Focal Clear Mg Review & Measurements
Mar 22, 2021 at 2:49 AM Post #106 of 2,126
I really like the look of the Mg. A guy I know was wondering about the soundstage - any improvements in size?

In straight forward dimensional terms the Sound stage is pretty average and not much wider (if at all) than the closed back stellias. From memory the original clear was wider. That said, It still feels very airy and more importantly pin point accurate and the stereo image is one of the best I’ve heard, absolutely locked on.
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 2:51 AM Post #107 of 2,126
In straight forward dimensional terms the Sound stage is pretty average and not much wider (if at all) than the closed back stellias. From memory the original clear was wider. That said, It still feels very airy and more importantly pin point accurate and the stereo image is one of the best I’ve heard, absolutely locked on.
Thanks! Sounds like it's still not something for him, or for me. I found it to be an issue in the original, for my preferences. Had it not been for the soundstage, the Clear would've been one of my favourites.

Not really criticism, just my preferences.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2021 at 4:02 AM Post #108 of 2,126
I’m a first time owner of the Clear, my previous daily’s was the HD800s insane soundstage. I don’t think there is any dynamic that have come close. The soundstage on the MG are good but it certainly isn’t it’s best attribute.
Sorry to go off topic but as an owner of the AKG K1000 & MySphere 3.2 (they both use dynamic drivers), the Sennheiser HD 800S cannot compete with them regarding sound/head stage. I owned both the HD 800 & HD 800S.
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 6:05 AM Post #112 of 2,126
Sorry to go off topic but as an owner of the AKG K1000 & MySphere 3.2 (they both use dynamic drivers), the Sennheiser HD 800S cannot compete with them regarding sound/head stage. I owned both the HD 800 & HD 800S.
uhm, but, I have never heard them, but let's stay with non retired, discontinued cans. Current, I didn't think I needed to say that, but anyways back on topic. please thanks. noted.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2021 at 12:54 PM Post #113 of 2,126
Mar 22, 2021 at 1:05 PM Post #114 of 2,126
Crinacle just did some quick notes on the Clear MG. He doesn't like it. Gave it a B grade.

https://crinacle.com/2021/03/22/crinnotes-focal-clear-mg-quick-review-padgate/
I can see why someone would consider the Clear MG a 'downgrade" from the original Clears. This is not the first time a review mentioned this, there were some original reviews on the MG Pro that said the same things. It's actually what made me want to try them MG's to be honest as I was finding other headphones a bit harsh in the treble areas.
The Clear MG's to me are very agreeable. They are honestly the first headphones that sat well with me from the start (minus some quirky fit issues).
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 1:53 PM Post #115 of 2,126
I use reviews as points of references, as well as this forum and other places were I use, to get content related In any product I research.
But in the end, it should stop with you and your ears, what you like not what a reviewer or Youtuber says about X headphone.
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 1:55 PM Post #116 of 2,126
Crinacle just did some quick notes on the Clear MG. He doesn't like it. Gave it a B grade.

https://crinacle.com/2021/03/22/crinnotes-focal-clear-mg-quick-review-padgate/
wait. worse than the OG Clear? Is it a warmer tuning?

I just looked at it. And he says the differences are in the pads.

Sounds like this one has reduced highs in comparsion like it or not. perhaps better suited for those think OG Clear was too bright. And if one liked ghe OG clear, likely worse tuning.

I like to see more measurements. I've been thinking Focal driver consistancy isn't great. We need to see random sample measurement data.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2021 at 2:45 PM Post #117 of 2,126
It's kind of a mess, with new vs used pads making a pretty big difference it seems. Crinacle summarizes it later in the article with the following:
There are some major caveats of course, for instance the Clears that I was testing with had very worn pads and so may not even be representative of what a Clear with fresh pads would be like. But it is also to be noted that I actually liked the Clears that I was using with the worn Clear pads and not so much with the fresh Clear Mg pads, so if the latter is supposedly more representative of what a true Clear is supposed to sound like then some downranking is in order. Certainly a lose-lose situation here.

But let’s talk a little more about the whole Clear vs Clear Mg debacle. With the two on Clear Mg pads thereby putting both on equal ground in a tonal sense, the technical differences get a lot more obvious. That is to say, the Clear Mg sounds noticeably mushier and “slower” than the original Clear, and a tad bit less resolving too.
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 2:49 PM Post #118 of 2,126
It's kind of a mess, with new vs used pads making a pretty big difference it seems. Crinacle summarizes it later in the article with the following:
Interesting. It would be informative to see a comparison of worn vs fresh pads. It obviously has effects on the highs. Does warn Focals bring out more highs? With Sennheiser, worn pads causes warmer tilt. Question is, is it the pads being worn causing it?
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2021 at 4:35 PM Post #119 of 2,126
Funny thing I purchased a pair of brand new original Clear pads (took a picture here) earlier this year. I'll have to compare them with my old ones. Idk how I always forget to do it. Too busy enjoying the music, I guess. :wink:
 
Mar 22, 2021 at 6:51 PM Post #120 of 2,126
It bugs me that he pronounces it foCAL. I don't even care if that might be correct, I'm gonna pronounce it FOcal. My other hobby is photography so focal is a word that's already in my regularly used vocabulary.

Focal est une entreprise française, et c'est ainsi que Focal se prononce en français.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top