Frequency response of the ClarityHD Micro, at 0° on-axis (blue trace) and averaged across a ±30° window (green trace), referenced to 0 dB at 1 kHz.
Frequency response
68 Hz to 20 kHz ±4.8 dB on-axis, ±4.3 dB avg 0-30°
Bass limit
80 Hz at 84.1 dB
To measure the quasi-anechoic frequency response of the ClarityHD Micro, I set it atop a 2-meter stand and placed the microphone at a distance of 1 meter. (Quasi-anechoic measurements eliminate reflections from surrounding objects to simulate measuring in an anechoic chamber.) I then ran a close-miked measurement of the passive radiator to get the bass response. To create the graph shown here, I spliced the bass response to the average of quasi-anechoic measurements of the left channel only taken at 0°, ±10°, ±20°, and ±30°. I used a Clio FW analyzer in MLS mode for the quasi-anechoic measurements and log chirp mode for the close-miked sweep, feeding the test signals into the ClarityHD Micro’s 3.5mm line input. The quasi-anechoic measurements were smoothed to 1/12th octave. The blue trace shows the 0° on-axis response, while the green trace shows the averaged response.
The ClarityHD Micro’s frequency response looks admirably smooth, but there’s an obvious uptilt in the tonal balance. Almost the entire treble band from 3 to 20 kHz is boosted, by a max of +7.9 dB. In a product with very limited bass output such as the Micro, this kind of tonal balance tends to sound especially bright. Averaged off-axis response is almost the same as on-axis response, which is admirable although it’s what you’d expect from such small drivers.
To gauge the ClarityHD Micro’s bass output, I used CEA-2010 measurement technique at a distance of 1 meter. Maximum bass output is actually pretty good for a device of this size, suggesting that the bass could have been pumped up by at least a few dB without causing distortion problems.
Bottom line
Although the ClarityHD Micro has a nice design, and seems to have the technical capability to perform really well, I don’t consider its sound quality competitive with that of my favorite products in this category.
thanks for this review! i was considering the monster as something inbetween the foxl and the soundlink, but if it sounds even worse than the foxl, i will pass and look somewhere else.
it is interesting that you continue to mention the jambox to have a fuller sound than the foxl. i also own both and in my case the foxl trumps the jambox. the jambox only has fuller sound if i turn on liveaudio, but at the same time the whole mix gets mixed up, reverb effects are brought to the front etc, and the overall volume becomes half as low. the only advantage the jambox has is a slightly higher volume than the foxl without distorting.
but overall i would choose the foxl over the jambox anytime.
btw. you should have a listen to the new soundlink that just came out some weeks ago. it is by far my favorite speaker now. bose tweaked the sound a little bit on the new version for the better.
sure it is not that small as both jambox or foxl, but booksized it kills any other portable speaker i have tried so far.
regards, olaf
Hi, Olaf. That's interesting that you feel the FoxL sounds fuller than the Jambox. Exactly the opposite of my impression, although I've been told there really shouldn't be much difference between the two. The internal components are quite similar. I think the sonic differences may have to do with what you place the unit on. For me, the Jambox's larger, rubberized bottom seems to transfer its vibration into the supporting surface better, which can create the perception of better bass response depending on what that surface is. The FoxL definitely doesn't transfer much vibration into the surface below - it's too busy scooting around! (Unless of course you use that little mat.)
I will make an effort to go hear the new Soundlink. Sadly, Bose doesn't seem enthusiastic about sending review samples. The QC15 headphone sample we tested did not come from Bose.
hello brent! thanks for your response.
i had both foxl V2 and V2.2 and even between them there was quite a bit of difference in sound. the older model had the passive radiator tuned lower, but because of that you couldn't hear that much bass except some vibration. the newer model was tuned for the better and also treble was brought down a little bit. my jambox rather sounds more similar to the V2 version i had. the bass is more powerful, but you actually cannot hear it that much.
i like the foxl a lot, but sometimes i am missing a bit of bass when it is not setup properly. the foxl needs some wall or even corner at the back in order to realy show off, but this is where the soundlink comes in, it sometimes can even have too much bass, but when i use it mostly outside in the garden etc the stronger bass is actually an advantage as it doesn't get lost that quickly and you actually have the impression of listening to a much larger system.
i also compared the BIG jambox with the soundlink and i liked the soundlink more. while it is even smaller, the sound is fuller and more powerful which was really surprising. i like the funky design of the BIG jambox, but for portability reasons the soundlink is a much better choice.
if bose won't send you a test-sample just oder one and send it back again if you don't like it ;-)
i would really love to see your frequency-graphs for the soundlink and your honest opinion about it!
Hi Brent,
Great review as always. I picked up the Panansonic HC-SC05 based on your article 'Tangled up in Bluetooth'. I play it thru an equalizer set up and tweak up the frequency which were depressed/subdued in your chart. Works great and sounds great. I also own a Logitech S715 dock. This one has been a best seller and really sounds the part. The only disadvantages being that the sound on batteries is not great and it's not portable enough for business trips.
I've been on the lookout for a good portable setup with Bluetooth capabilities. Have considered the FoxL V2, Geneva Model XS and the Bose Soundlink. The first two sound a little weak for my liking as I listen to Jazz, Soft Rock and Country. The sound is very crisp, but lacks that depth which makes you enjoy your music. The Bose Soundlink really was the one I was counting on. But was disappointed with the overall sound. The sound is a bit mixed up with the highs not being as sharp and merging with the mids. The music monitors sound much better in comparison.
I do hope they have addressed this issue in Version 2. It'll be an automatic buy for me. Hope you can give us a detailed review.
Oluv, I have read your blog and find it very informative. Have you not experienced this issue in your Bose Soundlink?
the new soundlink version sounds definitely better than the old one. mids are much better defined now and bass is not that boomy anymore, it is only the upper treble that still lacks a little bit, especially if you don't aim it directly at ears-height. the music monitors still sound a little better for my taste too and they are not that directional, but the new soundlink is much closer now to the music monitors than the old one was.
i also tried the new UE boombox lately and find it already being too sharp in treble, while bass being even more boomy than the old soundlink. it is even much bigger, so not really a sensible option.
so far the new soundlink is the best compromise for me with the best size/sound ratio. but the new upcoming philips fidelio p8/p9 might also be worth a listen and they seem to copy bose's design quite insolently.
but i am still looking for something smaller that comes close to the soundlink soundwise. a single battery driven music monitor would be my dream. but bose doesn't seem to care at all about such a product!