Totem Sttaf, Any Comments?

I would like to know if anyone owns or is familiar with the Sttafs. The Forest has proven to be abit much in my listening room. Thank you.
Listened extensively to the Sttafs and had many tell me it was the best in the line. Great speaker with minimal needs for amplification and critical source. Wonderful vocals and acoustic instrument reproduction. Would not recommend for rockers.
I agree with Celtic. In a small room, it is all one could ask for. I used a a pair in my study for 3 years & looked forward to listening to the radio on the Sttafs as much or more than to my main system! [The other Totems tend to wear me down & I believe that, aside from the Sttafs, they all use those damn metal domes...]
I liked the Sttafs a lot. We had a pair in the house for seven or eight months and they held their own against some much larger competition. I'm with Celtic in that they are great speakers for acoustic material.
A little late getting to this discussion but here is my 2 cents worth. I have had a pair of Sttafs for just about three years and I still enjoy their sweet non-fatiguing sound. With a lush midrange the Sttafs just involve me with the music. The soft dome tweeter produces non harsh highs with just enough detail. For acoustic material, jazz, and lighter classical the Sttafs are just great. I especially find pipe organ music through the Sttafs to sound full and lush. Also, the bass that the Sttafs produce is hard to imagine given the size of the midrange/woofer driver.

Normally, I take manufacturer's comments on their speakers with a grain of salt but if you go to the Totem website and read the description of the Sttaf I could not agree more. In closing, I think the Sttaf is a great small floorstander that has not been given its fair share of professional review. A true bargain at $700.00 to $800.00 for a used pair.

By the way, I obtained a pair of Totem Hawks as a possible replacement for my Sttafs. Even though the Hawk is a more sophisticated speaker with more detailed highs and tighter bass it just did not "move" like the Sttafs. Maybe others will disagree but I sold the Hawks in favor of the Sttafs.
My Totem Wind's are more involving than the puppy 6's, 801n's, dunlavy sc-v's and magnepans I've the way, if you own current well designed gear and cables, most great speakers will deliver clean sound..if you experience harshness through any of the speakers I've mentioned then you have heard them fed improperly!!
My brother has the Sttafs in line with a Sim-Audio i-5080 and Arcam DiVA CD. The bottom end is boomy though reasonably extended. I am amazed at the volume of bass generated by such small drivers and cabinets. Unfortunately, the boominess often masks the midrange. I don't tend to agree with comments about midrange lushness. I find it to be rather thin. Acoustic guitars sound scratchy and voices sound hollow. The tweeter is definitely a lot more relaxed than the Totem Forests, though I haven't been terribly impressed with a deeply immersive 3-D soundstage. I liked everything about the Forests except the piercing highs > 10k. Might as well drill a hole through my eardrum and be done with it!

I consider the Totem Hawks to be excellent speakers for the price, even though they are a step up in cost. The bass is tighter and more extended than the Sttafs. The mids are fuller than heard on the Sttafs. The highs didn't fatigue me in the slightest. I auditioned them on a Sim Audio I-3 with a Cambridge Audio CD player. I was blown away by the cone extension that generated the taut but extended bass with appreciable slam. I would consider saving for an extra couple of months to upgrade to a fuller and more refined sound. The Sttafs are excellent value speakers but they are still rough around the edges to me. In time, the novelty of fat bass will fade and you'll be left with a thinner midrange that just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion.
I agree with Dave99 that the Sttaf's bass can be a bit boomy at times. When the music is "boomy" I simply stuff the ports to tone the boominess down. In my opinion this works quite well. I use a piece of rolled up foam sill sealer to plugged the ports.

I think all will agree that the Hawk is a more refined speaker. I had the Hawks for about two months and spent a fair amount of time comparing the Sttafs and the Hawks. Although I heard a bit more detail at the high end and a tighter bass with the Hawks I never got that "goose bump" or "wow" factor with them. The Sttafs may not be as accurate as the Hawks but they sure get my toes a tapping. As far as the midrange, I found just the opposite, that is, the Hawk and not the Staff to be thinner.

Oh well, to each his own and in my case I would rather sacrifice refinement for my musical involvement and satisfaction. The bottom line is let your ears and your personal preferences be the judge.

My system - Blue Circle BC21 preamp, Musical Fidelity A3cr power amp, Arcam FMJ23 C.D. player, Adcom GFT 555II tuner.
Hey Jerome,

that's a sweet set-up. Your rig is definitely more refined (tube pre-amp plus MF-A3CR with chokes galore). I used to own the Arcam Alpha Nine CD, which shares the same DAC as the FMJ and I just bought a Blue Circle BC28 hybrid amp. I know it's all good stuff. Certainly your Staafs will see a far better midrange presentation than my brother's would. It's only fair to assume the Staafs will sound lusher in the mids compared to what I've heard. I'm glad to hear you've had good success with them. I'll let my brother know about your rig in case he ever gets tired of his own. ;-)