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