The KHARMA Mini EXQUISITES: THE EXTENDED SHOW REVIEW
This CES 2006 room review was added after the report had been published and so is available here as well.
The Kharma mini-Exquisites – like the Kharma 3.2 but with a diamond tweeter and made to look a lot like its bigger brother, the midi-Exquisites. Driven by the small Kharma amps and MBL electronics with Kubala-Sosna cables.
The Kharma Mini Exquisite room at CES 2006
Very engaging, very musical in that classic, ‘what we want music to sound like this’ fashion. Not so much a ‘you are there’ presentation like the Marten Coltrane Supremes – more like a ‘you are alive and feel good about it’ kind of thing. I really loved the sound in this room – for a small scale system it really does ‘it’ for me.
We described the sound of the Midi Exquisites driven by Lamm amplification at the Home Entertainment New York show in May, HE2005, as being almost drug-like, like a magnetic force it tried to suck you into the music, and, if you let it do this, if you gave in to it, there was a rush of feeling and emotion that swept one away, flying with the music.
The ASR amps on the Midi Exquisites, at this show, did not have the same effect, on me anyway, for whatever reason, but the Mini Exquisites…now they had an interesting effect, though somewhat different, from my perspective. Instead of having to consciously ‘let it’ do its magic, the magic just ‘was’. And whereas the ‘magic’ was thick and dense, like a hot summer night with the Midi Exquisites / Lamm system, the Mini Exquisites were light and airy, like a sunny Spring day.
The Mini’s magic was less intense, but more accessible. Perhaps this was in some part attributable to the better support the Mini had for an audiophile-quality presentation compared to the Midi system – I was able to relax more because the Mini presentation was more balanced and more realistic – albeit at a smaller scale.
Lots of detail, stable imaging, good separation, a rather narrow soundstage which we blamed on the room, good dynamics, and bass was scaled nicely to the room. Based on our two, admittedly short auditions, we think these are a slam-dunk, you are going to be so happy, upgrade for people who have the similarly sized Kharma 3.2’s and have had the money for the bigger Kharmas, but not the room.
In fact, I have a sneaky suspicion that the little 2-way 3.2s may have been the best speaker, for my tastes, of any in the amazing Kharma lineup of much more expensive speakers – and that now I have found a new ‘best’ speaker, the Mini, also a 2-way, with more of the Kharma magic and more of the audiophile attributes that make the music both more realistic and enjoyable.
The associated equipment is interesting: warm, smooth, and somewhat detailed MBL into a small (sized anyway) detailed solid state amp. The system was quite detailed sounding and engaging. It would be interesting to put these speakers on something more conventional, like Lamm amps and Meitner digital. THEN, with this cross-section of equipment, we could perhaps pinpoint the location in paradise these speakers come from – or whether, after all, they are from planet earth like most other speakers.
Oops, being a little overly effusive, I am. Time to turn Effusive menu option to OFF.
Only problem is the price: $45K. At this price it is going up against the similarly-priced Wilson Maxx II, Acapella Violon, Marten Coltrane, Avalon Eidolon, and Audio Note speakers.
Let’s discuss the competition some.
The Mini Exquisites are for small to medium sized spaces for people who want engaging and startlingly emotional and detailed renditions at the expense of having less detail in the low bass.
The Wilson Maxx 2 is for larger spaces, and for people who want an impressive sound: large scale soundstages, midrange and bass details, and dynamics at the expense of an almost complete lack of emotional capability and some unruly behaviors like drivability and an overly enthusiastic treble / upper midrange.
The Acapella* Violon is also for larger spaces and for people who like a very natural musical realism and large engrossing soundstages at the expense of some bottom end slam.
The Marten Design* Coltrane speakers are for people who like a very accurate and realistic presentation, at the expense of not having a big and open type of sound.
The Avalon Eidolon Diamond is also for bigger spaces and people who like emotional yet dynamic presentations at the expensive of deep bass control and drivability
The Audio Note* U.K. AN-E SEC Signature is for smaller spaces, like the Mini, and for people who want very dynamic and exciting and harmonically rich and detailed presentations, supplied by the necessary Audio Note electronics upstream, at the expense of looking at a box.
Looking at this run down – it seems that there is indeed a place for a $45K 2-way speaker, as much as this price for a relatively small speaker may make us uncomfortable. And that place is for people with relatively small rooms who still want one of the best, no compromise, musical experiences that money can buy.
The only alternative, from the perspective of this quick survey, is the Audio Note speaker, (though the Coltrane speakers are known to work very well providing a full-range experience in as small a room as 12.5 x 16 feet) and it is also an expensive 2-way speaker – albeit one that can be driven by that amazingly pure first watt of a small SET amplifier – and it does not quite have the visual presence and beauty of the Mini, but then few speakers do.
Hello Mike & Neli,
do you know the details of the drivers used in the mini? what can you attribute the differences between the mini and the midi. do the coltranes use the same drivers?
Hi Ben,
We sent you an email with all the nitty gritty details…
Thanks,
Mike.
I have demoed the Mini Exquisites in my system(ML 2.1’s amd L2,Meitner) and all I can say is it was fantastic! The best sound that I have ever heard.
Hello,
Could you tell me the difference between the Mini and the CRM 3.2 FE ?
I heard the latter with Kronzilla end amps and realy loved them and can hardly imagine that the Mini’s will sound so much better that one will happily put down another 25.000 extra?
And could putting the diamond tweeter in the 3.2 have some effect?
Thanx for your reply!
Gaston
Hi Gaston,
The minis, in comparison with the 3.2FE, are more involving [I hesitate to say warmer, but they have more color in the harmonics, more ability to produce more of that addictive Kharma sound], the better cabinetry lends itself to more solidity to all of the notes and the ability to fill a larger space with sound, and, yes, the tweeter/crossover lends itself to more resolution in what is already a high-resolution speaker… etc. etc.
They are like the 3.2FE but improved in all the ways that make the 3.2 great [except price].
The way I think of it is that the 3.2FE is an amazingly good deal. You get one of the best sounding, best integrated, most involving speakers ever at a price that is very, very competitive.
The Mini is for people who love that 3.2 sound, and want the ultimate expression of that sound. It is a world class speaker that still fits in small to medium-sized rooms.
The midi is for people with a larger space who want more bass at the expense of the necessary trade offs associated with going from a 2-way to a 3-way.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your reply!
Will there always be tradeoffs when choosing for a 3 way system?
I do miss a little bass with my current speakers, am very much looking for the above mentioned speakers for a reasonable price secondhand, and sometimes think about the same, but 3way system
I loved the CRM 3.2 FE a lot, also the soundstage, precision and detail. Would I have to compromise on that?
Sincerely,
Gaston
Hi Mike, Can you elaborate on the short commings of the maxx 2 (treble, drivability) – I have not seen one review that has anything negative to say about these speakers. What do you mean by emotion – do the maxx 2 sound dry? Please let me know .
Hi Tari,
Been almost 3 years since this show – and hearing the MAXX 2 several times since then – I think I am still in agreement with myself.
All Wilson speakers have a somewhat elevated upper-midrange/lower treble. It causes the listener to imagine they hear an extraordinary amount of resolution – and considering that Wilsons by-and-large are high-resolution in this area – that is a very intense experience, and can be overwhelming and fatiguing unless dealt with directly [tube amps and/or room damping in these frequencies would be my preferred approach here, I think].
Re: emotion and drivability. Two things here, I think.
1) The decay on Wilson speakers is hard to get right. It takes more power [unless you have a low-power amp that controls speakers well – which usually means a good tube amp] on the part of the amp to control the speakers decay which I think has a lot to do with the emotion communicated by music. That too abrupt ends to notes makes the music sound cold and uninviting.
2) The Wilsons err slightly on the side of being slightly on the cools side of neutral. It is hard to get a lot of color out of them. This is not necessarily a bad thing – it depends on your taste. For some perspective, the Audio Note speakers are perfectly neutral [IMHO], the Martens err slightly on the side of being slightly, slightly warm, the Kharmas warm, the Sonus Fabers very warm. 🙂
So for my taste [just me, not Neli or anyone else in the world :-)] I would like to hear a 211 amp like the AN U.K. Ongaku on the Wilson Alexandrias – control + color + resolution. Or even the Joules 🙂 But on some days I would want the Lamm ML3 on the Alexandrias with the EMM Labs DAC2 / TSD1 and Walker TT – for the hyper-real experience [which I seem to prefer half of the time. My ears are kind of like Jekyll and Hyde – and I’m not sure which is which at this point – or which will be showing up at any given time. Anyone else like this? Pampering our ears is such an expensive habit].
The main flaw, for me, with the MAXX 2 is that the bass/lower mids is not all that well integrated with the rest of the frequencies. It tends to hug the speakers and call attention to itself and not seem of-a-whole with the rest of the frequencies. They are not the only 3-way that has this problem – most of them do – and that is why when a brand gets it consistently right [like the Martens] it is something special. There are probably things one could do – positioning etc, to help minimize this effect – but it is also not that big of a deal and can be easily ignored unless one is looking for potential problems, like me at a show, instead of enjoying the music.
You know there is a new MAXX 3 out – but I did not get to hear enough of it to gauge its improvements over the 2 in the Lamm room at CES. I can tell you it did not sound worse… 🙂
Thanks for posting,
Mike
Dear Mike,
I read with interest your analysis of the various speakers and myself concurring with you on a lot of their characteristics. I like the Kharma sound as well and am considering them for my system. I am curious but what are your thoughts on the following speaker permutations:
a. Exquisite Midi
b. Exquisite Mini & Exquisite Sub
c. Ceramique 3.2.2
d. Ceramique 3.2.2 & Ceramique Sub
I have no doubt that the Exquisite range is in quite another league from the Ceramiques but financial prudence is asking me if a Ceramique 3.2.2 with Sub could come close to the Exquisite range but for a somewhat more conservative budget. My main gripe with the Ceramique 3.2.2 and Exquisite Mini is that I would still like to have a bit more of bass to complete that auditory experience.
With kind regards,
Leon
Hi Leon,
Neli here, Mike thought I might be better suited to this one.
The Exquisite Minis are amazing, very high resolution and have an even greater capacity to convey emotion than their Ceramique-series equivalent, the CRM 3.2 FE. But the 3.2s (or 3.2.2s, more on that in a minute) are lovely loudspeakers, and are significantly more affordable, about 1/3 the price. If the Minis are within financial reach, I think they are, for me, “worth it” in terms of their performance. This does not make me love the 3.2s any less. They provide a great deal of value, and IMO outperform their price point. Nothing disappears like the Kharma 2-ways.
The nature of the difference between the 3.2s (or 3.2.2s) and the Minis is not really in terms of frequency range, although perhaps the Minis have a bit more extension and authority. The nature of their extra authority is more that the players are more solidly placed on the stage, rather than that the bass is deeper. This is probably to some extent an artifact of the extra resolution, better note development/decay etc. The Minis are also somewhat harder to drive than the 3.2s, they like more power, and it takes more to really control them.
The 3.2.2s are the Ceramique series analogue of the Exquisite Galileo. Both of these speakers have an additional bass driver. They’ll be have more bass than the 3.2s, and they’ll fill a bigger room, just like the Galileo will fill a larger room and have more extension than the Minis.
This brings us to what I think of as the rationale for developing the Galileo and the 3.2.2. The next-size-larger Kharmas — the Ceramique Midi Grande, and the Exquisite Midi — need a fairly large space to perform optimally. They need to be out from the front wall and they can’t be too close to the side walls either, and in many rooms, once you get ’em in from the side walls … they’re too close together. Enter the Galileo/3.2.2 solution.
Now that we’re on the topic of rooms — what’s your room like? That will tell us quite a bit about which stylle of Kharmas are the best fit for you, and whether or not you’ll need or want to add a sub.
Kind regards, and feel free to call,
– neli
Hi Neli,
Thank you for taking the time reply. My listening room is 16 feet by 26 feet with a ceiling height of 12 feet. It is rectangular in shape with no pillars in the way. I try to damp it with heavy curtains, carpets and wooden furniture. The ceiling is of acoustic tiles. I have read several reports of the 3.2FE pairing up synergistically with Ceramique Sub. I have never heard one in person and have to admit that am a bit ambivalent about using a sub with a 2 channel system. The ones which I have were rather disasterous and were better sounding with the sub turned off, except when playing home theatre movies.
I have heard the Exquisites Minis once at an audio show but the room acoustics were rather appalling and it did not do justice to the Minis. Their sound is definitely more exquisite (for want of a better word) than the Ceramique 3.2FE which I have auditioned several times. Their price differential is naturally a serious deterrant. Going a notch up would mean that I should upgrade my upstream electronics as well … at least to an amp which can deliver 300-500W instead of the current 150W. Side question, what is your recommended amp power for the Mini vs the 3.2.? Would also appreciate your thoughts about bi-amping Kharma speakers, esp vertical biamping. Are their crossovers compatible with vertical biamping?
However I am rather tired of, and poorer too from upgrading every year or two.I have come to conclusion that I should just bite the bullet and go for that definitive reference system. My wife has been hooked onto the MBL 111F and 101 ever since she heard one earlier this year. I am partial to MBL, however at this price point, I think there are many serious contenders and the Kharma is top of my list. I will have to bring her along to listen to a properly set up Kharma system.
With kind regards,
Leon
PS: Kudos to Mike and yourself. You have my vote for the most informative, up-to-date audio dealership website that I have ever come across. Especially like your detailed show coverage and reviews.
Hi Leon,
Thank you for your kind words. Mike spends a lot of time on the publication side of things and it’s really nice, especially for him, to hear that you appreciate it.
OK. Back to the Minis. 150 watts should be fine — it’s the quality of the amplifier, its ability to control the loudspeaker, that is of issue here, not raw power. I was thinking more that the 20 watt Audio Note Kegons didn’t have quite enough power for the Minis, but do fine on the 3.2s, while the 30 watt Audio Note Ongaku was just fine on the Minis. So, 150 watts, not a power problem for either speaker. You don’t need some kinda monster amp for these (although you might want one for the Midi Exquisites in a much larger space).
For example, Lamm makes two hybrid amplifiers, the M1.2 Reference (110w), and the M2.2 (200w). You’d be fine with the M1.2 on either the 3.2s, or the Minis. There would be no need to move to the M2.2s. But we did prefer the Lamm ML1.1 push pull 80w amps on the Minis to the ML2.1 22w SETs — an actual first, in the normal case the ML2s (and the Kegons for that matter) will defy your expectations of what a 20 watt SET amp is really like.
So you don’t need to even think about biamping either of these, sorry to have set off the alarm bells unnecessarily.
With the Kharmas, you really hear your amp, so it’s best to have or plan for an amp that you love.
Your room is a lovely size for either the Minis or the 3.2s. It’s also large enough for the 3.2.2, with its extra woofer. Here, we tend to furnish normally. Often when we think the room needs work, it’s really that the equipment needs better vibration control.
Frankly, I agree with you with regards to subwoofers. Two (one per channel) is better than one. Then they need to be carefully set up so that the subwoofer slope etc. really matches the speaker. Third, they need to be on so that they extend the speaker’s range. The real issue here is that once you spend the bucks on a couple really good subs, well, you coulda put those funds elsewhere, where sometimes, it’ll add more to your overall listening experience than will a bit of extra bass.
When I visit a customer who uses a subwoofer or subwoofers, I always take our little handheld frequency meter. Almost always, they’re up too loud, and when we turn ’em down to the level they should be at, they blend a heck of a lot better with the rest of the system.
Wowee, I am much more used to doing this kind of analysis in email, which is more like a private conversation. I hope I don’t step in it here, in public.
MBL is so interesting. They do that surround soundstage thing, like you are sitting on the stage at the feet of the players. It’s all enveloping, and fascinating. I clearly remember my first audition of the 101D (this was before the Es were out). Over time, I came to prefer a presentation that recreates the recording hall rather than putting its own stamp on the soundstage. And … well Kharma does inner detail like nothing else, and that is very different from the MBL sound. They’re an insane load, they really do need the most powerful of amplifiers (which MBL makes). And … well there’s the integration of that side firing bass …
Truly best wishes,
-neli
Hi Neli,
Thank you for your advice. I will have to bring my wife to listen to a properly set-up Kharma system, perhaps the Ceramique 3.2.2 vs Exquisite Mini Galileo. You are quite right … the MBL sound is very different from the Kharma sound, but they are both very very good in their own rights.
With appreciation,
Leon
Dear Mike/Neli,
I read every word on this page very carefully and so intrigued by the amount of authoritative information you have here.
Currently, I am split between two speakers for my setup. My heart says Kharma CRM 3.2FE and brain says Wilson Sophia. I can use some advice from you. I have heard none and am fascinated by every single thing I have read about both these speakers. And need your help to choose one.
My listening room is 14×20 with a 9.5 ceiling. I have dCS Elgar Plus DAC and the Accuphase E-350 integrated. I don’t wish to upgrade any of these in foreseeable future. Though I might go for a decent 30-watter tube amp 2-3 years down the line. I listen to everything except Rock/Metal and Classical. Some classical once in a while but really very little.
Is this information enough for you to advice me what speaker is going to suit my need better.
Thank you in advance and keep up the good work.
Best wishes,
Ron
Hi Ron, Neli here …
If you want, and if you’re in a reasonable voice phone distance/timezone from us, I’d be happy to talk voice about this. In the meantime …
The Sophias will be more fullrange, with deeper bass.
The 3.2 CRM (or the new Elegance S7) will have a more magical presentation, and perhaps more resolution in their frequency band. So your head/heart thing … I think this is pretty correct. The two speakers have rather different personalities.
Since you are not playing a lot of rock/metal, or a lot of classical, I would expect you to be very happy with the range of the 3.2s. When we had them (and the Minis) here in the shop, we never really felt the need for a subwoofer *unless* we were playing choral classical music with a lot of (low) organ.
Your room is a fine size for either of the speakers, although I would expect them to be positioned somewhat differently. I think that your current Accuphase would drive both of them, for the meantime, and with a quality amplifier you could even reduce your required WPC in the future, neither the Sophias nor the 3.2s are a particularly difficult load and I have heard them work very well with, say, a pair of Lamm ML2.1s which are continuing to be available at what I think is an insanely good price. This is a very capable amplifier, so not all 20w amps will have the same level of control. You’ll hear your amp pretty clearly with both of these but the Accuphase family sound has just a bit of a golden glow, that should be fine for now.
A few notes on the evolution of the 3.2s … there are new mid-bass drivers available, the Black Label drivers. The upgrade is about 675 Euro or so plus shipping to you from the factory in Holland. These drivers increase both the musicality and the robustness of the 3.2s performance, at only a modest cost.
I feel like I am coming down on the side of the 3.2s … and I really do like the Sophias, too. With Wilson one must take the utmost care in amplification, but I think that the Accuphase would be OK. The Sophias will likely present a slightly larger scale along with that extra extension on the bottom. The mids/highs will not be quite as captivating. You’ll have more slam if and when you want it.
OK, a little on positioning, maybe this will help you make a decision. If you set up on the short wall, then the Kharmas will want to be about 4 feet out from the front wall. If this is a challenge, then I have seen a 3 foot placement work pretty well. Here, we had them in our 15 x 25 room and they were about 42-44″ from each side wall which leaves about 6′ between the speakers. We have the room, so we ended up with both the Kharma 2-ways at about 60″ from our (hexagonal) front wall. Start with them pointing straight ahead, then toe in very VERY slightly (say 1/4″) to see if that increases the solidity of the image. You can sit quite nearfield with no problem if that works for your room. This means that you could set up on the long wall if that is how your room works.
The Sophias, I think, will want to be somewhat further apart and toed in more, so that the drivers cross maybe a foot or two behind your head. We have not have these here but I have customers with them. I would start with 8′ between the speakers.
Best regards, and thanks for your kind words,
-neli
Dear Neli,
Thanks for the detailed analysis. It’s really really helpful.
Your description of the two speakers and how they will play matches with their image in my mind. But it’s assuring to have confirmation of the same from you. I had a feeling it will be a resolution vs extension contest. And since my room isn’t really large and I don’t really play a lot of full classical ensembles I should be fine with the 3.2s. Even more so because my amp isn’t really a muscle power amp.
Thanks for additional note on placement. That’s actually very helpful. My room is slightly narrow for good placement of full-range speakers, and your note just confirms what I have had been thinking. Indeed I plan to put the speakers on the short wall. And 3.2 should fit well in my space. So “in my setup” 3.2 seem to be a better fit overall.
Thanks for your time. I would certainly give you a call when I am ready to take the plunge.
Best wishes,
Ron