Focal SM9 !

[CoolColJ]

The tweeter and mid driver are supposed to be on the inside, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the tweeter and mid on the outside? More stereo width, and the woofer is less directional so, being on the inside won't hurt stereo imaging etc

Anyone using it with tweeter/mid on the outside?
Because they take up so much room width wise, I can't place them as wide as I'd like with the woofer on the outside...
I had them fairly close before, but moving them outwards just 3 inches each side made a huge difference to the depth and quality of the stereo imaging!

[Miles Flint]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

The tweeter and mid driver are supposed to be on the inside, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the tweeter and mid on the outside? More stereo width, and the woofer is less directional so, being on the inside won't hurt stereo imaging etc

Anyone using it with tweeter/mid on the outside?
Because they take up so much room width wise, I can't place them as wide as I'd like with the woofer on the outside...
I had them fairly close before, but moving them outwards just 3 inches each side made a huge difference to the depth and quality of the stereo imaging!

Yes - but that's exactly what I thought about the SM9... everytime I see them on a meterbridge (or stand) I think: why they setup their speakers "wrong"

so - interesting what others mean... didn't catch that!

[FocalPro]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

The tweeter and mid driver are supposed to be on the inside, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the tweeter and mid on the outside? More stereo width, and the woofer is less directional so, being on the inside won't hurt stereo imaging etc

Anyone using it with tweeter/mid on the outside?
Because they take up so much room width wise, I can't place them as wide as I'd like with the woofer on the outside...
I had them fairly close before, but moving them outwards just 3 inches each side made a huge difference to the depth and quality of the stereo imaging!

Yes -they are meant to be used with the tweeter on the inside - BUT - it is far more important that you have enough distance between them to begin with, so if your setup does not allow enough distance between the tweeters, flip them and put the tweeters on the outside.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

The tweeter and mid driver are supposed to be on the inside, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the tweeter and mid on the outside? More stereo width, and the woofer is less directional so, being on the inside won't hurt stereo imaging etc

Anyone using it with tweeter/mid on the outside?
Because they take up so much room width wise, I can't place them as wide as I'd like with the woofer on the outside...
I had them fairly close before, but moving them outwards just 3 inches each side made a huge difference to the depth and quality of the stereo imaging!

In general the tweeters should be always on the inside. The wavelengths of higher frequencies are much shorter. You build up your stereo image from the centre at the point of the shortest wavelengths.

Placing the tweeters outside will cause more phase problems and less coherent sound. See it as a pyramid, you start from a small point and build it out to a big surface.

[Lupez]

Hey Focal Pro, would the SM9s replace my Twins + Sub6 or they're just a different beast?

Thanks

[FocalPro]

Originally Posted by Lupez

Hey Focal Pro, would the SM9s replace my Twins + Sub6 or they're just a different beast?

Thanks

Very different.

Very hard to describe though without having side by side. The integration level of a true 3-way of the SM9 vs separate subs has to be heard.

Also, the SM9 have better amps, better drivers than the Twins - so overall, the difference is on every aspect (resolution, smoothness, dynamics) rather than just bass extension. and that's on top of the added SM9 flexibility (Focus, EQ adjustments, etc)

The only thing that the Twins+Sub system would have that the SM9 would not is the ability to just play VERY LOUD.

[Lupez]

Originally Posted by FocalPro

Very different.

Very hard to describe though without having side by side. The integration level of a true 3-way of the SM9 vs separate subs has to be heard.

Also, the SM9 have better amps, better drivers than the Twins - so overall, the difference is on every aspect (resolution, smoothness, dynamics) rather than just bass extension. and that's on top of the added SM9 flexibility (Focus, EQ adjustments, etc)

The only thing that the Twins+Sub system would have that the SM9 would not is the ability to just play VERY LOUD.

mmm...thanks again.
It sounds like these could be my next speakers, be it sooner or later - I really don't care much about volume.

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Sound Evolution

In general the tweeters should be always on the inside. The wavelengths of higher frequencies are much shorter. You build up your stereo image from the centre at the point of the shortest wavelengths.

Placing the tweeters outside will cause more phase problems and less coherent sound. See it as a pyramid, you start from a small point and build it out to a big surface.

Thanks, that makes sense.

I tried it, and I just had to angle the speakers inwards a bit more, and it sounded fine, just wider and a bigger sound now
Bass seems even fuller now

[CoolColJ]

I decided to return the SM9 back to the original position, which sounds better to me

Now my arms are sore! :(

[Rsantana]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

I decided to return the SM9 back to the original position, which sounds better to me

Now my arms are sore! :(

Try that Genelec app if you have a iphone helps you toe in your speakers pretty damn cool app

[mf10421]

Prosound Network: Review: Focal Professional SM9 3-/2-Way Active Studio Monitor

[Fleaman]

Seems a few, less than stellar opinions on the SM9 over in this thread>>

Focal SM9 or ATC SCM25A Pro?

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

Seems a few, less than stellar opinions on the SM9 over in this thread>>

Focal SM9 or ATC SCM25A Pro?

From what I gather most of the people said the SM9 sounded too smooth in the mids, well they do sound like that out of the box and for a long while after, but change for the better after a breakin period

Same for the Opals sounding rough at first and smoothing out after a while - not sure how many hours that takes, but a long time

I still feel the Opals have more front to back depth and general 3D-ness due to the "tube coloration" of the Opals. They sound a lot like a PMC without the euphonic mid range tone, a sorta semi "Hi-Fi" speaker style voicing.

edit - I will say the SM9 are the first speaker I've used that makes an original audio file and the loopback from my Hilo sound extremely different.
You can hear difference in tonal qualities and dimension of samples and other audio, so you have to do more "gluing"

[Bugstone]

CoolColJ,

I can only have about 49" (124 centimieters) space in-between the speakers in my room. Would you say the SM9's can work as well as the Opals at that distance?

Thanks,
Bugs

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by Bugstone

CoolColJ,

I can only have about 49" (124 centimieters) space in-between the speakers in my room. Would you say the SM9's can work as well as the Opals at that distance?

Thanks,
Bugs

Yes, that's plenty and more than what I have.
I would say around 60cm inbetween would be the minimum. They have good stereo spread at this width.

Just depends on how far you intend to sit away from them.

[CoolColJ]

Coming up to the 120 hour mark now
And now my analog synths sound like how I perceive them to sound on other speakers, on the SM9

The woolly lower mids and lack of texture is gone now.
Switching between the Opals the SM9 reveal more or less a similar picture of the synths, albeit with better definition and detail, whereas before I hit the 60 hour mark they sounded completely different!
I thought the Opals presented my analog synths much better than the Twins, and the SM9 is more like Opals, but better defined, and thicker sound.
My Rolands finally have the wet sheen to the sound and resonance.

Should be fully run in by the 200 hour mark
I suspect a lot of people saying the SM9 lacks bite have not heard a fully run in SM9

Some of my synths face away from the SM9 and I can still hear the upper frequencies in the proper context. That's something the Opals can't do.
They are also much less room and position dependent so far when I've moved things around

[Seb RIOU]

Just got back from a SM9 demo at a local shop.
As a owner of Solo6, I am VERY impressed with the SM9.
Stereo imaging , 3D field and most of all tightness of low end (that goes really low) is yet unheard.
We tried (briefly) a pair of Adam S3X, but the comparison was brutal.
I've used MM27 before, and as much as I liked them, I wouldn't have trusted them for lows.
I think I could work on the SM9 on the spot, and as my only set of speakers.
The two way mode is not a joke, it's usable for trying your mix without the amazing depths and lowend definition of the 3 way mode.
Very impressed.

P.S : we listened in a small and less than ideal environment, but the speaker seemed to behave wonderfully nonetheless. Like it just pushed the walls ...

[CoolColJ]

P.S : we listened in a small and less than ideal environment, but the speaker seemed to behave wonderfully nonetheless. Like it just pushed the walls ...

Yes, they behave very well here too.
The centre image is very stable and solid. Mono sounds exactly that

[ToneRexx]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

Yes, they behave very well here too.
The centre image is very stable and solid. Mono sounds exactly that

That was surprising to me!!

I never heard any speaker in my room to sounds as good as the SM9s.

Interesting The Twins were much Room dependent!

[CoolColJ]

A review of the SM9 - they even mention that solidity of the centre image as I did
SM9 Review - Reviews - Music Tech Magazine

The acoustic image was so solid that the mono signals seemed to be coming from a centre speaker.

----------



I'm over 200 hours on my set now, and the sound has become even more focused, tighter, and bass is no longer soft and flabby.
Switching between the Opals and SM9 no longer reveal a big contrast in bass character.

I'm using the Opals less and less, I think I'm very close to moving them on...


I was able to correctly identify the blind loopback files in this post - running the SM9 from the Lynx Hilo

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/newre...eply&p=8367737

The Motus have absolutely no problem syncing to external clock sources. What else would you expect from the company who made the first firewire audio interface? If you attempt a null test with the files there's significant difference between them due to slight clock drift. It goes without question that the clocking is improved. The question is, can YOU hear it and make out the night and day difference you insist should be present. I sent these files to a mastering engineer I know who owns around $20k in converters and monitored off his new Prism Dream DAC ($9k unit). I also sent him a Hilo loop. I asked him to guess which one was the Hilo loop and he picked the externally clocked 828mk2.


So.. does one of these sound night and day better than the other one? Is one of these bad and a clear example of how misleading our converter null test threads are as evident by the "bad" Motu clock?

They are Hilo, 828 mk2 internally clocked, and 828 mk2 clocked from Hilo.
Firstly I correctly guess the internally clocked 828 mk2 from the external one, via PM to NMS.

Ok when I first listen to them there is a bit of difference

Blue = ok
green = nice
red = internal - doesn't sound good to me, cloudy and fuzzy

Then he asked which was the Hilo one, and again I guessed correctly

I'll say Green is the 828 mk2 - sounds noticeable fuzzier and less clear, similar character to Red, but better than Red.
Blue, is cleaner, more dynamic and sweeter sounding- so Hilo.

If I guess right then then using J River Media Centre with it's 64 bit internal processing for playback out through the Hilo, and SM9 is working well

Although I do have pretty good ears, but good monitors help too
Even despite the fact NMS said "it's all in my head"

Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

I think it's in your head man. I have 2 identical takes of a music clip; one recorded with the 828mk2 on its own clock and one with it clocked off the Hilo. You should be able to tell them apart no problem if I link them then?

It's just a test of the ADC. The source is Hilo streaming from a second DAW.

I'm not saying there's no improvement, but it's certainly not night and day and people I've sent it to said they can't hear a difference.

I did hear the difference on the Opals as well, but in a different way
I guess the Lynx Hilo rock too

[mf10421]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

A review of the SM9 - they even mention that solidity of the centre image as I did
SM9 Review - Reviews - Music Tech Magazine





----------



I'm over 200 hours on my set now, and the sound has become even more focused, tighter, and bass is no longer soft and flabby.
Switching between the Opals and SM9 no longer reveal a big contrast in bass character.

I'm using the Opals less and less, I think I'm very close to moving them on...


I was able to correctly identify the blind loopback files in this post - running the SM9 from the Lynx Hilo

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/newre...eply&p=8367737


They are Hilo, 828 mk2 internally clocked, and 828 mk2 clocked from Hilo.
Firstly I correctly guess the internally clocked 828 mk2 from the external one, via PM to NMS.



Then he asked which was the Hilo one, and again I guessed correctly




Although I do have pretty good ears, but good monitors help too
Even despite the fact NMS said "it's all in my head"

Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker



I did hear the difference on the Opals as well, but in a different way
I guess the Lynx Hilo rock too

Another review: http://www.musictechmag.co.uk/mtm/reviews/sm9-review

[Robin Walsh]

I'm really enjoying these monitors. Focal don't seem to emphasize enough the importance of running them in. The sound changes drastically!!

What's also important, I've figured, is that you have to run in the 2-way monitor in the same way you do the 3-way. The mid-range speaker gets completely different frequencies in 2-way mode. Initially I was less than impressed with the 2-way. The mid-range driver/spider was obviously still too 'tight' because it hadn't been exposed to bass. After about 100 hours it also changed drastically. So much so, that I really like working on the two-way as much as the three-way. Sometimes you just get tired of the extreme full range sound. It's a pity that I have to get up from the listening position to switch between modes - later about that!

So, just a tip. Treat the two-way as a completely different speaker with it's own break-in time.

Another tip, when running in a set of monitors set the signal feeding the speakers to mono. In this way both speakers get exactly the same signal.

One thing, however! I will literally shit my pants if Focal come up with ver.2 that has a speaker switching remote!!! I mean, what were they thinking. For the equivalent price of a guitar stomp box they could've added a few Cat-5 ports and a simple small switcher. (Input and Output Cat-5's for linking speakers together from one switcher) Try switching modes when you have another pair of monitors on the inside of the SM9's (like Auratones). You can't access the damn switches!!! So, if they do a mod, I will expect it to be a retrofit option. I would've been happy to pay $200 (or whatever) more for this option. I've already paid the price of a small car for these speakers. Once again, Focal what were you thinking?

I do a variety of work - albums, final mix, post production, etc and these monitors cover all of my bases comfortably. I'm really happy with the sound.


Peace, Robin

[cebolao]

How do they translate?

[method1]

Hey Robin, totally agree - a remote for switching between 2 & 3 way seems to be the one major ergonomic oversight. Being able to A/B from listening position without getting up would be extremely useful.

Glad they're working out for you otherwise, I'm very happy with mine too.

[Robin Walsh]

Originally Posted by cebolao

How do they translate?

Beautifully. No surprises... A few test mixes is all it should take to 'learn' them. Transitioning to these monitors took considerably less time than others. But, I have been using Focal for years..

[Robin Walsh]

Originally Posted by method1

Hey Robin, totally agree - a remote for switching between 2 & 3 way seems to be the one major ergonomic oversight. Being able to A/B from listening position without getting up would be extremely useful.

Glad they're working out for you otherwise, I'm very happy with mine too.

Hey M1, glad yours are working out for you too. Looking forward to a catch-up!

[Magnus Lindberg]

Got a demo today of the SM9 and the MM27. In my personal taste and needs the SM9 pretty much wiped the floor with the barefoots. Much more neutral mids, distorted guitars got a little lost in the barefoots for example. The focals went deeper and had a super clear definitition in the subs. The barefoots sounded like they need a sub.

Obviously the MM27 is a very potent speaker, but not right for me.
In short, Im getting a pair of SM9. The fact that they are (at least in the EU) way way cheaper than the MM27s doesnt make things worse to say the least.

[goldphinga]

.

[twarrenl]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

The tweeter and mid driver are supposed to be on the inside, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the tweeter and mid on the outside? More stereo width, and the woofer is less directional so, being on the inside won't hurt stereo imaging etc

Anyone using it with tweeter/mid on the outside?
Because they take up so much room width wise, I can't place them as wide as I'd like with the woofer on the outside...
I had them fairly close before, but moving them outwards just 3 inches each side made a huge difference to the depth and quality of the stereo imaging!

I used to believe this notion until I started realizing some of my bass synths would sit heavy left or right and after I heard my mixes in headphones or in a club with stereo subs... And with a large majority of listeners consuming music on headphones that's a big problem.

It's actually extremely beneficial in my opinion (thinking scientifically) to have the lo frequency drivers on the outside. Yes bass frequencies travel more omni directional however they are still traveling from a specific direction, which is why just shoving a sub anywhere behind the desk still wont deliver a true image. If you're perceptive enough you can close your eyes, spin around, and still tell which direction the sub is coming from. I prefer stereo sub anyways - I perceive it as more realistic and yield better results.

I love the SM9s and have had some of my best listening experiences with them - however, I feel like I would be head over heels for them if they were a purely vertical design :
hf
mf
lf

[James Lugo]

NOTICE TO THE 2 MEMBERS ARGUING ON THIS THREAD!

Take it somewhere else! Email each other, the next infraction I get regarding either one of you on this thread it's gonna be a 30 day ban.

James
Moderator