The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Focal Shape 65 vs Shape Twin vs Solo6 BE
Old 16th May 2018
  #1
Here for the gear
 
Nicked_Wicked's Avatar
 
Focal Shape 65 vs Shape Twin vs Solo6 BE

Hey guys, I've been thinking about upgrading or rather sidegrading from the Spectre S8's I have atm which I got slightly before the Shape 65 released because of it's positive reviews and buying the shapes would've been a bit of a guess although Focal are real speaker veterans.

So recently I wanted to try out a new pair and the Focals still fit that bill to a tee, I've been hearing plenty of good reviews of the Shape 65's and the recently released, slightly more expensive Twin version also had a nice review, the extra tonal balance and bass control seem very nice. So I felt the extra splurge of money is quite worth it, however add a little more extra and I got myself a pair of Solo6 BE is the step-up in price worth it?

I had the Focal Utopia headphone for a while and I know how awesome beryllium based stuff is, but it also seems quite old (silent revisions maybe?) and might get a refresh like the CMS series did in the near future.

Would appreciate it a lot!
Old 17th May 2018
  #2
can't help but am interested too - I'm looking at the Shape Twins and a "[email protected]" look at the Twin6BE...... double the price, but possibly significantly better sounding.
Old 18th May 2018 | Show parent
  #3
Here for the gear
 
Nicked_Wicked's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoobyDoo555 ➡️
can't help but am interested too - I'm looking at the Shape Twins and a "[email protected]" look at the Twin6BE...... double the price, but possibly significantly better sounding.
Wow, at double the price I would reconsider, where I live it's €1678 for a pair of Focal Twins and the Solo6 BE would be €2098 for a pair.

No doubt the Solo6 BE is still going very strong but I can't help but wonder when Focal is gonna give their top-end line a long awaited refresh. Wouldn't be surprised if it was next year or in 2020, I've been reconsidering and might hang onto my Sceptre S8's for a bit longer.
Old 18th May 2018
  #4
Gear Head
 
I´m not into the Shape because the don't have the pronounced upper-mids as other Focals. At the same time they feel transparent to the mix whereas with Solos I always had the impression they slightly warm up the sound. In fact you could easily own both speakers and use them as 2 pairs of monitoring in the studio

EDIT: Shaggy2039 is right, so I deleted the last paragraph
Old 18th May 2018 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Shaggy2039's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hecker ➡️
I´m not into the Shape because the don't have the pronounced upper-mids as other Focals. At the same time they feel transparent to the mix whereas with Solos I always had the impression they slightly warm up the sound. In fact you could easily own both speakers and use them as 2 pairs of monitoring in the studio

I´m not into the Solos/Twins because they're on the market >10years.
Why would the length of time they are on the market be a factor in your decision? New technology doesn't always equate to better speakers and more importantly, it doesn't mean they'll translate better.

I have the Twins and they translate better than the Trios which are newer.
Old 24th May 2018 | Show parent
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicked_Wicked ➡️
Wow, at double the price I would reconsider, where I live it's €1678 for a pair of Focal Twins and the Solo6 BE would be €2098 for a pair.

No doubt the Solo6 BE is still going very strong but I can't help but wonder when Focal is gonna give their top-end line a long awaited refresh. Wouldn't be surprised if it was next year or in 2020, I've been reconsidering and might hang onto my Sceptre S8's for a bit longer.

Yeh, they're expensive in teh UK -

https://www.thomann.de/gb/focal_twin...=search_prv_10

or

https://www.thomann.de/gb/focal_shape_twin.htm

obviously (and sadly!) that's per unit

But tbh, I can't wait - I need a set pretty much by the Summertime.
I'm looking at the Twins purely as I used them at Real World, and got to know and trust the sound very quickly.

The Shape are just an option at the moment - I'm prepared to either be disappointed or amazed. It would be great if the sound close to the Twin6BE, and even if they don't, if they highlight that the price difference isn't worth it, then, I may consider them more seriously.
But I've not heard them yet, so I'm being open-minded about them.


Dan
Old 24th May 2018
  #7
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
I own the Solo 6Be's - fantastic monitors - I chose them over Barefoot and the SM9's . But this is an opinion. You have to take music you know and go listen to them all and see which one makes sense to you. I also still use ns10's.... One side note - be prepared for steep replacement parts - I scratched a tweeter (which renders it useless) and I think i paid almost $500 to replace it.
Old 24th May 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
 
oudplayer's Avatar
Used to use the Solos (really like them), had heard the CMS line briefly (ok but not "amazing"), and heard the Shape 50s and 65s at AES this year and was very impressed, especially with the mids. The bass seemed less wonky than on ported nearfields, too. On a whim, have the Shape twin's on order, should be here in a couple weeks, will report back, but unfortunately can't AB them with other speakers at the moment...
Old 26th May 2018
  #9
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
I have a pair of Shape 50s which I love. I upgraded from Tannoy Reveals and the Shapes are leaps and bounds better. It was a toss up between these and the Neumann KH120 but I preferred the side radiators to ports.
Old 26th May 2018 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Sir Chris's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer ➡️
Used to use the Solos (really like them), had heard the CMS line briefly (ok but not "amazing"), and heard the Shape 50s and 65s at AES this year and was very impressed, especially with the mids. The bass seemed less wonky than on ported nearfields, too. On a whim, have the Shape twin's on order, should be here in a couple weeks, will report back, but unfortunately can't AB them with other speakers at the moment...
Interesting to hear...I'm stuck between Shape 65's or Solo6. CMS65 are tempting since they go for less now but it seems the Shape line are a marked improvement sound-wise. I can't decide which way to go. It's unfortunate I can't simply walk into a place to compare them in person.
Old 26th May 2018 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
oudplayer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Chris ➡️
Interesting to hear...I'm stuck between Shape 65's or Solo6. CMS65 are tempting since they go for less now but it seems the Shape line are a marked improvement sound-wise. I can't decide which way to go. It's unfortunate I can't simply walk into a place to compare them in person.
I'd consider the shape twins, too - price is somewhere in-between. I did see that vintageking had some b-stock Solo6s for a very good price a couple days ago; I would have gotten those in fact but was limited in whom I could purchase these particular speakers from (corporate account and such) so couldn't take advantage of that offer. Sweetwater also had a b-stock deal going on some Twins (not the shape twins, the older ones in the solo series), so have a look-see...
Old 26th May 2018 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Sir Chris's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer ➡️
I'd consider the shape twins, too - price is somewhere in-between. I did see that vintageking had some b-stock Solo6s for a very good price a couple days ago; I would have gotten those in fact but was limited in whom I could purchase these particular speakers from (corporate account and such) so couldn't take advantage of that offer. Sweetwater also had a b-stock deal going on some Twins (not the shape twins, the older ones in the solo series), so have a look-see...
Given their size I can't believe they're considered nearfield monitors. I suppose I'll have to add the twins into my list and see what deals come up first.
Old 30th May 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
All worth a listen. It really comes down to voicing preference and what works with the way your ears hear things, your room setup, etc.

I heard the Shape line (minus the Shape Twin) and owned the Solos for some years (still own, but since moved to Barefoot MM45), and for me it came down to the fact that I still very much prefer the Beryllium tweeter on my Solos to the Shape's high end character.

Some people have actually expressed a preference for the new Shape tweeter over the SM6 tweeter though, so it really requires an audition.

The Solos brought me great joy, great mixes, and something I didn't have much of previously: clients. So my opinion is obviously skewed by my personal experience.

My MM45's are absolutely amazing, but if I could concoct my ABSOLUTE lifetime dream speaker from ANY manufacturer's OEM parts, it would have Focal Beryllium tweeters, a sealed cabinet with Barefoot-style dual woofers, but made with Focal sandwich cone driver materials, Focal sandwich cone mid range drivers, and a cardioid LF response like Kii Three's. Then top it off with the same aesthetics as the Solo/Twin SM6.

May the speaker gods hear my call...

Sorry for the tangent, but I think, you'll find success in any of these choices. Go with your heart/wallet. Hearing positive rumblings about the Shape Twins, and I find dual 5-inch setups tend to translate fantastic (see Amphion Two15)
Old 5th June 2018
  #14
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
There is a recent thread comparing Shapes with APS Klasiks:
Neumann KH 120 vs APS Klasik

I would give Klasiks a try. New under 999 EUR.
But beware: I'm heavily biased!
Old 14th June 2018 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marek_APS ➡️
There is a recent thread comparing Shapes with APS Klasiks:
Neumann KH 120 vs APS Klasik

I would give Klasiks a try. New under 999 EUR.
But beware: I'm heavily biased!
Heard your Aeon 2 Germanos at both AES and the demo at Germano Studios. Very, very impressive. A/B'ing them against NS-10's was almost like flipping on a sub with the NS-10's rather than switching speakers.

Ended up going Barefoot, but those Aeon 2's made me stop and think. I was already dead set on moving to a sealed 3 way, otherwise I might have them in my room today. I imagine the Klasik has a lot of what makes the Aeon 2 so special.
Old 16th June 2018 | Show parent
  #16
Here for the gear
 
Nicked_Wicked's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy ➡️

My MM45's are absolutely amazing, but if I could concoct my ABSOLUTE lifetime dream speaker from ANY manufacturer's OEM parts, it would have Focal Beryllium tweeters, a sealed cabinet with Barefoot-style dual woofers, but made with Focal sandwich cone driver materials, Focal sandwich cone mid range drivers, and a cardioid LF response like Kii Three's. Then top it off with the same aesthetics as the Solo/Twin SM6.
Good on you! Definitely looking to upgrade to MM45's somewhere in the future, some of the best monitors around. Recently invested in some Zaor stands with some Isoacoustics on top of it, worked better than I could ever imagine. Now in the process of adding some Oyaide XLR's and powercables with their masterful craftsmanship to add the last finishing touches for the sound which I could use for future monitors as well.

Went from slightly disliking/disappointed to really happy with the Sceptre S8's swapping to a sota pre-amp and some other chain/room changes. Gonna be difficult to find a clear upgrade, people don't give them nearly enough attention despite being a few years old now.

In fact I slightly prefer them over the Shapes, Shape 65's have a tiny bit more clarity in the mids and highs, and it's bass is a bit tighter, but the S8's go a little lower, have more punch and can even rumble and sounds a lot more organic, likely has to do with the metallic timbre the tweeters of the 65's have (same issue their Focal Clear headphone has because of the driver materials), sweet spot is also bigger.
Old 16th June 2018 | Show parent
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicked_Wicked ➡️
In fact I slightly prefer them over the Shapes, Shape 65's have a tiny bit more clarity in the mids and highs, and it's bass is a bit tighter, but the S8's go a little lower, have more punch and can even rumble and sounds a lot more organic, likely has to do with the metallic timbre the tweeters of the 65's have (same issue their Focal Clear headphone has because of the driver materials), sweet spot is also bigger.
hey, really interested in your comparison. Shape 65 user myself (using them as nearfields close to the front wall), and although I'm amazed by their clarity and imaging, their "analytic" sound gives me fatigue rather quickly. my room's on the bright side, yet I've been wondering for a while whether the shape's metal dome plays a crucial part in this.

the sceptre's look interesting on paper (coax would be cool for my needs too), yet there seem to be different opinions about their high end. what's your impression of that in comparison to the focals, if i may ask?
Old 17th June 2018 | Show parent
  #18
Here for the gear
 
Nicked_Wicked's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maffez ➡️
hey, really interested in your comparison. Shape 65 user myself (using them as nearfields close to the front wall), and although I'm amazed by their clarity and imaging, their "analytic" sound gives me fatigue rather quickly. my room's on the bright side, yet I've been wondering for a while whether the shape's metal dome plays a crucial part in this.

the sceptre's look interesting on paper (coax would be cool for my needs too), yet there seem to be different opinions about their high end. what's your impression of that in comparison to the focals, if i may ask?
Hmm difficult, has to do with the room as well. To get some perspective, my room is quite spacious yet untreated as of yet, but 3 or 4 meter behind me where I sit there's a bit of a slope from the roof, which kind of acts like a bass trap which I'm very happy with, ofcourse resonance is still a thing but with a front ported coaxial design like the Sceptre's it's pretty much not a problem. I have them rather close to the wall as well, but then again the front ported design helps out there as well.

I can imagine the Shape's being a bit harsh in a somewhat resonant room, very similar to their Focal Clear headphone in terms of sound, bit on the bright side of neutral yet very detailed, quick, airy and with a certain sense of smoothness. But with room resonance added into the mix the bright side of neutral just gets a bit overwhelming.

I'd say the Shapes extend the highs a tiny bit better but doesn't blend in perfectly with the mid-range which creates a bit of a analytical sound, they do have a problem with the upper-mids which are recessed, which is essentially a Focal house sound as they do it with almost all of their high-end products.

You might wanna try a pre-amp that has a slightly darker than neutral signature, as well as some room treatment where needed, otherwise you might wanna try to audition the Sceptre's to see if they cater your needs.
Old 17th June 2018 | Show parent
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicked_Wicked ➡️
I can imagine the Shape's being a bit harsh in a somewhat resonant room, very similar to their Focal Clear headphone in terms of sound, bit on the bright side of neutral yet very detailed, quick, airy and with a certain sense of smoothness. But with room resonance added into the mix the bright side of neutral just gets a bit overwhelming.

I'd say the Shapes extend the highs a tiny bit better but doesn't blend in perfectly with the mid-range which creates a bit of a analytical sound, they do have a problem with the upper-mids which are recessed, which is essentially a Focal house sound as they do it with almost all of their high-end products.

You might wanna try a pre-amp that has a slightly darker than neutral signature, as well as some room treatment where needed, otherwise you might wanna try to audition the Sceptre's to see if they cater your needs.
Thanks for the detailed resonse.

Can confirm what you write about the recessed upper mids (almost extreme differences to my beyer dt880p pros) and the lack of integratoin between highs and the rest. What kept me wondering was exactly this contradiction between a sense of smoothness that nevertheless also contains aggressive elements.

Think the most reasonable thing for me would be to increase treatment as my room's quite resonant. If that doesn't pan out then maybe some soft dome (been having an on and off gear crush on Emes Blue HRs for a while now) / the Sceptres.

Regardless of my issues with the Shape's I have to say that my mixes have really increased in focus and clarity. While the beyers tend to present material with more presence the shapes make me work a little harder - to good results.

cheers
Old 24th July 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Shape 65 user here since April this year.

I've come to find that they are very honest monitors and generally if you're hearing something wrong in the mix... it's because it's wrong. I had one track I was mixing, which I previously mixed on some Yamaha HS8's in the same room. When I brought it up on the Shapes, it was sounding very harsh in the upper mids and highs. I was thinking it was the metallic tweeters in the Shapes that was skewing things but after some more referencing, it turned out that actually, I had too many high-frequency elements in the mix all clashing. So after removing some and rolling off some high end the track opened up and sounded nice a smooth. I learned to trust them after that, and I'm hitting a good mix first time more often than ever now.

I did actually compare them to the Solo's in the dealer before I settled on them, and although the Solo's were warmer an smoother in the mids and highs, the Shapes seemed to show up bad mixes more. So that helped me make my choice.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blayz2002 ➡️
Shape 65 user here since April this year.

I've come to find that they are very honest monitors and generally if you're hearing something wrong in the mix... it's because it's wrong. I had one track I was mixing, which I previously mixed on some Yamaha HS8's in the same room. When I brought it up on the Shapes, it was sounding very harsh in the upper mids and highs. I was thinking it was the metallic tweeters in the Shapes that was skewing things but after some more referencing, it turned out that actually, I had too many high-frequency elements in the mix all clashing. So after removing some and rolling off some high end the track opened up and sounded nice a smooth. I learned to trust them after that, and I'm hitting a good mix first time more often than ever now.

I did actually compare them to the Solo's in the dealer before I settled on them, and although the Solo's were warmer an smoother in the mids and highs, the Shapes seemed to show up bad mixes more. So that helped me make my choice.
I do think the Solo's design is finally beginning to show it's age after 11-12 some-odd years (2007 or 2006 I think they came out?). The SM6 line (Solo's/Twins specifically) deserves a revamp incorporating their newer technologies.

It'd be smart for Focal to show some innovation further up the product line. The Shapes could totally start to cannibalize sales of the SM6 line, and the long-time SM6 users like myself who didn't want to cross-grade to the Shapes will begin to move on from the brand altogether. The Trio is too big, expensive, and not terribly impressive in relation to the competition, and the SM9 hasn't aged well enough to consistently win consumers in it's price bracket against Barefoot, ATC, Amphion, etc. Hopefully they don't become the next Dynaudio, content to aim right at the prosumer market, and nowhere else.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
oudplayer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy ➡️
I do think the Solo's design is finally beginning to show it's age after 11-12 some-odd years (2007 or 2006 I think they came out?). The SM6 line (Solo's/Twins specifically) deserves a revamp incorporating their newer technologies.

It'd be smart for Focal to show some innovation further up the product line. The Shapes could totally start to cannibalize sales of the SM6 line, and the long-time SM6 users like myself who didn't want to cross-grade to the Shapes will begin to move on from the brand altogether. The Trio is too big, expensive, and not terribly impressive in relation to the competition, and the SM9 hasn't aged well enough to consistently win consumers in it's price bracket against Barefoot, ATC, Amphion, etc. Hopefully they don't become the next Dynaudio, content to aim right at the prosumer market, and nowhere else.
Yes, possibly. The shape twins are excellent monitors, and although I slightly miss the beryllium tweeters of the solos, the shape series tweeters are pretty nice as well, a bit more understated, but revealing enough to help detect problems in the highs. The tightness of the low frequencies is considerably better than the Solo 6s. And they're dead quiet, no hissing or sputtering or port noise.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer ➡️
Yes, possibly. The shape twins are excellent monitors, and although I slightly miss the beryllium tweeters of the solos, the shape series tweeters are pretty nice as well, a bit more understated, but revealing enough to help detect problems in the highs. The tightness of the low frequencies is considerably better than the Solo 6s. And they're dead quiet, no hissing or sputtering or port noise.
I an really sorry to contradict your statements, but it is simply not true. Solos (and Twins) have much better decay times from the Shapes in the low end. and lower THD figures. It is objectively measured. While Shapes are very good for the money, Solos are superior speakers in every way.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy ➡️
I do think the Solo's design is finally beginning to show it's age after 11-12 some-odd years (2007 or 2006 I think they came out?). The SM6 line (Solo's/Twins specifically) deserves a revamp incorporating their newer technologies.

It'd be smart for Focal to show some innovation further up the product line. The Shapes could totally start to cannibalize sales of the SM6 line, and the long-time SM6 users like myself who didn't want to cross-grade to the Shapes will begin to move on from the brand altogether. The Trio is too big, expensive, and not terribly impressive in relation to the competition, and the SM9 hasn't aged well enough to consistently win consumers in it's price bracket against Barefoot, ATC, Amphion, etc. Hopefully they don't become the next Dynaudio, content to aim right at the prosumer market, and nowhere else.
Good design is not outdated. ATC and Genelecs are doing the same designs for decades. Also Focal 6 are great and quite a lot better than Shapes. Passive radiators instead of reflex ports are not a new technology. Besides D-class amps in Solos are newer technology than A/B in Shapes. I wouldn’t see a need for an upgrade, if Solos work for you, because they are still as great speakers as they were when released. They are only not “flavour of the month” anymore.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
I an really sorry to contradict your statements, but it is simply not true. Solos (and Twins) have much better decay times from the Shapes in the low end. and lower THD figures. It is objectively measured. While Shapes are very good for the money, Solos are superior speakers in every way.
Just out of interest is there a comparison review somewhere, or is this your own findings?

I’m just asking because when I listened to both at the dealer (in admittedly poor surroundings) the low end on the Shapes 65’s seemed less forgiving to me. I played both my own and commercial Hip Hop mixes on both, and the Shapes revealed excessive bass levels or poorly mixed low end (on my songs) more than the Solos. This is inline with experience a few months down the line.

I don’t know what this means from a technical perspective, and I’m no expert on monitors for sure so interested to see other findings.
Old 31st July 2018
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
These were my finding which I later on confirmed via some creadible measurements:

Measurements for Focal Twins, which measure very very similar in termps of time domain response and even actually worse in terms of directivity (I like Solos more):

https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-con...l-Twin6-BE.pdf

Measurements for Focal Shapes:
Focal Shape 65 – Studiomonitore im Test | SOUND & RECORDING

Mind you, SM series has amazing time response for a speaker with reflex port and amazing transient response in the low end. And don't get me wrong, Shapes are very good speakers, but Solos clearly show the lead in performance. If Shapes and Solos were positioned one next to another, this might be a reason why your comparison might be misleading, 10cm in a less than optimal place might make all the difference.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
These were my finding which I later on confirmed via some creadible measurements:

Measurements for Focal Twins, which measure very very similar in termps of time domain response and even actually worse in terms of directivity (I like Solos more):

https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-con...l-Twin6-BE.pdf

Measurements for Focal Shapes:
Focal Shape 65 – Studiomonitore im Test | SOUND & RECORDING

Mind you, SM series has amazing time response for a speaker with reflex port and amazing transient response in the low end. And don't get me wrong, Shapes are very good speakers, but Solos clearly show the lead in performance. If Shapes and Solos were positioned one next to another, this might be a reason why your comparison might be misleading, 10cm in a less than optimal place might make all the difference.
Thanks for posting I’ll have a look.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
oudplayer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
These were my finding which I later on confirmed via some creadible measurements:

Measurements for Focal Twins, which measure very very similar in termps of time domain response and even actually worse in terms of directivity (I like Solos more):

https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-con...l-Twin6-BE.pdf

Measurements for Focal Shapes:
Focal Shape 65 – Studiomonitore im Test | SOUND & RECORDING

Mind you, SM series has amazing time response for a speaker with reflex port and amazing transient response in the low end. And don't get me wrong, Shapes are very good speakers, but Solos clearly show the lead in performance. If Shapes and Solos were positioned one next to another, this might be a reason why your comparison might be misleading, 10cm in a less than optimal place might make all the difference.
That's fine, but I was talking about Shape Twins, not Shape 65s. I agree with you, I'd certainly get Solo 6s over Shape 65s if $$$/£££ etc was no object, and I have mixed about 15-20 albums on Solos so I know them pretty well. My findings about the Shape Twins are that they provide a somewhat more useful sense of what's going on in the 40-60hz region than the Solo 6s, which I never found to be all that reliable down there (although they're better than most ported speakers of the same size). Of course, with the passive radiator design of the Shape Twins the frequency response drops off sharply starting around 40hz, but I'm less worried about stuff lower than 40hz in nearfield speakers in a mixing scenario. Haven't used the twin 6bes so can't comment on those.
Old 31st July 2018 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer ➡️
That's fine, but I was talking about Shape Twins, not Shape 65s. I agree with you, I'd certainly get Solo 6s over Shape 65s if $$$/£££ etc was no object, and I have mixed about 15-20 albums on Solos so I know them pretty well. My findings about the Shape Twins are that they provide a somewhat more useful sense of what's going on in the 40-60hz region than the Solo 6s, which I never found to be all that reliable down there (although they're better than most ported speakers of the same size). Of course, with the passive radiator design of the Shape Twins the frequency response drops off sharply starting around 40hz, but I'm less worried about stuff lower than 40hz in nearfield speakers in a mixing scenario. Haven't used the twin 6bes so can't comment on those.
I haven't heard Shape Twins yet, so cannot give any first person insight.
Old 1st August 2018
  #30
Gear Head
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Checked out some Shape 65's at a local dealer recently, expecting to buy them that day. Great imaging and depth, but the low mids were a bit muddy, and upper mids were lacking. I ended up getting the Adam A7X's in a shootout against them.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 152 views: 19265
Avatar for liftarn
liftarn 23rd April 2019
replies: 104 views: 35828
Avatar for blayz2002
blayz2002 26th February 2021
replies: 52 views: 21875
Avatar for Melgueil
Melgueil 3 weeks ago
replies: 24 views: 13339
Avatar for dickiefunk
dickiefunk 3 weeks ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump