Focal Utopia monitors: Diablo vs. Micro Be

its fine, I do this sometimes even my native language.It depends on how quick I want to write long sentences without even watching what I had written finaly. But I believe its better to say something related to toppic which can be understood then say something which can be understood easily but not understandable why posted in this toppic :-) sorry if this disturbs You. just tried to help.

I would not consider mooving from Micro Be to Diablo as mooving up in Focal stand mountened speakers line. they are too diferent and need to be heard. Diablo has much more details, open midrange and are way much faster- I would not consider it as laidback in any means. if you are looking for polite,laidback sound Micro Be could be so so, but definatley not Diablo.

Diablo however will benefit from subwoofer(up to 45HZ) very much.

I do not understand why Nvp didnt like my answer(posiblly he hoped that I will answer that there is no diferencies Micro vs Diablo) but anyway. I havent compare micro vs diablo in the same room, but I used the same recordings I am famillar, diference in midrange openess and speed is quite diferent- Diablo has more "imediacy" and micro more reserved and litle bit brighter on top end. (But still i would not consider micro very polite if i compare it to sonus fabers speakers for example)

I would not judge bass in diferent rooms as its almost unpredictable and very much depends on room physic, but i did quick set of nearfield measurements and micro rooled more gently while Diablo have very strong and solid output to 58Hz or so and then goes down very sharply. overal diablo sounds much bigger in soundstage than micro on some record its sounds almost fullrange. I lived with the Diablo for a while- adding sub tuned to 45hz and this combo realy sounds fullrange-with condition if you do not push Diablo power handling. i would advice you to compare theese two in your home and without any Lingdorf corections or what so ever. good luck.

Hi Paul there is nothing to thank for, you are always welcome. The best advice you can hear there is- go for audiotion in home.If this is not posible I will try to direct to some basic thing you may expect, alsi this may help other Audiogon members as well.
Diferencies. The problem is that in High-end audio there is no strict line betwwen big and small diferencies. One man's small is another man's huge. There is people who claim/hear huge diferencies between two furutech sockets made from the same material. I hear only subtile (if any) diferencies on things like this. Diablo still have Focal school sound- fast,transparent and very detailed and sometimes(with wrong recording or equipment) agressive. But I wouldnt call it sucessor to Micro Be-they are quite diferent. Its not like say.. watt puppy 7vs 8 sonic diferencies(where diferencies between these two I hear difers only in tonality, not primary speaker signature) I heard Diablo with some diferent gear(with my CD records) in 3 diferent places-

1)in my home they sounded best with pass labs xa amplification/Sonic frontiers DAC and Zendo cables- sound was balanced- no forward or laidback, quite "thick"(="fat") with lot of "bloom" in midrange and agressive only in very bad records.Bass tighness, details and "air around intruments" was not best from what diablo is capable but system had some musicality and involvement in sound which hapens rare on focal utopia speakers(IMHO).

2)at dealer show -with very expensive top of the line Ayre/esoteric/ and all nordost valhall'as cabling.(~200 000EUR) - dynamic, transparent ,fast and VERY detailed sound, resoliuton was very good. There can be heard some harshness on trasients on some claiscal works but nothing to worry about too much.

3)at friend's home with mid-to top Ayre /esoteric combo but also with Nordost Valhala cabling (again more expensive than speakers itself) inspite room acoustic problem and speaker placement(far from ideal) system sounded very good , maybe with slight excesive lower midrange which added some "liquidity" and "sweetness" to sound.

Some basic Diablo signature I noticed in all enviroments-

1)Big soundstage both in height and witdh- diablo sounds "bigger" than some floortanders and bigger than Micro for sure.
2) Detailed, open and fast midrange
3)very top end(15-18khz) lacked some energy in big clasical works. this was less noticebale with Nordost Valhalas and Zendo cables(zendo are not so fast as nordost but also transparent while smoother in mids) I would not consider this as flaw as its depends on mucic and speakers you are comparing. The same Sonus faber Auditor M have tons of "air" and are perhaps more enjoyable on clasical works like wind bands but unnatural in vocals(where Diablo is very natural and life-like)

Micro Be have the same tonality in this region ,if you like it, Diablo would not be problem as well. I felt Micro Be is more "right" speaker , while Diablo being slight "off" in exact tonal balance buts Diablo timbre is more enjoyable and "more interesting" to listener- less boring, more exciting.

drawback with Diablo IMHO is that being monitor it does not provide what small speakers should-
1) does not work with small(=cheap) components- I played with cheaper(with is small enoght to place in my bedroom where Diablo was instaled) amplification and I could not live hearing how much music I am missing. Diablo deserve amplification,sources and even cables which is more expensive than itself.
2) require some space from back walls and sounds best when took out of side/back walls quite much.
3) not so cheap (but not so expensive as magico Mini II either)

I did not understand what you mean by saying "Diablo sounded like electrostats" however. The only thing which comes to mind than diablo could smoothly extended in high frequencies and highs are not discract from whole image (like quad's do) and have some speed as well.

hope this helps

I now understand your description of ES, yes Diablo have some Bloom in lower mids and tranparent extended hights and its realy one of the fastest speakers out here. However I completely disagre about midrange presence- Diablo have better than electrostatic IMHO. its pin point unlike ES.

Your Accuphase integrated is 60w with Micro Be not 30W. I would cosnider 80-100w and 100-130w optimum(bigger wont hurt either) to reach both speakers maximum spl abilities..
You shouldnt worry about protection of Diablo tweeter BTW, as it have good protective grill(I STRONGLY recomend pick up grile in place when not listening if you have kids, pets or wifer who like to clean around..)
I looked at Your system, its realy nice and simple (uncomplicated) good luck.

Hmm.. my expierence says that specifications on websites is for.. comaparision with other manufacturers, nothing more. and its fine for that purpose (assuming all says the same "true")

OK I checked, the lowest Micro impedanse is 4.2ohms , while rdc is 3.7ohms its definately 4 ohm speaker and your accuphase will deliver more current. Diablo have very similar results, thought its electrical pahse shift and impedance changes is much smoother than Micro. both speakers are easy to drive (this is not Maestro with 3 drivers overlaping with total 1.6ohms!) but theese impedance changes and ~1db more eficienty on Diablo may be considered as better for amp.

I measured it by myself. I didn't noticed electrical phase measurements but I have a frequency and impedanse measuremets in audiomagazines as well.

I looked at mini utopia impedanse indeed both peaks are more peaky (30 and 35 ohms at 30 and 80hz respectively) than Diablo which have 31ohms and 17 ohmz at 36hz and 78hz respectively. however it would not be major dificulty to amp. I have not heard oldest model of mini utopia, but I believe its still top of the class performer and probbaly way much honest comparing to diablo(it look like more studio monitor to me seing frequency response) but Diablo is so seductive and it feels so good to enjoy it. its the first focal speaker which is enjoyable to me for its character rather than ultra audiophile quality.

I would not consider word "blow away" right here. I still miss that very ultra top end "hotness" that previuos generations before II and III) had.

I believe that main reason for theese claims is that 3rd generation have more relaxed tweeter from all past series which alows speakers to be designed "fast" but also relaxed. The xover changes on focal team probably also is a key- when measuring and listening to utopia III Diablo and Maestro models i see now more "human factor" and less measuring perfection than previuos generations. And I like that. its not that hard to make speaker that measures flat, but its much more hard to "spoil" speaker with special selected on long tuning months dips and peaks which makes speaker sound more involving and still honest and REAL. I have never been a big fan of Hi-fi enginiered speakers in high-end. I that price tag I want as much "human factor" as it posible. Because final receiver is my ears, not microphone. When transmitter type is similar to receiver there is good posibility that speakers will push a tear or few from me in my favourite record :-)

hi NVP, you post wasnt intransigent, neither mine(I hope so) Structure of this forum is quite free from science and objective data(its audiophile forum) and inviting to write (and also read) fast.

as for my(I belive other poster) phrase "mind blowing" and that scala better 3 times there is no contraction. its how we imagine this phrase. for me diference in scale reproduction from Diablo vs Micro Be is small but stll significant, diference form Diablo to Maestro is big, diference between Diablo and Grande EM is even more bigger. but there is nothing to "blow" even mind. mind blowing diferencies can be between triangle titus and some custom 2800 pounds line arrays with aditional 800cm2 cone area as subwoofer section, with overall cone size 134 times bigger than triangle. also theese arrays will lilkely "blow" you of your socks in some materials ,which neither Titus or Grande EM will do- they are bot limited in its structure. this diference can be heard and felt by my, my wifer, my wifes grandma, and grandmas kid kids.. and however diferencies in utopia III and previuos utopia generations is noticeable. for me- in midband=which sounds faster and smoother and more integrated. With Alto in some records I just can easily pin point localisation of sound origin- tweeter. And I hate that. With Scala (which is identical in structure and its nature Alto ) speakers starts "dissapear" and midband blends to wholeness and convince listener to performance. at least for me. No metter how clean and transparent speakers sounds-if there is no 3D image they will not convince me in performance. so yes Scala performs three times(300%) better in this respect for me. but nothing to be "blown".