Dynaudio C1 II vs Focal Micro BE vs Harbeth SHL5

I have had the chance to spend time with all three speakers - the Focal Utopia Micro BE, Dynaudio C1 Signature (MKII) and the Harbeth SHL-5 Anneversary edition. Simply put, all three speakers are of fantastic quality and they all do what they set out to do very well. My taste in music tends to be somewhat varied covering jazz, folk, new age, rap, punk rock, dance hall and electronic music. Also I listen to a lot of NPR (for the sound quality - politics aside) and watch a decent amount of home theater (tv shows and wordy movies). My source is mostly a Sonos streamed through a Behringer DEQ2496 (DAC & EQ). The Focal's were playing off of an Arcam AVR600, C1's off of a Cary SLI-80 Signature and the Harbeth's off of an Exposure 2010S2. My room is 11x13, fairly well treated. For the sake of these observations I will only be comparing the Dyanaudio's to the Focals. The Harbeth's are just too enigmatic. I'll add my thoughts where I can about the Harbeths. However they are just such a different experience, I think it will only cause confusion. That being said, I will not be parting with the Harbeths anytime soon.

I understand that my room is small. I am sure there are a lot of people who immediately dismiss the possibility of listening to high-end audio in a room as small as mine. I have always been able to achieve great imaging and sound staging. Bass can be a little strong depending on the speakers but I have the ability to digitally and gently reduce those frequencies before they get to the DAC so that any bass bloat is removed. I am talking about a gentle 1-3 dB redustion between 20hZ and 100hZ - so it is a gentle correction and nothing to be alarmed about - in my experience.

Generally, most of my observations are based off of listening to instrumental jazz on FLAC because I find that it has the best atmosphere, sound staging and the instruments are like characters in a conversation. Jazz can be a good vehicle for showing a speaker's personality. Diani Krall is a mainstay (Live in Paris - FLAC) along with various other jazz groups.

So, here are my observations along with my own made-up categories - I am sorry if this does not adhere to audiophile terminology - for me this is a hobby and I am having fun so I made up my own categories somewhat:

Position of listener - by this I mean if you were sitting in a concert venue, position of listener refers to how close or far you are sitting from the stage. The C1s give a front row feeling - as if you are right in front of the musicians, possibly only 5 to 10 feet away. It is a very intimate experience. I found the soundstage very focused on the center with a relatively muted periphery. The Focals are different. They make you feel like you are sitting about four rows back - still good seats. The stage and presentation is wider. There is more information and more to take in. Contrasted to the C1, the Focals have a more robust periphery to the soundstage whereas the center image is not the obvious focus. Simply put, The C1s feel more intimate and the Focals more grand. The SHL-5s listener position feels like it is from the second row. The soundstage is centrally focused and the venue feels more medium-sized.

Drama - by this I mean he ability for the speaker to grab you and tell you "something important is happening here!" This is an area which is probably the result of personal taste. Perhaps I should leave it out of the review but in my observations I found the Focals to be more dramatically communicative. The C1s seem to be a little more neutral - hifi like. They are here on business, it's not a social call. The SHL-5s are a dramatic speaker to listen to but still carry the British politeness. They seemed to say, "excuse me, isn't this amazing?" And it is amazing.

Authenticity - The C1s remind me the most of reality. Listening to them feels the most accurate and authentic of the three speakers. All instruments and sounds were immediately recognizable for what they are. The C1s do this with chilling accuracy. The Focals on the other hand take a break from reality - the sound has a cartoony / caricature-like personality. However, I found myself preferring the Focals because the sound was easier to process. Where the C1s are extremely real to the point of bewilderment like an HD image, the Focals are more like a beautiful painting / cartoon. The SHL-5s are hard to describe here. They are enigmatic. They are voiced with mad genius that is always interesting and fascinating but also slightly hazy which adds to their mystery and beauty. I love them but the C1s take the cake on authenticity.

Bass - the C1s are the obvious heavyweight here. I found they are proud of their bass and well integrated into their overall presentation as an essential component. However, I did find the quality of the bass to be slightly dry. The C1s emit bass that has presence like a floor stander but I do get the feeling that, "there is bass and then there is BASS." The c1s are the lowercase bass. The Focals and the other hand focus on the upper regions. The bass is very respectable but it is a second tier element in their sound. It has a genuine richness to it but it is only a compliment to the upper regions - not a major element. The SHL-5s have the meatiest, most realistic and best integrated bass. The bass has flesh on it - it is healthy. The cabinet size seems to have some advantages here because unlike the small monitors, the SHL-5s bass has depth AND authority - whereas the Focal has richness and the C1s have span.

Coherance - The C1s are by far the most seamless across the sound spectrum. From the bass all the way up onto the highs of the Esotar, I never felt that there was one area that was exaggerated. The Focals on the other hand are tweeter oriented. Depending on taste, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. I am a huge fan of the beryllium tweeter, which has never fatigued me in the least. The beryllium tweeter is a brilliant driver which enables the Focals to shine. However, the mids take a backseat. This is not a flaw as it is implemented by design to show off the amazing tweeter. However, it definitely provides a top emphasized experience.

Imaging/soundstage - The Focals provided good imaging after a lot of adjustment. The center image is a little bit further back and is rich with soft edges. I found that over time it was the easiest to listen to. I can go back to the painting analogy here - the Focals have an artistic quality that has the simplicity of a painting when compared to the HDTV experience of the Dynaudios. The C1s have a holographic central image whose distance from you is not immediately clear because of its depth. Female vocals can sound scarily real. Instruments emit with near pinpoint accuracy out of space. The C1s definitely do a better job of giving you a location for every instrument and voice. However, the Focals have a wider soundstage. The periphery/atmosphere that they provide is massive and infinite. Where the Dyns win with central imaging, the Focals win with width / bredth of soundstage. The SHL-5s center image is the most solid of the three. Where the C1 provides an solid, rich center image, the SHL-5s go two stages more. It is creepy, unsettling and borderline emotionally destabilized how real and solid the center image can be. A trumpet does not sound "like a real trumpet," - it IS a trumpet. This is the area where the SHL-5 transcends the hobby for me. The SHL-5s do not do everything other hifi speakers do but in their holographic imaging there is a shimmering brilliance.

NPR/HT Dialogue - I preferred the Focals here. They have a softer and more supple tone. I have always been a fan of muted, polite British tonality and this is where the Focal/Arcam combo shines. The C1 voices are a little bottom heavy, just a little bit too much bass to sound clean. For home theater that is dialogue heavy (comedies, Woody Allen films), the Focals are relaxing and non-fatiguing to listen to. The C1s are better suited towards dynamic films. If I was more of an action / thriller watcher, I think I would prefer the C1s because they are more dynamic and focused.

Listening Style - In general, I found the Focals to be more relaxing to listen to. I found myself passively sitting there enjoying the music without feeling pushed or prodded. The C1s are more of an "experience." I found that regardless of volume, they always hold your attention. This can be a good thing because they are captivating but also was a little too intense for me in the long run. I found the Focals to be accessible but more of a passive experience.

Character - if I had to come up with a single phrase to describe each speaker I would say "accuracy" for the C1s, "grandeur" for the Focals and "enigma" for the SHL-5s. The C1s sound real, accurate, neutral, perfect, singular, balanced. - The Focals do not sound real, they sound better than real. They produce a representation of sound which comes across as technology implemented to create art. The appreciation of art is a subjective thing so the Focals might not be everyone's taste. The C1s however are closer to what I think of as true sound. The SHL-5s character is amazing. I always get the feeling that they are like a diamond draped in silk. The sound is amazingly rich and beautiful with a little bit of a rounded off nature to keep it from being overbearing.

The Tweeters - They are both excellent tweeters. However, I do love the beryllium. I have not heard RAAL or diamond but for my taste is the best that I've heard in that it produces the most information, reveals every nuance and is completely non-fatiguing to my ears. The Esotar is also amazing in its accuracy but is slightly relaxed in the micro information it transmits. Dynaudio is playing with black space and has a slightly moody characteristic - the Focal is more of a daytime / light experience. I love them both and I could live with them both because they are some of the clearest I've heard - I am just bowled over by Focal here.

Midrange - The C1 midrange is spookily realistic and accurate. The Focals cannot keep up here. The midrange is a gem. Female voices (Adele, Amy Winehouse...) are beautiful and lush. The Focals by comparison can be difficult to listen to after such a glorious performance by the C1s. There is a rightness about the C1s midrange that the Focals can't touch. Add to the this stunning holographic imaging of the C1s and you have a performance that can give you goosebumps. - The SHL-5s however have a mid range that is even more dynamic, brilliant and gleaming than even the C1s. I can't imagine a more amazing female vocal speaker than the SHL-5. Harbeth is the clear leader here, in my opinion. T

So, there are my rablmings. Nobody wins. Everyone goes home with a trophy. Thank you if you read this far or even if you skipped to the last paragraph.

Regards,
Michael