2. speakers
  3. 1108512161

Kharma Sub Set Up- Review

I’d like to share my experience with other Kharma owners regarding integration of the new Kharma subwoofer with main speakers. I use CRM-3.2FE as my main speakers and was very excited when Kharma finally introduced a sub. With that said, I also acknowledge that I have tried numerous REL products (Stentor III and (2) Stadium III’s)
on different occasions with mixed results at best. The REL products were used with other speakers (Wilson WP7’s and Maggie 3.6’s).

My room is a finished basement approx. 18x23x7’4” with carpet over concrete.

Like most of you have seen at the recent shows (or pictures from the shows), the general consensus is to place the sub between the left and right speaker when using a single sub. The Kharma manual also states that this is a good location to start with.I initially set the crossovers in accordance with my dealer’s recommendation which proved to be a good starting point. BTW, the Kharma sub is the most tunable/adjustable subwoofer that I’ve seen. My results with this set-up were in my opinion OK and by far the best integration I’ve ever achieved with a sub. Well, that was until …….yesterday.

I called a friend in the area whom some of you may know, “Romy the Cat” and asked if he could help me with set up. I’ve known Romy for some time and trust his skills in system set-up and pointing me in the right direction in my quest for audio perfection.

Romy visited yesterday with all the tools of the trade. These included professional spectral RTA, RT60 and phase meters. His comment when first listening to my setup
was the integration was “deplorable”. Volume 8-10 db too high, phase off, peaks and valleys in the frequency response. These comments were based on his “ears” and not the test equipment. He also said the sub will never be optimized between the speakers.

Well, I insisted we measure the sub with my setup and Romy all the test substantiated Romy’s initial findings. Frequency response had peaks and valleys to plus 12db at 25 db to minus 11 db at 63 and 80 HZ. We moved the subwoofer to the corner behind the left speaker and after much experimentation/testing (3 hours) found the flattest frequency response to be with the sub driver FACING the sidewall. The driver is literally 4-5 inches from the sidewall. Our final settings on the sub were to cross it over at 17HZ and 70 HZ. with a 12 db/octave slope. This produces a relatively flat response in my room from 20-120 HZ. The worst peak or valley being –3 db around 40 HZ.

So how does it sound…………..absolutely stunning. Whether I’m playing acoustic jazz, electronica, rock or classical the sub integrates seamlessly and plays every note with weight, depth and the proper harmonic structure while completely disappearing (ala 3.2’s).

Anyone considering the purchase of this sub should take the time and effort to properly set it up. You will be rewarded handsomely.
rcupka
owl's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
owl
139 posts
 
Sirspeedy

Couldn't agree more with you regarding the commentary about the high end pricing getting out of hand. I do feel good however about the money I saved/spent because my other option was upgrading to Grand Ceramiques at $60k. This is certainly a very reasonable tradeoff in my mind. Could the Rels do this with the 3.2's? I don't know if they would integrate the way a sub that took 5 years to design specifically for that speaker would. I don't know if REL has the level of adjustability of the Kharma sub, as far as near infinite phase, multiple crossover slopes, etc. I do have to say that I have heard 2 REL stentor subs set up with a speaker similar to the 3.2's from a design perspective,by a professional, that also used ceramic drivers and it did not come within an order of magnitude of the coherence of the setup, naturalness, room lock and integration I just heard. But that was a completely different system and the Kharma sub is made specifically for the 3.2 and the Ceramique line. I just don't see how a designer could accomplish this level of integration without having an intimate knowledge of the speaker that the sub was being designed for. Then again, in the right hands, with the right setup it could work phenomenally well. Who really knows with this stuff until you try it?
howie
230 posts
 
Unfortunately, most of us can only decide based on our own theories of what would work the best. Owl, you're right, in theory, a sub that is specifically designed for a speaker should integrate the best; that is the hope anyways. But that is in some ways a cop out. If I'm not mistaken, the Ceramique sub works like a traditional sub while the RELs are still unique in their sub-bass approach with no high-pass filter. Since on paper, the Stentors and Studios are more powerful and go lower than the Ceramique sub, I don't think you have to worry about room lock and whether it'll pressurize your room. Both Kharmas and RELs are known for the quality of their bass rather than quantity so to me, bass output and naturalness will not be an issue. I'm thinking that you'll simply get "different" quality bass which can be an effective way to tweak the tonal balance to your liking. Since this is a matter of taste, this is probably less of a concern as we can decide for ourselves what we prefer.

The main issue then is the matter of integration, since that has been the biggest worry with the Kharmas. In regards to the level of adjustability, I wouldn't worry about it. You don't need ten buttons to start the engine if you know what I mean, especially since we're talking about ease of setup. As I mentioned previously, I like the idea of the RELs augmenting the bass. When setup correctly, the RELs would simply pick up where the 3.2s left off, which in theory would do the least harm if it's fast enough to keep up. On the other hand, the Kharma sub IS designed for the 3.2s and there are now some positive reports on the combination but the RELs do have a high success rate of making a system sound better. Hmm...
owl's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
owl
139 posts
 
Howie, agreed, the tonal balance and matching the speakers to the sub is what I think/suspect keeps them so well integrated. If you could hear Rcupkas setup you would know instantly just how seamlessly they perform together, I would think tonally matching them is critical especially when they're crossed over so high, at 70hz and yet they still have to speak in "one voice". Perhaps the REL's can do it, as I stated I'm not sure. When I said room lock, I also implied sub/sat lock as well because that's just what it sounds like, a seamless death grip all of "a piece" that might just embarass some very high end full range speakers I've heard. What I do know for sure is that the 3.2's are taken to not just another level (full range), but another plane entirely with the Kharma sub set up PROPERLY that just goes way way beyond the sum of the parts.

It's seriously blown my mind because I know the 3.2's well (I think) and have lived with them for a while and never would have thought it possible, period. The lesson here is that we know what we know but we don't know what we think we know that we don't know. We all spend lots of time and money on our systems/obsession and yet don't invest in getting our rooms or setups to the next level. Room treatments and construction are one level but doing a realtime analysis of what is really happening in your room with your equipment at the listening position is, I think, the critical missed step of being serious about this hobby and possibly creating something that goes beyond just good sound.
sirspeedy70680e509
1,064 posts
 
I am feeling a bit guilty,and hope I didn't seem too "pushy" in my remarks.You have great stuff,and I hope you get endless enjoyment from it!!My gripe is that the pricing of MUCH (specifically Kharma) is WAY,WAY out of line.Take a look at the Kharma line pricing of 3 years ago and compare to now.Different importer,less selfish, IMO!I love the stuff,and could buy if I so chose,but,I've been at this a long time and find much pricing in the high end WAY out of line.I think a product like,for EX: the TAD-model one speaker,at 45,000.000 is pricey,but worth the money,when I break down it's design.I have the full white paper on tnat system.Also,the EPIPHANY stuff is great and priced fairly.These are some examples.The Kharma line went up 33% this past year.There is no excuse for that.Not even the US dollar.The only speaker in that line to hold price was the fabulous but already overpriced mere 70 lb 3.2.It amazes me how a consistent mentioning of the Kharma line by Mr. "V" helps to sell product,and make the "fat cats" rich.Sorry,I'll not fall for it.I don't like to rationalize my passions!!Admittedly,that still does not affect the fact that you have WONDERFUL stuff.Enjoy.I'm just venting.
howie
230 posts
 
Ya it sucks that this level of sound quality needs to cost so much. Not that you can't get good sound for less, but even at this level, there aren't enough great recordings out there that is satisfying in its own right compared to a good live session. The 3.2s were a huge purchase for me and I don't know if I'll do it again even though I don't regret buying it. I always feel bad when I think of all the money invested.

But ya, the 3.2s plus sub combo is essentially a 30K speaker system. I wouldn't say it's overpriced since it's certainly competitive with other 30K speaker sytems but it's one expensive sub especially with the price increase. Since I have yet to upgrade my source that's going to be priority over adding a sub. I don't know if I'll ever own a Kharma sub. The REL Stentor is quite a bit cheaper and might work beautifully. It also depends on how one plans to keep these speakers.
More to discover