I got a reply from Focal re the USB handshake issue. The guy who would take months at a time to respond left the company (I wonder why), there is no fix but apparently Micromega are aware of it and it is part of an exhaustive list that they are working on. Sounds a lot like passing the buck to me.
I remember years ago having an issue with my Naim superuniti, I honestly could not have had a better customer relations experience, sadly 9 months later I’m in exactly the same position with Focal. I’ll be taking my business elsewhere.
Sorry to sound like a grumpy old fart, I just expect more out of these high end manufacturers considering the cost.
I didn’t read this entire thread so this may be common knowledge however I just learned that to use the Focal Arche with a Roon Nucleus you have to update the firmware. Out of the box, Roon would just continually skip track endlessly. Interestingly this is not published on the Focal site. After a little research I stumbled across the instructions on Moon-Audio’s site. Of additional interest after the update the firmware version remained the same in the info screen of the Arche, but the problem was immediately gone and has worked flawlessly all week. Just putting this out there for anyone not yet aware!
I recently got an Arche to go with my Utopias. Well impressed with the sound- haven’t used my Hugo 2 since I received it. I am currently using it via optical and USB to my Windows PC.
Why USB and optical? Because I get this annoying bug, where the Arche doesn’t get identified as an output source (until I unplug and plug the USB cable back in); annoying…what saves the situation is switching over to optical.
I am getting a Ropieee that will be used as a Roon endpoint controlling the Arche so I won’t need to keep my PC switched on when I just want to use Roon. I also ordered a USB RC receiver that will be programmed for use with a remote.
I’ve been enjoying using the Focal Arche with my Focal Clears for a few weeks now and I like what I hear. However I do have a couple of questions I’m hoping someone with better understanding of how amplifiers work like @Torq can answer:
What is the purpose of the phase selection? Why would I want to change the phase?
If as @starmartyr mentioned here the Amplifier setting for the Clear is only changing the output impedance of the Arche, should there be any other audible change besides the frequency response? My research into amplifier output impedance seems to indicate the answer is no.
Some recordings/masterings are done with “inverted” phase vs. others. In some cases that results in audible changes for better/worse. Having switchable phase on a DAC or amplifier just lets you try it both ways and see which sounds best to you.
In theory it shouldn’t matter, since transducers should displace the same amount of air, in the same time, from the same net implies/signal, regardless whether they are driven in “normal” or “inverted” phase. Reality is that sometimes they don’t.
Two things will change, depending on how big the shift in output impedance is and what the nominal impedance of the headphones are.
First, yes, frequency response can change. I measured some of Focal’s headphones with their specific settings on the Arche vs. not in this post.
Second, the amount of power available to the headphone will change. The lower the output impedance of the amplifier, the more of its available power will go to the headphone - rather than be “lost” inside the amplifier.
If a headphone amplifier, or setting, “A” has 1 ohm output impedance and another otherwise-identically rated amplifier, or setting “B” has a 2 ohm output impedance, the second until will lose twice as much power internally (or deliver half as much to the headphones) vs. the first. This is due to the voltage divider created between the amplifier and the headphone.
The effects become more pronounced with lower impedance headphones.
Doesn’t that imply that lower output impedance on the amplifier is always better if you use EQ to tune the headphones anyway? In other words if the Clear setting is a higher output impedance than the Voltage setting then I’d be better off using the Voltage setting with my Clear headphones and adding a bit of bass boost if I so desire. OTOH if the Clear setting is a lower output impedance then why handicap the Voltage setting when lower output impedance is always desired?
Basically if the amplifier’s output impedance is too low for a given headphone then the headphones will be over-damped and sound lean. I’ve actually heard this when trying different settings in the Arche on some music but I didn’t fully trust my ears.
So in conclusion I think the Clear setting has more output impedance than the Voltage setting and this optimizes not only the bass response but the damping.
In raw, technical, terms (i.e. measured performance), lower output impedance is always preferable. This is not, of course, the same as meeting one’s listening preference.
Over-damping is a thing.
Some headphones are offered in multiple impedances to accommodate just this sort of thing (Beyerdynamic, MySphere) etc.
Over-damping often winds up sounding the same as those servo/feedback corrected 0.00001% THD+N amplifiers (which effectively “damp” a different aspect of overall performance, specifically amplifier under/over shoot, among other things) … i.e. rather lean.
Which way one goes is often dictated as much by philosophy rather than sound (or perception of sound).
I don’t think that’s what the article says at all. In fact, as an amplifier’s output impedance approaches zero, the less impact it then has on altering sound because the damping factor becomes larger.
If a headphone amplifier’s output impedance is close enough to zero to be a significantly small fraction of the load impedance, we can effectively ignore it
So, if we take the A90 amp for example, with an OI of <0.1 ohms, and 2 headphones with 50 and 300 nominal impedance, the damping factors (Load Impedance/Output Impedance = damping factor) for each are 500 and 3000, and according to the article’s handy little chart, should have nearly zero alterations in dB to the sound to either headphone.
Therefore, if an amp with a low output impedance sounds lean, it’s going to sound lean for everything. It’s just how that amp sounds. It is only when an OI is much higher that you will get variations in performance due to small damping ratios.
I’m case you’re thinking all low output impedance amplifiers sound lean, thats not accurate either. The Asgard 3 has a 0.2 ohm OI, and I wouldn’t call it lean. Same with the Cavalli Liquid Spark, JDS Element II, and a plethora of other amplifiers all rated at less than 0.1 OI.
It is less obvious when the impedance mismatch results in significant over-damping. However, for open-back headphones that have been designed to harness a high output impedance to produce the correct amplitude frequency response and time decay profile, an output impedance that is too low may result in an unnaturally lean and dry presentation that lacks sufficient body and sustain.
However you are right in that he is talking about open-back headphones with much higher impedance than the Focal Clear so I no longer think that is what is going on with the Arche.
I’m going to do some testing with Voltage mode + EQ vs Clear mode and see if I hear any other differences.
I see this as opinion rather than math or science. The entire article lays down the foundation for where the higher damping ratio you have the better off you are, as shown by equations and charts, then they turn around and say this.
As I indicated before, not all amplifiers with extremely low OI sound unnaturally lean, or have a dry presentation, or lack sufficient body and sustain, as they put it. Individual amps can be voiced that way, sure, but I don’t see how they come to the conclusion that it is a electrical property of all low output impedance amplifiers. See my point?
I think that article is a mixed bag of contexture, opinion and attempts at science.
I intend to publish a supplementary piece in a few months with real amplitude frequency response and time decay profiles of a number of headphones using an amplifier with adjustable output impedance. It will be interesting to discover how closely the predictions made in this article align with reality.
I suspect you are correct since the follow up article mentioned above as coming “in a few months” never materialized.
I don’t know if they are entirely off base with some of it or not. Let’s say you have an amp that can change its OI from 0.1 to an arbitrary higher value, and let’s also use the article’s example of the Utopias’ impedance curve.
If a higher OI amp is going to deliver power more efficiently to the bass region, and less efficiently to the rest of the freq ranges, then finding some goldilocks OI matched zone between 0 and 50 ohms might accomplish some kind of quasi-EQ. So, let’s say 12 ohms? That’s under the 8:1 recommended damping factor for the 50-ish ohm regions of the Utopia’s mid and treble region, but very much under 8:1 for the bass. Theoretically, would you hear boosted bass and tamed mids and treble? Or would you just hear the same frequency response and less detail and control in the areas where damping is now an issue? I don’t know.
It occurs to me that, from a practical point of view, it’s all rather moot. If different amps do indeed sound different from each other (and if that’s false, there would be no headphone amplifier industry) and OI isn’t something we can normally control on these amps beyond having high/low Z switches, then we are left where we were before: selecting the most synergistic amp we can afford that suits your preference.
Good point. I’ll keep an eye out for the follow up article.
There is no doubt in my mind about the bass enhancement of the Clear mode vs the Voltage mode. I heard it. @Torq measured it. I measured it too. I’m only skeptical of the Voltage mode causing an audible level of over-damping that is fixed by using the Clear mode. Since I EQ my headphones anyway, the bass enhancement alone is not enough to convince me that it is better to use the Clear mode.
I agree that is a valid approach and is what got me into the Arche in the first place. However now that I have one I want to explore it. I want to experience the differences in sound from the various settings for myself. It’s a new toy and I’m learning a lot.
Those are the standard install instructions. That firmware broke the device, it won’t accept 384 kHz since the firmware (will only accept 192 kHz). Focal is unwilling to fix this (or the USB handshake issue), and it is not possible to re-install the original firmware as Focal refuses to make it available for download.
I just got Arche running as a Roon endpoint (connected via USB to a RoPieee Pi 4B)
Roon wouldn’t play any music to it initially so I had to reinstall the latest firmware.
The firmware version number stayed the same but the USB firmware was update. To those that have been having USB handshake issues- try reinstalling the firmware!
It now works great! I will set up a remote control with it tomorrow via FLIRC.
I also look forward to trying out HQ Player with it soon.
Can the Arche properly drive the Audeze LCD4, wonder how it compares to the very well known amps such as Violectirc 590, 281 or 280, as the price of the Arch for 2500 USD is high, so it needs to be an all rounder amp for not only focal headphones
I do not have focal headphones, but I am looking for a one device solution, so it will be used with my LCD4 and hfiiman he1000v1 and those love power, I am so surprised that only few headphones were mentioned with the Arche, barley giving an idea how it performs with the totl headphones from other brands
In Torq’s original reviews, he mentioned this works for many other headphones including lcd-4. I used it briefly with my lcd-4 and noticed no issues driving it compared to my Brooklyn Bridge. I enjoyed it a lot, in fact. But I have a Focal Stellia and mainly use it for this reason.
