Focal SM9 !

[Bugstone]

Great review CoolColJ,

Thanks,
Bugs

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Lsixtysix

I wouldn't judge the SM9's before running them in for at least 80-100 hours, it makes all the difference.

Will update as needed

Just calling it as I hear it, after 16 hours of sporadic music playback and at least 8 hours of continuous field recording playback as of now

There are broad characteristics which I'm sure will not change much with further run in time

edit - Just to be clear - the SM9 is definitely the more neutral, flatter and less coloured monitor of the two, as expected from the price.
But the Opal sounds more exciting.

[CoolColJ]

SM9 makes my Roland Jupiter 8 sound warm, fat and creamy - with a tonal colour I'm not really familiar with, but I'll get used to it!
Sorta like a creamy warm milk beverage

Opals make it sound a bit edgey and metallic...

[Fleaman]

It's good that you have the Opals to do instant A/B comparisons with. It will be the constant base to any apparent changes with your SM9's as they 'break in'.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

It's good that you have the Opals to do instant A/B comparisons with. It will be the constant base to any apparent changes with your SM9's as they 'break in'.

Coming up to the 30 hour burn in mark now
And yes it does appear the SM9 is tightening up, and getting a bit more "exciting"

Comparing to the Opal, the excitement level appears to be closing up, less diffused sounding, and top end is more precise and seems "brighter" than before

[Tube World]

When you get monitors of the quality of the Opals or Twins, once you know the character of them, you can obtain great mixes. The SM9's I beleive will provide more detail however the final mix of the same song on all monitors will provide a great final mix played back on a car stereo or IPod player. The mixes will sound a little different but they will all sound great. If you can afford a monitor like the SM9, you will enjoy them greatly. However the consumer listening to a mix that was done on the Opals or Twins would not say hey the mix in the SM9's are clearly better, just different. So we don't have to buy such expensive monitors to obtain great mixes but they are still nice to have.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Tube World

When you get monitors of the quality of the Opals or Twins, once you know the character of them, you can obtain great mixes. The SM9's I beleive will provide more detail however the final mix of the same song on all monitors will provide a great final mix played back on a car stereo or IPod player. The mixes will sound a little different but they will all sound great. If you can afford a monitor like the SM9, you will enjoy them greatly. However the consumer listening to a mix that was done on the Opals or Twins would not say hey the mix in the SM9's are clearly better, just different. So we don't have to buy such expensive monitors to obtain great mixes but they are still nice to have.

For sure, I did use KRK Kroks for a long time, well after they were superceded...
But for me it's more about the phase before you get to mixing and mastering.
I wasn't completely happy with the way my synths sounded, the vibe and interaction I was getting when programming and writing etc
Maybe it's just me, but any of us who do this or get to this stage tend to be perfectionists, at least I am, if I'm aware of it, it bothers me if it's not right

I'm doing it for myself.
It's why I'm still using old analog synths and not the soft synth emulation of the same synth, even if polyphony, features and recall are not in the same league.
I could sell my synths and make a huge profit on them, but vibe, interaction (all those physical knobs and sliders!),
inspiration and audio quality is worth the hassles, servicing (to a degree) and price difference for me.
Even if I did buy them 10-20 years ago before the prices started to jack up as the rarity aspect reared it's ugly head

In a way, if you go straight to the SM9, or similar alternative, you can forget all the inbetween stages I took and "save time and money" in the long run I feel
I can tell mixing and mastering on these will be much faster... Hear it the first time out of the gate, sort it out then and there, and move on.

There are reasons why I kept moving up the monitor chain - different aspects I was not completely happy with in each set, thus killing my enjoyment and vibe.
I myself need to be happy, and from that a better end product - no point in saving up lots of money if I don't spend it to make my life more enjoyable...
And hearing the hiss and self noise on the Twins/Opals can get pretty annoying as well, like drill to the brain!

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by Tube World

However the consumer listening to a mix that was done on the Opals or Twins would not say hey the mix in the SM9's are clearly better, just different. So we don't have to buy such expensive monitors to obtain great mixes but they are still nice to have.

Well, it's a tool and a better tool makes the job easier and faster to finish. Plus make the process more enjoyable.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

And hearing the hiss and self noise on the Twins/Opals can get pretty annoying as well, like drill to the brain!

I guess I'm lucky with my set of Opals, they're very quiet. As quiet or quieter than any other active monitor I've come across. Certainly don't have a hiss issue here. Though if I did, I'd certainly be annoyed by it too.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

When listening to them side by side and switching between em, Opals on the outside, with a particular house track -
Beth Orton's Central Reservation (spiritual life remix)
They both sound equally punchy in the kick, tight and deep in the bass region.
The SM9 however sounds thicker, the bass drum sounds rounder and fuller, and the vocals thicker and creamier again.
The Opals more nasal in comparison, particular in the mids, but also more transparent sounding as a result
The top end is brighter on the Opals, the hihats are louder and more piercing sounding. SM9 hihats are more broad in tone and softer.

On this track SM9 has a more earthy, fuller, purry, and creamy sound, while the Opal has a sharper, more nasal, more transparent/clearer and sheen edge to the tone
I keep thinking of tape vs tube sound here
I think this is why I find I don't get a good feel for the mids on the Opal at low volumes,
I need to cross a certain threshold before the mids come up. The SM9 are good at low volumes across the range.
The Opals do sound more transparent in the mids, like you can see through the mix - a PMC like quality.

Both are equal in power and room filling sound - effortless for both, so much in reserve!

When I compare this cello clip -
http://cid-2e0c0e7567150d66.office.l...i_Compare3.wav
from this thread Bricasti vs Behringer Reverb - Audio Demos !
They sound equally good in their own way. Opals with more of an edge and texture to the sound, with a piercing quality. SM9 fuller and creamier, more woody
And it's pretty easy to tell which is the Bricasti reverb and which is the Behringer in that audio file on the SM9


Having said all that, I can sometimes forget which speaker I'm listening to....

---

When they are run in I will measure the SM9, and compare some mixes.
I know the Opals get down to 40 hertz here before they start rolling off

I've lost track of how many continous hours I've run the Focal SM9 now, but the tone has certainly changed, and sounds much better now!
Let me see, 3 days of owndership so far - about 20 hours of sporadic music playing, 20+ hours continous playback of field recordings - rain+thunder, low frequency ocean waves, birds and soundscapes etc

There was a bit of plastic cloudiness in the lower mids out of the box, which is virtually gone. More precise and focused sound now.
The top end is sharper and brighter. There is a sweetness to the tone, definitely not a dry and sterile sounding monitor
Getting more exciting as I said

Cross referencing with the Opals backs this up. They sound more similar than different now, but still with the differing characters I described above - Opals sound thinner and brighter, with a certain sheen. SM9 smoother

Should be even better with another 40 hours they say.
In any case I would say the SM9 is like the best bits of what I liked in the Focal Twins and Opals, with a little extra mojo ontop of that and extra features
I have no qualms in letting the Opals go now....

[CoolColJ]

Here is a Room EQ Wizard sweep with a ECM8000 mic with no cal file. Taken 1 metre away from the SM9. 1/6 smoothing applied

There is a known bulge at 160-180hertz in my room, makes it sound muddy, so I used the SM9's eq to notch out -3db there.
Could be from the keyboard in front of it.
The null at 75hz is a room thing which shows up on my Opals as well.

So the SM9 goes down to 36 hertz here at this distance, probably lower if the mic is closer.
Flatter than I expected in my room, much flatter than the Opals here, and the Opals roll off at 10khtz here for some reason...
Just as I thought, the SM9's non ported design has much less room interaction - maybe the driver array is a factor as well.

The bulge at 50 hertz on the right speaker is cancelled by the dip on the left, but taking out some of the bulge cleans up the sound.
Seems like the EQ on the SM9 is perfectly chosen for me, one bell at 50 hertz, and another at 160

I am tempted to try ARC2 out...

[FocalPro]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

Seems like the EQ on the SM9 is perfectly chosen for me, one bell at 50 hertz, and another at 160

There's a good reason why we chose those frequencies specifically, this is where most rooms have problems. He won't work for 100% of people but it will help a lot in a lot of cases.

the 1khz is the only one that is not really made to correct problems rather than adjust the midrange 'forwardness'. if you work better with the midrange in your face, just add a dB there.

They seem to be pretty flat in your room indeed! good room!

[Cabo Robo]

If anyone in the Nashvile area is interested in a demo give me a shout.

Rob Dennis
Rack-N-Roll Audio
615-244-6499

[CoolColJ]

I've set the hi and low shelf on the SM9 to -1db to flatten the curve better and more in line with my tastes.
I guess that has a similar effect to increasing the mid range by the same amount in a different way.
But I can see that the SM9 has a rise from 4.5khz upwards in the graph above, so the hi shelf is perfect once again for my room.

I've been able to get the Opals closer to the SM9 sound.
I had to set the space knob to 1/1, set the eq to 150 hertz, q=3, depth =2, low shelf down 1 notch and high shelf all the way down

Still the SM9 is much fuller in the low mid and mid range.
Sounds more like tape colour, creamy, but in a very neutral pink noise type tone, but not dry and sterile, still some sweetness in the sound

While the Opals has a more exciting tube tone - LOL literally sounds like tubes!
But the mids do sound more vague. Still what is there is workable, and the Opals do sound like a 3 way monitor
I think I will keep the Opals around when for I need vibe. They sound great for jamming and movie audio!

[Jantex]

I'd like to ask about the 1kHz eq boost on the Focals. I always had impression Focals were really soft (too soft) in the upper mids, for example rock tracks (AC/DC, Aerosmith, ZZ Top) never sounded right as they were without bite. I always had a problem mixing rock with SM6 series. After the guitars got some bite in Focals it was always to piercing in the real world. How is that with SM9 and can a 1kHz boost make it more in this way? Are they still so shy in this area?

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Jantex

I'd like to ask about the 1kHz eq boost on the Focals. I always had impression Focals were really soft (too soft) in the upper mids, for example rock tracks (AC/DC, Aerosmith, ZZ Top) never sounded right as they were without bite. I always had a problem mixing rock with SM6 series. After the guitars got some bite in Focals it was always to piercing in the real world. How is that with SM9 and can a 1kHz boost make it more in this way? Are they still so shy in this area?

Yeh the SM9 do have a bit of a smooth and controlled sound out of the box
They sound like listening to headphones
Opals have more bite and texture there.

I will experiment tomorrow and let you know.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Jantex

I'd like to ask about the 1kHz eq boost on the Focals. I always had impression Focals were really soft (too soft) in the upper mids, for example rock tracks (AC/DC, Aerosmith, ZZ Top) never sounded right as they were without bite. I always had a problem mixing rock with SM6 series. After the guitars got some bite in Focals it was always to piercing in the real world. How is that with SM9 and can a 1kHz boost make it more in this way? Are they still so shy in this area?

I found pushing the 1k band up made that area louder, but didn't add the kind of bite I wanted.

Whereas dropping the upper and lower shelf EQ did that much more.
I am satisfied with it in this regard since I found the SM9 a bit smooth before.
Whether it is enough for you I'm not sure

[Jantex]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

I found pushing the 1k band up made that area louder, but didn't add the kind of bite I wanted.

Whereas dropping the upper and lower shelf EQ did that much more.
I am satisfied with it in this regard since I found the SM9 a bit smooth before.
Whether it is enough for you I'm not sure

Thank you very much for taking time and honestly reporting the impression. So Opals are more emphasized in this regard? Both speakers contain massive amplification with masses of headroom. I noticed you have already described Opals as punchier. Do you think they have better transient response? Which one in your opinion is a better rock'n'roll speaker?

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Jantex

Thank you very much for taking time and honestly reporting the impression. So Opals are more emphasized in this regard? Both speakers contain massive amplification with masses of headroom. I noticed you have already described Opals as punchier. Do you think they have better transient response? Which one in your opinion is a better rock'n'roll speaker?

Give me another week before I settle on a final verdict, but the SM9 does seem to be "improving" with more play hours.

For now some general character views -

SM9 are more linear, flatter, smoother and less coloured, but they do have the Focal sound - that thickness and creaminess in the lower mids, wooly, smooth, "grey" sound, with a hint of shine on the top end - although much less so on the SM9

Opals are coloured. They have what I call a "chocolate brown" sound.
It's how I describe heavy tube colouration and tone - most likely from the discrete class A-B amps in the Opals, or the metal cabinet?
In any case it does make the Opal sound more exciting.
They are also not as flat as the SM9 in frequency responce.
There is a bit of a metallic edge/sheen to the top end.

SM9 sound a bit thicker, mostly in the lower mids and mids.
While the Opal sounds more "transparent" there, partly because it's less thick sounding and it's tube colouration, but also more vague.

Both are 3D sounding with great depth and stereo imaging, but again the tube colour of the Opals make it stand out more side by side.
So if your listening to music, jamming, watching movies etc - the Opals just have a better vibe, for my tastes anyway - less dry.

Both are very snappy and fast, but the SM9 has an edge here with transient detail and speed.

And you will not need a sub with either - SM9 go down to 36 hertz, and Opal 40 here before rolling off, with the same mic and measuring distance.
Both sound really deep, subsonic and full here with the SM9 sounding bigger and deeper, with rounder kicks. Dance kick drums will smack a hole in you!

Both are tight and controlled down low, but the quality and character of the bass is really different.
SM9 has unhyped headphone like bass. Very dry with a purry quality.
Opals have that tube thing, with some port thing, but not exactly like a usual port bass sound - more rounded and smoother out than the SM9

----

So I would say SM9 is like listening to headphones - you get that controlled, smooth, linear sound with micro detailing. Better transients, dry bass.
Exquisite reverb details and depth. Listening to field recordings and hearing animals at different distances and feeling the reverb create the depth and space is breath taking...

While the Opals sounds like live music - more vibe, a bit more brash, textured and edgier, coloured and dynamic sounding.
Speaking on relative terms here, not absolute, because there are more forward sounding speakers than the Opals

So after that essay - yeah I think the Opals are more rock and roll
But then again you might like the less coloured sound of the SM9. Setting the 1khz band EQ to +1 to +2db makes it more textured.
When I turn them on in the morning and play some music, I can't always tell straight off which one is doing the actual playing....

Your ears will get used to which ever one. At first I much preferred the Opals, it's what I'm used to.
Now slowly but surely I am preferring the more natural sound of the SM9 over the Opals - old habits and addictions die hard!
And not only because I spent much more money on them

[Lupez]

hey, I am so envious...switching from a great set of speakers to another!
of the two I am quite sure I'd want the SM9s, but credit to the Opals for being in the same league of a speaker that costs twice as much.
now the question stands: am I going to ditch the Twins + Sub !?

[Jantex]

Again I'd like to thank you big time for this detailed review. I am looking for a new set of nearfields/midfields next to my KH120. I was a long time O300 user and was extremely satisfied, but since then KH120 have replaced them. But I'd like to complement them with something bigger and more powerful.

So far I am thinking about ATC SCM25 and I also share interest in the slightly cheaper Focal SM9 and even cheaper Event Opals.

I have already heard Opals quite a few time and there was only one thing bothering me...that metallic ringing...I mean I somehow considered them as too bright. Probably becasue I got so used to Klen&Hummel line which is darker by default.

I have heard all of the ATC line besides SCM25s. 50s are to big for my place and in that case I'd seriously consider O410 or Genelec 8260. But I just need something that fits right between O300 and O410 as far as power is concerned.

Barefoots are to expensive in Europe for what they offer. So I'm all between SCM25 and SM9. Will hear both in the next 14 days and will write down my opinion here and my purchase decision.

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

Give me another week before I settle on a final verdict, but the SM9 does seem to be "improving" with more play hours.

For now some general character views -

SM9 are more linear, flatter, smoother and less coloured, but they do have the Focal sound - that thickness and creaminess in the lower mids, wooly, smooth, "grey" sound, with a hint of shine on the top end - although much less so on the SM9

Opals are coloured. They have what I call a "chocolate brown" sound.
It's how I describe heavy tube colouration and tone - most likely from the discrete class A-B amps in the Opals, or the metal cabinet?
In any case it does make the Opal sound more exciting.
They are also not as flat as the SM9 in frequency responce.
There is a bit of a metallic edge/sheen to the top end.

SM9 sound a bit thicker, mostly in the lower mids and mids.
While the Opal sounds more "transparent" there, partly because it's less thick sounding and it's tube colouration, but also more vague.

Both are 3D sounding with great depth and stereo imaging, but again the tube colour of the Opals make it stand out more side by side.
So if your listening to music, jamming, watching movies etc - the Opals just have a better vibe, for my tastes anyway - less dry.

Both are very snappy and fast, but the SM9 has an edge here with transient detail and speed.

And you will not need a sub with either - SM9 go down to 36 hertz, and Opal 40 here before rolling off, with the same mic and measuring distance.
Both sound really deep, subsonic and full here with the SM9 sounding bigger and deeper, with rounder kicks. Dance kick drums will smack a hole in you!

Both are tight and controlled down low, but the quality and character of the bass is really different.
SM9 has unhyped headphone like bass. Very dry with a purry quality.
Opals have that tube thing, with some port thing, but not exactly like a usual port bass sound - more rounded and smoother out than the SM9

----

So I would say SM9 is like listening to headphones - you get that controlled, smooth, linear sound with micro detailing. Better transients, dry bass.
Exquisite reverb details and depth. Listening to field recordings and hearing animals are different distances and feeling the reverb create the depth and space is breath taking...

While the Opals sounds like live music - more vibe, a bit more brash, textured and edgier, coloured and dynamic sounding.
Speaking on relative terms here, not absolute, because there are more forward sounding speakers than the Opals

So after that essay - yeah I think the Opals are more rock and roll
But then again you might like the less coloured sound of the SM9. Setting the 1khz band EQ to +1 to +2db makes it more textured.
When I turn them on in the morning and play some music, I can't always tell straight off which one is doing the actual playing....

Your ears will get used to which ever one. At first I much preferred the Opals, it's what I'm used to.
Now slowly but surely I am preferring the more natural sound of the SM9 over the Opals - old habits and addictions die hard!
And not only because I spent much more money on them

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Lupez

hey, I am so envious...switching from a great set of speakers to another!
of the two I am quite sure I'd want the SM9s, but credit to the Opals for being in the same league of a speaker that costs twice as much.
now the question stands: am I going to ditch the Twins + Sub !?

Well to be fair I have set up the Opals, with it's onboard controls, to sound closer to the SM9
set the eq to 150-200 hertz, q=3, depth =2, high shelf all the way down

My main complaint is that the stereo imaging is not tall enough on the SM9 due to the horizontal layout

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Jantex

Again I'd like to thank you big time for this detailed review. I am looking for a new set of nearfields/midfields next to my KH120. I was a long time O300 user and was extremely satisfied, but since then KH120 have replaced them. But I'd like to complement them with something bigger and more powerful.

So far I am thinking about ATC SCM25 and I also share interest in the slightly cheaper Focal SM9 and even cheaper Event Opals.

I have already heard Opals quite a few time and there was only one thing bothering me...that metallic ringing...I mean I somehow considered them as too bright. Probably becasue I got so used to Klen&Hummel line which is darker by default.

I have heard all of the ATC line besides SCM25s. 50s are to big for my place and in that case I'd seriously consider O410 or Genelec 8260. But I just need something that fits right between O300 and O410 as far as power is concerned.

Barefoots are to expensive in Europe for what they offer. So I'm all between SCM25 and SM9. Will hear both in the next 14 days and will write down my opinion here and my purchase decision.

Man these speakers have an unbelievable long burn in time

Out of the box they sound a bit strange, like the bass has no definition and overall sound is quite smeared and soft
After a few hours you do get some snap on fast sounds, but bass still sound gooey. My guess is the woofer and passive radiator don't work in sync for a period of time.

But then around the 40-50 hour mark things tighten up dramaticly and sound more like you expect and continue to get better and better
Mine are around the 50-60 hour mark now, and they becoming very nice indeed

So it does make them hard to audition, and not know if your hearing what they are capable of. I do recall someone saying earlier in this thread that he heard a pair, and that they did not sound good. It could be they needed more hours to "mature"

At first I was thinking, damn I'm not liking the sound, and I just spent all this money... scary
I watched a movie on them yesterday, and the sound was superb. The thumps and low frequency booms were loud, defined and clear.
The mid range was rich and textured. Brass and orchestral sounds especially. Reverbs were dramatic and obvious.
I think the Opals got beat here, in a different way though, and not quite as deep and well defined in the lows.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

I've been able to get the Opals closer to the SM9 sound.
I had to set the space knob to 1/1, set the eq to 150 hertz, q=3, depth =2, low shelf down 1 notch and high shelf all the way down

How far away are the Opals from your seating position (ears)??

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

How far away are the Opals from your seating position (ears)??

Opals 114cm
SM9 3 feet

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

Opals 114cm
SM9 3 feet

Oh wow, that's very close.

I know Opals are marketed as nearfields, but honestly think that's a bit close for Opals.

6-7ft what I like them at (not unusual for nearfields with LFAC's).

I think distance is playing a factor in the high's of the Opals. I can see how you'd have to shelf them down a little.

If you tried them from 6ft away you might not need so shelve down the highs (if not at all).

It's very possible the SM9's might have the advantage here with the close distance (not sure?). IMO I don't think the Opals work as well that close.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

Oh wow, that's very close.

I know Opals are marketed as nearfields, but honestly think that's a bit close for Opals.

6-7ft what I like them at (not unusual for nearfields with LFAC's).

I think distance is playing a factor in the high's of the Opals. I can see how you'd have to shelf them down a little.

If you tried them from 6ft away you might not need so shelve down the highs (if not at all).

It's very possible the SM9's might have the advantage here with the close distance (not sure?). IMO I don't think the Opals work as well that close.

I've had them closer before and the Opals were kicking my ears from the sound pressure
Yea I do think they are better suited to mid field, but it could be my room.
I've seen some sweeps from other people and they are pretty much flat with the Opals. My room just might not suit the wave guide on the Opals.

It's a give and take in any case. I've tweaked the SM9 to do what I like on the Opals, the syrupy upper mids. A little -1db cut at the 1khz band did the trick.
The SM9 sound keeps changing as it breaks in, so I'm constantly changing my tweaks

[Lsixtysix]

Yeah the SM9's took roughly about 100 hours or so before the sound started to level out. The sound seems like it's still slightly changing but not as noticeable as the first 100 hours.
The difference i found is with stereo image and depth had improved significantly and the sub sounds like it is integrated much better now.

[AMIEL]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

Yeh the SM9 do have a bit of a smooth and controlled sound out of the box
They sound like listening to headphones
Opals have more bite and texture there.

I will experiment tomorrow and let you know.

What are the dimensions of your room??

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by AMIEL

What are the dimensions of your room??

About 11x16 feet