Focal Kanta No.2

I doubt the price of the Sopra will increase in relation to this. The differential in pricing is currently five thousand greater with a model of similar specification. Additionally, pricing at each individual tier is based on what the market will bear with consideration to all peer competitors. Canton Ref K series is competitive to the Sopra series as do the B&W 800 Series. These factors will play a greater role in pricing then in house competition.

Stereoplay has already produced its first review of the Kanta No.2 with a base set of measurements and ratings. Based on those figures, Focal has certainly achieved its stated goals on bass performance and it has most of the hallmarks of current Focal designs.

The bass falls of -3db at 38hz and -6db at 34hz and should provide a fairly good in room performance. Its pretty even handed and doesn't show the mid bass boost used buy some. On axis, the frequency response is quite flat to 30 degrees to either side. Getting up to 60 degrees off axis does show some of expected response falloff at the lower treble and upper treble. Its expected given the 2.7khz crossover between the mid/tweeter and is a compromises made between driver dynamics and dispersion. It has slightly less emphasis at the upper treble, which is used often to balance in room response. Might be a slightly less airy sound as compared to the Sopra.

Plenty of competition at this price point. B&W 804 D3, Canton Reference 7K or 5K, Revel's upcoming F228Be, PSB Imagine T3, and the Dynaudio Contour 30 are all within the target area. Focal is adding a some additional style to their product as a differentiation.

Actually just had read they will price at $9995 for US customers. The UK and EU pricing is considerably lower, and at that price, I believe they may have pitched this product into too many strong competitors on this side of the pond. Since this product is pitched below the Sopra series and using it as a reference, I have significant doubts about its US pricing strategy.

I'm expecting them to push the style a bit more than substance on this product. Well, good luck to them! Hopefully dealers have some space to negotiate as needed. They may very well need to. 

If one is taking style with the substance, its at best fair value. Not doubting its a high performance transducer, but a few other speakers would make my shortlist. At that price, I feel others offer more at similar cost. If the European prices, which currently around fifteen hundred less, would be presented here in the US, it would change my sentiment about the value.

Focal unfortunately decided to price the Kanta 2 quite a bit higher for the US market in comparison to the European market. It sells around $8,500 in Europe sans VAT, which I would expect a $9,000 USD price, but not more. It does have a certain style and I believe Focal is banking on this being a compelling high end lifestyle speaker. 

It appears to have that odd suck out right where the mid crosses to the tweeter, but oddly flares back up at the 30 degree off center mark. Possibly something lost out in not using the more curved baffle shape from the upmarket Sopra. Speaker toe in is going to have a very notable affect on the balance.

It enters the market at well contested segment. B&W offers the 804D3, Dynaudio has the Contour 60, Paradigm has the Persona 3F, PSB offers the Imagine T3, Canton has the Reference 5K, Magico and Revel will be putting in new entries very shortly. Each speaker mentioned brings its own set of traits the table and are all easily competitive with one another.

I'm sure they'll be fine speakers, but value will likely be considered fair or simply just good, but nothing great. I do intend to pick up a new pair of speakers in the next year right around this price point. Should be good fun. 

Measurements are a tool and just like any other, you are free to use them as you like. With them, you can certainly gain inference on how you might set up a pair in your room.

The exmaple of the B&W 802D2 isn't know to have linear dispersion across the audio band due to B&W's design which pushes the mid-tweeter crossover point well out of the mid range. With judicious setup and in room response measurements, I've seen them put in one very nicely done in room frequency response that belies its measured response.

One example is having the phase and impedance plot of a loudspeaker system can give you insights to what amps might be unsuitable or in the least not an ideal pairing.

As for this new Kanta 2, bass response has a quick fall which is certainly in place to keep distortion low. Deep bass will be missing and full range performance will need the assistance of a sub. Impedance does dip rather low at 100hz at 2.9Ohm and I would pair this speaker with amp that is known to be stable at that impedance range. Treble response is slightly shelved. Other that the toe in work, it shouldn't be to hard for room placement and I would think a good solid state amp that can provide current would work best. There are certainly enough options out there to fine tune the final result.

 I do think they will be overall as good as the Electra, but they are a bit different overall.

The bass begins to roll off sharply around 40hz and is down -3db at 38hz and -6db at 34hz. In an appropriately sized room (which mine actually isn't for the Kanta 2), it could very well have enough gain to get down to 29hz, but it wouldn't be able to achieve the sense of pressure created by full range designs and remain clean with low distortion through the drivers audible band.  There are  a few musical genres where that does have a notable impact on the feel, so a lot if this does depend on room and musical tastes.

In comparison to the similarly priced Dynaudio Contour 60 (At least the US Price), the Danes chose a larger pair of drivers with greater cabinet volume to achieve the ability to produce those tones cleanly and keep the driver more composed through the remainder of its response. Focal had expressed in interviews that the baffle construction was in part to maintain cabinet volume all the while keeping the overall size in a specified range. Aesthetic value was a choice Focal made in this product and obviously the Danes weren't quite as concerned about the imposing size of their product.  The issue I have with Contour 60 is how high that mid-tweeter arrangement stand in relative to a typical listener height. Maybe its due to them being one of the tallest nations on Earth. 

I'm personally already used to having something that does dig a bit deeper down low. Would have to hear the Kanta to determine if it works for me, but from my experience, I've preferred a fuller range design.

The measurements are from German magazine Stereoplay and I would expect a -6db @ 29hz and that specification from Focal is likely specified for the average room. They also tested the Sopra 3 and came up with -6db @ 29hz for the larger twin 8.25", which would give you a pretty full range performance.

The Sopra's and Kanta alike have a quick roll off in bass, in due to keeping driver distortion at a minimum.  There are likely no 6.5" driver that could go realistically below 30hz at an appreciable level without getting into excessive distortion. They did the appropriate thing by keeping the design low distortion, which would be an expectation for most at this price. Now as for its bass performance to its size, hard to really tell since the size isn't easy to determine with the dimensions being taken a bit from the footer. But the speaker doesn't appear overbearing in size by any means. 

You can also look at the NRC measurements for the Sopra 2 and see that Focal's figures don't correlate at all with Focal specified frequency response for the Sopra 2. That test is in the NRC chamber and you can see crossed response the steps into the port response and requires room reinforcement. Stereophile had indicated the larger Sopra 3 had its port tuned to around 32hz. Based on the NRC chart, the Sopra 2 is around 36hz and I would likely guess the Kanta could be around 38hz port tuning due to its slightly lesser specification as compared to the Sopra 2. The takeaway is simple, The Sopra 2 or Kanta 2 aren't full range designs and neither are they meant to be. The Sopra 2 does have decently low distortion at pretty honest 90db. The tweeter does lose linearity at 95db. I would expect distortion would be increasing anything above that level. Look at the distortion the NRC recorded for the Sopra 2 at 95db, it doesn't rise to appreciably from the bass drivers. I consider this to be a good design choice as you really don't want it to muddy the mid bass and lower mids. Now look at the Kef Reference 3 at the NRC. They decided to permit their small drivers to push just a bit lower than Focal had. When pushed at 95db, the distortion levels rise notably above what the Sopra 2. I prefer the Focal design route here in not pushing a smaller driver further than need be. The Sopra 2 distortion ends well below 200hz, the Kef Ref 3 end just shy of 400hz.  Kef had done a better job in keeping the mid and tweeter driver in terms of linearity and distortion, but the Sopra does have a wider dispersion in most the the usable audio band. 

Now lets be honest hear, Focal's spec sheet is lacking just like every manufacture throughout the speaker world. Also, not a single speaker designer on the planet will attest to 6.5" drivers being able to appreciably reach full range response without significant distortion of driver itself, or any driver in production at least. To engineer drivers that possibly could might take half the cost of the speaker given the use of four in a stereo pair. The spec sheet is a rough guide, but none are a gold standard as every maker knows that they need to market any product in the best light possible, even some notably fudging with the numbers to get there.

If you want to see some impressive NRC figures, the Magico S5 is superbly impressive in the bass area. The tweeter distortion is also great, just not linearity. He has seem to made some strides since then.

I will give the Sopra 2 a nod for being one of the better speakers at its price point. Even the Sopra 3 is pretty damn good at its point and I would say the Canton 3K the nod for best competitor to the Sopra 2. The Kanta 2 is well priced in Europe, just not here. The Contour 60 is quite the opposite being nine thousand euro and ten grand here. I consider the Kanta slightly expensive in the US, but it does have the best aesthetics of any of the close competitors.  The Kanta 3 might very well be the overall ticket since I'm not very appreciable to the stature of the Contour 60. The Magico A3 seems interesting, but a certainly a very plain looking box. The listening later on shall tell all.

The NRC is a Canadian measurements lab for speakers with NRC standing National Research Council. It was developed by Dr. Floyd Toole, who even JA would refer to as one of the people who defined loudspeaker measurements for modern speakers and currently is employed with Harman Corporation. Harman has a more advanced development of what he started at the NRC. John Atkinson has referenced Dr. Floyd Toole in his own documents on loudspeaker measurements.

Also, look at the NRC charts that Soundstage has published. In the more than fifty speakers measured with 6.5" drivers, not a single unit was able to produce 30hz cleanly without appreciable rise in distortion. It may be negligible at low levels, but it quickly rises above 80db. Could it be done? Yes, I believe it can be made with some extremely expensive materials. I run an FEA lab used for a certain disciplines of engineering and I can tell you about materials that cost is beyond the budget of most loudspeaker implementations. The other factors would pertain to the motor structure in the former, magnet structure, the coil would have to be very high power handling to have extremely long excursion. The surrounds require some impressive roll as well not to mention the spider.

In fact, Focal themselves have pioneered technology into production that does address a number of issues in their EM series drivers, which replaces the permanent magnet with an EM instead. This would allow the motor to reach the excursion required without extreme power loading. If stanene (very new material that holds huge promise) wire would be used, it could really create an incredible powerful motor/field structure. The cone would still require additional rigidity or more of them to spread the load and the suspension would still be a possible issue, but maybe if you implemented suspension via EM with the ability for the former to have a rest position when off, it might work out. Build the former and cone into single solid piece while reinforcing cone. But this wouldn't be in the budget of the Sopra line unless the driver in question went into volume production. I mean tens of millions per year of the very same driver.

I know, its a great deal of techno babble when all you need to is to use larger cones drivers to get there for much less cost. Old engine line, no replacement for displacement. Well, that isn't true any longer and it could possibly be true in speakers at some point. Just not today.

I addressed your point numerous times, part is due to my room configuration and part in musical preferences. I stated as such early on and at this point, your arguing for the sake of and nothing else. For myself, it matters and obviously it appears less so to your or want it to be for some particular reason. 

Golden Ear is agreeably focused on home theater experience and not musical listening. I never even considered them and the products I mention are proper competitors. Take a moment and seek out the Contour 60's. The bass is tight, taught, and isn't over exaggerated in the least bit. Also, the Focal EM drivers aren't active, but he permanent magnet is replaced by an electromagnet and can produce a field with nearly three times the magnetic flux. The issue being the added power requirements, but as I said that with new materials could obviate some of those issues. 

I'm assuming your room isn't large so this might play a role in your preference. It might also be your musical tastes don't present much lower bass demand. Making any assumptions for others is being myopic.

Techno babble is fun in the terms that it give ideas onto where things go next. Speaker performance in my view has some ways to go yet still. The engineering exercise in my view is rather interesting.

@stereo5 
No dung being flung, many speakers aren't agreeable to wide number of listeners, otherwise no choices would exist perfect sound would be replicated by the worlds only loud speaker manufacture.

Also, let it be known that non should have an opinion that differs than your own and acute hearing leaves us only dreaming of sound that only your gifted self can experience. This last sentence being a true representation of horse dung.

A good number of people who feel that way about GE products and others that only exude praise for them. But what I can say is the the Triton One had pretty notable treble flair starting at the upper mid to lower treble transition. The also have a an elevated upper treble to compensate for dispersion loss at 10khz and above. It also displays some vertical dispersion changes. Not to mention the mid driver has been measured to have an appreciable amount of distortion in nearly all of its operating range. Not a benchmark performance, even at some of its given prices.

So their difficult to setup well, do not have as clean a reproduction of critical ranges, and have driver linearity issues at the tweeter. Now they have recently improved the distortion figures in the plus series and further improved the dispersion characteristics in their reference series. In listening, imaging is wide but depth is somewhat shortened compared to others. 

I've heard the Vandy Quartro Wood and not my cup of tea, but certainly not bad at all. Neither is the GE line for what I would say overzealous upper end response, but it has improved over recent versions which I admittedly haven't heard.

In any case, your response is silly, pointless, and expressed with glaring lack of tact in expression and so noted for future futile responses.

In room bass response is quite dependent on well, the room! When any speaker has less overall space from its boundaries, the overall energy dissipated moving through the air is reduced. It returns to you from the boundary at a greater level than what would have in a larger room, not to mention the volume of air.

With that, bass preferences will certainly be room dependent as larger more extended speaker could easily overload a smaller room.

In any respect, I do prefer what Focal chose to do with their bass drivers. They do have useful output int he lower mids and I always prefer if we keep them working cleanly in their range.

@gdhal 

I have seen three sets of measurements out of the Triton Reference and I will agree that its a considerable improvement. Even the plus series showed good progress from prior versions. Nonetheless, Stereophile just like all other reviewers are ranked subjectively and all of us feel and hear differently about the sound we like. I was honestly surprised the Sopra 3 was placed in the Class B Full Range category, but this isn't the only time a head scratch moment has come from their listings. Every other subjective ranking for the Sopra series have held them in higher regard. While I don't think the Sopra are SOTA, I do feel they offer performance nearing the top of their price categories.  With the strides that GE has made, and what I expect will be made in light of the Reference model, they do warrant an additional audition. In respect to the Kanta2 and other models that may or may not flesh out of the line, they should come out as pretty solid speakers. A little pricey, but nothing obscene. Love the overall look though.

In any review, a combination of system synergy, musical preferences, room, and your own personal preferences to the sound will impact how one regards a product. I believe your must understand a reviewer in all these terms to understand the perspective. When they discuss the music they used in the review, a speaker history and comparisons if possible, and disclosure about the complete environment is really necessary to get a frame of reference.   

@twoleftears 

Golden Ears and Definitive Technology were both cofounded by Sandy Gross, and certain ideas have cross cross pollinated, or so to speak.

As for the term "home theater speaker" references used, I do agree its a poor term as it doesn't convey the intent properly. I also don't believe its bass that is being discussed, but instead an eager treble. There is always a difference of opinion in that part as our hearing varies more so in treble response than almost any other in the audible band.

Early GE models had some enthusiasm in the upper registers which meant pairings and setup would be key. The most recent Triton Reference is much better in this regard. An evolution in design they continue to make rather quickly. That is why I do feel that past listening is no longer representative of current offerings and should be revisited.

Bass integration will always have room dependency no matter the speaker,  and some setups aren't easily solved. In one scenario it will be set and forget with others being laborious.

The AMT to mid integration which had been an issue on earlier some GE designs has been mostly resolved in the Triton One and + series. Looking at figures from the Reference One. At most there is a small vertical response dip at the extremities, so maybe sitting rather low might have an impact. The upper treble is just a tad bit elevated when listening directly pointed at you, but that is the designed intent and mainly done to compensate for in room response when setting a wider toe in. In room, it can measure well and the dispersion below the upper treble is decently linear and even through wide range. It shouldn't be that hard to dial in the treble. If you like your treble shelved a bit down, it may sound a bit brash with a recordings that are bit hot themselves. I also wouldn't pair this speaker with amps with a forward or lean sounding. Prior models did have some of the same design for the tweeter response (a bit more from what I can read), but the added suck out they had in the mid-treble hand off made getting setup right a tougher job. Not so much with latest stuff. I find the worst offenders are those that have a mid treble flair since our hearing is more sensitive to it than the upper treble. 

From a measured perspective, only have gripes with some low level mid range distortion and some AMT linearity at high volume. Still, these are some very good figures.

Stereophile did test and produced measurements for the Focal Aria 936 and that speaker has up to a 6-7db midbass to bass boost as compared to the rest of the audible range. Seeing what the Kanta2 produces recently, its much more even handed and will sound considerably lighter down low in comparison to your Aria.

As with the Sopra, Focal wanted to keep distortion well controlled Kanta2 and the measurements does bear this out. The slopes in general are similar between all models, but the boost doesn't exist in either the Sopra or Kanta. They likely allowed a bit more distortion in the Aria line to make it sound more dynamic under certain music genres.

Focal stated the composite baffle utilized allowed them to keep the front baffle stiffness they desired while taking less volume as compared ot the Sopra design. So they went for a more compact cabinet to allow better fit in more rooms.

Lets take a look at the entire comment. 

The complex sum of these nearfield responses, taking into account both acoustic phase and the different distance of each radiator from a nominal farfield microphone position, is shown as the trace below 300Hz in fig.4. A large part of the upper-bass peak apparent in this graph will be due to the inevitable exaggeration of the nearfield measurement technique. But with the overlap between the outputs of the three woofers and the midrange drive-unit in the same region, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Aria 936 will have too much upper-bass energy in all but very large rooms. I note that Bob Deutsch found that the Focal's bass sounded extended, but without the low frequencies sounding "boomy or bloated," which suggests that the woofer alignment is on the overdamped side. Though the tuning frequencies of the ports bracket 40Hz, close to the frequency of the lowest string of the electric bass and double bass, RD did comment on the Aria 936's excellent low-frequency extension; I suspect that this is actually related to the speaker's exaggerated upper bass.

JA doesn't note the near field measurements causing some of that result, be he clearly feels it is exaggerated. Even with that, boundary reinforcement is going to push some of that level back up, but will vary room to room. Take the Sopra 3, which had used the same measurements method practiced by the same tester and this much larger speaker produces around half the boost in the same region. 

Now the Kanta2 wasn't measured at Sterophile, but Germany's Stereoplay and they also have the Sopra2 for good comparison. The Sopra2 does go deeper, but those curves are more similar than different.

In the end, I think you'll find them less cleaner but less dynamic. I'm sure well hear your response in the near future.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/focal-aria-936-loudspeaker-measurements#mSEBZCCqef7HYJtX.99

He still has the opinion of the bass being exaggerated in his closing remarks and expects that over damping is being applied to preclude the expected effect of bloated or excess boom, which is a very common practice applied to a good number of designs.

There is a downside to the practice and its often resulting in the bass not having quite the tactful, taught, and resolute sound. A good example of this comparison would be the Revel F208 and its very similarly configured Studio2. Driver compliments are nearly a match and they share a good deal of design traits. The bass driver arrangement is similar, but the F208 shows some elevated response and measures down a bit further compared to its much more elaborate stablemate. The F208 is damped further than the Studio2 and the overall bass depth is a bit more obscured due to the down vs. front ported design. The Studio2 shows greater speed, articulation, and resolve compared to the F208 in listening, but I will tell you in certain genres of music the F208's bass outshines its more expensive twin. This is highly recording specific and and is bit of more fun choice in the F208's implementation vs resolve in the Studio2. A massive amount of this has to do with how and on what a recording was mastered on and what platforms the recording was tested on when finalizing.

My expectation is something similar will play out in the Aria vs Kanta2. A choice for greater faster and more articulate bass was likely made also with a goal of reduced distortion. That is something I see across Focal's upper end designs as they really try to push distortion much lower in upper end designs.  The Kanta2 is certainly taking its page from the Sopra series.

The bottom two woofers in the Aria 936 have low crossover point at the same frequency and slope, with the minor differences seen are mostly due to cabinet placement and are acoustic in nature. The top woofer shares the same low cross point and slope but not high crossover, as the slope is reduced, most likely improving the mid range integration. Both front ports and bottom ports are tuned to the same point.

The Kanta2 has a similar height, width, but bit more depth with a smaller number of drivers, which gives the woofers a bit more cabinet volume to work with. They should perform inline with speakers using similarly sized woofers, but always remember designers have differences on how much distortion they want to allow their system to produce. A smaller woofer will require greater excursion to achieve this with the countering factor will be increasing distortion. Focal tends to lean towards minimizing this distortion and will keep high order crossover slopes in order to do so. This is giving up on the very lowest octaves that aid in giving room pressurization but keeps a cleaner mid and upper bass area in addition to the lower midrange. Compromises in anything.

It actually is an absolute direct correlation and proven through both computational FEA and measurement. You get a substantial area in increase when moving from six to eight inch cones and this allow substantially reduced excursion and pressure exerted on the cone to achieve similar amplitude at lower bass frequencies. So while the shorter cone is stiffer due to its smaller size, its generally a linear gain unless shape is changed, which it usually is in most cases. The force increase on the other hand is a non linear function as there are multiple factors at play, the pressure itself and increase in cone velocity and acceleration in air. A smaller driver will always requires more energy to achieve the same output as larger driver in low bass area. An eight inch cone offers about fifty percent more area than a six and half inch cone. Now as that cone gets larger, the ability to achieve the rates of acceleration at higher frequencies becomes overly challenging. Not to mention the dispersion beaming that also occurs, which a six inch cone begins to beam at around 2khz, maybe slightly less. I'd do believe there would be artifacts if the wavelength produced becomes larger than the cone, but I'm not sure if its of any issues at the sized being discussed.

In ending, there isn't a single part of the driver that wouldn't require significantly more buildup if wanted to achieve a similar lower frequency performance without distortion increase. It might even be easier to use Focal's own EM technology to achieve what your proposing, but at a notable cost. Going to a larger cone is simply much more cost effective and negative is mainly overall size and increase in baffle if front mounted, a negative if trying to increase dispersion width but can be addressed with baffle shaping.

That is an rather myopic view of engineering of any mechanical system. You're comparing three motor system which will in combination require more power than the single driver. The cabinet and baffle construction will be more complex and costly and the bass performance of each driver will vary due to mechanical acoustic properties as they won't have identical operating environments in the cabinets. You do get some advantages, but those don't outweigh the complications. Even if you increase cabinet volume, you introduce cabinet anomalies if not properly braced and damped.

Using an array of smaller drivers is a solution, but I wouldn't consider it optimal application unless the room size is small, which you had mentioned is your current setup. In my room, which is more than double what Focal specifies for the 936 and still significantly more than the Kanta2, going to larger cone diameter is the best route. In my case it works ideally with two eight inch drivers, but a single twelve could do as well. The negative to the twelve is wide baffle and cabinet construction to contain two eights are reasonable in engineering and cost. Right sized tools for the job is always best. 

The Focal 948 are slightly more efficient over the 936's, but cabinet volume in relation to surface radiation area is a bit less on the 948 as compared to the 936. The main reasoning to not going further is the efficiency for the mid and tweeter drivers are not any more capable in the 948 or 936. At 92db vs 92.5db, either design is at the upper end efficiency for typical cones and domes without resorting to horn loading or other techniques for the mid and tweeter. Focal hit the limit of those drivers first and in the bass could instead be tuned for deeper response in port tuning and lower distortion.

A good deal of other lines out there do gain significant efficiency in larger models as they shelve their mid/tweeter drivers down in level in the crossover in smaller designs as compared to larger. The flax cones are pretty light and achieve output similar to coated paper drivers, but obviously they have their own set of compromises. 

Now the line array theory isn't entirely effective in the 936 as the driver symmetry goes off in the upper end of their pass band. Since its  pretty low in level, the audibility isn't high and is given as acceptable in a design at this price point. Agreeably, this has more to do with the more complex bass driver arrangement in the 936 over the other models in the line. To make that coupling work really well, you require high constancy in driver and operating environment, which some designs to practice to good effect.

My expectation is the use of the extra current use was to extend very low bass and the phase angle is moderate. Still, I would never suggest pairing a Focal design with anything that doesn't have good impedance stability. It is likely one on of the greater causes of complaint about the speaker balance as the wrong paring will change it.

Its likely the mechanical limits as the upper driver isn't experiencing this to the same degree. Since those are lower in signal amplitude, the relative mechanical impact is increased.

Granted the efficiency gain is in a typical margin of error, but I expect Focal gave it that slight nudge as its own measurements had shown it regularly having a slight advantage. I still believe Focal was at the efficiency limit of the mid or tweeter driver instead of the bass arrangement when designing the 948.

But yes, for the most part we are in agreement with differences in talking points only.