Focal Clear Review (headphone)

[rodtor]

Sure. I don't want to argue with that at all. It's just that the HD 650 seems to be the closest to the desired target so far, and the Clear struck me as clearly superior in every respect.

If headphones are so heavily dependent on individual preferences, at least from my perspective, the target seems less generalizable than other measurements on this site. It calls into question what to do with the measurements. But I think that has also been noted by more competent people (than me) here from the beginning.

I probably meant: are there headphones with objectively better results than the Focal Clear out there, leaving EQ and possible clipping (which I've never experienced in 2 years with them) aside? If so, I would be interested to know if I then also subjectively like the sound better. With HD 650 it was not so. I like it well, but i like the Clear more. The question is not meant rhetorically either, I really wonder.

I think a problem we have, from a measurement point of view, is that we have tools for doing this for frequency response, but not for some other attributes, such as sound stage. The HD650s clearly do quite well regarding FR, but most reports, and my own observation, suggest that they are not nearly as strong regarding sound stage. So that affects our subjective evaluation, but can we measure this quality? Rtings tries to do so, but we will have to leave it to participants who are more technically knowledgeable than I am to evaluate their method, or to possibly propose another.

 

[Rottmannash]

Who knows. Some use averaging. Some just pick one frequency. There is an IEC standard but I don't think anyone is using it in their specs.

This and sensitivity are the most abused specs in headphones and speakers.


The general rule is that the output impedance of an amplifier should not be more than 10% of the headphone you are going to drive. That way the impact is very small. Better yet, pick an amplifier with output impedance below 1.5 ohm or so in my measurements and you are golden regardless of what headphone you buy.

Our of curiosity, what is the output impedance of the THX 789?

 

[amirm]

Our of curiosity, what is the output impedance of the THX 789?

Near zero.

 

[zberkowitz]

I have often heard that planar headphones "take EQ" well, I guess meaning that you can do things like boost the bass several dB and it will sound good without any mechanical distortion. Judging by the headphone reviews that @amirm has been posting here so far, this seems to be the case (LCD-X, HE-400i), while this Focal dynamic driver simply can't do it. Is there any logical reason to think this is true about planar vs. dynamic and taking heavy EQ? Is this generalization actually based in some mechanical property of the different drivers?

 

[Rottmannash]

Near zero.

Excellent news for me then!

 

[Daaadou]

So THX789 could be a good option to drive the clear HP, I have seen the archel 2 from geshelli shall not fit the bill since they are not adapted for low impedance HPs.
Making the THX a great choice when it comes down to QP ratio to drive clears HP.

 

[GGekko]

This must have been asked/answered somewhere already but I can't seem to find it: which program is Amir using for his parametric EQ?

 

[gatucho]

So THX789 could be a good option to drive the clear HP, I have seen the archel 2 from geshelli shall not fit the bill since they are not adapted for low impedance HPs.
Making the THX a great choice when it comes down to QP ratio to drive clears HP.

I do have the THX789 paired with the clears and I find it more than enough to drive them properly with good dynamic response. As told before these focal headphones aren't meant to be driven too hard anyway.

The balanced cable included with the clears fits right in. However, even single mode is enough to me.

 

[zberkowitz]

This must have been asked/answered somewhere already but I can't seem to find it: which program is Amir using for his parametric EQ?

That would be the EQ in Roon I believe

 

[Jimbob54]

What exactly is low impedance or high impedance headphone anyway? I asked Amir how manufactures determine the impedance value for their headphones and amir said:




Would low impedance headphones show weaker resonance peaks and high impedance headphone then show stronger resonance peaks?




I think this would be an important aspect for comparing dacs?
For example, let's say I have two setups:
Setup 1: SMSL Sanskrit 10th MK2 (2V) > Monoprice THX887 (4V)
Setup 2: Holo Audio May (4V) > SMSL SP200 (6V)
When I now measure the output voltage from the headphone amplifier with a multimeter, would it take the output voltage of the DAC into consideration or am I solely measuring the output voltage of the amp?
Let's say it doesn't take the DAC's output voltage into consideration and I would like to volume match further, should I just add 2 Volts on Setup1 and it would volume match with Setup2 then?
(@SpeleoFool).

Volts are volts. If you want to volume match, you need to measure the voltage on the output of the amp. If you feed an amp 2v it will be quieter than if you feed it 4v BUT only if you don't change the volume knob.

I'll ask again but I'm not sure what it is you are trying to find out about? You're asking about headphone impedance, amp output impedance, dac output voltage all at the same time. Makes it hard to help with what you're trying to determine /do.

 

[SpeleoFool]

Let's say it doesn't take the DAC's output voltage into consideration and I would like to volume match further, should I just add 2 Volts on Setup1 and it would volume match with Setup2 then?
(@SpeleoFool).

A little background:

I recently purchased a Holo May and have integrated it into my loudspeaker setup alongside my existing reference DAC, an Ayre QB-9 DSD. Both DACs are sources for my preamp, and I can toggle between them with the press of a remote control button. Furthermore, I have both of these DAC endpoints tied together in Roon so that I can do direct A-B comparisons by simply toggling between DACs. Well, almost.

As I quickly discovered during casual listening, the May sounded more full, particularly in the mids, with significantly tighter bass. I checked the output level of both DACs in their respective manuals and found that the May outputs a stronger signal.

Holo May Specs:

Ayre QB-9 Specs:

Without correcting for the discrepancy, audio from the May is ~3.25dB louder than audio from the Ayre, explaining the subjective differences I heard. My loudspeaker chain uses a fancy preamp (McIntosh C2600), which allows me to trim input levels in 0.5dB increments. After cutting the May input by 3dB the differences between the two DACs evaporated; switching between the two DACs on my C2600 in real time sounds fundamentally same-y. I did not do enough critical listening to determine whether I still hear repeatable differences, but suffice to say that any such differences are small in magnitude and no longer bluntly obvious like they were before level-matching.

Incidentally, I have a second chain that routes the two DACs through a passive switch to any of several headphone amps. One of these chains uses a Goldpoint level control (47-step attenuator) into "Zone B" of my McIntosh 8207 multichannel amp, then out to an XLR adapter for Susvara. While this chain is a little more prone to error (since I have to guess at level matching), I do hear clear differences in staging between the May and Ayre DACs using Susvara. The May presents a larger, more 3D stage, while the Ayre stage is smaller, flatter, more coherent and more intimate. I also tested Susvara on my desk setup of ADI-2 -> A90 and found that chain to similarly present a "more intimate" stage like the Ayre.

These differences were repeatable across multiple recordings. At this point, though, I don't have any theories to explain them. Could it be some "R2R flavor"? Some unique aspect of May? Something to do with filters on the D-S DACs or NOS on the May? I dunno. But it's interesting that I do hear repeatable differences on headphones and not-so-much on loudspeakers. Data points worth further exploration.

 

[Rock Rabbit]

I have often heard that planar headphones "take EQ" well, I guess meaning that you can do things like boost the bass several dB and it will sound good without any mechanical distortion. Judging by the headphone reviews that @amirm has been posting here so far, this seems to be the case (LCD-X, HE-400i), while this Focal dynamic driver simply can't do it. Is there any logical reason to think this is true about planar vs. dynamic and taking heavy EQ? Is this generalization actually based in some mechanical property of the different drivers?

In magneplanar the coil is flat in the membrane there's no possibility of the coil going outside the magnetic gap ( it is between the magnets) so the impedance and max membrane movement is very controlled (low THD too). They can support a more aggressive EQ in low frequency (big membrane movement)....but don't forget typical membrane resonances and bulky and heavy headphones

 

[zberkowitz]

In magneplanar the coil is flat in the membrane there's no possibility of the coil going outside the magnetic gap ( it is between the magnets) so the impedance and max membrane movement is very controlled (low THD too). They can support a more aggressive EQ in low frequency (big membrane movement)....but don't forget typical membrane resonances and bulky and heavy headphones

Makes sense to me! And I wonder then if the idea of a headphone taking EQ well is really just referencing that it takes bass boost well!

 

[Kyle / MrHeeHo]

I have these headphones and I use Oratory1990's recommended EQ for them and they sound great with it. I'm quite pleased with them because I don't listen loud and they are headphones that I can comfortably wear for hours, something that can't be said about quite a lot of others.

The most offensive aspect of these headphones isn't the clipping it's the fact that replacement earpads are $200

 

[Rock Rabbit]

Makes sense to me! And I wonder then if the idea of a headphone taking EQ well is really just referencing that it takes bass boost well!

Bass boost in the sense of good loudness contour (not heavy or boomy bass) where many drivers could go at over excursion. Don't forget the rest of the picture, good bass response with anemic mids or big resonances in the 5-10 kHz could be a not top rated headphone. An example could be the DT-770 with impressive flat bass and sub bass response (10 Hz!)...with the typical Beyer resonances near 10 kHz

 

[Maki]

I have often heard that planar headphones "take EQ" well, I guess meaning that you can do things like boost the bass several dB and it will sound good without any mechanical distortion. Judging by the headphone reviews that @amirm has been posting here so far, this seems to be the case (LCD-X, HE-400i), while this Focal dynamic driver simply can't do it. Is there any logical reason to think this is true about planar vs. dynamic and taking heavy EQ? Is this generalization actually based in some mechanical property of the different drivers?

I believe it's more to do with venting than anything else. Most open back dynamics have some sort of front vent whether that be porous pads, porous baffle, or vent holes in the baffle. Open planars on the other hand usually achieve a perfect seal with no vents to be found, since the driver is basically the baffle. There are a lot of closed dynamic headphones which also provide a greater seal and don't feature the characteristic rise in distortion in the bass frequencies. The problem with not venting open headphones is that the lower mids and bass go completely out of control, at least with the couple drivers I've played around with.

 

[dorirod]

Here is one my speaker killer tracks that sends the Focal Clear into a ditch: Pascal Gaigne - Un espejo en el cielo (From "Kamandú, un espejo en el cielo")

Thanks, nice artist find. Got his Flowers (Loreak) OST, seems like that's ripe for testing speakers and headphones too

 

[ShiZo]

My favorite headphone. Also had to go through a bunch before finding one that didn't do the crackling and popping once pushed.

Out of all the focal clears I've had 2/8 didn't have the crackle or pops.

I was wondering which focal clear you would get @amirm. When i bought my last one I researched and made sure it was the newest batch numbers. I think they fixed the qc problem. But it's hard to tell if the headphone you got is and older and newer one.

I took some video of the clipping to send to focal and their reseller.

Here they are:

If you want the clear just make sure you go with a company that isn't going to blow you off. www.headphones.com had a hell of a time returning the clipping headphones and eventually switching distributors (or something of that nature). The next headphone they sent me has not clipped once .

 

[amirm]

I actually wonder if Amir would consider reviewing the HD650.

Yes, I plan to do that. It is definitely needed as a reference for future measurements from me. I routinely use it as a "control" in my testing. I just need to run all the tests formally and post them.

 

[amirm]

I was wondering which focal clear you would get @amirm.

I asked the owner and he said he bought it used so we don't know when it was built.