I was very impressed with a pair of the Diablos in a shop, huge sound that filled an even bigger room with a very high ceiling.
I did have difficulty however equating the £8,500 price tag to such a small box even if the sound was stunning.
I would love to hear a pair of the big Diablos.
I did have difficulty however equating the £8,500 price tag to such a small box even if the sound was stunning.
I would love to hear a pair of the big Diablos.
Referring to the speakers in post 6 by Sreten, as well as time alignment, would it not also be the case, that as the individual drivers have their own boxes, separating the boxes (even by a small space) will give a large reduction in interference between the separate enclosures.
Hi,
Its a USP "unique selling point" applied to all the top models regardless of logic.
rgds, sreten.
At this point a proper technical analysis is futile, its a striking visual feature.
Dang the poor thing looks sad - all slumped over like that.
Just look at Dunlavy, Duntech, et al.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Duntech Sovereign
😀
Deon
Each driver is in its own enclosure. You then have to connect them together, preferably while time aligning the drivers.
The design seems like a perfectly reasonable and practical way to do this, and is not a gimmick.
The design seems like a perfectly reasonable and practical way to do this, and is not a gimmick.
Would you care to explain why you think so? It's the whole point of this thread.
Focal Grande Utopia technologies: adjustable Focus Time.
Do some research on time alignment and phase correct speaker design.
I wonder at which frequency they cross the tweeter in.
The hi-mid spacing would indicate it should be something around 800-1500Hz but but given the number of driversI assume it is much higher than that.
A flawed design IMO.
My main problem with the Focals, and it strikes me each time I see the design, are those v-shaped spaces between the various cabinets. That must cause cavity resonances in the higher frequencies, which in turn will play havoc on off-axis response. Not good IMHO. Very high-tech looking, but sonically not good.
Deon
Deon
Hi,
Bizarrely some are claiming it does what it clearly doesn't do, time alignment.
All it does for a given listening height is axially align the drivers, visually.
Its a feature for the clueless, of very limited merit, but actually started
by Wilson in some of their designs, really if it matters much then the
crossover design has to be very poor. Its pointless bling IMO.
rgds, sreten.
Bizarrely some are claiming it does what it clearly doesn't do, time alignment.
All it does for a given listening height is axially align the drivers, visually.
Its a feature for the clueless, of very limited merit, but actually started
by Wilson in some of their designs, really if it matters much then the
crossover design has to be very poor. Its pointless bling IMO.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Visually only? Any driver that doesn't alter its response at a fixed listener position when tilted is magic indeed.
It's about reducing combing with a "focused array" - principally for the Grand, but also for the other loudspeakers. Aligning acoustic center is marginal at best, and there might be some offset to polar tilt for some of the designs.
The Scala is the only one that looks good to me in that range.
Last edited:
Clearly by your posts in this thread you have considerable bias against this company and/or style of design.
Aligning drivers at equal distance to the listener as best as possible is always the prefered first step when designing a time correct system. It means less electronic compensation is needed.
This is loudspeaker design 101 here folks........
At the risk of incurring the wrath of sreten, I think the point was that with good phase tracking in the crossover design in the first place, that small tilt is not moving it from out of alignment into alignment in any way more significant than moving your head a little bit. In other words, it would be going from aligned, to still-aligned. Polar response would certainly change a little, but not so much from time alignment as minor changes to the actual forward axis of each driver and to diffraction-type effects. You'd have to see measurements to really get into that, but I think calling it a gimmick or aesthetic choice as far as the little 2-way is concerned is... reasonable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.