Focal Twin6 Be Studio Monitor Review

[thewas]

I did a while ago. This deal happened quite a few times since.
I don't remember where you are from (?). I'm not sure how much overseas shipping/custom will add to the final cost.

I am located in the EU so the price increase is thankfully very moderate.

 

[DSJR]

Harbeth 30's have a deliberate downtilt to refine and match the 5/9 which has a definite suckout with tweeter recovery in original Rogers form (I think the Grahams keep the tweeter slightly down according to a HiFi Review test with rather cramped response plot). the 3/5A is a domestic disaster really, the later originals and current Falcon ones having a 'batman' response. i didn't like the original ones much and was told by one of the design team that they were hyped in the upper mids and fizzed up in the tweeter (shown in that old Stereophile link) to emphasise distortion and hisssssss in an OB van. They did this beatifully but natural reproduction of music (whatever the fanboys say)? Forget it

 

[thewas]

Harbeth 30's have a deliberate downtilt to refine and match the 5/9 which has a definite suckout with tweeter recovery in original Rogers form (I think the Grahams keep the tweeter slightly down according to a HiFi Review test with rather cramped response plot).

Ignore the downtilt and on axis suckouts, I am talking about the directivity peaks = off axis drops appearing at the presence region due to non matching directivity of the drivers. Or do you know of a BBC monitor with smooth directivity which doesn't have them?

 

[DSJR]

I've not seen measurements of LS5/5 which was supposedly the last properly 'flat on axis' monitor they did. The BC1 (the 3/6 was derived from this to kind of make it 'official' although it's claimed the BBC didn't buy many) also has a 3 - 4kHz off-axis dip laterally but the graphs published aren't as thorough as Klippel (and Amir) provides. I suspect some of these monitors were nearish field and angled to face the listener, so just maybe it wasn't judged as important or as critical, but I don't know. Now you have me looking, I've looked properly at the dispersion of the M30.2 (NOT a BBC-used speaker) and it's not too good either, is it - https://www.stereophile.com/content...-anniversary-edition-loudspeaker-measurements. Harbeth look to have also invested in a Klippel suite and equipment recently, so we'll see what happens in the future here, the claim being the current designs can't be taken much further as they are.

 

[Biblob]

Can we stick to the review guys, this is getting op.

 

[Valentin R]

Erin

I don’t know where you get the idea that being in the near field 1.5 m listening the dispersion (horizontal and vertical ) early reflections don’t matter

Even your PIR and your actual in room have a great Ageement ( measured in the listening near field )

 

[hardisj]

Erin

I don’t know where you get the idea that being in the near field 1.5 m listening the dispersion (horizontal and vertical ) early reflections don’t matter

Even your PIR and your actual in room have a great Ageement ( measured in the listening near field )

Did you watch the video? I discuss this topic and provide my rationale. I even note room size playing a role here.


Also, I stated this in the write-up:
“While the prediction in this test is close to the actual measured response, there is a fair bit more deviation than I typically see in my other tests. I think this is likely attributed to the fact that I measured in the nearfield (as these were designed to be listened to) in my living room. You can see in the below graphic that sitting closer to the speaker yields a higher level response in the high frequency region (blue, 1.5 meters) and when backing away (purple, 2.5 meters) the HF response comes down a bit. I think if I measured these speakers as I typically do the in-room result would have matched the prediction better. This is an example of where the speaker’s purpose (nearfield listening) should be considered when viewing data.”

 

[Valentin R]

Did you watch the video? I discuss this topic and provide my rationale. I even note room size playing a role here.


Also, I stated this in the write-up:
“While the prediction in this test is close to the actual measured response, there is a fair bit more deviation than I typically see in my other tests. I think this is likely attributed to the fact that I measured in the nearfield (as these were designed to be listened to) in my living room. You can see in the below graphic that sitting closer to the speaker yields a higher level response in the high frequency region (blue, 1.5 meters) and when backing away (purple, 2.5 meters) the HF response comes down a bit. I think if I measured these speakers as I typically do the in-room result would have matched the prediction better. This is an example of where the speaker’s purpose (nearfield listening) should be considered when viewing data.”

Yes I saw it
And I stil don’t think your coment is correct
A lot of people think that being in de nearfield
Will make the room effects disappear
Thinking that the only important measurement is the on axis

Well clearly as you measured it’s not

Yes you would need a different ponderación of curves to get a closer pir in nearfield but that is not the point

Humans perceive hearing in a lapse of time So no mater if you are in a close or far position early reflections and late sound field will have a big influence on tonality

 

[hardisj]

Yes you would need a different ponderación of curves to get a closer pir in nearfield but that is not the point

I think that is the point, actually. The data shows that the HF is elevated much more than the PIR suggests when in the nearfield. This is the only speaker I have measured that shows such a high degree of "error". And this is the only speaker I have measured nearfield. And we know the HF downward tilt at the MLP is due to the room interaction. We know the PIR consists of 12% listening window, 44% early reflections and 44% sound power. In a large room (like my living room), those last 88% isn't as influential when in the nearfield. I believe the data backs this up because as the MLP is moved further, the HF tilts downward more.

But, that aside, I don't believe I said sitting nearfield entirely negates the room. I think what I said in the review was something to the effect of it diminishes the influence and I specifically caveated that statement with the comment about smaller rooms. In a smaller room where the MLP is still not nearfield "enough" to get away from the room effects, I expect this would change.

 

[hardisj]

Even more "evidence" that when in the nearfield the room matters less and less...

Look at the on-axis response. See the sharp dip around 5kHz?
Now look at the LW response. No dip there.
Now look at the PIR. No dip there.

Now, look at the measured in-room response. The 5kHz dip is there but only at 1.5m. But at 2.5m it is gone.
I think this sufficiently proves that when in the nearfield-ish range, the on-axis is much more influential than any of the room effects. As you move further away, the room effects take over. This shouldn't be surprising, really. But it's nice to see how the two distances measured in my in-room response show this trend pretty clearly.

Edit: Again, to be 100% clear, I am not saying the room doesn't matter. I am saying that at a certain distance from the speaker, relative to the size of your room, the room effects are less impactful.

 

[Valentin R]

Even more "evidence" that when in the nearfield the room matters less and less...

Look at the on-axis response. See the sharp dip around 5kHz?
Now look at the LW response. No dip there.
Now look at the PIR. No dip there.

Now, look at the measured in-room response. The 5kHz dip is there but only at 1.5m. But at 2.5m it is gone.
I think this sufficiently proves that when in the nearfield-ish range, the on-axis is much more influential than any of the room effects. As you move further away, the room effects take over. This shouldn't be surprising, really. But it's nice to see how the two distances measured in my in-room response show this trend pretty clearly.

Edit: Again, to be 100% clear, I am not saying the room doesn't matter. I am saying that at a certain distance from the speaker, relative to the size of your room, the room effects are less impactful.

Come one. The 5k dip of course and if you go higher even more influence
But below???
The perceived tonality is influenced

This specific design is a big compromise
You. Have many Other models that do not have this issues even from the same brand and are perfect for near field monitors midfield or far field listening

 

[hardisj]

Come one. The 5k dip of course and if you go higher even more influence
But below???
The perceived tonality is influenced

I honestly have no idea what you're argument is here and I feel this has entered the realm of semantics at this point. Or we are just talking past each other.

I already stated the room has an effect. I have said (and proven) that the effect of the room matters less as you enter the nearfield and that this is shown primarily in the HF. It seems we agree but for some reason you find fault in my assessment.

 

[dfuller]

I honestly have no idea what you're argument is here and I feel this has entered the realm of semantics at this point. Or we are just talking past each other.

I already stated the room has an effect. I have said (and proven) that the effect of the room matters less as you enter the nearfield and that this is shown primarily in the HF. It seems we agree but for some reason you find fault in my assessment.

And I can confirm this... I don't feel it's that complex of a thing to realize that sitting closer to a speaker means its direct radiation has more weight than further away.

 

[bloodshoteyed]

For 600€? Way cheaper during every Winter and Summer Sales. I paid mine 440€, @daftcombo had a pair for 416€. Cheapest I saw was 399/pair.

Weird thing is lower-end Chora are often more expensive. But Arias are 8 years old by now.

wait, what?
i didn't know central europe was moved to the US then...with prices atm between 915-1000€/pair :O

 

[dfuller]

So, that ~3k dip? This isn't the only Focal 2.5-way to do that. This is the Shape Twin from Sound And Recording. Looks like it's got a similar dip.

 

[tomtrp]

Yep. Any parameter or measurement is easily beaten by the KH310. And this with a smaller housing and a real 3-way, all for the same amount of money (AFAIK).

Not really in terms of THD. If you compare distortion at 96db with Amir's measuremnt of KH310, Focal Twin 6 Be actually has much lower THD in 50-100hz region and slightly better THD in 5-10k region as well(focal -50db vs KH310 -40db approx. in 5-10k), which may provide cleaner bass and arguably cleaner treble as well.

 

[dfuller]

Not really in terms of THD. If you compare distortion at 96db with Amir's measuremnt of KH310, Focal Twin 6 Be actually has much lower THD in 50-100hz region and slightly better THD in 5-10k region as well(focal -50db vs KH310 -40db approx. in 5-10k), which may provide cleaner bass and arguably cleaner treble as well.

Yeah to be honest with you the KH310's only real downside is it's just asking too much of a single 8" driver in an AS box.