[Guidostrunk]

https://tidal.com/track/49087682

 

[ctrlm]

I had previously owned the OG for nearly a year but I decided to part with them due to the peaky nature of the treble. There is more ‘air’ in the MG, but it’s not nearly as fatiguing as the 6k peak in the OG for my ears. But the speed and resolution were some of the first things that stuck out from my first impressions of the MG (other than the smoother tonality).

...and this is why we have to be careful of other people's impressions as we all hear differently and people have different sensitivities to certain frequencies. I don't hear the 6k peak in the OG that you do, in fact I hear the 4.5k dip before 6k and boost that accordingly in my EQ to try to match the 6k level.

 

[tisquinn]

It's funny—just as the MG comes out and people are hyped, I'm thinking about upgrading my amp for the OG clears. @ctrlm, I saw your comparison between the RME ADI 2 and the arche—are there any others amps or amp/dac combos worth thinking about? I have the Ruper Neve RNHP and maybe a used violectric in mind in terms of amp.....

 

[ctrlm]

It's funny—just as the MG comes out and people are hyped, I'm thinking about upgrading my amp for the OG clears. @ctrlm, I saw your comparison between the RME ADI 2 and the arche—are there any others amps or amp/dac combos worth thinking about? I have the Ruper Neve RNHP and maybe a used violectric in mind in terms of amp.....

I'm far from being an expert on pairings and can't comment too much on the units you mentioned other than I thought I read something about the Rupert Neve having high frequency distortion and channel imbalance issues with low impedance headphones? It might have been on ASR?

 

[Golyatx]

thank you @ctrlm for review. I have last day to return rme but I will probably keep it as its monster for its price.

 

[rickydenim]

OK - I have some time to recount my impressions of using my Clears with both the RME ADI-2 and the Focal Arche. I'll pre-empt this by saying that different people have different preferred sound signatures so it's not a simple case of one thing being better than another and I guess my preferred sound signature probably resides on the cleaner side of music reproduction rather than warmer or smoother - acknowledging that there are compromises on both sides. For example, in music it used to be that you were either a Rolling Stones person or a Beatles person (Stones for me) and in headphones I am an HD600 person rather than an HD650 person. Get my drift?

Anyway, enough with the analogies.

Using the Arche I have come to prefer the Hybrid amplifier setting with my Clears. I find the dedicated Clear setting a touch too smooth on a lot of material and the Voltage setting accentuates the highs maybe too much? All very subjective of course and the differences aren't huge but there are differences. Interestingly I found this graph that highlights the change in frequency response between using the different amp settings with Focal Stellias, it highlights that my preferred hybrid setting makes me a fence sitter :



Of course there may be other differences apart from just frequency response.

On the sound differences between the ADI-2 and the Arche......I'm not going into too much detail as I'm not very good at it anyway. Both use AKM DAC chips, albeit different models - dual AK4490 in the Arche vs single AK4493 in the ADI-2.

To me the ADI-2 is cleaner and punchier in the mid bass, where the Arche exhibits that warmer mid bass bloom that AKM is famous for - aka "the AKM velvet sound." The actual DACs should sound pretty much the same so I don't know if the difference here is that RME made some adjustment in their DAC or whether the difference is the A class amplification of the Arche? The Arche is fuller & richer sounding overall, whilst the ADI-2 is cleaner and more open without sounding analytical or sterile (IMO). The Arche sound to me sits somewhere between traditional solid state and tubes.

To me they are clearly different but I enjoy both, and as they are in different setups in my home - I can. That's why I have more than one set of headphones, to experience different presentations based on my mood and the material I'm listening to. I really like my Hifiman Anandas with the Arche and funnily enough I probably prefer my Clears with the ADI-2......but that really is splitting hairs. I'm not going to go out of my way to use one unit over the other.

If I really had to choose one of them over the other, it would be the RME ADI-2......but it's not a fair fight as it has much more functionality than the Arche.

Thanks for sharing! I agree, ultimately everyone's preferences will be different but you have some good options here to move between! I hadn't seen that graph before. Interesting that the specific profile for the Stellia has slightly elevated bass also. I'm still tinkering with each mode for my Clear OG. I have a Class A Heed Canamp in my TT setup and I love that sound so the Arche has fit in nicely for me. I have a Topping DX 3 Pro and it's definitely more clean and analytical perhaps, and definitely not as powerful.
Love listening to familiar music on the Clear/Arche combo!

 

[Golyatx]

yea, i can confirm everyone has different tastes, i have 6.5khz +6,5db haha, because I love the higs and the detail with it - oratory preset harman kardon... but I cant deny powerful base sound of Clears, the tonality.

 

[Ifalna]

In one of Focal's videos about the Clear Mg, Clémente Auzou (Electro Acoustic System Design, Headphone Section) at Focal said that the outside hex pattern grid allowed a more open area. I think what he's referring to is the fact that they went with a thinner gauge wire for the Mg's grille to open it up more, and the hex grille is probably necessary to compensate for the reduced rigidity of the more delicate screen on the Mg.


Here's a closeup photo of both grilles I just took, trying my best to make sure the lens was equidistant from both headphones

Great pic, thank you!

I think if you combine the area obstructed by the hexagon layer and the thinner gauge wire, it's probably a toss-up to the old thicker wire. Still it gave them the opportunity to make a step towards a unified design language for all Focal cans.

Less a fan of having to play the video every time I wanna check the measurements. So...

Basically: PEQ 8K down by around 3dB and you have yourself the Clear MG signature.
To be honest: I expected more changes. :O

 

[roskodan]

There is also the fact that the og Clear mesh is too thick to accommodate the hex grill on top of it. So they had to go for a thinner gauge mesh regardless, just to be able to fit the hex grill on top.

Indeed the frequency response would suggest little change in signature. However I read quite a few review, impressions, from fairly competent folks, describing substantial differences between the two.

The funny part? The promotional "reviewers" saying the Mg is the more "analytical", while the independent folks say the Mg is actually the more "forgiving" one. Jude seems to agree with both camps. Can't go wrong with that position.

Some even saying the Mg is the Audeze of dynamic coil headphones, for how much more laid back it is vs the og Clear.

Imo, Focal has to promote the Mg as the even "more", even "better" Clear. Else, why would existing og Clear owners wanna buy the Mg? Looks? Sure, but I guess that is not enough. Too bad Focal didn't have a Clear philosophy behind its Mg sound. Because if their goal for the Mg was both "more" and "better", highs and lows, no one seems to agree with them. Well, no one except Jude.

What a mess!

 

[Daiyama]

And do not forget to include the OG Clear Professionell and MG Clear Professionell!
It‘s the perfect storm of confusion.

 

[roskodan]

Found another impression basically agreeing with Jude in that the Mg is both more resolving and more forgiving at the same time. From a likely competent chap over at "the place that can't be named nor quoted, or else!".

Disclaimer, the chap in question is a known laid back sound fetishist. Agrees that folks that like the og Clear mids, treble and punchy bass, could feel the Mg as being laid back up top and soft in the bass.

Chaos!

 

[ctrlm]

Call me an Ostrich but I have absolutely zero interest in the MG Clear given the obvious similarities to the previous model and the fact that I already EQ the OG Clears to taste anyway.

I really don't need more laid back or smooth.

 

[roskodan]

I have no interest either, mostly because I really like my og Clear. As I don't see any advantage to the supposedly more forgiving nature of the Mg, for my taste and upstream gear. However, it seems the Mg could be what many hoped the og Clear would be, a true HD650 upgrade.

 

[Ichos]

It seems that it is not meant as an upgraded to the Clear OG but rather it is addressed to a different audience.

 

[TheDuke990]

In my ears the Clear MG is far away beeing an Audeze or HD650 clone.
Give him a try and have your own experiences with this fantastic headphone.