Realistically I donāt even know what we could fight about with it being subjective.
I think the best we can do is try to be more objective though, and the only way to do that i is to probably talk about charts which is pretty boring. I have a feeling that we may be using the same terms to describe different things.
All that being said, if I were to put a final word in regarding all this itās that:
I have had two of the same headphone from Focal sound different before so thereās even one more level to it.
And finally I definitely would recommend someone looking to get one of these three (Elex, Clear, and Clear MG) to AB and C em because they are all great, and all very much the same approach but have pretty different sound signatures.
As far as the Verite goes, I owned that one for a year and it was definitely amazing WITH a pad swap to ZMFs own BE2 pad designed for the Verite. Other pads were good, but the BE2 pad made the headphones what they were designed to be imo. But thatās unrelated to the Focal thing. Just saying!
At the end of the day, we donāt all hear the same or prefer the same things out of a headphone.
I just wanted to politely disagree. No offense meant at all. Itās strange to read descriptions that are completely opposite of what my first hand experiences are, many other owners in this thread and reviewers have already stated and agreed on.
I was also strange when people constantly said the Clear (original) had more soundstage than the Elex when I had the exact opposite experience ABing those as well. I remember when Zeos had the Elex Utopia and Clear he described the clear as narrow staged and the Elex as a room-like experience in comparison. I always agreed with that but it seemed like nobody else in the forums did.
Then thereās the MG which Zeos seems to love and although I can really appreciate them I donāt experience the staging the way he described at all, and I find the FR to be a bit fatiguing.
So objectively I have no idea whatās going on here. You can agree with one person one moment and disagree with them the next.
As far as the MG goes, I do know that the FR charts reflect a slight decrease in ālowerā treble and a slight increase in the upper top end, which I definitely hear. I also hear better bass out of the MG no doubt, but something in the upper bass-lower mids seem a bit off to me.
At the end of the day I think someone really talented in EQ could make the Focal Clear, Elex, and Clear MG extremely hard to tell apart in a blind test.
So thatās why it comes down to economics for me. These are all great. Get what you can reasonably afford.
Just the fact that size and shape of the ear canal vary among individuals might and probably makes differences. Some may find e.g. soundstage wider on Elex and some might find it narrower, differences or undefined measurement or āwideā and ānarrowā are different anyways.
Plus the day to day activities or sound environment might change how people hear in different days or situations. āhearing resetā in quiet environment would be good to do before any testing.
Still much easier with speaker since measurementās can be made. Then discuss (argue) how much would be a wide sound stage. 2ft, 5ft, 8ft, 14ft etc, with valid test track.
Just to ruin someones day on the conversation.
lol! My Elex was very bright/shouty and bass light and quite fatiguing for me. Not dark at all. Maybe Iām not as sensitive to much higher treble frequencies as you are.
It is very interesting how so many different people hear and describe the same product.
This is leading me to believe that the Clear MG is very transparent when it comes to its source. I can already attest to it sounding considerably different on two different stacks I have. Iāll do more testing and see what I find.
Iām primarily listening to the Clear MG on the Jot 2 + Bifrost2 stack where it does not sound bright to me. I never listened to the Elex on that stack. I listened to the Elex on the SMSL SU-8 & 9 and AAA THX 789. I briefly listened to the Clear MG with the SU-9 and the 789 and remembering it sounding considerably brighter (which I did not prefer). I havenāt listened to it on anything other than these two sources yet.
Valentine Luke Youāre listening on a tube amp right?
I think a part of the issue is terminology as well.
For instance shouty is a great example. Shouty is typically a term used to describe elevated midrange (human vocal range) this the name shouty.
So a Dt1990 wouldnāt be shouty even if it might be fatiguing.
Letās also talk about dark - dark could mean one of two things so Iām gonna clarify what I mean.
The Elex doesnāt have huge bass. It could use a bit of a boost imo and thatās one of the places where the MG is hitting a home run
What the Elex does have thatās dark is less upper treble and more upper mids.
I FINALLY understood the comparison to the Sennheiser 600 series with this take on ādarkā
This is what people tend to refer to as veiled.
At the end of the day I think my preference for the Elex comes from what itās doing in the fr area where Bass meets mids.
If the Elex had the treble of the Clears (removing said veil) while maintaining what it does in the lower mids and a bit of a bass boost then it would really be the best for me,
That being said I stick to my opinion that if I had the money I would actually own the MG AND the Elex for the sake of variety and to listen to different stuff, and that itās so strange to me how these headphones can have such a similar sound yet be so different.
Where all Focal headphones are very similar in my opinion is Timbre. Some say itās āmetallicā and that ZMF has the opposite approach to that but I donāt think EITHER are metallic.
I listen to everything I have on the Kann Alpha now which is the only thing I use as a source. This could DEFINITELY make a difference so Iām glad you asked. It could very well be that the MG would sound better (to me) on a different source, but for my preferences that doesnāt matter because the Kann Alpha is the most important part of my set up and is the one thing Iām not willing to change so I need something to particularly match it - whatever that headphone is.
I should add that I think this is a brighter source. Itās very much the opposite of āveiledā in my opinion but not quite as much as the Chord stuff.
Great point to resurface luige06. ZMFās strength on many of their headphones are their outstanding timbre. Especially when compared to FOCAL aluminum/magnesium drivers. For me, the OG Clear, Elex and Elegia (only FOCALS Iāve owned) all had this unnatural timbre characteristic to them. The Clear MG is the first FOCAL headphone that does not have that timbre characteristic which is the largest single reason I much prefer it to all the other FOCAL headphones.
This has been great conversation and I have a feeling weāre getting to the source of the issue. Itās all about your source.
Iām glad this turned out to be constructive and not heated. Iām very intrigued by all of this. Itās probably a combination of everything. Different definition of terms, amps, dacs, sources, cables, ears, muisic. It all makes a difference.
Unfortunately, it makes it impossible to accurately describe these headphones for anyone thinking about purchasing one. I guess with the Clear MG, itās imparitive to know what people will be driving them with to help them determine what theyāll sound like once in-hand.
Given it was subtle, but it did exist. Going back and forth from my Elex to the 6XX, it was obvious how bad the timbre was on the Elex which pissed me off because I enjoyed so many other aspects of the Elex. I think whenever I listened to the Elex, OG Clear and Elegia, I focused on it and it ruined my listening experience.
At the time, listening to the Aeolusā tonality, it was so different and much more natural and realistic. I guess I probably was listening to a headphone at the time that showcased the FOCAL aluminum/magnesium drivers shortcoming.
For me, the FOCAL Clear MG without those timbre issues is nearing-in on perfection for me personally.
I really love some of the Chord offerings, interestingly their lower tiered products. I own a Mojo that I use as my primary DAC, and Iāve listened to the HugoTT2 in my home for over a week.
They have the best transient/soundstage/imaging of any DACs that Iāve tried. The higher up you move in the lineup, the more āreference neutralā they become. The TT2 on its own lacked dynamics for me, but the entry-level Mojo has more dynamic punch (which sounds more natural to me), but is less resolving. Itās a trade-off, but it leads me to believe that the Qutest would be the sweet spot for me (a planned future upgrade).
Another interesting observation Iāve made with Chord DACs is that they appear to smooth over high frequencies just a touch. So they are relatively āneutralā, but thereās some smoothing going on that makes them relatively fatigue-free to my ears. My guess is that the M-Scaler brings about greater details and a crisper sound/image. Just a suspicion.
The Clear MG, and most Focal are extremely sensitive/transparent to source. Synergy is really important when pairing Focal headphones.
Yeah I agree that this was a good conversation and itās why these forums are so valuable!
Itās one thing to watch a review. Itās another thing to see a bunch of people have a discussion and work out where differences in perception may be coming from.
I know I lurk on here a lot for that exact reason. Gives me an idea if a pair of headphones needs to end up getting bought to try and then potentially keep return or sell.
Then discuss (argue) how much would be a wide sound stage. 2ft, 5ft, 8ft, 14ft etc, with valid test track.