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.
owl
Are you considering selling your WP7's and moving into the Kharma's? The 3.2's would not be a good choice if you are into large scale symphonic work and electronica. The Midi's would be a better option but still the WP7's are very competetive with these designs.
I have the 3.2's now, and they're wonderful and surprisingly dynamic on that music but my room is the problem, it's 30x40 ft and the 3.2's are ALMOST enough for the room but probably could use the Kharma sub or bigger drivers to move just a little more air. I've moved them out to the sides of the room and am shocked at the quality and quantity of additional midbass and bass and of course the incredibly beautiful liquid and coherent Kharma mids and highs. My concern is that with multiple drivers the Midis may be a more difficult load for the Lamms and in my setup NOT as dynamic as what I'm getting! On paper it's almost a wash, with 89 db vs 91 db but leaving such a perfect speaker for a 3 way is a concern though I'm hearing from a number of people that the Midi's are a strong step up. I just don't want to have to give up the Lamm.
I must tell you(and this is only my opinion),I do not own a Kharma,a friend owns the 1.0,but I have made a strong effort to hear much of the line.I've heard the 3.2 on many occassion.Without and with the sub.I heard the Midigrand on it's own I truly believe the 3.2 and Lamm combo is possibly the most stunningly beautiful combo I've ever heard when it comes to the flow of a musical note.A threeway,while many are successful adds to the complexity and may take away from the majic,that the 3.2 has IN SPADES.Adding a sub,which can be great,still can make matters more difficult,while improving them in other areas.As far as the midi's go IMO the 3.2 is a better speaker.Mind you I don't own either one,but am trying to give an unbiased opinion.Those that have already committed money to a product seldom admit to something else being better.Think about the marketing involved.How much more do you yhink Kharma makes by selling you a Midi compared to a 3.2.To me the Midi is a wonderful speaker,but,for the money,they are laughably overpriced.For that kind of money there are FAR better reproducers of realistic sound,regardless of what you read from the PANDERING reviewers!
Owl, I recently heard the Grand Ceramiques (a harder load than the Midi-Grand) over a three day period with extensive listening driven by the ML2.1s in a room 35 x 24 with 11 to 12 foot ceilings. I went there fully expecting to hear those amps clipping and groaning or the level so low that it got lost. I was a REAL skeptic on this one. I must admit, when a buddy threw on a Niacin CD and asked the owner to crank it up I thought I would laugh. I was the one they laughed at - that amp drove those Grand Ceramiques to ear busting SPLs and I ate my words. I still cannot believe they did it.

I must disclose, I am a Kharma and Lamm owner and I like that combo VERY much (I have the new 1.2 Refs). As a former owner of the Midis, I do know they are easier to drive than the Grands.

Just my $.02