The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Focal Unveils New Flagship Nearfield and Midfield Monitors: Trio11 Be
Old 19th March 2019
  #61
Gear Maniac
 
ilalin's Avatar
as long as it has ports I don't consider it flagship
Old 19th March 2019
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
as long as it has ports I don't consider it flagship
Ports have nothing to do with it being flagship or not. Big Genelecs, ATCs, PMCs and Questeds all have ports to limit the driver distortion. With sealed cabinet requiring such high SPL speakers would need to be unreasonably big.
Old 19th March 2019
  #63
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheu78 View Post
was just curious..



Cheu
I know. Feel free to leave suggestions too. I might go back to the trios because of my relationship, but I want to try everything... even though I mainly use it to produce I’m also a lil on the audiophile side so I don’t want to be curious. So far I’ve tried atc, barefoot mm27, amphion one, and two18, avantone abbey, jbl 708. I can live with any of them except probably the amphions, so at this point I’m just splitting hairs. I would say I’m looking for something along the lines of trio highs and mids resolution but a tiny bit smaller. The twins didn’t have the same resolution, otherwise it would have been perfect
Old 19th March 2019
  #64
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JblKid95 View Post
I know. Feel free to leave suggestions too. I might go back to the trios because of my relationship, but I want to try everything... even though I mainly use it to produce I’m also a lil on the audiophile side so I don’t want to be curious. So far I’ve tried atc, barefoot mm27, amphion one, and two18, avantone abbey, jbl 708. I can live with any of them except probably the amphions, so at this point I’m just splitting hairs. I would say I’m looking for something along the lines of trio highs and mids resolution but a tiny bit smaller. The twins didn’t have the same resolution, otherwise it would have been perfect
What atc did you tried? What did you not liked so much (or at all)? Too much detail? (I'm asking this vecause you said that you don't want to be curious).

I'd say that it's a matter of taste at that level and even more than that it's a matter of how the xyz loudspeaker INTEGRATES with your room and its acoustics.

maybe the 8341 could be something for you.. and I'm not a genelec fanboy..at all.
As you pointed out before
Maybe also the KS Digital a200..who knows..

Although the only real solution or suggestion I could give you is to test every loudspeaker in YOUR place and acoustically treat it as best as you can/can afford.
Then pick the one that suits you the best.



Cheu
Old 19th March 2019
  #65
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheu78 View Post
I'd say that it's a matter of taste at that level and even more than that it's a matter of how the xyz loudspeaker INTEGRATES with your room
Exactly. I heard the 8351 at Aes. It sounded really peaky and pointy, but obviously not the greatest environment... I couldn’t really find one thing that I liked about it, but def willing to rock it at my spot for a month and see. not really in a hurry the trios are nice to listen to, so when someone comes and picks them up I’ll get it and see. The thing I noticed about changing speakers is that it keeps me creatively motivated. I Obviously have adhd which isn’t a joke but you get what I mean. Prolly wouldn’t recommend continuous monitor swaps for others though because you might lose your sense of reality which can be dangerous in audio
Old 19th March 2019
  #66
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JblKid95 View Post
Exactly. I heard the 8351 at Aes. It sounded really peaky and pointy, but obviously not the greatest environment... I couldn’t really find one thing that I liked about it, but def willing to rock it at my spot for a month and see. not really in a hurry the trios are nice to listen to, so when someone comes and picks them up I’ll get it and see. The thing I noticed about changing speakers is that it keeps me creatively motivated. I Obviously have adhd which isn’t a joke but you get what I mean. Prolly wouldn’t recommend continuous monitor swaps for others though because you might lose your sense of reality which can be dangerous in audio
Although they might be very similar I was speaking about the 8341 (the new ones..anyway it's not how I would describe them, but again this is quite subjective, I reckon..)

But you didn't tell us yet what you didn't like about the atc's and which model it was..

Anyway, maybe it's better to start a different thread, since this is meant for a new product from focal..





Cheu
Old 19th March 2019
  #67
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheu78 View Post
Although they might be very similar I was speaking about the 8341 (the new ones).
But you disn't tell us what you didn't like about the atc's and which model it was..

Anyway, maybe it's better to start a different thread, since this is meant for a new product from focal..





Cheu
Okay I’ll do some research. Don’t want to steer this thread towards atc, but I will say the color of focal vs atc in the highs are different where the focals help me decipher quicker based on how i perceive sounds. I’ll pm you later tonight
Old 20th March 2019
  #68
They dropped the price of the excellent Focal SM9's by $1,600 right now. What a deal
Old 20th March 2019
  #69
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci View Post
They dropped the price of the excellent Focal SM9's by $1,600 right now. What a deal
I saw that.. I’m def in the camp that preferred the trio6 to the sm9

Last edited by JblKid95; 20th March 2019 at 07:06 AM..
Old 20th March 2019
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Shaggy2039's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JblKid95 View Post
Okay I’ll do some research. Don’t want to steer this thread towards atc, but I will say the color of focal vs atc in the highs are different where the focals help me decipher quicker based on how i perceive sounds. I’ll pm you later tonight
One weird thing I don't like about the Focals (Twins, Solos and Trio 6) is that alot of indie rock music sounds horrible on them. It sounds overly harsh and abrasive. I remember putting on Phoenix's "Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix" on my Twins and I really disliked how it sounded on them, but I absolutely loved it on other monitors like my Adams. That being said, if I put on Post Malone's "Psycho" on the Twins - it sounds like one of the best mixed modern hip hop records I've ever heard. Maybe it's a genre thing. It's weird.

There's something about distorted or heavily driven guitars just don't sound accurate coming through the Twins.
Old 20th March 2019
  #71
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy2039 View Post
One weird thing I don't like about the Focals (Twins, Solos and Trio 6) is that alot of indie rock music sounds horrible on them. It sounds overly harsh and abrasive. I remember putting on Phoenix's "Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix" on my Twins and I really disliked how it sounded on them, but I absolutely loved it on other monitors like my Adams. That being said, if I put on Post Malone's "Psycho" on the Twins - it sounds like one of the best mixed modern hip hop records I've ever heard. Maybe it's a genre thing. It's weird.

There's something about distorted or heavily driven guitars just don't sound accurate coming through the Twins.
This is true, but I def think it’s accurate. Did you do a headphone check? You’re talking about indie mixers, no hate because I love indie music, vs manny marroquin. Indie is weird...and a lot of mix decisions can be that way to stand, or anti establishment, or quirky, that’s why it’s indie. When I first got the trios, I used to result to my usual thing and use a bunch of plugins on my channel strip. I decided one day I would just listen to them and follow their rules. I attribute it all to the berryllium tweeter. Speakers are another instrument. They dictate the final result if you let them guide you. My friends make indie music on twins and it sounds great on the atc45s... weird but sounds incredible. If they made it on the atc they would have ended up with a different color, not wrong just a different vibe. New speakers that sound different to me offer a new sound. Californication sounds great... but weird. Whoever mixed it followed their ears and speakers and came out with that. The process happened from production to mix. It’s all personal
Old 20th March 2019
  #72
Gear Maniac
 
ilalin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
Ports have nothing to do with it being flagship or not. Big Genelecs, ATCs, PMCs and Questeds all have ports to limit the driver distortion. With sealed cabinet requiring such high SPL speakers would need to be unreasonably big.
I respectfully disagree.
When talking about 'ports' I mean the so called 'bass reflex' system where vents are used to increase the perceived frequency response down to 50Hz so that small speakers sound beefier.
From what I learned, the problem is that this type of porting does help extend the frequency response down to 50Hz but beyond the response drops down steeply. So, a bass note that is moving around this spectrum will have an uneven perceived volume response. This makes it much harder to judge and obtain a solid and even bass line.
This would be a big 'NO' in electronic music employing sub-bass or certain instruments that go down to 20Hz like pianos and organs. In other words, a kick bass' energy in the 30Hz region might be 12dB lower than the 50Hz region, therefore making it a complete mess when the mix is listened in a different mixing environment.
Some other porting anomalies include, resonant frequency which a test signal will not show because it is different than music waveforms or percussive sound with fast transients, or ringing of the port that can cover a fundamental frequency. Furthermore, the port can resonate at various frequencies causing smearing and artifacts along the whole frequency spectrum not just low ones.
In my opinion, for serious mixing, it is better to have non-ported monitors coupled with the sub and a treated room not only with acoustic foam but bass traps also.
Now, this is expensive, but well worth the investment, if this is a business you're relying on.
A good example is the timeless popularity of Yamaha NS10's which are not ported. Of course, it is impossible to judge the bass just using these but the midrange comes in focus amazingly well due to less above mentioned artifacts. As Bob Katz would say after all: 'Midrange is the key'

Sincerely
Old 20th March 2019
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
I respectfully disagree.
When talking about 'ports' I mean the so called 'bass reflex' system where vents are used to increase the perceived frequency response down to 50Hz so that small speakers sound beefier.
From what I learned, the problem is that this type of porting does help extend the frequency response down to 50Hz but beyond the response drops down steeply. So, a bass note that is moving around this spectrum will have an uneven perceived volume response. This makes it much harder to judge and obtain a solid and even bass line.
This would be a big 'NO' in electronic music employing sub-bass or certain instruments that go down to 20Hz like pianos and organs. In other words, a kick bass' energy in the 30Hz region might be 12dB lower than the 50Hz region, therefore making it a complete mess when the mix is listened in a different mixing environment.
Some other porting anomalies include, resonant frequency which a test signal will not show because it is different than music waveforms or percussive sound with fast transients, or ringing of the port that can cover a fundamental frequency. Furthermore, the port can resonate at various frequencies causing smearing and artifacts along the whole frequency spectrum not just low ones.
In my opinion, for serious mixing, it is better to have non-ported monitors coupled with the sub and a treated room not only with acoustic foam but bass traps also.
Now, this is expensive, but well worth the investment, if this is a business you're relying on.
A good example is the timeless popularity of Yamaha NS10's which are not ported. Of course, it is impossible to judge the bass just using these but the midrange comes in focus amazingly well due to less above mentioned artifacts. As Bob Katz would say after all: 'Midrange is the key'

Sincerely
While in general I absolutely agree with you regarding small speakers with badly executed reflex ports, but in this particular case this doen’t really apply. Look at the size and volume of cabinets of these Focals, look at their powerful amps and look at the size of the woofer. This is bot a small speaker trying to sound bigger. This is a serious big speaker with very low distortion and high continuous SPL capability. In room you’ll be able to achieve full range at serious SPL with this speaker. So you will not experience issues like you described above. Mastering palace (Dave Kutch) use smaller version of these Trio 6be for mastering purpose for major lable top 40s hits, so with these being even more powerful, bigger and more extended, you have nothing to worry about...only whether your room is good enough.
Old 20th March 2019
  #74
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
I respectfully disagree.
When talking about 'ports' I mean the so called 'bass reflex' system where vents are used to increase the perceived frequency response down to 50Hz so that small speakers sound beefier.
From what I learned, the problem is that this type of porting does help extend the frequency response down to 50Hz but beyond the response drops down steeply. So, a bass note that is moving around this spectrum will have an uneven perceived volume response. This makes it much harder to judge and obtain a solid and even bass line.
This would be a big 'NO' in electronic music employing sub-bass or certain instruments that go down to 20Hz like pianos and organs. In other words, a kick bass' energy in the 30Hz region might be 12dB lower than the 50Hz region, therefore making it a complete mess when the mix is listened in a different mixing environment.
Some other porting anomalies include, resonant frequency which a test signal will not show because it is different than music waveforms or percussive sound with fast transients, or ringing of the port that can cover a fundamental frequency. Furthermore, the port can resonate at various frequencies causing smearing and artifacts along the whole frequency spectrum not just low ones.
In my opinion, for serious mixing, it is better to have non-ported monitors coupled with the sub and a treated room not only with acoustic foam but bass traps also.
Now, this is expensive, but well worth the investment, if this is a business you're relying on.
A good example is the timeless popularity of Yamaha NS10's which are not ported. Of course, it is impossible to judge the bass just using these but the midrange comes in focus amazingly well due to less above mentioned artifacts. As Bob Katz would say after all: 'Midrange is the key'

Sincerely
Have to agree on some of this.

I have not used any high-end monitors, but for sure the Shape 65's give me a much better representation of the low end in a mix (and I mix mostly Hip Hop), than for instance a monitor that plays lower but has a bass port. The bass roll-off is less steep and the whole impression is much tighter, so I can clearly hear where the kick is punching and where the meat of the bass is and easily carve the two out. I've never been able to do that with a ported monitor. Also, the low-end response is faster, which again helps with positioning the level of the kick or a punchy bassline and setting compression for instance. It's to the point that I hardly need to turn on my sub or use my headphones to check what's going on these days.

Saying all that the highest end monitors I've experienced are the Focal Solo's. So maybe further up the chain, the difference is closer or matched. But my instincts say yeah closer but not matched.. thinking through the logic.
Old 21st March 2019
  #75
Gear Maniac
 
ilalin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
While in general I absolutely agree with you regarding small speakers with badly executed reflex ports, but in this particular case this doen’t really apply. Look at the size and volume of cabinets of these Focals, look at their powerful amps and look at the size of the woofer. This is bot a small speaker trying to sound bigger. This is a serious big speaker with very low distortion and high continuous SPL capability. In room you’ll be able to achieve full range at serious SPL with this speaker. So you will not experience issues like you described above. Mastering palace (Dave Kutch) use smaller version of these Trio 6be for mastering purpose for major lable top 40s hits, so with these being even more powerful, bigger and more extended, you have nothing to worry about...only whether your room is good enough.
Good information I was not aware of,

Thanks
Old 23rd March 2019
  #76
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
From what I learned, the problem is that this type of porting does help extend the frequency response down to 50Hz but beyond the response drops down steeply. So, a bass note that is moving around this spectrum will have an uneven perceived volume response. This makes it much harder to judge and obtain a solid and even bass line.
It would be hard to judge below 50 Hz if you have speakers that cut-off at 50 Hz, whether it be ported or sealed. You'd want a sub either way.

The main con of ported speakers is their group-delay/time-smear, due to the higher order roll-off of a ported cabinet vs. a sealed cabinet. (It's debatable whether this is perceivable or not.)
Quote:
Some other porting anomalies include, resonant frequency which a test signal will not show because it is different than music waveforms or percussive sound with fast transients, or ringing of the port that can cover a fundamental frequency. Furthermore, the port can resonate at various frequencies causing smearing and artifacts along the whole frequency spectrum not just low ones.
Some of these are nonsense, and others are well avoidable if properly made. Hopefully in a flagship speaker costing thousands of dollars, it's properly made.
Quote:
In my opinion, for serious mixing, it is better to have non-ported monitors coupled with the sub and a treated room not only with acoustic foam but bass traps also.
If coupled with a sub, it doesn't really matter whether a speaker is ported or non-ported. When you cross-over a speaker with a sub, the crossover filter takes over the speaker's inherent high-pass filter so it becomes moot whether it's ported or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blayz2002 View Post
Have to agree on some of this.

I have not used any high-end monitors, but for sure the Shape 65's give me a much better representation of the low end in a mix (and I mix mostly Hip Hop), than for instance a monitor that plays lower but has a bass port.
If you like the Shape 65, it has nothing to do with its lack of a bass port. The Shape 65 has passive radiators, which means it's basically got the acoustic properties of a ported design. You can think of the passive radiators as a substitute for a port.
Quote:
The bass roll-off is less steep and the whole impression is much tighter, so I can clearly hear where the kick is punching and where the meat of the bass is and easily carve the two out. I've never been able to do that with a ported monitor. Also, the low-end response is faster, which again helps with positioning the level of the kick or a punchy bassline and setting compression for instance. It's to the point that I hardly need to turn on my sub or use my headphones to check what's going on these days.
The roll-off of passive radiator speaker cabs is if anything slightly steeper than ported cabs.
Old 23rd March 2019
  #77
Gear Addict
 

Anyone who has ever attempted to design helmholtz resonators will be able to see that not all ports are created equal. In the most basic terms: a smaller box with a smaller hole will ring more than a larger box with a larger hole (A smaller hole drops the resonant frequency of a box and increases the 'Q'). This is easily measurable and audible. I stand to be corrected here but basically the larger the box of a speaker and the bigger the port, the less the port is doing to fortify the bottom end of the speaker. I know for instance that with my atc scm50asl I lose maybe 1db-2db gain at the cutoff frequency by bunging the ports. The ports in this case are used more for driver loading than extending the frequency response. They are hardly ringing and I certainly don't find the bass to be 'one note'



Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
I respectfully disagree.
When talking about 'ports' I mean the so called 'bass reflex' system where vents are used to increase the perceived frequency response down to 50Hz so that small speakers sound beefier.
From what I learned, the problem is that this type of porting does help extend the frequency response down to 50Hz but beyond the response drops down steeply. So, a bass note that is moving around this spectrum will have an uneven perceived volume response. This makes it much harder to judge and obtain a solid and even bass line.
This would be a big 'NO' in electronic music employing sub-bass or certain instruments that go down to 20Hz like pianos and organs. In other words, a kick bass' energy in the 30Hz region might be 12dB lower than the 50Hz region, therefore making it a complete mess when the mix is listened in a different mixing environment.
Some other porting anomalies include, resonant frequency which a test signal will not show because it is different than music waveforms or percussive sound with fast transients, or ringing of the port that can cover a fundamental frequency. Furthermore, the port can resonate at various frequencies causing smearing and artifacts along the whole frequency spectrum not just low ones.
In my opinion, for serious mixing, it is better to have non-ported monitors coupled with the sub and a treated room not only with acoustic foam but bass traps also.
Now, this is expensive, but well worth the investment, if this is a business you're relying on.
A good example is the timeless popularity of Yamaha NS10's which are not ported. Of course, it is impossible to judge the bass just using these but the midrange comes in focus amazingly well due to less above mentioned artifacts. As Bob Katz would say after all: 'Midrange is the key'

Sincerely
Old 24th March 2019
  #78
Gear Maniac
These are over-generalizations and actually don't even make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by africantigercow View Post
In the most basic terms: a smaller box with a smaller hole will ring more than a larger box with a larger hole (A smaller hole drops the resonant frequency of a box and increases the 'Q').
There's no "smaller box with a smaller hole will ring more" generalization to be made, it depends entirely on the implementation. And all else being the same, dropping the box resonant frequency would decrease the Q-factor in a speaker cab, not increase it.
Quote:
I stand to be corrected here but basically the larger the box of a speaker and the bigger the port, the less the port is doing to fortify the bottom end of the speaker.
Over-generalization again. If anything, the larger box and bigger port can be more efficient, thus better fortifying the bottom end. Your experience is anecdotal and not the rule.
Old 24th March 2019
  #79
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yeky83 View Post
These are over-generalizations and actually don't even make sense.

There's no "smaller box with a smaller hole will ring more" generalization to be made, it depends entirely on the implementation. And all else being the same, dropping the box resonant frequency would decrease the Q-factor in a speaker cab, not increase it.

Over-generalization again. If anything, the larger box and bigger port can be more efficient, thus better fortifying the bottom end. Your experience is anecdotal and not the rule.
(Please don’t misread my tone, I am looking at this as an oppurtunity to learn something)

Is there something in speaker design that is opposite of helmholtz design? When building helmholtz resonators it is very obvious that decreasing the hole size for a given box size (and thus dropping the resonant frequency) increases the specificity of the resonance or the acoustic equivalent of ‘q’.

And obviously a bigger box will have a lower natural resonant frequency, I was talking about the port size and how much it rings in relation to the box size?


And I agree that a larger box with a larger port would be better at fortifying the bottom end but, firstly, because a bigger box has a naturally lower resonance and secondly because you wouldn’t need as much of a ‘ring’ from the ports in order to achieve an extended ‘flat frequency response’ (with a correspondingly better time domain response than a smaller box with an even proportionally smaller hole.) Hence, one could use bigger ports which ring less in a bigger cabinet?

There is also more space for bigger drivers in a big box and so you are hopefully dealing with even more low end output and even less need to fortify that bottom end?

Am I missing anything here?

Last edited by africantigercow; 24th March 2019 at 04:08 PM..
Old 24th March 2019
  #80
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by africantigercow View Post
(Please don’t misread my tone, I am looking at this as an oppurtunity to learn something)

Is there something in speaker design that is opposite of helmholtz design? When building helmholtz resonators it is very obvious that decreasing the hole size for a given box size (and thus dropping the resonant frequency) increases the specificity of the resonance or the acoustic equivalent of ‘q’.

And obviously a bigger box will have a lower natural resonant frequency, I was talking about the port size and how much it rings in relation to the box size?


And I agree that a larger box with a larger port would be better at fortifying the bottom end but, firstly, because a bigger box has a naturally lower resonance and secondly because you wouldn’t need as much of a ‘ring’ from the ports in order to achieve an extended ‘flat frequency response’ (with a correspondingly better time domain response than a smaller box with an even proportionally smaller hole.) Hence, one could use bigger ports which ring less in a bigger cabinet?

There is also more space for bigger drivers in a big box and so you are hopefully dealing with even more low end output and even less need to fortify that bottom end?

Am I missing anything here?
It seems you're mainly missing the fact that there's a speaker with its resonant characteristics which create for a coupled resonating system. The Q factor of the port has little to do with the Q factor of the ported speaker cab. Most of the dampening forces come from the speaker, so the Q of the port usually has to be high enough. Many speaker design sims just assume a infinite port Q factor.

More pertinent port opening size considerations are about chuffing, turbulence, efficiency at loud volumes, etc.
Old 25th March 2019
  #81
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Okay dweebs let’s get back to focals lol
Old 10th May 2019
  #82
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

What I find interesting is that this monitor vs the SM9...the bass response at the -3db cutoff is the exact same 30Hz yet the woofer size in the Trio 11 is 10 inches vs the 8 inches for the SM9.

Not sure what the hell is happening here but looking at the SM9 design specs you could almost assume the Trio 11 would extend down to say 26Hz at the -3db cutoff point.

I know my ADAM Sub8 does 28Hz at the -3db cutoff point and easily handles 31Hz. And it only has an 8 inch driver.

I can only conclude that the Trio 11 is designed to be pushed considerably louder at that same 30Hz -3db cutoff point. And there are reports that the SM9 will clip at loud volumes. No surprises - when you try to exhaust an 8 inch driver with bass heavy material I can see why it would clip if it was pushed far enough.

So all in all the Trio 11 is essentially an SM9 that can be pushed further especially with bass heavy material.

Last edited by barbital; 10th May 2019 at 07:09 AM.. Reason: Clarification
Old 10th May 2019
  #83
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
What I find interesting is that this monitor vs the SM9...the bass response at the -3db cutoff is the exact same 30Hz yet the woofer size in the Trio 11 is 10 inches vs the 8 inches for the SM9.

Not sure what the hell is happening here but looking at the SM9 design specs you could almost assume the Trio 11 would extend down to say 26Hz at the -3db cutoff point.

I know my ADAM Sub8 does 28Hz at the -3db cutoff point and easily handles 31Hz. And it only has an 8 inch driver.

I can only conclude that the Trio 11 is designed to be pushed considerably louder at that same 30Hz -3db cutoff point. And there are reports that the SM9 will clip at loud volumes. No surprises - when you try to exhaust an 8 inch driver with bass heavy material I can see why it would clip if it was pushed far enough.

So all in all the Trio 11 is essentially an SM9 that can be pushed further especially with bass heavy material.
Except the mid range driver. The trio mid range driver is superior to the sm9, and it was developed even further with 11s
Old 13th May 2019
  #84
Here for the gear
 
ElectricCompany's Avatar
 

Has anyone had a chance to work with these yet? I can't seem to find any reviews online
Old 13th May 2019
  #85
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JblKid95 View Post
Except the mid range driver. The trio mid range driver is superior to the sm9, and it was developed even further with 11s
So you're saying the Trio6 BE has a better midrange driver than the SM9?
Old 13th May 2019
  #86
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
So you're saying the Trio6 BE has a better midrange driver than the SM9?
Yes, I’ve tried both. do some reading on here as well. The trio mid range is focals newest. flag ship design. The sm9 felt recessed there and hifi. Sm9 is a glorious sound though. When something is that analytical in the highs and recessed in the mids, and smeared in the lows it feels like a guess work to get the impact right... I don’t like relying on math, I’d rather feel it and get it right off vibe but anytime I went somewhere else it would be wrong. Also Tracks I made came out boxy as opposed to avantone Abby, barefoot, 708, etc. Sm9 is also discontinued now. Full disclosure; I’m selling my trio. I’m going to try a couple more and possibly downgrade back to speakers that aren’t as analytical

Last edited by JblKid95; 13th May 2019 at 10:49 PM..
Old 14th May 2019
  #87
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

I've heard a lot of comparisons between these two monitors and both employ an 8" woofer to handle the low end. What surprises me is that the Trio6 go down to 35hz at -3 whereas the SM9 goes down to 30hz at -3. Interesting and curious as to why there is any difference being that both use an 8" woofer. Maybe the 8" woofer in the SM9 has a longer throw?
Old 14th May 2019
  #88
Lives for gear
 
JblKid95's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
I've heard a lot of comparisons between these two monitors and both employ an 8" woofer to handle the low end. What surprises me is that the Trio6 go down to 35hz at -3 whereas the SM9 goes down to 30hz at -3. Interesting and curious as to why there is any difference being that both use an 8" woofer. Maybe the 8" woofer in the SM9 has a longer throw?
The sub bass on the sm9 has more muscle and impact. Def better than the trio in that regard but overall volume doesn’t get as loud as the trios at all. Sm9 uses a passive radiator on the top along with the woofer as opposed to the trios being ported. Trios blow a good amount of air when you have too much bass in your music. I had a sub6 with my trios, but I didn’t need it and returned it. When I sweep I can hear all the way down to 28 on the trios. Both speakers need a good amount of space. The tweeters don’t need to be pointed directly at you. Sm9 and trios use the same tweeters, which differ on the twins. I’m guessing sm9 sound brighter because of the recessed mids. There shouldn’t be a difference between the t6 and t11s. The newer mid range should give you slightly less distortion though. understandably, since it has a higher max spl
Old 14th May 2019
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Shaggy2039's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JblKid95 View Post
Yes, I’ve tried both. do some reading on here as well. The trio mid range is focals newest. flag ship design. The sm9 felt recessed there and hifi. Sm9 is a glorious sound though. When something is that analytical in the highs and recessed in the mids, and smeared in the lows it feels like a guess work to get the impact right... I don’t like relying on math, I’d rather feel it and get it right off vibe but anytime I went somewhere else it would be wrong. Also Tracks I made came out boxy as opposed to avantone Abby, barefoot, 708, etc. Sm9 is also discontinued now. Full disclosure; I’m selling my trio. I’m going to try a couple more and possibly downgrade back to speakers that aren’t as analytical
It's crazy you mentioned analytical because after a few years of using the Twins, I think I'm finally hitting the same wall. I think at the end of the day I probably just am someone who likes more 2 way designs in monitors - maybe couple a good 2 way with a sub or something. I remember someone saying that the Solos with the Sub 6 was an amazing combo. Kind of feel like the Twins just disperse the sound so wide that I get thrown off by it.
Old 14th May 2019
  #90
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Trios all the way down to 28Hz...not bad. I wonder what the -dB would be at that point. I'll make a guess that it's probably -6 or -7dB as it's 35Hz at -3dB. I wonder what it does at flat? My guess maybe 40Hz. Not bad for an 8 inch driver.

Conversely the ADAM S3V (which is another great monitor) is flat at 40Hz but drops to about -9dB at 30Hz (from one review I had read) but usable at 32Hz.

Two choices for me and price is around the same.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump