2. speakers
  3. 1138845513

Replacing Forests???

OK, I am looking for some friendly advice. After going through 3 pairs of Forests in a 6 month period, my dealer is allowing me to trade them back in for full value towards another speaker set-up. I am a HUGE fan of the Totem sound, and have never had problems with Totem before these Forests.

I have owned the Tabus and Arros with great results. Moving to a larger space forced me to move away from the Arros and up the Totem line. I had longed for the Forests for a long time, but the problems I've had with these in the short history of owning them has me throwing in the towel with them!

This is a 2-channel music/HT set-up powered by a Simaudio i-5. I am thinking of going with one of the following 2 options:

Totem Sttaf with 2 Dreamcatcher subwoofers

(or)

Totem Hawks

Although I think I am more partial to the Sttaf sound, as I have never been 'wowed' with the Hawks on the gear I've listened to them on (Naim/NAD - both bad; Ayre - pretty decent, small hotel room set-up), I would love to hear people's opinions.

Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
jh2os

Showing 4 responses by bdgregory

bdgregory
1,721 posts
 
I've owned a pair of Sttafs for 2 years now. I still think they're fantastic in many ways, and would recommend them to anyone. I've never tired of listening to them. I'm a fanatic for deep bass however, and in my room they were lacking. I was happy with them without it, but I added a Rel Storm III to them and that's a great combination. As long as you can have them some distance from the wall they are easy to position and tune. Super easy to integrate with the sub. So . . . I guess that's my endorsement for the Sttaf/Dreamcatcher idea, fwiw.

I haven't compared them to the Hawks, but I recently added a pair of Mani-2. The Manis are much better because they are mor precise, and they have better, deeper bass w/o a sub, but they did not cause me to become unsatisfied with the Sttafs - I move the Sttafs to room #2.
bdgregory
1,721 posts
 
Jh2os - I meant to comment on the power requirement - My Manis need all of the 200 wpc my monoblocks can drive (actually 400 wpc @ 4 ohms). I've driven the Sttafs with as little as 60 wpc and they're fine. Not as efficient as other speakers but pretty forgiving. They also sound nice without driving them hard. That is - it seems the Mani's want to be opened up before they really sound good. Not so with the Sttafs, which is another one of the appealing qualities.
bdgregory
1,721 posts
 
I played the Sttafs on their own (ie no sub) for about 6 months. They have very good low end, especially for their size. The speakers I upgraded from provided deep bass - flat to 22 hz, and it wasn't until I played my old progressive rock cd's that I decided something was lacking. If your tastes don't include rock and progressive with deep bass tones as a key element, then I imagine you'll be quite happy without adding a sub.

If it were me, and I believed I wouldn't need a sub with the Sttafs, I would certainly give the Hawks a try (if trying them is an option). I think they buy you about 5 hz deeper extension (ie 38hz - 33hz), but the bigger advantage from what my salesman told me is tighter and more precise - whether it's enough difference to impress you can only be deternined one way. When I bought mine, I maxed my budget with the Sttafs so decided not to look further . . . The great part about them is I had no regrets that I didn't have more money - they're such a great sounding speaker - but I think this is true about the entire Totem line.
bdgregory
1,721 posts
 
Jh, I know you say you don't want to go with a subwoofer, but if you put a Rel Storm III (or equivalent) with either the Hawk or the Staff and doubt you'll be concerned with fullness. That issue will go away, and your soundstage will double in size.

. . . just a thought.
More to discover