Dynaudio vs Focal

Has anyone compared Dynaudio and Focal speakers in the higher end models? Say $20k and above. I am sure they are both great manufacturers making great speakers, but how would you compare their sound characteristics? Please also state the particular models you have had experience with.
i recently heard both the ($50k) focal utopia maestro and the ($45k) dynaudio temptation at my local highend dealer outside chicago. surprisingly, i was unmoved by the focal--it sounded huge, and had that magnificent tweeter, but had a really bloated, thumpy low end and just didn't sound well balanced--poor integration between drivers. (the smaller, cheaper utopia stella sounded much better to my ears--not as deep or dynamic, but bass was much better controlled and tighter). coulda been the setup, but these guys were running it with top flight electronics and know what they're doing. the dynaudio had no such flaws; it sounded seamless and balanced throughout the spectrum. treble end was a hair less transparent on the dynaudio than the focal, and the focal had more slam, but the dynaudio was overall much more listenable; a great speaker. my one proviso is that i've also heard the $3500 dynaudio focus, which is also pretty damn good--narrower soundstage and less immersive than the temptation, but alot of the same sound character for less than 1/10th the price.
""""these guys were running it with top flight electronics and know what they're doing."""""

we are all powerless what it comes to room geometry. I perfectly know what you have in mind. unfortunatly Maestro is not for all rooms, and it just can be throwed in somewhere. recentrly I have heard it in wrong room with VERY wrong orpheus amplifiers(which was not capable to drive 1,7ohm impedance maestro have) and it sounded so bloated, so muddy and soooooo sloooowwwwwwwwwwwww in uper bass and no low bass. it was tootoaly shocking how bad this speaker can sound. in right room (which does not inforce 100-200hz, but inforce 20-40hz) Maestro is absolute killer.

I also heard evidence tempatations with was very balanced speaker in lower registers(thought not so enjoyable as maestro on large clasical or dynamyc music) and a bit dark in lower hights but with sparkling uper hights. transparency from it went with lifted frequency response. transpaency from Maestro come throught drivers ability not responce lifting trick. Dynaudio also have less depth perspective. just another man's opinion.
How would you compare Scala and Temptation for a small to medium room that has thick carpet/curtain etc? Which is more tolerant of different rooms? Compare in the areas of micro detail, clarity, liveliness/excitement, brightness, transparency, soundstage and bass suitability. Which is easier to drive and control with a solid state amplifier ? How much power brings them to life ?
HAving heard both lines though not in a/b comparison, I suspect they both can deliver top notch sound when set up properly in the right room. I like both very much and could probably live with either. Personal preference and synergy with the rest of the system will likely be the key determining factors in deciding between the two.

I think of Focal sound in a similar vein as their French brethren Triangle line, call it the "French" sound, very fast, detailed, and with a tonal balance perhaps slightly more tipped towards the high end.

The Dynaudio sound is articulate and well integrated top to bottom and the tonal balance more towards the warm side.

I am not convinced that Focal is as inherently articulate in teh bass as Dynaudio in general, but I could be wrong there.
per mapman and elvukai, i've gotta believe the focals can be top performers when paired with the right room and equipment. what was odd about my hearing of the maestros was that they were being driven by a monstrous megabuck (500w?) rowland amp in a dedicated, treated listening room--this wasn't like hearing something driven by a $300 avr at best buy. i do think that there are probably other great speakers in the same class, say revel salon or vandersteen 7, which are easier to drive and place. in any event, if you're gonna drop this kind of dough, you'll want to get an in-home, no-risk trial to make sure your choice will work for your particular setup.
Thanks to all for the feedback so far!
Elviukai, I would really like your feedback on my last post. I have no idea of how to email anyone anymore on this site.
"I have no idea of how to email anyone anymore on this site.”

Me too. Is that function still available?
I listened to the FOCAL UTOPIA and agree that is it tremendously detailed in harmonic structure and fast. But, it is somewhat poorly integrated in the drivers to my ear. What I mean by that is you hear sound coming from "there" in a source that is MONO to one channel or the other. The voice doesn't blend across the speaker so it sounds like a person standing there, but eminates out of a "spot" from "within" the speaker. The bass just doesn't go deep solidly enough. The speaker, or the room, had a persistent mid bass hump that wore me out after a few hours, though. That may not be the speakers fault. I didn't hear that hump with other speakers in that same room, though. Oh, I used a CD I listen to frequently at home. The C4's with subs (still 1/5 the price) go WAY deeper and have a more integrated sound.

Still, the UTOPIA ($100,00.00!) did a lot right. Guitars were the best I've ever heard. Mid range holographic imaging was spot-on and textured ever so well front to back. Here they were better than my C4's (hey, you get something for 5 times the price!). This was far from a bad sounding speaker. But, that darn sound to what you pay equation gets really tough at $100,000.00 and makes comments that it was fatiging and didn't go deep powerfully enough and had mono channel driver integration issues tough to ignore. Still, the general balance of the sound is what I like to hear, fast, detailed and rich. I just wish it sounded like more ONE driver in mono to one channel mix. I didn't notice that in "stereo" mixed information at all, though.

The tweeter was brighter, but no unacceptable and well within "taste". It was a "harder" detailed sound, though. I tend to like that more than a slower sounding trble so that aspect of this speaker probably would not be an issue for me. Bass depth and the driver integration would be, though. The bass linearity hump is too hard to call as it might be the room. OK, it's ALWAYS a lot the room.