@benarritt I have never heard the Double Impacts but I do have the Moabs with BE tweeters and I had the opportunity to audition the Focal Sopra No 3’s for about an hour at a local dealer. The Focal’s were a very interesting speaker and they had the best bass I have ever heard playing the Hell Hounds of Krim by King Crimson. They also had what I would describe as an exaggeratedly warm and resonant mid-range. It was easy to like, but I’m pretty sure I would tire of it over time. The soundstage was markedly worse than the Moabs. The highs seemed quite recessed to me and listening closely to cymbals or triangles there was a harshness to the highs that I think explained why Focal choose to dial the upper end back. I don’t think it is a surprise that if you like the Focals recessed highs you might feel the DI’s were too much.
Overall, I can understand the preference for the Sopra No 3’s, but I never felt tempted to replace my Moabs with them. On the other hand, I do lust after the Wilson Sasha DAWs, but don’t expect to afford them anytime soon.
And I would note that you are comparing a $4250 speaker with at $24,000 speaker. It isn’t 3x as expensive as you said in your review, it is 5.6x as expensive. People that have heard both claim the Moabs are dramatically better than the Double Impacts. I have no idea if that is true, but it seems plausible to me and Moabs are only 25% the price of the Sopra No 3s.
Anyhow, I have no interest in getting into another one of these endless love/hate debates over Tekton speakers. But I really don’t think the vast majority of people that own DIs or Moabs would think the highs are shrill or hard. A more valid criticism would be that other speakers offer more micro detail and coherence. I have had speakers like that in my system and appreciate those attributes but I always come back to the Moabs for their musicality, soundstage, and density and they are plenty detailed for me.
