Best speakers in the world?

[RayDunzl]

I'm surprised Focal's passives are liked around here but their pro monitors get no love at all.

They're French.

I can't think of anything I have that is French.

Except my Edith Piaff CD.

And some frozen French Fries.

And maybe some not-gonna-be-used French's Mustard in the cupboard.

Ok, I was wrong.

Where's my nearest Focal Pro Audio dealer?

 

[napilopez]

That is awesome. I am impressed with Choras performance compared to Aria, but I got Arias because they come in a bigger model (948) and I got a great deal (40% off MSRP), which would be hard to find in something as new as Chora. Aria 906 measured only slightly better than Chora 806 and the Choras look a little better to me. I think the Kantas have the most advanced design, and I also think a HT is hard to beat with stereo. While I am not surprised Kanta HT setup was better to you than the Grand Utopia, I am a little surprused the Grand Utopias were not incredible in that room. If I were old enough for a midlife crisis I would probably have gotten Kanta No 3s. They look like the best out of everything tjey have, at least for a 50m sq. High ceiling Room like mine.

Revels may have won a double blind test, but they are not even made in America or Europe. I would not pay that kind of money for something from a low cost location.

Don't get me wrong; the Utopias were super impressive! They sounded huge. But that one flaw in the bass stuck out like sore thumb, and I'm not sure they sounded *that* much better than the other speakers I heard. I've also noted before that I'm personally never all that wowed by big speakers. A big speaker sounds big - so what? It should. A small speaker sounds big? Now that's impressive.

I feel that if cost we're no object, the Sopras as would be my ideal line, in terms of aesthetics and performance. The white and wood colorway is gorgeous. I do love the look of the Kantas too though.

Personally I generally couldn't care less where speakers are made, as long as they're made well and the process is ethical(that's loaded, of course). That said Focal's operation was super impressive and I was surprised by how much of a human element there was to both the cabinetry and electromechanical aspects; I did not expect the high end W drivers to literally be squished into molds by human hands, for example. You'd expect a robot to be doing that.

As much as I admire their measured performance, I personally wouldn't get Revels because I think the lot of them are ugly . No matter how much I love music, I spend more time looking at the speakers than listening to them. But maybe that'll change once I actually get to hear a pair...

I'm surprised Focal's passives are liked around here but their pro monitors get no love at all.
Even though they use higher end "W" sandwich drivers vs the Kanta's Flax drivers. View attachment 89940

I think the reason is simple: The passives measure among the best passive speakers in frequency response and directivity, and appear to be very competitive in their price brackets. But the monitors do not appear to measure among the very best monitors.

Focal doesn't use DSP on its speakers to correct the frequency response. It would be easy, but they opt not to do it, seemingly out of an IMO-misguided desire for "purity." Its passive designs are often impressive in the price range, employ beautiful craftsmanship, and are made in France, but in a monitor where performance arguably matters above all else, not using DSP to get that last ounce of performance just doesn't make sense to me.

They are relatively unique in the space for having wider directivity than normal above 5kHz, which can make them a nice contrast to waveguided designs. As noted in the other thread, that's part of what gives Focal speakers that Focal sound.

My directivity preferences alone would make me want to use them in a studio setup, knowing what I like. But when it comes to recommendations, it's hard to give the monitors a universal pass the way one would, say, Neumann and Genelec when: 1) Focal doesn't publish measurements 2) Other brands measure better in third-party data 3) That data suggests Focal's monitors don't measure significantly better than their passive models.

 

[RayDunzl]

Where's my nearest Focal Pro Audio dealer?

Miami

and Daytona.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I think that digital beam shaping and room interaction fixes like that seen from D&D, B&O, and Kii are probably the new frontier of SOTA speaker design. All of these ultra high end designs are probably gonna have to go active and implement some form of those features for me to consider them in the running for "best speaker in the world". I'm hoping that these new active SOTA speakers will convince some of the big boys(like Focal) to step up to the plate and challenge them. Unfortunately, I think most audiophile's still (wrongly) believe that active designs can't possibly sound as good as passive designs; this board is the exception.

If that is the new frontier, then I don't think there will be much improvement in future. What I'd like to see is speakers that can go beyond the limitations of stereo.

 

[TankTop]

Apparently I have my cookies turned on but this headline is still funny. I almost feel like I’m playing monopoly and I landed on Park Pl.

 

[richard12511]

I did a very extensive speaker audition/search within the last few years which included auditioning the Focal Kanta 2. I really like the looks and stylin' of the Kanta 2/3 models. The Kanta 2 didn't really do it for me - very clear, clean upper frequencies but overall a bit too clinical/electronic sounding, and the bass didn't seem well integrated. I don't know if much changed with the Kanta 3 or not as I haven't heard them. I also found the Focal stand mounted speakers too "cool" sounding, missing some satisfying body and richness. But their really big models sounded richer and fuller at shows. I always have felt that Focal had a bit of a "look at me" sound to the upper frequencies, like the company was super proud of it's tweeters so you are damned well gonna notice them! But though I went a different direction I certainly get the appeal of the Focal speakers.

It’s probably the wider dispersion from 5-10kHz that you’re hearing. I believe that “house sound” comes from the convex tweeters that they use, and I believe that’s what @napilopez likes about their speakers. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[richard12511]

If that is the new frontier, then I don't think there will be much improvement in future. What I'd like to see is speakers that can go beyond the limitations of stereo.

I agree with you. I upmix all my music to multichannel. Baby steps, though. I didn’t say it was the final frontier

 

[Helicopter]

I agree with you. I upmix all my music to multichannel. Baby steps, though. I didn’t say it was the final frontier

The final frontier may be something like the sound on the holodeck in Star Trek where it is completely three dimensional and completely audibly transparent. I am sure lots of stuff on the path will be uber expensive, and handmade in high cost locations as well as low cost locations. eardrums respond to movement of your eyes, changing what you hear. This helps you locate things and determine distances. And then there is head turning. The market for stereo is not going away, but a ton of excellent powered speakers with something like a 100x better Dirac seems like the best way to step toward that. Good sources will be a problem, so it will take time.

 

[TankTop]

The final frontier may be something like the sound on the holodeck in Star Trek where it is completely three dimensional and completely audibly transparent......with something like a 100x better Dirac seems like the best way to step toward that. Good sources will be a problem, so it will take time.

I’ve wondered how long it will be until we can “image” sound actively in a room? Perhaps some sort of millimeter wave radar that can see sound vibrations in air? Perhaps an easier solution would be an isolated microphone attached to every speaker in a surround system actively giving feedback to a processor?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If that is the new frontier, then I don't think there will be much improvement in future. What I'd like to see is speakers that can go beyond the limitations of stereo.

I am not sure what you mean by that but many of us have gone beyond stereo.........

I agree with you. I upmix all my music to multichannel. Baby steps, though. I didn’t say it was the final frontier

............to music recorded in multichannel and played back as such.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think it's conceivable that audio ultimately won't be reproduced acoustically at all, instead happening at a neurological level.

But I think the more immediate step forward (well, it's kinda already here, just not widely accessible yet) involves in-ear reproduction tailored to individuals' HRTFs, which when done well is capable of very convincingly creating a 360° aural scene. The main obstacle atm seems to be the expense/inconvenience of taking a listeners' HRTF, plus ofc the lack of equipment/program to utilise it (head-tracking is very important, for example).

I can see this spreading in tandem with a shift towards object-based audio, no doubt driven mostly by the video games industry rather than the audio industry per se.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think it's conceivable that audio ultimately won't be reproduced acoustically at all, instead happening at a neurological level.

I do that all the time without any technology.

But I think the more immediate step forward (well, it's kinda already here, just not widely accessible yet) involves in-ear reproduction tailored to individuals' HRTFs, which when done well is capable of very convincingly creating a 360° aural scene. The main obstacle atm seems to be the expense/inconvenience of taking a listeners' HRTF, plus ofc the lack of equipment/program to utilise it (head-tracking is very important, for example).

The Smyth brothers have most of the necessary technology although they apply it to headphone playback.

 

[richard12511]

............to music recorded in multichannel and played back as such.

That's the ultimate experience, but for me, up-mixed 2 channel(with some personal modifications to the process) is still preferable to straight 2 channel.

 

[richard12511]

You can put really good DSP even without an ADC between your streamer and DAC for $170 - 400 with miniDSP,

Indeed, and that's something I do, and would recommend.

so what is wrong with separate amps and good passive speakers? Is it just the passive crossovers in the speakers to which you object? ... serious question. That would be a rational reason. I am guessing there are others.

Passive crossovers are indeed (imo) sub-optimal, but I think a good passive crossover designer can probably get pretty close. The bigger advantage these new active speakers have comes in the design phase. Doing everything digitally, they can actually design the speakers in ways(ex: using rear/side firing drivers and playing with driver phase relationships) that allow them to fine tune the shape of the speaker's dispersion. Modifications like that are near impossible for the end consumer to do with a minidsp.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I’ve wondered how long it will be until we can “image” sound actively in a room? Perhaps some sort of millimeter wave radar that can see sound vibrations in air? Perhaps an easier solution would be an isolated microphone attached to every speaker in a surround system actively giving feedback to a processor?

If you're talking about sound being imaged all around the room, completely detached from the speakers, this has been done for quite awhile. Chesky's 'O Magnum Mysterium' fills the entire room, and many other of Chesky's releases also image this way. Boris Blank's 'Electrified' has sounds rotating around the boundaries of the room and over your head (this is done with HRTF processors like Panorama, which I use - https://wavearts.com/products/plugins/panorama-6/). Bersarin Quartett's releases also do this very effectively (https://bersarinquartett.bandcamp.com/album/methoden-und-maschinen). There's a lot of newer music which is processed this way; search them out on your streaming source.

To get this level of imaging, your speakers must be placed out into the room and attention paid to symmetry of placement and of the room. Your speakers need to have good imaging to start with also. If everything is right and with the right recordings, your room's walls will almost disappear.

Personally, even though I have a multi-channel setup, I believe plain old two channel stereo has the capability - with the right recordings - of projecting a more seamless sound field than multiple speakers.

 

[onion]

I prefer BACCH-dsp to my multichannel setup - both using same amplifier/ speaker combination. Music-generating sources are much more convincingly 'projected' to a well-defined 3d space in the room with BACCH. With BACCH, one doesn't have to worry about symmetry or placement at all.

 

[krabapple]

To get this level of imaging, your speakers must be placed out into the room and attention paid to symmetry of placement and of the room. Your speakers need to have good imaging to start with also. If everything is right and with the right recordings, your room's walls will almost disappear.

..which takes us right back to the argument about whether 'imaging quality' is an inherent property of a loudspeaker. Rather than a product of speaker placement x room interaction.

 

[A800]

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

..which takes us right back to the argument about whether 'imaging quality' is an inherent property of a loudspeaker. Rather than a product of speaker placement x room interaction.

I believe its both. Of course the type of speaker (di-polar, bi-polar, horn, omnidirectional, conventional etc) heavily influences how the speaker interacts with the room, so the issue gets a bit into circular logic. And as I mentioned, placement plays a large part in imaging - especially depth imaging.

 

[outfaced]

interesting ... see here maintained monitor speakers like genelec or focal, but no atc ... i think active SCM 100-150 and above are definitely among the best sepekers