Kharma 3.2 to MidiGrand Upgade???

I must tell you(and this is only my opinion),I do not own a Kharma,a friend owns the 1.0,but I have made a strong effort to hear much of the line.I've heard the 3.2 on many occassion.Without and with the sub.I heard the Midigrand on it's own I truly believe the 3.2 and Lamm combo is possibly the most stunningly beautiful combo I've ever heard when it comes to the flow of a musical note.A threeway,while many are successful adds to the complexity and may take away from the majic,that the 3.2 has IN SPADES.Adding a sub,which can be great,still can make matters more difficult,while improving them in other areas.As far as the midi's go IMO the 3.2 is a better speaker.Mind you I don't own either one,but am trying to give an unbiased opinion.Those that have already committed money to a product seldom admit to something else being better.Think about the marketing involved.How much more do you yhink Kharma makes by selling you a Midi compared to a 3.2.To me the Midi is a wonderful speaker,but,for the money,they are laughably overpriced.For that kind of money there are FAR better reproducers of realistic sound,regardless of what you read from the PANDERING reviewers!

I have the 3.2's now, and they're wonderful and surprisingly dynamic on that music but my room is the problem, it's 30x40 ft and the 3.2's are ALMOST enough for the room but probably could use the Kharma sub or bigger drivers to move just a little more air. I've moved them out to the sides of the room and am shocked at the quality and quantity of additional midbass and bass and of course the incredibly beautiful liquid and coherent Kharma mids and highs. My concern is that with multiple drivers the Midis may be a more difficult load for the Lamms and in my setup NOT as dynamic as what I'm getting! On paper it's almost a wash, with 89 db vs 91 db but leaving such a perfect speaker for a 3 way is a concern though I'm hearing from a number of people that the Midi's are a strong step up. I just don't want to have to give up the Lamm.

Are you considering selling your WP7's and moving into the Kharma's? The 3.2's would not be a good choice if you are into large scale symphonic work and electronica. The Midi's would be a better option but still the WP7's are very competetive with these designs.

There are a few owners and previous owners of 3.2s who have moved up to the Midis and there are many who have heard both extensively but I'm not one of them. :P From what I know, they've mostly been happy with the move, but then again, they were looking for more bass output and higher SPLs.

I bought the 3.2s because I couldn't afford the Midis, but I probably made the right choice for my room. The 3.2s are more flexible in placement as they can be placed close to the front wall and sound just as coherent and disappear just as easily as if it was further out. The Midis on the other hand would need to be further away from the front wall.

All things being equal, the 3.2s are going to integrate better than the Midis. The Midis try to integrate as well as the 3.2s while providing the output down low. That's how I think of it. If you have a relatively large sized room and looking for realistic symphonic levels, then you probably would want bigger speakers and also a more powerful amp.

As for the sub, I'll be perpetually interested in a sub until I have one in my home although I probably will never get one. Although between the Kharma sub and Rel subs, I would not know which would actually integrate better.