Focal Chorus OD 706 V Outdoor Speaker Review

[Linus]

Roasting or girilling zucchini with mint is very good for zucchini. I think it's a traditional Roman dish.

Zucchini alla scapece is neapolitan dish made of fried zucchin, mint and red wine vinegar. Delicious!!

 

[amirm]

Zucchini alla scapece is neapolitan dish made of fried zucchin, mint and red wine vinegar. Delicious!!

Thanks. Just watched a few videos and seems very simple to make. Walking in our front yard where we have mint, seems like they cooler weather has reinvigorated them and they are growing again. So could make this soon.

 

[bidn]

Come on now. You auditioned an Outdoor speaker indoors? What did you expect? Outdoors there is no room gain. That extra bass may be just the ticket.

Besides are Harman's principles good for outdoor listening? Is the formula any use outdoors?

Mea culpa?

Spot on, Blumlein 88!
Your points are very sharp and insightful!

Have a nice weekend,
bidn

 

[VintageFlanker]

The retail cost seems to be over US $400 (each!) but I see it on sale for US $300 or so.

As always, Focal is insanely cheaper local. I saw prices for a pair to be 190 to 250€ here (should ship to EU as well). This should put price/performance ratio in perspective.

 

[napilopez]

I would contend that they must be. The Buchardt S400 is a much better sounding speaker, with a price to match. Or, there's more than meets the eye in these measurements. Granted, they aren't 4-5x better, but diminishing returns and all that.

Maybe this should be something someone can setup a blind A/B test for. Take one of the flattest, smoothest speakers amir has measured, and increasingly introduce small narrow deviations throughout the entire frequency range, test with both pink noise and music. One could then compare it with just introducing a similar deviation in one part of the spectrum. I get the feeling the latter would be more audible but would be fun to test!

 

[andreasmaaan]

Maybe this should be something someone can setup a blind A/B test for. Take one of the flattest, smoothest speakers amir has measured, and increasingly introduce small narrow deviations throughout the entire frequency range, test with both pink noise and music. One could then compare it with just introducing a similar deviation in one part of the spectrum. I get the feeling the latter would be more audible but would be fun to test!

This is obviously not scientific, but when mixing music I have often played around with such filters using software EQ, introducing a wavy line with the same net energy as the unequalised original, and then A/Bing the two and comparing my perceptions of how they sound. This is while listening on highly accurate monitors in a treated room, or headphones that have been calibrated using measurements. The difference in my anecdotal experience is very subtle.

 

[The Jniac]

Wow. I was expecting a horror show, and when I saw that frequency response, my jaw hit the floor.

 

[Chromatischism]

Wow. I was expecting a horror show, and when I saw that frequency response, my jaw hit the floor.

The Folks over in Saint-Étienne know what they're doing. It's clear from the results that they are designing using measurements along the way.

 

[Here2Learn]

@amirm or anybody else who may know...

Why are we using Spinorama measurements that assume reflections to produce calculated response on an OUTDOOR speaker where many of those reflections will not occur?

I understand measuring directivity will still be valid, but a summed response on theorized reflections that won't happen seems peculiar to me. Outside you are more likely to hear a free-field direct-sound only response with exception to lower frequencies bouncing off the wall it is attached to and possibly the ground if it's not a lawn.

I fail to see how in this particular case the data can therefore be deemed reliable - but I may be missing something.

EDIT: if using the speaker indoors then the measurements seem valid, but that's not the context the speaker is designed for.

 

[Chromatischism]

if using the speaker indoors then the measurements seem valid, but that's not the context the speaker is designed for.

Right. Sometimes they may be used indoors, so may as well use our standard measurement suite. I guess it should be possible to calculate a predicted outdoor that does not include walls or ceiling, but I haven't seen the formula. Distance to speakers also becomes much more variable.

 

[Helicopter]

Thanks for reviewing. I use a couple pairs of outdoor speakers, (deck and pool) and am very interested in Focal. These look really good to me. I am disapointed to see the new (100) series seem to match the low end in-wall speakers. Both of those lines are marked 'Made in China,' but there are a couple higher lines of in-wall speakers that are still marked 'Made in France' like the outdoor speakers in this review. If they continue to move production out of Europe, I may become more interested in what ELAC is up to. I know their production is split too.

 

[Chromatischism]

I am somewhat concerned about the impedance if running two pairs from my Denon X4500H:

Between 150 and 400 Hz things could be tough. The AVR doesn't power my front stage so it at least should have plenty of reserve from the power supply. What do you guys think?

 

[BYRTT]

Measurements look quite a bit better than the Revel M55XC outdoor speaker that was reviewed, at least prior to EQ. Revel was way too bright, while this seems more neutral. Both seem to have good directivity, though I would give the edge to the Revel. The Revel might be more EQable.

Subjectively, you seemed to enjoy the Revel more, despite the measurements. What would you say is the biggest difference between the two, subjectively(if you can remember back that far)?

I'd be curious how they compare after EQ. This Focal definitely measures better out of the box, but the Revel looks to have better directivity, which should help with EQ.

Interesting. I wonder what could cause that? Objectively, this seems to measure much closer to the other Revel speakers than the Revel outdoor speaker did, at least tonally. Almost seems like there's a Revel "house sound" that's not captured well by the spinorama, though maybe I'm just not looking close enough. I don't really know how to compare the distortion graphs(% vs dB).

I agree, but the Revel M55XC seems to differ from that, yet still retains the same house sound. I might be looking at it wrong, but to me it looks to have a rising LW response(positive slope) and flat ER response(which should have a negative slope). These two things are reflected in the PIR, which has almost 0 slope. Directivity is excellent, though.

What do you see when you look at that spin? To me, this Focal speaker seems to have a LW and ER that matches closer to what you said, yet lacks that Revel house sound.....

Can below animation help using same scales and side by side to Revel M55C raw verse EQed to same listening window bandpass, notice the strange nervous jagged/fuzzy response in whatever curve for Chorus OD 706 V that could be the grill as owner notes below, so will try remember look for same phenomem if there comes other speakers in future using grill with small punched holes..

.....There is some concern that the metal grilles could be the cause of the jaggedness of the response. I'll run without them as I don't mind seeing drivers.

 

[bobbooo]

This is obviously not scientific, but when mixing music I have often played around with such filters using software EQ, introducing a wavy line with the same net energy as the unequalised original, and then A/Bing the two and comparing my perceptions of how they sound. This is while listening on highly accurate monitors in a treated room, or headphones that have been calibrated using measurements. The difference in my anecdotal experience is very subtle.

If you really wanted to test this, I'm sure it would be possible to set up some kind of automated script to AB software EQ on and off blind.

 

[Chromatischism]

Or you could just take the grille off of one of them...

 

[amirm]

The Folks over in Saint-Étienne know what they're doing. It's clear from the results that they are designing using measurements along the way.

They are indeed. I was shocked to see measurements that pretty much matched mine:

Shocking to see this for an outdoor speaker especially since it shows the flaw post 10 kHz.

 

[amirm]

Between 150 and 400 Hz things could be tough. The AVR doesn't power my front stage so it at least should have plenty of reserve from the power supply. What do you guys think?

For Atmos channels you should be fine.

 

[bobbooo]

Or you could just take the grille off of one of them...

I'm not sure it's due to the grille. Audioholics' measurements of a speaker with and without a similar looking metal grille showed no extra high-Q jaggedness in the frequency response:

 

[amirm]

I'm not sure it's due to the grille. Audioholics' measurements of a speaker with and without a similar looking metal grille showed no extra high-Q jaggedness in the frequency response:

That looks smoothed. I don't see that graph in their review either. There is text on it though:

 

[bobbooo]

That looks smoothed. I don't see that graph in their review either. There is text on it though:

View attachment 87036

The graph is from their article on grilles with various speakers measured: https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/grilles

I think their frequency response graphs have 1/24 octave smoothing. The jaggies in your measurements seem to be less frequent than that so I would think even with that smoothing, something like that would show up. Maybe the 'rockiness' stated in the review was referring to the lower-Q deviations of the with-grille response in the treble as seen on the graph I linked.