Focal SOLO6 ST6 Monitor Review

[Kyle_PL]

Focal Solo6 have weird directivity (good wide up to 10 kHz and very different above 10 kHz):

Neumann KH 150 are little more "narrow", but more "linear":

https://

For comparison Genelec 8050:

- in mine opinion better than both.

 

[dfuller]

This is purely subjective and is not backed by any science or measurements. You subjective preference is just that. The fact is that Neumann's are uncolored and Focals are. You simply prefer colored sound - which is fine. It seems you simply developed a preference for this colored sound, which is entirely withing your rights. However, it says nothing about the objective and measurable issues, as demonstrated here on ASR.

I wouldn't call either of them "colored", at least on-axis. They both have some pretty obvious nonlinearities off-axis that show up on the PIR.

Neumann has a ~2dB scoop around the crossover due to the integration not being as smooth as it could be (vs a 3 way or a coaxial) and a ~2dB rise vs the midrange from the CD waveguide from ~5khz on up.

Focal has the obvious 2-9KHz hump and then the tweeter beams around 12k.

 

[Bubblegamma]

@teashea Colored. Alright. Most of the other monitors are “colored” then. So what? If the audio material I’m familiar with sounds ‘correct’ on 9 systems out of 10, then the problem is with the last one, don’t you think? No matter how ‘uncolored’ you call it. As I said, I worked on many other monitors for the last 10+ years, and not one of them had the same weird sound signature as kh150.

And no offense, but I saw the pictures of your ‘studio’ you posted here. Untreated bare walls and ceiling. I can literally hear 500-700ms of rt60 just by looking at these photos. And you talk about ‘uncolored’ sound…

 

[dfuller]

@teashea Colored. Alright. Most of the other monitors are “colored” then. So what? If the audio material I’m familiar with sounds ‘correct’ on 9 systems out of 10, then the problem is with the last one, don’t you think? No matter how ‘uncolored’ you call it. As I said, I worked on many other monitors for the last 10+ years, and not one of them had the same weird sound signature as kh150.

And no offense, but I saw the pictures of your ‘studio’ you posted here. Untreated bare walls and ceiling. I can literally hear 500-700ms of rt60 just by looking at these photos. And you talk about ‘uncolored’ sound…

You know, this is not the first time I've heard these complaints about the KH150s. I am hoping Erin can get some too since his measurement suite is more exhaustive than ASR.

Also - yes, I have Neumann KH420s and I still treated my room. Even with speakers that are """"room friendly"""" you still need to knock down RT.

 

[Bubblegamma]

I forgot to mention that I use sonarworks to compensate for +/-2db FR fluctuations because of the desk and computer display reflections. So the difference was not in frequency balance for sure. Without sonarworks solo6 sound a bit bright, but correction gives it familiar flat ‘studio’ sound. KH150 had the same balance corrected/uncorrected

 

[vssyla]

I don’t know, and I don’t think it really matters what we call them. I could not work on them, and that’s it

yup, same experience with kh120ii. I even got the sub to go with them. I remember someone telling me to take a year to get used to them. that's too much time when I'm a working artist, and regardless, it wasn't clicking with me anyways.

There are other options for very flat speakers which I think would work with certain people that don't click with the Neumanns: First that comes to mind would be the Genelecs. I think it's worth reopening the conversation that Genelecs and Neumanns sound as close together as their measurements are as close together: I disagree entirely here.

 

[vssyla]

Maybe the KH150 are too analytical for you?

The issue with being far too analytical Is that, in many cases, it's far too hard to make good mixing decisions: if everything is a problem, then nothing can be right. On the kh120iis I heard problems in every song I listened to: The Weeknd's biggest hits, some of the highest streamed songs of all time. I think too many problems (are they actually problems???) can be distracting... however, again, other flat speakers (Genelecs) have been said to make everything sound good, and overly minimize problems? And a lot of people have issues translating mixes made on Genelecs, but I've never heard the science behind that....What explains these phenomenon that defy a lot of measurements on here?

I understand this is an audio science forum, and that's why I appreciate this forum, but people should try out speakers as much as they can before purchasing. Not everyone has this opportunity, but I think its worth organizing a trip for to another city or wherever you can try out various monitors. Vintage King also has a 30 or 45 day policy (can't remember which) where you can try the monitors, adjust your room, etc, and return them if you don't like them.

 

[vssyla]

This is purely subjective and is not backed by any science or measurements. You subjective preference is just that. The fact is that Neumann's are uncolored and Focals are. You simply prefer colored sound - which is fine. It seems you simply developed a preference for this colored sound, which is entirely withing your rights. However, it says nothing about the objective and measurable issues, as demonstrated here on ASR.

If I used Dirac to perfectly match/calibrate two different brands of 2-way monitors, with virtually the same woofer size/tweeter size, would they have the same coloration/transparency?

 

[vssyla]

You know, this is not the first time I've heard these complaints about the KH150s. I am hoping Erin can get some too since his measurement suite is more exhaustive than ASR.

Also - yes, I have Neumann KH420s and I still treated my room. Even with speakers that are """"room friendly"""" you still need to knock down RT.

The kh310s don’t have the issues (subjective or not) that are highlighted in this thread in regards to kh120 and kh150. The kh310s were much more natural and less brutal, very revealing but in realistic and translatable way to other systems. while I’ve seen as well that their measurements are also quite flat and transparent.

To be honest I was a bit surprised when comparing them side by side to the kh120 and kh150. I know it’s 3 way vs 2 way, but there’s such a different tonality and gel going on in the kh310s that would make me like them but dislike the kh120ii and kh150.

 

[Ktacos]

On the kh120iis I heard problems in every song I listened to: The Weeknd's biggest hits

In this particular case, his stuff does have issues. I find it to be too compressed and kind of distorted on many of this tracks.

I think I understand where you're coming from, as I've owned some neumann and genelec and also have mixed for over a decade on and off at pro level. I think what's missing here is that getting a good mix that truly sounds great all the time over just about decent playback system is actually kind of hard, and we can often be blinded by this fact due factors unrelated to the sound of the mix.

For instance

some of the highest streamed songs of all time

Doesn't really matter how much a song is streamed does it?

other flat speakers (Genelecs) have been said to make everything sound good, and overly minimize problems? And a lot of people have issues translating mixes made on Genelecs, but I've never heard the science behind that..

Definitely never ran into that when I had some 8030.

I think a lot of peoplve love to just blame their tools instead of their own ability. I've had difficulty nailing down a mix on literally every monitoring device I've used because you really just have to work hard to deliver something great. I'll admit I've hopped on forums when my output was poor trying to see if someone had similar problems with the tools I used. If you think it's your monitors, you're gonna find and remember strongly the comments that supported your theory.

 

[Bubblegamma]

Well, I’m not completely agree that getting a good mix is hard. If you have skills and the arrangement/instrumentation is done right then I would say it’s quite easy actually.

Monitors+your room are just tools that need to reproduce frequency balance, dynamics (compressor tweaks) and transients correctly. Focals are quite capable of providing this information.

But as I said my main thing is sound design, I rarely work on music recently. I didn’t mix anything on KH150 during the few months I had them. So maybe for mixing they are ok, I don’t know

Doesn't really matter how much a song is streamed does it?

I think it does to a certain extent. At least it indicates that the track doesn’t have flaws making it unlistenable to a general public

 

[vssyla]

In this particular case, his stuff does have issues. I find it to be too compressed and kind of distorted on many of this tracks.

I think I understand where you're coming from, as I've owned some neumann and genelec and also have mixed for over a decade on and off at pro level. I think what's missing here is that getting a good mix that truly sounds great all the time over just about decent playback system is actually kind of hard, and we can often be blinded by this fact due factors unrelated to the sound of the mix.

For instance


Doesn't really matter how much a song is streamed does it?


Definitely never ran into that when I had some 8030.

I think a lot of peoplve love to just blame their tools instead of their own ability. I've had difficulty nailing down a mix on literally every monitoring device I've used because you really just have to work hard to deliver something great. I'll admit I've hopped on forums when my output was poor trying to see if someone had similar problems with the tools I used. If you think it's your monitors, you're gonna find and remember strongly the comments that supported your theory.

I agree with what you’re saying about The Weeknd tracks. I’ve heard the distortion and overcompression on a variety of systems, my focals, my Neumanns(when I had them), headphones, etc. maybe that wasn’t the best example. But moreover what I was saying before: the kh120ii just has too much accentuation on many frequencies that I wouldn’t consider problematic in well mixed mixed material.

The soundstage is too distinct for me to work with: I keep using the word “distinct” because I’m still trying to respect the monitors, but as I mentioned earlier, they are VERY different sounding from the general monitor market and that is the biggest issue for me.

As @Bubblegamma mentioned, well mixed audio that’s been worked on and passed through many engineers, and proven to sound great across many systems, can very likely not sound good on the kh150. That was my experience as well with the kh120ii, and that’s when I had to move on from the Neumanns.

I actually like the genelec sound, and it’s more relatable to the soundstage of other great monitors. I never tried them out because the Neumanns measured similar/better to equivalent models (by size and dsp), and since the kh120ii/kh150 came out there were many echos of thought that they are either better or practically indistinguishable: I didn’t find that to be the case at all when I was demoing them side by side.

 

[zoojar]

Wow - that's REALLY bad practice ...

Sub focal one certainly does go down to 32hz, infact lower, 27hz at 75db

blue: focal shape 50 + focal sub one
purple: focal shape 50+ yamaha hs8s

I think the manual is either a misprint or they are covering their bases with +/-3db

 

[zoojar]

So, I have those speakers coupled with a Focal Sub One in a ~10m² room (around 2.4m x 4.2m) with high ceiling (part of it is 3m high and part 3.5m). This room has no acoustic treatment at all, is pretty empty appart from my big architect-style/chipboard desk (quite resonant) along a wardrobe sitting in a corner of the room and no carpet on the floor (parquet). You can imagine these type of room tend to excite medium/high frequencies like crazy and have a quite some reverberation due to the high ceiling.

Crossover between the Solo6 ST6 and the Sub One is set at 90Hz, with HPF set at the same frequency on the Solo6 ST6. Here are the Sonarworks measurements taken at the listening position of about 1m from each speaker with an official/calibrated Sonarworks measurement microphone:

View attachment 328721

First thing to note is that there is a strong interaction between the speakers and my desk at ~100Hz to ~200Hz and ~300Hz to ~500Hz as this has always been there even in other room and with other speakers (see next paragraph and graph regarding this).
Secondly, I think we can definitely see some of the predicted tendencies of the in-room response graph in the rest of my measurements, although it doesn't seem to be as bad as predicted since it stays in the +-3dB range in a room that is less than ideal (high ceiling, not much furnitures to absorb or deflect, no carpet and totally untreated).

For the record, here is a past measurement of my previous Focal Alpha 65 EVO + Sub One setup in a totally different room (can't remember the size but it was a big living room, I'd say around 30m², with standard ceiling height of 2.5m) but with the same desk. This can help have an idea of the interaction between my chipwood desk and monitoring speakers in general:
View attachment 328726You can also notice the insane comb filtering that was taking place in this room, I'm relieved to have moved to a better room regarding this.


Also to note: The Sub One is going down to 40Hz at -3dB and not 32Hz as it is adverstised now by Focal. They changed the online spec sheets and manual (both PDF and printed ones) to this 32Hz value a few month after the release because they weren't able to sell as many as they would've liked (hard to justify spending 700€ on a sub that doesn't add any sub extension to your Solo6 ST6, Shape 65, Alpha 65/80 EVO).
Since I bought it right after release I still have the first edition of the printed manual with the 40Hz - 120Hz (-3dB) frequency response written:

My Sub One manual reads the same, however I just did some measurements with a UMIK-1...

blue: focal shape 50 + focal sub one
purple: focal shape 50+ yamaha hs8s

This is a treated room (H2.2, L1.8, W2.4 m), 14 panels, each 8" thick (rockwool sound insulation slab 122666), with 8" air gaps.


Focal Shape 50 + Yamaha HS8S:

Focal Shape 50 + Focal Sub One:

 

[feitaishi]

My Sub One manual reads the same, however I just did some measurements with a UMIK-1...

blue: focal shape 50 + focal sub one
purple: focal shape 50+ yamaha hs8s
View attachment 415787

This is a treated room (H2.2, L1.8, W2.4 m), 14 panels, each 8" thick (rockwool sound insulation slab 122666), with 8" air gaps.


Focal Shape 50 + Yamaha HS8S:
View attachment 415789


Focal Shape 50 + Focal Sub One:
View attachment 415788

When did you buy the sub one? Focal sometimes updates their product specs secretly.

 

[zoojar]

When did you buy the sub one? Focal sometimes updates their product specs secretly.

December 2024

 

[feitaishi]

December 2024

If I remember correctly, theirs sub one has 2x7’’ drives. The latest one has 2x8.

 

[zoojar]

y

If I remember correctly, theirs sub one has 2x7’’ drives. The latest one has 2x8.

yeah, this one has 2x8". not familiar with any older version. my serial: CQCCYA010006**

 

[feitaishi]

y

yeah, this one has 2x8". not familiar with any older version. my serial: CQCCYA010006**

Not familiar with any serial number haha

 

[2020]

Hey everyone! Just wanted to share my own experience with Focals and Neumanns, since the thread ended up comparing these two.
I’m a sound designer working professionally for many years. Solo6+Sub6 are my main tool in my home studio at the moment. The setup sounds great and translates perfectly. Though I have to say that my room is quite heavily treated (FR +/- 3.5 dB from 30hz to 20khz at 1/3 smoothing, first reflections come at -25dB level) and from my experience translation depends on the room first of all.
So, for my work it is crucial to have monitors that reproduce timbres “naturally”. If I use sample of fire sizzling and crackling I need to hear this sizzling and crackling correctly. And this is where Focals excel Neumanns undoubtedly. Because I had KH150 here before Focals, tried to “learn” them for a few months and ended up selling them because I couldn’t work on them, it was unbearable.
In my work I quite often use top-notch produced commercial sample libraries (Boom Library, Pole Position, etc). I’ve been using these libraries for many years, I know how the samples sound, I listened to them everywhere from cheap plastic soundbars to huge ATCs in big post production studios. These samples sound awesome and ‘real’, they don’t have flaws, the production is top notch. But what did I get on Neumanns? Problems, problems, problems everywhere. The same fire crackling sample had some ‘resonance’ at 1.5kHz. Not the usual resonance, but some nasty stuff, don’t know how to describe it correctly. Not huge, rather gentle, but somehow all I could focus on while listening was this ‘resonance’. EQing the sample only made things worse. And again, I know how these samples sound, I never heard such a problem on any other system. Timbral problems occurred almost on everything I listened through them. High freqs were weird. Overall everything sounded ‘wrong’, not ‘real’ and ‘unnatural’. They reminded me of old Yamahas I had many many years ago, and really hated them. I mean the sound is completely different, but I remember having the same feeling that everything sound ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ on them no matter how hard I tried to get it to sound ‘right’. I don’t know what the problem is, but that’s just how kh150 sounds for me.
I was so happy to sell the Neumanns and get the Focals that don’t have this kind of weird sound signature. I’m not saying that solo6 are the best speakers in the world, but hearing something like ‘Focal is eating Neumanns dust’ seems laughable for me. Especially from someone who had no experience working on solo6

You're not the first person to say something like this. They officially claim to have a unique "dry bass" sound and I remember reading a comparison between Neumann and Genelec on the internet. The Neumann was described as being a bit cold or not as compatible with certain genres of music. Genelec is sometimes described as being flattering in a disarming way, like you need to work to make them sound bad whereas Neumann breaks out a magnifying glass and gets clinical.

Obviously this is all anecdotal, but I'm not too surprised to read this about Neumann. I guess they want that extra good clinical presentation?

Another speaker that I've heard have unique presentation are Ex Machina speakers. I've heard several people say they more easily hear digital processing or flaws on them, like the effects of compressors. One person said they made everything sound "wet", like an ultra-revealing processed sound, not something dry and "natural".