Focal Aria Evo X No.4 Loudspeaker Review

[shadyJ]

​

Our last encounter with Focal’s Aria line was in our review of the Aria K2 936 Floor-Standing speaker. We liked that speaker’s neutral tonality, wide dynamic range, and bold styling. Focal recently refreshed their Aria line with the ‘Aria Evo X’ series, and we were curious to see what improvements have been made, which brings us to today’s review of the Aria Evo X No.4. As the name denotes, the Evo X series is an evolution not revolution, so what we expect to see is basically a refresh and updating of the existing designs with improvements in technology rather than a top-down redesign. Such improvements would only make a good speaker even better, since the Aria series already has a fundamentally good design. In this review we ask the questions: how much has Focal improved upon the Arias with this refresh? Are the changes merely cosmetic? How does the Aria Evo X No.4s stack up against other speakers in this highly competitive market segment? Read our full review to find out…

READ: Focal Aria Evo X No.4 Review

 

[Mikado463]

as usual James, a well done review of what appears to be a fine speaker at a very favorable price point.

 

[ryanosaur]

Thank you, @shadyJ ! Always makes my day when I jump on and see a new review.

Looks like a solid offering. I’m a little surprised at the elevated tweeter energy around 8kHz which you discuss.

 

[Eppie]

Another nice review Shady. I almost purchase a pair of Aria 936 a couple of years ago. Focal has a solid speaker in that line.

 

[Mikado463]

Eppie, it's Focal not Revel

 

[gene]

 

[Bobby Bass]

View attachment 70692​

Our last encounter with Focal’s Aria line was in our review of the Aria K2 936 Floor-Standing speaker. We liked that speaker’s neutral tonality, wide dynamic range, and bold styling. Focal recently refreshed their Aria line with the ‘Aria Evo X’ series, and we were curious to see what improvements have been made, which brings us to today’s review of the Aria Evo X No.4. As the name denotes, the Evo X series is an evolution not revolution, so what we expect to see is basically a refresh and updating of the existing designs with improvements in technology rather than a top-down redesign. Such improvements would only make a good speaker even better, since the Aria series already has a fundamentally good design. In this review we ask the questions: how much has Focal improved upon the Arias with this refresh? Are the changes merely cosmetic? How does the Aria Evo X No.4s stack up against other speakers in this highly competitive market segment? Read our full review to find out…

READ: Focal Aria Evo X No.4 Review

James thanks for your latest review. That green does look sharp especially with the flax cones. My daughter the interior designer would approve. Different from the usual offerings as you noted.

 

[paulgyro]

Nice review, I'd love to see inside the cabinet and a look at the crossover. In the cheaper Aria lines it seems Focal prioritized look vs good construction and quality crossover. Arendal destroys them in the engineering department...too bad they don't look better

Any additional comments on quality of the cabinet or crossover?

Paul

 

[shadyJ]

Nice review, I'd love to see inside the cabinet and a look at the crossover. In the cheaper Aria lines it seems Focal prioritized look vs good construction and quality crossover. Arendal destroys them in the engineering department...too bad they don't look better

Any additional comments on quality of the cabinet or crossover?

Paul

I didn't take this speaker apart so I didn't get a good look at the internals and can't speak to their quality. I wasn't sure I could remove components without damaging the speaker.

 

[TLS Guy]

I didn't take this speaker apart so I didn't get a good look at the internals and can't speak to their quality. I wasn't sure I could remove components without damaging the speaker.

What is tough about speaker measurement is the power handling in relation to frequency. For most music the power divide is around 400 Hz, so you need to devote as much power resources above 400 Hz as below. This seldom happens in three way designs and in my view it is a significant problem and defect. So here we have a typical three way crossed over about an octave below the power divide. There are two 8" drivers crossed certainly significantly below the power divide and only one 6" mid above, given that the tweeter is well above the power divide. This all too common design choice severely limits a speaker's ability to reproduce a full symphony orchestra, choral music or pipe organ. I suspect this is not so serious with music from the 'pop' culture but it is a serious shortcoming for reproducing large orchestras, especially with chorus and opera. When you have a large orchestra and a huge opera chorus, like the Met opera chorus, the vast majority of speakers, even very expensive ones fall seriously short, with serious dynamic compression or worse.

This speaker I fear is another offender among many. There is a reason I put resources where I do in my speaker designs, and they are essential design choices.

I think every speaker designer should have a recording production program on their computers. I use WaveLab and it would show any designer that looked at it on the screen where they need to devote resources. This is a persisting chronic shortcoming the needs attention from speaker designers.

 

[gene]

What is tough about speaker measurement is the power handling in relation to frequency. For most music the power divide is around 400 Hz, so you need to devote as much power resources above 400 Hz as below. This seldom happens in three way designs and in my view it is a significant problem and defect. So here we have a typical three way crossed over about an octave below the power divide. There are two 8" drivers crossed certainly significantly below the power divide and only one 6" mid above, given that the tweeter is well above the power divide. This all too common design choice severely limits a speaker's ability to reproduce a full symphony orchestra, choral music or pipe organ. I suspect this is not so serious with music from the 'pop' culture but it is a serious shortcoming for reproducing large orchestras, especially with chorus and opera. When you have a large orchestra and a huge opera chorus, like the Met opera chorus, the vast majority of speakers, even very expensive ones fall seriously short, with serious dynamic compression or worse.

This speaker I fear is another offender among many. There is a reason I put resources where I do in my speaker designs, and they are essential design choices.

I think every speaker designer should have a recording production program on their computers. I use WaveLab and it would show any designer that looked at it on the screen where they need to devote resources. This is a persisting chronic shortcoming the needs attention from speaker designers.

It wouldn't be a speaker review without TLS Guy vetting the "shortcomings" compared to his DIY speakers

 

[MrBoat]

Excellent review.

I actually like these. I think the price is fair, compared to the trend of overhyped/overpriced economy we live in now (A lot of parasites get paid that do not add any value to the products. . .).

What I like most about this design is the mid driver displacement compared to that of the combined woofers. It looks right to me and for my style of listening. 5" midrange drivers are what I have considered to be my sweet spot size for most of my life, as I did the mids on some designs I have that are 6.5" two-ways. These ought to be rich in the mids dept.

In spite of what is chique these days, a 3-way design rules for full-range in 2 channel for my use. Anything lacking in the bottom end can be fixed with subs. As long as that mid bass is solid, I can work out the rest.

 

[NMG]

Nice review on what seems to be very nice speakers. One observation I had from the pictures were the binding posts. Are they as cheap as they look? They look extremely budget.

 

[Eppie]

Nice review on what seems to be very nice speakers. One observation I had from the pictures were the binding posts. Are they as cheap as they look? They look extremely budget.

SoundAndVision has a close up of the binding posts in their review:

 

[NMG]

Thanks, that’s a good view of it.

 

[eljr]

What amps would be recommended to drive these?

 

[Eppie]

What amps would be recommended to drive these?

Looks at the impedance graph and the paragraph below:

"The above graph shows the electrical behavior of the Aria Evo X No.4. Focal specifies this as an 8 ohm nominal load, but that looks like a real stretch to me. They also specify the impedance minima to be 2.5 ohms, but I didn’t measure it to be quite that low. While most of the range stays well above 4 ohms, the dip at 100Hz might hit cheaper amplifiers pretty hard, especially if played at loud levels. The problem is that the range around 100Hz is heavily used in all types of content, and the dip could pull a lot of power. This will create a lot of heat in amps that don’t have good thermal management. Premium AVRs and outboard amps specified for 4 ohm loads should be fine with these speakers, but I would definitely not run them on budget AVRs. This shouldn’t be a problem since I don’t think many people buying $6k speaker pairs will run them with entry-level AVRs.

I measured the sensitivity to be 89.5dB at 1 meter for 2.83v which is a bit off from Focal’s spec of 92.5dB. However, they don’t state the voltage or context for their measurement.. Either way, this is a big tower that doesn’t need a ton of power to get loud."

Members seem to be trending towards class D amps these days. They tend to be smaller, run cooler and are more energy efficient. Look at amps from ATI, Buckeye or Outlaw to start.