Focal Twin or K&H O300: which one is more accurate?

[thehightenor]

Originally Posted by WBM

I using a pair of svs subs on a room just a little longer and wider than yours
With the sub you have more headroom on the 0300D, leaving it off the sub frequencies, that way leave the woofer with more freedom of movement.

Interesting, thanks, maybe I will arrange a demo of the 0800.

Thanks
tht

[Joelistics]

Originally Posted by thehightenor

For me, the point about the 0300's is they don't sound like anything other than the program material emerging from them, which in that respect does make them "better" than the Focals and justify the extra cost.

However, the key is to use whatever sounds right to the ear and if you get great results with the Focals .... well that's great.

best
tht

It's all relative and very individual! The speakers that let your mixes/masters translate to the most systems are the 'better' ones for you and it's always a subjective choice based on people's aesthetic ideals.

[Anghello]

between Focal and KH would go for KH. But ME Geithaim are much stronger for mastering. Adam is also a better choise.

KH sound is creamy, Adam is harsh and drastic.. but in the end mixes are open.

[bortraws]

I've tested both O300D's and the PSI 21M in my studio for mixing and mastering purposes.

The PSI's are fantastic monitors with a good low end. The only problem is that their stereo imaging is not as detailed and accurate as the O300, which are razorsharp in their placement.

The PSI's smear their stereo image a lot more. This is undoubtedly due to the bass port design.

I also think the 21M's are more midfield than nearfield monitors due to the high spl they deliver. I like to mix at 78 dBSPL at listening position. To get the PSI's near the stereo accuracy of the O300's I have to listen at 85 dBSPL. That's too loud for me.

I therefore ordered the O300's.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by bortraws

The PSI's are fantastic monitors with a good low end. The only problem is that their stereo imaging is not as detailed and accurate as the O300, which are razorsharp in their placement.

I'll second the razorsharp stereo imaging of the O300's. I haven't compared them directly to PSI's but the phenomenal stereo imaging on the O300's is hard not to notice.

The PSI's smear their stereo image a lot more. This is undoubtedly due to the bass port design.

I haven't noticed that but I have the larger PSI's.

Alistair

[legezer]

[QUOTE=cemski;7045371]1. Try to buy speaker that don't need a subwoofer. Adjusting a subwoofer in a room together with the main monitors is always a trade off because there is always a time delay and a crossover in the game. My opinion: the less speakers the clearer the sound ;-)

I definitely don't want to use a sub especially now I've moved to a small room, am still tweaking the treatment, but once I get it right I am used to getting it pretty smooth down to close to 30hz and it's really important for the work I'm doing, I know a pair of AML2s would give me that from nearfields but I can't afford them and I have a good amp- anyone know any passives in the price range being talked about here that can deliver close to 30hz before the rolloff exceeds 3db?

[Russell Dawkins]

I don't know of many nearfield monitors with -3dB points as low as 30Hz. Have you considered the Pelonis 4288 at $2500 the pair? Their advertized response extends to 24Hz, -3dB. They are big, though - apparently made for the near and mid field.

[legezer]

they look fantastic, the design makes sense to me 100% but I've just seen the physical dimensions- they are BIG

[krishnin]

Originally Posted by Richard Akira

Here's the question.. I have no possibility to A/B them and I have a good deal for a pair of O300s..
Which ones would you reccomend for mastering in terms of transparency, frequency range, detail and imaging?
I'm asking not kinda of i like these/i like the others, but something more objective

Hello Richard,

These are two very good set of speakers.

Considering the level of financial investment I'd highly recommend taking the time to find a place where you could audition both.
You'll end up spending so much (quality) time with these babies you really should not base your decision solely on feedback from others no matter how inspired or knowledgeable they are.

I tried both (along with the Adams) and went with the Focals as they were more detailed in the speech range and in the high end for my room which has similar dimensions as yours.
I found that I could work faster and better during the analytical part of mastering on the Focals as their precision are of a great help.
They ended up being a good match between my methodology and (growing) skills.

Also in terms of translation (how your work sounds on other speakers) they tend to fair very well.
I definitely recommend them but you should try for yourself.

All the best in you quest and let us know what you end up buying.

Regards,
:~Krishnin

[parisminzer]

An awesome Mastering engineer who I respect a ton here in L.A. Is Focal all the way.

And he uses the smaller ones, not the Twins!

That should speak to Focal's quality

[Russell Dawkins]

Originally Posted by parisminzer

An awesome Mastering engineer who I respect a ton here in L.A. Is Focal all the way.

And he uses the smaller ones, not the Twins!

That should speak to Focal's quality

It should?

[parisminzer]

Um. Yes..?

I've never used them myself (I use PMC's).

But people I know use them, and the work speaks for itself.

I don't remember the model of the smaller ones. Dave Kutch uses them, also

At the end of the day Room acoustics and calibration are just as important, anyway

[Russell Dawkins]

Originally Posted by parisminzer

At the end of the day Room acoustics and calibration are just as important, anyway

- as are long term familiarity with the room and the particular speakers - but I am surprised this person masters on Focals.
I do hear good things about the smaller Focal, though I've heard only the twin.

[Lagerfeldt]

I'd say acoustics are more important than the speakers, i.e. I'd rather sit in a great room with so-so speakers than a so-so room with the "best speakers in the world".

The Focal Solos are very nice for a small speaker and I've heard great stuff mastered on Solos. The Twins are not so nice. The box resonance alone is problematic, but I feel the design itself is simply wrong.

[parisminzer]

Agree completely.

I would take it even further:

I'd rather master in a great room with only plugins, than a bad one with the best analog gear

But, when you have both..

[nms]

@Lagerfeldt - can you elaborate on what you said about the Twins? Curious to know. I use em (vertical only, mids switched below tweeters).

[Lagerfeldt]

Certainly.

The Twins have a resonance at around 100-250 Hz that comes from the box itself. I've noticed the same problem with some ADAM speakers which are made of badly glued composite wood. I can no longer remember the exact frequency area since it's been a while since I tested them and I can't locate my review on my own forum. The Twins also have some resonance from the port. The O300D's don't exhibit any box resonance and since it's a pressurized chamber design there's no port resonance at all.

As we discuss a bit in this thread I'm hearing the speaker, not the music with the Twins: Barefoot Micro Main 35 vs K+H o300

The stereo image is much harder to place with the Twins. I find myself shifting back and forth and left to right with the Twins, like the signal is slightly out of phase. I believe this has to do with the twin woofer design and tweeter placement, however I'm also spoiled with the precise imaging on the O300D's. Hence my comment about the design being "wrong" to my ears.

If you decide to go with the O300's I recommend you get the O300D's (but run them in analog) and get one or two O800 subs for the last 20-30 Hz and extra headroom. It's a fairly expensive setup, but it's very nice.

[nms]

Cool thanks Holger. Have you any experience with them vertically? They're a different speaker for me that way. Horizontal causes too much change when moving side to side slightly and a less focused sound.

[Lagerfeldt]

Ah, I missed the part about you using them vertically. No, I haven't tested them vertically, but I imagine it would help on at least one of the issues.

[JP__]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I'd say acoustics are more important than the speakers, i.e. I'd rather sit in a great room with so-so speakers than a so-so room with the "best speakers in the world".

Neverever... Differences between LS regarding quality can be quite bigger then a bad room can mask...
Not to say that the room would not be on the second place in a mastering facility.

BTW I know people who do great work even on cheap headphones. Should this be our goal..?
If someone is able to do some great work on loosy speakers, I does not mean that these speakers are good... It only says someone is able to abstract quite good.

[Anghello]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I'd say acoustics are more important than the speakers, i.e. I'd rather sit in a great room with so-so speakers than a so-so room with the "best speakers in the world".

Agree!