
When I first saw the Soundmatters FoxL portable audio system, I knew I’d found something cool, but I didn’t realize it would start a movement. The FoxL proved that a tiny, briefcase-toteable sound system could deliver satisfying sound. Since then, we’ve seen lots of products inspired by the FoxL, including the Jawbone Jambox, the Braven 650, and now the Monster ClarityHD Micro.
The ClarityHD Micro is Monster’s second entry in the Bluetooth speaker category. It’s a much larger, more complex, more advanced, and more expensive product than its predecessor, the iClarity HD. It’s available in black or white. The front and back grilles are magnetically attached so they’re easy to swap out, and Monster promises it’ll offer grilles in different colors so you can customize your ClarityHD Micro. (The grilles weren’t yet available on Monster’s website when this review was written.)
On the surface, the ClarityHD Micro looks like a beefed-up FoxL. Like the FoxL, it has two powered drivers, although the Micro’s 1.3-inch cone drivers are larger than the FoxL’s 1-inch domes. Like the FoxL, the Micro has a rear-mounted passive radiator, although the Micro’s is about 35% larger. (Unlike the FoxL, though, it doesn’t appear to use its rechargeable battery as mass-loading for the passive radiator.) Like the FoxL, the Micro connects through Bluetooth or an analog 3.5mm input; the Micro’s Bluetooth (like the more recent FoxL v2's) is compatible with apt-X and AAC codecs for better sound. Both double as speakerphones.
The ClarityHD Micro’s feature set, though, is more advanced, rivaling the Jambox's. Voice prompts talk you through the Bluetooth connection process and other operations. Monster promises you’ll soon be able to update the Micro with different voices for the prompts. Like some Bluetooth headsets, the ClarityHD Micro accepts basic voice commands. Most of these are oriented toward phone operations, such as answering calls, but there’s also a useful battery check function.
Buttons on the top provide basic control functions for a Bluetooth-connected device, including play/pause and forward/reverse track skip. These can be a little dicey, though, because the volume up/down buttons double as track skip buttons. You have to hold them down to adjust the volume. I often found myself unintentionally skipping tracks when I’d just wanted to bring the volume up or down one notch.
Surprisingly, the ClarityHD Micro costs $229, just $30 more than the FoxL.
The first music I listened to on the Micro was “Vashkar,” an avant-garde jazz tune by composer Carla Bley, performed with kick-ass abandon by the Tony Williams Lifetime on their Emergency! album. It’s not something I chose as a test — in fact, it’s a notoriously subpar recording of a fantastic performance — but it’s the first thing that came up on my iPod touch. I noticed right away that the sound was brighter and thinner than I expected. Tony Willliams’ kick drum and Larry Young’s deepest organ notes sounded practically absent from the mix; John McLaughlin’s distorted guitar and Williams’ snare and cymbals dominated.
When I switched to my FoxLv2 and played the same cut, I found the tonal balance much more pleasing and the bass substantially fuller. That’s a little shocking considering the ClarityHD Micro has larger drivers and about double the FoxL’s physical volume.
Better recordings confirmed my initial impression. Deep bass notes that the FoxL cranked out fairly easily, such as the deepest tones in Olive’s “Falling” and Holly Cole’s “Train Song,” seemed almost totally muted through the ClarityHD Micro. Even non-bass-heavy stuff, like “Too Long” by the energetic Pacific Northwest acoustic revivalist group The Crow Quill Night Owls, sounded fuller through the FoxL. (And it’s worth noting that the Jawbone Jambox delivers an even fuller, more satisfying sound than the FoxL.)
The ClarityHD Micro did play 2 to 3 dB louder than the FoxL on my ultramega-exclusive MCMäxxx™ test, in which I crank up Mötley Crüe’s “Kickstart My Heart” until it sounds too distorted, then back it off one notch and measure the output at 1 meter. But even though it played louder, the treble-heavy balance made the sound less enjoyable to me.
I gave the ClarityHD Micro several more days of listening, including some all-day-long talk radio sessions, just to make sure it was broken in, but the sound didn’t change significantly.
Wondering if a little EQ might help, I opened the basic five-band EQ app on my Motorola Droid Pro. It definitely improved matters. Bringing the treble down -3 dB at 14 kHz and -1.5 dB at 3.6 kHz gave the ClarityHD Micro a more pleasing tonal balance. Activating the EQ’s BassBoost function and kicking it up to 70% made the sound slightly fuller, but there wasn’t enough bass capability there to get the Micro rocking enough for my taste.
Brent Butterworth and Geoff Morrison combine their years of gear testing and knowledge in one überblog of irreverence and techiness.










Copyright © 2013 Bonnier Corp. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.



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!