• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Focal Chora 816 Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 5 1.7%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 27 9.1%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 168 56.8%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 96 32.4%

  • Total voters
    296

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
This is OT, but I've never understood why "home cinema" needs 3, when it's accepted and established that stereo music is fine with 2.

Stereo was crippled from 3 to 2 channels because the consumer delivery media (vinyl, I think FM radio too) weren’t good enough for 3 channels.

That’s a long way of saying your premise is wrong. Three channels up front are better for music. The home cinema stuff is gravy.

And, unless you have an acoustically transparent screen, where do you put a centre floorstander anyway?

You just raise the screen to a more reasonable height.

In our current home, we don’t use towers but the monitors are properly placed with the tweeter at seated ear height, which puts the top of the front three speakers at 50” give or take. The TV (a 65” LG OLED) starts an inch or two above the center channel. That makes the audio setup appropriate for everything and the screen height has no drawbacks in our use.

I've used a stereo pair with a TV for as long as I can remember and I never feel I'm missing anything.

That’s just TV. Multichannel audio is a lot more than just TV or movies.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
You've been here over four years and you still haven't figured it out.

And I'm definitely not donating currency to someone that already has enough for his emmy polish.
Maybe you haven't been here long enough to figure it out. As to money, no one is asking you to do that. What is required though is a cogent and intelligent post explaining what you mean. Just insulating motivates us to show you the door as there are plenty of people who only know that....
 

AudioSceptic

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
2,691
Likes
2,534
Location
Northampton, UK
We do actually. The frequency response of the phantom center is pretty screwed up. Yet, that is where vocal supposed to land. Whoever is mixing the music is trying to compensate for that but with each setup being different as far as speakers, level of reflections, and distance/angle, it is a crapshoot.
I can't say that I notice that as such a problem, but if it is, surely the answer is in improving the environment for what is a 2-channel system, not adding a third pseudo channel which can only be a crude average of the other 2, requires a third amp channel, etc.? Back in the 70s Ambisonics was developed (I think Michael Gerzon was the main author) to recreate a 3-D soundfield. Perhaps its day might still come?
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
I do hope one day that can incorporate the baffle diffraction signature, because taking near field measurements of all the drivers and then make deductions from them is can lead to big errors.
Near-field measurements are a quickie to give some idea of resonances and such. In no way are they intended to show the true response of the speaker. Otherwise, i would not be needing the Klippel NFS! So while I appreciate the offer, there is no more that I like to do for that section of the measurements. As it is, it is rather time consuming when the port is on the back and such.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
I can't say that I notice that as such a problem, but if it is, surely the answer is in improving the environment for what is a 2-channel system, not adding a third pseudo channel which can only be a crude average of the other 2, requires a third amp channel, etc.?
??? In a multi-channel mix, the center speaker is properly assigned what is supposed to be there. It is not a psuedo thing. If you mean simulated surround, yes there can be issues there but not with true multi-channel which is what we have in home theater applications (where this speaker is targeted). The frequency response is definitely wrong for a phantom image. From Dr. Toole's chapter 9:

1679010107203.png

As you see, there is a pronounced rip between 1 and 2 kHz -- precisely what you do NOT want.
 

AudioSceptic

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
2,691
Likes
2,534
Location
Northampton, UK
??? In a multi-channel mix, the center speaker is properly assigned what is supposed to be there. It is not a psuedo thing. If you mean simulated surround, yes there can be issues there but not with true multi-channel which is what we have in home theater applications (where this speaker is targeted). The frequency response is definitely wrong for a phantom image. From Dr. Toole's chapter 9:

View attachment 272402
As you see, there is a pronounced rip between 1 and 2 kHz -- precisely what you do NOT want.
How much music is released in multi-channel? I thought this site was all about good SQ for music. Anyway, off to bed!
 

tktran303

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
683
Likes
1,179
Near-field measurements are a quickie to give some idea of resonances and such. In no way are they intended to show the true response of the speaker. Otherwise, i would not be needing the Klippel NFS! So while I appreciate the offer, there is no more that I like to do for that section of the measurements. As it is, it is rather time consuming when the port is on the back and such.

No I don’t mean true response. Of course not.

I agree that on the low end of port or passive radiator- it’s true contribution to the bass can’t be measured in the nearfield; the diffraction of the cabinet causes the baffle step loss; and what happens at 1m is slightly different at 2m or 3m, in a non reverberant (anechoic) field. Luckily the NFS does that but for you, so you don’t need to do any software based corrections for that.

I’m talking about the top end.
You’ve probably mused as to what causes a resonance- is it a port or is it a driver a bit of or both?

This must be a headache and extra work annotating resonances. So I wonder whether it’s even worth including a nearfield graph?

For instance, a nearfield of a tweeter (ie. mic up up almost touching it) only shows what the dome material is doing. Not the surround, or tweeter housing, the waveguide or the baffle.

Similarly a nearfield of a port or woofer is only accurate up to 4311/diameter of port/cone in inches. For instance, a 6.5” midwoofer has a typical cone diameter of 5”. So a nearfield (ie. 1-2cm from the cone) is only good up to 4311/5= 862 Hz or so. Everything higher than this is inaccurate and usually disregarded by loudspeaker designers..

If we take a measurement at an arbitrary distance like 10cm; that even creates more confusion because it’s not really a near field and not really a far field. Double confusion.

So have you considered blurring the regions that are inaccurate? Or truncating the graphs?

Sometimes I think bad data can be worse than no data.

I stopped posting measurements that may be misinterpreted. Not because it’s only wrong, or that it further causes confusion and perpetuates it, but because it create 101 questions that I have to followup.

But maybe you’ve learnt to ignore those questions better than I have.

For those following along, I’m not talking about nearfield or midfield or farfield in the context or studios monitors or listening distances.

I’m talking about testing the sound source (tweeter, midrange (if any), woofer, port or passive radiator) etc.

Hopefully you didn’t lose the (FR) plot.

BR,
Thanh
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
This must be a headache and extra work annotating resonances. So I wonder whether it’s even worth including a nearfield graph?
In some cases, it is not useful but in many, it gives strong clues and back ups to what we have measured. The main show here is CEA-2034. If that were not there, then sure, these near-field responses could be very misleading. But we do have the final answer in the form of anechoic on-axis response. If something is in the near-field and not in CEA-2034, then the latter wins. I have been doing this now across some 250 speakers. I have yet to have someone try to challenge the accuracy of the 2034 with the near-field or try to run with the latter.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
As you see, there is a pronounced rip between 1 and 2 kHz -- precisely what you do NOT want.

Interesting. Whenever I have allowed room correction to flatten my left and right speakers individually in that range, I always end up thinking vocals that I know are well-centered in headphones sound as if they've been pushed back in the mix.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
How much music is released in multi-channel? I thought this site was all about good SQ for music. Anyway, off to bed!

There certainly is a lot of info posted here about AVRs, multichannel processors, and the travails users encounter in optimizing multichannel systems.
 

tktran303

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
683
Likes
1,179
In some cases, it is not useful but in many, it gives strong clues and back ups to what we have measured. The main show here is CEA-2034. If that were not there, then sure, these near-field responses could be very misleading. But we do have the final answer in the form of anechoic on-axis response. If something is in the near-field and not in CEA-2034, then the latter wins. I have been doing this now across some 250 speakers. I have yet to have someone try to challenge the accuracy of the 2034 with the near-field or try to run with the latter.

Precisely what I’m advocating for.

When you have the NFS, why bother with the erroneous or misleading nearfied plots?

It creates a lot of speculation and arguments.

For instance, in this speaker there’s a comment about a woofer resonance. Can we be sure?
Or Is it a port resonance?
Is it a port resonance interacting with the woofer?
Is it, or what is contributing to source of the “chewiness” or “messiness” between the 500Hz and 2KHz?

Perhaps our readers don’t care if this speaker can or cannot be improved.
But I think they do; otherwise why do we bother with EQ suggestions?

Regardless, this will be my last post on this matter. I respectfully accept your decision Amir to a “no change” approach.
 
Last edited:

Pritaudio

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
220
Likes
81
Focal have just released chora 826-d model.
it is for Dolby atmos setup, with upward driver on the top to bounce sound off the ceiling.
not sure if this feature can be disabled for stereo only as there are dual pair binding posts at the back.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
When you have the NFS, why bother with the erroneous or misleading nearfied plots?
Because they are frequently prescriptive and explain what we are seeing in the 2034 plots. It is an investigational tool.

It creates a lot of speculation and arguments.
Nope. Hasn't happened.

Perhaps our readers don’t care if this speaker can or cannot be improved.
Readers are curious about measurements. We use different data to explain them and this measurement is one.
 

DavidMcRoy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
989
Yep, the cost of oversea freight have gone up stupid. It really hurt these great brands. As far as I remember Focal has always had a very strong presence in Canada, or at least in Québec, maybe due to the French language connection somehow and the location of their North American headquarters (before and after the Naim merger). At the moment on a quick search I see 719CAD. Still reasonable but even with conversion, a bit higher than US prices which shouldn't be since the point of entry should be here unless I missed some moves.
I wonder how well Focal sells in Louisiana?
 

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,866
Likes
5,953
I don’t know that an exact number has been published, Apple Music has, at minimum, thousands of tracks mixed or remixed in Atmos, with more coming all the time.

The tough part is how to get Atmos music with our home theaters. I happen to use Amazon Music as my service and my understanding is that I only get Atmos with Amazon products and Sonos.

The second part is that Sonos claims they are the Yamaha NS-10 or JBL L100 of Atmos music. While they don’t claim they are the best possible sound system, they have made claims that nearly every Atmos mix uses the Sonos Arc as a reference to how it sounds in homes and they now use Sonos Era 300’s as a reference. This was said to be true for the Universal Music Group.

Sonos says that 85% of the Top 100 Billboard had Atmos mixes.
 

dogmamann

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 16, 2022
Messages
809
Likes
507
Yes they do. They both start at full range, then the lower bass (the red trace) driver rolls-off at cca 270 Hz at a shallow rate (6 dB/oct or so).
There is no high-pass filter on the upper driver. A typical 2.5 way configuration.
On a typical 2.5 configuration, there is always a high pass on the driver which handles the midrange. i had ripped apart more than 5 speakers with 2.5 configurations. Always there is a high pass on the midrange. I am surprised to know it’s not the case here. Do you have the circuit diagram of this one?
 

Bruce Morgen

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
864
Likes
1,237
where are you? if you are in Europe, Aria 906 + amp would be more "comparable". but still apple vs orange, as Kali one is a nearfield monitor. 906 would suck if it is put close to you (that's @VintageFlanker's words, not mine, but I assume it's true because of the directivity etc.)

And I would not buy PA5 - unless you already have one.

The IN-8v2 is suitable for mid-field as long as one doesn't require thunderous volume, so for a relatively small listening room it's more than adequate. Yeah, I'm dubious about the PA-5's reliability, and other power amps in its performance class are much more expensive. One of the nicest things about Kalis (and other good "studio monitor" products) is you're not stuck with a power amp decision + expense -- that alone would tilt me toward the IN-8v2 vs. even the best passive speakers + amp combinations in its price class given that I don't have big space to fill and have a sub for bass extension, but of course YMMV.
 

Beave

Major Contributor
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
1,329
Likes
2,728
On a typical 2.5 configuration, there is always a high pass on the driver which handles the midrange. i had ripped apart more than 5 speakers with 2.5 configurations. Always there is a high pass on the midrange. I am surprised to know it’s not the case here. Do you have the circuit diagram of this one?

Nope.

If there is a high pass filter on the midrange driver (or midwoofer), it's a 3-way speaker, not a 2.5 way.

There is no highpass filter on the upper midwoofer in this speaker.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,638
Likes
3,599
Location
Sweden, Västerås
How much music is released in multi-channel? I thought this site was all about good SQ for music. Anyway, off to bed!
It really has nothing to do with multichannel the "comb filter" effect of having two speakers is deficiency of stereo itself and it manifest itself mostly in the phantom center problem when the signal from the two speakers might be exactly the same, bummer ! people who mixes for stereo knows this and hear it while they are mixing, but it's also speaker and placement dependent so result is a bit hit and miss . its just in the system itself .

This is also one reason for up-mixing stereo content to multichannel , it can work really well , so some people have found that the best way to enjoy stereo recordings is a multichannel system :) source material channel count and playback channels does not need to be related 1:1

Acoustically one speaker does not have a interference/comb filter issue , worst case is two . with more speaker's it starts to even out a bit so adding even more speakers improves on this .
 
Top Bottom