Focal SM9 !

[Enlightened Hand]

The Focal SM9's blew me away. quite honestly the best pair of monitors I’ve heard! the clarity and stereo imaging is amazing (i can hear things in song's I’ve never heard before) The response to transients is very good. I can imagine putting mixes together that translate very well to other systems quickly on these. The SM9's are very unforgiving on poorly mixed material and also very unhyped. I was kinda expecting them to be bass heavy but not at all. They are a big step up in terms of soundquality from the Focal Twins (they are twice the price however) and I love my Twins!!!
The icing on the cake is the ability, at the flick of a switch, to move to nearfield only mode (the main driver off) the monitor then effectively becomes a sort of Solo 6Be with a slightly different frequency response "nicer NS10's, that don't rip your ears apart would be a good, real world, term for it" In nearfield mode the speaker rolls off sharply below 90Hz (so makes for perfect referencing on how mixes will sound on a domestic hi-fi / car stereo etc.

The Unity Boulders were also very good. Better bass end to my ears than the SM9's (that can be a good thing or a bad thing) and a slightly smoother top end. In a nutshell you'd be able to mix on these monitors for hours. It's very hard to say one is better than the other and I’d put it down to personal preference really. The only reason I’d go with the SM9's over the Boulders is purely because of the nearfields switch mode (for referencing what your mix will sound like on a car stereo or domestic hi-fi / Imac etc. The sonics are very good indeed.

Am I the only person that sees a contradiction here?

How can the SM9's be "quite honestly the best..." and the Unity Audio boulders have "better bass" and it be the case that: "It's very hard to say one is better than the other..."

That makes no sense.

I've auditioned a few Focal speakers (the twins, the solo 6) and they're okay if you like that sort of thing. But they are far from the hype they get. I also would think that for the money you'd spend and 3-way design on a pair of SM9s that Focal would have gone with sealed cabinets and mitigated the time domain issues ports and passive radiators introduce.

As far as I can tell nothing is happening with the design of any of Focal's speakers that results in a monitoring experience that is significantly more useful than many of the better designs of other speakers that have been out for years. I appreciate Focal's existence as some people find that their sound is what works. But I really don't get the hype. It can be useful if it's your cup of tea. But the unrelenting, overwhelming amount of excitement as though the sound is unprecedented?....Hardly warranted IMO.

I distinctly remember a certain speaker company specializing in ribbon tweeters getting the same hype fest a few years ago. It was everywhere.

[Tube World]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

Am I the only person that sees a contradiction here?

How can the SM9's be "quite honestly the best..." and the Unity Audio boulders have "better bass" and it be the case that: "It's very hard to say one is better than the other..."

That makes no sense.

I've auditioned a few Focal speakers (the twins, the solo 6) and they're okay if you like that sort of thing. But they are far from the hype they get. I also would think that for the money you'd spend and 3-way design on a pair of SM9s that Focal would have gone with sealed cabinets and mitigated the time domain issues ports and passive radiators introduce.

As far as I can tell nothing is happening with the design of any of Focal's speakers that results in a monitoring experience that is significantly more useful than many of the better designs of other speakers that have been out for years. I appreciate Focal's existence as some people find that their sound is what works. But I really don't get the hype. It can be useful if it's your cup of tea. But the unrelenting, overwhelming amount of excitement as though the sound is unprecedented?....Hardly warranted IMO.

I distinctly remember a certain speaker company specializing in ribbon tweeters getting the same hype fest a few years ago. It was everywhere.

What I understood from his post (although he did not use the words) is there is more bass on the boulders and depending on your taste, you may like a monitor with stronger bass. He did not say the Focals lacked bass, just there was stronger bass on the boulders.

Regarding the Focal Twins, they are the best 2 1/2 way system out there under $3,200. I looked and checked out everything. You may not like the character of them, but there is no system with that provides the detail in the mid's like the Twins for their price and under. That is why they are soo hot on the forums. I have the PCM TB2A's myself which offer more depth, but the mid detail on the Twins are amazing.

Unless you are an engineer and know about speakers designs, and then talked to the R&D team at Focal, you can't just say that sealed cabinets are the way to go for what they were trying to achieve with their monitors. If it was that easy, everyone would go with the sealed cabinet design. Though there are some advantag to that design, it also provides less bass than ported designs. So there always has to be a balance. You also cannot knock the SM9's without at least hearing them first. This is not to knock you Enlightened Hand, but just a different way of looking at what was said.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by Tube World

What I understood from his post (although he did not use the words) is there is more bass on the boulders and depending on your taste, you may like a monitor with stronger bass. He did not say the Focals lacked bass, just there was stronger bass on the boulders.

He didn't say stronger. He said "better" bass. Having used the rocks I would agree. The time domain is FAR better than on any Focal speaker I've used, which does result in "better" bass.

Regarding the Focal Twins, they are the best 2 1/2 way system out there under $3,200. I looked and checked out everything. You may not like the character of them, but there is no system with that provides the detail in the mid's like the Twins for their price and under. That is why they are soo hot on the forums. I have the PCM TB2A's myself which offer more depth, but the mid detail on the Twins are amazing.

For starters I disagree that they are in any way "amazing". They're okay IMO. But if you give them credit because their price is right as "affordable 3-way speakers" then that's a different discussion. I personally think their bass end was not as clear as it could be and the midrange wasn't quite right either. There's plenty of it. But it's not a natural balance to my ears. The highs seemed wrong to me too. But again,...my opinion.

Unless you are an engineer and know about speakers designs, and then talked to the R&D team at Focal, you can't just say that sealed cabinets are the way to go for what they were trying to achieve with their monitors. If it was that easy, everyone would go with the sealed cabinet design. Though there are some advantag to that design, it also provides less bass than ported designs. So there always has to be a balance. You also cannot knock the SM9's without at least hearing them first. This is not to knock you Enlightened Hand, but just a different way of looking at what was said.

I can say that ports and passive radiators done conventionally produce time domain distortion that you can hear. I haven't heard anything in using the speakers themselves or in the literature from Focal to suggest they've found a way to mitigate this. It's true I haven't heard the SM9 but I don't see anything in the design that would convince me to change my opinion on that.

I have heard a LOT of hype by a LOT of people that I'm not entirely convinced know what they're talking about.

[Tube World]

I think we agree on more than you think on this subject. On the Twins, yes I was referring more to price point. In every studio room they will sound a little different due to the different room size, treatment, etc that comes into play. There is also the EQ in the back to adjust to your room and taste. The Twins are not natural sounding as you said, I agree. I found the Genelec 8050's more natural even though the tweeter can be edgy. However to mix on the Twins (which I have done on several sessions) I have had great success with. It didnt' matter that it was more natural sounding or not; the bottom line was all the mixes I did came out great.

I can't comment on the passive speaker on top.....I an't that smart on the subject. I have a feeling though Focal used meters, and all sorts of equipment to measure distoration, etc.

I agree that there are a lot of equipment that is hyped on gearslutz. Look how the Portico compressor "smoked" thread, the Adams before that, the Nail, and Twins which are more current trends.

"It's true I haven't heard the SM9 but I don't see anything in the design that would convince me to change my opinion on that."

I would just sugges that you make your judgement on the monitors after you have heard them.

[Jomox]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I've auditioned a few Focal speakers (the twins, the solo 6) and they're okay if you like that sort of thing. But they are far from the hype they get.

Ill have to agree there, being an ex Focal user who got them based on all the massive hype and praise from people. They was not for me at all, but it just goes to show monitors are very personal and it's always best to try a few pairs before you buy. Though never heard the SM's so can't comment on them but I guess they are far better then the CMS / Solo's etc. Though the build quality is the best I've seen, I am missing this build quality with my short Focal experience and wish more manufacturers spent as much time building as good as Focal.

Originally Posted by Tube World

Regarding the Focal Twins, they are the best 2 1/2 way system out there under $3,200. I looked and checked out everything.

As per above, monitors are personal and to you they are the best 2 1/2 way system out there, that is not the case for everyone, so they are not the best but of course one of the ones to consider and are in the best ones to consider with others. I personally just find the sound of other monitors to suit my needs much more.

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

Am I the only person that sees a contradiction here?

How can the SM9's be "quite honestly the best..." and the Unity Audio boulders have "better bass" and it be the case that: "It's very hard to say one is better than the other..."

That makes no sense.

I've auditioned a few Focal speakers (the twins, the solo 6) and they're okay if you like that sort of thing. But they are far from the hype they get. I also would think that for the money you'd spend and 3-way design on a pair of SM9s that Focal would have gone with sealed cabinets and mitigated the time domain issues ports and passive radiators introduce.

As far as I can tell nothing is happening with the design of any of Focal's speakers that results in a monitoring experience that is significantly more useful than many of the better designs of other speakers that have been out for years. I appreciate Focal's existence as some people find that their sound is what works. But I really don't get the hype. It can be useful if it's your cup of tea. But the unrelenting, overwhelming amount of excitement as though the sound is unprecedented?....Hardly warranted IMO.

I distinctly remember a certain speaker company specializing in ribbon tweeters getting the same hype fest a few years ago. It was everywhere.

I read the above post as a "subjective-review".

I would suggest what you've said here, is a bit confusing to the reader, at least I am partly scratching my head at what you are trying to suggest. "not significantly more useful than others" is the most confusing line. Sure I believe you, but - this doesn't ring any bell for me, since they actually are pretty helpful to my ears, because of their design. Anyway, I think Speakers are about the most personal thing you can use in audio production. If you like to use the speaker, you learn the speaker. If you don't get the speaker, you cannot learn it. There is no universal truth for you and I, or anyone with speakers for the obvious and assumed reasons.

To counter your opinion, I find the Focal inverted dome tweeter to be very favorable for my work, for its "omni-like" output. Its non-fatiguing clarity and brillance. Just my subjective opinion. I have found that I can work with these monitors [I'll go as far as to say this is the case with every focal monitor I have every used; solo6be, twin6be, cms40, cms50, cms65, SM8's, SM11's] - though sadly I have not had the extreme pleasure of using the SM9's, so I should probably not yield any opinion before I do. Hearkening my experience, I am willing to bet these are "most-intense", but lets just keep the guessing to a minimun. My experience with Focal monitors is that they are widely dispersing, wonderfully uncolored, and I think I can work for a long time, and have only small amounts of ear fatigue, which does allows me to keep perspective for many hours.

[Jomox]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

To counter your opinion, I find the Focal inverted dome tweeter to be very favorable for my work, for its "omni-like" output. Its non-fatiguing clarity and brillance. Just my subjective opinion. I have found that I can work with these monitors [I'll go as far as to say this is the case with every focal monitor I have every used; solo6be, twin6be, cms40, cms50, cms65, .

With the CMS series, for me personally I got fatigue after 3+ hour sessions, which was another reason for not keeping them.

Though as you say monitors are very personal, it's all subjective and each user will have a different taste to what they need for their work/productions and will experience them differently.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

...Anyway, I think Speakers are about the most personal thing you can use in audio production. If you like to use the speaker, you learn the speaker. If you don't get the speaker, you cannot learn it. There is no universal truth for you and I, or anyone with speakers for the obvious and assumed reasons.

I think the bottom line is that if a speaker system works for the user then it works for them, regardless of the design, regardless of the manufacturer or the price paid. That much I agree with.

But there are certain aspects of speaker design that go further to create realistic sound reproduction, that is reproduction that is close to the sound of the original event, and that stuff helps with critical listening. Certainly everything is a compromise and all sonic events only happen once. But there are some designs that simply more closely approximate "the truth" (so to speak, for lack of better terms).

We cannot escape the reality that conventional ported designs, and passive radiators smear the timing of transients. That's less accurate than a design that is time coherent. These are facts.

Focal makes extensive use of what appears and (from what I've experienced) functions as conventional porting. They are not time coherent speakers. The bass transients always come across as smeared to my ears (for one thing). I can no longer imagine dropping thousands on a pair of speakers that I still needed to battle with time coherence on (not saying that's the case with the SM9, but from the looks of things I don't see how it wouldn't be). But again, that's just my opinion and no, I haven't always thought this way. You obviously feel differently and that's fine by me.

I would go so far as to say it's probably the case that the reason people find so many different sounding types of otherwise similarly designed "monitor" has more to do with the varying degrees of time domain distortion than much else.

People will have their preferences obviously, and that's a good thing. I've got no beef with Focal or people using Focal. I just would rather have "better" bass than more bass (among other things).

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I think the bottom line is that if a speaker system works for the user then it works for them, regardless of the design, regardless of the manufacturer or the price paid. That much I agree with.

But there are certain aspects of speaker design that go further to create realistic sound reproduction, that is reproduction that is close to the sound of the original event, and that stuff helps with critical listening. Certainly everything is a compromise and all sonic events only happen once. But there are some designs that simply more closely approximate "the truth" (so to speak, for lack of better terms).

We cannot escape the reality that conventional ported designs, and passive radiators smear the timing of transients. That's less accurate than a design that is time coherent. These are facts.

Focal makes extensive use of what appears and (from what I've experienced) functions as conventional porting. They are not time coherent speakers. The bass transients always come across as smeared to my ears (for one thing). I can no longer imagine dropping thousands on a pair of speakers that I still needed to battle with time coherence on (not saying that's the case with the SM9, but from the looks of things I don't see how it wouldn't be). But again, that's just my opinion and no, I haven't always thought this way. You obviously feel differently and that's fine by me.

I would go so far as to say it's probably the case that the reason people find so many different sounding types of otherwise similarly designed "monitor" has more to do with the varying degrees of time domain distortion than much else.

People will have their preferences obviously, and that's a good thing. I've got no beef with Focal or people using Focal. I just would rather have "better" bass than more bass (among other things).

Accuracy in speakers is a tricky one. yea, I got it. I love the words you put "Creating Realistic Sound Reproduction", and then "closely approximate" which seems by definition fails to support your statement. I don't think its so simple. Every possible inch of the box, the driver material, the amps/crossovers - all couple differently on every speaker, and due to the variance found with speaker design, I don't think you'll find two speakers that will give you the the same approximated "truth" as you state. They are simply different sounding and will sound different in different rooms. To pigeon hole the box seems a little off the beaten path to me. Regardless of port, or sealed design, I want something to DRIVES ME to a result, and one that I feel comfortable in reaching for sounds with my own "truths". If I wanted to hear how the source really sounded I would walk into the live room and listen. So to rehash, from what I am getting here; you are saying that a "sealed enclosure" speaker design is closer to the "truth" than a ported one, or one that uses a passive radiator. This is a bit hard to understand, as I am not an acoustician or speaker designer, and nor do I know how to measure "time coherence" as it relates to bass, and/or transient/phase accuracy of the speaker, in room "x", but I can say I've used sealed cabinet speakers before, and I can easily say they all sounded different to me.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

As far as I can tell nothing is happening with the design of any of Focal's speakers that results in a monitoring experience that is significantly more useful than many of the better designs of other speakers that have been out for years.

Dear Enlightened Hand,

Very amazing you can judge a design by just looking at it without any schematic in your hands..

Jokes aside. I wouldn't argue with you or anyone if it comes to personal taste or preferences. Some like red wine others like white wine so to speak.

No arguement there. However I find your remark about the design a bit to short coming for the 3 years intensive R&D done for this product.

The SM9 is designed to be a truth and amazing analogue product, and I can say more then most manufactures Focal has spent a lot of attention and R&D on the electronics. You don't see those things on the outside, but let me tell you a bit about the insight.

The Focal R&D team have spent a huge amount of time and knowledge in the amplifier and electronics. Nothing is off the shelf and every single part is exclusively designed for the SM9. This is not "just an amplifier" but an Amplifier that is nearly without any compromise and very well over thought. No Class D or off the shelf amplifiers. The SM9's magic already starts right away from the XLR by the instrumentation pre-amp stage which is something special. If this particulary pre-amp would be sold separate as MIC pre it would be a best seller.

Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know there is no single active monitor on the market that has Direct Coupled (Capacitor less) signal paths and truth differential signal balanced circuits between the pre-amps and the power amplifiers. And this are just a few points of the electronic design that goes so deep into perfectionism in order to translate as close as possible to the original signal.

The absence of any electrolytic capacitor in signal flow is one of the many reasons why the SM9's sound so incredible transparent. This is a design facet that made the SSL J9000 such a good sounding console for example. It requires more effort in design and cost more, but it is worth every penny and all the effort if it comes to sound quality.

Below I like to sum up a few design aspects you simply won't find in most if not any active monitor on the market.

-No electrolytic capacitors anywhere in signal flow
-Differential balanced internal signal paths
-4 Layer PCB board designs with ground and power planes for very low inductance
-High Bias discrete output stages (mid-high)
-Micro Controller Software system control and management
-Ultra low Impedance power supply with multiple banks (40x) small capacitors
-Multiple paralleled twin-servo pre amps with a S/N ratio better then -130dB!
-Floating amplifier grounds with active virtual grounds.
-Triac Software controlled soft-start system.
-Beefy and separate power supply for the pre-amps. (this power supply is bigger then most power amplifiers in active monitors)

This are just a few of the many efforts and innovations in the electronic part of the SM9 design. Those are the reason for the nearly "wire direct" reproduction of any source and the outstanding low harmonic distortion and effortless dynamics by the electronics. I challenge you to open any active monitor, no matter the price and tell me if they offer the same electronically wise.

Like Neil Pickles pointed out, the amplifiers don't have any compression when pushed to the limit. Other then a blinking clip indicator, you would't tell they are running to the max. More important, at lower volumes they still have all the punch and firm soundstage.

I won't say the SM9 is the "best" or the only best product in the world. There are many innovative and good products out there, but I just wanted to put some things in right perspective.

I would say listen, and then judge.

With kind regards,
Bas

[gvr]

While we debate SM9's PR, can someone please elaborate on its freq response?

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by gvr

While we debate SM9's PR, can someone please elaborate on its freq response?

My post isn't any official PR, but just my personal but honest enthusiasm and based on design facts.

The freq. response is ruler flat (literally) from 40Hz. to 20Khz. +/= 1dB.

The -3dB point is at a respectable 30Hz.

With kind regards,
Bas

[gvr]

With PR I was referring to the Passive Radiator, sorry about being unclear. Since it smears the transient response I was wondering what frequencies that are affected and to what extent.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by gvr

With PR I was referring to the Passive Radiator, sorry about being unclear. Since it smears the transient response I was wondering what frequencies that are affected and to what extent.

My bad about PR. :D

General speaking any bass reflex or passive radiator design has an inferior transient response in comparison to a closed box design. The passive radiator does have the benefit of no port noise over bass reflex. A bass reflex port or a passive radiator is a good compromise between impulse response and low frequency extension.

To get a decent low frequency response from a monitor of the size of a studio monitor it is almost unavoidable. In general a speaker of this size is always a compromise in low frequency response. But this size is most common and convenient for most studio's. If we want a non compromise closed box design you end up with huge speakers as big as 2 meter. Like the Duntechs.

In the SM9 we have the benefit that amplifiers and drivers are designed to match each other. That means if we combine a woofer with a very low QMS and a bridged push-pull amplifier with a very high damping factor, we can reach a good impulse response with iron fist tight control. The impulse response is defined by the system Q factor. If we design and tune electronics and acoustics tightly together we can define a system Q.

As matter of fact the SM9 might even be to "tight" for some taste. One would expect a bass heavy system, but on the contrary. The SM9 has headphone quality tight low end response. You can hear the slightest bit of reverb on a kick drum totally separated from the bass guitar, because of the fast transient response.

It all comes to the designers. One can design a horrible sounding closed box system, or a fantastic sounding bass reflex system. There are more ways leading to Rome, it is all about getting or combining the right ways.

With kind regards,
Bas

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

I've auditioned a few Focal speakers (the twins, the solo 6) and they're okay if you like that sort of thing. But they are far from the hype they get.

Exactly my experience. Auditioned the Solo, did not like the sound of that berrylium tweeter at all, harsh to my ears and maybe a tad smeary. Also the impression of a lower mid bump seemed odd. But a big out of the box sound with wide sweet spot compared to other similarly priced monitors (apart from the stunning PSI A14/A17)

Never heard the SM9, but as I believe they share the same tweeter design I don't think it would ever be for me.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by Arksun

Exactly my experience. Auditioned the Solo, did not like the sound of that berrylium tweeter at all, harsh to my ears and maybe a tad smeary. Also the impression of a lower mid bump seemed odd. But a big out of the box sound with wide sweet spot compared to other similarly priced monitors (apart from the stunning PSI A14/A17)

Never heard the SM9, but as I believe they share the same tweeter design I don't think it would ever be for me.

The tweeter looks the same but isn't the same. Secondly, the SM9 has a totally different amplifier on the tweeter which runs most of the range in class A. I hope you give the SM9 a listen once they are out and who knows they may convince you.

With kind regards,
Bas

[gvr]

Bas is the tweeter and mid the same as in Grand Utopia?

[Geoff Waddington]

As the great Australian electrical engineer Neville Thiele pointed out around 1962, it''s simply a high pass filter problem complete with all the design decisions / tradeoffs, etc.

It gets really tiring seeing people throw around terms like time domain, impulse response, "fast" bass , etc. as if they know what they are talking about.

And then once in a blue moon you see a post like this from someone who actually knows what this stuff is all about...... Thank You !!!

Originally Posted by Sound Evolution / bas

In the SM9 we have the benefit that amplifiers and drivers are designed to match each other. That means if we combine a woofer with a very low QMS and a bridged push-pull amplifier with a very high damping factor, we can reach a good impulse response with iron fist tight control. The impulse response is defined by the system Q factor. If we design and tune electronics and acoustics tightly together we can define a system Q

[George Necola]

Ok Swiss slutz. After making clear statements to the gs world that I don't like Focal speakers (solo 6, twln, sm8), I got a mail from Focal that they are touring with Focal in Switzerland.

Remember the 22nd of November 2011. No, not Santa is coming to town, but Nicolas with the local distributor and a pair of SM9 to drmonstrate that they do not suck.

Will be in Winterthur.

PM me if you would like to join. It's free.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Gearslutz.com App

[Admiral James T.]

Originally Posted by George Necola

Ok Swiss slutz. After making clear statements to the gs world that I don't like Focal speakers (solo 6, twln, sm8), I got a mail from Focal that they are touring with Focal in Switzerland.

Remember the 22nd of November 2011. No, not Santa is coming to town, but Nicolas with the local distributor and a pair of SM9 to drmonstrate that they do not suck.

Will be in Winterthur.

PM me if you would like to join. It's free.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Gearslutz.com App

I got coffee, you'll bring beer.

[mf10421]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

As the great Australian electrical engineer Neville Thiele pointed out around 1962, it''s simply a high pass filter problem complete with all the design decisions / tradeoffs, etc.

It gets really tiring seeing people throw around terms like time domain, impulse response, "fast" bass , etc. as if they know what they are talking about.

And then once in a blue moon you see a post like this from someone who actually knows what this stuff is all about...... Thank You !!!

You are right man !

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by Admiral James T.

I got coffee, you'll bring beer.

Common.. the French are coming. We need a lot of wine.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by gvr

Bas is the tweeter and mid the same as in Grand Utopia?

Yes and No. At Focal we have the luxury that each single driver is designed and handcrafted at the Focal facility. That means that each driver get re-designed/tweaked for the specific design. Small variations as cone depth, cone thickness, voice coil woundings enz. will be custom designed for the specific application. This way we can exactly get the Thiele & Small parameters we need for each design.

The drivers of the SM9 are all custom designed, and the same amount of effort, quality and R&D is spent on those drivers as those for the Grand Utopia line.

The Midrange has the same type of inverted Phase Plug at the centre as the Grand Utopia drivers and you will find lots of simularities.

The SM9 woofer is something special, and is a very long throw design in order to get very low in a relative small enclosure with minimum distortion.

With kind regards,
Bas

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

As the great Australian electrical engineer Neville Thiele pointed out around 1962, it''s simply a high pass filter problem complete with all the design decisions / tradeoffs, etc.

It gets really tiring seeing people throw around terms like time domain, impulse response, "fast" bass , etc. as if they know what they are talking about.

And then once in a blue moon you see a post like this from someone who actually knows what this stuff is all about...... Thank You !!!

And then you get posts like yours that quote something from somebody that supposedly knows something that is only a half related truth at best. It gets really tiring when seeing people throw around the words of others like they know what they're talking about.

In any case the point is for people to use what works for them. Are the SM9s any good? Maybe. After listening to other praised models of Focal and looking at the basic design and reading the available info I have my doubts. But I'm open to auditioning them if the opportunity should arise.

What really gets tiring is the fan wagon that everybody has jumped on.

[mf10421]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

And then you get posts like yours that quote something from somebody that supposedly knows something that is only a half related truth at best. It gets really tiring when seeing people throw around the words of others like they know what they're talking about.

In any case the point is for people to use what works for them. Are the SM9s any good? Maybe. After listening to other praised models of Focal and looking at the basic design and reading the available info I have my doubts. But I'm open to auditioning them if the opportunity should arise.

What really gets tiring is the fan wagon that everybody has jumped on.

It's a matter of hearing them and you jumped in.

[morebass]

I like sealed cabinets ..... let me tell you why.

If you drill a hole in a speaker cabinet you tune that cabinet to a given frequency. Hence "one note bass" effect. Below that frequency the bass rolls off at 24db per octave, in other words like a stone. A sealed cabinet however does not suffer from "one note bass", and the low end rolls off at a mere 12 db per octave. The result is extended bass and more clarity. Trust me.

When you next audition a ported speaker it would be worth bearing this in mind.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

And then you get posts like yours that quote something from somebody that supposedly knows something that is only a half related truth at best. It gets really tiring when seeing people throw around the words of others like they know what they're talking about.

In any case the point is for people to use what works for them. Are the SM9s any good? Maybe. After listening to other praised models of Focal and looking at the basic design and reading the available info I have my doubts. But I'm open to auditioning them if the opportunity should arise.

What really gets tiring is the fan wagon that everybody has jumped on.

If you point at me with "half truth" yours faithfully designed the SM9 circuit boards and amplifiers as member of the SM9 R&D team, so how much closer can that be to the truth?

There is never only one truth to any design. To many different insights and variables are involved. I just wanted to point out why I think the SM9 is groundbreaking.

With kind regards,
Bas

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by morebass

I like sealed cabinets ..... let me tell you why.

If you drill a hole in a speaker cabinet you tune that cabinet to a given frequency. Hence "one note bass" effect. Below that frequency the bass rolls off at 24db per octave, in other words like a stone. A sealed cabinet however does not suffer from "one note bass", and the low end rolls off at a mere 12 db per octave. The result is extended bass and more clarity. Trust me.

When you next audition a ported speaker it would be worth bearing this in mind.

so? they say -3db point at 30Hz.. which is awesome..
I understand your theory, but what should we look for when auditioning?

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

And then you get posts like yours that quote something from somebody that supposedly knows something that is only a half related truth at best

OK, I'll play along, please enlighten me, give me more details on which part of the post is a half related truth, I'm always ready to learn.

[mf10421]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

OK, I'll play along, please enlighten me, give me more details on which part of the post is a half related truth, I'm always ready to learn.

yes, enlighten me too!