Stand Loudspeaker Reviews

Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the Totem Element Fire V2's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a small, ¼" diameter capsule, for the nearfield responses and Dayton Audio's DATS V2 system to measure the impedance magnitude and phase.

Fig.1 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (5 ohms/vertical div.; note expanded vertical scale).

While the Element Fire V2's nominal impedance is specified as 8 ohms, the impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) is higher than 10 ohms over almost the entire audioband. The minimum impedances were 8.05 ohms at 32Hz and 9.2 ohms at 165Hz. As the electrical phase angle (fig.1, dotted trace) is high in several frequency regions, as a result, the effective resistance, or EPDR (footnote 1), does drop below 5 ohms from 10Hz to 139Hz, with minimum EPDR values of 4.1 ohms at 25Hz and 39Hz, and 5.2 ohms at 143Hz. The Element Fire V2 is therefore a relatively easy load for the partnering amplifier. Totem specifies the Element Fire V2's voltage sensitivity as 88dB, though with no voltage mentioned; my estimate was lower, at 84dB(B)/2.83V/1m. However, the Fire V2's impedance averages 15 ohms and 2.83V is equivalent to 0.53W into that load. Adjusting my estimate for a 15 ohm impedance gives a sensitivity of 86.75dB/W/1m, which is closer to the specified figure.

Fig.2 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to the center of a sidewall (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

The enclosure emitted fairly loud "bonks" when I tapped its panels with my knuckles. Using a plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a strong resonant mode at 234Hz on the top, side, and rear panels, as well as a slightly lower-level mode at 625Hz (fig.2). (I doubt that it is a coincidence that there is a discontinuity in the impedance traces at this frequency.) Although these modes have a high Q (Quality Factor), which will work against audibility, the relatively high levels might result in midrange coloration.

Fig.3 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, acoustic crossover on tweeter axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the woofer (blue) and port (red), respectively plotted below 350Hz and 1kHz.

The saddle centered on 35Hz in the impedance magnitude trace implies that this is the tuning frequency of the port on the Totem's rear panel. The woofer's nearfield response (blue trace below 350Hz in fig.3) had the expected reflex tuning notch at this frequency, but there is also a discontinuity in its output at 234Hz, the frequency of one of the panel resonances in fig.2. The port's nearfield response (fig.3, red trace) peaks at the tuning frequency, but there are some resonant peaks present in its midrange output. Again, these occur at the frequencies of the panel resonances in fig.2. The woofer's farfield response (blue trace above 350Hz) overlaps that of the tweeter (green trace) between 1.3kHz and 4kHz before rolling off relatively quickly above that region. There is a slight rise above 7kHz in the tweeter's output.

Fig.4 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the complex sum of the nearfield woofer and port responses plotted below 300Hz.

The complex sum of the woofer's and port's nearfield responses (fig.4, black trace below 300Hz) only has a small upper-bass peak due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes the baffle extends to infinity in both planes. This suggests that the Element Fire V2's low-frequency alignment is slightly overdamped, which will be optimal for placing the speaker close to the wall behind it. However, the low frequencies are well-extended for a fairly small standmount, the output not reaching –6dB until the port tuning frequency.

The Totem's manual says stands should be used that place the listener's ears level with the Element Fire V2's tweeter. I therefore examined the loudspeaker's farfield response, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis. The result is shown as the black trace above 300Hz in fig.4. The response is relatively even through the midrange and in the top two audio octaves, but there is a major suckout in the region where the woofer and tweeter outputs overlap. This measurement was taken without the grille; repeating it with the grille in place gave an almost identical result with both samples.

Fig.5 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.

Fig.6 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, lateral response family at 50", from back to front: responses 90–5° off axis, tweeter-axis response, responses 5–90° off axis.

Fig.7 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 45–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–45° below axis.

The Totem's horizontal radiation pattern, normalized to the response on the tweeter axis, which therefore appears as a straight line, is shown in fig.5. Fig.6 also shows the Fire's horizontal radiation pattern but this time showing the actual responses. Both graphs indicate that the suckout in the low treble fills in more than 30° to the speaker's sides, which is presumably why the manual states that the initial setup should be without any toe-in, ie, with the speakers firing straight ahead. Fig.7 shows the Element Fire V2's dispersion in the vertical plane, again normalized to the response on the tweeter axis. The suckout in the crossover region does appear to fill in above and below the tweeter axis.

Fig.8 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

Fig.9 Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

Turning to the time domain, the Totem's step response on the tweeter axis (fig.8) indicates that both drive units are connected in positive acoustic polarity. However, the tweeter's output arrives first at the microphone, which will be due to the drivers being mounted on a flat front baffle (footnote 2). This time delay is the cause of the suckout on the tweeter axis seen in fig.4. There are some small ripples in the decay of the woofer's step which correlate with a small ridge of delayed energy at 4.4kHz in the Element Fire V2's cumulative spectral-decay, or waterfall, plot (fig.9). However, the decay is clean in the tweeter's passband below the ridge at 24kHz, this due to the titanium dome's fundamental resonance.

The Totem Element Fire V2's measured performance indicates that this speaker is easy to drive, has a clean midrange and high treble, and has relatively extended low frequencies for what is a fairly small standmount. However, I am bothered by its lively enclosure, and the designer's decision not to use a low-pass filter on the woofer will make setup tricky if the Fire V2 is not to sound recessed in the presence region.—John Atkinson

Footnote 1: EPDR is the resistive load that gives rise to the same peak dissipation in an amplifier's output devices as the loudspeaker. See "Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads," JAES, Vol.42 No.9, September 1994, and stereophile.com/reference/707heavy/index.html.

Footnote 2: A tweeter has a shallower acoustic center than a woofer. To bring the drive units into time-alignment with a speaker that uses first-order crossover filters, the baffle therefore needs to be stepped-back (Vandersteen, Dunlavy) or sloped-back (Thiel, Spica).

COMMENTS

Based on Herb's preferences

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on January 31, 2025 - 10:51am

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.

LOL at mfg's comments

Submitted by supamark on January 31, 2025 - 11:40am

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.

suckout and x-overless design

Submitted by hb72 on February 3, 2025 - 7:47am

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).

The lack of crossover

Submitted by supamark on February 3, 2025 - 8:55am

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.

So, is Herb wrong, deaf, too inexperienced, or what?

Submitted by Anton on February 3, 2025 - 10:07am

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?"

Great point.

Submitted by Glotz on February 3, 2025 - 12:31pm

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.

Though the KEF Ref1 …

Submitted by hb72 on February 3, 2025 - 11:09am

.. 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.

Sorry dude, your speakers measure like doggie doo doo

Submitted by georgehifi on February 18, 2025 - 1:52pm

"Sorry dude, your speakers measure like doggie doo doo, the 10+ dB suckout around 2.5 kHz is unacceptable in a modern speaker..."

Correct, in figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 you can clearly see somethings not right around the 3khz mark and no amount of positioning is going to fix this, maybe it can be EQ'd with a SHU Studio or similar out but for this price of $8.5kusd it's as supamark says, "unaceptable"
Cheers George

Submitted by Turnerman1103 on January 31, 2025 - 3:07pm

Don‘t mix measurements and

Submitted by kai on January 31, 2025 - 3:36pm

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.

Submitted by Turnerman1103 on January 31, 2025 - 4:28pm

Your Guitar amp comparison is

Submitted by DaveinSM on January 31, 2025 - 8:14pm

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

Speakers without linear-

Submitted by kai on January 31, 2025 - 9:58pm

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”.

I disagree. The recording

Submitted by DaveinSM on February 1, 2025 - 12:00am

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.

I’d like to add that while I

Submitted by DaveinSM on February 1, 2025 - 7:27pm

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.

"Does not sound fun"?

Submitted by Glotz on February 11, 2025 - 10:02am

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...

I don’t necessarily listen to

Submitted by DaveinSM on February 12, 2025 - 12:48am

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.

Ahem

Submitted by supamark on February 3, 2025 - 9:14am

"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.

Have heard a few top end totem speakrs AND their bookshelff

Submitted by direstraitsfan98 on February 1, 2025 - 9:58am

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.

The price of these little speakers

Submitted by justmeagain on February 1, 2025 - 1:41pm

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.

So are...

Submitted by ChrisS on February 1, 2025 - 2:00pm

...Fords!

Worst car I ever owned

Submitted by supamark on February 3, 2025 - 9:16am

Was a Ford. It's not even close.

Never again.

worse...

Submitted by direstraitsfan98 on February 1, 2025 - 4:38pm

Even a hobbyist has enough common sense to install a crossover

Totem

Submitted by lsipes1965 on February 1, 2025 - 9:12pm

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.

$8.5K usd???

Submitted by georgehifi on February 2, 2025 - 11:41am

$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

floorstanding speakers are not a good comparison

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on February 3, 2025 - 1:52pm

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.

Two drivers in a box that JA

Submitted by georgehifi on February 3, 2025 - 9:10pm

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

They seem pricey for what is delivered.

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on February 4, 2025 - 4:40pm

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.

Am I the only one who thought

Submitted by DaveinSM on February 4, 2025 - 9:31am

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

I did too, he didn't like the

Submitted by georgehifi on February 4, 2025 - 11:10am

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

Cheers George

that's a bit harsh...he disagreed w JA's approach in technically

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on February 5, 2025 - 4:45pm

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!

I think it is best if mfrs do

Submitted by celef on February 4, 2025 - 10:23pm

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

What is there to be

Submitted by DaveinSM on February 5, 2025 - 11:07pm

What is there to be misinterpreted or misunderstood?

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

Yay, Canadian!

Submitted by ChrisS on February 5, 2025 - 10:08am

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

crossoverless

Submitted by deckeda on February 5, 2025 - 7:04pm

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.

Small speakers=small sound

Submitted by Metalhead on February 6, 2025 - 8:45am

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.

measurements and listening

Submitted by tonye on February 6, 2025 - 10:00pm

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 ).

"the speaker's frequency

Submitted by georgehifi on February 7, 2025 - 11:01am

"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

Yes, you are looking at the wrong graph

Submitted by beave on February 8, 2025 - 5:54pm

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.

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

Submitted by georgehifi on February 8, 2025 - 6:17pm

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

Cheers George

a mono LP recommendation for Herb

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on February 8, 2025 - 7:29pm

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.

"I really need to get a mono

Submitted by georgehifi on February 8, 2025 - 11:34pm

"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

thank you Mr. Thunder

Submitted by Herb Reichert on February 9, 2025 - 7:45am

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

thanks again Johnny

Submitted by Herb Reichert on February 9, 2025 - 7:53am

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

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

herb

Let me know what you think !

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on February 9, 2025 - 11:27am

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.

you are welcome JT2

Submitted by Herb Reichert on February 9, 2025 - 1:13pm

I was looking for a blue label

but six-eyes are quiet as you say

I loved that too...

Submitted by Glotz on February 11, 2025 - 10:09am

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

Fire vs Tribe

Submitted by timbray on February 18, 2025 - 10:15pm

I'm looking to replace a 22-year-old pair of Totem Forests. Spent two hours today at a nice high-end shop (Audiofi in Vancouver) listening first to the Fires and then to the Tribes, me selecting the music. This is highly personal of course, but it wasn't close: The Fires didn't work for me and I'm probably buying the Tribes. The Tribes' imaging was massively better. One of my test tracks was "200 More Miles" from the Trinity Sessions and the band was sort of a vague jumble; on the Tribes I was in the room with them.

Same again on track after track: Big fat symphonies, hard-edged rock, soft solo singers. The Tribe was just more immersive.

Now, the Fires have way more bass extension, and fortunately I already have a nice PSB subwoofer; I'm going to need it to give the Tribes that last octave-and-a-half.

Also the Tribes were way prettier. The Fire is not going to add to the visual appeal of any room, I think.

Also a couple thousand cheaper.

Your mileage may vary.

Search form

Stand Loudspeaker Reviews

Totem Acoustic Element Fire V2 loudspeaker Measurements