2. speakers
  3. 1150953563

kharma 3.2 & sub...

hello my friends....ive been reading at least two years your forum but i just signed up.....its never too late they say......:)

i would like to get some feedback about the kharma sub....i know this has been discussed before but i would like to ask some questions and hear opinions form people who actually own it....im using the 3.2 and a gryphon diablo integrated...resolutiion opus21 cd and valhalla cables......

1. people say the integration is semaless.....but this happens when they put the sub under 80hz....what about using it intil 150 or 200 hz...????

2. will i gain sth in spl or "perceived" spl....?????

3. will the woofer in kharma speaker work less with the sub in..??or it will move thesame but the sub will laso move...???if it works less maybe the mids will become sweeter as well...???

4. Do you think it worths it...???.does it fill the bottom octave..??..will i be trully full range....and bottom line....
WILL THE MUSIC BE MORE SATISFYING...???

thanx a lot guys,,,
mike
mixalis
jtinn
1,123 posts
 
Mixalis: As a former Kharma dealer, I speak from experience. The 3.2 is an excellent speaker that is very open with excellent detail and micro dynamics. It also goes fairly deep for a two way speaker. Most people add the subwoofer thinking that macrodynamics or impact will improve... it does not. All that happens is the bass goes a bit deeper and the midrange gets muddied up. What is lost is the beauty and seemlessness the speaker is known for.

I have heard the sub many times and it never is as enjoyable as the 3.2's on their own. If you want the woofers, go up to the Midi-Grand Ceramique. It is much better than the 32. plus the sub.

I have had three customers try the sub and all got rid of it.

If you are looking for big kick and slam, Kharma is not the answer.
mixalis OP
34 posts
 
thanx jtinn,,,,,
actually you are telling me what i want to hear.....
thats what i am actually after...a little bit more slam and kick..the power maybe of a LIVE rock concert...not really macro...
anybody else who thinks that this maybe could be achieved with the sub.....??
sirspeedy70680e509
1,064 posts
 
As an admirer of the "fabulously musical" 3.2's,and having heard them loads of times(driven to the MAX with Lamm 2.1's though)I believe Jtinn is probably right on the money.I never liked the sub's blend,as these little GEMS are really special.Why mess up the magic.Working well is one thing.Greatness is another.The 3.2 is a great design,and having heard them in a perfect set-up,I DID think there was a sub present,when there was NOT!!My own program material(LP and CD)as well.....CLASSICS!!!!

Best of luck!!
mixalis OP
34 posts
 
thanx sirspeedy!!!
is there anybody who thinks that a sub could give me i want...???a touch of weight...????live concert feeling,more slam on tympani...????
without losing the magic,the coherence...????
where r the owners....?????;)
norfish's avatar
norfish
73 posts
 
I have only heard the 3.2's once at a dealer in San Diego, but I was predisposed to like them after all the positive press. They fit my bill exactly: great on acoustic music, beautiful timbre, wonderful soundstage.

When I finally got to hear them, I was very surprised. I put on a Coleman Hawkins quartet CD and if I hadn't known better, would have thought that Hawk was playing an alto instead of a tenor. There was just no bottom end or body to the instrument. For my money, a tenor better sound like a tenor or its not going to happen.

Maybe a sub would help, but the dealer was quite honest and said that even adding a sub to the Kharma's would not provide the body that was missing. He admitted that this speaker just would not work with my priorities.

Randy
More to discover