Can you tell what you heard as the improvement over the focal’s? Which elements of the sound?
“my speakers do things that no combination of smaller /cheaper speakers and expensive equipment can. Proper low bass at low volume is only the start.”
Here we disagree. I have heard also a lot of systems during the last 25 years and I have never encountered a situation where entry level source and electronics ( as the Atom for instance) can generate a very satisfying sound into expensive speakers .
It’s not only about power , as you know, but quality of the electronics .
If you take Audio Note for instance, their entry level speakers cost 6k, their entry level integrated 4k and CD player 2k.
Whatever you say.
That doesn’t entirely tally with my experience and what brought it home to me, after extensive auditioning over several months, was the very speakers you (and I) own! In the course of changing my system a couple of years ago, I listened to many speakers including ATC SCM 40s in both active and passive (driven by 250DR) forms. To my ears there was a night and day difference between the active and passive, the former offering a physicality and stability of the stereo image, I had not encountered before and which I found irresistible. So I bought the actives, but would have looked elsewhere for passive speakers. Nearly half the cost of the SCM 40As is for the amps and active crossover, so a similar cost to the speakers alone.
I do suspect, though, that diminishing returns might set in earlier with electronic components than with speakers.
Roger
@PeakMan you’re right that the active version of the SMC40s almost double their price from the passive versions, so the amps are a significant cost. Like you, I found the actives superior to the passives, but less night and day difference, more modest/incremental step-up. Part of the attraction of the active versions was to avoid the upgraditis that I knew I would suffer if I went down the separate amp route. I guess what I’m saying is that my attraction to the ATCs was the speaker itself, with the active version being the icing on cake.
I don’t know frenchrooster, I might agree with Mark84 on this one. Having used an ND5XS2 into Chord Mscaler/TT2 as my source, to now a $300 Laptop into a modest Musical Fidelity MX Dac, in order to fund better speakers. The Laptop, cheap DAC is holding it’s own quite well into my Kharma DB7’s. Sure it will improve with a better source, but by how much?
Nice!
and when you do upgrade you will by far exceed what the often recommended pairing of “low quality speakers/expensive gear” can do!!
Yes, and honestly to me the MOST important thing to the best sound is the actual quality of the music you are playing. My very best recordings make cheap, midrange, or top of the line speakers sound great.
I’m not sure that low quality speakers with expensive gear has ever been recommended by anyone.
Nice looking !
Enjoy. We don’t agree here, but it’s not so important. And it would be boring if we all agree each time .
What are the additional stands for your Kharma ? Do they still improve, as Kharma has probably the best inner stands on speakers market ?
Yes I was probably a little over zealous with that comment.
They are sitting on granite slabs because they forgot to give me the floor protection discs. There are cones attached to the outriggers that are very sharp. I called yesterday to let them know they are missing, so hopefully I will have them soon.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that I’m not exactly a source first person. My source setup is the same as yours, laptop into DAC (the laptop is a higher spec version though ). The DAC is a Chord QBD76.
I do not have experience with the Musical Fidelity MX DAC but upgraded from the MF M1 DAC to the Chord. The uplift in sound quality is significant as the Chord made the MF sound broken, no joke. Perhaps the MX is a different design and is superior to the M1, that I’m not sure. It’s good to note that the Kharma speakers sound great with the relatively modest source setup.
By the way, the speakers in my system cost a lot more than the source as well so you can say I put a lot of importance on the loudspeakers. The source is equally important but once you get past a certain threshold (you will know it when you stop finding fault with the system) there is not much point to spend any further, in my view. For me, I’d pick a high quality (costly) speaker over costly source and not the other way round but that’s just me.
Enjoy the Kharma. They look great and I bet the sound great as well.
Hello Iver, I found your valuable opinions on forum, I am now planning to go for Kanta 2 or SF Olympica 2. What are pros and cons of each playing with Nova? Thanks a lot
Adam
Hey @Artistplant ,
Thanks for your note. I can only judge the speakers on my own system (based on separates from Classic line) , since I don’t own a Nova
Most important is that both the Kanta 2 and SF Nova are excellent speakers with good value for money. I have the Sonus Faber Olympica Nova 3 but also auditioned the 2. They both match well with Naim; they are no “heavy loads” and I am sure the Nova has sufficient power to decently drive them.
The sound signature is different though. The Kanta is very easy on the ear, slightly sharp in the heights (probably due to the beryllium) but never too sharp. The Kanta is fast; very fast and as such quite “in the face”: if you play music, the Kanta’s will let you know they are there. Bass is powerful and firm. I had to add the IsoAcoustic Gaia to not have the bass too boomy. Recommended. When I purchased the Kanta, it was a close call with the former version of the Sonus Faber Olympica 2. At that moment I bought the Kanta 2.
When my system evolved to 252/300/NDX2, I started feeling the Kanta’s were too “in the face”. Maybe it’s an age thing at my side, my musical taste (Jazz, Folk) or the system, but I wanted speakers that “disappeared” a bit more. It brought me quickly back to the Sonus Faber auditions. The Nova is very “silky” in its signature; high frequencies are softer. 3D imaging is also a touch better I believe. In general they are warmer then the Kanta’s. Also looked into the Focal Sopra but - though less - have that same directness of Kanta.
What I believe links both speakers is that they can grow with your system and as such are a good investment. If you’d ever consider to replace your Naim Nova with separates, the Kanta’s and SF will give you back that investment
The looks is a personal thing. I like them both but prefer the luxerious design of SF Nova. You need to judge that for yourself.
My future? Awaiting a 552 pre that I have on order. When I go to bed I dream of the Sonus Faber Serafino or even Wilson Audio SabrinaX …. Who knows
Closing down with the obvious recommendation: this is expensive stuff and you should carefully make your choice: definitely audition first
Keep us posted
Iver
I am still on the fence ! thought the sf3’;s great but too over powering “in size only” for my room although they sounded amazing.
I have the kanta 2’s and are looking for an upgrade so started looking and got taken in by the sf .
That started a obsession and firstly I had an home demo of the s/f 2"s then thought I should see what you get with the sf 3’s as above ! at the moment I am back listening to my Kanta 2’s and are due to go and have a listen to the sf 2’s before finally deciding on one or the other.
At the moment I would say it is hard to choose between either of the 2"s and I will likely be very happy with either or both its just nice to have a change
in what aspects Kanta 2 is better than Olympica 2 in your opinion?
im on the fence and haven’t decided which of the 2’s are best ! and need to
listen to the sf once more to decide ! ATM the focals are kind and the s.faber’s are truthful.
On another note first time I tried a power cord upgrade today and im
in . but thats another thread
Check again but do low volume listening if you haven’t already. Don’t even turn it up just start really low and see which one gives you the more full presentation when the volume is down. Preferably in the same location.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.