[ValentineLuke]

Anyone heard or have RME ADI 2 DAC with Focal Clear?
Im thinking about it, as now I have something similar to Audio GD R2 R11 (its almost identical sound, but its custom made) and one of my friend told me its BIG upgrade to sound (he had R11 and now ADI).

Wondering how it sounds with Clears. Im still lacking some more transparent/separate sound and this thing should deliver it from what I read.

I had the RME ADI-2 PRO FS R for a couple of weeks. It’s a very clean sounding unit with a ton of features. It’s very detailed without being harsh, but I found the soundstage to be too flat and lacking dimension (particularly depth). It was lacking enough in that regard (for my preferences) that I returned the unit. Interestingly I preferred the sound of the Schiit Modius to the RME. It had a better ‘spacial’ sound it. It was just more organic sounding, even though the RME had better detail.
The amplifier section was powerful, and very clean. It’s what I would call clinical (which makes sense since it’s studio gear).

 

[adydula]

Just ordered...be here in a week to 10 days! Had Clears OG for several months. IMO awesome cans, cant wait to play with these!

 

[Golyatx]

I had the RME ADI-2 PRO FS R for a couple of weeks. It’s a very clean sounding unit with a ton of features. It’s very detailed without being harsh, but I found the soundstage to be too flat and lacking dimension (particularly depth). It was lacking enough in that regard (for my preferences) that I returned the unit. Interestingly I preferred the sound of the Schiit Modius to the RME. It had a better ‘spacial’ sound it. It was just more organic sounding, even though the RME had better detail.
The amplifier section was powerful, and very clean. It’s what I would call clinical (which makes sense since it’s studio gear).

OK, thanks for reply, what amp did you use?

 

[Quartzwald]

Here's a review from an audio engineer comparing the MG and the OG Clears, seems he likes the OG ones better:

https://jakecheriff.medium.com/foca...w-one-step-forward-two-steps-back-2d29b71a1b8

 

[r3forge]

I have also ordered the Clear MG Pro. But here in Austria delivery will take until March...

I have owned the OG Clear pro and currently I have the regular OG Clear here. I have also tried the Celestee for a week but didn'tlike them that much. Sure, nice for a closed back but can't holde a candle to the OG Clears.

Just wanted to advise to burn-in the Clears over night. They need around 16-24 hours of burn-in in my experience. At least Al/Mg drivers needed that (Also the Celestee). They change a lot in the first 8h regarding tonality and after some additional hours the soundstage will grow. I am sure this is not subjective, as I have tried with multiple devices and always compared in between with my well known DT1990.

I don't know how it is with the MG drivers, but if it's compareable and ppl. judge them without burning them in, then judgement is questionable. This is not pointed at any specific review or reviewer, just wanted to share my experience.

Looking forward hearing the MG Clears soon.

PS: Regarding the discrepancies of the MG sounstage marketing. By closing off more of the driver with that hexagon sheet metal, it is possible to achieve the same or more spaciosness in sound because of the reflection of specific frequencies that can provide spacieal ques. Judging by the design of that sheet metal cover they put on the MG models, it seems they tried to reflect more sound to the front as the wholes get smaller on the front side of the cup. Just my 2c.

 

[HiFiDJ]

OK, thanks for reply, what amp did you use?

I have the rme and the clears......boring sound if you're using rme as your amp. But using it as a dac and feeding it to an external amp is a different story. I use the burson soloist as my amp.

 

[ValentineLuke]

I have also ordered the Clear MG Pro. But here in Austria delivery will take until March...

I have owned the OG Clear pro and currently I have the regular OG Clear here. I have also tried the Celestee for a week but didn'tlike them that much. Sure, nice for a closed back but can't holde a candle to the OG Clears.

Just wanted to advise to burn-in the Clears over night. They need around 16-24 hours of burn-in in my experience. At least Al/Mg drivers needed that (Also the Celestee). They change a lot in the first 8h regarding tonality and after some additional hours the soundstage will grow. I am sure this is not subjective, as I have tried with multiple devices and always compared in between with my well known DT1990.

I don't know how it is with the MG drivers, but if it's compareable and ppl. judge them without burning them in, then judgement is questionable. This is not pointed at any specific review or reviewer, just wanted to share my experience.

Looking forward hearing the MG Clears soon.

PS: Regarding the discrepancies of the MG sounstage marketing. By closing off more of the driver with that hexagon sheet metal, it is possible to achieve the same or more spaciosness in sound because of the reflection of specific frequencies that can provide spacieal ques. Judging by the design of that sheet metal cover they put on the MG models, it seems they tried to reflect more sound to the front as the wholes get smaller on the front side of the cup. Just my 2c.

They do change a bit over time, in my experience. I also had the same experience with the original Clear as well.

 

[ValentineLuke]

OK, thanks for reply, what amp did you use?

A few different amps; Rupert Neve Designs RNHP, Schiit Vali 2, and an Inverting O2. The built in amp is very analytical (I’d agree that it comes off as boring), but none of the amps that I tried improved the flat, one-dimensional staging. I prefer MultiBit/R2R/Chord FPGA for a more natural sound.

 

[roskodan]

If you have the RME with PEQ or a PC.

Check in the manual (page 22 onward I guess). Parametric EQ, need to manually set the bands. You only have 5 bands in the RME PEQ. So if planing to use more bands than that, you are better off using your PC with a PEQ like Equalizer APO + PEACE GUI for Windows or something else for other OS.

For the Clears I only use 2 bands for the bass like below.

Preamp: -6 dB
Band 1: low shelf filter 40 Hz Gain 6.0 dB Q 1.0
Band 2: low shelf filter 75 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 1.0

PEQ is a game changer. Especially when we have the AutoEQ data base ready to use, just find your headphone and load the bands/filters. Enjoy!

 

[pbarach]

A few different amps; Rupert Neve Designs RNHP, Schiit Vali 2, and an Inverting O2. The built in amp is very analytical (I’d agree that it comes off as boring), but none of the amps that I tried improved the flat, one-dimensional staging. I prefer MultiBit/R2R/Chord FPGA for a more natural sound.

Sadly, Rupert Neve died last week, age 94; obit was in NY Times

 

[DivineCurrent]

Ok, I got the Clear MG Pro in, and I've been listening and comparing to the original Clear for an hour or two.
Here are my first impressions:
It is indeed warmer than the regular Clear, as many have already said (which is exactly what I wanted!). There's more of a rise starting from the upper bass all the way down, it has a similar mid bass hump of the HD650 or 600, maybe not as elevated though. You can feel the impact a bit better with the MG compared to the OG Clear. The bass is just as clean however, it does not bleed into the lower mids, as far as I can tell. It is just slightly fuller and warmer. Also, it might be my imagination, but the bass might be slightly more responsive. Perhaps that is a result of the sub bass extending better.
The mids are about the same level, vocals are very nice and present. The original Clear sometimes sounded strident with certain tracks, and I don't think I hear that with the MG Clear. It is very smooth, yet has the same dynamics you would expect from a Focal headphone.
The treble is the most notable difference to me, and for the better. With the original Clear, there was always a narrow treble resonance around 10kHz that even when equalized, you could still hear some traces of it with the right recordings. I am happy to report that Focal has improved the treble to the point I can listen to the MG Clear without EQ, and it still sounds fantastic. There is still a slight rise at 10.5 kHz, but they mostly got rid of that resonance, and they also lowered the level at 6kHz. In direct comparison, the OG Clear sounds more strident and peaky, while the MG is much closer to the tonality I am looking for. It is especially noticeable with recordings that have cymbals and high hats. You can hear the occasional peakiness and splashiness with the OG Clear, while the Clear MG sounds quite a bit smoother and more natural to me.

Overall, the MG is even closer to the tonality of my HD58X than the original Clear. That's a huge win in my book.

My impressions will probably change, but it's looking really good for the Clear MG! I think it boils down to whether you prefer a more analytical flat sound, which would be the original Clear, or if you prefer a warmer smoother sound, the Clear MG. In my case, I prefer the MG.

 

[roskodan]

The real question is... does it clip?

 

[Luckyleo]

Ok, I got the Clear MG Pro in, and I've been listening and comparing to the original Clear for an hour or two.
Here are my first impressions:
It is indeed warmer than the regular Clear, as many have already said (which is exactly what I wanted!). There's more of a rise starting from the upper bass all the way down, it has a similar mid bass hump of the HD650 or 600, maybe not as elevated though. You can feel the impact a bit better with the MG compared to the OG Clear. The bass is just as clean however, it does not bleed into the lower mids, as far as I can tell. It is just slightly fuller and warmer. Also, it might be my imagination, but the bass might be slightly more responsive. Perhaps that is a result of the sub bass extending better.
The mids are about the same level, vocals are very nice and present. The original Clear sometimes sounded strident with certain tracks, and I don't think I hear that with the MG Clear. It is very smooth, yet has the same dynamics you would expect from a Focal headphone.
The treble is the most notable difference to me, and for the better. With the original Clear, there was always a narrow treble resonance around 10kHz that even when equalized, you could still hear some traces of it with the right recordings. I am happy to report that Focal has improved the treble to the point I can listen to the MG Clear without EQ, and it still sounds fantastic. There is still a slight rise at 10.5 kHz, but they mostly got rid of that resonance, and they also lowered the level at 6kHz. In direct comparison, the OG Clear sounds more strident and peaky, while the MG is much closer to the tonality I am looking for. It is especially noticeable with recordings that have cymbals and high hats. You can hear the occasional peakiness and splashiness with the OG Clear, while the Clear MG sounds quite a bit smoother and more natural to me.

Overall, the MG is even close the tonality of my HD58X than the original Clear. That's a huge win in my book.

My impressions will probably change, but it's looking really good for the Clear MG! I think it boils down to whether you prefer a more analytical flat sound, which would be the original Clear, or if you prefer a warmer smoother sound, the Clear MG. In my case, I prefer the MG.

Thanks for your thoughts. Doesn't seem to me worthwhile to upgrade from the OG..... subject to change based on reviews and comments in 6 months to a year.

 

[Guidostrunk]

The real question is... does it clip?

 

[Guidostrunk]

Ok, I got the Clear MG Pro in, and I've been listening and comparing to the original Clear for an hour or two.
Here are my first impressions:
It is indeed warmer than the regular Clear, as many have already said (which is exactly what I wanted!). There's more of a rise starting from the upper bass all the way down, it has a similar mid bass hump of the HD650 or 600, maybe not as elevated though. You can feel the impact a bit better with the MG compared to the OG Clear. The bass is just as clean however, it does not bleed into the lower mids, as far as I can tell. It is just slightly fuller and warmer. Also, it might be my imagination, but the bass might be slightly more responsive. Perhaps that is a result of the sub bass extending better.
The mids are about the same level, vocals are very nice and present. The original Clear sometimes sounded strident with certain tracks, and I don't think I hear that with the MG Clear. It is very smooth, yet has the same dynamics you would expect from a Focal headphone.
The treble is the most notable difference to me, and for the better. With the original Clear, there was always a narrow treble resonance around 10kHz that even when equalized, you could still hear some traces of it with the right recordings. I am happy to report that Focal has improved the treble to the point I can listen to the MG Clear without EQ, and it still sounds fantastic. There is still a slight rise at 10.5 kHz, but they mostly got rid of that resonance, and they also lowered the level at 6kHz. In direct comparison, the OG Clear sounds more strident and peaky, while the MG is much closer to the tonality I am looking for. It is especially noticeable with recordings that have cymbals and high hats. You can hear the occasional peakiness and splashiness with the OG Clear, while the Clear MG sounds quite a bit smoother and more natural to me.

Overall, the MG is even closer to the tonality of my HD58X than the original Clear. That's a huge win in my book.

My impressions will probably change, but it's looking really good for the Clear MG! I think it boils down to whether you prefer a more analytical flat sound, which would be the original Clear, or if you prefer a warmer smoother sound, the Clear MG. In my case, I prefer the MG.

How many hours have you put on the MG before the comparison? Just curious.