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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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