Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2 loudspeaker

Totem Acoustic was founded in 1987, in Montreal, Canada, by a former high school math teacher named Vince Bruzzese. The company's first product, the Model 1 loudspeaker, impressed me so much I bought a pair.

My old pal George Stanwick, who worked at Stereo Exchange, spotted me walking up Broadway through the store's window, whereupon he ran out and literally dragged me off the street pulling me by the arm—against my mumbled protests.

I followed George into Stereo Exchange's luxurious back room, where, spotlighted in front of me, I saw what looked like an expat's spin on trad-British "minimonitors." He busked me saying, "I know how you like Quads and Snells, so I know you'll like these Totems even more."

I loved George, so I sat and listened patiently—knowing that when he finished, I could laugh and tell him how wrong he was.

But he was right. These little boxes steered the music straight into my brain—just like Quads and Snells. I sat riveted, as George, who also worked at Tower Records, played a selection of genre-diverse recordings that he had just purchased (with my money) especially for me. (At that time, I was giving George $50 a week to buy me any records he thought I should have.) The Model 1s did not sound British, or American. But, like the best British speakers, the Totems preserved each record's unique flavor, a trait I regard as proof of truth.

Proof of truth is why I've always liked studio monitor type speakers, but at that time my BFF Altec 604s were feeling forward and noisy and fatiguing. That they lacked "pinpoint" imaging—which was the hi-fi fashion of the day—was stuck in my awareness. As was their shipping-crate bulk. I needed a radical change. George corralled me because he already knew I was shopping for something smaller and more laid-back. Something where the soundspace happens behind the speakers, where the speakers disappear while presenting a deep, wide, delicate soundstage. These new Totems did all that, and I used them until I bought my second pair of BBC LS3/5a's.

In 1993, I traded a homemade 300B tube amp for a heavily used pair of Rogers LS3/5a's from a sound engineer at CBS television studios. These scruffy rosewood boxes (which I still have) held my attention until 1997 when I bought a new "improved" version of Totem's Model 1.

My made-in-1984 Rogers each use a 0.75" Mylar-dome tweeter, crossed over at 3kHz to a 4.5" Bextrene-cone woofer. Frequency response at 1m with the grille on was specified as 80Hz–20kHz, ±3dB. Sensitivity: 82dB/W/m. Nominal impedance: 15 ohms (1977–1984); 11 ohms (1989 onward). Amplifier requirements: 25W maximum.

Totem's Model 1 from the late '90s used a bigger 1.2" (28mm) metal-dome SEAS tweeter, crossed over at 2.7kHz to a 4.9" (125mm) Dynaudio 15W75 cellulose-acrylate-cone woofer with a 3" voice coil. Nominal impedance: 4 ohms. Sensitivity: 87dB/W/m. Amplifier requirements: 20–200W.

Today, both of those speakers look and sound like vintage pipe-and-slippers standmounts. This is especially true when compared to Totem Acoustic's brand-new Element Fire V2. Totem's new Fire looks Maybach-level glossy, and windswept, and trés moderne, but also smart and down-to-business, as befits its made-in-Canada roots.

In my little room, the Element Fires played dramatically bigger and reached deeper into goosebump and hair-standing realms than any of my 12"-high speakers. And they do this deeper bass/ more fantastic imaging because unlike my old Totem's rubbery 4.9" woofer, the Element Fire's 7" Torrent driver has genuine room-energizing moxie.

According to Vince Bruzzese, "The first Torrent woofer was a 4" designed for the Tribe III and (also) to serve as a technology statement to celebrate Totem's 20th anniversary.

"The genesis for the Torrent's revolutionary application was our conviction that a driver could be made without using any active or passive crossover parts in the signal path of the woofer section. All speakers with Torrent drivers have only a simple crossover composed of as little as two components exclusively for the high-frequency section. We felt that a crossover-free network in the woofer path would allow for a more unfettered flow of information, sound, and energy."

Vince explained, "Our goal has always been to minimize crossover parts and maximize the phase relationship between the drivers." (my italics)

Readers will know that my ears are more sensitive to a loudspeaker's performance in the time domain than the amplitude domain. My brain easily spots and adjusts quickly to irregularities in frequency response, but is confused and distracted by phase shifting of all types. So naturally, I've been campaigning for speakers without crossovers since Totem Acoustic was founded in 1987.

Description
Totem's Element Fire V2 is 16.6" high, 8.8" wide, 11.7" deep, and weighs 32.4lb. On their gloss black backs, the Totem Element Fires each have a single round port accented by a chrome ring, and two pairs of WBT speaker wire binding posts attached to a black metal "skip plate" that declares it to be an 8 ohm speaker, requiring 50 to 150 watts, that's made in Canada by Totem Acoustic.

According to its website specifications, Falcon's LS3/5a rolls off at 70Hz, –3dB, whereas the Totem Element Fire's 7" driver and three-times-larger ported box lets it go 40Hz lower to a claimed 30Hz. That's a significant difference.

I asked Totem's super-personable PR rep, Lionel Goodfield, to break Totem's "proprietary" silence about what the Torrent driver is made of.

He texted me, "They are mineralized polypropylene but instead of putting damping agents on the front of the cone, we put a rubber/borosilicate mix on the rear outer edge with an additionally adhered 'O' ring which prevents excessive outer edge flex and contributes to cone stiffness—helping to maintain smooth response through the crossover frequency. (No crossover to control any cone breakup.)"

Totem's Element Fire V2 sells for $8450/pair; the Falcon Gold Badge is currently listed at $3990/pair. This means the Element Fire is three times as big and heavy, but only twice as expensive. I make these comparisons because the Fire's larger box, tuned rear port, and bigger piston (7" vs 4.5") changed every aspect of my sound system's sound.

Setup
Historically, I've had listening rooms that took a full minute to walk from one side to another, with high ceilings and no walls to the right or left of the speakers. In those spaces, every speaker that was not a big horn sounded weak and distant because the room consumed 90% of the speaker's energy. My various LS3/5a's were always set up for nearfield listening on above-desk shelves or on Rogers' wall-mount brackets.

When I moved to this cubby in Bed Stuy, I got super lucky. While my studio here measures only 13' × 11' × 9', the sides of both speakers look off into hallways leading to other rooms. (Humorously, it's not subtle how much the sound quality changes—how much it muddies and compresses—if I close my bedroom door.)

Better still, when I started measuring with a real-time analyzer and experimented with subwoofer placement, I realized there were two dead spots, two sound holes, one on each side of the equipment shelves, where the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound lets me hear 90% speaker and only 10% room no matter where I'm sitting. I've come to think of these sound holes as magic circles drawn on my floor with white chalk to shield me from witches and demons.

When I placed Totem's Element Fire V2s at the front edges of those white circles, they crossed their chests and looked up gratefully towards heaven. This placed them 6' apart and 30" from their front faces to the wall behind them. When I sat in my seat, the tweeters were about 6' away. I followed the manual's recommendation not to toe in the Fire V2s to my listening seat. I was never distracted by wall sound interference.

COMPANY INFO
Totem Acoustic
9165 Rue du Champ-d'Eau
Saint-Léonard
Quebec, QC H1P 3M3, Canada
(514) 259-1062
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

for lucid and expressive smaller speakers, I would love to read his thoughts on the Jean Marie Reynaud Bliss Jubilé speakers which were given a major rave by Alan Sircom in a competitors British audio magazine. Totem speakers are lovely though and about 15 years ago I almost purchased some Totem speakers which had a rich clean sound. PS - I love Herb's music recommendations while auditioning these. I actually purchased the Argo Bartok mono LP but it arrived cracked ! I'm actively looking for another. As always, Herb's prose is without peer.

supamark's picture

Sorry dude, your speakers measure like doggie doo doo, the 10+ dB suckout around 2.5 kHz is unacceptable in a modern speaker... and maybe study up on material science and engineering so your cabinet isn't junk because that low mid resonance is also unacceptable in the 21st Century.

I paid $1k *less* for my limited edition Dynaudio Heritage Specials with stands and they are so far advanced beyond your design it's laughable. 1st order x-over, Mundorf caps, WBT connectors, Esotar 3 tweeter, etc. And no 10 dB suckouts or low mid cabinet resonances that reach over 6 dB off axis. Their only faults are being bright on axis (easily remedied by not toeing in - they're flat ~30 degrees off axis horizontally) and not being the Heritage Classic.

Instead of complaining about the measurements, maybe you should focus your time and energy on making a technically good loudspeaker without huge suckouts/resonances? That is what a rational person would do. At least you have the common sense and decency to not theaten legal action, so I'd still buy your products over Tekton or dCS any day.

As an aside - Mr. Atkinson's quasi anechoic measurements are very close to the actual anechoic measurements that SoundStage! gets from the NRC anechoic chamber (the only differences appear in the bass with ported speakers). You're not saying the National Research Council Canada are incompetent, are you? The fault is NOT with the measurements, it is with your design. The first step is admitting there's a problem...

Oh, and this quote from Herb, "I see this as a result of how the O/93's 10" cone gets a little vague and grainy around 3kHz, while the Element Fires sailed through that region with locked-on focus and no glare or grain." From the measurments we now know why - there's a lot less sound in that region coming from the Fire V2.

hb72's picture

ahm, the suck-out clearly disappears at a certain lateral angle (6dB increase in lateral response plot, vs suckout-dip of around the same magnitude in 0° response measurement).

Could be the absent inductivity in series to the mid/woofer does something in terms of PRaT, that is not visible in the measurements? powerful solid state amps might not bother, and tube based amps with their own invariably present output inductivity might not gain alot, but .. perhaps some mosfet based class A designs would (Musical Fidelity A1)?

OTOH, looking at the step response plot, the woofer comes with ca 0.5ms delay (peak woofer, vs peak tweeter), which is typical.

nevertheless, I put listening experience slightly above the experience of pondering over measurements (and their shortcomings).

supamark's picture

is the problem. The suckout is caused by phase cancellation that would be fixed with a proper crossover. It might fill in to the sides, but because it is a phase issue it won't sound right. 2K to 3k are important vocal frequencies, any issues in this area are a big problem. You're also trading one suckout for several others as this speaker has a very uneven off-axis response. This is not a good design, and the price is far too high for the performance. I'm gonna play Orrtofan here and say the KEF Reference 1 Meta, in the same price range, is superior in every way.

Anton's picture

How do you reconcile your first hand knowledge of how this speaker sounds with what Herb said?

Just how wrong or inadequate is his review?

Herbs says, "A brilliant design by a tall wizard."

You say, "This is not a good design."

Hmmm, assuming you have first hand experience with this speaker (in order to qualify as having an opinion regarding its sound and how it compares to other speakers) do you fit Herb's opinion into your own truly accurate opinion?

Herb:

"...My brain easily spots and adjusts quickly to irregularities in frequency response..."

"...the Totem Element Fires put me right back in college with my collar up trying to be cool like Serge (footnote 1). What I enjoyed most was how the Totem Element Fire's transparent depths allowed me to sit still, exhale deeply, listen intently, and have sexy French dreams."

Those cuts would seem to include the 2K to 3K you mention, yet Herb missed this "big problem?"

Glotz's picture

I trust Herb's ears. If he found a way to make them sing- it's a valid audiophile speaker.

I trust SupaMark too, but the vitriol has been a bit too much lately.

hb72's picture

.. needs a VERY different amp due to its low impedance.

Fig 6 does not show any new destructive interference off axis, once the toe-in is sufficiently large.

I’d rather worry about the reflex tube resonance, tbh, but I do not entertain a loudspeaker business, and my insight is limited. Yet I vaguely remember Andrew Jones talking about the complex relationship between measurement & critical listening.

Turnerman1103's picture

.

kai's picture

Don‘t mix measurements and perceived sound too much.

A piece of equipment that measures REAL bad can make great sound if one likes it’s colors.

I give an example that goes to the extreme:

A Marshall or Fender electric guitar amp, set as used in blues and rock music, is far from a faithful reproduction of the input signal.
But- the clean electric guitar alone would not fit into this type of music, the sound of the amp becomes part of the instrument.

Same might apply, usually to a much lesser amount, to any piece of music reproducing equipment.
The created artifacts might simply produce or enhance something in the the music that caresses the ear.

Opposed to that, measurements (done right) exclude the subjective aspect, but show the technical truth about the performance.
I didn’t ever see any measurements from John Atkinson published here that I doubt to be executed right.

What these measurements mean to the perceived audio isn’t easy to predict, even lesser so with acoustic transducers that interact with their environment before the sound reaches the ear.

Turnerman1103's picture

.

DaveinSM's picture

Your Guitar amp comparison is frankly not an apt one.

Guitar amps are designed to impose a sound signature, and be far from neutral. One of those sound signatures is deliberate, controllable, and massive, audible distortion of the input signal.

Speakers as transducers are meant to not deliberately distort the input signal, and anything close to the level of distortion that is deliberately introduced by a guitar amp would be way beyond acceptable in every case.

If you want to hear a faithful reproduction of, say, a Gibson Les Paul through an overdriven Marshall, you want to hear it through speakers that do NOT further distort or alter the input program material.

You’d end up with MUD

kai's picture

Speakers without linear- (frequency response-) and nonlinear- (harmonic-) distortions are yet to be developed.
Even if they existed, they had to live in a room that further distorts the signal.

Of course the goal usually is as linear as possible, but there’s a lot of room for personal preference, else only one perfect standard speaker would exist.

Even electronics can have some coloration, most prominent are tube amps and high gain ones like the mentioned phono preamp that seems to do something special.

Not to forget: a recording isn’t the real thing, more like a nice photo of the original event.
It’s made to sound as good as possible on a spread of various systems.
So, at least we are missing a reference for what’s “correct”.

Measurements are a common and valid base for that - but they are not the last word for joyful music reception.
Even a non-linear system can be fun, not all “faults” turn the sound into “mud”.

DaveinSM's picture

I disagree. The recording was mixed and mastered with a very intentional sound in mind; any further colorations of it just deviate from what the artist and producer intended for the listener to hear.

Of course a recoding is “not the real thing”. Studio recordings in general are “not the real thing”. We’re not talking live performances here- anyone who’s ever been to a live show knows how much the sound can and usually does deviate from the studio version. Thats a whole different argument.

But even a poorly recorded/mixed live recording in a venue with poor acoustics is still best served by faithful reproduction equipment, not gear that is colored.

The basic goal is and should always be faithful reproduction of the recording as it was intended to be heard- not with deliberate colorations or distortions introduced by the very equipment that you are using to hear faithful playback reproduction.

This would be like saying that a turntable that is calibrated to run at 34 1/3 rpm is adding a subjective sound signature that shouldn’t be classified as inaccurate or undesirable. It just “adds its own caffeinated energy”. That’s bullshit, frankly.

A good system should reveal great recordings as they are, as well as reveal bad recordings as they are. To try to compensate for a bad recording through deliberately inaccurate, colored reproduction equipment is way too random to be effective, and is more likely to make most of what you play through it sound worse.

DaveinSM's picture

I’d like to add that while I agree with you that ruler flat speakers with zero harmonic distortion don’t exist, it’s pretty evident that all manufacturers’ goals are to achieve their own unique balances of strengths and weaknesses through their own design philosophies, with the ultimate goal of getting as close to their idea of an optimal blend given the constraints of physics, form factor, cost, etc.

Sure, an ideal speaker for a lot of people would be a small bookshelf that images like a bookshelf with 20-20khz ruler flat response that could fill a large hall and present the amplifier with a flat 8ohm load over the entire frequency range and do so with 98db 1watt/meter efficiency and the immediacy of a horn… and is phase and time coherent when set up properly… and works in all rooms.

Physics doesn’t allow that, so we get various ingenious designs that pick and choose which aspects matter most to them, knowing it’s all a big compromise. Even the most monumental, expensive state of the art speaker systems are subject to this, though they can come closer to the ideal in some aspects through sheer size, technology, and cost.

I doubt you’d get any manufacturer to admit that they’re deliberately aiming to impose their own subjective, colored or distorted sound signature onto the way their speakers
designs reproduce music. That’s certainly not anything I would want.

Rather, deviation from the platonic neutral, distortionless response is a given. I believe the best designs are the best possible compromises possible given those physical and design constraints while still striving for as much accuracy in reproduction as is possible.

Many of these designs take into account room interactions, often with very detailed setup and placement instructions. It’s on the end user to make sure this is done properly to get the sound they were expecting and paid for. It’s also up to them to pick a speaker design/size that is reasonably appropriate for their listening room.

It’s already complicated enough to get all these parameters right for any given person’s listening room.
A deliberately non linear speaker system to me does not sound fun.

Glotz's picture

While I agree with 99% of what you posit above in all of the responses above, I feel it is the imperative of ANY music lover (or any really reviewer or critical listener) to decide what is FUN for them.

Yes, they should have a system or elements of a system that pursue accuracy above all else (headphone amp and headphones as a specific microscopic review tool for instance), the need for a 'colored' or tailored playback system is as important as every single similar product or artwork/musical piece differs in color from each other.

Accuracy attains a certain goal for a reviewer, but to introduce vacuum tube amplification or any other coloration inducing product inserted into the chain, does allow for the listener to HAVE fun by way of experimentation on what THEY enjoy, not you or even I. It's as necessary to experiment to understand the very basis of what one would like and may not know it yet. Again, we are listening for a 'pleasure : accuracy' ratio, and it is a moving target for any audiophile.

But more to my point, if a reviewer or listener already knows where 'neutral and accurate' is in scope of all of the playback systems they've heard extant, it should also be their imperative to discuss where enjoyment exists in the colored audio products they choose to experiment with to find their 'fun' or their locus of preference.

Moreover, if they as reviewers do not experiment actively with going outside of the box of accuracy, how will they ever know in listening where accuracy exists? (From a listening standpoint, not measuring.)

And we are lucky to live in such 'linear' times; it wasn't this easy in the 80's or 90's at all. Hearing what the Benchmark HPA4 vs. the Holoaudio Serene does is a great example of implementation of parts and parts quality / design where one asks themselves, both are accurate as hell, which one is more accurate while being the most musical? Or vice versa, really?? (For me.)

I think THAT'S what Herb searches for each month, IMO. He wants to find the various intersections of accuracy and musicality in all the forms it takes...

DaveinSM's picture

I don’t necessarily listen to music to have fun. I listen to music to experience a wide variety of emotions, sometimes powerful ones.

Music for me can evoke feelings of sadness, anger, passion, even curiosity.— the whole gamut… and certainly awe and wonder in the case of hearing virtuosic technical facility, musicality, or passion on an instrument, or especially, the human voice. And, of course, pleasure.

I have no problem with people having their own reasons for assembling, tweaking, refining, and listening to their own music systems based on their own needs or motivations. I think that part is fun.

But I want accuracy to portray the music as it is already there, in the performance. I don’t want my system to add or subtract from any of that, or to color it to someone else’s taste. I’d like fun and other emotions to come from the music, not the endless subjective tweaking of my system.

To me, they call it “High Fidelity” for a reason. Fidelity as in reproducing the recording accurately.

For me, the fun and pleasure come from the music itself, not the equipment. I want the gear to get out of the way of that, not introduce an elusive variable.

I think we’re getting into some philosophical territory. Sure, I have the pride of ownership and frequent enjoyment of my system and how good it sounds to me. Like many here, I’ve refined it over the years and I think I’m nearing my end game system, barring a future move to a much larger listening room.

My system has given and continues to bring a lot of pleasure to me, but it’s the music that I enjoy listening to through it that keeps me enthralled with the listening experience. Taken as a whole, that to me is where the fun is.

supamark's picture

"Not to forget: a recording isn’t the real thing, more like a nice photo of the original event."

In most music made in the last 50+ years (non-classical/jazz/bluegrass etc) the recording IS the real thing, and the only thing. The original event happens over days, weeks, or months.

direstraitsfan98's picture

The top end sonunds complete out of wack on their speakers. i suspect since they don't use capacitors in their designs ... im convinced people who prefer the acoustic signature of totem speaker have addled hearing, or perhaps, they have a sonic preference for extreme spl variance in the vocal range. the very expensive pair of totem speakers i listened to sounded pretty good but that was only because they had plentiful amount of bass output and we mostly demoed electronic music.

justmeagain's picture

seems way, way out of line, especially when you consider their measurements. That frequency response curve looks like it could be for a speaker put together from random components by a hobbyist in his garage.

ChrisS's picture

...Fords!

supamark's picture

Was a Ford. It's not even close.

Never again.

direstraitsfan98's picture

Even a hobbyist has enough common sense to install a crossover

lsipes1965's picture

After 40 years of buying, building, buying and now modifying, I can only say that speakers are like cartridges, the easiest way to change the sound. Speaker manufacturers had to be jumping for joy when bass and treble went away. I went down the flat accurate road. I like a 1st order crossover and a dip in the presence region.

georgehifi's picture

$8.5K usd???

You'd be far better off with these for $7K and they have very good active bass, for less money
https://www.stereophile.com/content/goldenear-technology-t66-loudspeaker

Cheers George

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

Compare bookshelf to bookshelf not floorstander to bookshelf regardless of the price comparison. Some people would love floor standers but don't have the space.

georgehifi's picture

Two drivers in a box that JA says is lively (huge dip 1.5khz to 4khz) for $8.5k, verse that highly praised and built Goldenear that is $7k!!!

I bet there are far better 2 way bookshelf's for half the price of these, LS50 come to mind straight away, Quad Revela 1 Ribbon for less than 1/3 of the price ($2.2K) JA's measurements blow these away https://tinyurl.com/2xhyk54d and there'd be many others.

Cheers George

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

You have the Joseph Audio Prism , the previously mentioned JMR Bliss Jubilee, Mobile Fidelity, NOLA, Wharfedale, Harbeth and Spendors all for less than this speaker. I reserve judgment on these Totems as I have not heard them and Herb didn't find fault per se in listening. He had a comment about them but didn't call it a problem. The measurements said something different.

DaveinSM's picture

Am I the only one who thought that the manufacturer’s comment was a bit condescending?

georgehifi's picture

I did too, he didn't like the truth.

Cheers George

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

evaluating the speakers. His using the word "rebuke" is a bit strong and he gets a little like Dr. Frankenstein in stating that others don't understand his new technology!

celef's picture

I think it is best if mfrs do not make comments on a review, some readers will always misinpret and some will not even understand the words

DaveinSM's picture

What is there to be misinterpreted or misunderstood?

I think you mean not letting a manufacturer putting their own foot in their mouth

ChrisS's picture

Heard the original Totem 1's back in the day...don't remember what they sounded like, but the soundstage was magnificent!

deckeda's picture

I am less interested in design than I am implementation. But given that Totem is quite proud of their design, it's fair to remind them that "crossoverless" (bass drivers) are not revolutionary. They're also not very popular, but only a speaker manufacturer can really say why. I don't recall reading how the tweeter is crossed over here?

I need to get my Epos ES14 connected to something again. ( https://www.stereophile.com/content/epos-es-14-loudspeaker-john-atkinson-review ) Those are NOT to be confused with the current Epos ES14N from the new company riding the marketing coat tails of the vintage speaker. They aren't even trying to be a similar design.

Mine sound better than what JA heard back in the 1990s. I know this because I ran mine stock for several years. When one tweeter became weak I ripped out the lone cap glued to each and replaced them with a 5% Panasonic and chose different value for a lower turnover frequency. Paid $100 for a nice pair of Peerless designed to be run lower and said good-bye to the original tweeters. They sound so much better today, smoother, wide soundstage, and no requirement to sit in a sweet spot as before.

If you didn't read JA's review, the ES14 runs the bass driver full range. Similar to the Totem here, the bass driver is mechanically rolled off at the top, i.e. these do not "try" to reproduce highs.

I am not claiming my FrankenEpos is as good as something else. I'm only sharing a random anecdote for your potentially mild amusement.

Metalhead's picture

I really enjoy reading Herb and most of the time don't really care about the actual gear he is reviewing. I just love his prose and reflections.

I have my listening biases satisfied with my gear and never put much interest in small speakers. However I do have to say that in visiting a local record dealer he had a small set of paradigm speakers rocking and they sounded excellent. No subwoofer but the jazz album he played sounded full and I complimented him on nice they were set up. I guess they can satisfy for a large contingent of listeners.

Herb is probably forced into small speakers being in NY City where space costs huge bucks. Herb move upstate and get more space and we will let you visit NY City anytime you desire.

tonye's picture

Well, the manufacturer makes a great point about designing a speaker for a wide "sweet spot"... after all, the speaker's frequency response is quite smooth at 30 degrees off axis.. which the measurements show clearly.

The issue, IMHO, is that most people are stuck with the "on axis" and will immediately make value judgements. It's the ASR way of looking at things.

Cabinet resonance wise.. I realize that the standard approach is for an inert cabinet, but the manufacturer decided otherwise for a reason. One of my speakers are Audio Notes and those are somewhat lively too. They sound very good when used as the manufacturer recommends.

I do wish, however, the manufacturer had made their point a bit more constructively, pointing out how to modify the measurements to display the virtues of their design, NOT just sounding pissed off.

Crossover... well, I run a pair of wideband Fostex with a small woofer (with its own crossover and amp). Driving the speaker directly by the amp has excellent results with phase and time coherency. If anything, use an active crossover, but don't put parts between the amp and the speaker. That's a great idea.

Last... I have a DIY SIT4 clone. It just won't drive loud, it will drive great, but not loud a speaker with such low sensitivity. At 10w it sounds really good.... I had a 35wpc SIT amp, but it proved somewhat unstable... so now it's an XA25 clone. You might want to try that.

Other than that, I'd suggest you grab something like an old Aleph 2: class A, FET...

Price wise... they are expensive. Maybe I'll look for a pair of Mani-2 speakers. I got the amps to drive them ( big class A FET ).

georgehifi's picture

"the speaker's frequency response is quite smooth at 30 degrees off axis"

Really!!?? Am I looking at the wrong graph???
Except for the big 2.5 octave suckout between 1.3khz and 4khz
https://www.stereophile.com/images/0225-TEF2fig4-600.jpg
Quote JA: "but there is a major suckout in the region"
Cheers George

beave's picture

The graph you linked is the on axis listening window response, averaged across a 30 degree window (so 15 degrees up, 15 down, 15 to the right, 15 to the left) from the direct on axis (the tweeter axis).

The post you responded to mentions the response at 30 degrees off axis. For that response, look at Figure 6, and select the curve that represents 30 degrees off axis. You will see that the hole/suckout fills in to the sides, and above and below.

Any speaker with a non-coaxial driver will have suckouts. Normally, the designer chooses to have them occur at angles above and below the tweeter axis. In the case of this speaker, they occur right on the tweeter axis but disappear on other axes.

georgehifi's picture

Bit like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul in that case.

Cheers George

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

Hi Herb. Was listening to something earlier and I thought to myself "Herb would like this!" It's the Juilliard String Quartet's mono LP recording - Columbia ML4278 - of Bartok's SQs #1 and #2. The 2nd movement of the 2nd quartet just jumped out at me with clarity and mono vibrancy. I really need to get a mono turntable set up (or a 2nd Naim Arm top w a mono cartridge to experience this at its best.) I was listening on CD from the box set of the JSQ's earlier Columbia recordings. Anyway, thank you Herb as always for your insight into music and the equipment.

georgehifi's picture

"I really need to get a mono turntable set up (or a 2nd Naim Arm top w a mono cartridge to experience this at its best.)"

For early terrible sounding pseudo stereo LP's or CD's it's easy cheaper to just put a 10-50ohm bleed resistor between L & R to "monoize" the signal. I have this as a switch on my low level analog output sources to "monoize" early pseudo stereo Beatles etc etc that were terrible to listen to on stereo cd/streamed. And it lifts the bass a touch too warms things up, forget about imagining center only, but it's tonally better to listen to

Cheers George

Herb Reichert's picture

I will find that recording now

I am sure I will love it

immediacy and vibrancy are the secret of a long life

peace and mono

herb

Herb Reichert's picture

just bought all three LP, six-eyes, VG+

thank you again that is exactly the kind of records I'm into

herb

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

I just dug into a box where I found a blue label Columbia of the 5th and 6th quartet. I think the vinyl on 6 eye LPs was quieter than those first LPs. I will give mine a listen and compare it to the CD. Thank you for the response. This is why I love Stereophile.

Herb Reichert's picture

I was looking for a blue label

but six-eyes are quiet as you say

h

Glotz's picture

You guys rock!

Ok, I won't have a scintilla of the knowledge that either of you have here, but I think Herb might want to check this headphone amp out. It's intriguing to say the least and looks quite realized:

Zähl HM1 Reference Desktop Headphone Amplifier $9k-

https://headphones.com/products/zahl-hm1-reference-desktop-headphone-amplifier?variant=39673184813127&utm_source=utm_twcriteo&utm_medium=utm_criteo&utm_campaign=utm_similaraudience&utm_id=324095&cto_pld=Z1dFCnzXAABZKa6_PpKPVg

X