[HiFlight]

Thanks but no. I reside in France and want to buy them new
Just want opinion on the BL and questyle CMA to decide which combo I'm gonna purchase

I don't know if this would be a factor with your decision, but the Questyle lacks an analog input.

 

[Ifalna]

Heh, back in 2012, I bought me a DT-880. Was very happy but considered it somewhat isane to spend 230€ on a headphone.
Now, 7 years later I listened to Focal speakers of a friend couldn't resist the temptation to try the Clears in order to determine whether my ears could perceive a difference. So I went ahead and ordered a pair of Clear Professionals.

Have to say, the clear sounds fantastic. A little more detail than the DT880 but the bass region improves the most. It is possible to overdrive them with bass / sub bass (read a lot about that) but the volumes required are insane. If I want to be able enjoy audiophile equipment 20 years from now, these volumes need to ba avoided at all costs.

Still love my DT-880 and will keep them as "workhorse cans"
I wanted to ask 2 questions:
1) Have you had any experience with custom cables that fit well and sit secure and do NOT cost an arm and a leg? That spiral cable isn't really my cup of tea and the other one is rather short.

2) Anybody had to clean/wash the pads yet? Any experiences you'd like to share?

 

[makne]

Heh, back in 2012, I bought me a DT-880. Was very happy but considered it somewhat isane to spend 230€ on a headphone.
Now, 7 years later I listened to Focal speakers of a friend couldn't resist the temptation to try the Clears in order to determine whether my ears could perceive a difference. So I went ahead and ordered a pair of Clear Professionals.

Have to say, the clear sounds fantastic. A little more detail than the DT880 but the bass region improves the most. It is possible to overdrive them with bass / sub bass (read a lot about that) but the volumes required are insane. If I want to be able enjoy audiophile equipment 20 years from now, these volumes need to ba avoided at all costs.

Still love my DT-880 and will keep them as "workhorse cans"
I wanted to ask 2 questions:
1) Have you had any experience with custom cables that fit well and sit secure and do NOT cost an arm and a leg? That spiral cable isn't really my cup of tea and the other one is rather short.

2) Anybody had to clean/wash the pads yet? Any experiences you'd like to share?

1) I use a Forza audioworks cable that I’m quite happy with. Doesn’t have the same «click» as the stock cable has (because of the ridge on the stock connector), but plugs in just as securely as a regular 3.5mm connector. Only thing that bothers me is that the connectors are a bit longer than the stock ones so they stick out a bit, but has never been an issue. Beautiful cable.

2) I think someone on here posted a link to an alcantara cleaner that they were quite happy with

 

[Doctordoom16]

Odiosound cable. 4.4 balanced cost me $125 shipped. Great service , cable is very nice looking, great for portable setups as it's thinner, most importantly it sounds very neutral .

 

[bidn]

The X has incredible speed and resolution, more so than the Clear, which is no slouch. It can render echo on instruments with wild realism and extremely clear vocals in the backing chorus during complex passages. It's pretty amazing in that regard. The X also has some of the very best bass I've ever heard. Super deep extension, detail, and control in that bass. Really, it smokes the Clear when it comes to sub-bass, and that is despite the Clear having excellent sub-bass for a dynamic. The X has a richer, bigger, more weighty sound, despite not veering too far from neutral. It's more sumptuous and romantic sounding, but also rewards analytical listening with intense detail. Like many planars, its treble lags behind when it comes to quality, though it is still very good. But the treble is a bit too polite and uneven, especially when compared to an excellent dynamic.

Sorry, phthora,
but I am writing some things you will probably not like.

I saw more than a dozen pages back that you made a similar comparison between the LCD-X and the Clear. Someone wondered about which DAC you were basing this comparison on, and you mentioned your Audio-GD.

I didn't have time to reply then, I am trying to do it quickly now .

Your impressions from then and from now seem very strange to me because for me the Clear leaves the LCD-X completely in the dust re. speed and resolution, and the more so with demanding tracks (e.g. "extreme" metal with many instruments at full speed), e.g. using my RME ADI-2 Pro DAC amp. I think most people would agree that the Clear (and likewise the Elear, Elex, etc.) are much faster and resolving than the LCD-X (which I find BTW too slow for metal in general, but I like the LCD-X when l have a headache as I find them much more " forgiving").

Then I saw you were using that Audio-GD device.
I think this explains the differing impressions.
On the Audio Science Review (.com) site, many DACs have been measured. One essential measurement in the SINAD (measuring the quality of the signal output re. noise and distortion, wikipedia can be checked re. the SINAD) produced by the AP ( reference audio analyzer).
Now the Audio GD 28.38 has not been measured,
but the 28.28 has and it has produced the worse SINAD of all measured devices, and the other measured Audio GD devices have also catastrophic SINAD measurements (terribly low, among the worst). So I think that the signal output by the Audio GD DAC would be very far from allowing to perceive the speed and the resolution of the Clear.
Sorry again to have said this about Audio GD, but I deemed it useful to explain these differences in perception, I hope you will not mind too much.

All the best,
bidn

 

[Ifalna]

1) I use a Forza audioworks cable that I’m quite happy with. Doesn’t have the same «click» as the stock cable has (because of the ridge on the stock connector), but plugs in just as securely as a regular 3.5mm connector. Only thing that bothers me is that the connectors are a bit longer than the stock ones so they stick out a bit, but has never been an issue. Beautiful cable.

These do indeed look pretty.
I'm really digging the transparent insulation and the braid optics. Also Poland is in the EU, so no further taxes.
Thanks, will keep them and the Alcantara cleaner in mind.

 

[GearMe]

Sorry, phthora,
but I am writing some things you will probably not like.

I saw more than a dozen pages back that you made a similar comparison between the LCD-X and the Clear. Someone wondered about which DAC you were basing this comparison on, and you mentioned your Audio-GD.

I didn't have time to reply then, I am trying to do it quickly now .

Your impressions from then and from now seem very strange to me because for me the Clear leaves the LCD-X completely in the dust re. speed and resolution, and the more so with demanding tracks (e.g. "extreme" metal with many instruments at full speed), e.g. using my RME ADI-2 Pro DAC amp. I think most people would agree that the Clear (and likewise the Elear, Elex, etc.) are much faster and resolving than the LCD-X (which I find BTW too slow for metal in general, but I like the LCD-X when l have a headache as I find them much more " forgiving").

Then I saw you were using that Audio-GD device.
I think this explains the differing impressions.
On the Audio Science Review (.com) site, many DACs have been measured. One essential measurement in the SINAD (measuring the quality of the signal output re. noise and distortion, wikipedia can be checked re. the SINAD) produced by the AP ( reference audio analyzer).
Now the Audio GD 28.38 has not been measured,
but the 28.28 has and it has produced the worse SINAD of all measured devices, and the other measured Audio GD devices have also catastrophic SINAD measurements (terribly low, among the worst). So I think that the signal output by the Audio GD DAC would be very far from allowing to perceive the speed and the resolution of the Clear.
Sorry again to have said this about Audio GD, but I deemed it useful to explain these differences in perception, I hope you will not mind too much.

All the best,
bidn

Hmmm...just checked the site for this litmus test measurement (graph below)

What surprised me most is that my LG G7 Thinq phone (in Quad Dac mode) is a top-performer -- besting the Chord Mojo, iFi DSD Black, Yggy, and all Topping Dacs (much to ASR's chagrin!).

The REAL takeaway is that I need to purchase an SMSL D1 immediately! Then...and only then...will I be able to properly hear my Focal Clear Professionals.

Upon further review, it also makes sense that Phthora should upgrade their Audio-Gd DAC to a Chromecast Audio...improving SINAD by ~65% (assuming AGD 28.38 and 28.28 are in the same ballpark).

Do hurry, though, @phthora ! The CCA is discontinued and your chance to get the price/performer of the decade ($40) may disappear at any moment!

 

[phthora]

Sorry, phthora,
but I am writing some things you will probably not like.

I saw more than a dozen pages back that you made a similar comparison between the LCD-X and the Clear. Someone wondered about which DAC you were basing this comparison on, and you mentioned your Audio-GD.

I didn't have time to reply then, I am trying to do it quickly now .

Your impressions from then and from now seem very strange to me because for me the Clear leaves the LCD-X completely in the dust re. speed and resolution, and the more so with demanding tracks (e.g. "extreme" metal with many instruments at full speed), e.g. using my RME ADI-2 Pro DAC amp. I think most people would agree that the Clear (and likewise the Elear, Elex, etc.) are much faster and resolving than the LCD-X (which I find BTW too slow for metal in general, but I like the LCD-X when l have a headache as I find them much more " forgiving").

Then I saw you were using that Audio-GD device.
I think this explains the differing impressions.
On the Audio Science Review (.com) site, many DACs have been measured. One essential measurement in the SINAD (measuring the quality of the signal output re. noise and distortion, wikipedia can be checked re. the SINAD) produced by the AP ( reference audio analyzer).
Now the Audio GD 28.38 has not been measured,
but the 28.28 has and it has produced the worse SINAD of all measured devices, and the other measured Audio GD devices have also catastrophic SINAD measurements (terribly low, among the worst). So I think that the signal output by the Audio GD DAC would be very far from allowing to perceive the speed and the resolution of the Clear.
Sorry again to have said this about Audio GD, but I deemed it useful to explain these differences in perception, I hope you will not mind too much.

All the best,
bidn

I do not trust Audio Science Review, nor his gloss on what measurements mean, nor his methodology for measurement, nor his particular review of the 28.28 (which seems to be an obviously faulty unit). Then, of course, there is the fact that he did not measure a 28.38, meaning that all this is speculation. I will leave the reasons for my avoidance of that site out of this conversation because I don't want to derail the thread and, frankly, I'm tired of writing it all out.

However, ignoring all that and assuming everything is accurate... I fail to see how SINAD would affect one headphone significantly more than another and seemingly improve the LCD-X in terms of resolution and speed. That is simply not how distortion works.

But, to put your mind at ease... I did a great deal of my A/Bing on a THX 789 amp running out of the matching DAC, through the iFi Black Label, and through my Violectric amp. In each case, I heard the same difference in results and stand by what I said earlier. I won't guess about how you came to your impressions of the headphones, but I do disagree with them entirely.

 

[GearMe]

I do not trust Audio Science Review, nor his gloss on what measurements mean, nor his methodology for measurement, nor his particular review of the 28.28 (which seems to be an obviously faulty unit). Then, of course, there is the fact that he did not measure a 28.38, meaning that all this is speculation. I will leave the reasons for my avoidance of that site out of this conversation because I don't want to derail the thread and, frankly, I'm tired of writing it all out.

However, ignoring all that and assuming everything is accurate... I fail to see how SINAD would affect one headphone significantly more than another and seemingly improve the LCD-X in terms of resolution and speed. That is simply not how distortion works.

But, to put your mind at ease... I did a great deal of my A/Bing on a THX 789 amp running out of the matching DAC, through the iFi Black Label, and through my Violectric amp. In each case, I heard the same difference in results and stand by what I said earlier. I won't guess about how you came to your impressions of the headphones, but I do disagree with them entirely.

SINAD has its roots in Synergy...therefore, the seeming discrepancy is explained!

All kidding aside...why is it so hard for folks to get that people have preferences, hear differently, etc?

Based on your comments about the LCD-X, it sounds like you really enjoy them when you're listening to your favorite music -- now that is worth the price of admission!

 

[mixman]

Sorry, phthora,
but I am writing some things you will probably not like.

I saw more than a dozen pages back that you made a similar comparison between the LCD-X and the Clear. Someone wondered about which DAC you were basing this comparison on, and you mentioned your Audio-GD.

I didn't have time to reply then, I am trying to do it quickly now .

Your impressions from then and from now seem very strange to me because for me the Clear leaves the LCD-X completely in the dust re. speed and resolution, and the more so with demanding tracks (e.g. "extreme" metal with many instruments at full speed), e.g. using my RME ADI-2 Pro DAC amp. I think most people would agree that the Clear (and likewise the Elear, Elex, etc.) are much faster and resolving than the LCD-X (which I find BTW too slow for metal in general, but I like the LCD-X when l have a headache as I find them much more " forgiving").

Then I saw you were using that Audio-GD device.
I think this explains the differing impressions.
On the Audio Science Review (.com) site, many DACs have been measured. One essential measurement in the SINAD (measuring the quality of the signal output re. noise and distortion, wikipedia can be checked re. the SINAD) produced by the AP ( reference audio analyzer).
Now the Audio GD 28.38 has not been measured,
but the 28.28 has and it has produced the worse SINAD of all measured devices, and the other measured Audio GD devices have also catastrophic SINAD measurements (terribly low, among the worst). So I think that the signal output by the Audio GD DAC would be very far from allowing to perceive the speed and the resolution of the Clear.
Sorry again to have said this about Audio GD, but I deemed it useful to explain these differences in perception, I hope you will not mind too much.

All the best,
bidn

Sorry, gotta disagree with you, I went to Can Jam heard most HP's there and even then I have not heard an HP yet that leaves the LCD X in the dust, for what it does well. Even TOTL headphones from Audeze or other companies. I can understand if you prefer other cans, but to say the LCD X is a slacker in resolution nah. If you listen for things like true timbre, clarity and reverb trails you will see the LCD X stands toe to toe with the best. If I found an HP that would truly blow away the LCD X, I would own it!!!

 

[parimento1]

Sorry, gotta disagree with you, I went to Can Jam heard most HP's there and even then I have not heard an HP yet that leaves the LCD X in the dust, for what it does well. Even TOTL headphones from Audeze or other companies. I can understand if you prefer other cans, but to say the LCD X is a slacker in resolution nah. If you listen for things like true timbre, clarity and reverb trails you will see the LCD X stands toe to toe with the best. If I found an HP that would truly blow away the LCD X, I would own it!!!

I see you have the HE1000 V2. How do you like it compared to the Clear?

 

[franz12]

If your favorite track is heavy around 2-3k, it would be easy to find that the LCD lacks resolution, which has a dip around in that area. The LCD needs correction to make it sound right. The Clear is more neutral overall.

 

[phthora]

If your favorite track is heavy around 2-3k, it would be easy to find that the LCD lacks resolution, which has a dip around in that area. The LCD needs correction to make it sound right. The Clear is more neutral overall.

Using the MrSpeakers AEON Flow C without filters as my measure of neutral, I would agree with your assessment of the Clear and X relative to each other. (I don't think they need EQ, personally, but that is entirely subjective.) To my ears, the Clear sounds a bit brighter than neutral, but that is a result of frequency response and the overall clarity and speed of the Clear. The X sounds darker than neutral, largely because of the upper mids dip, the incredibly deep bass extension, and the relative lack of extension and detail in the treble.

 

[mixman]

I see you have the HE1000 V2. How do you like it compared to the Clear?

Different types of sound. The Clear will have more impact, be more dynamic and a thicker sound in the midrange, The V2 will have a better soundstage and perhaps better imaging also. Bass would probably be a toss up. I like what the V2 does a little more. You get that sense of space with the V2 you cannot get with the Clear.

 

[LCMusicLover]

Different types of sound...

This. Clear and HEKv2 are far enough apart that it's comparing pineapples and asparagus. JMHO of course.