Focal Solo6 vs. Paradigm S2 vs. Salk SongTower Pt1

The Speakers

Focal Solo6 (Solo)– Thanks to FirstReflection, I discovered Focal makes the Solo6, an active studio monitor with a 150Watt BASH amp driving a 6.5” mid/bass, and a 100Watt Class A-B amp driving an inverted dome Beryllium tweeter. These descriptions fit the drivers of the Focal 1028, but Focal’s literature doesn’t confirm they are the same. I auditioned the 1028’s against the S2’s and the 1028 is definitely a better speaker than the S2, but not $5000 better (IMHO). Naturally, the possibility of getting some of the 1028’s sound without the extravagant cost required investigation.
After you consider that the amplifiers are included, the Solo6’s are competitively priced at $2600 MSRP. These speakers have balanced XLR inputs and “Lo” and “Hi” “Contour” controls on the back.
40Hz to 40kHz +/-2dB is the manufacturers claimed frequency response.
Here is a picture of the back panel:


Paradigm S2 (S2)– This is Version 2 of Paradigm’s Signature series.
$2600 MSRP.
52Hz to 45kHz +/-2dB is the manufacturers claimed frequency response.

Salk SongTower (ST) – This is the Salk SongTower QWT with the Ribbon Tweeter option.
$2400 with Ribbon Tweeter ($1700 with the standard soft-dome tweeter).
42Hz to 20kHz +/-3dB is the manufacturers claimed frequency response for the standard tweeter. The ribbon tweeter matches the Be tweeters for high end extension (to whatever extent I can perceive).



Setup - I have two identical receivers (Marantz SR6001’s). The CD player is connected to Receiver1. Receiver 1 feeds the ST as speaker A and the S2 as speaker B and the Tape Output of Receiver1 feeds the CD input of Receiver2. The Preamp output of Receiver2 feeds the Solo6’s amps. Both receivers were set to “Pure Direct”. No bass management was employed, and the subwoofer was disconnected. Once the levels are matched, I can mute one of the receivers then use the remote control’s mute to instantly swap the receivers/speakers. As luck would have it, the ST and the S2 have the same efficiency which made the switch between A and B speakers on Receiver1 easier than expected.
Most of the listening was done with a fast response, C weighted SPL of 65-75dB. The room has wall to wall carpeting, vaulted ceiling, bed, and drapes; otherwise it is all sheetrock, glass, and hardwood furniture with ample clutter on the desk, dresser, and nightstands. No acoustic treatments have been applied. I have been listening to them for the better part of three days.

Warm-up - I wanted to make sure everything was warmed up before starting, and I needed to get the levels matched, so I put in Alanis Morissette’s “Jagged Little Pill Acoustic”. In the process, I was surprised to hear Alanis’s voice change between speakers. Alanis’s voice has a unique metallic/reedy/edgy character which pairs well with her lyrics. This aspect was most pronounced on the ST’s and much less pronounced on the Solos. One place where this difference was especially obvious was on Track 2, “You Oughta Know” at 3:15. On the Solo6’s her voice sounded more natural and open than I am used to hearing it.
Other immediate impressions noted were:
ST’s had fuller bass
Solos were more open
ST’s were warmer and smoother

The S2’s fell between the Solos and ST’s in many aspects. As a generality, I found that the sound of the Solo and the S2 were closer in sound, with the ST having a more distinct character.

Bass - As stand-alone speakers (no sub), the ST had the most pleasant low end. The Solo went deeper, but the ST seemed to have a slightly tipped up low end (which rolled off more quickly when it reached its bottom). Just to be clear, the ST's sounded best, IMHO - tipping up the bass is a common method of compensating for notes missing at the bottom, and it is done very well on the ST’s. The tuning of the ST gave it more warmth and felt fuller than either of the others.
For use with a sub, the Solo gets my vote. It was just damn tight and accurate. Low notes were more distinct on the Solo. Listening to Chris Squire playing on Yes-"Fragile"-"Heart of the Sunrise" was a treat. The growl which so defines the character of his Rickenbacker bass thrives on this speaker! Both the ST and the S2 did a great job with this "growl", but I'm convinced the Solo mid/bass is an exceptionally quick driver. This speed was also apparent on the syncopation of Tony Levin’s bass on Joni Mitchell’s “Wild Things Run Fast”, Track 9, “Man to Man”, starting at 0:18. These fast low notes were exceptionally distinct on the Solo’s.
The Solo6 also puts out the deepest notes with the most authority of these three. After listening to lower bass, the conclusion I have is that the ST’s drop off faster below the port tuning while the Solo6’s roll off more gradually. The added depth of the Solo6’s compared to the ST’s was apparent on Steely Dan’s “Aja”, Track 7, “Josie” with the bass line starting at 0:15.
The S2 was the weakest on the low end by a good margin. What bass the S2 produced was done well, but I feel most people would be compelled to add a subwoofer to the S2’s, whereas the ST and Solo could satisfy some.

Soundstage - The S2 has the widest Soundstage, followed by the Solo6, then the ST. When I listened to the Solo vs. the ST, I thought that the ST's weren't as narrow as I had remembered from comparing the S2 with the ST. However, once I had the S2's in the loop, it was apparent that they were wider than the Solo6’s and the ST got comparatively narrower. With the ST’s, it sounded as if most of the sound was coming from a (non-existent) central speaker. I swapped the position of the speakers, but the comparative width of the soundstages stayed with the speakers.
The width of the soundstage seemed to correlate directly with off-axis dispersion. I moved my chair about 3 feet to the right and the ST’s had a significant decrease in treble compared to the Solos and S2’s. I never had the chance to listen to the ST with the standard dome tweeter, but I believe it is safe to expect a better soundstage. Anyone contemplating the ribbon tweeter should realize that it is best suited for dedicated listening from the proper spot.

Treble - The inverted dome Be tweeter of the Focal was the best of the bunch. The Paradigm's Be, the Salk's ribbon, and the Focal’s Be are three stand out tweeters to my ear. The differences between these and other tweeters I've heard is far greater than the differences among these three. Nonetheless, the Focal Be has the fuller sound. This difference was pronounced where the chimes come in at 0:27 of Track 4, Frank Zappa’s “Pound for a Brown on the Bus” of Ed Palermo’s “Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance” Album. The ST and the S2 sound pretty much identical to one another.

I had the ST's pointed a foot behind my head and the Solos and S2's pointed about three feet behind my head. The ST's were the most “up front”, followed by the S2, followed by the Solo. The ST's did not seem “hot” and I experienced no fatigue. On the other extreme, the Solo did not seem veiled. It was more like the cymbals, etc. were closest on the ST's and farther away on the Solos with the S2’s in-between.

Midrange/Accuracy - The Solos offer more detail, transparency, and accuracy than any other speaker I have heard! Sudden attacks such as rim taps were excitingly quick and many sound details such as fingers touching guitar strings were maintained as a clean and distinct component of the sound. They are not overblown, but the edges (both attack and decay) of these sounds are much better defined than on the other two speakers (which are very good at this!).
Perhaps bi-amping and being able to design amplification specific to the crossover and drivers affords Focal an advantage in the speed of the Solo. My inner geek is disappointed that I could not find any specifications on the electronic guts of the Solo6’s.
As a good place to demonstrate this aspect of the Solos, starting at 0:15 in Track4, “Peg” of Steely Dan’s “Aja” there is staccato guitar in the background and the Solo’s exhibited outstanding speed compared to the other two.
Similarly, the characteristic of various instrument voices are better conveyed. The timbre of the alto and tenor saxophone on the Solos surpassed that of the S2 and ST. However, this difference disappeared on the higher and thinner notes of the soprano sax where the sound was very close for all three. The “blatt” of a ballsy trombone solo was clearly captured better on the Solo’s. I think these are differences in transients – it is all about speed.
The ability of the Solo's mid/bass to distinctly present voices is uncanny. Harmonies as sung by Steely Dan are well blended, but the Solos had me listening to the interplay and exchange between the singers – “Aja”, Track 2, “Aja” at 6:25. On the same passage, the ST’s created a smooth and mellow sound which I think Steely Dan would be proud of, and the S2’s were in-between, smoother than the Solo’s with more definition than the ST’s.

Simply put, the Solos are well suited to their design function of providing a monitor for a professional audio mixing studio. It was easier to isolate the distinct voices comprising the music. The Solo6 is undoubtedly the more accurate speaker, followed by the S2, and then by the ST. There were places where any one of these three speakers sounded best.

Continued below.

Focal Solo6 vs. Paradigm S2 vs. Salk SongTower Pt2

Musicality - While listening critically, the Solos beat out the S2's and SongTowers every time. The sound of any given instrument or vocal was equal or closer to real on the Solo’s. I think the ST’s and S2's sound a little warmer & fuller because of some residual vibrations (whether driver or cabinet resonance, I don't know). The precise starts and stops left the Solos sounding comparatively empty in places. The S2, and even more so, the Songtower, often added a warmth and richness of fuller sound which was more comfortable.
When the music gets really complex, the Solo6 is king. Its quickness provides some space between the notes. If the music is simple and open, the ST rules (it is the ambiance thing I mentioned in my earlier comparison of the ST with the S1). Again, the S2’s were in between. After noticing how smooth the ST was against the Solo/S2, I pulled out an old song which I’ve always considered the ultimate in smooth. Sure enough, the ST's were a great venue for Chet Atkins "Stay Tuned" album featuring Chet and George Benson playing "Sunrise". Their two guitars were incredibly smooth and blended exceptionally well on the ST's. On the Solos, it was easier to tell what each guitar was doing, but I think it was Atkins&Benson's objective to blend as much as possible and from that perspective, the SongTowers assist the music superbly.

Decisions, decisions - Intellectually, I believe the Solo6 is the better speaker. Anytime I listened to a specific aspect of the sound, the Solo was better. The Solos even brought tears to my eyes at one spot, and that is powerful stuff!
However, there is something to be said for the little bit of resonant/sustain quality the S2 and ST added – kind of like the difference between someone singing in a snow-covered field vs. in a theater with good acoustics. In the snow-covered field you hear every sound, but the theater reinforces the sound.
Side note: Though I am reluctant to say anything between speakers which I haven’t listened to at the same time, I do believe that Focal’s own 1028's added color and were not so accurate as the Solos. They never gave the lean/empty sense which the Solos did on occasion. Maybe it was the reinforcement of the 1028’s extra drivers or maybe color from the cabinet.

More often than not, when I switched speakers without focusing on specifics, the overall sound of the S2’s and ST’s was simply more comfortable. Part of me wants to believe that it is simply a matter of time until I get used to the Solos’ accuracy and they will become my favorite. However, I have to be honest. If I had to commit, today, to a speaker for the rest of my life, I would not choose the Solos. “Mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away.”

Between the ST’s and the S2’s, I would choose the S2. The biggest factor in this decision was the wider Soundstage of the S2.

Perspective - Any of these three speakers afford excellent sound to my ear, and, from the listening chair, none of their differences would be noticed without the other speakers immediately available.
With the ability to switch between speakers, it typically takes about 30 seconds to get a good hunch and 2 minutes to be certain which speaker is which by sound alone.

I plan to keep the Solos and S2's and will leave them in the same room for some time.

Some general comments:

Salk SongTower with Ribbon Tweeter
• Best for smooth music – Fuller, warmer than the others (this might also be why tube pre-amps seem popular among Salk owners)
• Best bass for 2.0 system
• Great high frequency sound
• Narrowest Soundstage (with ribbon tweeter)
• Best looking (I like all three, but the ST’s are beautiful, IMHO)
• Has a very nice user group on AudioCircles forum

Paradigm S2, v2

• Holds the middle ground among these three, not as warm as the Salks, but still very rich and full.
• Abundant - Commonly available used with a good discount.
• Outstanding off-axis dispersion
• Widest soundstage.
• Bass needs subwoofer, IMHO
• Great high frequency sound

Focal Solo6 Be
• Exciting option which has stayed below the radar for home audio
• Exceptionally accurate, fast, and tight
• Brutally honest
• Excellent deal new, but rarely available used, IME.
• Best bass for 2.1 system
• Heat from built-in amplification could compromise driver life
• Great high frequency sound, fullest of the 3


Cheers,
Kurt

I can't afford any of those speakers (unfortunately) but I enjoyed your review. I especially liked the "snow covered field" comparison. Very interesting image...reminds me of being a kid when an extremely rare snowfall would come and blanket everything, muffling all the sounds of my little town. It was erie, but also very calming.

Hopefully my Atoms will arrive today. I was already very eager for them to show up, but your impressions above have me salivating.

Awesome, awesome write up, KEW! I really think a lot of people will enjoy and benefit from this

Just in case a few folks are wondering - the Focal Solo6 Be do need to be plugged into a wall for power (as KEW clearly pointed out, they have their own amps built right in). They also use an XLR connection - which is typically a balanced connection. But the Solo6 can also run using an unbalanced connection, thanks to their input sensitivity switch. So you absolutely have to use pre-outs from your receiver or pre/pro. But those pre-outs do not have to be balanced XLR outputs. They most certainly can be balanced XLR outputs. But you can also use the more commone unbalanced RCA outputs without any worries or problems. KEW is using the unbalanced RCA outputs from his Marantz receiver and is simply making the connection using an unbalanced RCA-to-XLR cable. The Solo6 works with the standard "Pin 2 Hot" unbalanced XLR design, so it might not be the connection that most consumers are used to, but it is still an easy connection without any really complicated "pro" gear necessary or anything

I recommended the Focal Pro speakers to KEW after having heard them in an actual professional studio. To my ear, they were utterly transparent and I was quite shocked to discover their relatively affordable price! If your goal is to perceive every minute detail with total transparency and a complete lack of distortion, I have personally never heard another speaker in the $2500/pair price range that achieves that goal as closely as the Focal Solo6. I figured they might interest KEW especially after reading his impressions of Focal's consumer speakers.

As KEW so eloquently explained, the Solo6 really are a "brutally honest" speaker. There is no where for any "flaw" in the recording to "hide" - no "softening" or making a recording sound more "pleasant" than it really is. On the one hand, this can make certain listening experiences less enjoyable. But, on the other hand, it is the sort of honesty that you come to really trust. When you want to hear exactly what is in the recording, I believe you will find yourself coming back to the Solo6. To me, they become more of a tool. "Did I really hear what I thought I heard with speaker x? Well, let's listen through the Solo6 and find out!"

It's tough to say whether most people would choose the Solo6 for pure, casual enjoyment. They can seem analytic, sterile and unforgiving. But when the recording is excellent, they can also come closer to "live" because of their extreme clarity and lack of distortion. As I say, I think of them as a precision tool. They are not my "friend". They have a job to do and they do it extremely well, IMO. To me, this makes a whole lot of sense as they never claim to be anything other than a professional studio speaker whose aim is to convey every nuance of the recording to the mixer so that he or she can effectively do his or her job. If the sound exists in the recording, the pro mixer wants to hear it. And if the sound does not exist (overhang, harmonic, etc.) the mixer does not want to have a speaker creating this sort of distortion.

Personally, I love the Solo6 and can't wait to have them in my own theater (have to pay off my prior spending spree first ). But then again, I love nothing more than hearing as close to what was heard in the pro studio as possible!

Thanks again, KEW! I love your descriptions and write ups and I really hope this might help to "open" some people's eyes to the possibilities of using so-called "pro" speakers in their homes

Guys, KEF & FirstReflection thanks for taking the time to lend us your thoughts on the Focal, and KEW for the S2 and ST-RT's once again... I very much enjoy your analysis and thorough writeup for them all.

I found this while looking at info on the Focal Solo6, seems they are truly designed for nearfield placement. But from both of your thoughts, seem to be some fantastic speakers in comparison.

The Solo6 Be and Twin6 Be are designed for near field monitoring and should be placed at a distance between 1 and 3 metres from the listener, pointing towards the listening position.

They can be sitting on the console top or placed on appropriate stands. In any way it is recommended that the tweeter is at a height from the floor approximately equivalent to that of the listener's ears. If required it can make sense to place the speakers upside down so that the previous rule is better fulfilled.

Both 6.5" drivers handle low frequencies but only one of the two (selectable) is passing lo-mid frequencies.
System
Frequency response 40Hz-40kHz
Maximum SPL 115 dB SPL (peak@1m)

Click to expand...

On a side note, I finally pulled the trigger on my Sigs, got a C5 .v2 Center and a pair of S2's .v2 used off audiogon in perfect shape... I have been leary of picking up a set of S8's used for fear of UPS damaging such a large heavy item, so I ordered some S8 .v3's from my dealer, he gave me a great price while still allowing room for a profit... I'll let him worry about shipping damage. Looking forward to finally upgrading from my Studio's...

Sorry to poo-poo, and I've held my tongue on the recent posting and re-posting by the OP on this brand, but I abhor JM Labs speakers. I've heard every major line all the way up to the Grande Utupias, as well as giving the 1038s at least two involved auditions.

That tweeter is so abrasive it is insane. I don't know where one draws the line between "honesty" and "incredibly exaggerated upper frequency response", but I think it's the latter.

The 1038s were in a very nice, large, acoustically treated dedicated space. Chorus and Profile lines I've heard in multiple stores. Grande Utopias were in an even larger room, though not dedicated, and untreated.

I know that my opinion might be rare here, and many respected and long time members here enjoy and desire them. I hate them. I think TLS Guy might be the only person who shares my opinion here, but we all know how discriminating he can be. I rarely knock speakers down here, but I feel like I should put forth my own opinion on this brand. And I like French products in general, including violin bows, guitars, and wine. Just not their speakers. Well, I haven't heard let alone seen a Triangle speaker yet . . .

In a nutshell, I believe the BE lineup gives an incredibly unrealistic and exaggerated rendition of recordings. And FWIW, the best and most able years of my life were dedicated to live acoustical (classical) performances, including having played in a number of orchestras, ensembles (with many variations), and solo.

edit: I still have very high hopes for the day I finally get to hear Salk.

Although this 3-speaker comparison was fun and fascinating to read, I cannot understand how to compare two unamplified speakers to a third speaker that has internal amps driving the woofer and tweeter separately.

Do the amps in the Marantz receivers come close to the power available in the Solo6s? Its difficult to know how much that contributed to the audible differences KEW described.

The only French speaker I like is V-DOSC which is a live PA speakerThey are my favorite to mix on out of all of the Live speakers out there.......

Warpdrv said:

I found this while looking at info on the Focal Solo6, seems they are truly designed for nearfield placement.

Click to expand...

I can offer that my listening seat puts my ears over 9 feet and less than 10 feet away. That is the distance my evaluation was made from. 3 meters is 9.84' so I suspect I was right around the upper limit.
Congrats on the new speakers!

Jostenmeat,

Thanks for your post. It is a perfect reminder that we all hear differently and there is no substitute for auditioning speakers. By no means should my post be read as I know what everyone else wants.

The extended highs are the most pronounced common aspect of these three speakers. When I auditioned the Paradigm S1 against the RBH 61-LSE with the Status Acoustics drivers, the S1’s Be tweeter revealed the RBH’s highs as muted on the tap of a triangle. There was no doubt that the RBH’s were better in many other aspects, but I had to go with the S1’s Be tweeter. A visiting friend simply didn’t hear a great enough difference in the tweeters and the RBH speakers were an easy choice for him. My point is that these speakers I have chosen include a “tweeter surcharge” which may or may not be worthwhile for others.

My friend did not hear the Be tweeter as a detractor as you do, but he heard very little benefit.

Of course, the reason for posting my audition is to share with others so they may be able to figure out which speakers are the best candidates for trial.

Perhaps you can post what one of your very favorite tweeters is and also a good tweeter which is commonly available that readers can check out. That way if someone listens to a Be or ribbon tweeter and feels like you do, they will have an idea what to try.

I am hoping to hear a Salk HT4, if I ever get the opportunity! I hear it is stunningly realistic!

KEW said:

Jostenmeat,

Thanks for your post. It is a perfect reminder that we all hear differently and there is no substitute for auditioning speakers. By no means should my post be read as I know what everyone else wants.

The extended highs are the most pronounced common aspect of these three speakers. When I auditioned the Paradigm S1 against the RBH 61-LSE with the Status Acoustics drivers, the S1’s Be tweeter revealed the RBH’s highs as muted on the tap of a triangle. There was no doubt that the RBH’s were better in many other aspects, but I had to go with the S1’s Be tweeter. A visiting friend simply didn’t hear a great enough difference in the tweeters and the RBH speakers were an easy choice for him. My point is that these speakers I have chosen include a “tweeter surcharge” which may or may not be worthwhile for others.

My friend did not hear the Be tweeter as a detractor as you do, but he heard very little benefit.

Of course, the reason for posting my audition is to share with others so they may be able to figure out which speakers are the best candidates for trial.

Perhaps you can post what one of your very favorite tweeters is and also a good tweeter which is commonly available that readers can check out. That way if someone listens to a Be or ribbon tweeter and feels like you do, they will have an idea what to try.

I am hoping to hear a Salk HT4, if I ever get the opportunity! I hear it is stunningly realistic!

Click to expand...

Excellent observation - everyones ears are different, and that should be noted - as well as every speakers delivery is different and each individual will find some better then others... or completely offensive in this case.

Not sure I could stomach the presence of HT4's in my house - they just look way too darn goofy to me, but the eye is in the beholder, and I wonder if they will be worth the entrance fee.

I have never had the opportunity to hear the Focals, though I saw them all first hand at CEDIA this year - just looking at them they certainly had a auspicious presence to them...

I did have the opportunity to listen to a set of Magnepan MG 20.1's and I have to say they were extremely sweet sounding IMO, the Maggies.... along with the B&W 802D's once again... If you have a chance - give them a listen, first time I have ever heard them, but they were extremely well natured, and pleasant- albeit placement fussy and directional, but I would love to spend more time with them for sure.

Swerd said:

Although this 3-speaker comparison was fun and fascinating to read, I cannot understand how to compare two unamplified speakers to a third speaker that has internal amps driving the woofer and tweeter separately.

Do the amps in the Marantz receivers come close to the power available in the Solo6s? Its difficult to know how much that contributed to the audible differences KEW described.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but the only other choice is not to compare active speakers to passive speakers. However, since this is a real world choice, and the specific choice I was faced with, it seems worth doing.

I can't say much to answer whether the Focal amps equate to the Marantz. Focal gives very little information on their amps - 150W RMS BASH for the mid-bass and 100W RMS Class A-B for the tweeter. Effectively the Focal is probably better since the amps are likely tuned to match the crossover and drivers.

FWIW, Here are the specs published by Marantz.
Power Output (20 Hz – 20 kHz/THD=0.08%)
Front L&R ..........................................8 ohms 100 W / Ch
Center ................................................8 ohms 100 W / Ch
Surround L&R ....................................8 ohms 100 W / Ch
Surround Back L&R ...........................8 ohms 100 W / Ch
Front L&R ..........................................6 ohms 120 W / Ch
Center ................................................6 ohms 120 W / Ch
Surround L&R ....................................6 ohms 120 W / Ch
Surround Back L&R ...........................6 ohms 120 W / Ch
Input Sensitivity/Impedance ...............168 mV/ 47 Kohms
Signal to Noise Ratio(Analog Input / Pure Direct) .... 105 dB
Frequency Response
(Analog Input / Pure Direct)
........................................... 8 Hz – 100 kHz (± 3 dB)
(Digital Input / 96 kHz PCM)
............................................ 8 Hz – 45 kHz (± 3 dB)

KEW said:

Jostenmeat,

Thanks for your post. It is a perfect reminder that we all hear differently and there is no substitute for auditioning speakers. By no means should my post be read as I know what everyone else wants.

The extended highs are the most pronounced common aspect of these three speakers. When I auditioned the Paradigm S1 against the RBH 61-LSE with the Status Acoustics drivers, the S1’s Be tweeter revealed the RBH’s highs as muted on the tap of a triangle. There was no doubt that the RBH’s were better in many other aspects, but I had to go with the S1’s Be tweeter. A visiting friend simply didn’t hear a great enough difference in the tweeters and the RBH speakers were an easy choice for him. My point is that these speakers I have chosen include a “tweeter surcharge” which may or may not be worthwhile for others.

My friend did not hear the Be tweeter as a detractor as you do, but he heard very little benefit.

Of course, the reason for posting my audition is to share with others so they may be able to figure out which speakers are the best candidates for trial.

Perhaps you can post what one of your very favorite tweeters is and also a good tweeter which is commonly available that readers can check out. That way if someone listens to a Be or ribbon tweeter and feels like you do, they will have an idea what to try.

I am hoping to hear a Salk HT4, if I ever get the opportunity! I hear it is stunningly realistic!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your understanding. First of all, I made a mistake, and it's not the 1038 that I listened to, but the 1037. They seem to look identical, but who knows what they've changed . . .

I don't really listen to tweeters, but the speakers as a whole. The Profiles do not use Be, but yet are still very, very forward IMO. (Interestingly, the Chorus lineup essentially loses that characteristic, but is veiled IMO in the midrange). FWIW, my stereo system is based on electrostats, and that offers a whole host of compromises. For me, it was most realistic. One of the most prominent of the many compromises is the hybrid design with woofer, with differing diffraction properties that are discernible. Something I look for in a good musical instrument is called balance, and I've used a phrase on a number of occasions to describe speakers, and that has been "timbrally consistent" (the best test IMO being piano). I find BWs are very good with that at the 8xx level. I've enjoyed my not-so-involved auditions with Dynaudio (the reason they weren't involved was because I had already decided upon my speakers). In any case, I knowingly sacrificed some timbral consistency, for low level detail I've never heard anywhere else. IMO, it is at its very best with choral music. IMO, it's the very best with that I've heard, ever, and I personally think of all the natural instruments, we are by far the most discerning with the voice due to extreme familiarity. There is also the ability to hear the decay of musical instruments to such extent. OTOH, some of the other compromises include beaminess, compression at higher volume, difficult placement, even more need for treating, cumbersome physical nature, difficult loads . . .

The Be line reminds me of what TLS says, which is that a sin of commission is worse than a sin of omission. The Focal lineup is doing something to the treble. I specifically remember your statements about the triangle before. Has it ever occurred to you that the low level of the triangle on other speakers could be what was intended?

For instance, my favorite jazz musician is probably Mingus. I have several recordings, one of which is with a very large ensemble. When I implemented a very nice subwoofer to my mains (the sub is now 100% HT), I ran it pretty hot to be able to better discern Mingus' lines. I heard so much more detail in his playing. When I put on other material, the bass was simply over exaggerated. The case here was that Mingus was not really meant to be heard to the exaggerated level; just because my setup at the time really brought that detail to the forefront does not make it the accurate system. I wanted to better hear the bass performance, but did my setup make it more accurate by fulfilling that wish? I wonder if the Be's "superior performance" with triangles could be a similar type of case.

jostenmeat said:

Thanks for your understanding. First of all, I made a mistake, and it's not the 1038 that I listened to, but the 1037. They seem to look identical, but who knows what they've changed . . .

Click to expand...

FWIW, per Focal's literature the 1027 has a 25mm tweeter while the 1028 has a 27mm tweeter. When they convert to English units they report them as 1" and 1-1/4", which is ridiculous (27mm is less than 1-1/8"). The other difference I am aware of is they added bracing to the cabinet. I have no idea how this change effected the high frequencies. They may have wanted to lower the crossover point. But more to the point, I could not find info to determine which tweeter the Solo6's had.

jostenmeat said:

The Be line reminds me of what TLS says, which is that a sin of commission is worse than a sin of omission. The Focal lineup is doing something to the treble. I specifically remember your statements about the triangle before. Has it ever occurred to you that the low level of the triangle on other speakers could be what was intended?
For instance, my favorite jazz musician is probably Mingus. I have several recordings, one of which is with a very large ensemble. When I implemented a very nice subwoofer to my mains (the sub is now 100% HT), I ran it pretty hot to be able to better discern Mingus' lines. I heard so much more detail in his playing. When I put on other material, the bass was simply over exaggerated. The case here was that Mingus was not really meant to be heard to the exaggerated level; just because my setup at the time really brought that detail to the forefront does not make it the accurate system. I wanted to better hear the bass performance, but did my setup make it more accurate by fulfilling that wish? I wonder if the Be's "superior performance" with triangles could be a similar type of case.

Click to expand...

I was being too terse with my wording when I said the sound on the RBH's seemed muted in comparison to the S1's. It did, but it is also a matter of high frequency extension. When I had a match-off of Studio20's against the RBH 61-LSE, the aluminum dome of the Paradigms also had more extension on cymbals than the RBH's, but the RBH's had more clarity (as well as better midrange detail) and won the match. To my ear, the Be (and ribbon) tweeters have the clarity of the RBH and the extension of the Studio20 and that makes them a "win-win" for me.
That said, on the subject of muted vs. forward sound, the three speakers in my comparison all have forward (and extended) treble. That is a factor in how they ended up in my final three. To me, it is the sound of chimes, triangle, and cymbals being mic'ed (which I prefer) as opposed to acoustic only. I cannot say if this is the intended sound.
For listening for extension alone, the triangle is good because it is a thin sound. For these three speakers, all of them had plenty of "shine"; I could not discern a difference in the triangle other than how close or far it sounded (slight variations in presence). It would not surprise me at all for another set of ears to consider all of these tweeters way too bright.
You only mentioned the Focal tweeter. Have you listened to Paradigm's Be tweeter?
For the B&W 800 series, is it the D series, the S series, or both that you liked?
Thanks!

I think it's important to mention the distinction between the Focal/JM Lab consumer line and the Focal Professional line. Myself, I have not been a great fan of the Focal/JM Lab consumer line of speakers. While I have perceived some great attributes with some of the Focal consumer speakers, in my auditions, I was still hearing some coloration. As KEW has mentioned, they are now claiming to have beefed up the cabinet bracing in their latest models, which might reduce the coloration that I perceived, but I haven't heard them for myself yet.

With the Focal Professional speakers though, there are quite a few differences. The Be tweeter and "W Cone" driver are - to my knowledge - the same as those found in Focal's consumer line. But the professional speakers offer the ability to "tune" the treble response above 5000 Hz and the mid-bass response below 150Hz. So much of the perceived treble response comes from placement and orientation. I do not know how much jostenmeat played with the toe-in angle during his auditions with the Focal/JM Lab consumer Be speakers, but I personally found that it could make quite a difference. With the Focal consumer speakers facing almost stright out (almost no toe in) the high end was considerably less pronounced than with the speakers toed-in heavily to basically face a single listenter straight on.

With the Solo6's treble adjustment though, it is quite possible to adjust the tweeter somewhat for personal preference.

Hope you don't mind, I thought y'all would like to see some speaker porn...

My Sig S8's came yesterday, I asked the dealer to unbox them for inspection and so he could have a chance to listen to them, he doesn't stock the Sig line, but I wanted to give him some business and didn't want to deal with audiogon for the same shipping problems others have encountered. I left them under his care yesterday so he could have a chance to get a thorough audition for his classical music.

When I got there, he had just unboxed them, and we set them in place and fired them up.... Just Awesome...

LOL. That makes my bedroom setup look SO Mickey Mouse!

Warpdrv said:

Hope you don't mind, I thought y'all would like to see some speaker porn...

My Sig S8's came yesterday, I asked the dealer to unbox them for inspection and so he could have a chance to listen to them, he doesn't stock the Sig line, but I wanted to give him some business and didn't want to deal with audiogon for the same shipping problems others have encountered. I left them under his care yesterday so he could have a chance to get a thorough audition for his classical music.

When I got there, he had just unboxed them, and we set them in place and fired them up.... Just Awesome...

Click to expand...

Hey what kind of speakers are those in the background....they look like Bose and Wilkens 800's....

You dirty little rat bastard!!!!!!!!!

Man, I am so happy you got these. I am heading to my dealer, be right back...

Warpdrv said:

Hope you don't mind, I thought y'all would like to see some speaker porn...

My Sig S8's came yesterday, I asked the dealer to unbox them for inspection and so he could have a chance to listen to them, he doesn't stock the Sig line, but I wanted to give him some business and didn't want to deal with audiogon for the same shipping problems others have encountered. I left them under his care yesterday so he could have a chance to get a thorough audition for his classical music.

When I got there, he had just unboxed them, and we set them in place and fired them up.... Just Awesome...

Click to expand...

Damn Warp those are freakin sexy beasts.I don't like you at the moment................How much more were the B&W's?