Totem Model 1 Vs. Hawk

Hey Panderso,

Its funny you mention that because i contacted totem in regards and they said the same thing. That the Model 1 is closer to the Forest in Performance. They said the Model 1 is a notch up from the Hawk's with the exception of bass...however, they claimed the quality of bass is better on the model 1.

Furthermore, they said the model 1 is used in classical music studios all over the world...something like 200 world wide.

I think this might be the route to go...

Classical in its general sense (baroque, romantic, gregorian, etc.) is what I listen to a lot. The next largest genre of music that I listen to would be Electronic (down-tempo, ambient) next to Rock and some New Age.

Although I do listen to pretty much everything, the aforementioned is what I listen to most.

Anymore opinions?

Maybe its a he said she said thing...

The I-5 is almost a perfect match for the Hawks...if I owned the Hawks thats the exact amp i would pair it up with.

I agree that the hawks do perform pretty good in a larger room. There reviewer of "The Audiophile Voice" placed the Hawks in a 13X20 room and quote...

"Over all, the hawks are more natural sounding than any other full-range system i've had at home"

and

"The hawks can play at realistc levels closely matching what would be heard from an orchestra in the middle of the concert"

But I do have a hard time believing that they can't perform well in a smaller room. Maybe you loose a little imaging but the dynamics gained would make up imo.

BTW, I managed to convince my dealer to let me demo both in my room so I will let everybody know my findings...

The same review also quoted...

"Using stereophiles test CDs with thrid-octave warble tones and frequency generator, i measured the Hawks frequency response with a "corrected" radio shack SPL meter. I found the Hawks had a flatter response than claimed in the manufacteres specs. Placing the SPL meter where my ears would normally be, 37 inches off the floor and seven feet back from the speakers which had no toe-in and were 45 inches from the back wall, I measured them with 29 test frequencies. Using 80dB at 1,000 Hz as a norm or "o dB" deviation point, with both the speakers playing simultaneously, I measured +3dB, - 2.5 dB from 31.5 Hz to 20kHz. This is the flattest frequency response I have ever measured, out performing my Quad 63 and Gradient subwoofer comination and my Watt puppy 5 speakers. What was truly amazing was the speakers were down only 0.5 dB at 40Hz and at 31.5 Hz, they were slightly up."

Maybe what rumadian is saying isnt so far fetched...i guess I will find out in the next couple days.

Grakesh...don't hijack the thread please.

Anyways, so far my listening done I am in favour of the Hawks. There balance is almost perfect, and cohesivness is something to write home about. Its still early and I will write a longer review in a few days. So far the Hawks have proven to be the better speaker. I may even prefer them to the Forests.

After a few days with both the MODEL 1 & HAWK I can without reservation say that the Hawk is truly a little marvel. Top to bottom is does a lot right. The Model 1 had a smidge more transparency; however, the Hawks reproduced the harmonic overtones on strings and piano so well that it made me forget about the little transparency lost. Balance, cohesiveness, musicality, and harmonics are the best way to describe this speaker. Tonally it is a tad warmer than the Forest and Model 1 and is more musical too my ears. Compared to the Model 1 the Hawks complete the audio “picture” whereas the Model 1’s offer more of the “hi-fi” qualities some might prefer like transparency, extended highs, and point-source imaging. If you like these qualities definitely give the Model 1’s a listen. If you prefer a balanced system flat to 30HZ that conjures up a lush harmonic richness, an ever so slightly warm tone, and a separation and layering of instruments that is almost creepy…the Hawks are your speakers. Believe it or not the Hawk took up less floor space than the Model 1 on stands. Compared to the Forests I prefer the Hawks. Again, If you like the qualities I mentioned about the Model 1’s then you will prefer the Forests. In direct comparison the Hawks had better balance and integration. While the Forest had better bass, but the quality of bass on the Hawks was better. The Forests bass was a little more prominent and I think this was its drawback, it sounds a little boomier on certain material whereas the Hawks just effortlessly produced the bass-lines. I think I found my perfect loudspeaker. The only drawback(s) of the Hawk is its ability to perform well in a very large room (not directly a fault of the speaker) and its slight loss of transparency (I’m really nitpicking). The Hawk allowed the music to communicate, move me even. The Hawks somewhat stray…it still maintains the Totem signature sound, but it is closer in tone to the higher end Sonus Faber. Both speakers had more than 400 hours on them, dealer demos. Overall both speakers performed remarkably well in my room but the Hawk really strutted its stuff, I mean really.

Grakesh,

When I say large, I mean LARGE...20X25 +

I speak only of the Cremona series, the Homage is a step up IMO. I can't wait to hear the new Guarneri Memento. I would without hesitation take the Hawk over the lower end SF. The Homage series are still a step up. The Cremona series are closer to the Hawks but I still prefer the hawks.

Simaudio Moon I-5 is an ideal candidate.

I prefer the Mani-2 over a wide range of speakers. The higher end SF is still a cut above.