Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
I am not a fan of VTL amplification. This is the culprit imho. Plus dCS stuff only seems to work for me on ReVo stands.
I am not a fan of VTL amplification. This is the culprit imho. Plus dCS stuff only seems to work for me on ReVo stands.
Robert
Tapehead
This is very important.
I've heard some Focal models and disliked then, other times I've enjoyed them.
The rooms in each case were very different though I've no idea if there is a Focal house sound.
The room in which I found them really poor was very sparsely furnished with bare walls, and the replay level was high which made everything sound hard, relentless and forward. On the other hand they sounded absolutely fine in a nicely furnished room at more moderate levels.
Not sure of the model - tall floorstanding version with 'be Electra' in the name rings a bell.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
A good point. There are national preferences in room design, which have serious consequences in how off axis treble is lost or reflected.
In hot countries like Malaysia it is unusual to have fitted carpets and the effect is a very reverberant environment with little high frequency damping. Unfortunately the hifi shows are held in hotels with over-damped rooms and the shops are similar
In hot countries like Malaysia it is unusual to have fitted carpets and the effect is a very reverberant environment with little high frequency damping. Unfortunately the hifi shows are held in hotels with over-damped rooms and the shops are similar
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
I understand.
The compromises are IME in bass extension and absolute level capability - neither of which is as important to me personally as other areas of reproduction.
It's also worth bearing in mind that speakers and ears are two parts of a whole. To suggest that we need an empirically flat response at the speaker is to suggest that wearing a specific magnification of prescription spectacles makes observing the Mona Lisa invalid.
Bass extension is what I meant, I'm sure they have enough level.
One surprising thing about moving from 100s to 150s was how much better the mids and top sound.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Different positioning, due to their different bass response, might be a factor (leaving aside the changed baffle step). I am a big believer in right-sizing the speaker to the room, even if it's not an exact science!
Darren
davidsrsb
pfm Member
Looking at reviews of the Chorus 826W, I see a minimum impedance of 2.9 Ohms and 3.83 Ohms at -53 phase. This is an evil load. It's a bit hot around 10 kHz too.
The Utopia III managed 1.7 Ohms minimum and 2.3 Ohms at +40 phase - even worse. It measured very flat response.
These impedances will make most amplifiers struggle and are likely to cause SOA protection to activate at moderate volume
The Utopia III managed 1.7 Ohms minimum and 2.3 Ohms at +40 phase - even worse. It measured very flat response.
These impedances will make most amplifiers struggle and are likely to cause SOA protection to activate at moderate volume
richardg
Admonishtrator
Interesting....focal are hugely popular in studios, particularly home studios. I use Adam in mine as the ribbon tweeter is fab.
I think I recognise your name from gearslutz?
Robert
Tapehead
...and it's likely to really magnify the differences heard between valve amplifiers where used. Not a bad thing if you regard that as offering choice.
Where in the response do these impedance drops occur?
davidsrsb
pfm Member
The Chorus has the extreme reactive at 94 Hz and the Utopia at 126 Hz. This is a common feature of Hi End speakers, the Wilson Audio Sasha hits 3 Ohms, -43 phase at 61 Hz. Most rock music has peak power densities at these frequencies and the low frequency means that the SOA curve is pushed for several milliseconds, increasing the risk of protection cutting in or devices blowing.
These low values will make tonal balance shift dramatically with low feedback valve amplifiers. A tone control would be a lot cheaper.
These low values will make tonal balance shift dramatically with low feedback valve amplifiers. A tone control would be a lot cheaper.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
I don't know of anyone using Focals with a SET. I use valves with the Diablos as do many. My feeling is they could do with a fairly powerful PP valve amp if that's the route you choose.
In my quest for speakers, I stumbled across some half price 714 floorstanders from Divine Audio (to whom I have no connection). I'd never thought of floorstanders, and never heard of Focal, but gave them a go.
I just love 'em. Total wow fatcor. I have a Yam AS1000 amp, which has a smooth yet detailed sound with plenty of oomph, and this seems to be a good combo with the Focals. I'd describe the main attribute if them as clarity, very detailed sound, and it seems to float around the room without being tied to the speakers: the singer seems to hang in the air. I can see why it could be seen as bright: with a sharper amp it would go over the edge, but with the Yam, just right. It is a very revealing sound, and like I say, very clear and open. The bass seems about right - I don't notice it being too much or little: it all seems to be in balance.
Balance sums it up; clear but not bright, lovely tone but not not wooly, good attack and dynamics but not fatiguing.
All this is my opiniom, in my room and to my ears, of course. But I do think Focals get
a bad press. Perhaps they are a difficult speaker to get to sing properly (and I did so by accident).
phydeau
I just love 'em. Total wow fatcor. I have a Yam AS1000 amp, which has a smooth yet detailed sound with plenty of oomph, and this seems to be a good combo with the Focals. I'd describe the main attribute if them as clarity, very detailed sound, and it seems to float around the room without being tied to the speakers: the singer seems to hang in the air. I can see why it could be seen as bright: with a sharper amp it would go over the edge, but with the Yam, just right. It is a very revealing sound, and like I say, very clear and open. The bass seems about right - I don't notice it being too much or little: it all seems to be in balance.
Balance sums it up; clear but not bright, lovely tone but not not wooly, good attack and dynamics but not fatiguing.
All this is my opiniom, in my room and to my ears, of course. But I do think Focals get
a bad press. Perhaps they are a difficult speaker to get to sing properly (and I did so by accident).
phydeau
hifinutt
hifinutt
have you heard any diablo`s , they can go loud if you want !
Paul S
pfm Member
Don't shoot the messenger... Focal speakers are all about garbage in and garbage out. The top end is very revealing and unforgivably showing up Naim amps unfortunately. You need something like a VTL, Berning or Vitus amp and a serious front end. Then Focals are magical.
I had a pair of shiny black 806s as a stop gap.
This gap was filled for about 9 months as I found them to be excellent, sound and build wise, and was in no hurry to change them. I like a fairly bright sound so they sounded fine to me and the bass was very good for such a size.
However, their biggest weakness for me was reproduction of acoustic instruments, particularly solo piano, and had I not already factory ordered my 'permanent' speakers I would have been very happy keeping them.
I also enjoyed my Triangle Alteas which had a similar sound to my ears.
This gap was filled for about 9 months as I found them to be excellent, sound and build wise, and was in no hurry to change them. I like a fairly bright sound so they sounded fine to me and the bass was very good for such a size.
However, their biggest weakness for me was reproduction of acoustic instruments, particularly solo piano, and had I not already factory ordered my 'permanent' speakers I would have been very happy keeping them.
I also enjoyed my Triangle Alteas which had a similar sound to my ears.
That sounds like the Sugden couldn't drive them. I would never call PMC warm. The studio monitor range is neutral and revealing. Amps without enough drive make them sound crap though. Ideally they should be tri-amped or active.
I agree with EE - the top of the ATC midrange due to the breakup drives me nuts. I cant understand why they haven't fixed it after all this time. I believe measurements substantiating these issues were posted some years back on ZG. Industry professionals regard them highly as a tool to do a job not for listening enjoyment.
I heard a pair of high end focal many years ago and it was very bright.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Jek, the graph I refer to below is the ZG one.
The following may be true ...
... but a recurrent comment from pros is how non-fatiguing they are.
I realise I'm coming across as defensive!
But I'm not in the habit of posting back when people say they just don't like the sound of ATCs, that is their valid opinion. And I DON'T question your subjective preferences (I owned PMC AB1 monitors for many years and I loved them) - I question that the ZG graph substantiates an issue one should associate with preferences.
Darren
Yes compared to other studio monitors which have no pretensions to listening for pleasure
From my recollection the ZG argument looked very plausible
Its not really a preference. Generally I like the sound of the ATC its just the problem at the top of the mid that I find hard to listen to and is made harder by the fact they do a lot of other things right whereas other speakers don't
From my recollection the ZG argument looked very plausible
Its not really a preference. Generally I like the sound of the ATC its just the problem at the top of the mid that I find hard to listen to and is made harder by the fact they do a lot of other things right whereas other speakers don't