[arteom]

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.

I used to work at a stereo shop that was a vendor for Focal. The company is very aggressive in pushing their products and is quite prolific. This is not to say their products are bad, it's actually quite impressive that a company as big as Focal is able to achieve what they have, and specifically that they spend so much of their resources in R&D. Their products are also unique, they are not your vanilla audiophile products that you expect from the likes of Cambridge Audio (who are similar in size, but not in quality). But my point is that it's not just some small boutique operation in some French village, they're much bigger than that.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I used to work at a stereo shop that was a vendor for Focal. The company is very aggressive in pushing their products and is quite prolific. This is not to say their products are bad, it's actually quite impressive that a company as big as Focal is able to achieve what they have, and specifically that they spend so much of their resources in R&D. Their products are also unique, they are not your vanilla audiophile products that you expect from the likes of Cambridge Audio (who are similar in size, but not in quality). But my point is that it's not just some small boutique operation in some French village, they're much bigger than that.

I don't think he meant to say Focal is basically something like TVR or Marcos, but that while in car terms Focal would be like Porsche - ie, biggest company that makes sports cars exclusively, if you count sporty crossovers/SUVs as such - it's still not like the VW Gruppe which has Audi alongside Lamborghini, Bugatti, and heck, even Ducati. Or at least it would be a good example if Porsche AG didn't own 25% of VW Gruppe which owns just as much of Porsche AG.

 

[sperandeo]

I understand everyones point of view but I must say I'm a little ticked off by the members who are basically trying to tell me to keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself. Instead of saying "bury this thread" why not just stop reading it. What bothers you so much about free speech and opinions or concerns that aren't the same as yours? The theory "...don't you think Focal would be shut down if they were doing something wrong..." is simply being naive.

 

[bfreedma]

I understand everyones point of view but I must say I'm a little ticked off by the members who are basically trying to tell me to keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself. Instead of saying "bury this thread" why not just stop reading it. What bothers you so much about free speech and opinions or concerns that aren't the same as yours? The theory "...don't you think Focal would be shut down if they were doing something wrong..." is simply being naive.

This has nothing to do with free speech. No one here is representing the government. In fact, you seem more concerned about shutting down those with differing opinions than anyone else on this thread. Most of the rest of the posters here are trying to explain the materials science involved and Focal's legal position.

The reason people are ticked off is that you're accusing Focal of knowingly selling a dangerous product. Numerous links explaining the proper and safe use of Beryllium have been provided and you choose to ignore them. It is not naive to state that Focal would be forced to stop selling these if they were dangerous - both France, America, and most western countries require products to be safe and have regulatory agencies to confirm that. Thinking that a company making a product doesn't have to prove that level of safety is actually being naive. Particularly a material they have been working with for decades and which you utilize in several Focal speakers today (Surprised that you aren't more concerned about that given this thread).

Reality check - no company is ever going to send you a letter stating that any product is completely safe - as explained above, that simply encourages unscrupulous users to intentionally damage their headphones then call in an equally unscrupulous attorney in an attempt to get Focal to settle to avoid a long and public legal action that will inevitably end up finding Focal not guilty of any charges. Who knows - you could have a unique allergy to Beryllium that is unrelated to the toxicity that concerns you so much. Should Focal send you a letter stating that Beryllium is perfectly safe, they are then legally exposed. No different than food - most of us love shrimp but no shrimp processor will ever label them completely safe for every human on the planet due to allergies. That doesn't make a shrimp a toxic substance.

Let's be honest - you've decided these are unsafe and have posted as much in this thread. The logical move would be for you to move on since you clearly won't ever be satisfied that the Utopias are safe and therefore you won't be a customer. That's perfectly fine, but those of us who understand the materials science and engineering behind BE base speakers don't need you riding in on a white horse to protect us from something that is safe beyond question in this application. Not because Focal says so, but because we (I) understand the Beryllium manufacturing process including in which forms BE is toxic and what forms it is perfectly safe in.

 

[arteom]

Reality check - no company is ever going to send you a letter stating that any product is completely safe

I think what would be reasonable and what should be expected is for them to state "The beryllium drivers are safe to use under normal operating conditions, please stop using the headphones immediately and contact support if you feel the drivers have been damaged in any way". Besides all this, they apparently already have such a statement for their speakers, they could say just the same for their headphones.

I honestly have to side with OP on this. He is just expressing an opinion, a concern, and everyone who disagrees with him is being pretty damn aggressive in telling him that his concerns are unsound and further nodding to the mods that the thread should be locked. Some even going as far as to say that his opinions hold no value since he doesn't own the headphones, which is just absurd. I get why people do it, you invest in a product, a brand, and you believe in it strongly, you want to come to its defense when you feel its status is attacked. But there are better ways to do it, certainly telling the other side to keep silent isn't it.

 

[bfreedma]

^^^

That’s an interesting take.

The poster accusing Focal of knowingly producing a dangerous product isn’t being aggressive but those posting links to and explaining specifically why he doesn’t need to worry are being aggressive?

Maybe it’s just me, but I find posting unsupported claims that could damage a company far more aggressive than posting widely accepted facts (not from the manufacturer) regarding the materials science behind working with the element in question.

 

[arteom]

^^^

That’s an interesting take.

The poster accusing Focal of knowingly producing a dangerous product isn’t being aggressive but those posting links to and explaining specifically why he doesn’t need to worry are being aggressive?

OP said several times that his concern was more that Focal did not respond, when they said they would. He is not directly accusing them of producing a dangerous product, but certainly that assertion can be made because he asked them a question about them being dangerous, and they did not reply.

I do find it odd that people here are so quick to defend a manufacturer rather than a consumer. Focal isn't going to take a hit here, the community here certainly might.

 

[bfreedma]

OP said several times that his concern was more that Focal did not respond, when they said they would. He is not directly accusing them of producing a dangerous product, but certainly that assertion can be made because he asked them a question about them being dangerous, and they did not reply.

I do find it odd that people here are so quick to defend a manufacturer rather than a consumer. Focal isn't going to take a hit here, the community here certainly might.

Actually, the OP did directly accuse Focal of selling a dangerous product

The idea of having such a dangerous substance in a headphone is mind boggling.

The tweeter in my Solo6 Be is in my recording studio, as I’ve mentioned before the monitors are not handled In this locked room.

Imagine leaving the Utipia in your living room and walking into the room to find your small child handling or even chewing on them.

You can say “it’s your responsibility to...” all you want but the idea of having something so toxic that if handled incorrectly could kill you is insane.

Regardless, I have nothing more to add. The hard data has been posted in this thread and anyone still not comfortable with it should not buy a Utopia or other BE based speaker or headphone.

 

[Justin0505]

I used to work at a stereo shop that was a vendor for Focal. The company is very aggressive in pushing their products and is quite prolific. This is not to say their products are bad, it's actually quite impressive that a company as big as Focal is able to achieve what they have, and specifically that they spend so much of their resources in R&D. Their products are also unique, they are not your vanilla audiophile products that you expect from the likes of Cambridge Audio (who are similar in size, but not in quality). But my point is that it's not just some small boutique operation in some French village, they're much bigger than that.

I wasn't saying that boutique / high-end companies don't still aggressively market to their target customers (people who frequent specialty shops (or work at one), but that they often don't go out of their way to target the guys walking around the AV section of WallyWorld, or the folks who's biggest complaint about the direction of consumer safety is that there still aren't enough warning labels plastered on every square inch of life.

I don't think he meant to say Focal is basically something like TVR or Marcos, but that while in car terms Focal would be like Porsche - ie, biggest company that makes sports cars exclusively, if you count sporty crossovers/SUVs as such - it's still not like the VW Gruppe which has Audi alongside Lamborghini, Bugatti, and heck, even Ducati. Or at least it would be a good example if Porsche AG didn't own 25% of VW Gruppe which owns just as much of Porsche AG.

^ Yes. Funny you should mention that.
I WAS actually considering purchasing the newest $300k Porsche GT2, but I heard that exhaust fumes are bad for you... and that SiC dust from the carbon-ceramic brakes will also give you insta-cancer if inhaled. So I was reasonably concerned that while my 9month old isn't playing unsupervised in the street, she might crawl over and start sucking on the exhaust and sniffing the brake pads. Also, I was a little concerned about the fuel economy I might see while driving it back and forth from my favorite bar.
I count find any official statement form Porsche about any of these concerns, which was still more concerning, so THEN I emailed their sales dept 30X.... and still no reply. I mean they even put this car in video games (which my 9mo old also LOVES) and no warnings or emails from them?!?!?! Well, I've reached a new level of concern and am now considering posting on the largest 911 forum in existence about this serious concern to all 911 enthusiasts and their babies ... because I'm sure that I'll find the kind of attention and validation that I seek there... I'll keep you posted on how well that goes.

 

[Currawong]

 

[headr]

^-- Quitting smoking while pregnant can be very hard on the body, the baby, and the mother's mental health. Depending on the circumstances and risk factors, it may be advisable not to quit smoking during a pregenancy. Again, just shows you can't always judge a book by it's cover, and furthermore that "common sense" gut reactions to things isn't always correct...

Getting back to the topic I think the OP only got really defensive after being continually attacked for even asking the question. There is a bizarre undercurrent to this thread with a chorus of voices saying "this shouldn't be talked about, why are we talking about this, please stop talking about it", which is doubly bizarre when the topic itself which concerns a known hazardous material.

If you don't have anything to add to the thread, saying "There is nothing to talk about" as a reply also adds nothing, is needlessly hostile towards the OP, and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

If people have external sources which detail the process and methodology that Focal uses in manufacturing Be in their products safely, that is useful knowledge, but I would again point out that the OP reached out to Focal, Focal *DID REPLY* saying they would get back to him, and then *AFTER THAT* proceeded to ignore him. That chain of events is poor customer service, and furthermore, it seems like common sense that even if there was a legal liability with producing Be in consumer products, Focal should have a good answer to concerned customers. If they can assure so called experts, doctors, and even governments that their products are safe - why can't they also reassure customers? "Legal reasons" is a very lame excuse for a customer who is concerned, and I would agree with others, if that answer does not sit well with you as a customer, you should move on to other products.

Finally, even if people present external sources which document Be safely used in other products, I also think the onus is on the company manufacturing the hazardous material into consumer products itself to prove it's usage is safe. Leaning on doctors, so-called experts, and government bodies to provide safety standards is misunderstanding the entire history of how safety standards get developed in the first place, which is typically due to systemic failures with doctors, experts, and government bodies in the first place. They are a safety net, but the real driving force behind higher standards are everyday concerned citizens who loudly speak about potential issues.

Some recommended reading for those unfamiliar with some of this history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

 

[tomb]

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).
<snip>

I'm not sure how you were trying to make a point, but if you think that "radiation sickness" is the potential issue from Beryllium then you don't understand the issue at all. Think Anthrax. Breath it and you die. Only in the case of Beryllium powder, there's no antibiotic that can cure it if you get to it in time. The human body has no means of expelling Beryllium. It builds up continuously, either by exposure to a lot over a short time, or very little over a long time. The results are the same: 30% morbidity and disabilities for the survivors of Berylliosis.

I used to work in the aerospace industry, mainly in facility work. Suffice to say that Beryllium-alloyed sleeve bearings are the best that can be used for a fighter's control surfaces, specifically, at the elevator. The combination of low-friction and high abrasion resistance cannot be matched with any other metal. I was asked by management if we could process/machine the Beryllium bearings for our fighters directly. A guy in our Industrial Hygiene department lent me a book on the history of Beryllium and Berylliosis. After reading it, I told my management - no way, no how. You're talking special facilities with near-laboratory-high-containment airflow control, suit-in, suit-out, showers and specially segregated laundry facilities and equipment for the suits. It's almost at the level of a biological high-containment, but there's no such thing as de-contamination possible: only the strictly controlled minimization of dust from anything that might come in contact with it.

Like the aerospace corporation I worked for, I doubt seriously that Focal does any processing/machining/whatever of the Beryllium in their drivers. It's almost surely subcontracted to someone else. They probably handle the finished part in their factory with gloves and localized, filtered exhaust. Keep in mind that there is still not much data on other means of developing Beryllium sensitivity or Berylliosis other than inhalation. There are rumors that skin contact may be enough, but that's not been substantiated.

As for the Focal Utopia, I agree that "normal" ownership and use should be no more dangerous than some of the other dangers we face every day. However, I sure as heck wouldn't go modding one: taking it apart, stuffing some toilet paper or blu-tack inside or whatever.

 

[up late]

"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.

I think what would be reasonable and what should be expected is for them to state "The beryllium drivers are safe to use under normal operating conditions, please stop using the headphones immediately and contact support if you feel the drivers have been damaged in any way". Besides all this, they apparently already have such a statement for their speakers, they could say just the same for their headphones.

I honestly have to side with OP on this. He is just expressing an opinion, a concern, and everyone who disagrees with him is being pretty damn aggressive in telling him that his concerns are unsound and further nodding to the mods that the thread should be locked. Some even going as far as to say that his opinions hold no value since he doesn't own the headphones, which is just absurd. I get why people do it, you invest in a product, a brand, and you believe in it strongly, you want to come to its defense when you feel its status is attacked. But there are better ways to do it, certainly telling the other side to keep silent isn't it.

as i posted earlier in this thread, the utopia headphone does come with a pamphlet about beryllium and precautions for its use. it looks very similar, if not the same as the pamphlet that focal includes with its loud speakers, which someone also posted a copy of earlier in this thread.

 

[up late]

^-- Quitting smoking while pregnant can be very hard on the body, the baby, and the mother's mental health. Depending on the circumstances and risk factors, it may be advisable not to quit smoking during a pregenancy. Again, just shows you can't always judge a book by it's cover, and furthermore that "common sense" gut reactions to things isn't always correct...

Getting back to the topic I think the OP only got really defensive after being continually attacked for even asking the question. There is a bizarre undercurrent to this thread with a chorus of voices saying "this shouldn't be talked about, why are we talking about this, please stop talking about it", which is doubly bizarre when the topic itself which concerns a known hazardous material.

If you don't have anything to add to the thread, saying "There is nothing to talk about" as a reply also adds nothing, is needlessly hostile towards the OP, and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

If people have external sources which detail the process and methodology that Focal uses in manufacturing Be in their products safely, that is useful knowledge, but I would again point out that the OP reached out to Focal, Focal *DID REPLY* saying they would get back to him, and then *AFTER THAT* proceeded to ignore him. That chain of events is poor customer service, and furthermore, it seems like common sense that even if there was a legal liability with producing Be in consumer products, Focal should have a good answer to concerned customers. If they can assure so called experts, doctors, and even governments that their products are safe - why can't they also reassure customers? "Legal reasons" is a very lame excuse for a customer who is concerned, and I would agree with others, if that answer does not sit well with you as a customer, you should move on to other products.

Finally, even if people present external sources which document Be safely used in other products, I also think the onus is on the company manufacturing the hazardous material into consumer products itself to prove it's usage is safe. Leaning on doctors, so-called experts, and government bodies to provide safety standards is misunderstanding the entire history of how safety standards get developed in the first place, which is typically due to systemic failures with doctors, experts, and government bodies in the first place. They are a safety net, but the real driving force behind higher standards are everyday concerned citizens who loudly speak about potential issues.

Some recommended reading for those unfamiliar with some of this history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

you appear to be ignoring the sensible attempts that were made to reply to the op, and there's nothing bizarre about people losing patience with a discussion that has become circular, which this has.

as i wrote in an earlier post, the op originally asked: "I have been writing Focal a few times in regards to Beryllium being toxic and should there be any concern about having this strapped around your head for hours at a time"; and "Does anyone know for certain if there should be any concern about having Beryllium in a headphone?" i think it's fair to say that it is impossible for anyone here to answer his questions factually beyond saying that beryllium is toxic, and that it would be absurd to try, which explains the nature of some of the responses.

it has already been acknowledged in this thread that it is poor customer service from focal to undertake to provide the op with a response and not do so. however, i note that the op is yet to acknowledge that his position has shifted during the course of this thread from asking if he should have any concerns to actually having them, and that he has been repeating them in an aggrieved manner ever since.

i also think it's reasonable for people to presume that the op won't be considering acquiring a utopia headphone any more and that this thread has run its course.

 

[headr]

If we are talking about reasonable things to do, the most reasonable thing to do once you have added all you can regarding a conversation is to stop contributing. Adding the sum total of your knowledge regarding the subject, and then throwing an immature temper tantrum when the people involved in the conversation are not satisfied with your explanations and in turn do not accept your response as the final word on the subject is the opposite of reasonable. Your self-described "sensible attempt" to explain things does not de facto imply that they must be accepted without a shadow of a doubt as the last word on the subject.

Whether he is still considering the Focal headphones is irrelevant. Either people will be interested in the topic and contribute something productive, or the conversation will fall off the radar as no more responses are added. In any case, I recommend that all further replies consider the nature of the conversation, and if they have something new to say relevant to the topic, to please contribute. Personally I find the conversation and topic interesting, as I have always wondered about the nature and safety of Be usage in audio components. If anything, the lack of knowledge around the subject as shown here speaks volumes to me, and shows that there may be something to the concerns, and I look forward to people exploring the topic more with on topic replies that actually add new information.

If you feel the topic has "run it's course", or that the discussion has become annoyingly circular to you, may I humbly suggest that you simply stop opening the topic and getting yourself angry. No one is forcing you to read this topic, no one is forcing you to contribute. Most of all, bumping the thread to the top of the heap with a reply along the lines of "there is nothing more to talk about", which incidentally makes the topic highly visible and essentially refreshes it's lifespan, is the exact opposite of a reasonable thing to do.