I would imagine they are pretty darn good. They are not the type to rest on their laurels.
11 responses Add your response
The new Totem line uses a new driver designed by and manufactured for Totem that is said to solve a fundamental problem with dynamic drivers. It's a very pricey driver, one that Vince claims could never find its way into most companies' products due to the parts cost. I heard them briefly at CES but couldn't form an opinion. Look forward to hearing them again.
I may not remember correctly, but "crossoverless" is not what I recall about this design.
No, I have owned a speaker with a ribbon tweeter in the past, but I have never heard an RAAL, and I have never heard the Vapor speaker either. I only mentioned it because a member here bought it, and gave it a great review, and it looked like a lot of speaker for the money, about $3,500 I think. I would really like to hear it.
Had a brief listen to the Fire at the hifi centre in Vancouver and I was mightily impressed. Connected to a naim superuniti the system truly played music and sounded properly good. It had rhythm and speed and threw a generous soundscape that was impossible to not groove to. At $6000 they cost a lot but I would short list them for sure if the ones budget is anywhere around the $6k mark. 100% deserving of a serious audition.
I've been a long-time B&W fan and expected to upgrade from a pair of CM5's to the 805 diamonds. After a long audition, comparing the 805's to the Totem "Fire" monitors, I ordered a set of the Totems. Let's face it, both speakers are just plain outstanding! I'm not sure I'd say one was "better" than the other, though I preferred the more "forward" bass & midrange and the less "bright" highs, as well as the "depth" of the stereo image from the Totems. Though both speakers were technically very accurate, I also thought the Totems were a little more "musical". As I have a Velodyne Optimum 10 subwoofer, the low bass wasn't really an issue. I suspect, at this level, it's really a matter of personal preference, more than "objective" differences.