[Mhog55]

If you're willing to buy used then a used Denon D9200 could be a fair bet, they can be had for around 900-1000 so even cheaper than an MSRP radiance, however they punch well above their price and can even compete with VC and Stellia. Their sound also seems to align with your preferences, that being a very clean sound with slight elevation in the bass; it can come across as bright depending on your ears and source gear. It does have quite an intimate soundstage, however it is wide enough so as to not sound cramped or claustrophobic.

I just happen to have a mint 9200 with low hours listed in the classifieds.

 

[gourab1995]

I’ve owned the Focal Radiance and continue to use the Shures as my daily work/music headphones at my desk.

My son has the DT-770s (not the -X model though), and I’ve listened to them briefly. While I have not done a direct comparison, I would say the Shures are a notch above in overall sound quality, cohesion/balance, and smoothness. They are also more comfortable on my head. I absolutely adore the Shures as daily headphones, and have used them for about four years now. Only recently (a few months ago) did I have to swap to the included backup ear pads, despite using them at least 15 hours a week for 35-45 weeks a year over three-plus years (ie over 2.000 hours!). The Shures also scale really well with better gear. I use them a lot with my Sony WM1A DAP, and they sound great with it.

I would characterize the Radiance as warmer/more mid-bass boosted than the Shures. They are excellent headphones (and have arguably even more comfortable pads/leather than the Shures!), though they cost about twice as much. Only the opportunity to buy Stellias pulled me away from the Radiance. They are not for fans of a neutral sound, though- they are definitely skewed warm/bass-focused. So pairing them with a warm tube amp is too much of a good thing, in my view.

Thanks for the reply. Seems like Shures are more on the neutral side compared to Focal Radiance but which out of the 2 would you say is more detailed? Which one better brings out quieter sounds and is dynamic? And which ones do you mostly use for what? I'm not seeking neutral sound, rather a balanced profile, without any audible peakiness.

 

[gourab1995]

If you're willing to buy used then a used Denon D9200 could be a fair bet, they can be had for around 900-1000 so even cheaper than an MSRP radiance, however they punch well above their price and can even compete with VC and Stellia. Their sound also seems to align with your preferences, that being a very clean sound with slight elevation in the bass; it can come across as bright depending on your ears and source gear. It does have quite an intimate soundstage, however it is wide enough so as to not sound cramped or claustrophobic.

I feel like the denons lacks some mid range presence for my taste. Too v shaped. They are a good set of v shaped set nevertheless.

 

[gourab1995]

Take this with a grain of salt since I haven't heard the Senns and only had a brief demo with the dt770 250ohm version a long time ago, but I'd say the Shures should definitely be in the mix of your choices. Probably toward the top of the list depending on what the local price differences are amongst your contenders.

Based on what you're looking for, the Shures fit pretty well, my only hesitation being that they might not be as/not have as significant a jump in detail. To my ear they're fairly neutral but with a bass boost, nice clarity, nice soundstage. They have detail, just not at the same level as something like my VC or Rognirs, but those are also in significantly different price brackets.

As @AudioDuck said, they're comfy, plus they come with additional pads. Stock cord is fine, nothing special, but it's also replaceable if you want an aftermarket one. I don't know what the 700 X comes with, but if memory serves I didn't like the coil stock cord on the dt770, and you're stuck with it.

Thanks im leaning towards the shures more, untill i hear opinions on the focal radiance as well.

 

[gourab1995]

for that very good are beyerdynamic aventho and supports aptx hd codec

Dont want a wireless set. Needs to be closed back, over the ear and noise isolating with good comfort.

 

[gourab1995]

The E-mu Teaks could also be a consideration. They sound as you described, plus they don't cost a fortune.

These dont sound good at all.. they are so sizzly.

 

[plakat]

As @AudioDuck said, they're comfy, plus they come with additional pads. Stock cord is fine, nothing special, but it's also replaceable if you want an aftermarket one. I don't know what the 700 X comes with, but if memory serves I didn't like the coil stock cord on the dt770, and you're stuck with it.

The DT700 has a detachable cable and comes with 1.8m and 3m straight cables in the box. The mini-XLR has the same pin as the AKG models that use the same connector, therefore 3rd party cables are readily available

 

[AudioDuck]

Thanks for the reply. Seems like Shures are more on the neutral side compared to Focal Radiance but which out of the 2 would you say is more detailed? Which one better brings out quieter sounds and is dynamic? And which ones do you mostly use for what? I'm not seeking neutral sound, rather a balanced profile, without any audible peakiness.

Yes, the Shures are definitely better “all-arounders” with regards to playing different musical genres, as they are more balanced than the Radiances.

For what it’s worth, my one criticism of the Radiance (and it could be a deal-breaker for some) was that with the wrong amplification- ie warm-sounding gear- the bass could be too much (even for me), simply because it was imbalanced. That said, if I’d had a different amp I might have had a different experience.

Now- to your question about details: As I only had the Radiance for a month or so, and used it with my main setup while the Shures are always at my desk/workspace, I never compared them head to head. Therefore I can’t comment on how the two models compare directly with any accuracy.

However, I’ll say this: I’ve never listened to the Shures and thought “this sounds muddy or lacks detail”. The Shures scale really well with surrounding gear, and don’t skimp on details. That said, they’re not “hi-fi sounding” analytical detail monsters. They skew more towards the fun side of the spectrum. The Shures are quite dynamic, though Focal has always done a great job with dynamics within their “house sound” headphones (such as Elear, Clear, Stellia).

But the Radiance is tuned more like Naim gear (if that helps) due to the Bentley connection (Bentley has Naim systems in their cars). Warmer, more rhythmic/pace-oriented. None of this is bad- just different from the Focal house sound of dynamic, clear, detailed sound while maintaining an oh-so-slightly warmer than neutral tilt.

With regards to usage- I used the Radiances in my main system (see below) with rock/pop/jazz/folk/EDM. The Shures are used with my Sony DAP and my work PC. Same musical genres, but also video reviews, video calling, etc (I use the microphone in my external Web cam- the Shure does not have a mic, thankfully).

I hope that helps somewhat. I’d recommend reading reviews on both. They are pretty different headphones, though with some overlap in sound signature so they appeal to similar tastes.

 

[Mhog55]

These dont sound good at all.. they are so sizzly.

Hmm, I've also owned the Radiance, and it has more high mid low treble energy than the Teaks. On top of that, the staging was noticeably less, nothing really stood out, and overall it was just kinda boring. The 9200 while a little bright at times, dances circles around the Radiance imo. More out of your head, better resolution, timbre, and detail. I even liked the Kennerton Magni better than the Radiance. I know some will disagree, but the Radiance isn't worth the asking price imo. If you thought the Teaks had too much sizzle, I'd recommend a slightly darker headphone, such as the Kennerton Gjallarhorn or Denon ah-d7200.

 

[Mhog55]

The Radiance also has that metallic sound as most Focal products do. Less so than the original Focal Clear, but still more than the Focal Clear MG which uses magnesium rather than aluminum.

 

[gourab1995]

Yes, the Shures are definitely better “all-arounders” with regards to playing different musical genres, as they are more balanced than the Radiances.

For what it’s worth, my one criticism of the Radiance (and it could be a deal-breaker for some) was that with the wrong amplification- ie warm-sounding gear- the bass could be too much (even for me), simply because it was imbalanced. That said, if I’d had a different amp I might have had a different experience.

Now- to your question about details: As I only had the Radiance for a month or so, and used it with my main setup while the Shures are always at my desk/workspace, I never compared them head to head. Therefore I can’t comment on how the two models compare directly with any accuracy.

However, I’ll say this: I’ve never listened to the Shures and thought “this sounds muddy or lacks detail”. The Shures scale really well with surrounding gear, and don’t skimp on details. That said, they’re not “hi-fi sounding” analytical detail monsters. They skew more towards the fun side of the spectrum. The Shures are quite dynamic, though Focal has always done a great job with dynamics within their “house sound” headphones (such as Elear, Clear, Stellia).

But the Radiance is tuned more like Naim gear (if that helps) due to the Bentley connection (Bentley has Naim systems in their cars). Warmer, more rhythmic/pace-oriented. None of this is bad- just different from the Focal house sound of dynamic, clear, detailed sound while maintaining an oh-so-slightly warmer than neutral tilt.

With regards to usage- I used the Radiances in my main system (see below) with rock/pop/jazz/folk/EDM. The Shures are used with my Sony DAP and my work PC. Same musical genres, but also video reviews, video calling, etc (I use the microphone in my external Web cam- the Shure does not have a mic, thankfully).

I hope that helps somewhat. I’d recommend reading reviews on both. They are pretty different headphones, though with some overlap in sound signature so they appeal to similar tastes.

Thanks a ton for the detailed reply. Im leaning towards the shures or denon d9200 right now.

 

[gourab1995]

Hmm, I've also owned the Radiance, and it has more high mid low treble energy than the Teaks. On top of that, the staging was noticeably less, nothing really stood out, and overall it was just kinda boring. The 9200 while a little bright at times, dances circles around the Radiance imo. More out of your head, better resolution, timbre, and detail. I even liked the Kennerton Magni better than the Radiance. I know some will disagree, but the Radiance isn't worth the asking price imo. If you thought the Teaks had too much sizzle, I'd recommend a slightly darker headphone, such as the Kennerton Gjallarhorn or Denon ah-d7200.

I liked the denons but not so much as to make me upgrade. The teaks are no.

Im expecting a similar jump in quality like in the iem space when going from say something like the blon bl03 to the etymotic er2xr to the Sennheisers ie600. In headphones im skipping the in-betweeners and going for a direct jump.

Thanks for giving an idea about the focals. Im being steered away more and more from them.

 

[Jaebug]

Thanks a ton for the detailed reply. Im leaning towards the shures or denon d9200 right now.

At the risk of muddying the waters even more...if you're looking at the Radiance and d9200 price range, aren't opposed to buying used, and are ok with "neutralish but with detail" for sound, I'd throw the ZMF Eikon in the ring. I'm finding mine to be pretty nice for detail, especially since you'd mentioned wanting something that can pick up softer sounds. They're not super bassy headphones, but they do have a sub-bass emphasis.

Paging @AudioDuck to weigh in because you've had your Eiks and Shures longer than me

 

[gourab1995]

At the risk of muddying the waters even more...if you're looking at the Radiance and d9200 price range, aren't opposed to buying used, and are ok with "neutralish but with detail" for sound, I'd throw the ZMF Eikon in the ring. I'm finding mine to be pretty nice for detail, especially since you'd mentioned wanting something that can pick up softer sounds. They're not super bassy headphones, but they do have a sub-bass emphasis.

Paging @AudioDuck to weigh in because you've had your Eiks and Shures longer than me

The eikons sound like the ideal choice! Unfortunately they aren't available here in India.

 

[AudioDuck]

At the risk of muddying the waters even more...if you're looking at the Radiance and d9200 price range, aren't opposed to buying used, and are ok with "neutralish but with detail" for sound, I'd throw the ZMF Eikon in the ring. I'm finding mine to be pretty nice for detail, especially since you'd mentioned wanting something that can pick up softer sounds. They're not super bassy headphones, but they do have a sub-bass emphasis.

Paging @AudioDuck to weigh in because you've had your Eiks and Shures longer than me

I am indeed a proud ZMF Eikon owner and a massive fan of them.

While the Eikons cost about as much as the Radiances, they are a completely different animal- if anything, they have more in common with the Shures (but with more detail and sub-bass to die for) and the Focal Stellias. However, the 300 Ohm impedance of the Eikons require an amp that can power them properly, such as a Violectric V200/280/281 or 202/others from their new lineup. There are also Beyer amps (A2/200) that apparently work well with ZMFs, as well as a Cayin SS amp that ZMF sells as well.

The best amps for the ZMF dynamic headphones, though, are tube amps (OTL models in particular). At least to my ears…

Based on that, I’d not mentioned the Eikons- but if you have the right amp, they will IMHO beat out the Shures and the Radiance by a large margin.

Did I mention I am a fan?