Lol WaveTheory never miss dude. Hands down one of the best and most critical reviewers out there. I've literally been waiting for him to review this because he's one of the only few people in the industry that I trust
I want to add a few things from my own experience: 1) I find the stock USB cable sound much smoother than AudioQuest Carbon and Cinammon, very close to the Forest. But the stock cable is still less fatiguing than Forest after hours of listening. I added Holo Audio USB regenerator between the stock USB cable and the AudioQuest Dragonfly, the soundstage of Bathys expands so much as if it's boundless. 2) Focal Radiance on Hugo 2 with Roon DSP convolution filter sounds identical to Bathys. I am not talking about similarity due to using the same drivers. I mean they sound 100% IDENTICAL. Convolution filter reduces impact and increases imaging sharpness on Radiance. I assume the reduced earcup size forces Focal to use DSP to tune the sound of Bathys. 3) For long listening, Bathys are very dry and fatiguing to my ears. So I eventually returned them. I'll buy the Beryllium version of Bathys, if it comes out. I find Stellia on Convolution filter sounds much smoother and Aluminum Focals. 4) Wish list for the next model: direct streaming via Wi-Fi, upsampling that makes low quality recordings more listenable, wider headband, parametric EQ, and automatic loudness adjustment for low volume listening (so I don't have to go to the app to find EQ preset).
edit: I mean dragontail, not dragonfly 5) I think AptX Adaptive is the best bluetooth solution out there. It combines the bitrate of AptX-HD and the low latency of AptX-LL. You can use a USB AptX-Adaptive transmitter on a PC or MAC to connect to Bathys without worrying about latency. If Focal really wants a step up in sound quality, Wi-Fi streaming and upsampling is the way to go.
6) despite of being the most fagitue-free headphones that I've ever listened to, Px8 is still not more preferable over Bathys to me. Px8 has decent clarity but liveliness is nowhere to be found. It's just boring af. Bathys's macro dynamics is qutie subdued compared to passive Focals, but its micro dynamics is slightly better than larger Focals.
Great review! I love these. I can attest to everything you said, compared to my Clear MGs they are tuned more evenly. They’re a noticeable step up from the Sony 1000x line (I e got the XM4 which I love). I’ve actually replaced the 3.5 cable with a Furutech ADL iHP35-II and I’ve got a big improvement in detail retrieval and dynamics. They’re a very interesting product in their line up, and make the Celestee a difficult sell for me.
I actually got a chance to listen to the Bathys and I would totally agree with your analysis. Great in depth review as usual! If you have a chance to check out the bang and olufsen h95 , I would really like to hear you thought on those headphones. I've heard those and I think they would give most other Bluetooth headphones a run for their money. Thanks!
true headphone should replicate them better, just sounds are a little 'buffed' bcs of the op dac and amp, i prefer nerfed but 'realistic' bud experience
I'm a big fan of Focal in general, especially their studio monitors, but I also own the Elex and Elegia. I have been intrigued by the Bathys since release and I appreciate the thouroghness of your review.
Glad to hear you mention the Audioquest Forest…i have iphone 14 pro and have ordered the same cable, usb-c to lightning and hope 1. It works and 2. Its better than the stock cable 👍
@@andychau123 i would say yes but my blluetooth was great as well. With regards the Audioquest cable, it didnt work which is a shame, the stock cable sounded great to me anyway so no biggie.
If the Elegia is so much better than the Bathys at $200 cheaper, won't it be better to get the elegia along with a Bluetooth dac/amp for under $200, like the BTR5, Go Blu or Qudelisk 5k, etc and a short cable? Only thing missing though would be the ANC.
@@allansh828 Thanks for that perspective. Seems a little variance from WaveTheory's comments at 39:50. Audiophile land can be so subjective and with so many variables!
So you can use these headphones in a completely passive mode, you say. Everybody else says that’s not possible. Well good to know what they sound like in passive mode. Dali IO-12 supposedly sound pretty good in passive mode and so do the Mark Levinsons. Of course these two headphones are also a bit pricier at the current moment.
I look at features first and that knocked the Bathys completely off my list. No way am I paying $800 for a wireless hp that does NOT offer the option to run passively with ANC/DSP switched completely off as I am not always in noisy places when I want the convenience of wireless. * Plus, how much extra does it cost to have the goofy lights on the cups (makes it look like a kid's toy, IMO). And for this price why no head sensor to pause music when I remove headphones?? *Note: pay attention to how wireless ANC headphones make a wobble noise when bobbing head to music with ANC on. It’s the mics adjusting to the environment. No problem sitting on plane/train but please let me turn off ANC when I chose to!) The PX8 has the best design by far and it is light and comfy too. The sound is fantastic, and the app is very good too. However, my Momentum3 have the same sound signature and sound quality to my ears. I have some pretty high end wired headphones and the ML 5909 is the best sounding wireless headphone I have heard to date (I've listened to over a dozen current top-end models). The 5909 is pure detail with spot on imaging and superior dynamic performance (at max volume I measured ~95db at the cups. If that is underwhelming, you need to get your hearing checked). The build is super premium. The cups are a little larger than the PX8 but very stylish. The app is very good with controls, but a 3 band EQ would be nice. However, in bass enhancement mode is where I would probably run these beauties anyhow. My fav feature is the option to have complete control over ANC and ambient modes. The 5909 can run via USB using its Hi-Res internal DAC, 3.5mm wired mode with ANC on, or off (3.5mm mode works when 5909 is powered off as well. Bathys, B&W and Sennheiser all need to be powered on to work in any wired mode). With my wireless cans I prefer passive mode most times, unless on plane, train on sitting outside when my neighbor is cutting his lawn. The ANC with the 5909 completely blocked out all noises especially when music is on just at a low to medium level. The passive isolation is also very good and on par with my Drop Panda. If cost is not a problem to cover, the 5909 it my #1 overall choice. For value, right now, the Momentum3 is a steal at its lower price tag since the intro of the SenMo4 (I prefer the 3 because I prefer buttons over touch control because with touch, I hit it too often just by adjusting the cans on my head).
PX8 is only 699 and much better style and features. Love the smoother presentation as well. Very warm and natural. I would never wear the Bathys.@@zombieimpact2790
I really appreciate the lack of dynamic impact compared to other Focal headphones. Focal has been too dynamic to relax to so I really appreciate less dynamics in this model.
Audio science review tested USB cables and found there was no significant difference between different cables. He did find the shorter the better. Passion for sound didn't just swap out USB cables. He swapped headphones and amps as well.
I saw that ASR video. It wasn't good science. I agree he measured tiny differences. I don't agree that those tiny differences in bit information necessarily translate to tiny differences in analog wave information. Furthermore, the thresholds of significant (in the statistical and scientific sense) differences have not been established for human ability to discern differences in sound patterns. Amir saw tiny differences and assumed they would be inaudible giving no thought to the downstream effects of those tiny differences and offering no evidence that those differences actually are tiny enough to be inaudible. As for your Passion for Sound claims, maybe we watched different videos. He used identical dacs/amps, headphones, headphone cables, and sources in a blind test. The only variable was USB cable type and a strong majority were confident they heard a difference. It was also striking how consistent the reported differences were. Preferences varied even as many heard similar differences.
I wonder if there is a similarity between this debate of “people who are able to ‘hear’ differences between cables vs those who are not” and “people who claim cilantro tastes like soap vs cilantro doesn’t have a soapy taste”. In the latter case, there’s a smell receptor gene cluster called OR6A2 that’s identified as the reason for the perception that cilantro tastes like soap. It stands to reason that there just hasn’t been enough studies to identify a similar “marker” that could explain the perceived differences between cables or lack thereof.
@@jurumal It's an interesting thought and the official answer has to be "maybe" - I am not aware of any "hearing gene" like there is tasting gene. A key difference between tasting and hearing is that tasting involves chemical reactions between the chemicals in foods and chemicals in our saliva breaking it down and interacting with those food chemicals. Our genes determine if we can have the necessary chemical reaction occur in our mouths or not. Hearing involves our ears converting fluctuations in mechanical energy to fluctuations in electrical energy carried into the brain. There is variation in how we hear based on ear shape, but I suspect there are more effectual differences in our hearing based on how our brains have processed sound since...well birth. We all have very different experiences that make our interactions with sound have different focuses and connections to what we deem relevant or important. Those connections are very hard to rewire once they've set up. However, I also think that the plasticity of the brain in this regard makes it possible for anyone to eventually learn how to recognize differences in sound patterns - provided those differences are big enough to change the result of those mechanical-to-electrical energy conversions in the ear.
Amir, Amir🤢how about you, can you sit somewhere and test 2 cables, which takes more than just ears but experience with live music too, concerts, studio recordings? Your Amir doesn't evaluate music through components but sounds and measurements, totaly irrelevant.
This is easily the best of the two Bluetooth headphones you’ve used? 😂 Just kidding. Nice review as always. BUT I’m gonna be one of those who would argue that the USB cable sound differences are nothing more than expectation bias, sorry dude.
Lol. No offense taken. The tricky thing about expectation bias is it only applies to situations where you expect to observe a difference. In the case I'm describing I initially did not expect to here a tonality difference between BT and USB but did. Then switching to the AQ cable I expected to hear the same odd tonality of stock USB and didn't. Biases are definitely real things that need to be accounted for, and certainly are obstacles to understanding reality. At the same time we must also avoid the temptation of overusing claims of bias so we don't have to face reality. Thanks for the comment.
That dip in the midrange is not "a little bit", it's very noticeable. This is the only Focal with that terrible midrange flaw. And nope, that "there's a fix for that", isn't a valid excuse.
Radiance has more bass presence, better tonality through the mids and treble, and stomps it in dynamics, resolution, and staging. It's simply not a fair comparison because one is a complete listening system with ANC and BT for $800 and the other is 'merely' a headphone for $1300. It's not apple-to-apples at all.
I had the Bathys for a week or so - so I won’t comment on the sound quality as I doubt they had adequate time to burn-in and my ears had little time to adjust , so I’ll only talk about features and build quality. The build quality is shit - the headband is poorly constructed with the plastic (running cables to each ear up) fused to the metal headband. Within 2 days I noticed the plastic coming off of the metal, and the glue was visible on both sides of the headband. The clamp force was more significant than other focal headphones which for me personally wasn’t comfortable. The feature set is “okay” but the buttons feel low quality and add to the feeling that this is a poorly constructed device. The default cables are just LAZY, at least give us a nice braided one. My $30 mouse came with nicer cables. The fact that you can’t charge while using DAC mode seems like an oversight too (unless there’s a technical point I’m missing here) in summary - there is no reality in which they should be priced at €799, make it 450-5 and I’d still be unhappy with them. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind focal, just picked up the OG Clears, but their build quality, QC and support continues to be total shit - for lack of a better term.
I''m afraid I missed the entire section of the review where you were wearing the Bathys. Not because I had to suddenly get up and forgot to pause the video, mind you. But because you had the right ear cup extended farther than the left, and that was all I focus on. 🤣
I stopped watching the review when I heard the nonsense you said about USB cables. So now we gotta believe some blind tests from Passion for sound, a guy who just repeat all audiophiles clichés like a sheep (plus he advertises scammers on his channel), over scientific test that proves that most USB cables makes no difference unless the USB cable is broken... This really makes no favours to the hobby.
@@allansh828 Sorry but no. I've tried a plethora of USB cables, from QED, Audioquest, wireworld, chord, Kimber etc... Resolution is a subjective thing and it's perception is affected by FR, the driver, distortion... But never because of a digital signal. Please I suggest you to read scientific publications about sound instead of saying the same nonsense that everyone says in the forums.
Just a guess: The USB cable might actually be broken. If the nearly 1.5 million bytes a second of data (1411kbps for CD quality x 1024!) is not compared before/after being sent through the cable, all before being converted to analog, well maybe the thin cable just can't send all that info reliably... and the headphones don't "know" it. So it's basically a lossy usb cable. I'd just get a "fatter" cable, like the amazon basics ones. No need to spend 1000$ lol.
@@LeDechaine Well, you are right about not needing expensive USB cables. The morale of the story is that USB cables wont improve the headphone sound. Defective cables of course can affect the sound, just like any other defective parts of a chain.
I appreciate your sentiment and also advise caution. I am a physics PhD and agree with the measurement side that ultimately all of this audio stuff can be reliably observable in some formal and systematic way(s). The issues are that at the current time our set of commonly used measurements provide a very incomplete picture of what happens both electrically in the audio chain and then neurologically between our ears. Furthermore there is virtually nil out there about if, when, how and how much electrical differences translate to perceptual differences. I'm with you that insisting that a FR plot is THE tool is incomplete science and the aggressive insistence in the demands for them are blunting our abilities to have meaningful dialog on the issues. However I also think that it's not helpful to simply blow off objective data. I think encouraging appropriate contextualization is more helpful. For now, as a scientist I am comfortable applying these 2 realities: 1) we don't know all of what we need to measure or how to measure it yet and 2) human sensory reports have been a primary data stream in science for centuries and while flawed, is often one of the best sources of data we have.
@@megadoodoo5088 claims that aren't backed By Science are called snake oil. You're the type of person who always gets sucked in by the latest snake oil hype.
@@wavetheorysound ok so we don't know everything. Having a physics PhD can you explain what's going on in the double slit delayed choice experiment. Do photons go back in time or is this just another thing we can't explain properly.
@@dangerzone007 In context I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question or if you're trying to make the point that if we don't know our observations are unreliable? The truth is the double-slit experiment is still in many ways a mystery. We observe what happens and can predict the outcome with high accuracy, but it's still not fully understood what mechanisms cause it to happen. Does that make the rest of physics unreliable? Of course not. The fact that you can read this on your screen is evidence that much of our physics knowledge is reliable and dependable.
Lol WaveTheory never miss dude. Hands down one of the best and most critical reviewers out there. I've literally been waiting for him to review this because he's one of the only few people in the industry that I trust
Hear hear!
My god this dude is the most articulate investigative and thorough reviewers out there. Absolutely phenomenal. Great job man
I want to add a few things from my own experience:
1) I find the stock USB cable sound much smoother than AudioQuest Carbon and Cinammon, very close to the Forest. But the stock cable is still less fatiguing than Forest after hours of listening. I added Holo Audio USB regenerator between the stock USB cable and the AudioQuest Dragonfly, the soundstage of Bathys expands so much as if it's boundless.
2) Focal Radiance on Hugo 2 with Roon DSP convolution filter sounds identical to Bathys. I am not talking about similarity due to using the same drivers. I mean they sound 100% IDENTICAL. Convolution filter reduces impact and increases imaging sharpness on Radiance. I assume the reduced earcup size forces Focal to use DSP to tune the sound of Bathys.
3) For long listening, Bathys are very dry and fatiguing to my ears. So I eventually returned them. I'll buy the Beryllium version of Bathys, if it comes out. I find Stellia on Convolution filter sounds much smoother and Aluminum Focals.
4) Wish list for the next model: direct streaming via Wi-Fi, upsampling that makes low quality recordings more listenable, wider headband, parametric EQ, and automatic loudness adjustment for low volume listening (so I don't have to go to the app to find EQ preset).
edit: I mean dragontail, not dragonfly
5) I think AptX Adaptive is the best bluetooth solution out there. It combines the bitrate of AptX-HD and the low latency of AptX-LL. You can use a USB AptX-Adaptive transmitter on a PC or MAC to connect to Bathys without worrying about latency. If Focal really wants a step up in sound quality, Wi-Fi streaming and upsampling is the way to go.
6) despite of being the most fagitue-free headphones that I've ever listened to, Px8 is still not more preferable over Bathys to me. Px8 has decent clarity but liveliness is nowhere to be found. It's just boring af. Bathys's macro dynamics is qutie subdued compared to passive Focals, but its micro dynamics is slightly better than larger Focals.
Great review! The button on the left side is for cycling the noise cancelling modes.
Great review! I love these. I can attest to everything you said, compared to my Clear MGs they are tuned more evenly. They’re a noticeable step up from the Sony 1000x line (I e got the XM4 which I love). I’ve actually replaced the 3.5 cable with a Furutech ADL iHP35-II and I’ve got a big improvement in detail retrieval and dynamics. They’re a very interesting product in their line up, and make the Celestee a difficult sell for me.
Dali IO 12 is out! I would love to see a detailed review on them from you! Thanks very much
I actually got a chance to listen to the Bathys and I would totally agree with your analysis. Great in depth review as usual! If you have a chance to check out the bang and olufsen h95 , I would really like to hear you thought on those headphones. I've heard those and I think they would give most other Bluetooth headphones a run for their money. Thanks!
true headphone should replicate them better, just sounds are a little 'buffed' bcs of the op dac and amp, i prefer nerfed but 'realistic' bud experience
for personal use i choose desktop, obviously
I'm a big fan of Focal in general, especially their studio monitors, but I also own the Elex and Elegia. I have been intrigued by the Bathys since release and I appreciate the thouroghness of your review.
This is a very good, helpful review. Thank you.
I love the the Bathys, they sound like what I would expect the AirPods Pro Gen 2 would sound like if they were Over ear headphones.
Glad to hear you mention the Audioquest Forest…i have iphone 14 pro and have ordered the same cable, usb-c to lightning and hope 1. It works and 2. Its better than the stock cable 👍
I use iPhone too. Having tried Bluetooth with bathys but not so good, are they a lot better with usb cable?
@@andychau123 i would say yes but my blluetooth was great as well. With regards the Audioquest cable, it didnt work which is a shame, the stock cable sounded great to me anyway so no biggie.
You should buy usb c to c and get DDhifi tc 28 as a micro amp
They don't support aptX HD. Only aptX and aptX Adaptive.
the numbers quoted did my head in. So I think Ill stick with my Apple Air Pod pro 2nd generation
If the Elegia is so much better than the Bathys at $200 cheaper, won't it be better to get the elegia along with a Bluetooth dac/amp for under $200, like the BTR5, Go Blu or Qudelisk 5k, etc and a short cable? Only thing missing though would be the ANC.
Elegia is not even close to the resolution and image separation of Bathys. Not even close. And I find the timing/rthyhm of Elegia a bit problematic.
@@allansh828 Thanks for that perspective. Seems a little variance from WaveTheory's comments at 39:50. Audiophile land can be so subjective and with so many variables!
With that pressure: I found this exteremely inconvenient with Bose QC35. I bought Panasonic PXC 550 where I had no issue and I can't even notice it.
Now the comparison at least to the competition from B&W, Sennheiser and the newest Sony is a must. 😉
So you can use these headphones in a completely passive mode, you say.
Everybody else says that’s not possible.
Well good to know what they sound like in passive mode.
Dali IO-12 supposedly sound pretty good in passive mode and so do the Mark Levinsons.
Of course these two headphones are also a bit pricier at the current moment.
I look at features first and that knocked the Bathys completely off my list. No way am I paying $800 for a wireless hp that does NOT offer the option to run passively with ANC/DSP switched completely off as I am not always in noisy places when I want the convenience of wireless. * Plus, how much extra does it cost to have the goofy lights on the cups (makes it look like a kid's toy, IMO). And for this price why no head sensor to pause music when I remove headphones??
*Note: pay attention to how wireless ANC headphones make a wobble noise when bobbing head to music with ANC on. It’s the mics adjusting to the environment. No problem sitting on plane/train but please let me turn off ANC when I chose to!)
The PX8 has the best design by far and it is light and comfy too. The sound is fantastic, and the app is very good too. However, my Momentum3 have the same sound signature and sound quality to my ears.
I have some pretty high end wired headphones and the ML 5909 is the best sounding wireless headphone I have heard to date (I've listened to over a dozen current top-end models). The 5909 is pure detail with spot on imaging and superior dynamic performance (at max volume I measured ~95db at the cups. If that is underwhelming, you need to get your hearing checked). The build is super premium. The cups are a little larger than the PX8 but very stylish. The app is very good with controls, but a 3 band EQ would be nice. However, in bass enhancement mode is where I would probably run these beauties anyhow. My fav feature is the option to have complete control over ANC and ambient modes. The 5909 can run via USB using its Hi-Res internal DAC, 3.5mm wired mode with ANC on, or off (3.5mm mode works when 5909 is powered off as well. Bathys, B&W and Sennheiser all need to be powered on to work in any wired mode). With my wireless cans I prefer passive mode most times, unless on plane, train on sitting outside when my neighbor is cutting his lawn. The ANC with the 5909 completely blocked out all noises especially when music is on just at a low to medium level. The passive isolation is also very good and on par with my Drop Panda.
If cost is not a problem to cover, the 5909 it my #1 overall choice. For value, right now, the Momentum3 is a steal at its lower price tag since the intro of the SenMo4 (I prefer the 3 because I prefer buttons over touch control because with touch, I hit it too often just by adjusting the cans on my head).
Focal Bathy's are $629.99 right now.
PX8 is only 699 and much better style and features. Love the smoother presentation as well. Very warm and natural. I would never wear the Bathys.@@zombieimpact2790
Looks really good
Thank you for the very detailed review. How would you compare these to the Radiance in terms of tuning and technicalities?
I’m a cable believer no snake oil.
I really appreciate the lack of dynamic impact compared to other Focal headphones. Focal has been too dynamic to relax to so I really appreciate less dynamics in this model.
Audio science review tested USB cables and found there was no significant difference between different cables. He did find the shorter the better. Passion for sound didn't just swap out USB cables. He swapped headphones and amps as well.
I saw that ASR video. It wasn't good science. I agree he measured tiny differences. I don't agree that those tiny differences in bit information necessarily translate to tiny differences in analog wave information. Furthermore, the thresholds of significant (in the statistical and scientific sense) differences have not been established for human ability to discern differences in sound patterns. Amir saw tiny differences and assumed they would be inaudible giving no thought to the downstream effects of those tiny differences and offering no evidence that those differences actually are tiny enough to be inaudible. As for your Passion for Sound claims, maybe we watched different videos. He used identical dacs/amps, headphones, headphone cables, and sources in a blind test. The only variable was USB cable type and a strong majority were confident they heard a difference. It was also striking how consistent the reported differences were. Preferences varied even as many heard similar differences.
I wonder if there is a similarity between this debate of “people who are able to ‘hear’ differences between cables vs those who are not” and “people who claim cilantro tastes like soap vs cilantro doesn’t have a soapy taste”. In the latter case, there’s a smell receptor gene cluster called OR6A2 that’s identified as the reason for the perception that cilantro tastes like soap. It stands to reason that there just hasn’t been enough studies to identify a similar “marker” that could explain the perceived differences between cables or lack thereof.
@@jurumal It's an interesting thought and the official answer has to be "maybe" - I am not aware of any "hearing gene" like there is tasting gene. A key difference between tasting and hearing is that tasting involves chemical reactions between the chemicals in foods and chemicals in our saliva breaking it down and interacting with those food chemicals. Our genes determine if we can have the necessary chemical reaction occur in our mouths or not. Hearing involves our ears converting fluctuations in mechanical energy to fluctuations in electrical energy carried into the brain. There is variation in how we hear based on ear shape, but I suspect there are more effectual differences in our hearing based on how our brains have processed sound since...well birth. We all have very different experiences that make our interactions with sound have different focuses and connections to what we deem relevant or important. Those connections are very hard to rewire once they've set up. However, I also think that the plasticity of the brain in this regard makes it possible for anyone to eventually learn how to recognize differences in sound patterns - provided those differences are big enough to change the result of those mechanical-to-electrical energy conversions in the ear.
Amir, Amir🤢how about you, can you sit somewhere and test 2 cables, which takes more than just ears but experience with live music too, concerts, studio recordings? Your Amir doesn't evaluate music through components but sounds and measurements, totaly irrelevant.
This is easily the best of the two Bluetooth headphones you’ve used? 😂 Just kidding. Nice review as always. BUT I’m gonna be one of those who would argue that the USB cable sound differences are nothing more than expectation bias, sorry dude.
Lol. No offense taken. The tricky thing about expectation bias is it only applies to situations where you expect to observe a difference. In the case I'm describing I initially did not expect to here a tonality difference between BT and USB but did. Then switching to the AQ cable I expected to hear the same odd tonality of stock USB and didn't. Biases are definitely real things that need to be accounted for, and certainly are obstacles to understanding reality. At the same time we must also avoid the temptation of overusing claims of bias so we don't have to face reality. Thanks for the comment.
@@wavetheorysound That’s a fair point. In my case, my expectation bias is towards that there would be no difference, that’s why I never hear it. 😂 👍
@@wavetheorysound I've read numerous reviews of the Focal and they all comment on the sound being better with USB than bluetooth.
Are they better than apples studios max
That dip in the midrange is not "a little bit", it's very noticeable. This is the only Focal with that terrible midrange flaw. And nope, that "there's a fix for that", isn't a valid excuse.
do they need burn in period.
Welp. Apparently Focal cheaped out on the USB cable!
I find the stock cable sound much smoother than AudioQuest Carbon and Forest.
how is it compared to radiance?
Radiance has more bass presence, better tonality through the mids and treble, and stomps it in dynamics, resolution, and staging. It's simply not a fair comparison because one is a complete listening system with ANC and BT for $800 and the other is 'merely' a headphone for $1300. It's not apple-to-apples at all.
I had the Bathys for a week or so - so I won’t comment on the sound quality as I doubt they had adequate time to burn-in and my ears had little time to adjust , so I’ll only talk about features and build quality. The build quality is shit - the headband is poorly constructed with the plastic (running cables to each ear up) fused to the metal headband. Within 2 days I noticed the plastic coming off of the metal, and the glue was visible on both sides of the headband. The clamp force was more significant than other focal headphones which for me personally wasn’t comfortable. The feature set is “okay” but the buttons feel low quality and add to the feeling that this is a poorly constructed device. The default cables are just LAZY, at least give us a nice braided one. My $30 mouse came with nicer cables. The fact that you can’t charge while using DAC mode seems like an oversight too (unless there’s a technical point I’m missing here) in summary - there is no reality in which they should be priced at €799, make it 450-5 and I’d still be unhappy with them. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind focal, just picked up the OG Clears, but their build quality, QC and support continues to be total shit - for lack of a better term.
I''m afraid I missed the entire section of the review where you were wearing the Bathys. Not because I had to suddenly get up and forgot to pause the video, mind you. But because you had the right ear cup extended farther than the left, and that was all I focus on. 🤣
Sorry for changing your Focal point 😆
@@wavetheorysound ...you've no idea how badly I wish I could truthfully say I intentionally set that pun up.
Halfhour before sound..zzzzzz
5909 is lot better tbh
I will grab you big case and run, then you will know how to cary
If you review a product, you should at least know what the buttons do.
Lost credibility when arguing usb cables sound different. Digital signal. Not credible commenter.
I stopped watching the review when I heard the nonsense you said about USB cables. So now we gotta believe some blind tests from Passion for sound, a guy who just repeat all audiophiles clichés like a sheep (plus he advertises scammers on his channel), over scientific test that proves that most USB cables makes no difference unless the USB cable is broken...
This really makes no favours to the hobby.
if you use a USB DAC, try Supra USB cable. It only costs 40 dollars. The resolution increase over a generic cable is huge.
@@allansh828 Sorry but no. I've tried a plethora of USB cables, from QED, Audioquest, wireworld, chord, Kimber etc...
Resolution is a subjective thing and it's perception is affected by FR, the driver, distortion... But never because of a digital signal.
Please I suggest you to read scientific publications about sound instead of saying the same nonsense that everyone says in the forums.
Well you stopped watching near the end so it's good. 😁
Just a guess: The USB cable might actually be broken. If the nearly 1.5 million bytes a second of data (1411kbps for CD quality x 1024!) is not compared before/after being sent through the cable, all before being converted to analog, well maybe the thin cable just can't send all that info reliably... and the headphones don't "know" it. So it's basically a lossy usb cable.
I'd just get a "fatter" cable, like the amazon basics ones. No need to spend 1000$ lol.
@@LeDechaine Well, you are right about not needing expensive USB cables.
The morale of the story is that USB cables wont improve the headphone sound. Defective cables of course can affect the sound, just like any other defective parts of a chain.
Let's be scientific. If you think different USB cables sound different let's see the frequency responses of them.
Who cares about fr lol if u hear it u hear it. if u dont hear, just dont buy expensive usb cable and save money. Sounds pretty good for me.
I appreciate your sentiment and also advise caution. I am a physics PhD and agree with the measurement side that ultimately all of this audio stuff can be reliably observable in some formal and systematic way(s). The issues are that at the current time our set of commonly used measurements provide a very incomplete picture of what happens both electrically in the audio chain and then neurologically between our ears. Furthermore there is virtually nil out there about if, when, how and how much electrical differences translate to perceptual differences. I'm with you that insisting that a FR plot is THE tool is incomplete science and the aggressive insistence in the demands for them are blunting our abilities to have meaningful dialog on the issues. However I also think that it's not helpful to simply blow off objective data. I think encouraging appropriate contextualization is more helpful. For now, as a scientist I am comfortable applying these 2 realities: 1) we don't know all of what we need to measure or how to measure it yet and 2) human sensory reports have been a primary data stream in science for centuries and while flawed, is often one of the best sources of data we have.
@@megadoodoo5088 claims that aren't backed By Science are called snake oil. You're the type of person who always gets sucked in by the latest snake oil hype.
@@wavetheorysound ok so we don't know everything. Having a physics PhD can you explain what's going on in the double slit delayed choice experiment. Do photons go back in time or is this just another thing we can't explain properly.
@@dangerzone007 In context I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question or if you're trying to make the point that if we don't know our observations are unreliable? The truth is the double-slit experiment is still in many ways a mystery. We observe what happens and can predict the outcome with high accuracy, but it's still not fully understood what mechanisms cause it to happen. Does that make the rest of physics unreliable? Of course not. The fact that you can read this on your screen is evidence that much of our physics knowledge is reliable and dependable.
I'm responding 10 months later from this video posting. And I Paid six hundred and ninety nine dollars for mine