A few years back I had the pleasure of testing some expensive Focals and compared to my 8040 Genelecs, when a very nice salesperson dropped them off at my studio, unexpectedly. The Focals had a subdued upper mid range, making them hard to use for mixing, but they had absolutely amazing stereo imaging. I thought ok maybe I'm hearing things, so I invited a couple of mixing engineer friends to test them out, but didn't tell them what I thought. They both came up with the same conclusion. The Genelecs won hands down for honesty, even though they didn't sound as "HiFi" as the Focals, because I could hear a flat frequency response across the audio spectrum. I'm hearing the same reduction in upper mids in this pair of Focals (which you can also see in the frequency spectrum graph as a slight dip between 2khz and 6khz), which is why the Focals sound somewhat anemic on the Rock track (because that's where all the crispness in the heavy guitars sits). But the Focals beat the Tannoys in terms of imaging and the width of the soundstage. I would definitely choose the Tannoys over the Focals for mixing, just because they don't have that upper mid scoop, so you're going to get a more honest mix, which translates better to other sound systems. I also notice that the bass is truer to the original track on the Tannoys than on the Focals. So all up for the price, the Tannoys seem like pretty decent speakers based on this video.
.. comparing to Tannoy, or to the original? For my ears Focal's recorded FR tonally is closer to the original track than Tannoy's one, which "enriches" a soundtrack. But we are talking about monitors, not about a bookshelf speakers.
TBH, you can't go wrong with either set of speakers, they're not THAT different and will be indistinguishable to any casual listener even if they have excellent hearing.
Both good. Tannoy will better for classical and accoutics music cause of soundtage more open. Focal will suitable for pop, dance, edm music with v shape frequency as i identified.
Hard to say which one is "better"..... But Tannoy is a little bit closer to my taste (some highs in some tracks a little bit upper, but "repairable" with the right front Button ;-) ).... the low-end area, more specific at Tannoy's speakers... But Focal is also an exceptional speaker too.... It's a heaven for us, the musicians and "consumers", to have these kind of products to such an affordable price.... As I remember how much I had paid for Mackie H824 15 years ago...... brrrrrrrrrrr...... Thanks for your review ! Very helpful !
I cannot help myself, to me its the Tannoy again, thogh I'm not an Englishman. But this time just subjective. Depends on taste I think. Focal bit more analytic, Tannoy bit warm. But both same high level in my eyes (ears)! Thank you! *added But Focal better in classic to me - and a bit deeper, aren't they
I have the Focal Alpha 50's, love the analytical and clear sound but stereo image is not 100%. Looking at Tannoy Gold 7 or 8 or Presonus Sceptre's which is said to be very good stereo etc!
Sweet 6 or 6.5" version of all of entry level to medium monitor speakers... Plus subwoofer investment later. But 8" if the subwoofer is out of the budget.
Yeah, i like the Tannoy´s. Their low mid and bottom sounds much like the 70´s Geithain full range speaker. You get a good image in that area. Plus a more linear response in the HF takeover band. For lower octaves get a subwoofer to complement. One will love them and get used to them.
I've got Mackie MR524, in large part from Digital Stereophony videos. Thank you for all the terrific videos by the way! Am very happy with MR524, for the price. Might upgrade when savings allow. Any chance of MR524 vs Alpha 50?
This investment is driving me nuts. I recently moved from 1st gen rokit 8s and a 12 inch sub. I bought Alpha 80s a week ago. I was surprised that the Alpha 80s translated my old material very well, surprisingly, nothing sounded particularly bad. Although, did the mids seem buried sometimes and I wonder if these Tannoys are actually better? Any opinions?
Hi Digital Stereophony, is it possible for you to get your hands on the Focal Shape 65? I'd really love to hear how they compare against the Alphas, Golds and any others you deem worthy of comparison. Thanks
How does the soundstage compare between the two... the tannoy seems to be more open maybe winder soundstage a bigger presence the focal seem to be a bit centred not so wide? Hard to tell from this end
The focal sound a bit cuppy had a gated response the tannoy was more open and detailed. Where did you have the treble set on the tannoy's what position! Any chance you could calibrate the speakers through dirac live it is annoying that we're hearing your room in the recording and influencing results.
Dirac Live wouldn't change anything of hearing the room. It would just flatten the eq curve and maybe correct the phase. Best way to do these tests for listening purpose would be in a anechoic room but thats also nonsense for knowing how they sound in yours without the effect of the directivity :)
Both speakers have strengths and weaknesses, Tannoy, pro: sound coherency and better dispersion, con: tweeter is really below par, a little aggressive. Focal, pro: really silky smooth top end, con: dispersion is behind Tannoy, should have a waveguide with the tweeter
Coaxial designs provide inherent clarity....but at Tannoy's unusually low price points,I am very skeptical. Serious compromises must have been made somewhere(such as perhaps,in build quality & reliability.) One thing I definitely don't like,is the cheap paper cones for the bass driver.I'm much more interested in the Focal Alpha Evo 50's(much more bottom-end in a compact size, aluminum tweeter, carbon fiber/polymer woofer,auto standby mode,removable speaker grilles, hand-built in Focal's factory in France & only $100 more than the Tannoy Gold 8's.)
Could be used, but they are monitors, not really bright or colourful enough for a consumer hifi. A tad duff, flat, bald. Not very interesting to listen too... I have the Gold 8's and love them to bits.
Yep, it's more noticeable in the EDM tracks, in the Mortals song the synthetizer is bit nasal in the Tannoy, almost sibilant, in this case the Focals are more balanced, without losing clarity or definition. But at same time the slightly subdued upper mid range in the Focals made them sound anemic in the Metal track compared with the Tannoy, because of this in most tracks the sound of the Tannoy appear fuller and closer to the source, even though the tuning on the Focals is probably just as good. It's a very close call between these two.
Dear Digital Stereophony , I would very much like to compare Focal Alpfa 80 with Kali LP 8. Before buying one of the pairs, I am replacing my JBL lsr305. Thanks in advance! Best regards !
Is it all deaf? There was no real comparison of speakers. And there was only falsification by introducing program correction in the initial signal in accordance with the measured amplitude-frequency graphs that you go on the screen.
@@DSAUDIOreview Hi ,I appreciate your work very much !!!But In my opinion ,i think original track Is always overbassed .Im listened more videos from you And i use more headphones And speakers,But original track got Always more body then speakers which you tested.Is IT room characteristic?Thank you very much.Keep IT up !!!
@@majklbee3435 it is not the source trac that is overbassed but the speakers reproduce its bass only partially in a room that souaks up some other frequencies. If an ideal speaker played it in an acoustically ideal room than source track and recording of speakers would sound the same
I really enjoyed the clarity of the tannoy, until I noticed the boost in the low mids and lack of low end. Tannoys top end shows how much its lacking in the top end top end too in the 'Classical Mood' track for me... I'm here looking for something to challenge the focal alpha in my price range... Thanks for the comparison. Any idea's?
@@thomasphillips972 I think it's a preference thing really, but I'm not a fan of getting too much of a boosted feeling with speakers as I prefer a more natural tone. I'll listen again on different speakers to see if I feel the same though. 💯
i like focal better, they are easier on ear, and to me sounds almost identical as Presonus Eris . i have finished composing career so im just looking for nicer sound and to me focal and Presonus are those. also, tannoy seems to bend sound image, to them bass and hi hats are most of sounds they produce, and mid range is somewhere in background, i feel listening to them like looking in distorted mirror. i like how they look and that they have volume knob on front thats great, i almost bought it for that, and aux input, but heart wants what heart wants, warm, wide, soft sound image and that is Presonus Eris
Tannoy немного интересней заучит, чем Focal, но у обоих есть проблемы с серединой, в сравнении с оригиналом. Что касается баса, то саб обоим не нужен. В целом, это уже близко, но всё ещё не идеальный, расслабляющий заук.
yes i hear what you mean, i hear the same, bass from tannoy is good good but in comparison is here Focal better. Tannoy have i little bit too much bass(need activate wall filter), bass from focal sounds more on the right position.
Please realize that bass is the last thing you can judge from a pre recorded studio monitor. If he moved those monitors 1 inch back, the bass character would be entirely different. The highs would be the second to the last thing I would judge in these videos because he usually never has the tweeters pointed directly at the mic. Tweeters are very directional and sometimes his mic simply just doesnt pick up those frequencies. Also some speakers' axis point is between the tweeter and woofer to hear the correct crossover region or "meeting" of the woofer and tweeter which would mean he would need to level the mic there instead of at the tweeter. The KRK G4s he recently did require this setup. I had fostex pm0.4d that required that in between spot to be aimed at the ear as well. The midrange is the best thing to look at. It always translates well into the real world. For correct bass Ive found that most studio monitors Ive tested required to be less than half a foot away from the wall. This is on stands with tweeter level at sitting ear level.
VERY NICE! I currently have Focal Alpha 50s which I adore sound wise but stereo image is not that great. Been looking at Presonus Sceptre 6s and 8s. Could you possibly do a Tannoy Gold 7 vs Presonus Sceptre 6s or like Tannoy Gold 8 vs Presonus Sceptre 8s. ??! That would be The best!!! Ah yeah, also try it out with like The Midnight - Sunset or FM-84 - Running in the night, two great tracks with good stereo and clear vocals I am very familiar with! Alpha's have a good punch to them but feels Tannoy's have a step up or something, can't describe, just more oompfh!
To be honest, I think it's a matter of setup. A friend bought himself a set of Gold 8 after hearing mine and immediately complained about hissing. Mine are dead silent, but the DAC I'm using them with is more expensive than the speakers
tannoy maneja mejor las frecuencias medias, los violines y voces, las Focal Alpha me parecen un poco mas cristalinas y con bajos un poco mas profundos, como si tuvieran un sonido en v
Both of them wouldn't be my choice in this case - way too muddy sound, separation of frequencies could be much better (frequencies are bleeding too much into each other). I'd rather recommend smaller studio monitors like Yamaha MSP 3 or Presonus Eris E3.5 together with a small decent subwoofer like the Japanese Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 - much better sound quality for the money, much lower wattage (energy cost) and you 'll need no special room treatment like bass traps (just usual carpet/floor covering, wallpaper, furniture like a couch or a wall unit is enough for these ones) or lots of space for your studio equipment. I've listened to a lot of those bigger studio monitors in a music store or online via Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro headphones (connected to a Lake People G109-P heaphone amp which is connected to a Steinberg UR44 audio interface) for hours and some really good bigger studio monitors of those I'd recommend to use have been the Yamaha MSP 5 (or 7 - if you are still able to get a pair), Yamaha HS 8 and the M-Audio BX8 D3. But with the recommended smaller studio monitors + subwoofer combo you can have very nice results with a better separation of frequencies (especially better separation of mids and bass frequencies) - almost like if you have a nice 3-way studio monitor system (although it's technically rather an enhanced 2-way system ).
Im gonna have to disagree with you here. There is nothing muddy about any of these. You have the same thinking as a lot of people who say the smaller woofers produce better mids and bigger woofers leave a hole in the sound or theyre not "fast" enough. What you all fail to realize is that 8 inch studio monitors have to be further back than 5 and 6 inch monitors because that is how their time alignment is designed. There are 2 way studio monitors out there with 15 inch midwoofers that sound perfectly fine. And adding a subwoofer especially to 3.5 inch studio monitors is a terrible idea. The presonus eris are only rated down to 80hz at -3db. A sub playing that high is no longer a sub but just an added bass speaker which will easily be localized. And since its easily localized you gotta use two of them, one for each speaker. So now youve basically created your own 3 way speaker system but with a crappy setup. 99 percent of people have no clue how to blend a sub with speakers. Most people dont know how to set the crossover correctly and always turn the sub level up too loud. And worst of all nobody knows how to time align the sub with the speakers. Usually that means placing the sub closer to the ears than the monitors. And with so many peoples monitors right on their desk, where are they gonna put the sub to be closer? Nowhere. They put the sub under the desk or in a corner some where and no matter how much they play with the settings it always sounds like the sub is separate from the music and thats all because the speaker sound is reaching the ears before the sub bass. There are some rare speakers on the market like Fostex PX5 and PX6 that have delay settings but most people have no clue they exist or what the settings even do. My recommendation is buy the biggest pair of studio monitors you can afford. Dont waste your money on anything less than 5 inch and dont waste your money on a sub. Take that money that you would need for a sub and use it for better monitors. Most of the time 8 inch monitors will be enough. If you want to buy big 8 or 10 or even 15 inch monitors but listen to them in the nearfield you will need to buy monitors with built in time alignment for example like Equator Q15. You can input your distance and the tweeter gets delayed based on the setting which then lets you use your monitors in the near field or as far as the far field. Cheaper monitors are usually set up for only one distance. If you want cheaper near fields I recommend to go no bigger than 6.5 inch monitors.
@@sergeysmelnik Very informative, thank you. Regarding your recommendations for cheaper nearfields that do not offer delay/distance setting, why is it not advisable to go beyond 6.5 inch? Tannoy Gold 8 are advertised as "nearfields", so we can assume that their alignment distance is factory set for that particular use. What other disadvantage would you expect?
@@ottaviobini7649 Oh of course if the manufacturer designs a speaker for near field it doesnt matter what the woofer size is. I made my recommendation as a general rule. I personally read the manual for a speaker before I purchase it so I know what they recommend for placement. For example my equator q10s are designed as mid field because theyre kinda large, they have lots of self noise and thats what the manufacturer recommends but because they have time alignment software they can be use in the near field as well as the far field as long as the time alignment is set correctly. These tannoy Gold 8s, because theyre designed for near field and we know they dont have built in time alignment we also know they cannot be used for mid field or far field because the mids will come far later than the highs. Its an interesting design choice because they have the 7 and the 5 that could do the near field job as well. With most these modern monitors using digital crossovers and dsp I think they should write in the manual exactly what distance theyre designed to play at so that people arent buying 5 inch monitors and using them as living room bookshelf speakers and 8 inch monitors that are designed closer to mid field use. It really just depends how each company designs each speaker.
What is this? Some dude is recording the sound from two set of speakers for people to listen to on their iPones, computers or own stereos. For real?! This is the most stupid concept ever. Beyond idiotic.
