|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 18, 2018 18:16:35 GMT -6
wtf `?? on the focals I am hearing stuff in songs i know very well that I have never heard before .
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jan 18, 2018 18:59:55 GMT -6
yup! Shape 50! I upgraded a few months ago. Just put some Fancy Accusound IX3 XLR's between them my DBOX! Loving the setup even more!
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jan 18, 2018 19:01:02 GMT -6
wtf `?? on the focals I am hearing stuff in songs i know very well that I have never heard before . same here. very detailed, open, but also punchy and deep!
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 18, 2018 19:12:21 GMT -6
The combo of the 35k top end and the super linear D-Box conversion must make your monitoring almost astringently precise but in a very good musical way !
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 18, 2018 20:06:35 GMT -6
I used the NS-10's for MANY years and pretty much hated them for every one of those years, so I finally sold them a couple years ago to raise money for some other gear. I've been pretty much a headphone mixer since and I really need a pair of monitors. The Focal 50's were very high on my list, but this thread has me re-thinking this sentiment. Am I going to hate how hard I have to work to make them sound good? M57 , I think its worth coming by the studio to check em out! I personally do not feel at all like they are making me work harder. But if you were asking me what I wanted in a monitor, I would for sure, say that I want it to push me towards the results. But, If anything, its exactly the opposite. I am getting to the finishing point quicker with them. Hearing my gear better lets me hit the bulls-eye faster during my sessions. At least as far as translation goes, everything is coming out great, especially with the low end. I used the CMS-50 for about 5-6 years maybe. They are a stark improvement over them for sure. Way more clear and wide and open. Also higher SPL output, deeper sound stage. The center image is much more flat comparably speaking. This has helped me place the vocal better. I find them less annoying than the CMS on the off-axis, which is nice considering where my DAW screen is setup. So they are wider with less phase-shift. I think the The top end is improved as well. If anything is off, they can be majorly tweaked to fit the sound of the room properly. I left mine flat, and the built in iso-screws are genius. That helped quite a bit with the desk diffraction of messy low end. On stands they sound awesome. To my ears anyway. This is a good point, probably what I said came out in the wrong way I meant it. When I say work harder, if you've got a mix that's bad, yeah, you're going to work to get the sh$* back in the horse on these monitors. If you're dealing with great recorded tracks like I deal with, these monitors make it a breeze because you're not second guessing anything. What you hear is what you get. I wouldn't want a monitor that flattered me to thinking that what I had up was good when it wasn't, in that case you might as well mix on headphones.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 18, 2018 21:14:08 GMT -6
I have been listening to my mixes and my sense is when you got it right the focals represent that well and if you got it wrong they represent that equally well! I was noticing in some not that the mix sucked but that the tone was not what I thought, so I guess in synopsis I am finding them honest and revealing ?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 19, 2018 4:58:16 GMT -6
Monitor Morning Thougths: For me, the irony is that any monitors' perceived performance is completely a function of the room and set up. Over the years, I have had lots of really good monitors in my room but the room even with treatment is a problem and really affects the clarity of the lower mid and bass. I know theoretically it doesn’t matter but I seem to prefer front to back facing ports and passive radiators to either of the ports, at least in this room. So, my shoot out with the lyds is a little unfair given my predilections In terms of preconceptions, I was completely sold on the lyds and started off wondering how I was going to afford them, but I am preferring the Shape in this room. I am rolling off the bottom a bit so am now curious about the shape 5,0 as they might perform best in my room and are a little cheaper still, but the 6.5 have the big sexy smooth sound envelope like the amphion one 18;s. I think its the passive radiators: the spaciousness and depth of the soundstage is completely palpable yet transparent ,you kind of just experience it sonically as immersion in the mix. Conversely the lyds have their own great presence and directionality and I really liked their mid lift for vox. If I had a larger room I think I would prefer the lyds or if I had more money I would get both as I liked their differences a lot, but at that cost point I could get ATC active 25’s: game over ! Happy friday !!
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 19, 2018 5:59:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jan 19, 2018 8:20:33 GMT -6
M57 , I think its worth coming by the studio to check em out! I personally do not feel at all like they are making me work harder. But if you were asking me what I wanted in a monitor, I would for sure, say that I want it to push me towards the results. But, If anything, its exactly the opposite. I am getting to the finishing point quicker with them. Hearing my gear better lets me hit the bulls-eye faster during my sessions. At least as far as translation goes, everything is coming out great, especially with the low end. I used the CMS-50 for about 5-6 years maybe. They are a stark improvement over them for sure. Way more clear and wide and open. Also higher SPL output, deeper sound stage. The center image is much more flat comparably speaking. This has helped me place the vocal better. I find them less annoying than the CMS on the off-axis, which is nice considering where my DAW screen is setup. So they are wider with less phase-shift. I think the The top end is improved as well. If anything is off, they can be majorly tweaked to fit the sound of the room properly. I left mine flat, and the built in iso-screws are genius. That helped quite a bit with the desk diffraction of messy low end. On stands they sound awesome. To my ears anyway. This is a good point, probably what I said came out in the wrong way I meant it. When I say work harder, if you've got a mix that's bad, yeah, you're going to work to get the sh$* back in the horse on these monitors. If you're dealing with great recorded tracks like I deal with, these monitors make it a breeze because you're not second guessing anything. What you hear is what you get. I wouldn't want a monitor that flattered me to thinking that what I had up was good when it wasn't, in that case you might as well mix on headphones. yea, its all in your relation to your setup, room and the rest of your equipment. The one thing that really made me want to buy the Focal's, is I really liked listening to my work on them. Its hard to call these flattering -- but my ears enjoy working on Focal speakers for long periods of time. Anyway, Everything I did on the CMS-50 translated to "better" sounding on them. Meaning, like others are saying; I could hear more of the cool stuff I did in the mixes The low end specifically, has way more depth and punch to it. Right off the bat I was impressed with the lows. When I worked with them in the studio for a little while; hearing my stuff better was worth the price tag of these. They also seemed better fit for my control room. Which is rather dead and controlled. The mixes I have done so far are really great and its giving me results. So money well spent for me!
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 19, 2018 8:22:12 GMT -6
Monitor Morning Thougths: For me, the irony is that any monitors' perceived performance is completely a function of the room and set up. Over the years, I have had lots of really good monitors in my room but the room even with treatment is a problem and really affects the clarity of the lower mid and bass. I know theoretically it doesn’t matter but I seem to prefer front to back facing ports and passive radiators to either of the ports, at least in this room. So, my shoot out with the lyds is a little unfair given my predilections In terms of preconceptions, I was completely sold on the lyds and started off wondering how I was going to afford them, but I am preferring the Shape in this room. I am rolling off the bottom a bit so am now curious about the shape 5,0 as they might perform best in my room and are a little cheaper still, but the 6.5 have the big sexy smooth sound envelope like the amphion one 18;s. I think its the passive radiators: the spaciousness and depth of the soundstage is completely palpable yet transparent ,you kind of just experience it sonically as immersion in the mix. Conversely the lyds have their own great presence and directionality and I really liked their mid lift for vox. If I had a larger room I think I would prefer the lyds or if I had more money I would get both as I liked their differences a lot, but at that cost point I could get ATC active 25’s: game over ! Happy friday !! Why'd you give up the Amphions over the Focals?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 19, 2018 8:53:38 GMT -6
Ah the two decisions were not actually related. About a year ago a buddy running a studio asked if I might be interested in selling the amphion. I was dealing with some debt and he made me an attractive offer so I let them go.
My sense now is that the focal 6.5 are a little faster and tighter in the lower mids and bottom vs the one 18's , and I think clearer and certainly flatter than the one 15, no mid push. The focal have on board dsp which I am using and liking.
I really liked the naturalness of the amphion top end, but it is rolled off, while the focal go out to 35k, but have a real tweeter unlike the adam transducer, I prefer the focal high end over both the amphion and the adam: YMMV !
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 19, 2018 23:54:51 GMT -6
Oh yeah, always. I've always kept my subs really low in volume, and I also don't use the HPF on the Focals, I let them work as intended and that's specifically so I can hear any busting or build up in the low end and low-mids. The subs really are to help me hear any sub sonic problems, and to let me hear just enough of the rich lowend to get by. I'm sure if you sat in my chair it would confuse you, but I set them up that way so I know how things sound on them. I also use the HFE out on my Satori to control my subs, so even when I flip to my Mackies they're still going.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 20, 2018 0:07:21 GMT -6
yea, its all in your relation to your setup, room and the rest of your equipment. The one thing that really made me want to buy the Focal's, is I really liked listening to my work on them. Its hard to call these flattering -- but my ears enjoy working on Focal speakers for long periods of time. Anyway, Everything I did on the CMS-50 translated to "better" sounding on them. Meaning, like others are saying; I could hear more of the cool stuff I did in the mixes The low end specifically, has way more depth and punch to it. Right off the bat I was impressed with the lows. When I worked with them in the studio for a little while; hearing my stuff better was worth the price tag of these. They also seemed better fit for my control room. Which is rather dead and controlled. The mixes I have done so far are really great and its giving me results. So money well spent for me! I completely agree here. These Focals, they're probably one of the most revealing and accurate speakers I've ever heard. If you can't get an accurate picture of the mid-range mixes are not going to translate and you're going to be missing a lot of crucial decision making details. The top is really accurate and detailed as well. I'm thinking something about the stuff the driver is made out of and how rigid it is, I think it's having something to do with how accurate they are. That new tweeter design lives up to every bit of hype they gave it, I could sit and listen for hours and hours on these and not have any fatigue, and that would be a moderate volumes, I listen at low volumes, I can't stress enough how awesome it is to sit and mix all day long and feel like I hadn't been mixing at all. Bottom line these speakers are a massive value for the money. Best money I've spent in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 20, 2018 7:52:01 GMT -6
Monitor Morning Thougths: For me, the irony is that any monitors' perceived performance is completely a function of the room and set up. Over the years, I have had lots of really good monitors in my room but the room even with treatment is a problem and really affects the clarity of the lower mid and bass. I know theoretically it doesn’t matter but I seem to prefer front to back facing ports and passive radiators to either of the ports, at least in this room. So, my shoot out with the lyds is a little unfair given my predilections In terms of preconceptions, I was completely sold on the lyds and started off wondering how I was going to afford them, but I am preferring the Shape in this room. I am rolling off the bottom a bit so am now curious about the shape 5,0 as they might perform best in my room and are a little cheaper still, but the 6.5 have the big sexy smooth sound envelope like the amphion one 18;s. I think its the passive radiators: the spaciousness and depth of the soundstage is completely palpable yet transparent ,you kind of just experience it sonically as immersion in the mix. Conversely the lyds have their own great presence and directionality and I really liked their mid lift for vox. If I had a larger room I think I would prefer the lyds or if I had more money I would get both as I liked their differences a lot, but at that cost point I could get ATC active 25’s: game over ! Happy friday !! Why'd you give up the Amphions over the Focals? The One 18s have been the best decision I’ve made for my mixing. Tried to replace them with some passive ATCs and while similar, they didn’t hang.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 20, 2018 11:36:58 GMT -6
I shot out some passive and active atc25, agreed the passive didn’t do much for me the active though were incredible: that British engineering in the on board amps!!
Picked up the Shape 5.0, auditioning as I cable up my delta.
I don’t think the 5.0 have the same volume of sound envelope as the 6.5, but very impressive: top end seems largely the same should be same tweeter just in sonewhat smaller box.
But the story I think is the lower mid and bass very fast and tight, lots of tone, I am rolling these off a bit too and reducing the bass a bit just so they sound flat in my room no criticism of their sound.
I think the 6.5 might be a little more open and clearer in the lower bass. I ‘ll open up a session later and play with kick and bass and examine this a bit more.
Certainly impressed, the 5.0 in my room don’t have the honky quality Ivwas worried about in the store but they were stuck tight between other speakers so I doubt the passive radiators were not bring impeded to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 20, 2018 11:37:22 GMT -6
I shot out some passive and active atc25, agreed the passive didn’t do much for me the active though were incredible: that British engineering in the on board amps!!
Picked up the Shape 5.0, auditioning as I cable up my delta.
I don’t think the 5.0 have the same volume of sound envelope as the 6.5, but very impressive: top end seems largely the same should be same tweeter just in sonewhat smaller box.
But the story I think is the lower mid and bass very fast and tight, lots of tone, I am rolling these off a bit too and reducing the bass a bit just so they sound flat in my room no criticism of their sound.
I think the 6.5 might be a little more open and clearer in the lower bass. I ‘ll open up a session later and play with kick and bass and examine this a bit more.
Certainly impressed, the 5.0 in my room don’t have the honky quality Ivwas worried about in the store but they were stuck tight between other speakers so I doubt the passive radiators were not bring impeded to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 20, 2018 19:58:59 GMT -6
I'm liking the 5.0 but prefer the 6.5, lucky for me I just sold my adam a7s, so have roughly half the dough right there for the 6.5.
Now we will see if the salesman will sharpen his pencil a little !
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 20, 2018 20:05:30 GMT -6
I noticed that the 'recommended distance for the 5's is 80cm, while the recommended distance for the 6.5 is 1 meter. My desks creates a distance that's much closer to 1 meter. Hypothetically speaking - which trumps? ..recommended room size or recommended distance?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 20, 2018 20:38:50 GMT -6
Hmm interesting question, it seems to me the 6.5 need that extra raddias for its larger sound envelope to occurs so I’d say room for the 6.5 but for the 5.0 I’d go proximetry as they have a smaller sound envelope and I think do engage you more closer ?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 21, 2018 18:54:13 GMT -6
So, I’ll be buying the 6.5 tomorrow. I certainly liked the 5.0, but the extra size of the 6.5 helps with the mid to lower bass and overal soundstage at least in my room.
Certainly, recommend demoing if these are on your radar.
|
|