Review of Focal Clear MG Pro2024

Table of Contents

Review of Focal Clear MG Pro

Important Update: Jude on Head-Fi disclosed an email interaction with Focal in which the Clear MG and Clear MG Pro are still acoustically identical. As a result, disparities between other available measurements and the unit tested here may be due to unit variations and location on the rig, rather than measuring rig differences.

Intro:

Since the release of Focal’s premium headphone lineup, I’ve grown to love their tuning. They appear to have set out to create a certain sound, or “house sound,” which is often well-balanced with a focus on the subtlety of the bass, crispness of the mids, and warmth of the high.

Out of their first selection, I personally preferred the Clear OG (Focal claims that the Clear Pro is musically identical to the Clear OG), which offers all of the features I’ve just mentioned in a fun package. Since its release, The Clear has proven to be a popular product in the market.

The Clear MG/MG Pro, the replacement model released by Focal in 2021, features driver domes made entirely of magnesium rather than the aluminum-magnesium alloy found in the original model. Does this make a better sounding change? Would these changes jeopardise the predecessor’s commercial success?

A kind reader—the same one who also sent in the HD820 and LCD-X, I should mention—submitted in his pair of Clear MG Pro for review right when I was curious to find out. Bravo to him, and now let’s talk specifics.

link to the frequency response measurement & more comparisons

First impression & chitchat:

I listened to the headphones before measuring their FR. And I must say, the Clear MG Pro surprised me.

In contrast to my expectations of a lush, warm sound, as indicated by other reviewers’ measurements, which show a pronounced treble roll-off on the Clear MG compared to the Clear OG, what greeted my ears was a sound profile remarkably close to neutral, and not nearly as dark as those measurements suggested (source 1, source 2; although source 3 appears to align better with my measurement). Initially, the MG PRo appeared to be less airy than the OG, but I soon recognised that this was due to a drop in the constituents of’sheen’.

Instead, we have a nicely balanced sound profile, which I would never describe as ‘black’ or’veiled’. The sense of resolution appears to have improved since the first release. Overall, the MG Pro feels more refined than the OG, with somewhat improved definition in the mids and highs.

After taking the dimensions, I know where my impressions came from. Indeed, the Clear MG Pro has a sound profile similar to the OG, but with more treble extension.

There is less energy between 3-6khz, which could explain why some people have reported the MG Pro to be a little less brilliant. However, the difference is not as dramatic as some reviewers’ measurements of the Clear MG suggest.

This raises an interesting question: are the Clear MG and Clear MG Pro still acoustically identical headphone? It appears that the Clear OG and Clear Pro were tuned identically, however we should proceed with caution in the case of the MG.

After taking the dimensions, I know where my impressions came from. Indeed, the Clear MG Pro has a sound profile similar to the OG, but with more treble extension.

Rather, we have a really well-balanced sound profile here, which isn’t at all “dark” or “veiled.” Compared to the original, there seems to be a greater sense of resolution. Overall, the MG Pro seems to be a more sophisticated version of the original, with marginally improved definition in the mids and highs.

I’ve now determined the source of my impressions after taking the measurements. The Clear MG Pro’s sound profile does, in fact, nearly mimic that of the original, but with more treble extension.

The reason why some people have reported that the MG Pro sounds a little less bright is because there is a little less energy between 3-6 kHz. Once more, though, the difference is not quite as substantial as other reviewers’ measurements of the Clear MG have indicated.

This raises an intriguing query: are the Clear MG and Clear MG Pro still analogue versions of each other? Although it appears that most people agree that the Clear OG and the Clear Pro have the identical tuning, we might want to proceed with some caution when it comes to the MG.

Unfortunately, I do not have the Clear MG on hand to compare, but it is possible that the MG and MG Pro have different tunings – this appears to be the most logical explanation for the observed differences. The discrepancies appear to be too significant to be attributed exclusively to unit variance or earpad quality control.

Tonal balance:

One thing is certain: the Clear MG Pro undeniably recalls Focal’s home sound, albeit with a little quieter interpretation.

The bass is powerful, deep, and punchy, as one would expect from a high-end Focal headset. This is without a doubt the MG Pro’s strongest point. I’d even go so far as to claim that the Clear MG Pro’s bass is comparable to the Utopia 2022, with the latter having a little advantage in terms of speed and microdynamic subtleties. The scale of impact and slam is remarkably similar between the two, with the MG Pro having somewhat greater bass amount.

When compared to the Clear OG, the MG Pro’s bass feels deeper and tighter, albeit the change is not significant. Overall, the MG Pro’s bass quality and quantity are unquestionably best in class.

The mids are similar to the OG’s: smooth, organic, full-bodied, and articulate. The dip at 4-5kHz lends a sense of’softness’ or ‘romantic tint’ to vocals, helping to remove some of the harshness or graininess.

When compared to the classical reference, the Sennheiser HD600, the MG Pro’s vocals sound broader and more well-rounded, which could be considered coloration. Aside from that, the vocal tone is rather accurate. The bass bump provides a touch of warmth, but not too much. Still, it’s not the luscious and liquidy vocal you’d expect from headphones like the Audeze LCD 3. It resembles a meatier, more polished variation of neutral. If you find the HD600 too shouty and grainy on certain tunes, the Clear MG Pro is a better option.

The treble is particularly well-tuned, keeping a dynamic presence while avoiding irritating peaks. As previously stated, the dip at 4-5kHz has an impact on the timbre of the mids, while the Clear MG Pro’s highs remain neutral. The sensation of treble clarity articulation feels slightly better than the original Clear, owing to an additional boost in the upper treble above 15kHz. Meanwhile, the range from 6 to 10 kHz is more linear overall. While some have found the Clear OG to be slightly metallic in sound, the MG Pro rarely exhibits this issue. However, due to the MG Pro’s increased treble extension, vocal breaths and sibilances may appear significantly more apparent than the OG.

Overall, I appreciate Focal’s balance of the Clear sound. The OG’s characteristic ‘warmth’ or’mellowness’ is toned down little here. Meanwhile, they corrected the metallic sheen that some criticised in the original while strengthening the upper treble, resulting in better tonal balance and definition. The MG Pro may occasionally feel less smooth than its predecessor, but it’s a worthy trade-off, especially for instrumental music, which benefits immensely from the improved tuning. If increased resolution is not a priority, pop fans may still choose the Clear OG.

Differences in driver tuning: the Clear OG with MG Pro pads

We obtain a clearer picture of the tuning differences between the MG Pro and Clear OG drivers when we use the same ear pad. Elevated upper treble extension and a little more linear response below the treble are essentially the key distinctions.

Other qualities (‘technicalities’):

Soundstage and Imaging

Although not the largest, the soundstage is typical of Focal headphones. The stage is not very remarkable, either horizontally or vertically. Due to tighter bass and longer treble, which both contribute to a greater sense of transparency and openness, the MG Pro seems to give an ever-so-slightly bigger stage than the original.

Vocal pictures with the Clear OG/Clear Pro OG can seem a little “diffused” or “fuzzy.” With sharper imagery and layering, the MG Pro outperforms this, however it might appear less “romantic.” I think the MG Pro is more adaptable to a wider range of musical styles, but this may just be personal preference.

Clarity

The resolution and clarity are excellent. In my opinion, it advances slightly beyond the original. High frequency instrument overtones, such as those from cymbals, feel sharper and more clear than they did in the past. It holds its own against the best models in its category, such as the HD800 or HE1000 V2, but not by much.

Its midrange and treble articulation is not as good as that of the Utopia 2022, although the differences are not as great as their price differential suggests. This discrepancy might also have been caused by the MG Pro’s richer bass. In general, the increased degree of clarity is a welcome surprise.

Dynamics and Impact

Dynamics are a strong suit for Focal headphones, and the Clear MG Pro is no exception. It provides crisp decay, fast transients, and strong bass. Although the impression of attack may be slightly slower than with planar or electrostatic headphones, the effect is far more profound and visceral.

Immediately, the MG Pro feels more powerful and energetic against the Ananda Stealth. In terms of macrodynamics, it is comparable to the Clear OG, with marginal gains in terms of cleaner decay and the capacity to resolve microdynamic subtleties. The MG Pro performs admirably even in comparison to the considerably more expensive Utopia 2022, with the Utopia having somewhat better dynamic contrast and bass clarity. Overall, these are areas where the MG Pro shines.

Conclusion and value:

Finding out how the Clear MG Pro sounds has been a pleasure. Because of the Clear MG specifications, I thought some reviews could sound excessively dark, but that wasn’t the case. Given the MG Pro’s versatility and sense of balance, I can’t help but think that the Clear MG Pro and Clear MG may have different tunings. Of course, other factors, such as unit variation, might also have an impact on the reported differences. If I get an opportunity to test the Clear MG in the future, I’ll report back.

components.Now, let’s talk about cost and worth. With an RRP of US$1499 (AU$2199), the Clear MG Pro is priced similarly to other Focal headphones. Considering that other excellent headphones like the Edition XS or the HD6XX are available for far less, it is a lot to pay. However, with Focal, you definitely get what you pay for—a sturdy construction and high-quality

Actually, it appears that Focal headphones are frequently on sale. Considering the quality and performance they offer, the value proposition is pretty reasonable, with a more realistic street pricing typically falling between 60 and 70 percent of the original RRP.

Advantages: excellent treble extension compared to the predecessor; balanced tuning; remarkable dynamics; slightly warm but crisp and articulate sound.

Cons: Still a little small soundstage; slightly overdone vocals may not be completely realistic for some people; less transparent and airy than comparably priced planars and estats.

MEASUREMENTS

Frequency Response Average:

Bass extension cutoff is 10hz instead of 20hz on the extende frequency response measurement, so as to fully capture frequencies which though may not outside of ‘audible range’, may be felt by our ears, bones and muscles and enhance the sense of ‘impact’.

Positional Variation:

This graph depicts how tonality may be changed by wearing headphones in different positions on the head.
Note that the response of Focal headphones appears to be particularly sensitive to their position on the head. The changes begin very early in the lower middle frequencies, whereas most headphones only deviate in the treble with variable settings.

It is possible that positional variance accounts for some of the disparities between my measurement of the Clear MG Pro and other Clear MG measurements accessible online. However, the disparities appear to be too considerable, especially as Crinacle and Oratory1990 employ aggregate results rather than individual data.