The tweeter in the Kanta No.2 is most certainly better than the Electra, so make of that what you will. |
@ozzy
I'm sorry reality evades you, but your denials of it changes nothing. A speaker that reaches down into the low 40's is a full range speaker. It's just a fact. There's practically nothing below 32Hz of consequence and that's the point where most producers worth their salt will apply a steep filter. |
In a room appropriate to their intended listening distance? I have no doubt at all they could. My 936's don't struggle at all in that regard and the 926's were respectable in a much smaller cabinet and a much larger room than I'm in with my 936's. Those aren't speakers intended for a 30'x 40' room to be heard from 18' away at 95 dB. That's what the 948, 1038, Sopra No.3, and presumably the Kanta No.3 when it arrives, are for. |
I doubt it. More likely they had a gutless amp behind them in a very large room. |
I'd love to be able to report to you. |
@dave_b
That sounds like a full range speaker to me!
Just curious... Did you compare them to the 1038Be? |
I wouldn't think twice about putting them in a room that big. I wish I had that for my 936's. |
And yet you can't find anybody saying a bad word about them!
I'm going to put a little more credit in people who've actually heard them. |
@shadorne
I'd kinda hope you're getting a bit more sound quality when you spend 20 times the price of the Kantas No.2 on a pair of speakers. No doubt Focal's lower priced speaker represent excellent value! That's why I bought 936's instead of 1008 Be's. I wouldn't expect Kanta No.2's to compare well with Utopia products. I'd expect something like a 948's sound with more refined highs and better balanced dispersion. And I'd expect to pay twice what my 936's cost to get that.
|
All they really have to do is be as good or marginally better than the 1000 series Electra line which I suspect will be phased out soon. |
|
@mmeysarosh
I'm going to pick on you because you said something that echos a sentiment I see tossed around here a lot about any speaker that doesn't dig down to 20Hz -3dB.
The Kanta is going to perform very flatly down to it's 29Hz low point considering typical boundary reinforcement of the bass in a real room. Do people forget that these figures are free space "anechoic" performance measurements and that isn't the result you're going to get in an actual room?
I'd expect bass response to be very comparable to my 936's being the difference in low point is 3Hz. I wouldn't even briefly consider a sub with mine. Any additional bass reinforcement above 32Hz would be insanely unrealistic. |
@mmeysarosh
Not sure where you get the -6dB @ 34Hz from, but Focal's published figures tend to be spot on and they claim 29Hz.
Regardless, the Kanta No.2 is the logical upgrade path from the Aria 936 based on intended room size, listening distance, and response characteristics, and I'd expect it to sound similar with refinement. These are both full range speakers by any definition of the term. I routinely jam Bassnectar through my 936's and feel no need to augment them with subs. I'm suspecting the No.3 will feature 2 8" F cone drivers like the 948 sports in a substantially larger box, and I'm leaning twin 8's because it has to be front ported due to the plinth design. I don't expect it will dig much below 30Hz.
|
@mmeysarosh
No. The Focal published specs are anechoic measurements and generally reflect the anechoic measurements taken by JA at Stereophile. Nobody takes measurements, especially in the bass region, in a room. The measurement results would be as much a product of the room performance as the speaker performance.
This is the core of the point I'm trying to make. People look at frequency responses which are universally taken in an anechoic environment or something simulating a speaker responding in a free air half sphere, and the assume those are the figures they're going to get in a typical room. They absolutely aren't. Something with a -6dB low point at 29Hz will likely be completely flat to at least that point in a real room with sensible placement.
The sharp roll off is a product of the port tuning point which is probably 35Hz, give or take. The port quickly unloads the driver much below that point and does the exact opposite of stemming distortion. Once the woofers are unloaded by the ports mechanical damping takes over. This is why Focal aggressively damps their drivers. |
Who’s NRC??? The ONLY accurate way to measure a speaker’s bass response is in free air. Even the best anechoic chambers create boundary reinforcement. That’s why JA at Stereophile does his measurements in a field. And his measurements of virtually every speaker he’s tested agree with Focal’s specs generally within the margin of experimental margin of errors.
What's more, getting clean 30Hz response from a 6.5" driver is hardly impossible. I have no doubt the Kanta No.2 can do it.
|
@mmeysarosh
The only difference between the woofers in my 936's and those in the Kanta No.2 is the motor. They're specifically designed to be more linear at longer excursions.
But again to my point: there's very little going on in the vast majority of music that needs extension much below 40Hz. A speaker with a low point in the 30's doesn't require a sub in a typical room unless you're absolutely obsessed with overblown bass. The one issue I'm always hearing and reading about with speakers that have active bass systems is that they sound unnatural and require constant adjustment. Given a choice between Kanta No.2's and Golden Ear References, I'm taking the Focal's all day long just because they'll always sound more natural. |
@mmeysarosh
My room is on the smaller size of average I'd say. It's about the smallest space Focal recommends for 936's. I made that choice quite deliberately because you're virtually always going to end up with better bass reproduction from 2 sources instead of 4. If I hadn't considered that a significant problem I'd have bought 1008 Be's and augmented them with subs. I'm well aware of the EM drivers. That technology is far to expensive to apply to $10,000 speakers. That's why they use NIC motors to increase the linearity of the motor over long excursions.
I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. You made a statement that gets tossed around here a lot based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of what a low point measurement is.
@stereo5
I do think the big GE's are more voiced for HT use. Movie soundtracks aren't as disrupted by insanely overblown bass like the big GE's are prone to from one music track to another. Their voicing strikes me as hyper-real while being polite and clinical with weaker image depth. They lacked something Focal brings to the table. |
@stereo5
No... I didn't flag any of your posts, but I just flagged your last one.
As a matter of truth, ALL of the GE speakers suffer from aberrant behavior in the treble region that looks like reflections from the AMT aperture. All of their MTM configured speakers suffer from discernable vertical comb filtering as well. I understand what the bass level adjustment is for. It's an inadequate solution to poor placement.
@butler
It's a presumption that there will be a No.1 and No.3 since the No.2 is obviously a middle of the series product. If there weren't going to be other speakers in the series, why call it Kanta No.2 instead of just Kanta? |
@gdhal
That's cool. Somebody out there needs to make a really good home theater speaker.
I don't think I've ever said I don't like GE's. I didn't buy them because they failed to convey the aggression and grit some of the music I like calls for. |
@mmeysarosh
Yeah... I'm pretty sure the Sopra No.3 belongs in a better class than my 936's. |
@stereo5
Well damn! The Triton 1 is only as good as a Focal 936? That sounds like an absolute rip-off to me. Not to mention there was strenuous debate about where to place the Sopra. And we all know the Utopia range is class A all day long. |
|
The thing is that all that "real good bass" is overblown. Overblown bass is what people like in home theater speakers. |
Virtually every review I've read of ant GE with active subs has commented on how they require constant fiddling between recordings to sound right.
Most of my gripes with GE's are opinion and preference. The reason I liked them was that tweeter. The reason I didn't buy them was that tweeter. Kinda had enough of the quirky ribbon tweeter dispersion challenge. They were among the brightest speakers I listened to as well.
Bottom line is real simple: the towering, enveloping soundstage the Focals projected combined with their transparency and ability to be as aggressive as the material commanded sold me. Golden Ear hadn't sorted that jazz out when I bought my 936's in anything they made. |
Yeah.... I can't stand the "let's all get along" philosophy. Some people have good ideas. Some people have bad ideas. We sort them out through contending. Perhaps the psychologically frail should abstain from having opinions. There's nothing wrong with conflict or debate.
|
No.... I'm tired of hearing this abject nonsense. By any definition, a speaker with the response of the K2 is a full range speaker. |
Generally any speaker that digs down below 40Hz is considered full range and will suit the demands of the vast majority of music. I don't understand some people's need for overblown bass down to 20Hz. I was listening to Mickey Hart's Planet Drums last night. The 936's do 32Hz just fine. I'm sure the Kanta No.2 does too. |
|
I don't believe that's what it sounded like because no Focal I've ever heard sounded like that when properly placed. |
Geeze.... This just sounds like every rant I've ever seen from people who heard them in horrible rooms with lousy gear. Sorry guys, but they're way too much like my 936's to sound anything like you describe. And nobody who's heard Focal in the last 5 or 6 years says they're bright. |
@ozzy
Fascinating... And I'm over here with an average size room powering 936's with an amp that cost $1000 to build, getting it's signal from a refurbed 1977 Marantz, in a room treated with carpet squares and bed pad from Walmart and acoustic foam from Amazon, and there's nothing remotely discordant about the sound or imaging. I'm about 99% sure I'd get the same results from 926's as well. Or any if the 1000 series.
Sorry folks... I'm not buying it. I know from experience that you can easily put speakers in horrible places in a room and get really ugly sound out of them. I've done it with mine. And no amount of treatment or insanely priced gear fixes that blunder. |
When a couple of amateurs start making statements the wildly contradict my experience with similar products and professional evaluations, I don't give those opinions much credit. |
|
Defensive? Na! I only seem defensive if you're feeling butt hurt!
And yeah, I pretty much think the opinions of amateurs are useless, especially when they radically contradict the published words of people who make a living expressing their opinion. I've said that around here quite a bit. I don't claim to a professional. I DO accept the possibility great gear and a treated room can yield a lousy listening experience though. I've had that experience before. |
Yeah... I should. I haven't had time to track a pair down. Kinda learning to be my own lawyer. I just can't believe what a few of you say based on all the other glowing things that completely contradict you guys. |
So.... I should understand that the sentiment here is to save $6000 and just buy 936's that'll blow them clean out of the water? Because that's pretty much what I'm getting here. |
I'm not familiar with 946's. If you mean 948's, they certainly can overwhelm a smallish to average size room. That's exactly why I didn't get them. You could probably overwhelm a small room with 936's too. The exact same things can be observed with the Sopra floorstanders. Focals are well known to have a meaty middle bass region. They most certainly design their speakers with an intended room size in mind. So you're going to blame the speakers because somebody decided to stuff them in an inappropriate room? That's kinda dumb.
And I'm completely with Prof on the looks thing. Who exactly looks at a speaker and says "that thing isn't ugly enough to be good"? That's pretty much what a few of you have said. When was the time Focal didn't brag about the overtly french esthetic of their designs? Speakers are supposed to look like industrial machinery if they want to be taken seriously? I'm not sure I want speakers that have the esthetic of a Mazak CNC machine or a Fanuc robot, even if Dave Wilson and Vandersteen think they should. Saying a speaker looks too good to be serious is about the lamest criticism I can think of. |
@mmeysarosh
I don't agree with your assessment at all, and neither did RD at Stereophile. If you'd read the measurements instead of just glossing over them for a chart you'd have noticed JA pointing out that the measurements weren't accurate due to the near field technique he used. The 6-7dB you're talking about doesn't exist. It's maybe half that. It does NOT suggest uncontrolled behavior by the speaker. I have a guess as to why they measure with a hump where none is actually heard. |
"A large part of the upper-bass peak apparent in this graph will be due to the inevitable exaggeration of the nearfield measurement technique."
He doesn't note that exaggeration being part of the measurement technique??? Yes, he does. He also seemed to struggle to explain what he described as the complicated behavior of the woofers and 3 ports. Don't ask me to explain it, but those things don't sound like what the raw numbers might suggest. |
I don't think you're very far off in your assessment, however, I think that overlooks the strangeness in the port alignment. The 3 woofers don't appear to behave identically and I think that may be how they negate the more obvious artifacts of over-damping while enjoying the benefits. |
Na.... There's not really some direct, unequivocal correlation between excursion and distortion like so many want to believe in order to justify giant drivers. Making a more linear motor is an easier task than building a bigger, stiffer, properly damped cone. Focal and many others have built impressive businesses and speaker with 6 to 8 inch cones. |
@mmeysarosh
Yeah, that's always the apples to oranges argument that gets made. Well duh, moving less air is going to produce less amplitude. So you use several. I really don't feel like crunching the numbers at 5am with my contacts out, but I have done the numbers and the 3 6.5" drivers I'm listening to roughly equal the area of a 10 inch cone. So seeing as how they move the same volume of air as a 10 inch driver, their excursion is identical while still enjoying the benefits of the stiffness of the smaller cones. No distortion penalty due to excursion. |
It's not that myopic at all. I've heard the argument that all those individual sources can be identified, but the physics don't reflect that. If you're argument was correct, the 948's would require less power for a given output in the bass region, but the require more using fewer, larger, but otherwise identical drivers. The physics of the system suggests that the drivers mechanically couple as roughly described by line arrays theory and deviations tend to nullify, not amplify. |
|
No, the most certainly are not more efficient in the bass region! Do the math. .5dB is just about the margin of that error so that increase in sensitivity isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. However, the 2.5 ohm impedance right in the middle of their bass pass band is going to draw more power.
As for the line arrays theory, generally, coupling breaks down once wavelengths exceed the on center distance between drivers. That distance on the 936 is under a foot so they don't really break down as a coherent mechanical unit until 1000Hz. They're down about 18dB at that point. My guess is that's why you see some odd behavior from the bottom 2 as the top one tapers off more shallowly.
It seems we're generally in agreement. In any event, I'd expect the Kanta No.2 to have better controlled bass considering the only difference between those drivers and the 936 drivers is a significantly more linear motor. |
I haven't heard them yet, but I'm thinking I'd like to. I think I like the styling, though I'm not too sure I dig on the blue shades. A red or that burnt orange they do the Sopra's in would be better option than two shades of blue. It's nice that the style can range from bold to very organic. Apparently that base is made from the same stuff they cast the driver baskets from. I suspected they may be a replacement for the Electra series. I suppose that shows a lot of faith in the quality of the F cone. I'm going to assume they're going to ask Electra-like prices for those. I'd expect the Kanta No. 2 to go for about $6500-7500. My big question is will the No. 3 feature another 6.5" driver like the 936 and 1038, or will they do the NIC job on the 8.25" driver from the 948 and build out the cabinet a bit more for increased volume. I'm thinking they'll do 2 8.25" drivers. |
The $9000 price is what you get when you convert UK pounds to US dollars. If you Google "kanta no. 1 price" you get a WhatHiFi article that indicates they will be £7000. If so, that's more than twice what I paid for my 936's. Can a copper ring, a new rubber surround, a Be tweeter, and a new box transform the $3000 926 into a $9000 speaker? That seems like a bold leap, a TON of confidence in the F cone over the W cone, and makes the 900 series look like a real steal. In my estimation, of course.
|
Google "kanta No. 2 price", I mean. |
$1000 this way or that shouldn't be a big deal on a speaker like this. I have no doubt I could find a dealer to knock $1000 off a pair. My dealer knocked $700 off my 936's, and no, they weren't showroom models.
The big problem with the Sopra line is they tend to work best in rather sizable rooms. A line below them better tailored for smaller spaces, but better sounding than the Electra line, isn't a bad idea. My impression of the F cone is that it captures some of the virtues of a paper driver better than the W cone. |
