Focal Aria 906 Speaker Review

[railthe]

I have these ready in my cart, my credit card is pulled out and Im ready to order them for 540€ shipping included. Room is 3x6m (I will be 2 metres away) and I will have them on a tv table in the middle of the 6m wall. They can be placed at most 25cm away from the wall and 1m from each other though. Carpet on the floor, walls and ceiling untreated. I could have some painting on the rear wall (behind the sofa). Will these fit? Need more info or photos? ...other speakers I thought about are mentioned here. Thanks!

 

[VintageFlanker]

They can be placed at most 25cm away from the wall and 1m from each other though. Carpet on the floor, walls and ceiling untreated. I could have some painting on the rear wall (behind the sofa). Will these fit?

Your room seems to be the right size for these 906s to me. However, only one meter between both speakers won't be enough to get any sort of soundstage or center image.

and I will have them on a tv table in the middle of the 6m wall.

I would put them on stands each side next the the TV table.

 

[railthe]

Your room seems to be the right size for these 906s to me. However, only one meter between both speakers won't be enough to get any sort of soundstage or center image.

I would put them on stands each side next the the TV table.

Dont have space for that, Im moving to a small apartment with tons of stuff...

 

[leeroy 85032]

Dont have space for that, Im moving to a small apartment with tons of stuff...

i know that feeling.. makes it tough to pick speakers... i would *think* the 906's would be ok in a tight spot.. but every scenario can be different...

 

[theyellowspecial]

Well these were an interesting experiment but ultimately I prefer the JBL 530s in my den (20x11.5x8). The 906s throw a lot of sound around and the high energy early reflections in my narrow room are a bit overwhelming. I lose a lot of dynamics, impact and coherency in a haze of excess reflective energy. The more complex the music the worse the outcome. Toeing-in the speakers a meter in front of the listening position dramatically improves the presentation by removing many of the sidewall reflections but tonality begins to suffer.

However, these are excellent in a larger space where they can breathe. I put the 906s in my living room (30x15x11 open to three sides) and they're a joy to listen to there. All of that wide dispersion energy really brings a larger space to life! Fantastic critical and ambient listening.

 

[Chromatischism]

Well these were an interesting experiment but ultimately I prefer the JBL 530s in my den (20x11.5x8). The 906s throw a lot of sound around and the high energy early reflections in my narrow room are a bit overwhelming. I lose a lot of dynamics, impact and coherency in a haze of excess reflective energy. The more complex the music the worse the outcome. Toeing-in the speakers a meter in front of the listening position dramatically improves the presentation by removing many of the sidewall reflections but tonality begins to suffer.

However, these are excellent in a larger space where they can breathe. I put the 906s in my living room (30x15x11 open to three sides) and they're a joy to listen to there. All of that wide dispersion energy really brings a larger space to life! Fantastic critical and ambient listening.

Thanks for sharing. I've been contemplating the Arias for a reflective living room (hard floors, everything) and wonder if I should stick with something safer.

 

[richard12511]

Thanks for sharing. I've been contemplating the Arias for a reflective living room (hard floors, everything) and wonder if I should stick with something safer.

What about the Revel M106? Same price, and the frequency(all curves) response and vertical dispersion seem a bit better. The horizontal dispersion also looks better, as it more smoothly declines from low to high. By comparison, the Focal really widens from 5-10kHz, though I think Focal do that on purpose, and some may prefer it.

 

[Chromatischism]

What about the Revel M106? Same price, and the frequency(all curves) response and vertical dispersion seem a bit better. The horizontal dispersion also looks better, as it more smoothly declines from low to high. By comparison, the Focal really widens from 5-10kHz, though I think Focal do that on purpose, and some may prefer it.

Yeah. Looking at the towers - F36 and 926. The Focal looks nicer and has more volume so bass should be better, but I'm more confident in the Revel being nicer to a reflective room - maybe that's unjustified as they're both supposed to be really good.

 

[daftcombo]

Hi @Maiky76 ,
Could you do the EQ for this one also?
I want to try it as Aria 906 are my daily living-room speakers.

 

[BYRTT]

Hi @Maiky76 ,
Could you do the EQ for this one also?
I want to try it as Aria 906 are my daily living-room speakers.

In meantime you could try below simple two synthetic models based Amirs spindata ..

First synthetic model use 5 times PEQ and target is direct sound of listening window..

Second synthetic model use 4 times PEQ and target is far field smooth power response, theres a chance this policy output Revel like sound based info this post (429) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-powered-monitor.17723/page-22#post-588035..

 

[daftcombo]

In meantime you could try below simple two synthetic models based Amirs spindata ..

First synthetic model use 5 times PEQ and target is direct sound of listening window..

View attachment 97253

Second synthetic model use 4 times PEQ and target is far field smooth power response, theres a chance this policy output Revel like sound based info this post (429) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-powered-monitor.17723/page-22#post-588035..

View attachment 97255

Thanks, I will try them but I'm pretty sure both will give a nasty sound.

With the first there will be hashness due to the bump at 6-7 kHz off-axis.
With the second, that area will be lacking.
Directivity errors are NOT corrigible by EQ.

It looks worse than it will sound, though.

 

[BYRTT]

Thanks, I will try them but I'm pretty sure both will give a nasty sound.

With the first there will be hashness due to the bump at 6-7 kHz off-axis.
With the second, that area will be lacking.
Directivity errors are NOT corrigible by EQ.

It looks worse than it will sound, though.

Thanks and agree except i dont really know how it will sound but you find out below are detailed curves for listening window and the all way around four sectors..

First model..

second model..

 

[Maiky76]

@daftcombo
Here is my thoughts on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 5.57
With Sub: 7.93
Spinorama with no EQ:

• A large high-shelf to have a steeper built in slope and to correct the directivity errors at HF (easy to see on the different graphs)
• The Focal team clearly tune the speaker for best in-room performance as opposed to flat LW/ON in the anechoic room
• Nice to see that the port does not go mental (at least at the level tested by @amirm)

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
and smooth out the ON peaks

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat to follow up the discussion, most probably not recommended, but if you want to try it... It'll give us one more data point
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The Score EQ reverts back to a close to out-of-the-box curve at HF to deal with afore mentioned directivity error.
  The Focal team knew what they were doing it seems...
• I would probably play with one more PK if I were to listen ON but if one follows the recommendation regarding the toe-in it should be fine as is.

Score EQ LW: 5.11 lower than the bare speaker showing that the flat LW EQ might not be a good idea...
with sub: 7.48
Score EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.68

Focal 906 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
December072020-113521

Preamp: -3.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 96 Hz Gain -1.31 dB Q 1.97
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 844.5 Hz Gain -1.64 dB Q 3.73
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1395 Hz Gain 1.47 dB Q 5.85
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1144 Hz Gain 0.74 dB Q 6.26
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3226 Hz Gain 1.64 dB Q 3.62
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7351 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 0.42

Focal 906 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
December072020-113324

Preamp: -3.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.9 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 1.68
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 808.4 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 2.65
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1118 Hz Gain 0.82 dB Q 8.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1433 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 8.7
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3327 Hz Gain 2.72 dB Q 2.1
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5995 Hz Gain -2.38 dB Q 0.51
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7253 Hz Gain 2.9 dB Q 0.35
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9473.5 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 3

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[daftcombo]

@daftcombo
Here is my thoughts on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 5.57
With Sub: 7.93
Spinorama with no EQ:

• A large high-shelf to have a steeper built in slope and to correct the directivity errors at HF (easy to see on the different graphs)
• The Focal team clearly tune the speaker for best in-room performance as opposed to flat LW/ON in the anechoic room
• Nice to see that the port does not go mental (at least at the level tested by @amirm)

View attachment 97683
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
and smooth out the ON peaks
View attachment 97674
View attachment 97681
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat to follow up the discussion, most probably not recommended, but if you want to try it... It'll give us one more data point
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The Score EQ reverts back to a close to out-of-the-box curve at HF to deal with afore mentioned directivity error.
  The Focal team knew what they were doing it seems...
• I would probably play with one more pW if I were to listen ON but is one follows the recommendation on the toe it should be fine

Score EQ LW: 5.11 lower that the bare speaker showing that the flat LW EQ might not be a good idea...
with sub: 7.48
Score EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.68

Focal 906 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
December072020-113521

Preamp: -3.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 96 Hz Gain -1.31 dB Q 1.97
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 844.5 Hz Gain -1.64 dB Q 3.73
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1395 Hz Gain 1.47 dB Q 5.85
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1144 Hz Gain 0.74 dB Q 6.26
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3226 Hz Gain 1.64 dB Q 3.62
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7351 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 0.42

Focal 906 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
December072020-113324

Preamp: -3.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.9 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 1.68
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 808.4 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 2.65
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1118 Hz Gain 0.82 dB Q 8.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1433 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 8.7
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3327 Hz Gain 2.72 dB Q 2.1
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5995 Hz Gain -2.38 dB Q 0.51
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7253 Hz Gain 2.9 dB Q 0.35
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9473.5 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 3

View attachment 97677

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 97678
Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 97679
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 97691
Regression - Tonal
View attachment 97688
Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
View attachment 97685

The rest of the plots is attached.

Thanks a bunch!
I will try the second one to begin with.

 

[daftcombo]

@daftcombo
Here is my thoughts on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 5.57
With Sub: 7.93
Spinorama with no EQ:

• A large high-shelf to have a steeper built in slope and to correct the directivity errors at HF (easy to see on the different graphs)
• The Focal team clearly tune the speaker for best in-room performance as opposed to flat LW/ON in the anechoic room
• Nice to see that the port does not go mental (at least at the level tested by @amirm)

View attachment 97683
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
and smooth out the ON peaks
View attachment 97674
View attachment 97681
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat to follow up the discussion, most probably not recommended, but if you want to try it... It'll give us one more data point
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The Score EQ reverts back to a close to out-of-the-box curve at HF to deal with afore mentioned directivity error.
  The Focal team knew what they were doing it seems...
• I would probably play with one more PK if I were to listen ON but if one follows the recommendation regarding the toe-in it should be fine as is.

Score EQ LW: 5.11 lower than the bare speaker showing that the flat LW EQ might not be a good idea...
with sub: 7.48
Score EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.68

Focal 906 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
December072020-113521

Preamp: -3.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 96 Hz Gain -1.31 dB Q 1.97
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 844.5 Hz Gain -1.64 dB Q 3.73
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1395 Hz Gain 1.47 dB Q 5.85
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1144 Hz Gain 0.74 dB Q 6.26
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3226 Hz Gain 1.64 dB Q 3.62
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7351 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 0.42

Focal 906 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
December072020-113324

Preamp: -3.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.9 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 1.68
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 808.4 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 2.65
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1118 Hz Gain 0.82 dB Q 8.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1433 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 8.7
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3327 Hz Gain 2.72 dB Q 2.1
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5995 Hz Gain -2.38 dB Q 0.51
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7253 Hz Gain 2.9 dB Q 0.35
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9473.5 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 3

View attachment 97677

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 97678
Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 97679
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 97691
Regression - Tonal
View attachment 97688
Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
View attachment 97685

The rest of the plots is attached.

Hello,
Would it be possible to have the "Score" EQ with minimum use of PEQ? That is, not constructing it above the "LW" EQ.

 

[BYRTT]

Hello,
Would it be possible to have the "Score" EQ with minimum use of PEQ? That is, not constructing it above the "LW" EQ.

Hi imagine reason is your hardware have limits such as be it ADI-2 or miniDSP units, alternative four filter string below should work in one HP filter cascaded three PEQs but if you haven't that HP filter available then tell me exactly what the hardware unit is or the numbers of filters and types available and we can work it out, have fun ..

Animation below toggle Maiky76 full blown score EQ (blue filter curve) verse above alternative filter string (red filter curve) and omits correction that could be caused by port noice or diffraction..

 

[daftcombo]

Hi imagine reason is your hardware have limits such as be it ADI-2 or miniDSP units, alternative four filter string below should work in one HP filter cascaded three PEQs but if you haven't that HP filter available then tell me exactly what the hardware unit is or the numbers of filters and types available and we can work it out, have fun ..

View attachment 98699

Animation below toggle Maiky76 full blown score EQ (blue filter curve) verse above alternative filter string (red filter curve) and omits correction that could be caused by port noice or diffraction..
View attachment 98700

I will use Rephase and don't have limitation but would like to ABX each PEQ independantly to hear how it improves sound.
So the less the better.

 

[BYRTT]

I will use Rephase and don't have limitation but would like to ABX each PEQ independantly to hear how it improves sound.
So the less the better.

Okay if Rephase is usecase you can load below attached txt-file that is the listening window offset to zero dB, that way you can follow visual each filters setting of Maiky76, and in there is no limitation and if you try the second correction from post 351 then add a fifth PEQ than cover above 10kHz using numbers 15713Hz/+2,7dB/Q2,2 ..

 

[Maiky76]

Hello,
Would it be possible to have the "Score" EQ with minimum use of PEQ? That is, not constructing it above the "LW" EQ.

Original EQ Score:
EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.68

You could try this:
EQ Score Reduced: 6.38
with sub: 8.63

EQ score Reduced:

Focal 906 APO EQ Score Reduced 96000Hz
December132020-095828

Preamp: -3.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.9 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 1.68
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 808.4 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 2.65
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1115 Hz Gain 0.93 dB Q 8.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1437 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 6.95
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3329 Hz Gain 3.1 dB Q 2.1
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 13385 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 2.19

Spinorama EQ Score Reduced

 

[daftcombo]

Original EQ Score:
EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.68

You could try this:
EQ Score Reduced: 6.38
with sub: 8.63

EQ score Reduced:

Focal 906 APO EQ Score Reduced 96000Hz
December132020-095828

Preamp: -3.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.9 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 105 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 1.68
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 808.4 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 2.65
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1115 Hz Gain 0.93 dB Q 8.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1437 Hz Gain 1.85 dB Q 6.95
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3329 Hz Gain 3.1 dB Q 2.1
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 13385 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 2.19

View attachment 98819

Spinorama EQ Score Reduced
View attachment 98820

I created the RePhase filter today and will be testing it from now on.