2. speakers
  3. 1241886823

Dynaudio Focus 220 vs. Focus 220 II vs. Focus 140


Has anyone heard the Focus 220 II? How does it compare to the Focus 220?

I'm loving the sound of the Focus series and I'm pretty sure that's the speaker for me. I've listened extensively to the Focus 220 and Focus 140 speakers in my room. I enjoyed both of them, but I found the 140 to have a tighter top and bottom, and integrates tweeter and woofer very nicely (the 220 seemed to have a little bump in the lower treble/high mid which sounded a little hard to me). Overall I like the 140 better by a small margin, but I do miss the bass extension of the 220, and the 220 looks much nicer to me. I am not in a position to hear the 220 II, unfortunately. Has anyone heard the Focus 220 II, or know of the reason for the new version? How does it compare to the Focus 220, or 140 for that matter?

My front end is a Benchmark DAC-1 USB fed from solid state PC directly (via analog variable out) into a Bryston 4B-SST. My room is very live. Any help would be amazing!
silentstudios
okocza
19 posts
 
> the 220MKII is a much better balanced speaker now, very smooth from top to bottom, much like the Contour 3.4.

I'd never listen Focus Mk II but if Dynaudio has removed the principal weakness of the F220 Mk I 220 - imho boomy low bass - Focus 220 mk II would be even more interesting than the COntour S 3.4 which is not so warm as the Focus line.
stricken
43 posts
 
Okocza,
What you might be equating to warmth is the forgiving nature of the Focus line as compared to the more revealing nature of the Contour series. The Focus 220MKII has been improved in the area exactly as you had mentioned but is still going to be more forgiving of lesser electronics and recordings hense the "warmer sound", the Contour 3.4 will be more revealing of the electronics and recordings as you would expect from a more expensive speaker and if the 3.4 is not paired with the appropriate electronics, such as many lesser receivers, they will possibly sound a little thin and cold, but it is not the speaker rather the electronics as the issue. The 220MKII can be paired with many lesser receivers that the 3.4 cannot simply because of the revealing nature of the better speaker.
okocza
19 posts
 
Stricken, I agree, Contour S is more revealing, more transparent and more neutral. I have S1.4 monitor but know well S3.4. For a strictly audiophile point of view it's a "better" (-> with better resolution) speaker than Focus. But the problem is that not all my CD are of audiophile quality, for bad recordings Contour S 1.4 is much more less forgiving than Focus 140/220. So I'm seriously thinking about an downgrading to F220 Mk. II. Resolution is not tall..
silentstudios OP
6 posts
 
I've spent some time now with the Focus 220 II's and I am quite pleased. They definitely sound very natural. Nothing exciting about them, but I like that. Most if not all of my recordings sound pleasing through them - no harshness at all, which for some reason is really hard to come by. The bass is definitely not boomy, and I feel like the driver integration is much improved. They didn't give me the goosebumps up front the way the Focus 140's did, but I feel like the extended low end will ultimately age better. If I had the budget I would go for the Confidence C1's - they seem to have the best of the Focus 140's and the 220 II's plus much more. But for the foreseeable future, I'm going to hang on to the 220 II's. Any thoughts from other users?
rbafna
2 posts
 
Does anybody know if the Mark 2 speakers indicate such on the back of the speaker? I just bought some 220's and am trying to confirm if they are Mk 1 or Mk 2. Any help appreciated. Thanks!
More to discover