The soundstage of the Focal Clear and Audeze LCD-X is not good. Focal headphones are known for having an "intimate presentation", which is a euphemism for we can't do a spacious soundstage. To put it bluntly, the Focal Clear sounded like an ordinary headphone on steroids to me, not the sort of thing a normal person would expect at $1500 (...perhaps incorrectly assuming I'm a normal person). People tend to describe the LCD-X as having some soundstage but it's only notable in that on its own it doesn't sound cluttered (it can sound that way versus the HD800(S), which on the flipside sounds dry with seriously inferior vocals by comparison, nice separation though). Frankly, in terms of soundstage I'm not entirely certain there is any significant difference between the LCD-X and the HD650. Sonarworks EQ acted as a decrappifier for the LCD-X. If you're going to argue that EQ minimizes the differences between headphones then you might as well start arguing that the market shouldn't exist due to EQ. I've heard what happens when you more properly power a headphone even though you may be able to get the volume more than high enough otherwise. I had a Jotunheim paired with an HD800S and unbalanced the result was poor, there for instance being a cavity in the "presentation"/soundstage. It should be the sort of thing where people would say there's a wide soundstage but poor positioning and imaging. Balanced made a big difference for the HD800S. The HD650 is a very different headphone due to its sensitivity, and it doesn't have the soundstage the HD800S makes its name on. Anyway, if the Solaris is between the LCD-X and Focal Clear in terms of soundstage too that's ordinary but at least iems deserve some forgiveness for practicality. I really don't understand prices in this niche higher-end headphone market for the return and I hope it's not a simple case of producers exploiting an unwitting group of people with disposable income. Then again I think Focal sell speakers for much more money.
I'll probably end up buying the Solaris in a few weeks when I have the money and hear what happens. Worst case scenario I resell them here or return them, best case scenario it's a clear, detailed, impactful in proper moderation sound that is portable with sufficient sonic space and good positioning for refined enjoyment. I am expecting more in terms of definition than the HD650. Initially I won't have a dap and don't know if I'll be using the Magni to plug them so I might just go through my computer and ipod, hopefully nothing awful happens with output impedance.
I never associated the 650 with darkness or warmth, which are usually associated with non-X Audeze headphones and those things are icky to me. I think the 650 is solid all-around, terrific value for the money tied to the awful value of many/most more expensive headphones, but there is an improvement in everything to be had, unfortunately by combining traits of different headphones rather than having those traits in one headphone worth the money. Anyway, the "tonality" I guess it is of the Clear was fine from what I recall, the general strength of the sound is what got me, in addition to the "intimate presentation". The Focal sound is sort of piercing, for me I still don't enjoy listening at a low volume and when you turn up the volume it's kind of unbearable. Ironically, take the Clear, a headphone that people describe as "dynamic" and an exceptional fit for livelier music like "edm" (much of which I think is inane trash to be placed in a much different pile from good techno/trance/dance music) I found to be the worst fit I heard. That all-across punch of the sound prevented me from listening. I figured the Clear would be popular with people who listen to tamer music that the headphones make livelier, like jazz and vocal bar music. From what I've seen the Solaris isn't described the same way. The Atlas seems more like it but the focus tends to be on the bass, which could well be something I find excessive for all I know.
Sennheiser makes some really comfortable headphones by the way. I can't say that I have any problems wearing theirs for a long time. Audeze is at the other extreme, I can't blame you if you had one of theirs. I thought the Clear was ok, not necessarily a snug fit but not heavy. Maybe you get hot or moist spots eventually.
PS
Here's perhaps an interesting analogy for this little higher end ear-focused audio market or industry. Anyone else not an art person? Like you're genuinely confused by the art and people who really like it, especially those who'll pay millions to own something you just don't find awfully good. I was at the art museum in DC yesterday and finally saw the anti-foil to "great art", which was there for contrast too. Dutch oil painting from the 17th and 18th century. Not all of them were great but there were at least three paintings there that you can start throwing the word masterful over. I virtually put my nose on one painting and was told to step back, a foot away I couldn't make out some of the significant detail. The realism and the execution not to smear, the relatively crowded scenes depicted (people in front of houses with animals in a populated setting), to some extent even the colors were generally more vivid, it was clear those people had the time and developed the skill, and had the values for some truly exceptional art work. Their painting reminded me of my still overpriced $2k 4k IPS monitor while the rest of the stuff at the museum (and the Mona Lisa and plenty of other crap you'd find strewn across Europe and in private collections) was like my performance 1920x1080 TN monitor. If I had the money I'd actually buy some of their paintings. There is one very easy way to tell a good Dutch oil painting from that period apart from everything else and worse Dutch oil paintings from that period- the other stuff looks smeared. That, and the good Dutch oil paintings have expressive dogs the size of fingernails. Clearly those people took art to a more proper level for the praise. The only detraction I can think of is that the paintings become too realistic and lack some of the abstraction that can be deemed evocative.
Expensive headphones are kind of like great artwork. Sadly a lot of people can't help themselves but to fling praise at stuff that's hard to understand, to present it intimately/put it mildly. But true higher achievement should be possible.
The thing about the Utopia is crispness, and the treble might also be even excessively sparkly. If you thought that it has a smaller soundstage than the Solaris that's a relief.
Another excellent reason why I want more science on the consumer side of the Hi-Fi audio field. If we had an objective measurement of soundstage others wouldn't have to rely on our subjective perceptions and interpretations. Or maybe it's like @rutter was saying and the bias is manipulated: people praise good art because they're told it's good by "influencers" (a much more appropriate title than "reviewers"), not because they understand it.
