Review: Focal Radiance

Intro:

Ever since the pandemic swept through, I’ve embarked on a quest for a respectable pair of closed-back headphones that I could use for working-from-home. My criteria were simple: they had to provide substantial sound isolation without compromising on the sound quality offered by their open-back counterparts. The journey was far from easy – I sampled a fair few of closed-backs, only to find that most of them couldn’t hold a candle to open-backs in terms of SQ, at least in my book.

However, amidst the ordinary, there were the better ones, with the Focal Radiance being a case in poiont. They might not be the top performers in their price range, but they certainly deliver a pleasing listening experience coupled with excellent sound insulation. That said, there are a few quirks to this headphone that you might need to consider before making the purchase.

Let’s find out.

Overall impression:

The words that spring to mind are ‘sharp’, ‘dynamic’, and ‘vibrant’. The Radiance generally renders vocals realistically – they’re forward and distinct, exhibiting a commendable level of articulation. The bass is slightly on the heftier, meatier side. The highs err slightly towards the drier and more delicate tones, yet they avoid being overly bright. They may sound a touch metallic though.

There doesn’t seem to be significant colouration issues for most tracks. That being said, the soundstage, along with the sense of openness and naturalness, could benefit from some enhancement. Though, this is to be expected, given the closed-back design.

link to the frequency response measurement & more comparisons

Tonal balance

Bass:

The Radiance delivers a hefty dose of punchy and largely tight bass. On certain tracks, the punch might not meet expectations if the track is heavy on upper bass (around 150-250hz) rather than the lower register. Thus, I generally find the bass on the Radiance to be present without being overly intrusive.

Nonetheless, there’s a distinct sense of ‘thump’ that stands out, emphasising the fullness of bass that is essentially for genres like EDM. . If you’re accustomed to the linear presentation of bass, as found in many planar magnetic headphones, you might find the Radiance lacking in bass ‘warmth’. Yet this also results in a tighter bass boost. In comparison to open-back Focal models like the Elear or Clear, the Radiance’s impact and punch feel a step back, likely a result of its closed-back design.

While the bass quality may not be top-tier, the Radiance certainly does not skimp on bass quantity. Sometimes, IME, the volume feels slightly overbearing. Even in a minimalist genre like a jazz trio, the presence of the double bass can occasionally infringe on the spaces of other instruments, potentially compromising clarity and expressiveness in the piano’s lower register.

Overall, the bass boost doesn’t pose a problem for most tracks. However, you will need to come to terms with its prominent presence, a characteristic somewhat unusual in the realm of high-end headphones. The bottom line is, the Radiance exhibits a robust and dynamic bass response that will likely satisfy bass enthusiasts.

Mids:

Speaking of the mid-range in isolation, there’s not much to fault. The Radiance’s mid-range preserves neutrality admirably, with any colouration primarily a result of the pronounced low-end and the somewhat metallic timbre of the highs. While the mid-range is by no means suppressed or subdued, the heightened energy in the lows and highs can sometimes take the listener’s attention away from the mids. Consequently, vocals nestled in the middle can feel somewhat overshadowed and less full-bodied. Those seeking lush and warm vocals might not find the Radiance’s mid-range to their liking.

On certain tracks, a subtle colouration of the mids can be felt, which I’ve identified as a trait of Focal headphones in general. This appears as a slight hint of a ‘sweet’ or ‘velvety’ quality that softens some vocal harmonics in the upper mids, as evidenced by the minor dip around 4-5kHz in the frequency response.

In summary, the mids timbre on the Radiance is satisfactory. In the broader context of high-end headphones, it holds its own – neither standing out as particularly impressive nor falling short as disappointing. Within the realm of closed-back headphones, it’s really commendable, with no significant tuning flaws like hollow voices or nasal tones.

Treble:

In general, I find the highs to be slightly on the brighter side. They’re clear but not grating, although there are a few peculiarities in the upper octaves. Simply put, there are some smoothness issues in the treble, but this is not always noticeable because the colouration is mainly confined to the upper treble region of air and sizzles above 10kHz.

The first half of the treble below 8kHz shows a fairly standard energy level, but the higher harmonic regions are somewhat instense, resulting in a transition that can appear rather abrupt. We know that timbre relies on the accurate reproduction of the harmonic series of the instruments. On the Radiance, mid-to-high frequency instruments and female vocals can come across as somewhat sharper, drier, exhibiting a slightly metallic texture. However, for much of the music where there is less content above 10kHz, this issue may not be prominent. Some might actually prefer the added ‘bite’ in the upper treble as it often augments the sense of excitement and clarity.

So, preference plays a strong role here. Yet, if you’re seeking a natural and smooth presentation of the treble, be mindful of the additional sheen that the Radiance brings, which is much more prominent than that found on the other Focal headphones, such as the Clear or the Celestee.

Manual sine-sweep:

Performing a sine sweep on my own head revealed frequency peaks at 6.5-7k, 8.5k, and a rather strong resonance from 11-12kHz. The bass level is consistently high. The 9kHz dip did not come across to my ear.

It’s crucial to note that the perception of treble can vary significantly from one person to another, especially above 10kHz. Depending on headphone positioning, your own Head-Related Transfer Function (HRTF), and/or variation in headphone units, you may or may not detect the same peaks or dips.

Other qualities:

• Space and Stage: The soundstage performance isn’t the most impressive, which isn’t surprising for a sealed headphone. Sound images tend to merge into a soundscape and the distinction between elements can sometimes be a bit fuzzy. This is a trait I’ve noticed in many Focal headphones, including the Elear, Clear, and Celestee. Neither the horizontal nor the vertical stage appear particularly expansive. The sense of airiness and spaciousness also noticeably lags behind Focal’s open-back headphones. Perhaps their specially designed honeycomb back chamber, which mimics the effect of pyramid absorbers in an anechoic room, overcompensates to the extent that it almost eradicates the sense of sound diffusing naturally in a space. When you put these on, there’s a very discernible pressure-like feeling, akin to being in an anechoic room, and when a note is played, it feels as if the trailing ends of the tone vanish instantly. However, on the bright side, the Radiance’s passive noise isolation capability is truly remarkable, perhaps even the best I’ve ever encountered.

• Imaging and Directionality: As is somewhat predictable given the Radiance’s soundstage performance, imaging is also not particularly impressive. Vocalists are presented front and centre, although the image can be a tad fuzzy. Perhaps it has to do with the small dip between 4-5kHz. The sense of depth and distance between elements of the music isn’t very distinct. I double-checked to ensure this wasn’t due to poor quality control, as my pair exhibits decent left and right channel matching.

• Clarity: The sense of clarity and resolution is respectable. No single frequency range is blurred out, and you can easily distinguish instruments from either end of the spectrum. Of course, it’s not on par with top dynamic headphones like the HD800 or the ADX5000, and I’d even suggest that planars like the Sundara has a slight edge in terms of clarity, but among closed-backs, the Radiance holds its own very well. Perhaps the TH900mk2 performs discernibly better, but they aren’t fully sealed headphones. I do subtract points when the bass boost can create a boomy or bloated experience if the track already contains a lot of bass information. Also, the upper treble is slightly too ragged to deliver a smooth and clear top end. There may be an excess of spice in the highs that results in a delivery that can often seem noticeably coloured. As such, there is an added emphasis on the elements of ‘sheen’ and ‘detail’.

• Dynamics and Impact: The Radiance performs quite well in this category, although perhaps not as impressively as Focal’s open-back models. The sense of punch and slam is comparable. Those seeking a substantial bass presence are likely to enjoy the Radiance’s generous impact. However, its ability to portray the contrast between strong and weak notes seems to lag behind the Clear. This might be due to the more linear reproduction of bass energies on the latter. On the Radiance, you get a very ‘structured’ kind of bass boost which, while it helps maintain a clean extra sense of thump, tends to colour the balance of bass energies in the original mix. As can be seen from the comparison below to the Harman Target 2018, which includes a bass boost of about 3dB@85hz, the Radiance adds roughly another 5dB. This results in about 8dB of bass gain in comparison to a flat response.

---

Conclusion and value:

As a closed-back headphone, the Radiance performs commendably in most areas. It offers a clear, dynamic, and exciting sound profile. However, the same energetic character that makes the Radiance stand out also means it’s a headphone with a strong character which some may not like. I personally find the bass boost and the additional treble zest to be slightly overwhelming, particularly for extended listening sessions. I might enjoy them for an hour or two, but any longer and I start to feel a tad fatigued by the excessive energy, prompting me to switch to more neutrally tuned headphones for a change.

That said, I can see many people appreciating the Radiance’s tuning, and I completely understand. Indeed, they are excellently tuned for what they are – a truly sealed pair of headphones with exceptional sound isolation capabilities. Notably, the Radiance offers one of the most neutral and enjoyable mids amongst closed-back headphones, a rather rare attribute.

In terms of value, the Radiance might seem slightly overpriced at its original MSRP of $1299 USD. Broadly speaking, I find the sound quality of the Radiance superior to that of the Celestee, but the difference isn’t as pronounced as their price disparity. Speaking of overall SQ alone, perhaps the Radiance’s closest competition is the EMU Teak, although which, just like the TH900, isn’t fully sealed either. It’s worth noting that the Radiance seems to be selling for significantly less these days, with the realistic street price falling about 30-40% below the original MSRP. As such, the value of the Radiance isn’t so bad.

Pros: well-balanced sound profile especially for a closed-back; tight and punchy bass; mids are articulate and clean; excellent isolation from external sound;

Cons: significantly boosted bass and added treble zest can be fatiguing for long listening; not very good at soundstaging; air and extension could be better.

Recommendation rating (BETA):

---

MEASUREMENTS

Frequency Response Average:

note: 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:

note: this graph shows how the tonality might be affected when you wear the headphones differently on the head.
seating position of the pinna relative to the ear cup: front (blue), centre (green), back (red)

Leakage Test:

note: this graph demonstrates how a small leakage (simulated using thin-armed glasses) can result in FR change.

Impulse Response:

note: impulse response gives time-domain information about the transducer movement after a test tone is played. It should mainly be read for detecting polarity.
notably, the Focal Radiance has inverted polarity which is quite uncommon for dynamic headphones…

Channel Matching:

note: channel matching graphs DOES NOT RELATE TO SOUND PROFILE.
a specialised configuration is used to capture channel differences to mitigate the interference from positioning on rig and the asymmetricity in GRAS pinnae design (legacy of the Kemar).
the Left (blue) and Right (red) channels are measured on a flat plate coupler with an IEC60318-4 ear simulator.

END OF THE ARTICLE

Disclaimer: all the headphones tested here are my personal units unless otherwise stated. All the links and recommendations provided are not associated with me in any financial manner.