Totem Arro Vs. Sttaf

Ckoffend - the subs took some serious time to set up and integrate. The Hawks I found to be not very fussy to set up. I actually have them fairly close to my back walls (2 feet)and about 8 feet apart, ever so slightly toed-in. I have tried them in many positions and they sound pretty much the same. Definitely add lead shot or kitty litter or sand or whatever to the base - it tightens the bass - but do it iteratively - it's easy to put more in but harder to take out if you put in too much!

For the subs I found it important to find out exactly what my speakers were doing on their own first - ie. where did the bass actually begin to roll-off in my room? Then I set the subs crossover just above that point. Getting the volume right was tougher. Also found that even slight changes in placement of the subs made a big difference. I'm not flat but I'm close on most bass frequencies with the exception of one "hump" at 50-60Hz which is a room issue.

I'll offer my two cents since I own a ton of Totem speakers. I own both Arro and Sttaf in addition to 4 Dreamcatcher monitors, Dreamcatcher center, Storm subwoofer, and a pair of Totem Mite. I currently have the Arro set up with the Dreamcatchers and Storm in a 7.1 HT system, and the Sttaf in a stereo system all in the same room. I have the Mite set up as my desktop speakers with my computer. Anyway, back to the topic, since I have both the Arro and the Sttaf in the same room, I had some chance to do some side by side comparison. For stereo application, the Sttaf wins hands down, much fuller sound, much bigger soundstage, more musical. It definitely has a warmer sound than the Arro. If you prefer the tube sound over solid state, you will love the Sttaf. Arro on the hand is much brighter. Yes, it might provide more clarity, but I'm not sure how much of this is due to it's lack of the bottom end and its brighter nature. Since I also have the Storm sub, now I do not ever listen to the Arro in stereo mode without also using the sub. The Sttaf on the hand makes the sub redundant in stereo setting. BTW, I have driven these with an Arcam AVR300, a Simaudio I3, and a Marantz SR8500. On a side note, the Arcam AVR300 really is a very musical receiver in stereo setting that rivals many integrated amps and separates. I did find it a little lacking in its surround sound performance that I ended up replacing it with the Marantz SR8500 and the Simaudio I3. Although I think the Marantz SR8500 is a better surround sound performer, its stereo performance is not close to that or the Arcam AVR300.

Happybob,

You are finding/stating that the sub, combined with the Sttafs in stereo is redundent? Are you saying that you do not feel that the sttafs need a sub and can handle the bottom octaves sufficiently by themselves (again in stereo)? Don't get me wrong, I am not intending or implying that you are wrong, just a bit surprised.

My Hawks arrived today, but it will be a bit before I get them hooked up and burned in. I was planning on adding a REL subwoofer for either/both the Hawks and the Arros, and probably 2 (I will run one or the other pair of Totems as a zone 2 and planned to have a sub in that zone - stereo only).

Since your feeling is that the Sttafs don't need a sub, what type of bass would you say you are getting out of them and in what size room?

Thanks,

Okay, guys (if anybody still is paying attention to this thread). After running the Arros for a short time, My Hawks came in and I also bought a pair of REL Q108 subwoofers.

The Hawks without doubt have a much fuller sound than the Arros and also smoother (ie. not as bright). I am running the Hawks in a second room through my zone 2 pre-amp out into a Golden Tube Audio SE 40 Amp (anybody else driving Hawks with 40 watts). I am surprised that this amp is able to drive the Hawks as well as it does at 40 wpc. But they sound good.

I am now running the Arros with the two subs which definately changes the sound all aroud with the Arros. My room, while not large at 12 X 18 with a single slanted cathedral ceiling is much better pressurized with the subs and not just at the bottom end. I have found that the Arros sound much better with the subs as volume levels do not need to be as high which has smoothed out the sound of the Arros. The sound stage is still excellent (better than with the single B&W sub which always made it feel weighted to one side and not as tight).

I really like the Arros in all regards and the addition of the REL subs really makes these speakers shine. Yes, even with the little REL Q108 which I think in a pair version is a perfect match for the Arros. This from both a matching price comparison and also soundwise.

Thinking about adding a large REL for the Hawks, but they already have sufficient base even though they are in a larger room. Typically, they are only background music.

Side by side, the Arros and the Hawks cannot be compared in many regards. While physically, the size is pretty close, the Hawks have much better extension and are generally smoother. Their soundstage/imaging is not up to the Arros though. But at twice the price, I don't think it is fair to compare the two for most people considering the Arros.

Final result - I love Totem - What took me so long?

Hi Sandman012,

It's been awhile since I have read these forums. Anyways, it looks like you have pretty much the same taste as I do in audio since I too, am driving my Arros with a Bryston B-60 but assisted via a bi-amp set up with a Bryston 2B-LP and a Dreamcatcher sub. Adding the Dreamcatcher is an alternative to you getting new speakers in your search of more bottom end. In my system, the Dreamcatcher sub blends in very well with the Arros. So well that my audiophile friends cannot tell from listening.

Also, I do recommend adding a Bryston 2B-LP to passively bi-amp the Arros. The result is greater resolution/clarity and dimensionality along with increased dynamics. Good luck!

Carl:)