[dan3952]

Anyone else find the Clear MG a little honky? Do you find this is the same on the Clear OG? Is it a pad issue? Is there substantial unit variance?

Yes, yes, no, and no. It's Focal's lively house sound. You might EQ them to match your preferred Harman curve (i like the diffuse field one for an open back). The objectionable part is around 1.4 kHz, but they're still lively once you EQ them.

I noticed you have the Audeze LCD-X 2021: I just sold mine due to its lack of versatility. I had only liked it for complex wall of sound rock music and EDM. Female vocals had sounded muffled.

 

[mikecheck95]

Yes, yes, no, and no. It's Focal's lively house sound. You might EQ them to match your preferred Harman curve (i like the diffuse field one for an open back). The objectionable part is around 1.4 kHz, but they're still lively once you EQ them.

I noticed you have the Audeze LCD-X 2021: I just sold mine due to its lack of versatility. I had only liked it for complex wall of sound rock music and EDM. Female vocals had sounded muffled.

I EQ the LCD-X pretty substantially but yes without EQ it sounds pretty dull (in terms of FR) I would say. I was looking for something that I wouldn’t need to EQ but I think I would want to EQ the MG as well. I’m glad we hear the same thing. Yes there is some excess energy around 1k as you said. I also like headphones with a bit of enhanced treble sparkle and a bit of a sub-bass shelf which the Clear MG doesn’t have unfortunately. The DCA Noire came close to my preference for FR but it’s a bit of a dry presentation compared to the Clear and LCD-X

 

[Emmanuel Palmer]

I EQ the LCD-X pretty substantially but yes without EQ it sounds pretty dull (in terms of FR) I would say. I was looking for something that I wouldn’t need to EQ but I think I would want to EQ the MG as well. I’m glad we hear the same thing. Yes there is some excess energy around 1k as you said. I also like headphones with a bit of enhanced treble sparkle and a bit of a sub-bass shelf which the Clear MG doesn’t have unfortunately. The DCA Noire came close to my preference for FR but it’s a bit of a dry presentation compared to the Clear and LCD-X

Sounds like Hifiman edition xs is what you are looking for

 

[dan3952]

I EQ the LCD-X pretty substantially but yes without EQ it sounds pretty dull (in terms of FR) I would say. I was looking for something that I wouldn’t need to EQ but I think I would want to EQ the MG as well. I’m glad we hear the same thing. Yes there is some excess energy around 1k as you said. I also like headphones with a bit of enhanced treble sparkle and a bit of a sub-bass shelf which the Clear MG doesn’t have unfortunately. The DCA Noire came close to my preference for FR but it’s a bit of a dry presentation compared to the Clear and LCD-X

The Audeze house sound is still darker than Focal even with EQ, except for the newer LCD-5 and CRBN.

Audeze is your best choice for below 60 Hz due to planar technology, but I didn't find the resolution there was super compared to other $1000+ headphones I've had (Focal OG and Arya v2). Level and quantity were fine, but I couldn't hear texture in bass guitars that I could with the other two, it had felt like microdynamics weren't up to the same level; it had felt more like "one note" bass. Arya v3 has treble sparkle so excessive that people have been eqing it down, and bass extension, but offer a large, diffuse field sound that doesn't have the impact and slam of the other two. I had Arya v2 and don't want to get Arya v3 for that reason.

I EQ my Clear Mgs to match Crinacle's curve, which is pretty good. The diffuse field target replicates the room gain of a speaker set up. I got $189 Moondrop IEMs and with their dynamic driver and small vents, the bass sounds better on those. I think it's because of physics and using a closed enclosure instead of open baffle. I noticed it the most with large drums, they sound more natural than with any open back I've had. The low synth notes are there too. The Focal resonance frequency won't make the bass sound good, although my speakers have the same problem at 80 Hz. The planar lacks this problem.

In all, I don't know what I'm going to end up doing with my headphones because my speakers currently in storage, out-resolve all of the headphones I've had, but with the Arya v2 and Focal OG coming the closest, and not LCD-3. The speakers have with muddy bass problems of their own, in the form of phase shift, driver interactions, room nulls, and resonances. If anything I would get better IEMs or ZMF Verite closed as my only headphones in order to hush noise. They won't be a need at that point, but a want.

 

[DivineCurrent]

The Audeze house sound is still darker than Focal even with EQ, except for the newer LCD-5 and CRBN.

Audeze is your best choice for below 60 Hz due to planar technology, but I didn't find the resolution there was super compared to other $1000+ headphones I've had (Focal OG and Arya v2). Level and quantity were fine, but I couldn't hear texture in bass guitars that I could with the other two, it had felt like microdynamics weren't up to the same level; it had felt more like "one note" bass. Arya v3 has treble sparkle so excessive that people have been eqing it down, and bass extension, but offer a large, diffuse field sound that doesn't have the impact and slam of the other two. I had Arya v2 and don't want to get Arya v3 for that reason.

I EQ my Clear Mgs to match Crinacle's curve, which is pretty good. The diffuse field target replicates the room gain of a speaker set up. I got $189 Moondrop IEMs and with their dynamic driver and small vents, the bass sounds better on those. I think it's because of physics and using a closed enclosure instead of open baffle. I noticed it the most with large drums, they sound more natural than with any open back I've had. The low synth notes are there too. The Focal resonance frequency won't make the bass sound good, although my speakers have the same problem at 80 Hz. The planar lacks this problem.

In all, I don't know what I'm going to end up doing with my headphones because my speakers currently in storage, out-resolve all of the headphones I've had, but with the Arya v2 and Focal OG coming the closest, and not LCD-3. The speakers have with muddy bass problems of their own, in the form of phase shift, driver interactions, room nulls, and resonances. If anything I would get better IEMs or ZMF Verite closed as my only headphones in order to hush noise. They won't be a need at that point, but a want.

Out of curiosity, are those the Moondrop Katos you got? I have those and the bass is really good. I also have the Dunu Zen Pro, which has even better bass and overall resolution. The things the Clear MG does better than all IEMs (and most headphones) for me is actual dynamic impact and sense of openness. I mean, not really surprising there considering they are open backs.

 

[Soundizer]

Have anyone tried ifi micro iDSD Signature on Clear MG? ifi seems to be a great match with them. Guess micro iDSD Signature would be an upgrade from hip-dac2?

Yes I did for 8 days alongside Diablo. Signature is superb and love the Base Boost, however Diablo sounded better - cleaner and more air. Noticeable.

 

[dan3952]

Out of curiosity, are those the Moondrop Katos you got? I have those and the bass is really good. I also have the Dunu Zen Pro, which has even better bass and overall resolution. The things the Clear MG does better than all IEMs (and most headphones) for me is actual dynamic impact and sense of openness. I mean, not really surprising there considering they are open backs.

Yes, I have Katos and use Comply foam tips only. I can hear the rigidity of the DLC in their impeccable imaging (it had reminded me of $2000+ headphones like Focal Utopia). Bass and soundstage isn't better than the $500 Shanlings I had, but also lack the BA timbre. Wish Moondrop would bring out a new hybrid between $500 and $1000.

Shanling ME700 had really good resolution, but the music was presented in an unnatural, fatiguing way, even with EQ and a virtual tube amp. I had also lost a lot of money selling them, and won't buy their newer more expensive IEMs for this reason.

Not sure I want to cough up the $900 for the Zen Pros, at this point given that I only use IEMs when I want to hush noise. We could also say I could use speakers instead of open back headphones, and simply get one good set of IEMs. With classic rock and EDM, I don't always notice the added upper midrange and treble resolution of more expensive products (headphones or IEMs). I do notice when listening to simpler tracks. I remember switching to the Clear Mgs for slow, simple Led Zeppelin songs, and the Audezes for complex, loud wall of sound songs. It's hard to find a well rounded set of IEMs that offer a good soundstage.

What ZMF is doing with their marketing is irritating me (their purple cups and exotic woods for hundreds of dollars more) so I would only consider used Verite closed at a good price. Even then, they're behind Focals in some areas (it says the Verite has a somewhat warmed over character with blunted trailing edge to the notes).

 

[mikecheck95]

The Audeze house sound is still darker than Focal even with EQ, except for the newer LCD-5 and CRBN.

How can it be darker even with EQ? Idk if I agree. I found the clear MG to have an upper treble that rolled off earlier than I would tend to prefer. The LCD-X conversely has a little too much energy up there.

However, around 4khz the Audeze struggles. Whereas the Clear has good presence. I think the biggest difference (that doesn’t have to do with FR explicitly) however is in the soundstage. I perceive the audeze soundstage as out to the sides and maybe a few inches from the ears whereas the focal clear was angled about 45 degrees and a little closer. Clear is quite a bit more engaging and focused whereas the LCD-X is more relaxed and diffuse.

Either way. Without EQ, the Clear tops the Audeze by a long shot in my opinion. Unless you’re like me and don’t like the cups/pads on the Clear.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Perhaps matter of the source, don't know, but to me in balanced drive out of Auralic LCD-X 2021 are just much better phones, with thick and lush sound, authority, plenty of details, and bigger soundstage. MG is nice and energetic but in comparison may sound bland and "cheap", like cheaper wine.
This is in raw form as I do not EQ any phones.

What do you drive them with?

 

[dan3952]

How can it be darker even with EQ? Idk if I agree. I found the clear MG to have an upper treble that rolled off earlier than I would tend to prefer. The LCD-X conversely has a little too much energy up there.

However, around 4khz the Audeze struggles. Whereas the Clear has good presence. I think the biggest difference (that doesn’t have to do with FR explicitly) however is in the soundstage. I perceive the audeze soundstage as out to the sides and maybe a few inches from the ears whereas the focal clear was angled about 45 degrees and a little closer. Clear is quite a bit more engaging and focused whereas the LCD-X is more relaxed and diffuse.

Either way. Without EQ, the Clear tops the Audeze by a long shot in my opinion. Unless you’re like me and don’t like the cups/pads on the Clear.

Female vocals and simple string arrangements, had sounded muffled and lacking energy with any Audeze headphone I've tried, with or without EQ, even though the graph shows they're dead flat to 2 kHz. They were a laid back listen to me, that was more suited for music that has a lot of content below 250 Hz, though LCD-3 and the original LCD-X were even more laid back. I too had found the Audeze to have a more enveloping sound due to their bigger drivers though lagging HiFiMan Arya, HE-1000 and Sennheiser HD800.

Yes, the Clear Mg has a rolled off treble and sounds darker than the Clear OG (which was the first good headphone I have owned), but I still find it to be the more versatile headphone, especially for the $1100 I had paid for it. I use the following:
low shelf, 2.2 db, at 38 Hz
low shelf, 0.9 db, at 100 Hz
-1.3 db at 1400 Hz, Q=3.5
+3.8 db at 4900 Hz, Q=6
high shelf, +1.3 db at 2400 Hz

Those settings, are a bit conservative, as well.

I also use DSP to widen the soundstage; as we know, Focal headphones have a smaller soundstage, and provide a concentrated power punch of sound.

They all have their pluses and minuses, I suppose. I might not even like Verite Closed if I get them.

 

[fishbone999]

The clear mg I feel that it has a darker treble, but good enough. It is not sharp, just smooth. Balance end gives me a great sense of openness.

 

[dan3952]

The clear mg I feel that it has a darker treble, but good enough. It is not sharp, just smooth. Balance end gives me a great sense of openness.

You can EQ it to match the Harman curve or another of your preference. The Clear OG was the first good set of headphones I had owned, and although its resolution was good, I had grown to dislike its fatiguing, technical, metallic timbre over time. I had recently sold Audeze LCD-X 2021s, and kept the Clear Mgs. I had found the latter to be a more versatile headphone.

 

[fishbone999]

You can EQ it to match the Harman curve or another of your preference. The Clear OG was the first good set of headphones I had owned, and although its resolution was good, I had grown to dislike its fatiguing, technical, metallic timbre over time. I had recently sold Audeze LCD-X 2021s, and kept the Clear Mgs. I had found the latter to be a more versatile headphone.

Thank you, I love mg's timbre, and may upgrade to utopia later, or have both of them.

 

[Soundizer]

The clear mg I feel that it has a darker treble, but good enough. It is not sharp, just smooth. Balance end gives me a great sense of openness.

Yes and much easier on treble compared to Focal Clear original.

More importantly to me is less Metallic Sound.

 

[pataburd]

Anyone else find the Clear MG a little honky? Do you find this is the same on the Clear OG? Is it a pad issue? Is there substantial unit variance?

I found them a little honky and muted in the upper treble, a quality non existent in both the Elear and the Clear OG. The MG simply lack the air of the aforementioned.