Focal Clear Review (headphone)

[Rja4000]

I have the closed-back Elegia and I'm quite happy with them.
Never heard that kind of clipping, while I tend to listen loud. To be fair, being closed back, they require less bass boost...
(I confirm the cord is a nightmare)

By the way, on some other french forum, Focal admits the fact and say "it's a choice, not a fault"
No compression, even at loud volume, until hard clipping, for a better fidelity, that's how they explain it.
It's true it's quite "dynamic".

@amirm: Is there a way to measure some kind of compression effect with level for headphones or loudspeaker ?



The full quote here:
"Ce que vous décrivez est un phénomène connu mais il ne s'agit pas d'un défaut du casque.
Je m'explique, nous avons fait un choix dans la conception de nos casques haut de gamme. Ces derniers ont été conçus pour respecter au maximum la dynamique du signal audio plutôt que la dynamique de compression qui offrirait un SPL plus élevé mais respecterait moins le signal audio. Pour faire court, nous avons préféré favoriser la qualité acoustique au SPL, ce qui permet de bénéficier de performances optimales jusqu'à ce que le tallonnement arrive (le claquement entendu). Ainsi, sur certains morceaux, sur de très basses fréquences ou à très fort volume, vous pouvez entendre ce claquement. Cela existe également sur les enceintes hi-fi.
Par conséquent, échanger votre casque ne changera rien.
La seule solution que nous proposons est d'écouter à plus faible volume.
Bien cordialement,
Marine, Community Manager Focal"

https://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum...r-tests-hcfr-elear-elegia-t30074075-3255.html
Post 05 Sep 2019 10:17

 

[dmac6419]

I love you prince Amir.

I got Clear pro for 899$ from Adorama

When?,I would have pulled the trigger for that price without even hesitating.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

With enough persistence one can clip and shoot down anything.

 

[buz]

Good god, man. Are all iconic headphones going to have disappointing measurements like this? I've been all about seeking the Clear as a second set of headphones for months up until a few minutes ago.

This. Thanks for saving me 1500$

Although I do wonder what happens at lesser SPL, say 80 or 85db

 

[phoenixsong]

The 9500 looks like it has a pretty weird tuning. I'd be more interested in how the new 9600 performs

9600 doesn't seem to perform well from existing measurements. Not sure if they'll make updates though. I wonder if Amirm has a Meze Empyrean in the backlog of headphones to be reviewed?

 

[Viennacalling]

Can somebody explain LS and PK - what does it mean?
Preamp: -5.3 dB
Filter 1: ON LS Fc 40 Hz Gain 3.0 dB Q 1.0
Filter 2: ON LS Fc 75 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 1.0
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1100 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 2.0
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 11319 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 3.0

here are the settings of oratory1990
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hqb9zjsvc2nu5zc/Focal Clear.pdf?dl=0

 

[MZKM]

Again, still in the works, but currently I am getting a
Preference Rating
SCORE: 74/100

Or, since Amir only likes 1 digit accuracy: 7/10.

Keep in mind that this is only for 1 channel and the data is “smoothed” to 50pt/oct, whereas the raw data is much finer, so my other commented scores for the HE400i and HD800S aren’t fully comparable, as instead of a 77 for the average unsmoothed of the HE400i, I get an 81 for the smoothed left channel (Oratory got 80 for his unit).

 

[solderdude]

The FR in here looked a lot flatter. What correction curve did you use?

No correction curve needed other than a small one for compensation of an omni mic mounted on an infinite baffle and some bass correction (different than Harman, based on other threories than someone lifting bass sliders so it sounds 'preferred'.
There is no pinna and ear canal that need 'correction'. One should realize that ones brain corrects for their own HRTF and that one is not the same as those of HATS. There is only an average 'compensation' while the brain does it differently.

 

[Robbo99999]

Can somebody explain LS and PK - what does it mean?
Preamp: -5.3 dB
Filter 1: ON LS Fc 40 Hz Gain 3.0 dB Q 1.0
Filter 2: ON LS Fc 75 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 1.0
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1100 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 2.0
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 11319 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 3.0

here are the settings of oratory1990
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hqb9zjsvc2nu5zc/Focal Clear.pdf?dl=0

LS stands for Low Shelf Filter, PK stands for Peak Filter.

Low Shelf Filter mainly affects everything below the frequency you selected. What it will do it will gradually boost or lower the frequencies below that point, depending on both the Gain factor and Q factor. Gain factor is the ultimate amount in dB that filter aims for in it's final state. Q factor is how sharply the frequencies will rise to the Gain factor below frequency point stipulated by the filter - higher Q equals sharper change of frequencies over distance on the X-axis (frequency). With Low Shelf filter, the frequency points above the stipulated frequency will be affected slightly too as part of the slope determined by the Q factor.

Peak Filter works in the same way in terms of Gain Factor and Q Factor, except Peak Filter is literally just a peak (or dip) in the frequency response at the stipulated frequency response - it doesn't affect "everything" above & below the stipulated frequency point. It will still affect frequencies directly around the stipulated frequency response in relation to the Q Factor. A low Q Factor will mean a wider area of effect on the frequency range (x-axis).

This is all better described with graphs rather than words, so take a look at the relationships in Amir's graph in this review:

 

[Vini darko]

Thanks for the reveiw. Seems a mixed bag , bit thin and bright but very low distortion.
I laughed with the moment you got it to fall on it's face with bass. Scary stuff with someone's loved headphones. Since I'm a bit of a basshead these aren't for me it seems.

 

[Robbo99999]

Again, still in the works, but currently I am getting a
Preference Rating
SCORE: 74/100

Or, since Amir only likes 1 digit accuracy: 7/10.

Keep in mind that this is only for 1 channel and the data is “smoothed” to 50pt/oct, whereas the raw data is much finer, so my other commented scores for the HE400i and HD800S aren’t fully compatible, as instead of a 77 for the average unsmoothed of the HE400i, I get an 81 for the smoothed left channel (Oratory got 80 for his unit).

It'll be interesting to see how you develop this. I don't know if they'll be anyway to work out how accurate any developments are, I mean we've got Oratory's take on the Preference Scores to compare against.....but in terms of how we determine how accurate the scores are of reflecting significant adhesion to Harman Curve in relation to Preference I don't know.

 

[MZKM]

It'll be interesting to see how you develop this. I don't know if they'll be anyway to work out how accurate any developments are, I mean we've got Oratory's take on the Preference Scores to compare against.....but in terms of how we determine how accurate the scores are of reflecting significant adhesion to Harman Curve in relation to Preference I don't know.

The Harman paper gives us charts of the curves of the ~30 headphones used to develop it, as well as the chart of scores. I digitized both, and am working on comparing my calculated scores to the scores in the paper. I’ve done like 17 and get fairly close.
My digitization is giving me ~150-200 points for the frequencies needed, Amir’s raw data gives ~935 and Amir’s smoothed deviation data gives ~380. The paper, after a quick glance, does not state what resolution they used, just it is the average of 3 re-seats.

 

[Robbo99999]

The Harman paper gives us charts of the curves of the ~30 headphones used to develop it, as well as the chart of scores. I digitized both, and am working on comparing my calculated scored to the scores in the paper. I’ve done like 17 and get fairly close.
My digitization is giving me ~150-200 points for the frequencies needed, Amir’s raw data gives ~935 and Amir’s smoothed deviation data gives ~380. The paper, after a quick glance, does not state what resolution they used.

So the end goal is to get your score as close as possible to the scores in the paper rather than creating a new or more accurate Preference Score?

 

[abhijitnath]

I'm scratching my head a bit- I've never once got my Elex to clip, at super loud volumes. Not refuting the results, just curious. As someone pointed out before, is the unit defective?

 

[Guenselmann]

Finally, I was waiting for this review Cheers for testing them!

I got these for 972€ a few months ago (still available for that price) because I wanted to get away from the Beyerdynamic treble peak. Without EQ I like the Clear way more than the T1 Gen2, which I kind of regret buying.

Anyway, so far I've never had any issues with the crackling sound Amir described. But I consider myself a low-volume listener, only have this one pair of ears etc. Still, tried to reproduce the issue with that "killer track" Burak Malcok - Toz Ruhu. First I used no EQ and went as far as I could tolerate for one song. No idea what SPL that means, but didn't hear anything bad.
I then enabled oratory1990's EQ settings in APO. It uses -4.9dB gain so I went further on the volume. A lot further actually, I almost maxed out the pot on JDS Atom (low gain) for a few seconds. And there it was, very obvious pop/crackling sounds. But this was at levels I could never tolerate in practical listening.

My biggest gripes with the Clear are actually its weight and higher clamping force compared to Beyerdynamic DT880 Edition / T1. And the cable is really too stiff, no idea what they were thinking.
Kind of itching to fill that "reference" Sennheiser gap in my collection since I can buy them at a discount, but can never decide whether to get the HD 600, 650 or 660 S.

 

[Jimbob54]

Oh dear, another favourite of mine shot down in flames. C'est la vie.

 

[MZKM]

So the end goal is to get your score as close as possible to the scores in the paper rather than creating a new or more accurate Preference Score?

Both.
I don’t know if they tried it, but separating the deviations into bass/mids/treble I believe would lead to better accuracy.

 

[Robbo99999]

Both.
I don’t know if they tried it, but separating the deviations into bass/mids/treble I believe would lead to better accuracy.

Cool, I can understand how you'd be able to mess with your equations to fit better to the published scores, but do you know how you're gonna create a more accurate/representative Preference Score than the one outlined in the papers....I mean on what would you base the increased accuracy of a new & improved Preference Score, how would you determine it was improved?

 

[MZKM]

Cool, I can understand how you'd be able to mess with your equations to fit better to the published scores, but do you know how you're gonna create a more accurate/representative Preference Score than the one outlined in the papers....I mean on what would you base the increased accuracy of a new & improved Preference Score, how would you determine it was improved?

The paper gives the human given scores and the calculated scores:

(Note that this is my digitized version).
So, better fitting the human given scores would thus give better accuracy. As is, the formula gave a headphone rated a ~40 and a ~90 both a score of ~70, that’s pretty bad in my opinion.

And due to measurement issues at 10kHz, I’ll probably reduce it to maybe 8kHz.

 

[YSC]

No correction curve needed other than a small one for compensation of an omni mic mounted on an infinite baffle and some bass correction (different than Harman, based on other threories than someone lifting bass sliders so it sounds 'preferred'.
There is no pinna and ear canal that need 'correction'. One should realize that ones brain corrects for their own HRTF and that one is not the same as those of HATS. There is only an average 'compensation' while the brain does it differently.

I see, I am wondering will this actually be better comparison of "flat" target for overear headphones as you said everyone have their brain corrects their own HRTF, for IEMs since there's no outer ear interaction so those curves are needed?