I don’t know a single tower speaker that sounds best at tweeter level (not counting MTM type of designs). In virtually all tower speakers ever made, the drivers sum if the ear is closer to the midrange.
This ear at tweeter is a myth that needs to go away.
|
Agree - Do not care if a tweeter is even or a foot above my ears . If imaging from a speaker is higher than my sitting position it sounds natural to me. I am sitting and the performer is standing or on a raised stage is what I mentally perceive. |
Couldn’t agree more about tweeter level not being an issue. Especially with how good the Aria performance is off axis.
The 926 is a steal for the price, but the 936 is really considerably better for an insignificant amount of money.
If you can get the dealer to do anything 12-15% off on Focal, the difference in price will be even less. Focal is a low margin brand, so expect 12-15% off absolute max.
Great choice of speaker. I own a pair in one of my rooms, and have turned two good friends onto them. They are in love. |
If memory serves, the one negative of the 936 is the impedance through the bass. It needs a beefier amp than average.
About listening angle... I agree that some speakers seem to sound closer to the midrange/mid-woofer level than the tweeter, even speakers I have designed specifically for listening on tweeter axis. This is a phenomenon other speaker designers have commented on, which may speak to an incomplete connection between measurements and hearing preferences.
So, I think a lot of speakers are designed for listening on tweeter level, but we definitely may not perceive it as such. Some of the biggest B&W speakers are in this category based on measurements and listener feedback.
The Tekton Enzo is an example of a speaker that can really needs to be at or below the tweeter level.
I do not agree that all speakers should have a wide dispersion and sweet spot. There are good arguments for the opposite. Buy what you like though! |
Duh, I just read my original post. I meant to say the mid range driver in the 936 is crossed over higher and lower, so is a better performer overall. Thanks all for your responses! |
Anybody heard the Tekton Impact Monitors? |
I own the 948. Both in my room and experience and talking with Focal I started to adjust the Rake or tilt of the speakers. Depending on you sitting position and seat height I found this can make a substantial change in the sound presentation. Many audiophiles will agonize about an inch one way or another horizontal and never touch the Rake.
|
I listened to the 948 (just as tall as the 936) and the 926 in the same room for several hours before buying the 936. The tweeter height isn't an issue. I do the same thing with my 936's jerroldls does with his 948's. You'll be listening a little further than I am. My biggest worry would be the size of that room. You will have exaggerated bass in that room with 936's. If that was the space I had to work with I'd certainly have got 926's |
Canibefrank,
I for one couldn't care less about anything Tekton makes. Kinda tired of the Tekton fanboys trying to be the marketing department, too. When you buy Focal you know you're getting grills and the same parts in the speakers every time. Not so with Tekton. |
There is no increase in bass output from 926 to 936. All you get is tighter bass due to it being able to use three drivers not working as hard and the fact that the crossover point is lower also frees them up to do a better job. The other aspect you gain is a slightly lower bass reach.
Definitely not MORE bass. The only more you get is the ability to play a little louder. |
Huh.... I've heard the 906, 926, and 948 all in the same room. That certainly wasn't the case. The 948 was vastly superior in bass depth and volume. That room was probably 4 times larger than what the OP is working with. Indeed in an anechoic environment they're all going to sound about the same to 55Hz, but the room is going to reinforce the bass more severely given it's size. My room is about 14 by 23 so I can avoid some of the corner reinforcement he's going to be dealing with. I feel in that room those things will still be making decent bass below their -6dB low point. I don't know what the OP wants for bass. I want clear, muscular, fairly balanced bass and in that room I'd put 926's if it was my money. I came real close to doing that when I bought my 936's and only didn't because I knew I'd have a bigger room at some point.
Looking at anechoic measurements of the 936 and 826W, it's obvious that the 826W has half the hump in bass response that the 936 does. I would expect the 926 to perform almost identically to that. I think that reinforces me point. |
I’d feel bad if the OP ended up passing on the vastly superior 936 due to your comments. The difference between the 926 and 936 is not bass output, period.
I also have no idea why you kept mentioning the 948 as they have zero relation to the question and are so different from the 936 it’s almost as if they are a different speaker line. Then you go on to bring up the 826, which is literally a different speaker line.
Its midrange quality, bass quality, and bass depth. Very simple. |
The 948 is virtually identical to the 936 in every possible way! It projects the mid-range a bit differently because of the much wider baffle and that's about it. The 826W is arguably a better speaker than the 926 and performs quite similarly to the 926. If you don't think a big fat 12dB hump is going to sound very bass heavy in a 15x15 room as opposed to a more modest 6dB hump, I don't know what to tell you. I listened to the 926 and 948 for about 3.5 hours before buying the 936 sight unseen based entirely off the way the 948 does bass.
No matter how you cut the cake the 936 is going to generate a bass hump around 18dB in that room unless he employs clusters of bass traps. If you see it otherwise, please explain. |
Sorry, but I can’t take you seriously after the first sentence.
Yes, I did read the rest. In the interest of keeping things civil, all I will say is you are wildly misinformed and short sighted.
Lets start with the simple comment thay the 826 is better than the 926 based on what? The W drivers? Focal released the Kanta with “inferior” drivers to the Electra, and increased the price by $3,000. A speaker is much more than the sum of its parts. |
You're radically misinformed if you think the Kanta No.2 uses the same F cone drivers found in the 926. About they only thing they share is the F cone itself. The W cone drivers in the 826W are pretty much the same as those used in the Electra. No fancy motor work. No tuned dampers. Just basic W cone drivers, but smaller. Look at the measurements between the 936 and 826W. Depending on what's measured, one just edges out the other here or there. They're very similar speakers and I think it's VERY reasonable to presume the 926 would fall somewhere inside of where those two perform. I'm personally a big believer in the F cone. I think it has some superior characteristics to the W cone which bear out in measurement and listening. I think the difference between the two is really up to taste. I think a good argument could be made for the 826W sounding better. Focal certainly thought it was worth charging more than the 926 for.
So, since I've listened to 926's and 948's side by side for hours, and I own 936's, and I can't really tell much difference, and there's practically no difference in the specs between 936's and 948's, what exactly is so different about the 948? I honestly think the 936 sounds better than the 948 and I'd only buy those if I had a 30x40 foot room since you must sit much further back from them to not hear the baffle effects. |
And you still haven't explained how dropping those in corners with 2 or 3 feet to spare isn't going to reinforce the snot out of those speakers. |
