Kharma 3.2 to MidiGrand Upgade???


Anyone have experience in upgrading from the 3.2 CRM enigma to the Midi Grand Ceramiques w enigma?

What improvements/benefits can be had and you've experienced? Very interested in what is possible with low powered tube amps, specifically Lamm ML2.1's etc.

On paper the Midis are more efficient. Are they easier to drive than the 3.2's or does their impedance dip more significantly than with the 2 ways? Also interested in feedback regarding room size, bass integration, etc.

I'm interested also in any comments regarding the new ceramique sub and if its necessary / integrates well with the midis. I am seeking to be able to reach realistic symphonic levels with content loaded classical music and heavy electronica.
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xowl
30X40' is a big room. How are your speakers currently positioned and your seating distance?

I think that if you're looking for higher SPLs, then the Midi might be a better option but if you're not looking for higher SPLs but rather a bit better bass extension and bass output, the 3.2s and sub combo (if it does indeed integrate well) might potentially be the most satisfying option. I've gone back and forth in terms of thinking whether a large speaker is better or having a well-integrated sub in the system. I still have not heard a big speaker produce the bass impact that I once heard a well-integrated Rel studio in a large room connected to an essentially full-range speaker.
Hi
I've had the Kharma sub running with my 3.2's for about3 months now. I can tell you that the integration is seamless, and the addition of the bottom end is fantastic. My room is 15x21. The 3.2's are about 6 ft out from the front wall, and about 3 ft from the side walls. Due to logistics, I had to put the sub is on the right side, just slightly ahead of the right speaker. Even in this position, it blends perfectly. I'm using the Lamm 1.2's.
I've been intrigued by the idea of a larger speaker, but I'm yet to hear one that stages as well, and produces as large an image as the 3.2's.
If you like everything that the 3.2's are doing, I would go with the sub. I'm sure you will be happy.
Carl
Let me put in my two cents worth again,and I'll shut up after that.I think an analogy could be useful here,only because I find the 3.2 with the lamm amps to be one of the most enjoyable and TRULY musical combinations I've heard in my 35 years in the hobby.It is kind of like this:those people who love a restaurant because the food is good,and you get a really big portion,so you can take home a doggy bag.I know people like this.Then there is the crowd that prefers a really fine restaurant for it's superb chef and incredible service and really unique menu,but,although the food is unique,the portion sizes are smaller and,no doggy bag.I far prefer the latter.To me a simple,and supremely well designed two way,like the 3.2 is the second restaurant.Totally coherent and magical with the Lamm stuff.The more complex design of a three way or a four way can NEVER match the magic of this,first design.Yes they are more dynamic,and can be quite coherent,but when you listen,and live for a length of time with your GROUP-A choice it is very hard to make a changeover to the doggy bag.By the way,I own a fine three way system(Avalon based)but,I do appreciate the uniqueness of that damn little 3.2 sound.So,obviously one has to make a choice based upon their own tastes.just make one based on your own experiences and taste,and,not based upon what the mainstream press tells you that you should like(which is a fault we all succomb to at times)as they don't have your best interests at heart,but,rather,their best advertisors!
Keith & Howie It's not a true 30x40 rectangle. Where the speakers are placed it's actually 18 ft wide then behind the listening area opens to a bar area and then a pool table behind which sits a desk- my "office". There are a lot of juts and irregularities which I've found breaks up room nodes. The entire room is over a 3 car garage and a stairway to the basement, if that helps you to visualize the space. I do find that a lot of bass gets lost into the garage below from large speakers I've had in the past, like the Dynaudio Temptations, Wilson Watt Puppy 7's and Avantgarde Duos. The speakers are positioned about 3 feet from the sidewalls and 6 ft from the back walls so they'r spread out about 12 ft from tweeter to tweeter. There is a large picture window behind the left speaker which also tends to leak bass. At the back of the room is a stairway to the downstairs level which, coincidentally also leaks bass. I honestly am shocked at the bass I do get, specifically the quality, but it certainly isn't flat to 50hz I'd guess. I have a radio shack digital spl meter but haven't been able to figure the darned thing out or find my test discs, so I have no Idea what the room is doing objectively.

Thom Y. Are you from Radiohead? One of my favorite progressive bands, i have to say. If you're interested in GOA, I'm just starting to collect but if you like some of the ambient stuff that Radiohead has started doing, you may like something like Hooverphonic's New sterophonic sound spectacular, The Orb, or Future Sound of London. More towards the trance side, bands like Troll, Holophonia, Geiger, Abnormal, Ego Traum are places to start. My favorites in the Genre though are the Israeli group Infected Mushroom and Juno Reactor.

Carl. I agree with everything you've said, if you like it why change and that is why I've purchased the subwoofer and will see what that's like before deciding on moving up from the 3.2's. I may be DONE at that point and feel no need to move up to the other speakers, or that may be an itch, I just gotta scratch, for better, the same or slightly different or worse. Come to think of it, I'm not a big fan of doggie bags...