[abirdie4me]

As a regular customer for my local shop, at my asking, I was offered 20% off on the Utopia and 15% off on the Clear. I expect that I could have gotten 20% off on the Clear also, but didn't ask for a further discount beyond 15% because my shop was so accommodating in letting me borrow the Utopia and Clear multiple times, including both at the same time. Plus, I recognize that physical stores have significant overhead expenses, so some of the markup is needed to cover overhead and isn't really 'profit'.

You are so lucky to have a local shop! I’m in North Texas, home to 8 million people....and yet we have nobody that carries Focal, and only 1 shop I know of (Audio Concepts) that carries anything decent.

 

[nlwouter]

Ok, i'm not trying to start a cable disscusions here, i want to know from people who believe in cables what there experience is with cables on the Focal Clear.
Í've read some positive reviews of the Draug v3, but maybe there are some other recommendations or more information on people that compared the Draug or other cables.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Phronesis]

For me, the Clear isn't generally a headphone for cranking it up, but this track made me really want to crank it up: "Nether" by Umphrey's McGee, from the album "it's you." At high volume, sounds smooth, clear, and powerful, without taking my head off. Interesting band too, like many bands I've heard blended into one band.

 

[makne]

You are so lucky to have a local shop! I’m in North Texas, home to 8 million people....and yet we have nobody that carries Focal, and only 1 shop I know of (Audio Concepts) that carries anything decent.

my old Elear that I bought second hand was from a shop called THXStereo in Texas. Idk where in Texas though.

 

[makne]

Energetic is such a crapty term for describing sound, people use it so differently. In the Clear’s case, I can’t see it being anything else than their dynamic impact and fast transients being described like that. It’s not bright, V-shaped or anything else that might be described as energetic (afaik it is pretty much perfectly balanced according to the Harman curve), but it is hella dynamic.

To me, the Clear is superior to the LCD-3 having just as good resolve (to my ears) while also having a more balanced FR and tighter sound with faster transients. I do recognize the LCD-3 as a good option for a warmer, fuller sound with deeper audeze-signature bass, but objectively I would think the Clear places above the LCD-3 and it also suits my preferences more. One interesting thing to note is that I actually perceive the lcd-3 as more sibilant than the Clear, I’m guessing it’s my ears picking up on the LCD-3’s more uneven treble response.

Oh, and another thing to note: What sounds like «end-game» to you now, might not be in a few years time. I’ve found that my preferences for tonality has changed from pretty warm (hd650-ish) to neutral (relative to harman, like the Clear) in just a few years. I’ve also grown to value dynamics over a big soundstage, much thanks to the Focal line-up

 

[Luke Thomas]

Energetic is such a crapty term for describing sound, people use it so differently. In the Clear’s case, I can’t see it being anything else than their dynamic impact and fast transients being described like that. It’s not bright, V-shaped or anything else that might be described as energetic (afaik it is pretty much perfectly balanced according to the Harman curve), but it is hella dynamic.

To me, the Clear is superior to the LCD-3 having just as good resolve (to my ears) while also having a more balanced FR and tighter sound with faster transients. I do recognize the LCD-3 as a good option for a warmer, fuller sound with deeper audeze-signature bass, but objectively I would think the Clear places above the LCD-3 and it also suits my preferences more. One interesting thing to note is that I actually perceive the lcd-3 as more sibilant than the Clear, I’m guessing it’s my ears picking up on the LCD-3’s more uneven treble response.

Oh, and another thing to note: What sounds like «end-game» to you now, might not be in a few years time. I’ve found that my preferences for tonality has changed from pretty warm (hd650-ish) to neutral (relative to harman, like the Clear) in just a few years. I’ve also grown to value dynamics over a big soundstage, much thanks to the Focal line-up

mosty agree. . if you had to sum up in 3 words what energetic pertaining to headphones means, it would be..( Lack of bass) My clears are usually quite good. From time to time i do experience lack of bass.

 

[Phronesis]

Energetic is such a crapty term for describing sound, people use it so differently. In the Clear’s case, I can’t see it being anything else than their dynamic impact and fast transients being described like that. It’s not bright, V-shaped or anything else that might be described as energetic (afaik it is pretty much perfectly balanced according to the Harman curve), but it is hella dynamic.

To me, the Clear is superior to the LCD-3 having just as good resolve (to my ears) while also having a more balanced FR and tighter sound with faster transients. I do recognize the LCD-3 as a good option for a warmer, fuller sound with deeper audeze-signature bass, but objectively I would think the Clear places above the LCD-3 and it also suits my preferences more. One interesting thing to note is that I actually perceive the lcd-3 as more sibilant than the Clear, I’m guessing it’s my ears picking up on the LCD-3’s more uneven treble response.

Oh, and another thing to note: What sounds like «end-game» to you now, might not be in a few years time. I’ve found that my preferences for tonality has changed from pretty warm (hd650-ish) to neutral (relative to harman, like the Clear) in just a few years. I’ve also grown to value dynamics over a big soundstage, much thanks to the Focal line-up

Our terms to describe sound are usually going to be somewhat ambiguous and vague, unless we go through some rigorous process to define and standardize them and make them more objective. I really doubt that's going to happen. To me, 'dynamic impact', 'dynamic', and 'fast transients' isn't really any clearer than 'energetic'.

To my ears, I too find that the Clear has more resolve, tonal balance (neutrality), tightness, and clarity of transients than the LCD-3. But it wouldn't objectively place the Clear over the LCD-3, since I think it's fundamentally subjective. I don't find either the Clear or LCD-3 to be sibilant - or at least I haven't noticed it.

Agreed that end game is kind of elusive. We as perceivers and music listeners change over time, and it can be hard to imagine that anything could sound better than what we have … until we hear something that sounds better.

 

[TSAVJason]

my old Elear that I bought second hand was from a shop called THXStereo in Texas. Idk where in Texas though.

It doesn’t matter where they are if your looking for Focal headphones. They are not an authorized dealer any longer

 

[gLer]

but objectively I would think the Clear places above the LCD-3 and it also suits my preferences more.

I think you mean ‘subjectively’ the Clear places above the LCD-3 because it suits your preferences more. Objectively I think they’re different enough from each other that it’s pointless to try rank them. Some prefer a more neutral tuning while others prefer warmth. Some want deeper, fuller bass, and some don’t. Rolled treble is a plus for some, and a dealbreaker for others. And so it goes.

One interesting thing to note is that I actually perceive the lcd-3 as more sibilant than the Clear, I’m guessing it’s my ears picking up on the LCD-3’s more uneven treble response.

Thats the first time I’ve seen the word ‘sibilant’ in the same sentence as ‘LCD-3’. Even on the most poorly mastered sibilant recordings I’ve never come anywhere near sibilant with my LCD-3 (2016F). Then again I make sure not to drive it with an overly bright or even bright of neutral source, because then you’re just asking for trouble. That creamy, honey tone of the LCD-3 that washes over you like warm port wine on a cold day, that’s the magic right there. Harmon shmardon.

 

[Paulo Abreu]

Agreed that end game is kind of elusive

End of Game is a “Laplacian” view of the state of the art. But ... it will take some time until someone can convince me I need an upgrade on Clear!!!

 

[TSAVAlan]

The Source AV is running our biggest Focal Elear/Clear sale yet this Saturday!

Details here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-source-av-saturday-specials.878251/page-2#post-14331951

 

[makne]

I think you mean ‘subjectively’ the Clear places above the LCD-3 because it suits your preferences more. Objectively I think they’re different enough from each other that it’s pointless to try rank them. Some prefer a more neutral tuning while others prefer warmth. Some want deeper, fuller bass, and some don’t. Rolled treble is a plus for some, and a dealbreaker for others. And so it goes.

Thats the first time I’ve seen the word ‘sibilant’ in the same sentence as ‘LCD-3’. Even on the most poorly mastered sibilant recordings I’ve never come anywhere near sibilant with my LCD-3 (2016F). Then again I make sure not to drive it with an overly bright or even bright of neutral source, because then you’re just asking for trouble. That creamy, honey tone of the LCD-3 that washes over you like warm port wine on a cold day, that’s the magic right there. Harmon shmardon.

No, I mean objectively. An objectively good headphone would be measured by a neutral FR (according to Harman or other target curve), good transient response etc, points where the Clear scores very well. It’s an objectively good headphone.
The LCD-3 deviates more from these points that should be considered «objectively good», it might sound better and more pleasing to you subjectively though. Obviously there’s nothing wrong with that, and I do enjoy the LCD’s, it’s just a coincidence that my preferences line up more with «neutrality».

And when I say the lcd-3 is MORE sibilant than the Clear, I don’t mean that I find sibilance as a problem with the lcd-3. There are some peaks in the treble that becomes more apparent to my ears because of the more lush midrange, but it’s definitely not anywhere near Beyer or HD800 territory.

 

[LCMusicLover]

No, I mean objectively. An objectively good headphone would be measured by a neutral FR (according to Harman or other target curve), good transient response etc, points where the Clear scores very well. It’s an objectively good headphone.
The LCD-3 deviates more from these points that should be considered «objectively good»...

This seems like a pretty controversial statement. I happen to prefer a neutral/balanced signature as well, but I don’t believe that neutrality should be used as a yardstick for measuring the quality of audio equipment — I realize that we’re getting into Robert Pirsig territory here, To me that feels like saying that blue is the best color.

JMHO of course

 

[gLer]

This seems like a pretty controversial statement. I happen to prefer a neutral/balanced signature as well, but I don’t believe that neutrality should be used as a yardstick for measuring the quality of audio equipment — I realize that we’re getting into Robert Pirsig territory here, To me that feels like saying that blue is the best color.

JMHO of course

This is exactly the point I was trying to make, except ^^ makes it so much better than me. Why is it that the closer to neutral, the “better” the headphone is measured (and often reviewed)?

Here’s a test - take a slightly warm of neutral/bright of neutral (whichever your preference) headphone and pass it through Sonarworks to “flatten” the FR as close to studio neutral as possible. If you think it improves the sound, great, that’s your thing. But every time I’ve tried it, it broke what made that particular headphone special or different.

Case in point, someone here said to try the Elear with Sonarworks and you’ll get an almost indistinsuishable sound to the Clear. I tried it, back and forth, with different tracks, then switched it off and uninstalled Sonarworks.

Maybe this is the point, that neutrality is a target for studio professionals and is therefore considered to be the baseline for how music is mixed. Except who’s to say that’s how ‘most’ people like to hear their music?

So without getting too OT, whenever I see a headphone lauded for its neutrality, it usually means I’ll need to tweak it to my taste, or look elsewhere.

 

[gLer]

And when I say the lcd-3 is MORE sibilant than the Clear, I don’t mean that I find sibilance as a problem with the lcd-3. There are some peaks in the treble that becomes more apparent to my ears because of the more lush midrange, but it’s definitely not anywhere near Beyer or HD800 territory.

Fair enough, although unlike you I don’t hear any treble issues with my LCD-3. It’s rolled off just before the point of brightness, which too many headphones in my opinion go beyond to ‘artificially’ add detail. Then again I’m quite treble sensitive, so don’t mind an upper mid/lower treble dip that takes the edge off higher register female vocals and instruments - which in my case causes ringing and spoils the music. I do like the upper treble spike in the Elear, however, that adds some air and makes it sound much more open, even more so than the LCD-3.