Focal Clear Review (headphone)

[Fluffy]

Yeah, I don't think anyone said that, but it is a curve that would be preferred by most people, which has been said a lot.

That is also a myth. As I said before, it's like saying that most Americans have 2.3 kids. This curve is an approximate average of all sorts of assumptions and calculations. It represents some imagined middle point between every possible HRTF, but should not be expected to accurately represent any individual HRTF. Its fundamentally wrong comparing measurements directly to this curve as an absolute target, and much more reasonable addressing to it as the mean in a normal distribution of values. Deviation from the mean at any point in the spectrum doesn't necessarily brings on adverse sonic effects – on the contrary, it could be preferable to some section of the population, if it happens to much their specific HRTF and compliment their choice of music. So the conclusion that a specific headphone would sound bad based on deviation from the mean, even a large one, is not reliable. It's like saying that any shoe size that’s not at the average size for American adults would be definitely uncomfortable for all adults. This is of course false – some adults would have smaller or bigger feet that would require different sizes of shoes that could deviate greatly from the average.

The only true test of whether a specific headphone sounds good to a specific person, is for that person to listen to that headphone and hear for himself. Alternatively, a reliable review would be one made by someone who has very similar taste in headphones to the person who reads it – meaning they have similar sonic preferences. Amir probably have similar taste to some percentage of the population, but there is no reason to assume that his taste matches every person, or is even reflecting of the "average" preference (that "most" people have – meaning, something close to the mean). I've seen countless headphones reviews, and every reviewer has very different preferences, so it's pointless relying on any individual review in deciding what gear would suit one's preferences.

 

[Martin]

What is the problem here specifically?

They can be painfully bright in the upper midrange / lower treble area.

Martin

 

[Daaadou]

They can be painfully bright in the upper midrange / lower treble area.

Martin

Tried it, I'm quite sensitive to brightness, especially with HPs, it makes me wince badly.
Quite convincing reproduction of that track with the pair of clear pro I own without any real brightness.
Try "keith don't go" from nils lofgren, this is, as far as I'm concerned, an excellent brightness test.
Plus sunday morning from the velvet, there is a "ringing" sound pulsing through the entire track, if your HPs are bright and if you are sensitive to it, you should not be able to listen to it pleasantly.

 

[xevman]

I knew these would measure poorly. The drivers themselves have very little headroom and will audibly clip if you push the levels too high, so it was a given that they wouldn't be a good candidate for equalisation. IMO their tonality in my eyes out of the box is great and I enjoy them. Every headphone on the market can be greatly enhanced with EQ and its a shame that these can't really benefit from this (unless you listen to them at very low volumes). Its such a shame but it seems to be a deliberate design choice from Focal, though to my tastes it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of this headphone as I think the FR/tonality out of the box is great.

 

[amirm]

The only true test of whether a specific headphone sounds good to a specific person, is for that person to listen to that headphone and hear for himself.

That is a recipe for chaos. What you are saying is that there is no right design for a headphone so any and all frequency response is just as good any other. This simply is not correct. People said and still say that about speakers and we absolutely know it is not correct there either.

Every headphone I have tested has benefitted from being closer to the Harman curve. Maybe this won't be the same in the future but so far across a lot of headphones, this has held.

Go head and boost the highs by 10 dB in your headphone. Do you think you will get a lot of people to like that? If not, then you have determined that we do share commonality in what we like.

 

[amirm]

Amir's subjective parts in the review are not any more accurate than any other subjective review. People hear soundstage very differently.

Well, thanks a lot.

No, my testing is not the same as any other. I have tested and evaluated 120+ speakers now. I have probably done 20 headphone tests and counting. I am no random youtuber that just plays some music and waxes about this micro detail and that other character. I follow a strict methodology of measuring and iteratively eq'ing headphones. There is science behind what I do, or I would not put my name behind it.

As I noted in the last post, people used to say the same thing about speakers. This has been proven to be wrong and you can see evidence of it all the time with reviewers saying they like the worst performing speakers out there.

Sure, our guiding line for headphone evaluation is not as bright as it is for speakers. But it sure is a lot better than darkness that you propose.

 

[ezra_s]

out of my own ignorance, not about a flame war or anything but how come the graphs here are so different from these:

https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/focal/clear/ ?

Perhaps because of the dbspl level chosen? Is it because a different method was used?

 

[ShiZo]

I can also post a video of my current clears pushing those low frequencies that were a problem for my defective clears in my earlier video no problem without clipping to show that there is a variance between models for whatever reason (early qc problems etc).

If that would be helpful in some way.

 

[Zensō]

out of my own ignorance, not about a flame war or anything but how come the graphs here are so different from these:

https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/focal/clear/ ?

Perhaps because of the dbspl level chosen? Is it because a different method was used?

This was addressed earlier in the thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ocal-clear-review-headphone.18585/post-609712

@solderdude runs DIY Audio Heaven

 

[ezra_s]

This was addressed earlier in the thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ocal-clear-review-headphone.18585/post-609712

@solderdude runs DIY Audio Heaven

Thanks! I didn't know, going to read it right now!

Still I'm at a loss, how can reviews be so different, specially the subjective part. @solderdude impressions are more in par with I recall from what I heared when I tried them. But amirm impressions of the headphones kind of leave it in the dust.

 

[Fluffy]

Well, thanks a lot.

No, my testing is not the same as any other. I have tested and evaluated 120+ speakers now. I have probably done 20 headphone tests and counting. I am no random youtuber that just plays some music and waxes about this micro detail and that other character. I follow a strict methodology of measuring and iteratively eq'ing headphones. There is science behind what I do, or I would not put my name behind it.

As I noted in the last post, people used to say the same thing about speakers. This has been proven to be wrong and you can see evidence of it all the time with reviewers saying they like the worst performing speakers out there.

Sure, our guiding line for headphone evaluation is not as bright as it is for speakers. But it sure is a lot better than darkness that you propose.

I have so far disagreed with your subjective conclusions on most reviews of headphones I tried myself. Headphones that you recommended I hate and the Clear that you don't recommend I love very much. I also use very different EQ for my Clear than the one you use (though it’s a lot subtler than yours). So what do you make of this? Could it be that I just don't find the Herman curve appealing? Could such a thing exist?

Edit: And by the way, Tyll Hertsens from Innerfidelity tested hundreds of headphones with as much or even more scientific rigor and expertise than you. And he reached very different conclusions on the Focal Clear. What do you say to that? Is your method and opinion the only acceptable one?

 

[pwjazz]

Regarding the back and forth over the Harman Target, here's my take...

The target is backed by some solid research, but it's important to understand that strictly speaking it's a consumer preference curve, not a sonic fidelity curve like the flat frequency response curves we value in DACs and amps. Of the available targets we have, Harman is the one most likely to appeal to a random consumer. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to appeal, and it doesn't mean that a given consumer might not prefer a different target (known or unknown), but it's a much better starting point than random listening impressions from "experts". That makes it useful to headphone manufacturers who want to sell as many headphones as possible, and it makes it useful to reviewers who want to give people an idea of whether or not they're likely to enjoy a given pair of headphones.

Also, because it's based on how speakers sound, and it incorporates an understanding of ear gain, it does have an element of accuracy relative to how people are used to hearing things (i.e. from speakers). Because of that, if something deviates significantly from the target in the midrange and treble, it's a fair bet that it's going to sound weird to at least some people, and one could argue that it therefore lacks some fidelity, subject to individual deviations in HRTF.

For me, the most problematic part is the upper bass dip and lower bass boost. I appreciate the way that it partially substitutes for the lost physicality of bass when using headphones, but it sounds unnatural to me, especially the dip that messes with instrumental timbre, and it's not accurate to how I hear speakers, especially ones without subwoofers (which by necessity is often how I and many people listen to audio).

I've tried applying strict Harman oriented EQ to a lot of headphones, and I've never strictly preferred the result. However, applying less radical EQ guided by measurements relative to Harman has sometimes yielded positive results for me.

Ultimately, the Harman Target is a good reference point for making comparisons, and a good starting point for reviewers making recommendations, certainly better than just their own anecdotal listening impressions. Individual listeners, however, aren't always well served by slavishly pursuing compliance with this target, though they'd do well to understand it.

 

[Jimbob54]

Regarding the back and forth over the Harman Target, here's my take...

The target is backed by some solid research, but it's important to understand that strictly speaking it's a consumer preference curve, not a sonic fidelity curve like the flat frequency response curves we value in DACs and amps. Of the available targets we have, Harman is the one most likely to appeal to a random consumer. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to appeal, and it doesn't mean that a given consumer might not prefer a different target (known or unknown), but it's a much better starting point than random listening impressions from "experts". That makes it useful to headphone manufacturers who want to sell as many headphones as possible, and it makes it useful to reviewers who want to give people an idea of whether or not they're likely to enjoy a given pair of headphones.

Also, because it's based on how speakers sound, and it incorporates an understanding of ear gain, it does have an element of accuracy relative to how people are used to hearing things (i.e. from speakers). Because of that, if something deviates significantly from the target in the midrange and treble, it's a fair bet that it's going to sound weird to at least some people, and one could argue that it therefore lacks some fidelity, subject to individual deviations in HRTF.

For me, the most problematic part is the upper bass dip and lower bass boost. I appreciate the way that it partially substitutes for the lost physicality of bass when using headphones, but it sounds unnatural to me, especially the dip that messes with instrumental timbre, and it's not accurate to how I hear speakers, especially ones without subwoofers (which by necessity is often how I and many people listen to audio).

I've tried applying strict Harman oriented EQ to a lot of headphones, and I've never strictly preferred the result. However, applying less radical EQ guided by measurements relative to Harman has sometimes yielded positive results for me.

Ultimately, the Harman Target is a good reference point for making comparisons, and a good starting point for reviewers making recommendations, certainly better than just their own anecdotal listening impressions. Individual listeners, however, aren't always well served by slavishly pursuing compliance with this target, though they'd do well to understand it.

Bravo!

 

[Fluffy]

I've tried applying strict Harman oriented EQ to a lot of headphones, and I've never strictly preferred the result. However, applying less radical EQ guided by measurements relative to Harman has sometimes yielded positive results for me.

Yeah, same here. The thing is, certain people (such as the ones that answered me here) that EQ to closely match the Herman curve and says it made an improvement, are because of this convinced that the Herman curve is the absolute ideal. Every time I try to say that the Herman curve is not for everyone, people accuse me of inciting "chaos" and "darkness", like Amir here. This has been going on long before Amir ever acquired the Gras device and joined that gang of Herman-curve-worshippers.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yeah, same here. The thing is, certain people (such as the ones that answered me here) that EQ to closely match the Herman curve and says it made an improvement, are because of this convinced that the Herman curve is the absolute ideal. Every time I try to say that the Herman curve is not for everyone, people accuse me of inciting "chaos" and "darkness", like Amir here. This has been going on long before Amir ever acquired the Gras device and joined that gang of Herman-curve-worshippers.

I'm in your gang

Edit. I have no problems with the reviews here or elsewhere. What concerns me is the suggestions creeping into some comments that if one knows one likes HP EQ to Harman, one couldn't possibly like HP that either can't be successfully EQ to Harman and /or have significant deviations from it. At least try a pair of something different before reaching that degree of certainty.

I believe it is both possible to like different sound signatures and indeed trying should be encouraged.

 

[Robbo99999]

Regarding the back and forth over the Harman Target, here's my take...

The target is backed by some solid research, but it's important to understand that strictly speaking it's a consumer preference curve, not a sonic fidelity curve like the flat frequency response curves we value in DACs and amps. Of the available targets we have, Harman is the one most likely to appeal to a random consumer. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to appeal, and it doesn't mean that a given consumer might not prefer a different target (known or unknown), but it's a much better starting point than random listening impressions from "experts". That makes it useful to headphone manufacturers who want to sell as many headphones as possible, and it makes it useful to reviewers who want to give people an idea of whether or not they're likely to enjoy a given pair of headphones.

Also, because it's based on how speakers sound, and it incorporates an understanding of ear gain, it does have an element of accuracy relative to how people are used to hearing things (i.e. from speakers). Because of that, if something deviates significantly from the target in the midrange and treble, it's a fair bet that it's going to sound weird to at least some people, and one could argue that it therefore lacks some fidelity, subject to individual deviations in HRTF.

For me, the most problematic part is the upper bass dip and lower bass boost. I appreciate the way that it partially substitutes for the lost physicality of bass when using headphones, but it sounds unnatural to me, especially the dip that messes with instrumental timbre, and it's not accurate to how I hear speakers, especially ones without subwoofers (which by necessity is often how I and many people listen to audio).

I've tried applying strict Harman oriented EQ to a lot of headphones, and I've never strictly preferred the result. However, applying less radical EQ guided by measurements relative to Harman has sometimes yielded positive results for me.

Ultimately, the Harman Target is a good reference point for making comparisons, and a good starting point for reviewers making recommendations, certainly better than just their own anecdotal listening impressions. Individual listeners, however, aren't always well served by slavishly pursuing compliance with this target, though they'd do well to understand it.

I agree with most of that, but I don't think it's accurate to state that it's 'just' a "consumer preference curve". Essentially it's a model of a flat speaker in the Harman Listening Room measured at the eardrum in a "average mannequinn", combined with a little consumer preference on the bass. So most of it is based in measurements with a little bit of consumer preference added on top in the form of the bass. So it's not just some random amassed consumer preference creating the whole curve, which is the impression that is given from your first sentence.....which is a disservice to the science involved. I agree pretty much with the rest of your post though, apart from your subjective take of not liking the upper bass dip, but it's subjective so no real argument there....although having said that frequency response up to 1kHz should be pretty stable from person to person.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yeah, same here. The thing is, certain people (such as the ones that answered me here) that EQ to closely match the Herman curve and says it made an improvement, are because of this convinced that the Herman curve is the absolute ideal. Every time I try to say that the Herman curve is not for everyone, people accuse me of inciting "chaos" and "darkness", like Amir here. This has been going on long before Amir ever acquired the Gras device and joined that gang of Herman-curve-worshippers.

You're escalating it into something that it's not. You're dramatizing reality.

 

[Rottmannash]

Is there an easy (free) way to use EQ on a PC? Without degrading the SQ? I've always listened to my desktop system wo EQ. Now I'm intrigued.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yes, auto eq. Don't have a link as I use roon but a quick Google will sort you out. Edit, actually, you need a front end app. Peace is the one the auto eq guy refers to.

Is there an easy (free) way to use EQ on a PC? Without degrading the SQ? I've always listened to my desktop system wo EQ. Now I'm intrigued.

 

[Rottmannash]

Yes, auto eq. Don't have a link as I use roon but a quick Google will sort you out. Edit, actually, you need a front end app. Peace is the one the auto eq guy refers to.

Peace it is. Thanks.