The Elegia was the one replaced by the Celestee. The Elear, and by extension the Elex, are the lower end open-backs.
Argh. Thanks. I'm too long out of the loop regarding Focals products, since I am happy with my Clears.
Aren't you making assumptions here too? I'd like to get the studies about psychoacoustics and anatomy, if possible.
Though it's typically used in reference to THD and other distortion products, the masking effects of the human ear still apply to anything unwanted the driver may do.
Keep in mind: you would not only have to actually hear the unwanted signals of the driver, you'd have to be able to make out the difference in behavior between two arguably very high quality drivers, which would be orders of magnitudes smaller.
Realistically: the only way you could hear any difference at all would be if one driver had an audible amount of distortion and the other does not. I don't believe that the Clear's driver is so low quality that the THD, IMD etc. are audible at normal listening volumes.
Another thing I've learned is that even slight changes to the housing of a headphone can do wonders to the sound, and that's not something you can replicate using EQ. Last point is, obviously, soundstage and imaging, which you can't really measure as far as I'm aware.
Yup, though keep in mind that most of these mod changes are reflected in the frequency response of the headphone, which is what we humans are most sensitive to.
Regarding the "intangibles" I agree that these are tough nuts to crack right now. I believe research is still ongoing in that aspect? I've seen threads discussing them over at ASR but there doesn't seem to be any easily found consensus. Some say that it has to do with timing alignment of the two drivers, which sounds plausible, considering you want to present both ears a coherent signal, so brain processing can do the rest.
Personally I am not overly sensitive to "soundstage" and "imaging" when it comes to headphones. I mean I can hear whether things are right, left, center or sometimes, in good recordings even between these extremes but I've never experienced this "holographic soundstage" some people describe. Speakers on the other hand ... oof.. what a world of difference. Sometimes you feel as if the singer/Instrument is standing right in front of you inside your room. Awesome.
It's not $700 better, but it's still noticeable differences. Something like soundstage and details stays consistent, no matter my mood.
I've never gotten the "detail" and "resolution" arguments. What I found in personal listening is that:
a) volume matching is extremely important when discussing detail. A 3dB difference can make me hear the piano's pedal or not hear it.
b) in response to a) so can a 3dB difference in frequency response make certain things easier to hear or harder to hear.
Frankly put: while revealing cans make things more obviously heard even when not paying attention that closely (oftentimes they achieve that by boosting higher frequencies), I have never heard any detail on my Clear that my DT-880 could not render when I
a) volume match. More difficult than some would imagine, given the rather large difference in impedance to the clear. Basically impossible w/o measurements.
b) actually pay attention to the music to try to find the detail
The kicker is. There's no controlled blind test that's acceptable to them.
Actually there are but not sure whether it applies to headphones though, because one would have to address the elephant on the head:
How do I make my test subject oblivious to differences in:
-weight
-weight distribution
-pad material
-pad pressure
I mean a DBT between a Clear and a Clear MG would probably be possible. A DBT between A Utopia and a Clear .... leather vs microfiber... kinda obvious and if you change the pads you're no longer listening to the actual can in question.
On top of that, changing cans takes time. Too long for the human auditory memory to keep track of often minute changes.
Unpopular opinion: if you need such a controlled DBT and instantaneous switching to be able to hear changes, the changes are not substantial enough to matter in real world applications.
Then…the existentially ‘myopic’ stance…if something cannot be measured, it does not exist…
Unfortunately there are things that just happen in our heads w/o there being a real world cause. Human psyche is a very fickle thing and easily influenced. This is not just a problem in audio but pretty much in all of science and even in daily life. Humans have a tendency to perceive what they want or expect to perceive. None of us is immune to these effects.
Cable, cable riser, tuning stone etc. discussions would be the blatantly obvious examples of people "hearing" differences when there are none, when there cannot be any.
Placing a crystal on your amplifier's casing will NOT change it's sound ... unless the crystal crushes it to mush or covers all the vents letting it overheat.
Why do people hear differences? The main reason is simple and beautiful: they just changed their system. So they hear with much increased attention. Suddenly they hear things they missed before when their attention wasn't so focused. Naturally they "blame" the new arrival, see their investment as justified and start sharing their experience with others.
How do you measure resolution? How can a machine determine what it hears as super resolved? Could a machine analyze the signal before it goes out to the headphones and then compare it to what the headphone produces? If the beginning signal is very similar to what the headphone produced, could that be the immeasurable resolution we speak of? You will not see resolution from a FR graph. 10,000 hertz is always 10,000 hertz. It will always show on the FR graph no matter how boomy or tinny it is. To me, this is like "all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples." All the hertz are displayed but not all hertz are resolved.
Yes: 10K is always 10K.
Whether 10K is "boomy" or "tinny" is dependent on what happens in the area around 10K and in how high the 10K spike is relative to the original.
If the headphone adds 10dB @ 10K area to the original recording, you'll probably categorize it as "ice pick". If it removes 10dB in the 10K area you'll probably consider it "muddy crap".
Same thing can be done in the time domain: if a driver rings like crazy after an impulse signal, your bass drum will sound like mush.
Think standing waves in an untreated room where bass needs 400+ms to "dissipate".
If it is brutally accurate you will probably think of your drum as too lean. (I've seen these criticisms regarding the Clear as being "too fast")