[ponyhead]

I've had the pleasure of hearing the Clear in a store recently. To my ears, Focal seems to have put some research into its tuning. I wonder, could the Clear's FR curve be the industry standard target of the future, replacing the Harman target?

 

[racebit]

I've had the pleasure of hearing the Clear in a store recently. To my ears, Focal seems to have put some research into its tuning. I wonder, could the Clear's FR curve be the industry standard target of the future, replacing the Harman target?

Of course not, sub bass is absent.

 

[Mani ATH 87]

Of course not, sub bass is absent.

Sub bass is definitely not absent on the Clear.

 

[CreditingKarma]

Of course not, sub bass is absent.

I don't agree that it is absent. It may not be a huge amount of sub bass but it is there and pretty good. I would not put it anywhere near the level of the AB-1266 TC but they are on another level compared to everything else.

 

[koover]

I don't agree that it is absent. It may not be a huge amount of sub bass but it is there and pretty good. I would not put it anywhere near the level of the AB-1266 TC but they are on another level compared to everything else.

Well I’m not sure about them being better then “everything else”. The ZMF Eikon and Fostex TH-900 come to mind right off the top of my head for excellent, tight, deeeep sub bass. I own the Clear and the sub bass is OK and I’m satisfied with it nevertheless. But there are quite a few other offerings out there with outstanding SB.

 

[phthora]

I've had the pleasure of hearing the Clear in a store recently. To my ears, Focal seems to have put some research into its tuning. I wonder, could the Clear's FR curve be the industry standard target of the future, replacing the Harman target?

The Harman target response is not a standard of quality, just a standard of neutrality, which is a function of quantity. The reason it is a good standard is not because the best headphones sound like that, but because it's frequency response is sort of right in the middle. Plenty of room above and below that target to adjust things to taste. Making the Clear the standard of neutral wouldn't be very helpful at all.

On the other hand, if you simply meant that other headphone makers would start trying to duplicate the Clear's FR, then, by George, I am on board with that.

 

[Mani ATH 87]

The Harman target response is not a standard of quality, just a standard of neutrality, which is a function of quantity. The reason it is a good standard is not because the best headphones sound like that, but because it's frequency response is sort of right in the middle. Plenty of room above and below that target to adjust things to taste. Making the Clear the standard of neutral wouldn't be very helpful at all.

On the other hand, if you simply meant that other headphone makers would start trying to duplicate the Clear's FR, then, by George, I am on board with that.

The Harman curve isn't in any way neutral, it's a preference sound that Harman believes most people prefer.

 

[CreditingKarma]

Well I’m not sure about them being better then “everything else”. The ZMF Eikon and Fostex TH-900 come to mind right off the top of my head for excellent, tight, deeeep sub bass. I own the Clear and the sub bass is OK and I’m satisfied with it nevertheless. But there are quite a few other offerings out there with outstanding SB.

I was saying that the abyss is on another level compared to everything else. The abyss imo have better bass and sub bass than the LCD 4 which is incredibe in it's own right. The abyss have a visceral speaker like bass and sub bass presentation that I have not experienced in any other headphone.

 

[adydula]

I have had my Clears for a few weeks now and have rotated thru my 10 headphone amps, SS and tube etc as well as 7 other sets of headphones.

This am I spent 4 hours with the Clears then switched to HD600's...I was floored how small or closed in or compressed the sound stage was with the 600's.
It took 30 minutes to get "used to" the Senn sound...and these 600's are classics etc..

That said the Clears IMO are some of the best dynamic driver headphones out there...and the fre`q curve be dammed, they set a new standard for tonality and a wonderful end to end
experience....for $999...they swing with the big boys very, very well...

You can nitpick the sub bass and other things as well with any headphone.

But this Clear is clearly and will be a classic for years to come....

They are that good!

Alex

 

[phthora]

The Harman curve isn't in any way neutral, it's a preference sound that Harman believes most people prefer.

They aimed for a frequency response that was descriptive of the average of all preferences (properly sampled), not simply a reflection of an expert tuner opinion or even a narrowly defined group's preferences. Given that objective measures fail to take in a number of physiological and psychological influences of sound, that is as close to a definition of neutral as is possible.

Moreover, a large percentage of manufacturers use the Harman target as at least a reference when crafting their own sound, meaning that it functions as a neutral measure anyway.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-tweaks-its-headphone-target-response

 

[Mani ATH 87]

They aimed for a frequency response that was descriptive of the average of all preferences (properly sampled), not simply a reflection of an expert tuner opinion or even a narrowly defined group's preferences. Given that objective measures fail to take in a number of physiological and psychological influences of sound, that is as close to a definition of neutral as is possible.

Moreover, a large percentage of manufacturers use the Harman target as at least a reference when crafting their own sound, meaning that it functions as a neutral measure anyway.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-tweaks-its-headphone-target-response

The FR of the curve itself is in no way neutral sounding though.

 

[ponyhead]

Come to think of it I forget: is Harman supposed to be the average preference, or the average perception of what sounds the most like speakers? (The two are probably correlated, given that music is largely mixed/mastered via speakers, but perhaps not perfectly correlated.)

If it's the latter, then my question about Clear's FR makes no sense, since the hypothetical preference curve could be separate from the speaker-like curve. I would also think each company wants to keep their private research into preference a secret (at least until the public breaks the secret by buying tons of pairs), so if there is some magical preference curve, companies are more likely to gradually converge to it independently rather than there being one breakthrough public study.

So I guess the simple answer is, if there's enough hype and demand for the Clear, other companies are likely to take notice and draw inspiration from the Clear's tuning. Of course, there will always be variety because not everyone's preferences will match the average.

 

[phthora]

The FR of the curve itself is in no way neutral sounding though.

To you. As an average, it will not be everyone's preference and may be far afield from a particular individual's. Also, Harman assumes that the goal is a recreation of well-placed speakers in a room, which means more an emphasis on bass than many headphoners find acceptable. Certainly, I fall into the latter.

Regardless, it functions as a definition of neutral that allows for discussion and can be used as a relatively universal means of compensating raw frequency response measurements into potentially more useful and intuitive.

It may not seem neutral in the strictest sense, but how else would you go about defining 'neutral' in a way that accounts for people's varying physiology, hearing loss, preferences, and experience?

 

[Mani ATH 87]

To you. As an average, it will not be everyone's preference and may be far afield from a particular individual's. Also, Harman assumes that the goal is a recreation of well-placed speakers in a room, which means more an emphasis on bass than many headphoners find acceptable. Certainly, I fall into the latter.

Regardless, it functions as a definition of neutral that allows for discussion and can be used as a relatively universal means of compensating raw frequency response measurements into potentially more useful and intuitive.

It may not seem neutral in the strictest sense, but how else would you go about defining 'neutral' in a way that accounts for people's varying physiology, hearing loss, preferences, and experience?

No, not to anyone. Look at the FR. That curve is not neutral in any way. Elevated bass, recessed mid range, elevated treble.

It's not a neutral curve and it's not intended to be. It's intended as a preference sound.

 

[Luke Thomas]

They are all good. Many times i prefer my Ed x over my Clears. A little smoother with more bass. Not quite a detailed.