Sorry man, not following how that impacts my comment. Maybe Im missing something obvious.
2 Likes
I’m just curious why you didn’t just reply to the OP rather than to my comment regarding another post.
1 Like
What? This is a public forum and you engaged in the conversation so I thought you had something meaningful to add. Besides, your comment was simply the one preceding mine that addressed the topic I wished to comment on and you also placed emphasis on a statement I wished to address.
2 Likes
This is an interesting example. The Utopia is indeed an extremely quick and detailed headphone that has excellent detail retrieval. However, in my opinion Focal has also elevated the treble to enhance the perception of detail. For me (and a few others that I’ve spoken to) this makes the Utopia a very fatiguing headphone.
Had Focal not elevated the treble I would have really liked the Utopia, but that elevation compounded by its speed just enhances the ringing of harmonics that I find extremely fatiguing.
So I do believe that often times “ Perceived technicalities often follow from relatively elevated treble.” It’s not always the case, but it often is (preferences always being a factor as well).
This is just being passive-aggressive.
1 Like
No it isnt. Its direct and to the point regarding what you asked me. I presented 3 direct statements if I recall. Limited passivity, statement of facts, not aggressive.
So this is the thing that interests me, the use of the term and what it actually means or doesnt mean.
The frequency response is what it is. Different sounds occur at different frequencies. You hear what is there are that range, how each can presents that is different for every one.
Enhanced perception of detail means what though? Detail is detail. This term and such things as false detail or frequency related detail, isnt that just unwarranted audiophile esotericism? If there is a mid range bump or bass emphasis is there talk of detail being enhanced in that region? Not really. So its an inconsistent term at best IMO.
I understand why the term may be used as treble/higher pitch sounds more easily grab your attention, I just dont agree that it is an “artificial” enhancement as it suggests that somehow we are trying to be fooled or tricked into hearing something that isnt really there. You cant hear what isnt there. Its not that much of a stretch for me to make the argument then that simply increasing the volume on your source is an artificial enhancement of detail.
Perhaps. but that doesnt add anything to this discussion or address my point. More to follow below:
Some people do find the Utopia fatiguing, fair enough. Im opposite in that I find bloomy/boomy/bassy and slow potentially fatiguing, (my brain tries to fill in all the blanks ) to each his own. However, personal preference as to what type of tonality you prefer doesnt equate to any type of artificially created detail. Its just a tonality sensitivity.
The csd plots I have seen dont show much in the way of ringing with the utopia. So hard to comment there. The only ridge I recall was around 5k and its short lived and tends to not be problematic at that area of the FR. There may be differing csd plots that refute this so I’m open to being presented those.
Essentially, I just take issue with equating a “treble sensitivity” to some kind of audio wizardry and that we are somehow being fooled. I do think I understand what you are trying to say, just curious about the precision of the terms used, which we can all be guilty of at times. Trying to gain an understanding of how people interpret things is a big issue in audiophile land.
Im just curious about the use of term as I think it overcomplicates the hobby. Thats the gist of my thoughts on it.
4 Likes
I believe you two have different tastes and basis.
No reason to discuss.
It’s not a game to who’s right, just two different points of view.
From a psychoacoustic point of view, which is what I know and study, an elevation of treble frequency makes your brain perceive an increment in definition of sound. Obviously there isn’t but you brain perceives it.
@perogie and @ValentineLuke please stop the discussion there before it gets unpleasant.
Thank you.
6 Likes
Agreed, thank you.
(20 characters)
3 Likes
Yes there is and why not? The use of audio terms within a visual medium is very much germane to this hobby. Why would you want to shut that down? It could be moved to another thread but other than that I see no issue.
Ok, so let’s continue then. That is a more precise definition, no pun intended, and is more helpful. This is the discussion I am interested in. That you study and know this is helpful, do you have source material? Im interested in this. How is this determined? I would like to know if Im off base but want evidence of it or at least understand where issues in the use of the term lies.
Its very possible I am missing something here. I can round about see why this statement is made but I still think its loosie goosie. I think my issue is that the term or concept is over applied and thus becomes either meaningless or is given too much meaning. I think that kind of stuff is better to have locked down.
I also understand that maybe there is just a nebulousness to this that will never be fully sorted.
4 Likes
I’m sorry but I see no reason to discuss about things like these.
I spend my life working in Covid support hospitals and driving ambulances.
To my eyes these are things to worry about, not subjective options on an headphone.
If you like to discuss with everyone who doesn’t share your opinions it’s ok, that’s your life.
But this is not our home.
We’re kindly guested by headphones.com and I believe being kind and polite with other members is the minimum requisite for being there.
I’m sorry but I’ll not continue the discourse.
I only asked for kindness and politeness and I believe adults can reach it with no efforts.
Your choices, your life.
Be well and take care.
3 Likes
[Moderator: Please move to a science of hearing thread]
This topic has been researched for many decades. Search for “psychoacoustics” and “auditory perception.” The big gap I’m seeing in most end-user audiophile discussions pertains to (1) the super clean data shown in FR charts and the content of data websites, versus (2) inherently fuzzy human individual differences. There is a rigorous science of perception, but it is based on the notion of (1) predictable biology across all people, in context of (2) random individual differences per genetics, nutrition, and environmental exposure.
Reaching a uniform, non-loosie-goosie explanation requires human norming. With some domains (e.g. low-level or simple visual perception) this can involve very few people because all human biology is rather predictable. In other more complex domains it can require dozens, hundreds, or more people in the tests. Audio data may stabilize with 20-30 people, or not. The Harman Curves head down this path, but not to the extent required to purge all loosie goosie language.
A rigorous perception-science improvement to the language of audiophiles is possible, and I’ve back-burnered my strategy write-up for several months. In essence, you must norm each person’s potential to hear relative to a standard equipment setup (e.g., perhaps Utopia + RME ADI2 fs + SPL Phonitor). Following this, humans evaluate new/other setups for their end-perceptions of: (1) frequencies, (2), note speed, (3), volume, (4) linearity across the frequency range, (5) simultaneous note perception, etc., etc., etc., etc.
It can be done. Bits and pieces have been done in universities, and other research is deeply proprietary (e.g., internal to Bose, Sony, etc.).
I need to get myself in gear and finish.
8 Likes
Yes, I think this is the issue I have as I can see a myriad of background problems with how this term is used, even if the perception is correct, if you know what I mean. The lack of rigour is what I am trying to address. It seems like it is a more generalized issue that still needs some fine tuning.
I will google some more but I dont think the answers I am looking for are there yet, I look forward to anything you produce.
4 Likes
As a fellow front line health care worker dealing with Covid everyday, who would have never thought to use it as a weapon to stifle discourse, I thank you for your service, Covid sucks.
The folks who have reached out to me have advised me to not reply further to this absurd post. Using the ignore function now and moving on.
5 Likes
Looks like it took care of itself… thank you for self regulating everyone! Going to leave up and in place for posterity … unless directed otherwise…
Also, please refrain from throwing barbs at others! This isn’t aimed at any one person, but I saw comments from multiple parties that could have been “worded” better… or been less “dismissive”
Misinformation is just as bad as “bad” information we are all learning here, none are infallible.
Also not digging on “pokes” some members that have elevated status on the forum, it is a privilege not a right, to be given these titles, please respect them appropriately, as they can be removed!
We are aiming for a fair and safe place for people to gather and discuss their gear and interest in gear. This is not the place for dismissal of others view points because they don’t match your own. Feel free to engage in respectful ways, it is a two way street and the response one gives can dictate further responses perception, so once again think before you type on how, what you are trying to say, can be perceived… and don’t feed the trolls… or trolls in sheep’s clothing…
13 Likes
My wife and I have a 5 month old baby at the house so I don’t spend as much time with the MG’s as I’d like (worth it though 
). I’ve been stuck using a Dragonfly Cobalt at work for the most part. I’ve gotten more accustomed to the sound and I’m still beyond impressed with the build quality, imaging, and detail retrieval, but I know I can do slightly better with a dedicated DAC/Amp for my desk at work. I do not know what if any color the Cobalt adds to the sound signature of the Clears, but would would be a good option under $600 to make these shine as much as possible? Could be a stack or a standalone. If anything I wouldn’t mind a little less warmth, but I truly love these as they are. From what I’m hearing and reading, I could use a linear amplifier to make these ever so slightly more neutral, still unsure whether to go SE or Balanced.
It’s hard for me to find a song that sounds bad to me on these. Every instrument stands out in the best way, and I don’t really have any audiophile headphones to compare these too (Fostex TH-X00 Mahogany is my most expensive, Sony XM4s are what I use for travel) but Clears win by a landslide. I was looking into getting 650s before I ended up going all-in on the Clear MGs. Jazz has been my favorite genre to listen to on these by far and I can’t wait to get back to it.
8 Likes
My MGs arrived yesterday and they’ve been glued to my ears since. 
Thanks again to everyone on this thread who helped me with my decision!
I’m not at all knowledgeable, but I do want to try sharing my impressions a bit in case it may help others like me when I first started doing research on the new Clears:
First, the detail and instrument separation are amazing…even with busy orchestral pieces or EDM tracks.
The punch and slam are well-implemented: present but not overbearing.
The highs are great for me, too. Nothing too fatiguing. Quite smooth.
I think where I enjoy it the most is in the mids. Vocals just shine and the soundstage makes me feel like I’m on stage with the singer.
Like I mentioned earlier, I’m pretty new to this whole thing, but I hope I was able to share my impressions well enough.
Beyond technicalities (which I’m still trying to learn), my goal has always been finding headphones that “pull me into the music” and make the songs “come alive”. These do a great job of that across all sorts of genres. I was surprised at how often I closed my eyes and became immersed in the songs, even if I’ve heard them many times before. Totally subjective, I know; but that’s just my personal objective when I listen to gear. So, yeah, I like the Clear MGs a lot! They’re a very enjoyable listen and I’m very happy!
11 Likes
That’s all that matters. I’m glad you’re enjoying them as well.
Cheers!
2 Likes
It was the Clear Pro OG. You know, I may not have adequately reduced overall gain, so maybe it was clipping? The meters were not showing any clipping and I think there was headroom but I may not have been super meticulous about it. Like I said, it just felt to me that boosting a low shelf didn’t quite have the same slam/impact feel of a headphone that naturally had that sort of response. Even without the clipping.
I have to say, I had no idea the Arche was discontinued. Is it due to AKM chip shortages from the factory fire in Japan earlier this year? Or is it just not selling well?
I was half-convincing myself to get it just for the “this was built for these headphones” factor. I am considering Utopias to complement my Stellias (or Clear MG’s, haven’t decided, but something open is necessary because I really don’t enjoy close backed for longer than absolutely necessary). All this talk of high output impedance fixing the bass got me really interested… but if I understand you correctly, the “Clear” setting on the Arche has only a subtle bass boost, if anything, maybe not even perceptible?
I did read the whathifi review and re-read it just now but couldn’t find where you get that the low frequencies measured just a hair higher with the high output impedance mode? I couldn’t find that in the text or in any of the graphs.
But it sounds like even if it did do so, it wouldn’t be by enough to address the chief shortcoming to the Utopia. (I’m not even happy with the Clear OG’s bass, and the Utopia is supposedly worse)
It’s a shame, though. Maybe I should just get the Clear MG and be done with it… and use the Stellias when the bass is really important and I’m mixing some low end, but the Clear MG’s otherwise. Tough decisions…
I guess I’ll stick with the THX 789. I also bought a THX Onyx for mobile/not-in-the-studio-use, so I feel like I can accustom myself to “the THX amp sound” and train my ears on it, and not have to constantly switch between different sounding environments. Of course the THX Onyx has an ESS 9281Pro and my MOTU 624 has an ESS 9016, but at least it’s the same company and the amps are similar architecture.
1 Like
See the Arche discussions on this site. There were numerous firmware issues. Numerous. I think Focal got sick of the development and support costs.
THX’s hard, defined edges are great for production, comparisons, and analysis. They are not great for (me) avoiding fatigue or enjoying a relaxed listening session. They are not great if they cause tinnitus. If you enjoy its delivery, that’s wonderful.
2 Likes
Subtle but apparent is how I’d describe it if I’m comparing by switching the Arche between Voltage and Clear modes while music is playing. If I’m just listening to another amp, say, an hour later I would not miss it. Of course it will depend on whether the music you are listening to goes that low in the first place.
See the Focal Arche topic on this forum. Torq does a comprehensive review and while he didn’t know the Arche was changing the output impedance, he did notice the differences in sound among the various modes.
From Torq’s review:
