Focal Solo6 Be Review (Studio Monitor)

[Maiky76]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Focal Solo6 Be studio monitor (powered active speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,499 each.

Unlike most studio monitors that have industrial looks, the Solo6 Be comes across as a high-end home speaker with its nice wood finish:

View attachment 144745

Despite its small size, it is incredibly heavy! I can't figure out where all the weight has gone but this is one sturdy "bookshelf" speaker.

The back panel is much simpler looking than typical monitor as well:

View attachment 144746

The frequency shaping is all analog with a detent which is what I used to adjust the two controls. Assuming it is analog in nature, there may be some small variations.

After testing, I was surprised that the back panel was quite warm. Not at a level that would concern me but in this day and age of class D based amplifiers, they usually run cooler than this. The wide and large metal surface is likely used to dissipate needed thermal energy.

The claim to fame of this monitor is use of Beryllium for the tweeter. Company marketing video says no other speaker at is price has such.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%. Clear high frequency response is responsible for ease of measurement in this regard.

Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter.

Focal Solo6 Be Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 144747

Hey, this is nice! Yes there are some resonances here and there and a broad boost between 200 Hz and 3 kHz on axis but as a whole, this is good. No waveguide is used so naturally we see some directivity error as the woofer gets directional but then the tweeter takes over and it is not. This is happening at rather high frequency so hopefully its impact is lower.

Near-field response shows very good control of cabinet/port resonances which we almost always find to be a problem with front-ported speakers. Not so here:

View attachment 144748

The tweeter shows wavy response but I wonder if that is due to the sound bouncing back and forth between the inverted dome tweeter and my measurement microphone. I say this because our spin graph doesn't show this type of variation.

Early window which is computed for far-field listening shows the main issue being vertical directivity:
View attachment 144749

Having a high ceiling and or using absorber at first reflection plus doing something about console bounce could be advised. There is also sharp drop off of high frequencies but in near-field listening, this may not be a big deal.

Predicted-in-room response is once again for far field listening so not very applicable:
View attachment 144750

Still, not bad.

Distortion at 86 dBSPL is very low and impressive:

View attachment 144751

View attachment 144752

Horizontal beamwidth is wider than normal and decent:

View attachment 144753

And by the same token, horizontal directivity:
View attachment 144754

Due to the ditch created by ceiling and floor bounce, vertical directivity is something you need to be mindful about (common among non-coaxial 2-way speakers);

View attachment 144755

Our 3-D contour plot at three different frequencies shows good behavior:
View attachment 144764

Finally, for time domain fans, here are the waterfall and impulse responses:

View attachment 144756

Resonances are visible.

View attachment 144757

Focal Solo6 Be Listening Tests
A few seconds into my first reference test track and it was clear that the tonality was right on the money. Continued to the rest of the test tracks and the theme stayed constant. The sound is just right. I did experiment with a broad filter to pull down the response from a few hundred Hertz to a few Kilohertz and it was a tossup as to which one was better so I am not going to show it to you.

What was such a pleasant experience was the ability to play as loud as I wanted with nary a sign of distortion or strain. This speaker just does what you ask it to do. You don't have to bend to its limitations. It follows you. So many small powered speakers run out of amplification juice, woofer excursion or both, ruining an otherwise excellent speaker. Not the Focal Solo6 Be.

Nice.

Conclusions
By now the message should be clear. The Solo6 Be is a well engineered speaker with slight compromise in objective measurements. What small faults exist there, were not a factor in listening test where super dynamics and correct tonality leads you to garden path. Combined with its attractive looks, this speaker is not only good for professional applications, but also where you want superbly cable and beautiful looking speakers.

It is my pleasure to recommend the Focal Solo6 Be. It is a job well done.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.


These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.1
With Sub: 7.2


Spinorama with no EQ:

• Not as Flat/smooth as i would expect, descending balance for the directivity error at 5k?
• could do with a waveguide really
• similar to other focal bookshelves tested in the past

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height or just above
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 0/10deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

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
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• Difficult to EQ as balance Flat ONLW vs Score because of the directivity error.
• Looks well judge by Focal to start with, EQ may not be needed
• Listening is a must

Score EQ LW: 5.0
with sub: 7.0

Score EQ Score: 5.7
with sub: 7.8

Focal Solo6 Be APO EQ LW 96000Hz
August022021-112020

Preamp: -2.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 383.73,    -1.44,    0.76
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 973.15,    -2.40,    7.17
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3250.39,    -0.63,    0.39
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 11065.47,    -1.40,    5.93
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 14809.88,    2.83,    0.61

Focal Solo6 Be APO EQ Score 96000Hz
August022021-111926

Preamp: -2.2 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 357.93,    -1.55,    0.84
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 972.65,    -2.64,    6.19
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3612.79,    -0.44,    0.39
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5304.31,    -2.26,    2.13
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10890.31,    -1.42,    5.93
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 16943.09,    2.28,    0.41

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal
Flat On after EQ score but probably too bright (PIR regression)

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Minor improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[Pearljam5000]

What is the price in EU?

 

[Sancus]

You can buy one on Thomann's US site for $949 USD + $40-50ish shipping. Presumably you'd have to pay for shipping back to Europe for warranty service, though.

 

[ReaderZ]

What is the price in EU?

Quick google tell me about USD $1140 with free shipping and tax included.

 

[Pearljam5000]

2-way "W" cone+a beryllium tweeter, obviously newer drivers and a nicer cabinet , but still look at that price

 

[uwotm8]

2-way "W" cone+a beryllium tweeter, obviously newer drivers and a nicer cabinet , but still look at that price
View attachment 145019

Well THESE deserve all the money just for that gorgeous look.
Despite being a Dynaudio fanboy I think that Focal top lines are lightyears ahead in terms of style - truly luxurious things.

 

[YSC]

Well THESE deserve all the money just for that gorgeous look.
Despite being a Dynaudio fanboy I think that Focal top lines are lightyears ahead in terms of style - truly luxurious things.

Can't agree more, for Focal, you are not only paying for the sound, I would say at least half of the price goes into style. Which if I am RICH (obviously I am not), would like to have

 

[ctrl]

I'm late again.
Like perhaps others, I enjoy analyzing and critiquing the speakers Amir measures.

Since I, like others, have certainly wondered about the very unsteady radiation in the range 4-8kHz, this time it should be more about the need for compromise in speaker design, than simply criticizing.
What were the designers thinking and did they think anything at all?

There are certainly, unfortunately, commercial speaker manufacturers where the driver placement is more or less random and even measurements up to +-90° are considered irrelevant.

But one should also not judge too hastily.

To show this, I have created a BEM simulation for the Solo6 and transferred the resulting frequency responses of the tweeter from +-180° to VCAD.

Of course, when the amateur developer (like me) looks at the design of the Solo6, he immediately knows everything better and notes that the woofer is vertically centered and the tweeter is arranged so that the distance to the top edge is exactly the same as the distance to the woofer surround.
My God, it's so obvious!
All we have to do is move the tweeter and woofer down two centimeters on the baffle and everything will be better!

Then let's see what happens (only tweeter frequency responses without any filter/crossover):

1. Sketch
2. on-axis FR, LW, SP, PIR, SPDI

3. Horizontal frequency response +-90°
4. Vertikal frequency response, normalized to on-axis FR, +-90°

Ohh, the amateur designer moved the problem area, at 5-6kHz, down so now the area around 3-4kHz is unsteady and also the frequency range around the crossover frequency (2-3kHz) fits less well
So the developers at Focal did have something in mind when it came to the driver positioning.


So there is no way to improve the design anymore?
Of course, only a listening test can judge whether a change leads to a sound improvement.
But one could, for example, move the woofer a bit further away from the tweeter and round off the upper baffle edge as well.
Then you get the following:

In the 3-4kHz range the axis frequency response (vertical too) worsens slightly (better not move the woofer after all?) and in the 2-3kHz range a bit more "sound energy" is radiated, but radiation is much more even overall and the 5-6kHz range is now inconspicuous.
The production of the speaker would be more costly.

Most of the time it is more complicated than it seems at first sight

 

[Jim Matthews]

Rapid pace? DACs and ADCs with a dynamic range approaching or even exceeding 120 dB have been reasonably common for over 10 years now, more like 15+... the first ones date from the late '90s. They rarely seem to be made for less than about 6-7 years, and some popular models have made it to downright biblical lifecycles... AK5394A came out in 2002 and was EOL'd in late 2018 or so (together with its predessor AK4393 released early 1999), the PCM1804 (Nov 2001) of EMU 1820 fame is still active along with PCM4202 (2003) and PCM4220 (2006), the CS4272 codec (2003) is still active (although the DAC-only CS4392 (2000) of similar specs has recently moved to NRND and is likely to be gone soon), and so is the CS4398 of same vintage. ES9016 (2009) was still used in new devices last year.

Compared to the wild times of the 1990s, this is all fairly chill.

That's an impressive amount of model numbers.

To be clear, it is my impression that good sounding DACs in a desktop size at reasonable cost to consumers are a recent development.

This allows users to choose their own inputs, for good or ill.

(If you're describing available sources to manufacturers, that's above my paygrade.)



See : Osborne effect

 

[Jim Matthews]

Genelec worship is silly, IMO.

Not to mention boring.

It's like saying nobody else should play in the NBA if LeBron is on the court.

 

[Walter]

I've been using focal drivers in PA speaker builds since more than 30 years ago. These guys have some knowledge in house.

I was using Focal drivers with active crossovers in car audio installations in the late 90s. I found them to be superior to any of the automotive-specific brands, and quite reasonably priced. A decade or so later when I was back in the USA for a few months taking care of my mother, I purchased the cheapest Focal automotive separates set at 50% off on eBay to go along with a pretty inexpensive Pioneer head unit that was also heavily discounted. They dramatically improved the sound in her Camry.

 

[Ralferator]

Yah, I did a lot of testing. The A130 is great for the price.
The A130 had low woofer distortion, that said the speaker did sound "hard" at loud volumes. It did not have the ease that some other speakers would have at high volume and was not as Dynamic- even with a 120-150hz high pass to 8" midbasses.
In fact even Harmans own infinity r152/162 and JBL 530 handle loud volume with more ease than the A130 and with seemingly superior dynamics.
The 530 high passed at 120-150 can play staggeringly loud if you have power (@ least 125-200watts the 530 has low sensitivity)
In any case I' d love to hear the Focal. Previous Focal speakers I have used did seem pretty dynamic.
I value dynamics a lot.

Did you try EQ on the A130? That hardness might come from the peaks around 1-2khz

 

[Frank Dernie]

That's an impressive amount of model numbers.

To be clear, it is my impression that good sounding DACs in a desktop size at reasonable cost to consumers are a recent development.

This allows users to choose their own inputs, for good or ill.

(If you're describing available sources to manufacturers, that's above my paygrade.)



See : Osborne effect

IME DACs have been audibly transparent for over 10 years, maybe more.
Yes they have been improved over the years but more a question of reducing cost with any improved specs at the inaudible level.
I have the first commercial Sony separate DAC which is over 30 years old and keep meaning to do SQ comparison from something sota and new but never get round to it being a priority!
I am interested to know, but too lazy to bother so far!

 

[3125b]

Thomann US with shipping to Seattle:

Pretty close to 1000$ incl. shipping. Makes the value proposition a fair bit better than at 1500$.

The lowest price in the EU is 899€ in France (regular, non-discount price incl. taxes).

 

[bigjacko]

Most of the time it is more complicated than it seems at first sight

I am always amazed by the quality of your analysis work. This baffle does seem very problematic to deal with. Would you mind share project so I can have a play with it?

 

[ROOSKIE]

T

Did you try EQ on the A130? That hardness might come from the peaks around 1-2khz

Yes, I did EQ the speaker. In fact I really only used it for listening with that area eq'd. Without it the speaker was a little to forward in some area's for my taste.
My suspicion is the tweeter.
It is a very simple metal button tweeter in a very good waveguide.
That tweeter might be running out of steam and thus ease, so the speaker can sound hard/compressed/done at high volumes in a living room.
Could also be something else and a combination of things.
I do think the A130 is an absolutely fantastic speaker for the money.
There was really no question that that at high volumes the other speakers I mentioned handled the SPL with more ease and generally better dynamics. On a couple tracks I used it wasn't even close. (No blind testing done on my end though.)
I do level match very carefully, matching the in room level using 500hrz-2500hrz as the reference while also looking at the rest of the spectrum to ensure a good comparison.
Radiohead's National Anthem and Life in Glass House are two tracks I know well that sound so much more dynamic and quite frankly shocking at times on the 530, these were not equal with the A130 at really high volume. (120hrz high pass active on all to limit the excursion of the woofers)
Damien Rice's, Trusty and True, has a crescendo area that can be a good test. On many speakers at higher volumes I might actually brace a bit to get through it. On other speakers that present it well, rather than bracing it is really amazing how much one can take in from that same crescendo and how pleasing it can be.

In any case I'd have no issue recommending the A130 and speakers like the Focal here have their work cut out vs a savvy buyer choosing the best budget stuff available and setting it up using SOTA care.

 

[ROOSKIE]

You can buy one on Thomann's US site for $949 USD + $40-50ish shipping. Presumably you'd have to pay for shipping back to Europe for warranty service, though.

I have heard only horror stories about Focal customer service in the USA, might be better to have to use the European sites and service. Who knows though, but honestly the stories are real bad.
Maybe buy extended 3rd party warranties.

 

[kieleth]

I'd love for Amir to measure my Twin6 Be's and how they compare with the Solo, but they're part of the family and I do not let them go far from me at all times

Been using them both in studio and as part of near-field home theater, and they put a smile in my face every time I switch them on. But, they indeed are near-field, and from experience I would even say near-and-narrow-field, you and them need to be correctly positioned to enjoy them fully.

 

[Hemi-Demon]

I'd love for Amir to measure my Twin6 Be's and how they compare with the Solo, but they're part of the family and I do not let them go far from me at all times

Been using them both in studio and as part of near-field home theater, and they put a smile in my face every time I switch them on. But, they indeed are near-field, and from experience I would even say near-and-narrow-field, you and them need to be correctly positioned to enjoy them fully.

Erins Corner reviewed this model already. Youll have to google it, as it seems linking to his site is not allowed. Which is BS in my book. The new mods are going too far.

https://www.********************/loudspeakers/focal_twin6be/

 

[dfuller]

I'd love for Amir to measure my Twin6 Be's and how they compare with the Solo, but they're part of the family and I do not let them go far from me at all times

Been using them both in studio and as part of near-field home theater, and they put a smile in my face every time I switch them on. But, they indeed are near-field, and from experience I would even say near-and-narrow-field, you and them need to be correctly positioned to enjoy them fully.

The twins are a whole mess - way, way worse directivity behavior and a big on-axis scoop out around 2-3k that isn't present on these.

I have heard only horror stories about Focal customer service in the USA, might be better to have to use the European sites and service. Who knows though, but honestly the stories are real bad.
Maybe buy extended 3rd party warranties.

The one interaction I had with Focal USA customer service was easy. I had a set of Shape 65s that had the magnet crack off the woofer frame in shipping (the seller packed them extremely poorly, and the Shapes use a molded plastic frame presumably for both cost and engineering reasons) - they sold me a replacement driver no questions asked and shipped it quickly. I may still have pics of that around, somewhere...

EDIT: Found it!