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.
The quality of a driver, while important, has nothing to do with the fact that different materials react in a different way. Let's say, for the sake of argument, we would create a driver identical to the Clear's, except the membrane is made of plastic (like a lot of other headphones). We EQ'd them to the exact same frequency response. Do you really think that this plastic membrane, which has a different weight, will be able to reproduce the exact same notes with the same rigidity? Or are you saying that those changes would be so small that you wouldn't be able to hear the difference? I personally don't think that's the case, and while you did bring up some arguments, I would consider them equal to mine currently. If you're trying to make a point, you need solid sources to back it up, and I'd like to see said sources. Again, I'm basing my statements on what little I know about materials and such, but I'm willing to change my opinion and educate myself if that's true.
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.
Yes, and yet those changes can affect the frequency response in such a way that our current EQs cannot replicate it without adding too much distortion. They are an important part of tuning to take into account. The Clear's and the Utopia's design, while similar in shape, is still different enough that I could consider that some parts of it are affecting the way they sound.
Yes, the "intangibles" are quite hard to quantify, if we were able to then that could've solved this whole situation quite easily.
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.
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.
Speakers are obviously way better in this domain, but soundstage is something that changes between headphones. Again, we cannot quantify it, so that makes it hard for both of us to defend our points since it really comes down to subjective preferences and could be attributed to our hearing or placebo. I can hear differences in soundstage, I personally think that this is also related to QC, but there's clearly some design choices being involved here too. Focal headphones are all tuned to have this intimate soundstage, they're all similar and on this point I'll have to agree with you. I cannot link it to anything in particular.
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
a) Obviously, volume matching is really important. Focal headphones can still be matched though.
b) That's also true.
a) See above.
b) Here's the thing though, it's not about being able to hear said details, once I've heard something with my MG or my Elex, I can hear it too with my XM3 as long as I concentrate enough. But the thing is that the MG/Elex will let me know immediately, the details will jump to my ears. The XM3 won't. My music playlist isn't really huge, and I have a tendency of listening to the same songs over and over again. When EQed to the Harman target, which is something I always do to have a comparaison point, the Elex clearly brought up more artifacts on badly recorded songs, while the MG clearly brought up more in the bass. Yes, the frequency response is usually the one doing the heavy lifting, but even when EQed to the same target, I believe the drivers materials are also playing a role here. Really unless your driver is utter garbage, they should all be able to reproduce most details. The quality, the materials used and the frequency response will all play a role in how easy it is to hear said details using another pair.
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.
I'm not really sure what's the purpose of this comment. You're bringing nothing to the discussion we're having, you're making a generalization of this community as if anyone who disagree with you is clueless. Of course everyone will stand their position, as long as they are open to change their opinion then this is what matters. Personnally this is a interesting point that was brought up, and it's making me question things that I previously didn't, it's great. You should maybe do it too, 'cause currently this subject has no scientific answer, or at least it hasn't been provided yet. Audio is a really complex subject, and at the end of the day there's so many factors to take into account that placebo will always be a thing. Heck, in my case even mood changes the way I hear my music. However, attributing every single thing to placebo, with nothing concrete to back it up, means that you don't really know as much as you may think.
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.
I agree with the conclusion. I personally can't hear any differences between amps, cables and DACs, unless they're really utter garbage. And yet I can hear the differences between a Elex and a Clear MG, even when EQ'ed similarly. The driver doesn't respond the same way, and it makes sense since materials have different properties, with weight and rigidity being important ones to take into account. The Clear can sound very similar to the Utopia, it's not a 2.5K upgrade, but even if we EQ'ed them to the exact same frequency response, using the same pads and volume matching and such, the slight differences in housing combined with the different driver materials can't make them sound 100% identical, that's just physics and yes, I'll argue that this is audible on such a precise scale and with such high-quality drivers. Note that I used different, not better.
Really at the end of the day, I don't think there's a wrong or a right way to hear your gear and music. I'll discuss about them since it's interesting and fun to me, but really what matters is that you enjoy what you own and that you don't ruin yourself. What I don't appreciate is when someones takes the high ground in a "I'm right, you're all wrong" without backing it up. It's not a "Us versus them" problem, it's a individual one.
That philosophical question is also really interesting, but I'd like to take a break before discussing "pseudo differences"
Having tried way too many blindtests I perfectly understand what you’re saying. I wish people could try..at least just once. It is a very humbling experience.
I too used to be over on the other side of the fence slinging my money down a black hole and heard differences between amps and dacs like there was no tomorrow..but it was always sighted testing…and I had no idea how to volume match properly..so I effectively ended up testing different volume levels…like most other amp “tests”.
Regarding blindtests and Focals; it is actually feasible if you can find the same pads for two headphones (in the same condition mind you)..and well we were 5 guys that could not discern between the Elear, Elex and Clear. I imagine the same result if we’d included the Utopia.
The Elear, Elex, and Clear are extremely similar. The Clear has a slight difference with the voice coil but really I couldn't tell you which one is which with a blind test. The Clear still has more value for anyone who doesn't use EQ, and it also fixed the design flaw with the voice coil. The Utopia has a different driver made of different materials, the difference will be heard.
