Focal Clear Review (headphone)

[Helicopter]

This back and forth conversation is informative, enlightening, and even entertaining. But you are not making it easy for me — between those who highly rate their Clear phones, and those who provide measurements and QC anecdotes ("evidences") against the Clear.

My brand new Focal Clear Pro headphones arrived the day after this thread started. On the one hand, they are at a great price ($1,069 via Tim Finnegan at Dale Pro Audio); but the flip-side is that they have a no-return policy on headphones if I decide I don't want to keep them. So I haven't opened the box yet...

I think my listening style lines up well with the strengths of the Clear Pro: classic rock, folk / indie rock, roots / world beat, and jazz; generally at low to moderate volume. I'm not worried too much about bass below 45Hz (i.e., below natural instruments), but the parts of the listening curve that won't lend themselves well to EQ gives me pause (both the bass clipping risk, and the treble peak/dip). My other headphones are HD600 (10 years-old) and I am also testing out a pair of HIFIMAN HE6SEv2 at $699+tax from Adorama.

Do I open the box and try them out for myself? Or should I return the box unopened with "shipment refused" based on the measurements, and then seek out a different dynamic headphone to upgrade my HD600 ?!? I know the box cutter decision is ultimately in my hand, but I'd welcome any insights (or pot-shots) from the seasoned pros.

For what it's worth, I have LCD-X and Clear, and the negative review of LCD-X matched concerns I already had, while the concerns Amir has with the Clear came as a real surprise. I agreed with him the LCD-X isn't very good due to frequency response without EQ. The bass issues with Clear, simply are not something that is ever going to be a problem for me personally. I just don't get loud enough for it to matter, and I haven't firmly concluded I like the bass boost better. I will probably end up at something with less bass than his recommendation with these. I don't have EQ in most of my systems, so the frequency response is a big benefit for me too. i am still very happy with the Clear. The point is, I don't just like the Clear because they are expensive and I bought them. If I could get all my money back today from the return fairy, LCD-X (and probably another 3 or 4 pairs of headphones) would be gone, but I would still keep the Clear.

The treble, even without EQ, has always sounded great to me, though I suspect there is some deliberate coloration to 'enhance' the sound. If you want something super technical and accurate, which many here do, this could be a concern too.

Obviously, it has indeed been a problem for some owners who boosted the bass, cranked up some EDM, and had drivers chatter and crackle. For anyone for whom this is the use case, there are better options.

If this is a lot of money for you, and you have big reservations, you could wait for something with a better review. If it is a reasonable amount of money to you, try them out. Keep the box and everything in perfect condition. If you don't like them, you can sell them or give them to someone. My guess is you will like them anyway. I don't see a lot of Clear owners here announcing new plans to get rid of them based on the review.

 

[Jimbob54]

For what it's worth, I have LCD-X and Clear, and the negative review of LCD-X matched concerns I already had, while the concerns Amir has with the Clear came as a real surprise. I agreed with him the LCD-X isn't very good due to frequency response without EQ. The bass issues with Clear, simply are not something that is ever going to be a problem for me personally. I simply don't get loud enough for it to matter, and I haven't firmly concluded I like the bass boost better. I will probably end up at something with less bass than his recommendation with these. I don't have EQ in most of my systems, so the frequency response is a big benefit for me too. i am still very happy with the Clear. The point is, I don't just like the Clear because they are expensive and I bought them. If I could get all my money back today from the return fairy, LCD-X (and probably another 3 or 4 pairs of headphones) would be gone, but I would still keep the Clear.

The treble, even without EQ, has always sounded great to me, though I suspect there is some deliberate coloration to 'enhance' the sound. If you want something super technical and accurate, which many here do, this could be a concern too.

Obviously, it has indeed been a problem for some owners who boosted the bass, cranked up some EDM, and had drivers chatter and crackle. For anyone for whom this is the use case, there are better options.

If this is a lot of money for you, and you have big reservations, you could wait for something with a better review. If it is a reasonable amount of money to you, try them out. Keep the box and everything in perfect condition. If you don't like them, you can sell them or give them to someone. My guess is you will like them anyway. I don't see a lot of Clear owners here announcing new plans to get rid of them based on the review.

What's your opinion on the lcd x post eq by the way? Not worth the money I guess, but like or don't like?

 

[Helicopter]

What's your opinion on the lcd x post eq by the way? Not worth the money I guess, but like or don't like?

Way better. Great for the really bass heavy stuff, and pretty good for analysis, but the dip in the treble makes it less enjoyable than other headphones no matter what, especially compared to the Clear. If I could do it again, I would just get the LCD-GX or the LCD-2. GX is cheaper with the new Mg frame, and LCD-2 has a better looking sound signature, even though it is wood which is not a proper material for headphones.

 

[Jimbob54]

Way better. Great for the really bass heavy stuff, and pretty good for analysis, but the dip in the treble makes it less enjoyable than other headphones no matter what, especially compared to the Clear. If I could do it again, I would just get the LCD-GX or the LCD-2. GX is cheaper with the new Mg frame, and LCD-2 has a better looking sound signature, even though it is wood which is not a proper material for headphones.

I have the 2 Classic (so the "budget" but plastic and metal frame) and the XC . Opinions vary but I swapped the XC cups for the 2C grilles and rear foam so I *think* I made an LCD X and a Frankenstein 2 closed. I enjoyed the XC opened up (with EQ) and enjoy them closed . The eye opener was the closing of the 2C and applying the Audeze plugin to Roon for the real 2 Closed - sounded very good. I just like the LCD feel and overall tone but a shame they are technically flawed. I bought second hand and feel no need to get rid.

Regarding @Fluffy post- I see his side of the fence- sometimes it feels like the weight of review plus comments can make one think (to someone that enjoys a DUT found to be flawed) that they shouldnt like their beloved item, or their hearing/ taste is abnormal if they do. And I really dont appreciate dismissive comments from left field (with zero experience of the DUT or even something similar) along the lines of "measures bad- must sound like junk"- that mindset needs to be discouraged.

But at the same time, we need to compare this DUT with that DUT and having a reference curve is the only real way to put the DUT into perspective.

Another route might have been to take the measurement of an incredibly widespread and respected HP as a reference curve (lets say the HD650 for eg) and superimpose it onto the DUT curve- but thats an even more flawed method as the reader needs to have experienced that HP to have any clue at all.

So I guess us Clear and LCD X lovers just need to suck it up! But implore others that variety is the spice of life and to try before you buy!

 

[Jimbob54]

This back and forth conversation is informative, enlightening, and even entertaining. But you are not making it easy for me — between those who highly rate their Clear phones, and those who provide measurements and QC anecdotes ("evidences") against the Clear.

My brand new Focal Clear Pro headphones arrived the day after this thread started. On the one hand, they are at a great price ($1,069 via Tim Finnegan at Dale Pro Audio); but the flip-side is that they have a no-return policy on headphones if I decide I don't want to keep them. So I haven't opened the box yet...

I think my listening style lines up well with the strengths of the Clear Pro: classic rock, folk / indie rock, roots / world beat, and jazz; generally at low to moderate volume. I'm not worried too much about bass below 45Hz (i.e., below natural instruments), but the parts of the listening curve that won't lend themselves well to EQ gives me pause (both the bass clipping risk, and the treble peak/dip). My other headphones are HD600 (10 years-old) and I am also testing out a pair of HIFIMAN HE6SEv2 at $699+tax from Adorama.

Do I open the box and try them out for myself? Or should I return the box unopened with "shipment refused" based on the measurements, and then seek out a different dynamic headphone to upgrade my HD600 ?!? I know the box cutter decision is ultimately in my hand, but I'd welcome any insights (or pot-shots) from the seasoned pros.

For my money the Clear offer an insight into my music that I don't think any other hp does. I can't describe it better than that. Is that difference worth $1000? Depends how much you need that money, but if you've spent it on a second or third set of headphones, I'd say you're not starving or freezing to death. But they sound unique compared to a fair number of varying types of hp I've owned and tried including the hd600.

So, a $1000 audition? Up to you, let us know!

Never had the driver clipping issue mentioned here under normal listening to mostly rock and electronic but I did when played v loud with some killer tracks here.

 

[Tatalor51]

The Clear is definitely my favorite headphone (also have the LCD-3 and Sennheiser 660) but I cannot disagree too much with Amirm's review. Not sure what the tradeoff was for Focal but clipping at such low volume sometimes is just bad design and should have been avoided, considering the asking price. It would be hard for me to recommend it too.

However, in 99% of use cases, this is not an issue for me and I like it more than LCD-3 as far as tonality goes. Also, for my taste, doesn't really need EQ. Oratory EQ makes a small difference for the better and still never really clips on my normal listening volume and even past it WITH the music I usually listen to. So i guess it's possible to both agree with the review and greatly enjoy the Clears

And if I want my ears to be massaged by sub-bass vibrations at high volume (I rarely do), the LCD-3 got it covered (was considering selling them but I'll probably keep them around).

 

[JIW]

Now I'm trying this with all my headphones

edit, but of course not at -17dBr in the RME ADI-2 DAC with high gain as I don't want to make them explode.

edit: isn't high gain for specially for difficult headphones to drive? 55 OHM does not sound particularily difficult. I listen to my beyerndynamic 600ohm at -30dbr low gain for confortable extended listening.

How difficult a headphone is to drive depends much more on its sensitivity (SPL for a given voltage) than its impedance or even its efficiency (SPL for a given power). Since, for a given voltage (V), power (P) is inversely proportional to impedance (Z) - P = V*V/Z, for a given efficiency, a lower impedance headphone requires less voltage to produce the same SPL.

However, if an amplifier's output impedance is greater than zero, a low impedance headphone receives less voltage than a high impedance headphone. Compared to the case of an amplifier with an output impedance of zero, if the headphone's impedance is the same as the output impedance, it would receive only half the voltage, while if a headphone's impedance is 10 times greater than the output impedance, it would receive 10/11, i.e. 91%, of the voltage. The lower impedance headphone would thus be 6 dB quieter while the higher impedance headphone would only be 1 dB quieter.

Assuming the Focal and Beyerdynamic have the same efficiency, the Focal would thus require about 3 times less voltage and for the same voltage would produce an SPL about 10 dB higher.

According to manufacturer specifications, the Clear (104 dB @ 1mW @ 1 kHz) is 8 dB more efficient than the DT880 (96 dB @ 1mW) which for a given voltage would mean an 19 dB higher SPL (117 dB @ 1V @ 1 kHz vs. 98 dB @ 1V). However, some measurements suggest that the difference is closer to 13 dB (109 dB @ 1V vs. 96 dB @ 1V).

 

[solderdude]

Beyerdynamic DT880-600 = 96 dB/V
Focal Clear = 116 dB/V... so about 4x as loud on the same volume setting.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Searching online, I see references to Clear "clipping." I suspect this is what they are talking about. If so, it is real flaw in this headphone.

Conclusions
The Focal Clear "out of box" (no EQ) response is closer to what we like to see so tonality is not too bad as is. Equalization can take its performance significantly higher but due to poorly designed drivers with too little headroom, this is not a practical path unless you keep volumes low.

I'm wondering: are you really listening this loud? I have run into clipping on my Clear to but that was due to rather intense resonance with my AVR and bloated movie LFE effects or in soundtracks like Bladerunner 2049 (tons of sub bass and not much else) and even then then, the volume of the bass itself was causing me physical pain. I don't even want to imagine the volume / feeling if actual midrange & treble are involved. :S

There does seem to be some variance in drivers, some are getting the clipping at lower levels than others but I wouldn't call it a flaw as such.

I love my Clears. Now I know how people over at SBAF feel when Amir’s measurements show Schiit gear to be flawed.

To make it even worse, I EQ’d my clears and they sound even better.

No bad feelings here, I have run into the issues, before so I know they exist.
I merely disagree with Amir's assessment and to be honest: I also disagree with his preferred target curve.

But hey, target curves are a dime a dozen and every one of us has different ears and prefers a different one. If I EQ's my clear to Amirs target I would find the amount of bass unnatural/unbearable for extended listening.

That being said: I still think it's cool that he takes the time to measure these things.

 

[genrl]

You just don't get what I'm saying. I have absolutely no problem with the data. The data is correct and there is no point disagreeing with it. I'm not fanboying or shopping for agreement… Jesus, where are you getting this from??

What I'm saying is there is not one "correct" response curve that everything should abide by. Your measurements are good and match other measurements I've seen, that also show these headphones as not complying with the Herman curve in various ways. And my point is, that this is not a problem at all. The deviations are not only non-problematic, they are in fact probably why I do appreciate the sound of these cans. I like them not despite of these supposed-flaws, but because if its Idiosyncrasies. The main issue is not how clear the measurements are, but what you deduce from them.

You just can't accept the fact that things can sound good to some people while not adhering to a target response that measures average preference. Or that some people can enjoy different sound than you. And that goes to the rest of the audiophile community at large, whether objective or subjective.

I will gladly stop commenting and reading the reviews here. This site had truly sucked away any enjoyment I had in music with all this relentless obsession with being "right" and "scientific". Really, you people forgot that this whole hobby starts and ends with enjoying music. Since I stopped reading here, I was actually able to enjoy my music collection again, and not worry about whether some piece of gear I have is as objectively accurate as it could physically be. In the future I would honestly recommend anyone who thinks about getting into the audiophile hobby to go do something else. This is not worth anybody's time.

Well said my friend. To the admin, this certainly does belong here because subjectivity has always been a part of music, if you're throwing that out then let's all be robots and listen to sine waves.

 

[genrl]

Stick to Amps and DAC's

 

[amirm]

To the admin, this certainly does belong here because subjectivity has always been a part of music, if you're throwing that out then let's all be robots and listen to sine waves.

Throwing that out? What are you talking about? Did you skip half-way through the review and didn't read the extensive section on listening tests and equalization? The subjective part was longer than the rest of the review:

Focal Clear Listening Tests and Equalization
In some sense the sins of Focal Clear in frequency response is less severe than other headphones we have tested so far. Naturally, the no-EQ response across my test tracks was decent. There was some detail lacking and some brightness that was bothersome. It created fair amount of "lispiness" with female vocals for example.

I tested small magnitude corrections but soon gave up on them as they didn't seem to be worth the effort. Instead I went after low hanging fruit:

Basically we have some bass boost, some reduction of energy around 1.1 kHz center frequency and lowering of the peak at 11.3 kHz. The latter was important to get rid of the brightness.

The improvement was quite noticeable and pleasant. More bass helps balance the rest of the response. Detail resolution improved with the 1.1 kHz filter and as noted, the final 11.3 kHz filter took care of remaining brightness. There was a cost in distortion but not audibly:

As expected, bass distortion shoots up but due to our low sensitivity to such distortion, there was no trade off that I could detect. The sound simply became warmer and nicer with better reproduction of deep notes. We naturally gained some distortion reduction with the dip filter around 1.1 kHz (due to broad shoulders it impacts a larger region).

First and second tracks sounded good and then BAM! The headphone jumped its gap resulting in nasty static/crackling sound. The kind of sound that stops your heart beating for a few seconds! Basically the driver is running out of travel and going outside of the magnetic field and then jumping back suddenly. I hear this routinely in cheap bookshelf speakers when driven by high amplification and deep bass. I could get this to happen even in instrumental/female vocal tracks!

Granted, we boosted the EQ but I have boosted EQ much more in other headphones and they can handle with ease. Not so with Focal Clear. Still, I turned off the EQ and turned up the volume and there it was again: nasty clicks. Granted the level was pretty loud now but not outside of what would be listenable.

Searching online, I see references to Clear "clipping." I suspect this is what they are talking about. If so, it is real flaw in this headphone.

No sine waves were used in above and indeed I post the music selections.

Really, if you are going to complain, least you can do is properly read the review and all the follow ups.

 

[amirm]

Stick to Amps and DAC's

You are violating our rules for review threads: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-rules-for-review-threads.18744/

Since you are new I won't sanction you just yet but I suggest you read what is in that link before commenting more.

 

[amirm]

I'm wondering: are you really listening this loud? I

How do you know how loud it was for me? Did you not play the specific clips I post with sub-bass that bring out clipping in my sample at pretty normal volumes? We spent pages on this topic. Please read before commenting this way.

 

[genrl]

You are violating our rules for review threads: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-rules-for-review-threads.18744/

Since you are new I won't sanction you just yet but I suggest you read what is in that link before commenting more.

Cool. You are toxic to the audio community anyway so I will await the ban hammer.

 

[amirm]

Cool. You are toxic to the audio community anyway so I will await the ban hammer.

Thread reply ban issued.

 

[imagidominc]

Cool. You are toxic to the audio community anyway so I will await the ban hammer.

The word toxic is so misused nowadays it doesn't even have any meaning anymore

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Did you not play the specific clips I post with sub-bass that bring out clipping in my sample at pretty normal volumes?

I did just now. Thanks for the links.

Track 1 (ジェリーフィッシュ ): No problems here. I can listen to this track at -15dB Foobar setting (IIRC my measurements correctly that should correspond to ~85dBZ, though mine are not as accurate as yours), I increased the volume to 0dB at the end since the highs were gone and.... well I don't hear anything, sorry. Bass is too deep for my poor ears to notice. No clipping though.

Track 2 (el Olivio): The maximum I can listen to this with the flute is at -10dB setting, else the flute gets to loud. Beefed it up to 0dB during the bass section. No clipping. Wonderful music as soon as the woman (?) stops her singing. *chuckles*

Track 3 (Toz Ruhu): Oh my. Listened at 0dB for a minute. Well my ears cried for mercy but my Clear professional was not clipping. Judging by past experience, I do believe that I was close to the clipping point though. -10dB is a more realistic listening level for this track. Loving it though, is that a Ney flute?

Details about my system: Titanium HD soundcard (35Ω output impedance) no further EQ applied.
Interaction with the Clear should result in a rather broad + ~2.7dB bass boost.

So it looks to me like the clipping point of my Clear is beyond the 104dB mark and your own research data seems to indicate that as well.
Apart from the scenarios I mentioned in my last post, it is not sth. I encounter during practical use while listening to actual music.

 

[ezra_s]

How difficult a headphone is to drive depends much more on its sensitivity (SPL for a given voltage) than its impedance or even its efficiency (SPL for a given power). Since, for a given voltage (V), power (P) is inversely proportional to impedance (Z) - P = V*V/Z, for a given efficiency, a lower impedance headphone requires less voltage to produce the same SPL.

However, if an amplifier's output impedance is greater than zero, a low impedance headphone receives less voltage than a high impedance headphone. Compared to the case of an amplifier with an output impedance of zero, if the headphone's impedance is the same as the output impedance, it would receive only half the voltage, while if a headphone's impedance is 10 times greater than the output impedance, it would receive 10/11, i.e. 91%, of the voltage. The lower impedance headphone would thus be 6 dB quieter while the higher impedance headphone would only be 1 dB quieter.

Assuming the Focal and Beyerdynamic have the same efficiency, the Focal would thus require about 3 times less voltage and for the same voltage would produce an SPL about 10 dB higher.

According to manufacturer specifications, the Clear (104 dB @ 1mW @ 1 kHz) is 8 dB more efficient than the DT880 (96 dB @ 1mW) which for a given voltage would mean an 19 dB higher SPL (117 dB @ 1V @ 1 kHz vs. 98 dB @ 1V). However, some measurements suggest that the difference is closer to 13 dB (109 dB @ 1V vs. 96 dB @ 1V).

Thanks for the analysis, If I am reading it well, Clear is much easier to drive thus I find it amazing to listen to it that volume and setting amirm mentions.

 

[ezra_s]

Beyerdynamic DT880-600 = 96 dB/V
Focal Clear = 116 dB/V... so about 4x as loud on the same volume setting.

And I just use -15dBr for the beryerndynamic on high for just a few minutes.