[Ifalna]

Given those 2 things alone the Clear will never sound like the Utopia because these metals have different physical properties.

To a measurement rig they won't. Absolutely correct.
You make the assumption though, that the difference in behavior can actually be picked up by the human ear while it is tortured by noises ~60-80dB louder.

Psychoacoustics and anatomy tell us that that is very unlikely to happen.

We've seen from speakers that the actual implementation is far more important than the cone material.

What I can say is that I can tell apart my Clear, HD800, LCD2C, all PEQ-ed to Harman target, when doing an A, B, C, comparison

I would expect that because these are wildly different designs. The focal cans aren't that different to each other.

Saying that a Elegia can sound like a Clear by simply using EQ is false.

Yop, I got the names mixed up, I was thinking of the lower end open back version (Elear? Replaced by Celestee, I think)
Closed can vs open ... no chance in hell.

I do concede to the fact that the needed measurement acuity and knowledge makes the proposition a wee bit impractical, aye.

You can make the argument that something like a Clear and a Utopia can sound so similar that the price to upgrade is not worth it.

Actually, that was the initial point of my argument, yes. Maybe I drove it too far, claiming that people would not be able to differentiate in blind tests but sadly with cans you can't ever really remove the component of physical touch. If it were possible, I wouldn't be surprised if people struggled to recognize headphones of very similar design though.

 

[Ifalna]

delete please

 

[dontfeedphils]

To a measurement rig they won't. Absolutely correct.

Remind me again, how do you go about measuring detail retrieval, imaging, sound stage, or any of the other intangibles that would be easily distinguished between the two different headphones?

 

[FinalAd]

Yop, I got the names mixed up, I was thinking of the lower end open back version (Elear? Replaced by Celestee, I think)
Closed can vs open ... no chance in hell.

I do concede to the fact that the needed measurement acuity and knowledge makes the proposition a wee bit impractical, aye.

The Elegia was the one replaced by the Celestee. The Elear, and by extension the Elex, are the lower end open-backs.

To a measurement rig they won't. Absolutely correct.
You make the assumption though, that the difference in behavior can actually be picked up by the human ear while it is tortured by noises ~60-80dB louder.

Psychoacoustics and anatomy tell us that that is very unlikely to happen.

We've seen from speakers that the actual implementation is far more important than the cone material.

Aren't you making assumptions here too? I'd like to get the studies about psychoacoustics and anatomy, if possible.

Unless I'm missing something, our ears may not be able to hear the driver's materials bending (at safe volumes), but the resulting sound wave will definitely be different between a rigid driver and a softer one. 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.

Honestly, even if you could somehow make a Utopia and a Clear sound identical, this is still more for academic purposes and nothing else. Most audiophiles aren't even using EQ anyway, and they'll gladly pay the price for another sound signature, even if they're not getting the best money/sound ratio. I currently own 2 Focal headphones, and even with a Harman EQ (for testing purposes only) and with the same pads, my Clear MG still has better detail retrieval in the low end than my Elex, while I find that my Elex sounds slightly wider and less "around-the-head". It's not $700 better, but it's still noticeable differences. Something like soundstage and details stays consistent, no matter my mood.

 

[Guidostrunk]

Remind me again, how do you go about measuring detail retrieval, imaging, sound stage, or any of the other intangibles that would be easily distinguished between the two different headphones?

This is one of the aspects of sound that drove me nuts with the sound science threads. Those particular intangibles seem to always get dismissed when you say "I can hear a difference". Then the retort. "Can you pass a controlled blind test?"
The kicker is. There's no controlled blind test that's acceptable to them.

 

[jonathan c]

This is one of the aspects of sound that drove me nuts with the sound science threads. Those particular intangibles seem to always get dismissed when you say "I can hear a difference". Then the retort. "Can you pass a controlled blind test?"
The kicker is. There's no controlled blind test that's acceptable to them.

Hmm…a blind test to determine if one can hear…a loud test to determine if one can see?……

Then…the existentially ‘myopic’ stance…if something cannot be measured, it does not exist…

 

[PhazeCrive]

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.

 

[descloud]

How do you measure resolution?

It's a social construct. If it can't be proven, then it doesn't exist

Sarcasm of mathematical concepts aside, I believe we have the tools and appropriate measurements available for these concepts of detail, head stage, imaging, etc., yet we haven't been able to formulate the data available to meaningful conclusions yet. Rtings has come up with their method of measuring "imaging", which is a valuable input IMO, but may not be enough to define "imaging" as such. AFAIK, even oratory commends their research facility and time devoted to providing such informative metrics.

Then again, if you've heard "things you've never heard before" when moving to a more "detailed" headphone, if you go back to your older headphones and play the same song(s) again, do you not hear those same details? In my experience, it's been always that once I hear it, I cannot un-hear it even on supposedly "less capable" headphones - which is a counter point to "lacking resolution" arguments. My thinking is that better frequency response plays a large role in that difference more than anything..

Can't say that this is true for all audio gear out there, just the ones I've tried and had when moving between different headphones. At least this was true for me when moving from the Clear to both the DT1990 and HE-500.

 

[Ifalna]

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")

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Head-Fi is a very peculiar place. When people who actually know a little of what they’re talking about..say something that pokes holes in the fabric of this grand and shimmery placebo universe…well they are met by folks who get a little snippy and juvenile..preferably sticking to their guns whilst somehow belittling the messenger of “wacky news”.
It’s a little funny how extremely interesting the science of sound is when it comes from manufacturers…yet when it is directed at the carbon based critter actually listening to the gear?
I think I get it though…we gladly accept the fact that we’re getting much better producing transparent gear - stuff like amps, dacs and headphones..which is provable from a scientific standpoint…but human beings have not been upgraded for a very long time. Most of the gear has for decades exceeded our hearing capabilities. We all have our limits…yet 99% of the peeps inhabiting this hobby know next to nothing about the human limits…but can rattle off nonsensical specs from the first 100 amps and headphones they’ve auditioned.

 

[NuclearRedfield]

Utopia vs Clear is just a slight difference in frequency response. If you EQ them to the same target, you won't be able to tell them apart in double blind tests.
What you hear is a strongly elevated treble response that gives the illusion of "more detail". It WoW's you in the beginning but can (unless it hits your general preference) lead to fatigue in the long run.

You can see the same effects in Focals speaker lines, though there you also get the added benefit of notable lower distortions. Both Clear and Utopia has such low THD, that it's basically inaudible in real world musical content.


So basically you want a slightly higher output impedance... IIRC Arche does impedance matching to all Focals cans via pre-set profiles.
Not supposed to be a diss or anything, just putting what you experience/like in scientific perspective. I too use an EQ on my ADI-2 DAC that mimics a higher output impedance because "au natural" it sounded a bit cold to me.

Yes you can. Even if you EQ them to be similar. There is still a significant difference between the two. May I ask how long you have owned the Utopia and Clear?

 

[pbarach]

This is one of the aspects of sound that drove me nuts with the sound science threads. Those particular intangibles seem to always get dismissed when you say "I can hear a difference". Then the retort. "Can you pass a controlled blind test?"
The kicker is. There's no controlled blind test that's acceptable to them.

Amirm on ASR did a good youtube video on blind testing and what's required to make such testing useful.

Not sure who "they" are, but the obstacles to blind-testing pairs of headphones are hard to overcome because of the physical characteristics specific to headphone sets. If blindfolded, and without any sound playing, I could easily tell whether I was wearing my Clears, HD-600's, AKG K-702's or Hifman 400i's. The pad feel, weight, grip, and headband feel are giveaways. On the other hand, if asked to blind-test two sets of headphones I'm unfamiliar with, I probably could tell them apart reliably, given level-matched audio, recordings I'm familiar with, and enough time to listen.

Blind-testing of other audio components (including cables and interconnects) is a good idea, if done properly--meaning the listeners are truly blind, the test uses level-matched music familiar to them rather than unfamiliar music or mere tones, and enough time is given to listen to the test material. There are important statistical considerations in assessing and reporting the results.

 

[Hubert481]

Can you provide a link to the blindtesting of Armin

 

[Ifalna]

Can you provide a link to the blindtesting of Armin

Probably referring to this topic:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-testing-you-are-doing-it-wrong-video.26809/

 

[Ifalna]

Head-Fi is a very peculiar place. When people who actually know a little of what they’re talking about..say something that pokes holes in the fabric of this grand and shimmery placebo universe…well they are met by folks who get a little snippy and juvenile..preferably sticking to their guns whilst somehow belittling the messenger of “wacky news”.

Well it's understandable.
a) they invest a lot in the hobby. And I mean A LOT. Not just money but also time.
b) they actually hear differences. That is the crux of the whole issue. If you let me test 2 amplifiers sighted, even when I know their measurements are identical I will be able to hear differences. It's just the way the human brain works. One is prettier, the other is more expensive, so it has to do something better etc. These processes run in our subconscious but they can affect our perception really strongly.
c) they love their systems because they get a lot of joy from them.

When you actually hear differences and have invested a lot into a thing you love, possibly to a degree that a little voice inside you tells you that you maybe overdid it, it's naturally to get a wee bit defensive when some random schmuck like me comes along and counterpoints your perceptions.

Keep in mind, my entire argument was pretty much academic in nature. It's not really possible to EQ cans to that degree and also not feasible for the average consumer. Though I think it still is a valid point that a 1.5K headphone can be EQ'd to sound VERY similar to a 4K headphone, to the point that a new buyer might not see the remaining difference being worth the price gap.


I think a really interesting philosophical question would be: if the perceived differences are only psychological in nature, are they still valid as differences?
If these "pseudo differences" can enhance people's enjoyment of their gear and their music, are they able to justify the expense?

As much as I love science and being economical, the bottom line is that we listen to this gear for fun with our ears. Not with an Audioprecision analyzer. So in the end, what does the audiophile care if there are differences or not. He hears them, he likes them, to him it's worth his disposable income.
I kept my Clear too, despite my EQ'd DT-880 sounding waaay more similar than I would like to admit because I still enjoy the Clear for what it is.
Even if it's weight is murder on my neck.