The Totem Acoustic Hawk
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
Paul
Senior Member
Glad you like the Totem.
If you get a chance to hear the Mani 2 - Signature please try it. The one of best monitor speakers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you get a chance to hear the Mani 2 - Signature please try it. The one of best monitor speakers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree, they're excellent monitors!
Paul
Senior Member
Excellent. I'm glad you like the our Canadian brands .
What do you power them with the Hawk ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
. What do you power them with the Hawk ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Thread Author
- #5
Paul - I'm currently powering the Hawks with the Karan Acoustic KA-i 180 integrated amplifier. To be completely honest with you Paul, the Hawks are some of the pickiest loudspeakers that I've ever come across. They are freaking divas when it comes to how they pair with certain gear, certain rooms, and their position within that room.
Kiwi - Did you buy your Hawks new? And if so, when did you buy them? The reason I ask is because Totem has this tendency of changing their speakers without announcing or even indicating that a change has been made. It's frustrating as hell.
Case in point: I owned the Hawks back in 2005. The current Hawk sounds markedly different from the 2005 Hawk, which sounds different from the original (green capacitor) Hawk. The same thing can be said for the Sttaf, which has undergone over half-a-dozen changes during its service life. They've gone from sounding aggressive, to sounding rolled off, to sounding somewhere in-between, and now they're voiced to sound more laid-back. It's ridiculous.
Kiwi - Did you buy your Hawks new? And if so, when did you buy them? The reason I ask is because Totem has this tendency of changing their speakers without announcing or even indicating that a change has been made. It's frustrating as hell.
Case in point: I owned the Hawks back in 2005. The current Hawk sounds markedly different from the 2005 Hawk, which sounds different from the original (green capacitor) Hawk. The same thing can be said for the Sttaf, which has undergone over half-a-dozen changes during its service life. They've gone from sounding aggressive, to sounding rolled off, to sounding somewhere in-between, and now they're voiced to sound more laid-back. It's ridiculous.
- Thread Author
- #6
Kiwi - Your experience with the Hawks mirror what I heard back in 2005. While they were very impressive in some respects, they weren't the most versatile speakers on the planet. Also like yourself, I found the 35hZ spec to be optimistic at best. The only area where our experiences differ is the top end. The 2005 Hawks were incredibly smooth sounding speakers. That's because Totem rolled off the tweeter right at 20kHz - which heavily mitigated the ringing of that MB Quart tweeter. Suffice to say, 2016 Hawk is a different animal all-together.
Outta curiosity - which amp did you like the best on the Hawks?
Outta curiosity - which amp did you like the best on the Hawks?
Doc
New member
Kiwi, I had these speakers in my home on a trial basis from a very good dealer when I lived in Grass Valley, California. They also came with "the beak". This optional aluminum beak (which looks like the spinner on a model airplane propeller) sits on the top of the cabinet pointing upward. You move it a few inches at a time to get the best sound perceived via careful listening. It supposedly deadens the vibrational frequencies of the cabinet, thus improving the sound. Once you achieved the best sound (thanks to the placebo effect), that is where you left the beak parked. You do this with each speaker. If, God forbid, your wife moved the beak to dust your speakers, you probably wouldn't speak to her for a week after that because now you had to spend endless hours moving this beak around on top of each speaker to get your speakers to sound their best (once again, thanks to the placebo effect). Yeah, I know. It's nuts and for a high end speaker company such as Totem out of Canada, I'm surprised they would come up with such a placebo driven device as "The Beak" and have the audacity to charge forty-bucks for a small piece of machined aluminum claimed to give the speaker the last word in quality sound. I can tell you as a Board Certified Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy, such marketing hype and suggestive programming can influence the subconscious mind to buy into that chili and make it come true for the Totem Hawk owner who "believes" the Beaks on his/her speakers makes them sound superior to Hawk speakers without beaks. Of course, the Totem dealer was embarrassed as I put him in a corner and verbally beat him up regarding how the beaks could not possibly make any perceivable difference in the sound of Totem Hawk speakers. This was a case of bad audio science and my instruments could not measure any difference with or without the beaks on the speakers. 'Nuff, said'.
Getting back to reality, I tossed the beak in my desk drawer and began a serious listening comparison of the Totem Hawk speakers to my Martin Logan electrostatic speakers. Keep in mind, this was back in 1991 (and yes, these Totem Hawk speakers have been around that long). The end result of the comparison was they compared favorably to the Martin Logan speakers in efficiency and appearance, build quality, etc. The Totem speakers were a bit brighter sounding and had the same level of bass output down to 50Hz or so. The electrostatic midrange was more clear, but less dynamic. The Totem Hawks had brighter (nearly annoying) highs. Their tweeters sounded louder, more dynamic). The Martin Logan speakers had more depth and breath (better sound stage) only while sitting in the "sweet spot" between the speakers. In the end, both cost $3,000.00 a pair in that day and age, so I would have to call it a draw. I could live with either, but decided to keep the Martin Logan speakers and did so until 2002 after which I sold them and had custom built speakers constructed to my specifications which featured tri-amplified Scan Speak drivers crossed over via a custom built 3 way electronic cross over network. They sport state-of-the-art cabinets finished in hammered bronze and copper with solid silver internal wiring. These custom speakers, without going into detail regarding their specification and sound description(which is a "you are there" live quality) are vastly superior to the Martin Logan electrostatic speakers I owned.
The next level up from the Totem Hawk speakers I carefullyy auditioned at the CES. I did this in 2013 and 2014. Those speakers are, in my opinion, giant killers. They are, without question, the very best floor standing speakers I have ever heard, regardless of the cost or brand. They have the clarity of the best Quad electrostatic speakers in the midrange, the bass of the finest 11-inch Scan Speak woofer, and highs that are produced with the quality of a $750.00 Scan Speak tweeter. They are built like a tank and produce music with such realism its spooky. So, my fellow audiophile friend, if you can trade your Hawks in for the next model up from them, do so. If I remember correctly, they sell for about $10,000.00. If you can get them, you'll have a pair of speakers you'll enjoy for life. Meanwhile, be advised, you have a very good pair of speakers by owing those Hawks which puts you in the upper 2% of true audiophile quality speaker owners.
Enjoy the music they make for you in your life.
Just.. Doc
Getting back to reality, I tossed the beak in my desk drawer and began a serious listening comparison of the Totem Hawk speakers to my Martin Logan electrostatic speakers. Keep in mind, this was back in 1991 (and yes, these Totem Hawk speakers have been around that long). The end result of the comparison was they compared favorably to the Martin Logan speakers in efficiency and appearance, build quality, etc. The Totem speakers were a bit brighter sounding and had the same level of bass output down to 50Hz or so. The electrostatic midrange was more clear, but less dynamic. The Totem Hawks had brighter (nearly annoying) highs. Their tweeters sounded louder, more dynamic). The Martin Logan speakers had more depth and breath (better sound stage) only while sitting in the "sweet spot" between the speakers. In the end, both cost $3,000.00 a pair in that day and age, so I would have to call it a draw. I could live with either, but decided to keep the Martin Logan speakers and did so until 2002 after which I sold them and had custom built speakers constructed to my specifications which featured tri-amplified Scan Speak drivers crossed over via a custom built 3 way electronic cross over network. They sport state-of-the-art cabinets finished in hammered bronze and copper with solid silver internal wiring. These custom speakers, without going into detail regarding their specification and sound description(which is a "you are there" live quality) are vastly superior to the Martin Logan electrostatic speakers I owned.
The next level up from the Totem Hawk speakers I carefullyy auditioned at the CES. I did this in 2013 and 2014. Those speakers are, in my opinion, giant killers. They are, without question, the very best floor standing speakers I have ever heard, regardless of the cost or brand. They have the clarity of the best Quad electrostatic speakers in the midrange, the bass of the finest 11-inch Scan Speak woofer, and highs that are produced with the quality of a $750.00 Scan Speak tweeter. They are built like a tank and produce music with such realism its spooky. So, my fellow audiophile friend, if you can trade your Hawks in for the next model up from them, do so. If I remember correctly, they sell for about $10,000.00. If you can get them, you'll have a pair of speakers you'll enjoy for life. Meanwhile, be advised, you have a very good pair of speakers by owing those Hawks which puts you in the upper 2% of true audiophile quality speaker owners.
Enjoy the music they make for you in your life.
Just.. Doc
Last edited:
Doc
New member
Hi Kiwi;
The Totem speakes are named in Indian fashion after animals or nature. The Hawk is a bird with only ONE beak. To put two beaks on a Hawk would be an insult to the hawk, wouldn't it? After all, what were the insane engineers at Totem, Inc. thinking when they called for two beaks to be used on each speaker. Further, the option called for one pair of beaks, make it one beak per speaker, umm, I mean Hawk.
It would be interesting to attach a device like a transducer to a beak to measure the frequencies at which it might vibrate when a sweep from 20Hz to 20kHz is played through the speakers at 80dB at one meter from the mid range cone to determine if the beak is audible when absorbing vibrations from the top of the speaker enclosure. Then do the same measurement in the exact same manner without the beak on top of the speaker enclosure (cabinet). I would suspect that there would be no difference in the cabinet's vibrations and the sound it puts out from them with or without a beak. I think the marketing folks at Totem thought up a scheme to flesh forty-bucks out of a customer who was ignorant enough to buy into beaks because they make their Hawk speaker sound better. That's about as crazy as the large ball bearings they used for feet which supposedly decoupled the speakers from the floor and allow the speaker to roll around as if on casters. This, of course makes the speaker tip over easily and does not transfer vibrational energy from the speaker cabinet into the floor as it should. Rather, it allows the speaker cabinet vibrations to continue until the atmosphere around the cabinet has absorbed the sound put out by the vibrations from the cabinet as the speaker vibrates on the steel, chrome plated ball bearing which is too hard to absorb any vibrational energy from the cabinet
I have taken note that they do not use ball bearings for feet on their other speakers and do not suggest an option beak for them, either. If putting an aluminum or steel cone that is about two to three inches high and about two inches across at its base some how magically makes a speaker sound better, then it should be part of every speaker Totem sells and not made optional.
I have met some of the upper management of Totem at CES and listened to their latest floor standing speakers. They absolutely blew me away with how real they sounded. Their mid range sounded every bit as good as the top of the line Quad electrostatic speakers. (They should because they cost about the same amount of money at retail). The engineering of their latest mid-woofer speaker released about three or four years ago is amazing and must be heard by every audiophile to know how good a floor standing speaker in a box with a passive two-way cross over network can sound. Therefore, I admire what Totem is doing with their product line up and find their retail prices are well in line with their competition and certainly a bargain in relationship to the sound one gets for their money. However, for the sake of their integrity and respect for the science of audio reproduction and their brand as a no hype speaker manufacturer, they really should drop the beak from their product line so that their engineers can save face. Don't you agree? just... Doc
The Totem speakes are named in Indian fashion after animals or nature. The Hawk is a bird with only ONE beak. To put two beaks on a Hawk would be an insult to the hawk, wouldn't it? After all, what were the insane engineers at Totem, Inc. thinking when they called for two beaks to be used on each speaker. Further, the option called for one pair of beaks, make it one beak per speaker, umm, I mean Hawk.
It would be interesting to attach a device like a transducer to a beak to measure the frequencies at which it might vibrate when a sweep from 20Hz to 20kHz is played through the speakers at 80dB at one meter from the mid range cone to determine if the beak is audible when absorbing vibrations from the top of the speaker enclosure. Then do the same measurement in the exact same manner without the beak on top of the speaker enclosure (cabinet). I would suspect that there would be no difference in the cabinet's vibrations and the sound it puts out from them with or without a beak. I think the marketing folks at Totem thought up a scheme to flesh forty-bucks out of a customer who was ignorant enough to buy into beaks because they make their Hawk speaker sound better. That's about as crazy as the large ball bearings they used for feet which supposedly decoupled the speakers from the floor and allow the speaker to roll around as if on casters. This, of course makes the speaker tip over easily and does not transfer vibrational energy from the speaker cabinet into the floor as it should. Rather, it allows the speaker cabinet vibrations to continue until the atmosphere around the cabinet has absorbed the sound put out by the vibrations from the cabinet as the speaker vibrates on the steel, chrome plated ball bearing which is too hard to absorb any vibrational energy from the cabinet
I have taken note that they do not use ball bearings for feet on their other speakers and do not suggest an option beak for them, either. If putting an aluminum or steel cone that is about two to three inches high and about two inches across at its base some how magically makes a speaker sound better, then it should be part of every speaker Totem sells and not made optional.
I have met some of the upper management of Totem at CES and listened to their latest floor standing speakers. They absolutely blew me away with how real they sounded. Their mid range sounded every bit as good as the top of the line Quad electrostatic speakers. (They should because they cost about the same amount of money at retail). The engineering of their latest mid-woofer speaker released about three or four years ago is amazing and must be heard by every audiophile to know how good a floor standing speaker in a box with a passive two-way cross over network can sound. Therefore, I admire what Totem is doing with their product line up and find their retail prices are well in line with their competition and certainly a bargain in relationship to the sound one gets for their money. However, for the sake of their integrity and respect for the science of audio reproduction and their brand as a no hype speaker manufacturer, they really should drop the beak from their product line so that their engineers can save face. Don't you agree? just... Doc
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #9
Hello Doc,
Thanks for taking the time to lay down your thoughts. You left me with a lot to respond to. So to kick things off, lets talk about the Beaks.
First and foremost, the Beak wasn't designed to 'deaden' anything. Instead, it's sole function is to disseminate resonant frequencies (particularly beyond 10k) in an even, consistent, and controlled manner. If I remember correctly, a University studied the Beak and found that it had a measurable impact not just with loudspeakers, but on a wide variety of resonating surfaces. You'll have to e-mail Totem to get that info.
As for the listening comparisons that you made between the Hawk and the ML's. I'm not saying that you didn't make this comparison - but Totem didn't even *have* a floorstanding loudspeaker in 1991. Their first floorstanding loudspeaker was the Sttaf, which was introduced sometime between 1996-1997. The Hawk didn't come out until 1999 or so.
As for their Element series - I agree, it's cool stuff. Vince usually does a great job setting up systems at shows. Glad you were able to enjoy that kind of an experience.
Thanks for taking the time to lay down your thoughts.
You left me with a lot to respond to. So to kick things off, lets talk about the Beaks.First and foremost, the Beak wasn't designed to 'deaden' anything. Instead, it's sole function is to disseminate resonant frequencies (particularly beyond 10k) in an even, consistent, and controlled manner. If I remember correctly, a University studied the Beak and found that it had a measurable impact not just with loudspeakers, but on a wide variety of resonating surfaces. You'll have to e-mail Totem to get that info.
As for the listening comparisons that you made between the Hawk and the ML's. I'm not saying that you didn't make this comparison - but Totem didn't even *have* a floorstanding loudspeaker in 1991. Their first floorstanding loudspeaker was the Sttaf, which was introduced sometime between 1996-1997. The Hawk didn't come out until 1999 or so.
As for their Element series - I agree, it's cool stuff. Vince usually does a great job setting up systems at shows. Glad you were able to enjoy that kind of an experience.
Doc
New member
Hi Zero,
First, I stand corrected. The date I indicated was a mental typo. It should have read 2001 not 1991. For that full decade of an error, I apologize.
Next, while putting a metal Beak on the top of a Hawk speaker enclosure (or any speaker enclusre for that matter) to transmit enclosure and surrounding air vibrations it absorbs, then recreates those same frequencies in an omni-directional pattern or simply reflects them in an omni-directional pattern (since the Beak is round), is still nonsense. My test instruments and ears don't lie to me. Let me fill you in so you won't be hood winked on this matter as many audiophiles have been.
In a Blind AB X human hearing test and spectrum analyzer analysis of sound test performed by the dealer and yours truly in the dealer's acoustically treated show room, each of us took turns testing each others response to what we thought we heard. One of us would listen to only one Hawk speaker, monophonically producing a 10,000Hz test tone at 80dB at 2 meters from the mid range speaker's cone while the other performed the AB X test. We both did a total of six tests each. More about the results later. Meanwhile, we conducted a separate test by setting up a calibrated microphone at the same distance and location where we sat to listen during the human hearing test.
A calibrated mic was plugged into a calibrated spectrum analyzer which analyzed the sound the mic picked up and the analyzer transmitted electronic pictures of the graphs produced by the analyzer while the speaker played a 10,000 Hz test tone from a pink noise generator so that an A B comparison could be made via the charts of a tests with and without the Beak on top of the speaker. (The results of this test are found below).
Next, a rigidly controlled hearing test was performed first as detailed above. Each of us went through 3 separate one-minute listening tests with the Beak on the speaker and 3 more tests with the Beak off of the speaker. We were blind folded and could not tell if the Beak was on the speaker enclosure or off of it while listening to the test tones.
THE RESULTS OF THE HUMAN ABX LISTENING TEST.
Out of the 3 tests with the beak sitting on the speaker, NONE of the 3 tests was "guessed" correctly by each of us, respectively. Out of the 3 tests with the Beak NOT sitting on the speaker, only one was "guessed" correctly by each of us respectively. Conclusion: The Beak made no apparent change in the sound that could be identified by a well trained audiophile's ears and brain in a controlled AB X blindfold listening test.
THE SPECTRUM ANALYZER TEST RESULTS:
A calibrated microphone was placed on a stand where we sat to listen and be tested. The mic was 3 feet from the floor and 2 meters from the midrange driver's cone. The mic was plugged into a calibrated spectrum analyzer which would show us on scope what differences in measurable sound waves (fractions of decibels) occurred with the Beak on top of the speaker and with it off the speaker. The 10Hz test tone was played on a top of the line, $3,500.00 Sony audiophile grade CD player. High end mic, connect and speaker cables were employed to connect all components and the speaker to the power amplifier. The Pre-amplifier and Power Amplifier were manufactured by Anthem and reported to be most accurate with a 115dB signal to noise ratio and flat @.005% from 5Hz to 50,000kHz. frequency response. Charts of both tests could be captured in the analyzer and printed out for visual comparison. The test was done on only one speaker (monophonic) producing the test tone @ 80dB where the microphone was placed and sound from the monophonic Hawk measured on a calibrated decibel meter. The tests were then run. The results from the spectrum analyzer were printed out. Absolutely no difference in decibels even to the most tiny fraction of a decibel could be seen when both charts were compared. 3 separate tests were run. The listening show room door was closed and the air conditioning was turned off to prevent any enterior vent noise. No cooling fans were in operation. In other words, care was taken to make certain no sound, other than from the monophonic Hawk speaker could be heard. The sound of our breathing was well below the threshold of 80dB, and therefore could not effect the test results.
CONCLUSION:
The Beak is a useless marketing gimmick. If a positive difference cannot be measured or heard by those with excellent hearing in a controlled, quiet environment, then the price one pays for these useless devices is truly a "rip off".
SUMMARY:
A final test, much like the average audiophile consumer would do was conducted using the Beak. High quality,easy listening Jazz and symphonic music was played in stereo from the Hawks by the same high end Sony CD player. The music selected on CDs was that which emphasized higher frequencies (triangles, symbols, violins, etc.). With the beaks on the speakers, then quickly removed, on and off again and again, while carefully listening, absolutely no difference or improvement in the quality of the sound could be heard or even perceived.
It's concluded, any improvement experienced would have to be psychological through the well know placebo effect. When one is told by a reputable source (the respected manufacture, in this case) that the higher frequencies are better perceived as a more realistic sound in the higher frequencies. With such suggestion, the audiophile, lusting after improvement of the sound of his hi fi, triggers the subconscious mind to adopt this suggested claim and makes it seem as so to the audiophile when the Beaks are employed in a listening session. This is psychoacoustic at the placebo level.
If you wish to be tricked in this manner into using the Beak, then apply self-hypnosis and the Beaks will for you, dear audiophile, make the improvement claimed by the manufacturer, even if, IN FACT, and REALITY, there is no improvement in the sound that is made.
Being an audiophile, and enjoying it for over 50 years as a hobby, I have enjoyed friendships with many discerning, high end oriented audiophiles. Some of these gentlemen, with their permission, allowed me to hypnotize them with suggestions placed into their subconscious mind that for that day only, the sound of a pair of Bose 901 speakers (late 60's circa) would be the very best, most real sounding speakers they have ever heard and would want to purchase them from me.
After the hypnotic session, I took the test subject to my garage where I have a pair of Bose 901 speakers that I bought in the late 60's set up and played on an old 50 watt Scott receiver and a 1977 Techniques turntable with a Decca (burn your ears out) cartridge. I put on a very old album, Take 5, and played it (clicks, pops and all). The subject was grinning from ear-to-ear, tapping his foot to the music and could not stop talking about how marvelous, dynamic and real the Bose 901 speakers sounded in my echoing 3 car garage. What a hoot! He than told me he loved the sound of the speakers so much, he wanted to buy mine from me, and begged me to sell them to him. I refused to do so (with tongue in cheek).
After a few glasses of wine while observing my friend in Audiophile Heaven and I cringing at the horrible sound emitted from those Bose speakers, he went home with plans to buy a new pair of 901s the next day. Of course, the next day, a phone call to this test subject (and a fellow audiophile friend) discovered that he was mortified by the thought of him loving the sound of Bose 901 speakers and did not know what came over him expounding such praise for those relics. He remembered the hypnosis session and the suggestions about the Bose speakers that I skillfully implanted into his subconscious mind, and the final suggestion that the suggestions planted would no longer be valid "the net day". Had I not finished the session with that suggestion, he would be the happy owner of a pair of 901's to this day. And that, Zero is how strongly the power of suggestion skillfully applied can work on an intelligent audiophiles mind. And, the audio industry capitalizes on it to the hilt! This is how audiophiles are led, or better put, programmed by marketing firms, audio rags, reviewers and manufacturers of audio items to believe in virtues of the sound of a product which is really not there and get outrageously high prices for that product. This is how a perfectly sane, decent audiophile can be hood winked into spending $300.00 per meter for solid silver wire wrapped in a fancy covering with quality plugs with the claim you will hear all of the delicate nuances of the sound which otherwise are curtailed or compressed by lesser priced cables. Well, Zero, I got news for all audiophiles out there...an electron is an electron and as long as there is very little capacitance and resistance in an electronic conduit (wire), the electrons which travel at the speed of light in that wire doesn't give a damn what that wire is shaped like, looks like or is even what kind of ferris metal its made out of. A coat hanger wire at 1 meter will produce the exact same results as a 1 meter $100.00 10 gauge, 999.9 fine twisted copper speaker cable. That's because it is only 1 meter long. Go longer, in this case, and there is a minor difference in sound. The point is, a silver wire, versus a pure copper wire will produce the same results up to 64 feet in length before an instrument can register a difference in the signal's frequency be it a silver or copper wire of the same gauge. However, once an audiophile has it placed in his noggin that the silver wire "sounds" better than the cheaper copper wire, he is compelled to shell out way more money for the silver wire set up. Then, after the wire connection, he is reminded the wire must be broke in (like it is a motor or something that is mechanical). This, too is pure nonsense and the placebo effect at work within the subject's subconscious mind. The worst comes when after the called for break in period has lapsed, the audiophile will rave at the magnificent difference in sound heard through the new, very expensive, silver cables after they had been broken in. What makes this fun is to remove the silver cables and replace them with common lamp zip cord in the same sheathing so they look alike. In this manner, the audiophile is not aware of the swap and ask for his take again on the sound of his cables. To sit back and listen to him embellish the glorious sound he now hears due to extremely expensive solid silver wire cables versus the cheap stuff, called copper is a real hoot. Then when the audiophile has been exposed to the swap, his head drops in shame. He then realizes he has been had, his wallet emptied, and his belief system engaged to adopt an unfounded, unscientific, malicious suggestion.
'Nuff' said. Hope you enjoyed and learned from this diatribe. My best to you in your enjoyment of our wonderful hobby. Doc
First, I stand corrected. The date I indicated was a mental typo. It should have read 2001 not 1991. For that full decade of an error, I apologize.
Next, while putting a metal Beak on the top of a Hawk speaker enclosure (or any speaker enclusre for that matter) to transmit enclosure and surrounding air vibrations it absorbs, then recreates those same frequencies in an omni-directional pattern or simply reflects them in an omni-directional pattern (since the Beak is round), is still nonsense. My test instruments and ears don't lie to me. Let me fill you in so you won't be hood winked on this matter as many audiophiles have been.
In a Blind AB X human hearing test and spectrum analyzer analysis of sound test performed by the dealer and yours truly in the dealer's acoustically treated show room, each of us took turns testing each others response to what we thought we heard. One of us would listen to only one Hawk speaker, monophonically producing a 10,000Hz test tone at 80dB at 2 meters from the mid range speaker's cone while the other performed the AB X test. We both did a total of six tests each. More about the results later. Meanwhile, we conducted a separate test by setting up a calibrated microphone at the same distance and location where we sat to listen during the human hearing test.
A calibrated mic was plugged into a calibrated spectrum analyzer which analyzed the sound the mic picked up and the analyzer transmitted electronic pictures of the graphs produced by the analyzer while the speaker played a 10,000 Hz test tone from a pink noise generator so that an A B comparison could be made via the charts of a tests with and without the Beak on top of the speaker. (The results of this test are found below).
Next, a rigidly controlled hearing test was performed first as detailed above. Each of us went through 3 separate one-minute listening tests with the Beak on the speaker and 3 more tests with the Beak off of the speaker. We were blind folded and could not tell if the Beak was on the speaker enclosure or off of it while listening to the test tones.
THE RESULTS OF THE HUMAN ABX LISTENING TEST.
Out of the 3 tests with the beak sitting on the speaker, NONE of the 3 tests was "guessed" correctly by each of us, respectively. Out of the 3 tests with the Beak NOT sitting on the speaker, only one was "guessed" correctly by each of us respectively. Conclusion: The Beak made no apparent change in the sound that could be identified by a well trained audiophile's ears and brain in a controlled AB X blindfold listening test.
THE SPECTRUM ANALYZER TEST RESULTS:
A calibrated microphone was placed on a stand where we sat to listen and be tested. The mic was 3 feet from the floor and 2 meters from the midrange driver's cone. The mic was plugged into a calibrated spectrum analyzer which would show us on scope what differences in measurable sound waves (fractions of decibels) occurred with the Beak on top of the speaker and with it off the speaker. The 10Hz test tone was played on a top of the line, $3,500.00 Sony audiophile grade CD player. High end mic, connect and speaker cables were employed to connect all components and the speaker to the power amplifier. The Pre-amplifier and Power Amplifier were manufactured by Anthem and reported to be most accurate with a 115dB signal to noise ratio and flat @.005% from 5Hz to 50,000kHz. frequency response. Charts of both tests could be captured in the analyzer and printed out for visual comparison. The test was done on only one speaker (monophonic) producing the test tone @ 80dB where the microphone was placed and sound from the monophonic Hawk measured on a calibrated decibel meter. The tests were then run. The results from the spectrum analyzer were printed out. Absolutely no difference in decibels even to the most tiny fraction of a decibel could be seen when both charts were compared. 3 separate tests were run. The listening show room door was closed and the air conditioning was turned off to prevent any enterior vent noise. No cooling fans were in operation. In other words, care was taken to make certain no sound, other than from the monophonic Hawk speaker could be heard. The sound of our breathing was well below the threshold of 80dB, and therefore could not effect the test results.
CONCLUSION:
The Beak is a useless marketing gimmick. If a positive difference cannot be measured or heard by those with excellent hearing in a controlled, quiet environment, then the price one pays for these useless devices is truly a "rip off".
SUMMARY:
A final test, much like the average audiophile consumer would do was conducted using the Beak. High quality,easy listening Jazz and symphonic music was played in stereo from the Hawks by the same high end Sony CD player. The music selected on CDs was that which emphasized higher frequencies (triangles, symbols, violins, etc.). With the beaks on the speakers, then quickly removed, on and off again and again, while carefully listening, absolutely no difference or improvement in the quality of the sound could be heard or even perceived.
It's concluded, any improvement experienced would have to be psychological through the well know placebo effect. When one is told by a reputable source (the respected manufacture, in this case) that the higher frequencies are better perceived as a more realistic sound in the higher frequencies. With such suggestion, the audiophile, lusting after improvement of the sound of his hi fi, triggers the subconscious mind to adopt this suggested claim and makes it seem as so to the audiophile when the Beaks are employed in a listening session. This is psychoacoustic at the placebo level.
If you wish to be tricked in this manner into using the Beak, then apply self-hypnosis and the Beaks will for you, dear audiophile, make the improvement claimed by the manufacturer, even if, IN FACT, and REALITY, there is no improvement in the sound that is made.
Being an audiophile, and enjoying it for over 50 years as a hobby, I have enjoyed friendships with many discerning, high end oriented audiophiles. Some of these gentlemen, with their permission, allowed me to hypnotize them with suggestions placed into their subconscious mind that for that day only, the sound of a pair of Bose 901 speakers (late 60's circa) would be the very best, most real sounding speakers they have ever heard and would want to purchase them from me.
After the hypnotic session, I took the test subject to my garage where I have a pair of Bose 901 speakers that I bought in the late 60's set up and played on an old 50 watt Scott receiver and a 1977 Techniques turntable with a Decca (burn your ears out) cartridge. I put on a very old album, Take 5, and played it (clicks, pops and all). The subject was grinning from ear-to-ear, tapping his foot to the music and could not stop talking about how marvelous, dynamic and real the Bose 901 speakers sounded in my echoing 3 car garage. What a hoot! He than told me he loved the sound of the speakers so much, he wanted to buy mine from me, and begged me to sell them to him. I refused to do so (with tongue in cheek).
After a few glasses of wine while observing my friend in Audiophile Heaven and I cringing at the horrible sound emitted from those Bose speakers, he went home with plans to buy a new pair of 901s the next day. Of course, the next day, a phone call to this test subject (and a fellow audiophile friend) discovered that he was mortified by the thought of him loving the sound of Bose 901 speakers and did not know what came over him expounding such praise for those relics. He remembered the hypnosis session and the suggestions about the Bose speakers that I skillfully implanted into his subconscious mind, and the final suggestion that the suggestions planted would no longer be valid "the net day". Had I not finished the session with that suggestion, he would be the happy owner of a pair of 901's to this day. And that, Zero is how strongly the power of suggestion skillfully applied can work on an intelligent audiophiles mind. And, the audio industry capitalizes on it to the hilt! This is how audiophiles are led, or better put, programmed by marketing firms, audio rags, reviewers and manufacturers of audio items to believe in virtues of the sound of a product which is really not there and get outrageously high prices for that product. This is how a perfectly sane, decent audiophile can be hood winked into spending $300.00 per meter for solid silver wire wrapped in a fancy covering with quality plugs with the claim you will hear all of the delicate nuances of the sound which otherwise are curtailed or compressed by lesser priced cables. Well, Zero, I got news for all audiophiles out there...an electron is an electron and as long as there is very little capacitance and resistance in an electronic conduit (wire), the electrons which travel at the speed of light in that wire doesn't give a damn what that wire is shaped like, looks like or is even what kind of ferris metal its made out of. A coat hanger wire at 1 meter will produce the exact same results as a 1 meter $100.00 10 gauge, 999.9 fine twisted copper speaker cable. That's because it is only 1 meter long. Go longer, in this case, and there is a minor difference in sound. The point is, a silver wire, versus a pure copper wire will produce the same results up to 64 feet in length before an instrument can register a difference in the signal's frequency be it a silver or copper wire of the same gauge. However, once an audiophile has it placed in his noggin that the silver wire "sounds" better than the cheaper copper wire, he is compelled to shell out way more money for the silver wire set up. Then, after the wire connection, he is reminded the wire must be broke in (like it is a motor or something that is mechanical). This, too is pure nonsense and the placebo effect at work within the subject's subconscious mind. The worst comes when after the called for break in period has lapsed, the audiophile will rave at the magnificent difference in sound heard through the new, very expensive, silver cables after they had been broken in. What makes this fun is to remove the silver cables and replace them with common lamp zip cord in the same sheathing so they look alike. In this manner, the audiophile is not aware of the swap and ask for his take again on the sound of his cables. To sit back and listen to him embellish the glorious sound he now hears due to extremely expensive solid silver wire cables versus the cheap stuff, called copper is a real hoot. Then when the audiophile has been exposed to the swap, his head drops in shame. He then realizes he has been had, his wallet emptied, and his belief system engaged to adopt an unfounded, unscientific, malicious suggestion.
'Nuff' said. Hope you enjoyed and learned from this diatribe. My best to you in your enjoyment of our wonderful hobby. Doc
- Thread Author
- #11
Whats up Doc?
I truly do appreciate your dissertation. Even though you and I part ways on just about every topic that you broached, I nonetheless respect where you've landed on various subject matter. Your perspectives are informed by real-world experience, and I think there's a lot to be said about that.
My real-world experiences have led me to a completely different place. As much as I love to get nerdy about hi-fi, I've been around long enough to recognize when a conversation will become circular. So thanks for the post, and continue enjoying the tunes. I hope you'll be able to bring home those Totem's one day.
I truly do appreciate your dissertation. Even though you and I part ways on just about every topic that you broached, I nonetheless respect where you've landed on various subject matter. Your perspectives are informed by real-world experience, and I think there's a lot to be said about that.
My real-world experiences have led me to a completely different place. As much as I love to get nerdy about hi-fi, I've been around long enough to recognize when a conversation will become circular. So thanks for the post, and continue enjoying the tunes. I hope you'll be able to bring home those Totem's one day.
BruceLet
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,118
I like some of the Totem lineup. I had the Mani lls. Great monitors. They need lots of power or don't bother. I also had and liked the Totem Ones. The Forests are excellent and I think the Forest Signature could be special. I have a Storm sub in my home theater. I am not a fan of The Wind. I heard it a number of times and it was just about unlistenable, for me.
volks
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 352
Really? The Wind's are my fav Totem speaker
Just curious have you heard the newer Wind Design? There is the regular Wind speaker and the Wind Design.......I love the Wind Design Speakers........"Going a step further than the original Wind Floorstanding, the Wind Design is refined to the highest sonic tolerances. With its hand-selected drivers and exclusive crossover components, the Wind Design offers ultra-broad all-axis sound staging performance. Designed like a musical instrument, the Wind Design delivers sonic expressivity to the absolute, pulling you inside the music.Dressed for uncompromising musical renditions, the Wind Design’s six-layer multicoated finishes results in additional structural rigidity. The deep luster finish not only adds shine but also allows for a more cohesive acoustic behavior. At the base of the front baffle is a new articulating claw that is adjustable for slanting back the baffle for precise spatial alignment. The rear skid-plate decoupling system allows for additional spatial performance."
Attachments
BruceLet
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,118
Really? The Wind's are my fav Totem speaker
"Going a step further than the original Wind Floorstanding, the Wind Design is refined to the highest sonic tolerances. With its hand-selected drivers and exclusive crossover components, the Wind Design offers ultra-broad all-axis sound staging performance. Designed like a musical instrument, the Wind Design delivers sonic expressivity to the absolute, pulling you inside the music.Dressed for uncompromising musical renditions, the Wind Design’s six-layer multicoated finishes results in additional structural rigidity. The deep luster finish not only adds shine but also allows for a more cohesive acoustic behavior. At the base of the front baffle is a new articulating claw that is adjustable for slanting back the baffle for precise spatial alignment. The rear skid-plate decoupling system allows for additional spatial performance."
I'm not sure which version Wind it was. I heard the same pair in two setups. They were not for me and were not easy to get rid of when my friend sold them. I also heard them in a setup at the famous "Audio Pimp's" place.
JBLfan
New member
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 78
I still recall the day a sort of buddy called to ask if I would help him unload and hook up his brand new Totem Hawks. At that point I had never heard a pair of Hawks but had heard much about them. Long story short after we got them unloaded and hooked up to his modestly powered chi-fi integrated amplifier he was greatly disappointed. They didn’t sound to him like they did at the dealership. I hadn’t heard them before and thus had no frame of reference other than pointing out that even Totem advised a lengthy break in period.
Flash forward several weeks later once broken in he was still unhappy with the sound. Another long story short the dealer lent him a new pair of JBL’s to try and compare. He loved the JBL’s in comparison and wanted my opinion between the Totem’s and the JBL’s. It was no contest. In his system with his gear the JBL was a much more dynamic and engaging speaker. Of course the JBL’s were also much more efficient and easily driven. I asked if he minded my borrowing the Hawk’s to try in my system. He agreed to let me try them.
At that time I was running a Musical Fidelity KW-500 in my system powering a pair of panels. Another long story short once I hooked up the Totem Hawks to a much more powerful integrated amplifier it was like listening to an entirely different speaker. I was greatly impressed at the performance of the Hawk for the size and ended up cutting a deal on them with the dealer and enjoyed them for at least a year before trying something else.
I have always had a soft spot for Totem since and would be interested in trying the Forest and/or the Wind at some point. Great speakers.
Flash forward several weeks later once broken in he was still unhappy with the sound. Another long story short the dealer lent him a new pair of JBL’s to try and compare. He loved the JBL’s in comparison and wanted my opinion between the Totem’s and the JBL’s. It was no contest. In his system with his gear the JBL was a much more dynamic and engaging speaker. Of course the JBL’s were also much more efficient and easily driven. I asked if he minded my borrowing the Hawk’s to try in my system. He agreed to let me try them.
At that time I was running a Musical Fidelity KW-500 in my system powering a pair of panels. Another long story short once I hooked up the Totem Hawks to a much more powerful integrated amplifier it was like listening to an entirely different speaker. I was greatly impressed at the performance of the Hawk for the size and ended up cutting a deal on them with the dealer and enjoyed them for at least a year before trying something else.
I have always had a soft spot for Totem since and would be interested in trying the Forest and/or the Wind at some point. Great speakers.
JBLfan
New member
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 78
No question about it - glad you are enjoying the Hawk's as much as I did. And I never even tried the beak(s) on mine :disbelief:
- Thread Author
- #17
Interesting stuff boys!
So the Hawk is easily one of the most fussy speakers that I've come across. If you plan on setting them directly onto the floor and connecting em' to whatever it is you own - then there's a good chance that you'll be disappointed in what you hear. Buying a pair of Hawks is like stepping into a relationship. It can take a lot of work, but the payoff can be extraordinary.
The Forest is, in my experience, Totem's all-arounder. A speaker that's a 7 outta 10 in most regards and is easy to work with. One of the things that I like about the Forest is that you don't need a degree in electroacoustics to get good sound outta em'.
Funnily enough, the Wind uses the same drivers that are in the Forest. By and large, the voicing is very similar. The Wind is simply a touch more resolute (thanks to better crossover parts), notably more difficult to accommodate, and is obviously fuller range. Sadly, the Wind is one of the few Totem's that I haven't spent a whole bunch of personal time with.
So the Hawk is easily one of the most fussy speakers that I've come across. If you plan on setting them directly onto the floor and connecting em' to whatever it is you own - then there's a good chance that you'll be disappointed in what you hear. Buying a pair of Hawks is like stepping into a relationship. It can take a lot of work, but the payoff can be extraordinary.
The Forest is, in my experience, Totem's all-arounder. A speaker that's a 7 outta 10 in most regards and is easy to work with. One of the things that I like about the Forest is that you don't need a degree in electroacoustics to get good sound outta em'.
Funnily enough, the Wind uses the same drivers that are in the Forest. By and large, the voicing is very similar. The Wind is simply a touch more resolute (thanks to better crossover parts), notably more difficult to accommodate, and is obviously fuller range. Sadly, the Wind is one of the few Totem's that I haven't spent a whole bunch of personal time with.
Doc
New member
Hi Kiwi;
Yes, we used only one Hawk speaker (mono) to determine if the Beak made any measurable and hearable difference in the sound output of the single speaker operating at 10,000Hz @ 75dB via a test tone put out by a calibrated spectrum analyzer with the seating position and test mic at 2 meters from the mid range driver cone and the listener's ears and the mic 3 feet from the floor in the dealer's show room wich had in it properly applied room treatment. The air conditioning was turned off, the door closed to assure the room would remain extremely quiet. State-of-the-art, high end cables to mic and all connecting components and speaker were used. After the instrument and listening test were completed, no difference could be measured or heard (even perceived) with the Beak on the speaker or off of the speaker during the AB X blind test. Therefore, to spend the money called for to purchase the "optional" Beak devices for so called sound improvement would be a waste of money. Further, the Beak setting on top of a speaker looks strange and detracts from the beautiful veneer finish of the Totem Hawk speaker.
A few audiophiles to whom I have spoken about their experience with the Beak claimed it opens the ultra highs in music up and the highs sound smoother. However, in our AB X blind test, no such difference was heard or could be observed when the Hawk's 10k frequency tone was measured with calibrated, accurate, laboratory grade instrumentation. Therefore, as a professional psychotherapist, I must assume what my audiophile friends heard when they employed a Beak atop each of their speakers was caused by subconscious programming found in the marketing and advertising of the Beak in the manufacturer's literature and the dealer's recommendation (sales pitch) which caused and manipulated a belief system that an improvement in sound does occur, when in fact, none could occur based on what the Beak really is. This is, without a doubt, a perfect example of what I call the audiophile's placebo effect in affect.
As for me, I will always lean toward acoustic science confirmed with what my ears are truly hearing in an AB X blind test. This is the only intelligent way to get to the truth of audio accuracy in the audiophile's quest to reproduce sound in their listening room that is so accurate, it sounds startling real in every respect.
Talk to you later... Doc
Yes, we used only one Hawk speaker (mono) to determine if the Beak made any measurable and hearable difference in the sound output of the single speaker operating at 10,000Hz @ 75dB via a test tone put out by a calibrated spectrum analyzer with the seating position and test mic at 2 meters from the mid range driver cone and the listener's ears and the mic 3 feet from the floor in the dealer's show room wich had in it properly applied room treatment. The air conditioning was turned off, the door closed to assure the room would remain extremely quiet. State-of-the-art, high end cables to mic and all connecting components and speaker were used. After the instrument and listening test were completed, no difference could be measured or heard (even perceived) with the Beak on the speaker or off of the speaker during the AB X blind test. Therefore, to spend the money called for to purchase the "optional" Beak devices for so called sound improvement would be a waste of money. Further, the Beak setting on top of a speaker looks strange and detracts from the beautiful veneer finish of the Totem Hawk speaker.
A few audiophiles to whom I have spoken about their experience with the Beak claimed it opens the ultra highs in music up and the highs sound smoother. However, in our AB X blind test, no such difference was heard or could be observed when the Hawk's 10k frequency tone was measured with calibrated, accurate, laboratory grade instrumentation. Therefore, as a professional psychotherapist, I must assume what my audiophile friends heard when they employed a Beak atop each of their speakers was caused by subconscious programming found in the marketing and advertising of the Beak in the manufacturer's literature and the dealer's recommendation (sales pitch) which caused and manipulated a belief system that an improvement in sound does occur, when in fact, none could occur based on what the Beak really is. This is, without a doubt, a perfect example of what I call the audiophile's placebo effect in affect.
As for me, I will always lean toward acoustic science confirmed with what my ears are truly hearing in an AB X blind test. This is the only intelligent way to get to the truth of audio accuracy in the audiophile's quest to reproduce sound in their listening room that is so accurate, it sounds startling real in every respect.
Talk to you later... Doc
Last edited:
Doc
New member
Kiwi;
I suggest you go to a dealer and read the literature put out by Totem on the Beak. It is designed to radiate high frequencies from vibration of the enclosure into the beak and from the beak into the air in a 360 degree pattern, thus adding "air" to the high frequencies. Of course, this when tested, could not be seen on lab grade, calibrated instruments. As far as measuring for a sound improvement at other frequencies or all frequencies for that matter, the fact is, AB X testing of listening to a few bars of music with and with out he Beak employed show no difference. Why? Because the Beak apparently does NOT make a difference in the sound heard by a human being with excellent hearing (a trained ear) in an AB X blind listening test. So, to see if the Beak makes a difference at other frequencies within the frequency operating range of the Hawk would be an exercise in futility. AT 10KHz it made no difference, and considering the size and shape of the Beak and metal it is made from, it would have no mechanical effect on lower frequencies that are audible. It's designed, supposedly, to deal with high frequencis only.
Finallhy if the Hawk requires a Beak to sound its best or better, then that means something is wrong with the Hawk itself. I have taken note that several others speakers in the Hawk's price range sound better, measure better to confirm that better sound and do not require a king size model airplane propeller spinner to be placed on top of its enclosure to sound superior.
It's clear you are voting for the Beak to have audible meaning...to do what Totem claims it suppose to do (which it does not). Why? The truth is the truth, the Beak is marketing hype to help Totem line its coffers with more green from audiophiles who do not have the ability to measure a Hawk speaker, and test it in a properly executed AB X listening test. So, the audiophile "believies" that Totem only tells the truth about their products and, by golly if their ball bearing feet and metal beak makes their Hawk sound better, then that's what so (even though it, in TRUTH does not). Why don't you measure the beak for yourself, Kiwi at 10KHz and any other frequency you wish to test it at. Then when you come to the conclusion that the Beak makes zero difference in the sound reproduction of the speaker, you'll have to own up to the reality that Totem does toss hype into its marketing business plan at the expense of gullible audiophiles.
Gee, I think I'll cut a rubber door mat in half, place it on top of my boxed speaker enclosure and rave at how the highs were smoother, the midrange velvety and the bass was deep and lush, and all of these good things are yours for a paltry $39.95. Now, make my name Totem (a trusted speaker company), and I'll sell one hell of a lot of door mats cut in half (which, of course do nothing for the sound). However, beware, the vast majority of audiophiles who buy my rubber door mats (cut in half) will rave about how much better their speaker sound with the door mat on the speaker versus with it off. This, my friend, is how the placebo effect works. The marketing builds up a believable program with the readers/listeners subconscious mind which converts to "their" reality and no matter what you do or say, or scientifically prove, as far as that audiophile is concerned, he swears by the improvement a rubber mat cut in half and laid on his speaker has helped him experience audio heaven.
Since it is a fact people get married to widgets and things that do nothing for sound, but claim to make marvelous improvements (and don't) there is no use in laying the facts, the truth before these people. Their subconscious mind tells them the lie is true and the truth is a lie. That's when I pack my instruments up which reveal truth, and part ways with this person. If they won't accept the truth (proven reality), then I'm not going to bang my head against a wall and attempt to force the truth on this person, especially on this sit and in this this thread.
If the audiophile is happy, content and remains in a false belief system that the widget they have improves the sound from the speakers (even though it does not), then fine. The audiophile is happy, and that may be far more important than that audiophile having to admit he was hood winked by a company's marketing department.
Our hobby in audiophiledom is, in the end to bring us enjoyment, happiness and musical satisfaction. And, if a person can sit in front of a pair of 1968 circa Bose 901 speakers and swoon in utmost joy, then so be it. I could put this listener in front of the live orchestra, row J, center in Fisher Hall in New York City that he originally heard through the Bose 901 speakers and he will tell me that the sound he heard through his Bose Speakers sounded better then the same live event. That's when I throw in the sponge and simply leave this misled person as an excomunicated audiophile and walk away. He/She is beyond help.
I have pointed ears, green blood and appeal to science to confirm what I'm hearing and an AB X blind live music with recorded music played through the speakers test. If you can hear little or no differencce, you have the finest speakers available. Any differences you do hear (and you will hear them) indicates how far the speakers deviate from the real "live" sound. From there you have to decide how much of a deviation from live versus the playing of a recording thrKiough speakers you are willing to accept within the price range the speakers are selling for. As for me, I will settle for nothing less than a very near likeness of the live event. When I listen to a well recorded DVD through my speaker system (which is a custom built system), it startles people because it sound real, dynanic...you are there. My speakers, however, are also expensive. They are "state-of-the art" and SCIENCE. What excites me is hear a speaker that cost far less and is 95% of how well my speakers sound under the exact same reviewing set up.
Kiwi, true audiophiles will instantly reject a traditional assumption or belief system once it has been proven it is not "reality". They do not let ego pride or a traditional assumption get in their way. They have no concern with saving face. They simply reject what is not true and embrace what is and let the chips fall where they may. This makes the hobby far more exciting when the audiophile gives himself permission to change his mind based on facts and truth and not marketing hype or a traditional, widely accepted belief system adopted by the majority of audiophiles. The blind leading the blind can only result in a whole lot of people falling off a cliff and tends to retard advancement in our beloved hobby.
Kiwi...I would like you to get "out of the box" and look deeply into not only the Beak, but into cables, materials which enclosures are made from. Ported versus air suspension enlclosures or no enclosure at all (open back speaker), electrostatic speakers versus pulp dirvers, verus plastic panels, verus metal ribbons, versus air motion transformers, and well I could go on and on, but you get my point. Be pepared to be shocked and have your mind blow when you dig deep into these issues and apply scientific facts (math, physics, molecular structures, electrons, circuit desin and materials, and, well, on and on. The energy and effort you expend to defend what's not true out of a traditional belief system installed into ones subconscious mind by marketing hype would be much more useful and satisfying to you and readers of this site if you dug down into the hype and see if it can be proven scientifically. If so, its not hype. Its the truth. However, be prepared to discover the vast majority of what you'll challenge and test will turn out to be hype.
"Nuff said"... Doc
I suggest you go to a dealer and read the literature put out by Totem on the Beak. It is designed to radiate high frequencies from vibration of the enclosure into the beak and from the beak into the air in a 360 degree pattern, thus adding "air" to the high frequencies. Of course, this when tested, could not be seen on lab grade, calibrated instruments. As far as measuring for a sound improvement at other frequencies or all frequencies for that matter, the fact is, AB X testing of listening to a few bars of music with and with out he Beak employed show no difference. Why? Because the Beak apparently does NOT make a difference in the sound heard by a human being with excellent hearing (a trained ear) in an AB X blind listening test. So, to see if the Beak makes a difference at other frequencies within the frequency operating range of the Hawk would be an exercise in futility. AT 10KHz it made no difference, and considering the size and shape of the Beak and metal it is made from, it would have no mechanical effect on lower frequencies that are audible. It's designed, supposedly, to deal with high frequencis only.
Finallhy if the Hawk requires a Beak to sound its best or better, then that means something is wrong with the Hawk itself. I have taken note that several others speakers in the Hawk's price range sound better, measure better to confirm that better sound and do not require a king size model airplane propeller spinner to be placed on top of its enclosure to sound superior.
It's clear you are voting for the Beak to have audible meaning...to do what Totem claims it suppose to do (which it does not). Why? The truth is the truth, the Beak is marketing hype to help Totem line its coffers with more green from audiophiles who do not have the ability to measure a Hawk speaker, and test it in a properly executed AB X listening test. So, the audiophile "believies" that Totem only tells the truth about their products and, by golly if their ball bearing feet and metal beak makes their Hawk sound better, then that's what so (even though it, in TRUTH does not). Why don't you measure the beak for yourself, Kiwi at 10KHz and any other frequency you wish to test it at. Then when you come to the conclusion that the Beak makes zero difference in the sound reproduction of the speaker, you'll have to own up to the reality that Totem does toss hype into its marketing business plan at the expense of gullible audiophiles.
Gee, I think I'll cut a rubber door mat in half, place it on top of my boxed speaker enclosure and rave at how the highs were smoother, the midrange velvety and the bass was deep and lush, and all of these good things are yours for a paltry $39.95. Now, make my name Totem (a trusted speaker company), and I'll sell one hell of a lot of door mats cut in half (which, of course do nothing for the sound). However, beware, the vast majority of audiophiles who buy my rubber door mats (cut in half) will rave about how much better their speaker sound with the door mat on the speaker versus with it off. This, my friend, is how the placebo effect works. The marketing builds up a believable program with the readers/listeners subconscious mind which converts to "their" reality and no matter what you do or say, or scientifically prove, as far as that audiophile is concerned, he swears by the improvement a rubber mat cut in half and laid on his speaker has helped him experience audio heaven.
Since it is a fact people get married to widgets and things that do nothing for sound, but claim to make marvelous improvements (and don't) there is no use in laying the facts, the truth before these people. Their subconscious mind tells them the lie is true and the truth is a lie. That's when I pack my instruments up which reveal truth, and part ways with this person. If they won't accept the truth (proven reality), then I'm not going to bang my head against a wall and attempt to force the truth on this person, especially on this sit and in this this thread.
If the audiophile is happy, content and remains in a false belief system that the widget they have improves the sound from the speakers (even though it does not), then fine. The audiophile is happy, and that may be far more important than that audiophile having to admit he was hood winked by a company's marketing department.
Our hobby in audiophiledom is, in the end to bring us enjoyment, happiness and musical satisfaction. And, if a person can sit in front of a pair of 1968 circa Bose 901 speakers and swoon in utmost joy, then so be it. I could put this listener in front of the live orchestra, row J, center in Fisher Hall in New York City that he originally heard through the Bose 901 speakers and he will tell me that the sound he heard through his Bose Speakers sounded better then the same live event. That's when I throw in the sponge and simply leave this misled person as an excomunicated audiophile and walk away. He/She is beyond help.
I have pointed ears, green blood and appeal to science to confirm what I'm hearing and an AB X blind live music with recorded music played through the speakers test. If you can hear little or no differencce, you have the finest speakers available. Any differences you do hear (and you will hear them) indicates how far the speakers deviate from the real "live" sound. From there you have to decide how much of a deviation from live versus the playing of a recording thrKiough speakers you are willing to accept within the price range the speakers are selling for. As for me, I will settle for nothing less than a very near likeness of the live event. When I listen to a well recorded DVD through my speaker system (which is a custom built system), it startles people because it sound real, dynanic...you are there. My speakers, however, are also expensive. They are "state-of-the art" and SCIENCE. What excites me is hear a speaker that cost far less and is 95% of how well my speakers sound under the exact same reviewing set up.
Kiwi, true audiophiles will instantly reject a traditional assumption or belief system once it has been proven it is not "reality". They do not let ego pride or a traditional assumption get in their way. They have no concern with saving face. They simply reject what is not true and embrace what is and let the chips fall where they may. This makes the hobby far more exciting when the audiophile gives himself permission to change his mind based on facts and truth and not marketing hype or a traditional, widely accepted belief system adopted by the majority of audiophiles. The blind leading the blind can only result in a whole lot of people falling off a cliff and tends to retard advancement in our beloved hobby.
Kiwi...I would like you to get "out of the box" and look deeply into not only the Beak, but into cables, materials which enclosures are made from. Ported versus air suspension enlclosures or no enclosure at all (open back speaker), electrostatic speakers versus pulp dirvers, verus plastic panels, verus metal ribbons, versus air motion transformers, and well I could go on and on, but you get my point. Be pepared to be shocked and have your mind blow when you dig deep into these issues and apply scientific facts (math, physics, molecular structures, electrons, circuit desin and materials, and, well, on and on. The energy and effort you expend to defend what's not true out of a traditional belief system installed into ones subconscious mind by marketing hype would be much more useful and satisfying to you and readers of this site if you dug down into the hype and see if it can be proven scientifically. If so, its not hype. Its the truth. However, be prepared to discover the vast majority of what you'll challenge and test will turn out to be hype.
"Nuff said"... Doc
Last edited: