Focal Bathys vs Sivga Phoenix

Focal Bathys

The Bathys is a closed-back wireless ANC over-ear built around a 40mm aluminium-magnesium M-shaped dome driver, and it is judged first on sound. The tuning follows a Harman-leaning philosophy: smooth and fairly dense, with a clean midrange called a standout in its class, vocals forward without shouting, and a top end that relaxes from about 4kHz so sparkle is limited while sibilance is effectively absent. Bass is where accounts split, between a lifted shelf peaking around 50Hz that reads as powerful and punchy, and a low end described as subdued, or as deep sub-bass rumble that reserves itself rather than dominating. Staging divides the same way, from among the best heard on a Bluetooth over-ear to a rounded, intimate space whose distance portrayal leaves something to be desired. Running the headphone over USB-DAC instead of Bluetooth tightens the low end, adds treble bite and enlarges the stage. Build draws less argument: magnesium yokes, an aluminium headband, leather and memory foam pads, 350g, and no creak in the articulation. Noise cancelling is strong below roughly 1-2kHz and lets more midrange and voice through, and it is placed behind the Sony, Bose and Apple flagships, with low-frequency attenuation measured close to 20dB. There is no LDAC and no passive mode, so a flat battery means silence. Price is the standing objection: it launched at $799, and one verdict is that less expensive alternatives cover most of the same ground.

Sivga Phoenix

The Sivga Phoenix is a 50mm dynamic open back with CNC-machined zebrawood cups, stainless steel grilles and a listed 296g weight, and the physical product is the least contested part of it: premium materials with no visible flaws, a light clamping force, and a rated 32 ohm, 103 dB load that a phone or dongle drives without help. Tuning is where opinion divides. Listening-based reviews hear a warm, full-bodied signature: textured bass with sub-bass reach unusual for an open design, a lush and expressive midrange, and a treble that sits on the safe side of bright without fatigue. A measurement-based review reached the opposite conclusion, finding the response close to target only between roughly 100 and 500 Hz, with the emphasis concentrated at 200-300 Hz and a shortfall above, which it heard as dull and would not recommend in stock form. That same review reported a dramatic gain in tonal balance and spatial imaging once parametric EQ was applied. Soundstage width is also contested, called fairly modest and narrower than rival open backs in some listening and notably more expansive than a Sennheiser HD 600 in other listening. So are the stock pads, thin enough that one listener felt ears pressing against the driver covers after about an hour, while others logged multi-hour sessions without fatigue. Detail retrieval is a stated limitation: respectable, but described as neither the cleanest nor the most detailed at the price, with micro details sometimes going unnoticed.