• 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 SOLO6 ST6 Monitor Review

Rate this monitor speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 43 18.3%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 148 63.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 42 17.9%

  • Total voters
    235
They have uneven radiation, esp vertical. Use 6.5" speakers up to 2,3kHz. Still just a reflex woofer (but very low tuning, probably OK).
I'm sure these can produce significant SPL level with low distortion and are probably fun to listen to but for THAT money ... I would stick with pro speakers and get a great system with good room integration.

These can also be expensive if recommended! ;-)
View attachment 340280
These are just so ugly, I can’t imagine them in my living room!
 
I considering these speakers for my home studio, but was wondering if it would help to pair them with the Focal Sub12. Will it fill out the low end the way I'm thinking it would / should? What's your opinion, too much sub for the size or a good addition?
 
I’m using a RSL sub (10 mk ii) with them, in my home office. The sound is richer and fuller with the sub. Might get a second.

I think the Focal sub would be great!

The biggest sound benefit, of course, is from applying EQ to integrate the sub and adjust frequencies, phase and timing for your room and mlp.
 
I considering these speakers for my home studio, but was wondering if it would help to pair them with the Focal Sub12. Will it fill out the low end the way I'm thinking it would / should? What's your opinion, too much sub for the size or a good addition?
Would be perfect to extend the low end. I would expect clean and effortless bass.

But you could also consider the trio line as it will cost about the same.
 
There is no silver bullet, and waveguide as the kind of "horn adapted for manufacturingability" is not a silver bullet also.
They are using transmission line topology obviously (because of very special form and placement of the open port) and it works.
It's a pure engineering where there is no single best overall solution and will never be.
It is a normal reflex... What would be special about that poet with the classic shape of any blade reflex at the bottom of the baffle?
 
I've read all the previous posts in this thread and appreciate the time and effort taken by the member/s who produced the frequency measurements etc. for the Solo ST6 monitors. Very interesting but not surprising. I get the impression that many of the criticisms leveled regarding these monitors are being voiced from an audiophile perspective. I've been a musician most of my life and a professional music producer for over 25 years. These are nearfield monitors. In a studio you usually have smaller nearfield monitors which either sit on mixing desk meter-bridge or a purpose built desk. You are ideally positioned around 4 to 6 feet away from the monitors which are set up in a equilateral triangle with each monitor angled towards each ear. These monitors are designed to be used like this, not for living room listening. The Solo ST6 monitors are designed purposely to accentuate frequencies which facilitate precise detailed mixing decisions for music producers/mixers. They were never designed to be flat, but the trick with good monitors is that the final mix/master will translate well onto a range of other speakers. For an informed review of the Solo ST6, judged from the correct perspective as studio monitors, please read the Sound on Sound or the Tape Op reviews.
 
I've read all the previous posts in this thread and appreciate the time and effort taken by the member/s who produced the frequency measurements etc. for the Solo ST6 monitors. Very interesting but not surprising. I get the impression that many of the criticisms leveled regarding these monitors are being voiced from an audiophile perspective. I've been a musician most of my life and a professional music producer for over 25 years. These are nearfield monitors. In a studio you usually have smaller nearfield monitors which either sit on mixing desk meter-bridge or a purpose built desk. You are ideally positioned around 4 to 6 feet away from the monitors which are set up in a equilateral triangle with each monitor angled towards each ear. These monitors are designed to be used like this, not for living room listening. The Solo ST6 monitors are designed purposely to accentuate frequencies which facilitate precise detailed mixing decisions for music producers/mixers. They were never designed to be flat, but the trick with good monitors is that the final mix/master will translate well onto a range of other speakers. For an informed review of the Solo ST6, judged from the correct perspective as studio monitors, please read the Sound on Sound or the Tape Op reviews.
I agree with the importance of using monitors in nearfield. All of the monitors in my studio are 1 to 1.2 meters from my LP.
However, I quite disagree with the issue of flatness. Monitors should have a flat frequency response so that the audio producer knows what the source actually sounds like. It is better to know the truth than to listen to a false reproduction of the source. He can then decide best how to mix and master the songs.
 
. The Solo ST6 monitors are designed purposely to accentuate frequencies which facilitate precise detailed mixing decisions for music producers/mixers. They were never designed to be flat, but the trick with good monitors is that the final mix/master will translate well onto a range of other speakers. For an informed review of the Solo ST6, judged from the correct perspective as studio monitors, please read the Sound on Sound or the Tape Op reviews.

From the test, in nearfield, the monitor is really good and flat.
EQ is always possible and you can find the curve to use and try.
 
Comparing these to Neumann KH 150's or KH 120 II's is a revelation. Focal is eating Neumann's dust.
I'm a musician/producer and less of an audiophile, for 13 years so what do i know but... i ended up selling my 120 iis for these focals. I also got them sent over from Europe so I got a pretty good deal, about $2.2k usd for the pair.

I went to vintage king twice, about 3 hours total of referencing monitors between the genelecs, neumanns, focals, etc. This is after I used the kh120iis for over a year or so. Tried the kh150s as well. I certainly didn't like the focal shapes or any other model, but the solo6s won for me in that price bracket.

But most important: At Vintage King, I was so excited to hear the kh120iis calibrated in the showroom, to hear if my gripes with them were true... I had the kh120iis in 3 different rooms over the years, while i owned them, large room, small rooms, calibrated, uncalibrated, treated, untreated, etc. For me personally, they have a hot kind of live sound. Im not saying *hot* as in sharp or piercing, no, they just remind me of a guitar amp or something, the sound is unlike any other speaker i've heard. Could this be a good thing? Well i don't know, because it's them (kh120ii and kh150) versus the world in terms of tonality... they're too distinct for me. I can't explain it because im not a professional with this stuff, but it's a specific timbre that was unshakably noticeable for me when i was using them; and yes, it was exactly the same sound at Vintage King, the kh150s as well. The kh310s had less of this overly live timbre to me, and more cohesion; id say the k310s were great but a bit boring (by design). Maybe its just the drivers in the kh120ii, and the kh150s. Its not smooth, and a bit particle-ized to me. I agree, this can be good for mixing, but it's too distinct to be so unarguably suggested to everyone and anyone. When i used my kh120iis, almost every song i listened to had problems. Im talking radio hit songs, etc. When it came to producing on them, I couldn't enjoy it. If it came down to casual listening, i couldn't enjoy that much either. It was extremely dependent on genre.

People should try out many speakers before you buy, everyone has different ears, different preferences. Just because 2 speakers share almost identical measurements DOES NOT mean they have the same tonality, timbre, etc.

Here's the thing, At Vintage King, I demo'd the Genelec Ones, heard the Kii Three, Focal solo6 (of course), etc. Out of these brands, and many other models, only the kh120ii and kh150 had the distinct sound im referring to. it was actually my first time hearing the Genelecs, and they sort of reminded me of my friend's Event Opals, which I really loved. I couldn't afford the genelecs, so that's that. After being chronically on this forum and other forums, I saw the measurements of Genelecs and Neumanns, and just assumed "oh yeah they're going to sound pretty similar." I also heard from people that they could barely tell a difference.No way, totally different sound. Genelecs are soft and more forgiving, more smooth, cohesive, and relatable to many other speaker models in the market, while the kh120ii/kh150, again, just have a sound that isn't AS relatable to other monitors besides themselves (in my opinion).

The last thing i'll say, is that this distinct quality could be a good thing to some people. But, if you're using them for production, casual listening, and even mixing, they might not be the god-given solution that everyone seems to think they are these days. To each their own, but yeah, i don't believe in the one model fits all listeners paradigm.

So, for instance, if my billboard producer friends were coming from Rokits or HS7s/HS8s, and had a couple grand budget, I would point them more to Focals or Genelecs, but not Neumanns.
 
Last edited:
Well, everybody has its own taste of course. I don't own Neumanns nor Genelec nor Focal, nor Event, but Revels, so my answer is not a plea for Neumann.
But I am quite puzzled by what you write.

What can be such a distinctive sound you can quickly notice from a Neumann in any circumstances, environmnt and room ? Frankly it's hard to believe you're aware to do it so quickly and you can even notice it, speakers being Eqed or not, considering the major importance of a room and an EQ on sound.

And why these speakers, supposed to be "arguably the best to mix on" (I quote you) could be not suitable for everything else ?

You are the first to tell this, it seems soooo subjective. And what about the Focals, we are on a Focal thread, and you talk much about Neumann but not on the Focals ?
 
Well, everybody has its own taste of course. I don't own Neumanns nor Genelec nor Focal, nor Event, but Revels, so my answer is not a plea for Neumann.
But I am quite puzzled by what you write.

What can be such a distinctive sound you can quickly notice from a Neumann in any circumstances, environmnt and room ? Frankly it's hard to believe you're aware to do it so quickly and you can even notice it, speakers being Eqed or not, considering the major importance of a room and an EQ on sound.

And why these speakers, supposed to be "arguably the best to mix on" (I quote you) could be not suitable for everything else ?

You are the first to tell this, it seems soooo subjective. And what about the Focals, we are on a Focal thread, and you talk much about Neumann but not on the Focals ?
I love the focal solo6. really smooth, have amazing imaging, and kind of silky (depends on setup and room, and maybe tweeter burn in). I noticed a lot more reverb tails and just overall the timbre is congealed, in positive way. Very musical, but not in a counterproductive way. the show room and my own room, the center is pretty spot on, and the sound is very close.

The neumanns certainly have a distinct sound, you don't have to believe me. I tried to explain the sound in what I wrote, but you'll find similar sentiments on some threads buried here, about genelec vs Neumann, etc. I think it comes down to preference, but yes the neumanns were clear as day, the same overall timbre in the showroom as how they sounded with my various uses of them over the year or so that I had them. No, not every single detail was exactly the same, the room affect is always there. But it's a very recognizable and unmistakable sound. For example, you think the Neumanns would sound like they have a beryllium tweeter just because of the room they're in?

Also, I tried barefoots there. some people describe barefoot footprint02 as "papery", where it lies in the drivers maybe? again, im no expert, but I agree with that description, that was my experience when I demoed the footprint 02s at the show room as well. This was also not hindsight bias, but shared views I stumbled upon after I demoed them. Very analytical but at higher spls kind of papery. The barefoots are often described as more aggressive and pushy as well.

One of my friends is an acoustics engineer. He swears by Dirac and other software as a means to make any speaker (Kali-Lp8 for example) comparable to a speaker that costs 4x as much. While he has a valid point and it's possible, I don't think it's that black and white. Cabinets, drivers, and sonic character can still be hold weight even that scenario.

I might be wrong, but this is kind of how I feel about speakers, and maybe why it's worth checking out many other brands besides just Neumann at this point. I mean Neumann came out with some of the best measurements we've seen on here, right? So, why is anyone buying other speakers then?

Funny enough, I hadn't checked the measurements of the focal solo6s until after I demoed them. I saw that they look pretty good, as reviewed here, maybe my ears were right, or the room was forgiving? One way or another I seem to align with the way many people describe focals; somewhat intense tweeters, some warmth, good imaging, definitely some punch, and musically applicable to a variety of other monitors.

I mean, if a speaker line has a general reputation (like Barefoot for electronic music, bass music), you can't say that everyone that believes that characteristic exists is wrong unless you measure their room...

I agree, room and measurements ARE the top factor, but my point is they are far from the ONLY factor. :)

Also, im not here to rip on Neumann. I was more responding to that user's comment on how Neumann is just dusting Focal completely. It's apples to oranges here.
 
Last edited:
I'm a musician/producer and less of an audiophile, for 13 years so what do i know but... i ended up selling my 120 iis for these focals. I also got them sent over from Europe so I got a pretty good deal, about $2.2k usd for the pair.

I went to vintage king twice, about 3 hours total of referencing monitors between the genelecs, neumanns, focals, etc. This is after I used the kh120iis for over a year or so. Tried the kh150s as well. I certainly didn't like the focal shapes or any other model, but the solo6s won for me in that price bracket.

But most important: At Vintage King, I was so excited to hear the kh120iis calibrated in the showroom, to hear if my gripes with them were true... I had the kh120iis in 3 different rooms over the years, while i owned them, large room, small rooms, calibrated, uncalibrated, treated, untreated, etc. For me personally, they have a hot kind of live sound. Im not saying *hot* as in sharp or piercing, no, they just remind me of a guitar amp or something, the sound is unlike any other speaker i've heard. Could this be a good thing? Well i don't know, because it's them (kh120ii and kh150) versus the world in terms of tonality... they're too distinct for me. I can't explain it because im not a professional with this stuff, but it's a specific timbre that was unshakably noticeable for me when i was using them; and yes, it was exactly the same sound at Vintage King, the kh150s as well. The kh310s had less of this overly live timbre to me, and more cohesion; id say the k310s were great but a bit boring (by design). Maybe its just the drivers in the kh120ii, and the kh150s. Its not smooth, and a bit particle-ized to me. I agree, this can be good for mixing, but it's too distinct to be so unarguably suggested to everyone and anyone. When i used my kh120iis, almost every song i listened to had problems. Im talking radio hit songs, etc. When it came to producing on them, I couldn't enjoy it. If it came down to casual listening, i couldn't enjoy that much either. It was extremely dependent on genre.

People should try out many speakers before you buy, everyone has different ears, different preferences. Just because 2 speakers share almost identical measurements DOES NOT mean they have the same tonality, timbre, etc.

Here's the thing, At Vintage King, I demo'd the Genelec Ones, heard the Kii 3s, Focal solo6 (of course), etc. Out of these brands, and many other models, only the kh120ii and kh150 had the distinct sound im referring to. it was actually my first time hearing the Genelecs, and they sort of reminded me of my friend's Event Opals, which I really loved. I couldn't afford the genelecs, so that's that. After being chronically on this forum and other forums, I saw the measurements of Genelecs and Neumanns, and just assumed "oh yeah they're going to sound pretty similar." I also heard from people that they could barely tell a difference.No way, totally different sound. Genelecs are soft and more forgiving, more smooth, cohesive, and relatable to many other speaker models in the market, while the Neumanns, again, just have a sound that isn't AS relatable to other monitors besides themselves (in my opinion).

The last thing i'll say, is that this distinct quality can be a great thing. They're arguably the best speakers to mix on, probably because of this distinct quality. But, if you're using them for production, casual listening, and anything else, they might not be the god-given solution that everyone seems to think they are these days. To each their own, but yeah, i don't believe in the one model fits all listeners paradigm.

So, for instance, if my billboard producer friends were coming from Rokits or HS7s/HS8s, and had a couple grand budget, I would point them more to Focals or Genelecs, but not Neumanns.
I think it depends on the use and what one wants. If one wants a certain distinctive sound, well.... ok. I want a flat, truthful sound without coloration for my studio.
 
I love the focal solo6. really smooth, have amazing imaging, and kind of silky (depends on setup and room, and maybe tweeter burn in). I noticed a lot more reverb tails and just overall the timbre is congealed, in positive way. in the show room and my own room, the center is pretty spot on, and the sound is very close.

The neumanns certainly have a distinct sound, you don't have to believe me. I tried to explain the sound in what I wrote, but you'll find similar sentiments on some threads buried here, about genelec vs Neumann, etc. I think it comes down to preference, but yes the neumanns were clear as day, the same overall timbre in the showroom as how they sounded with my various uses of them over the year or so that I had them. No, not every single detail was exactly the same, the room affect is always there. But it's a very familiar and unmistakable sound. For example, you think the Neumanns would sound like they have a beryllium tweeter just because of the room they're in?

Also, I tried barefoots there. some people describe barefoot footprint02 as "papery", where it lies in the drivers maybe? again, im no expert, but I agree with that description, that was my experience when I demoed the footprint 02s at the show room as well. This was also not hindsight bias, but shared views I stumbled upon after I demoed them. Very analytical but at higher spls kind of papery. The barefoots are often described as more aggressive and pushy as well.

One of my friends is an acoustics engineer. He swears by Dirac and other software as a means to make any speaker (Kali-Lp8 for example) comparable to a speaker that costs 4x as much. While he has a valid point and it's possible, I don't think it's that black and white. Cabinets, drivers, and sonic character can still be hold weight even that scenario.

I might be wrong, but this is kind of how I feel about speakers, and maybe why it's worth even checking out any other brand but Neumann at this point. I mean Neumann came out with the best measurements we've seen on here, right? So, why is anyone buying other speakers then?

Funny enough, I hadn't checked the measurements of the focal solo6s until after I demoed them. I saw that they look pretty good, as reviewed here, maybe my ears were right, or the room was forgiving? One way or another I seem to align with the way many people describe focals; somewhat intense tweeters, some warmth, good imaging, definitely some punch.

I mean, if a speaker line has a general reputation (like Barefoot for electronic music, bass music), you can't say that everyone that believes that characteristic exists is wrong unless you measure their room...

I agree, room and measurements ARE the top factor, but my point is they are far from the ONLY factor. :)

Also, im not here to rip on Neumann. I was more responding to that user's comment on how Neumann is just dusting Focal completely. It's apples to oranges here.
OK - fair enough - I was speaking of someone who wants monitors for use in a studio, rather than pleasure listening speakers ----- which are entirely different. For studio use where one wants truthful monitors, I will stand by what I said.

Dyna and Focal seem to have left the monitor market in favor of the pleasure listening market - which is fine. I should note that I love Focal - I have three sets of Focal headphones for pleasure listening. They are wonderful. Also, the new Dyna small speakers ($7000 per pair) are astonishing beautiful. Their woodwork is superlative and only matched by Tannoy. I would love to have a pair.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Hey everyone! Just wanted to share my own experience with Focals and Neumanns, since the topic 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
Maybe the KH150 are too analytical for you?
 
Hey everyone! Just wanted to share my own experience with Focals and Neumanns, since the topic 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
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom