|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Speakers less than $12K posted by Romy on July 24, 2002 at 21:28:03:
they went for much less than $17k...more like $6.5k when initially introduced. I have heard the Ceramique 3 several times and agree with your assessment--they are very well balanced with an almost seemless integration between the drivers. Kharma has upgraded the Ceramique line to .1 and .2 models with upgraded crossover components, wiring & internal damping; I'm not sure what a 3.1 or 3.2 goes for now but I would guess less than $17k.I'm not sure what amplification was used when you heard the 3's (Lamm is often used in demos, and I think I remember from reading a previous post of yours that you like Lamm), but I myself would be hesitant to recommend any of the Ceramique speakers with ML solid state electronics. I think they really need tube amplification to avoid sounding too analytical.
Follow Ups:
nt
Is that for the 3.1 or Reference Monitor 3.2?
nt
Well, if they somewhere around $7K then it only ads the “weight” to them… and of course you are correct to be “hesitant to recommend any of the Ceramique speakers with ML solid state electronics”… or I would say… "hesitant to recommend any speakers with ML solid state electronics".By the way, it would be interesting: were do you feel the difference between your Eidolons and the Kharma Ceramique 3. (Beside some advanced soundstageing tricks that the Eidolons can perform)
I haven't heard the Eidolon's and Ceramique 3's in the same system, although I have heard each extensively in my two separate systems. But with that caveat, generally speaking the Eidolon's are much more muscular and hefty on bottom, almost effortless on dynamic contrasts, as accomplished in the midband as the 3's, and as you noted do some spectacular soundstaging tricks. I would be hard pressed to say the 3's do anything better than the Eidolons, but as I said I haven't them both in the exact same system/room.I really like the Ceramique 3's, but ended up getting the Ceramique 1's over them because the 3's just didn't have enough weight on the bottom for me. I don't consider myself a bass freak by any stretch, but I would say the 3's start rolling off somewhere around 50Hz, and the bass was a just a tad whoolly compared to the 1's. You do lose a bit of the driver coherence going to the 3-way Ceramique 1's (and I would definitely take the 3's over the middle child Ceramique 2's, which are a three-way that isn't much more meaty down low than the 3's), but I listen mostly to orchestral music, and the loss of the bottom foundation of the orchestra was just too much for me to give up. If the 3.1 or 3.2 models improve on that aspect, I would suspect they would certainly be among the top speakers in their class.
Actually I meant to ask you to avoid the “bass issues” but I forgot to write it down in my question. I am one of those guys who believe that better do not have any bass then to have it improperly implemented. Ceramique 3 dose not go very low and it is VERY good. (The bottom should be implemented by different means anyway.) Ceramique 3's stops at very the reasonable point considering the typical room applications, a way the port used and many others reasons. The monitors should not do deeper then 50-70Hz. The Eidolon’s attempt to go lower actually was a mistake and it screwed them up. I understand why the Eidolon’s parents did that “fast but oily” bass. They should stop to target the Eidolons to the Spectral market and stop to “bassolubricate” that easy-sellable High Resolution BS. I find the Ceramique 3 results are more interesting then Eidolon or at least the 2-way Ceramique has fewer problems. I just can’t believe that they went form $6.5K to $17K.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: