Separate names with a comma.
i understood your post the first time. we disagree on this, which is fine.
I cant really see how it can be seen as an unreasonable conclusion, having listened to both the utopia and stellia, and having found they share more similarities than differences, that the driver materials must play a part creating their shared characteristics. I have listened to most of Focal's speakers which also use beryllium (tweeters) and which also share sonic characteristics with Utopia and stellia's.
Are you sure Utopia is too bright? I am listening to it now and the bass is hitting hard and solid. It has the best bass of all my headphones. Stellia is kind of soft of the bass side, I mean, not as solid but much louder. If you can try Utopia with a powerful amp, you will be surprised how much bass it has and at the same time keep the Treble and Mid clarity. I think comparing Stellia to Utopia is not fair. One is closed and the later is open. Not to mention the price differences.
Yes, the Utopia is on the bright side with the Clear being the more neutral sounding can. Now everyone has a different tolerance for brightness. Not that the Utopia is bass shy but it sometimes sounds slightly lacking given it’s level of treble.
Just plugged the Stellia into chord mojo
Wow amazing goes really well makes the highs more defined and bass slightly soft but over all gives them clearer definition.
I can only imagine how they sound on Hugo 2.
Thinking of ordering this but I'm paranoid about it's quality as it'd so cheap
even 8 core SP cable
What was it like in comparison to the stock cable ?
I don't want to spend a fortune on cables either so confusing
The Cascade has berylium drivers but they have quite a different sound signature.
the cascade actually has beryllium coated drivers. so too does the zmf verite. whereas the stellia's drivers are made entirely from beryllium.
If you were to take the Stellia's speakers and simply attach them to an open frame headphone (i.e basically just some kind of plastic frame to hold them on each side of the head), surely you don't mean to say that it would sound the same as a production unit of the Stellia. Yet they would still be using the exact same drivers.
Ergo, to assume that the characteristic of the signature comes down, either predominantly or solely, to the materials used is completely errant. If that were true then there would be no point in different earcup or earpad designs, no difference between open and closed back, and certainly no point in using various felts and cottons on the driver housing.
Im using the 4core copper till my Arctic Cable is finished. They handle a lot better then the stock cable. Less microphonics and stiffness. Can't judge the 8core and spc versions, but compared to Arctic Cables these are of less quality which reflects nicely in the price asked.
You are absolutely right, that’s not what I meant. My point was as they share materials, technology, design team and design ethos, it’s not unreasonable to to think the materials as one element contribute to similarities in how they sound, as much as the other building blocks mentioned here do also. I’m definitely not saying they sound identical, just that focal as with many other hifi makers have a recognisable house sound
No ,that's not unreasonable at all, but it does stand in contradiction to your response to someone else's criticism to your claim that it must be the driver materials that are responsible for the similarities ("I cant really see how it can be seen as an unreasonable conclusion").
You might very well be right, it may come down mostly to the driver materials, but unfortunately we simply don't have any good reason or evidence to exclude other factors which may influence the sound character equally or more than the driver materials.
So, if I may make a suggestion, in future, try not to post anything as being an established or inferred fact if we don't really have conclusive evidence to prove it as such. The whole point of language is to try and convey an idea, as faithfully as possible, from one mind and into another, and so if you write or say something unknowingly in an unsubstantiated factual manner, then people may very well misunderstand what you meant and/or assume that you're ignorant.
"must play a part".
Your error lies in saying must. "Must" infers an established (or rather deduced) fact. Again, you might be right, but without conducing a proper process of elimination of all other factors involved, we simply cannot with sound reason conclude that the driver materials have a significant or any effect since we have not satisfied the requirements of the scientific method. We can suspect it to be true, but we cannot state it as fact without having proved it to be so.