[iAudio365]

The thread is not a joke. You can bury your head in the ground and trust everyone else around you to take care of you if you like, but I have a right to ask questions. All I can say is beware of a company who ignores it's customers concerns.

Alright well just don’t buy them? Might be your best solution.

Also I’d be more concerned about http://time.com/4394051/deodorant-antiperspirant-toxic/ if you’re as concerned about utopia headphones which do nothing to you unless you physically eat them, Meanwhile I’m gonna listen to mines all day as usual and stop wearing deodorant why I do it

But seriously you’re worrying over nothing in the grand scheme of things and what you use around your home down to the water in your tap and so many other things we all take for granted and use everyday no one is taking care of us I can assure you.

Just enjoy life, it’s to short as it is without worrying about your headphones poisoning you.

 

[arteom]

What derogatory language? And yes I have license to have what’s called an opinion and this thread is a joke, and how can OP have a cocern with a headphone that A. He doesn’t even own & B. These concerns have been addressed a million times before not only here but on other sites and if their really that bad that the scary beryllium beavers are gonna naw through the enclosure and burst into your brain why does focal keep churning them out if they know this? Why does every major country in the world allow them for sale at retail and why am I along with 1000’s of others never had an issue and are not dead at this point.

Case and point > this thread is a joke, call focal stop askng here as obvioulsy no one here can help.

"It's just stupid, and perhaps thats why focal not responding to you as well." There's no need for that. I also take great issue with you stating that OP can't comment on a headphone "He doesn’t even own". To assert that for anyone to discuss any device they should first own it is ridiculous and is very much against the spirit of head-fi. If discussion was limited to products that one owned, there wouldn't be very much of it. It's also detrimental to the community to only encourage feedback that paints any given product in only a positive light. It would work to delegitimize head-fi as a credible headphone discussion board.

There is also validity to the concern. I think it was mentioned that Focal had put in its manual for their speakers that used the beryllium tweeters that there are potential hazards with mishandling them. Not sure if they did the same for the Utopia or not, maybe because there is no such danger, or maybe it was just an oversight. Also as previously mentioned, there is validity to this thread in showing that Focal has not responded to a question from a customer. You can make up your own mind as to why, but it's potentially important feedback for anyone looking to invest into the brand, and head-fi is the place to have this discussion.

 

[sperandeo]

I currently own 2 Focal products and I was ready to purchase a third. The Utipias cost $5600 canadian dollars with tax. I still don’t feel that it’s unreasonable to ask a company pre-sale questions on a product especially at that price point.

All I have to say is that the “don’t reply” tactic to a difficult question speaks volumes.

 

[franz12]

I currently own 2 Focal products and I was ready to purchase a third. The Utipias cost $5600 canadian dollars with tax. I still don’t feel that it’s unreasonable to ask a company pre-sale questions on a product especially at that price point.

All I have to say is that the “don’t reply” tactic to a difficult question speaks volumes.

I see your point. I can imagine a few reasons why focal does not reply. BE things could be a sensitive matter. Once they replied in writing, it becomes focal’s liabilities which may cause a lawsuit in some ways in future. I guess Focal decided it is their best interest not to reply and ignore.

Think about this way. A potential liability by responding in writing may be huge, while cost from ignoring the inquiry is little.

 

[bfreedma]

I currently own 2 Focal products and I was ready to purchase a third. The Utipias cost $5600 canadian dollars with tax. I still don’t feel that it’s unreasonable to ask a company pre-sale questions on a product especially at that price point.

All I have to say is that the “don’t reply” tactic to a difficult question speaks volumes.

Yes, it speaks volumes. It says: “Focal is already selling this product so clearly believes it is safe. Questioning us (Focal) about it is both an insult and an accusation of an organized conspiracy to put the public at risk.”

So let’s cut to the chase. Are you accusing Focal of lying to the public about the safety of the Utopia? If yes, don’t buy them and contact the authorities. If not, what’s your point here?

 

[franz12]

I think people are being way too tough on this guy for simply asking a question. It seems to me there is no harm about an individual (who has previously purchased beryllium Focal speakers) asking a company about the safeguards in place with a known toxic substance used in an application that is much more susceptible to bangs, dings, and other damage as it is constantly being moved around.

He reached out to Focal, they said they would give him an answer, and then proceeded to ignore him. At the very least you have to admit that is absolutely terrible customer service for a company to provide a loyal customer (who previously bought speakers) who has some concerns about the safety of their products.

Demanding answers to questions are how consumer protections move forward. You might all laugh at this guy now, but we live in a world where mercury was used as a treatment for syphilis. We live in a world which currently sees companies selling leaded gasoline which increases the lead concentration in the atmosphere, at the expense of all of our health. It's possible in 100 years future humans will laugh at how in 2017 rich individuals with more money than sense bought beryllium drivers because they thought they sounded better.

It's not too much to ask to get reassurances from the company itself regarding the safety of their products which use known toxic substances, and furthermore what safeguards are in place from the consumer side. I wouldn't have a problem if he asked Sennheiser regarding the dioxins and furans used in their plastic either. Why would I or anyone else have a problem with that?

And furthermore, why should anyone trust the arm chair experts on an online discussion forum for these answers? they should be coming directly from the company responsible for distributing the toxic chemicals themselves.

And pretending the guy is an idiot for even asking the question is absurd.

I agree mostly. Focal is not a small company. But as I said, a company tends to simply ignore this kind of inquiry due to potential liabilities with responding in writing. A popular tactic is not to respond unless demanding force is great.

As an outside observer, I don’t think Focal will respond to it any time soon. Just by skimping this thread, it seems to me that there is much opposition to simply asking this kind of a question, although the opposition seems a bit strange to me.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I currently own 2 Focal products and I was ready to purchase a third. The Utipias cost $5600 canadian dollars with tax. I still don’t feel that it’s unreasonable to ask a company pre-sale questions on a product especially at that price point.

All I have to say is that the “don’t reply” tactic to a difficult question speaks volumes.

If it's toxic and people are at risk from having these in their headphones then just go and tell the French government to shut Focal down now. If they don't, half of us will take it as proof that someone would have to put that beryllium inside their body and have fluids interact with it for it to be toxic.

The other half will claim Focal paid off the government the same way they think vaccines cause autism and that marijuana can cure cancer but hospitals earn more money from chemo. Surprise - the rise in autism diagnoses and vaccinations are not related, we just had a lot of the autism spectrum filed as either "complete retard" or "eccentric" in prior eras, and also you'd think hospitals would just go and shift their business model by cultivating Jamaican Sunrise. Or heck, do chemo, then sell you Jamaican Sunrise for the pain. But nope - doctors supporting medical THC aren't actually selling it. They just support it over expensive, more addicting, and worse behavior when addicted to opiates vs THC, despite how big pharma supposedly bribes all doctors.

As an outside observer, I don’t think Focal will respond to it any time soon. Just by skimping this thread, it seems to me that there is much opposition to simply asking this kind of a question, although the opposition seems a bit strange to me.

That the opposition is "strong" isn't strange. It's because they already know that

1) Government would have cracked down on something radioactive and has a high risk of causing radiation-related sickness being widely available, when in many countries a car manufacturer can't even sell a car without passing crash tests. There's a reason why some sound dampening materials no longer use asbestos.

2) Some people who already replied - and some may even have professional knowledge - of how exactly one can be at risk with Beryllium, none of which involve any normal use cases of the headphone.

In short, thinking the opposition to asking the question is strange is about as strange to the rest of us as the idea that THC and fruit juice detox can cure cancer (as opposed to one being a pain killer and the other being a source of vitamins, both crucial for surviving the side effects of chemo, ie the kind of thinking as to why there's a disclaimer about vitamins and supplements being a support for treatment and not actual cures).

 

[swmtnbiker]

I think that the usefulness of this thread has run it's course, if it ever was useful, and that's what people are commenting on. One has to wonder why the OP is singling out a pair of headphones here. Beryllium and beryllium alloys are found EVERYWHERE in today's consumer goods. They're in your computer, they're in your cell phone, they're in your car, they're in practically ALL electronics. The Utopia isn't some special case that needs to be pointed out. Bottom line - if you're unduly worried about Be toxicity, then stay away from anything that contains wires and/or a circuit board.

 

[canthearyou]

Why aren't there warning tags on headphone cables? They pose a strangulation hazard!!

 

[franz12]

If it's toxic then just go and tell the French government to shut Focal down now.

If htey don't half of us will take it as proof that someone would have to put that beryllium inside their body and have fluids interact with it for it to be toxic. The other half will claim Focal paid off the government the same way they think vaccines cause autism and that marijuana can cure cancer but hospitals earn more money from chemo. Surprise - the rise in autism diagnoses and vaccinations are not related, we just had a lot of the autism spectrum filed as either "complete retard" or "eccentric" in prior eras, and also you'd think hospitals would just go and shift their business model by cultivating Jamaican Sunrise. Or heck, do chemo, then sell you Jamaican Sunrise for the pain. But nope - doctors supporting medical THC aren't actually selling it. They just support it over expensive, more addicting, and worse behavior when addicted to opiates vs THC, despite how big pharma supposedly bribes all doctors.

I am neither interested in BE things nor pushing this inquiry going foward.

What is interesting to me is the fact that many people are voluntarily (and aggresively in some cases) defending a company like Focal.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

What is interesting to me is the fact that many people are voluntarily (and aggresively in some cases) defending a company like Focal.

And I already explained that to some it's less about being Focal fanboys but because they already understand that you can't get radiation sickness from the Beryllium in headphones under normal use any more than you can get poisoned by having a phone with toxic chemicals in the battery under normal use (dumping tons of batteries at sea then eating poisoned seafood does not count as normal use for any device).

Why aren't there warning tags on headphone cables? They pose a strangulation hazard!!

They're expensive too, because they bribe the government so they don't have to come with warning signs, unlike cigarettes in Asia.

Then again, guns don't come with photos of people that had pellets or slugs rip through them, and if they did, buyers would go, "AWESOME!!!"

Which means headphone cable buyers might actually include people like David Carradine.

 

[arteom]

The other half will claim Focal paid off the government the same way they think vaccines cause autism and that marijuana can cure cancer but hospitals earn more money from chemo.

I really didn't think Be in the Utopia was having any odd effect on end users health, but then I read this^ equating this thread to vaccines causing autism.

 

[franz12]

And I already explained that to some it's less about being Focal fanboys but because they already understand that you can't get radiation sickness from the Beryllium in headphones under normal use any more than you can get poisoned by having a phone with toxic chemicals in the battery under normal use (dumping tons of batteries at sea then eating poisoned seafood does not count as normal use for any device).




They're expensive too, because they bribe the government so they don't have to come with warning signs, unlike cigarettes in Asia.

Then again, guns don't come with photos of people that had pellets or slugs rip through them, and if they did, buyers would go, "AWESOME!!!"

Which means headphone cable buyers might actually include people like David Carradine.

I absolutely understand that. But I also understand some people may want a more authoratative answer from a company in writing, not a cheap talk.

 

[Justin0505]

I see your point. I can imagine a few reasons why focal does not reply. BE things could be a sensitive matter. Once they replied in writing, it becomes focal’s liabilities which may cause a lawsuit in some ways in future. I guess Focal decided it is their best interest not to reply and ignore.

Think about this way. A potential liability by responding in writing may be huge, while cost from ignoring the inquiry is little.

While this thread was indeed good for a few laughs, I'm a bit surprised that no-one else made this point. If you've ever worked for or dealt with a company that deals with consumers (especially based in the EU) and has a legal department, then you know exactly why there's no reply.

Once the Legal team gets CC'd in , Focal can't win here:
- If they tell you anything implying even a very far-fetched risk, you've got ammo to go running around the internet waving their reply in the air like a banner-man for the legions of Hysteria and Hypochondria to unite behind.

- If they DO tell you anything implying that the domes are perfectly safe / that there's not real risk, well then you could also just FWD that to your favorite personal injury lawyer right before you decide to do bong hits of powdered Utopia. Then, every time you develop a sore throat or runny nose, Focal has a new frivolous lawsuit that they have to pay to deal with.

It sounds stupid and unbelievable, but that's the reality of the lowest common denominator of the general public.

Legal reasons aside, there's also another issue here:

The OP's tone implies that they are "owed" something by Focal even as a "potential" customer and I think that's a mindset that's been enforced by the consumer culture of fully saturated mainstream markets where companies fall all over themselves clamoring to sell 99cent cheesburger #100,000,001 to then next slack-jawed idiot. This might even be the case with companies trying to "Beats"-out the competition in the $300-$1000 headphone range.

However, Focal isn't Dr. Dre and they're selling $4000 sets of cans to people who follow the Harman Target curve; not $400 cans to people who follow the Kardashian curve.
Boutique, niche companies, with very expensive and specialized goods or services often treat their potential customers (on a whole) poorly but their actual customers very well. A lost sale is cheaper than a refund and WAY cheaper than a lawsuit. So, it's really in their own best interest to discourage a PITA(pain-in-the-ass) potential customer from becoming an even bigger PITA actual customer. By design this tends to really bother some self-identified-as-special people when they don't receive the complimentary stroke of attention to which they have become accustomed.

I should take a step back here and say that this is meant by no means as a personal critique of the OP, and I don't want to imply that they did anything intentional wrong or would be the type of person to be a PITA customer or frivolous lawsuit-filer.
My intent was just to explain the defensive mindset of a boutique company with a very specific type of target customer.
If you ask a company a question (even if it's honest and well-intended) that implies you have a fundamental ignorance about their product or even a faint whiff of PITA about you, they are very likely to rudely direct you to the nearest exit or, at the very least, not reply to your multiple emails.

If you want good treatment as a potential customer, make extra effort to show yourself as well informed, thoughtful, and RESPECTFULLY interested. Show yourself as the type of person that YOU'D want as a customer if you where the business owner. At the very least, your questions shouldn't be ones that could be answered by Siri / Google Assistant.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I really didn't think Be in the Utopia was having any odd effect on end users health, but then I read this^ equating this thread to vaccines causing autism.

I'm equating them because both are based on baseless paranoia. Doctors would have raised a fuss about having Beryllium near one's head already considering how doctors are among the kind of people who can blow money on Focal products, or governments would have cracked down on it as soon as Focal tried to procure Beryllium the same way ATF and FBI will kick my door down if I ordered a truckload of C4. Hell, they'd kick my door down if I just orderd a truckload of Beryllium and I didn't clear with the Feds what the hell it's for (ie, if they can't assume I'm using it in a product that would otherwise be safe as far as they can tell, they'd have to assume I'm making a dirty bomb or something).

On top of that, even if we presume that Focal having a conflict of interest would not respond or lie outright, then to begin with there's no point in contacting them in the first place. So why presume that and then contact Focal? I could think of historical parallels for that but mods will just consider the examples no matter how useful as "off topic and verboten," so I'll just say it has something to do with 07 December.

Besides, the more likely reason for lack of a response is that whoever was handling that read it, got up, then walked over to Legal and Engineering to pass off the work that a guy in Marketing or Sales isn't fully equipped to handle. Consumers after all are the sort of people who get angry if their coffee isn't far beyond luke warm, then go and drive with coffee cup squished between their thighs, and then sue. I don't care what the manual it should be at and how the store exceeded it, I wouldn't drive around with any liquid - much less anything that isn't ice cold or lukewarm - near my fun parts, same way I wouldn't lick a battery or a headphone driver.