not a problem to add a sub to the 3.2, although I would not recommend the Kharma sub unless you like your bass to oooze.
Kharma's a very flexible and easy to use with a sub and I disagree with all the advice you have received so far about your speakers. Its a ported two way speaker, there are any number of subwoofers that would be compatible. The Accuton 6" benefits greatly from the help of a subwoofer.
E-mail me if you're interested in how to do this because I don't wish to debate this issue with others who already have stated alternative experience. I've done it many times, with outstanding results. There are much more difficult speakers to add a sub too than the 3.2's.
You may want to experiment with different amps. What do use? I have the Kharma 2.3Fs and had been driving them w/ Linn Klimaxx solo mono blocks....more recently had auditioned various amps and was very surprised how much the bass improved with certain amps such as Gryphon Encore and dartZeel etc.
D_Edwards: Have you actually heard the 3.2 with a sub?
Yes, and since I build speakers similar to the 3.2 with Accuton drivers, I have zero difficulty with integration. I
What is the problem is the same thing Seas Mag Excel driver guys have is the tremendously low distortion afforded by Accuton neo and Seas drivers through 300-100 hz range where they are magnitudes lower in distortion than many comparable drivers. Just have to use the right subwoofer. The 12" I use works great for a $1,500 subwoofer.
Personally, I don't know where the difficulty comes from.
I've been listening at Lloyd Walker's
place to his Kharma 3.2s for quite some time. Lloyd recently put in the Silent Source Signature
speaker cables and the resulting added depth and impact in the bass was surprising and impressive. Much greater impact than before, and the detail, resolution and harmonic integrity continued intact. Based on what I've heard in his system, I'd encourage you to call Lloyd about trying the Silent Source.
guys thanx a lot for the answers......
probably i wont use a sub...i am REALLY afraid of messing the speakers wonderful coherence and the magic touch....and then ill have to sell the sub as well......anyway my problem is not that big.....actually what ive noticed with kharmas is that on poor recordings the music becomes a little bit flat with no excitement.......on good recordings the kmusic comes ALIVE......
Rushton since i live in Greece ill try to find these cables and audition the here...
i think ill be looking around for some cables....
except a user which actually has the kharma sub with 3.2 has sth to add......
Jtinn did you actually set your sub right.
I heard the Kharma 3.2 speakers with the Kharma sub for an hour at the Stereophile show in 2005.
It was in the GTT audio room.
At first I didn't think the sub was on.
The bass was so seamless.
Then the guy at GTT audio demonstrated how he set the system with the sub on.
That sub blended in so perfectly to the 3.2 speakers.
One thing I will say.
This sub is large.
So you will need room for it.
But it was an awesome sub.
It was one of the best sounding subs I'v heard for music.
Read what Audio Federation said about the system.
He was also raving about the 3.2 speakers with the Kharma sub.
I'm just wondering,as I love the little 3.2's,has anyone heard,or better yet,compared these with the Mini Exquisites?
maybe ill try to audition it so i can have an opinion for myself.....
i think thats the way to go....!!!!!!the problem is that its quite difficult here in Greece as i think only one exists.....ill see what i can do to convince my dealer to go to that guys house or something......by the way that guy has 5.1 hometheater with kharma's i think the 2's.....
I too heard the Kharma sub,at HE 2005.Sorry,but it was NOT seamless.I heard it on two different days.If you ever heard the magical Lamm 2.1 drive this speaker,in a really good room/set-up,I'd find it hard to believe any "music lover" could feel the sub was an improvement.Just my opinion,and remember these companies want to sell product.BTW,I have heard the sub on the Midi Ex,and the result was the same,to me.Maybe it is only my own perspective,so my thoughts should be taken lightly.
Twilo: I guess we just feel differently, but it does not work for my ears nor those I know have tried it.
The sub did not add to the sonics in any positive way when I heard it.
Just an FYI on this thread,
I am quite certain that all the users with bad results with the sub, tried to splice it on too the 3.2 without cutting the low frequencies to the 3.2. (splicing= trying to get the sub woofer to match the 3.2's without contouring the 3.2 's low frequency response and simply bumping the subwoofers output into the 3.2's bass extension)
Incase its not already clear, that isn't going to work. I didn't realise (couldn't belive it really) that this is what people were talking about.
hopefully it is quite obvious that this is the wrong way to add a subwoofer to a ported two way speaker.
You need to cut the 3.2 off at about 70hz (+/- 10hz) depending on room and woofer placement (preferrably 2 subs and not left and right----mono subs.)
Once you do this stuff the port of the 3.2 with some socks? this will help the speaker a great deal and give you a complementary rolloff from the speaker to help keep deep bass from the 3.2 and improve its linearity under high output conditions.
Now this has increased the somewhat restricted dynamic output of the 3.2 by 10 fold. and now the sub can work over a wider bandwidth blending seemlessly with the K3.2 Satellites, room interaction will dictate the slopes, but bessel low Q filters are the best for being transparent but they can be more difficult to blend. Most of these following crossovers are very flexible and offer an almost overwhelming amount of solutions.
Crossovers from XTA (digital in digital out)
or if your on a budget BSS Audio all work well.
Some people like DEQX also
The onboard EQ's can allow room correction and TIME ALIGNMENT with the woofers. Time alignment is more critical than almost any other setup parameter.
There's a little more to it, like sub selection but a speaker like the 3.2 is a minor challenge to add a subwoofer too because it simply does not play that loud. So you likely won't need a $10K subwoofer. Maybe 2 $2500 ones.
I have a CeSb in my system with Kharma Mini Exquisites and feel the sub only enhances the already glorious sound. The sub will "muddy" the midrange only if it is not set up properly.
MIXALIS THE SUB AS KHARMA REFERS ADDS INDEED BODY TO THE MUSICAL PRESENCE OF 3.2 CRM SPEAKERS.JUST PUT THE RIGHT SETTINGS TO THE REMOTE CONTROL OF THE SUB AND ALL RUNS...
IN FEW WORDS WHEN YOU TURN OFF THE SUB YOU FEEL ITS MUSICAL UBSENCE.THAT FOR ITS SELF IS ENOUGH TO CONSIDER ITS OBBLIGATORY ADDITION TO THE CRM 3.2 SPEAKERS.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION.
DAVIS, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE APPROPRIATE SETTNGS OF CESB 1.0 DUE THE REMOTE CONTROL
ARE TOO IMPORTANT FOR THE GLORIOUS PLAYINF OF SUB BESIDE THE CRM 3.2F.
SO,TO ACHIEVE MAX PERFORMANCE FROM THE SYSTEM KHARMA CRM 3.2F-CESB 1.0 ,I CONSIDER THAT WE MIGHT CHANGE THE SETTINGS OF SUB EACH OTHER,WRITING ALSO THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LISTENINF ROOM.
ALSO DEPENDS FROM THE AMPS,FOR EG. I CHANGED MY DRIVERS TUBES OF CARY 211 AE 300B [CARY AUDIO DESIGN ]WITH THE WESTERN ELECTRIC 300B TUBES, AND I NOTED THAT THE BASS WAS FORTIFIED:SO I HAD TO REDUCT THE DB OF SUB,FROM -8 DB TO - 18 DB.WRITE ME YOUR SETTINGS , SO COMPARING WITH THE MINE ONES WE ACHIEVE THE BEST PERFORMANCE.I EXPECT YOUR SETTINGS....OF CESB 1.0