what do you mean by it being "objectively superior"? does it measure better?
i appreciate that this reviewer is controversial but he has measured both headphones. while he is critical of them both, the utopia appears to suffer from fewer "objective faults" than the abyss 1266 tc - fwiw.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../abyss-ab-1266-phi-tc-review-headphone.23411/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-utopia-review-headphone.22103/
Some thoughts. I apologize if anyone doesn't find it worth the time it took to read.
For what it's worth, I have the Utopia 2022 and the Abyss 1266TC both right here. All fed by Holo -May and Bliss KTE. I really like both cans. The Utopia fall far...very far... short of of the Abyss in terms of pure resolution. They blur details my Grado GS3000X lays out clearly. But "objectively" is the problem. To some - and I would be in that group if I wasn't paying attention - resolution is a huge thing. At flagship levels, I can't accept compromises there. Objectively, a top-shelf headphone can't miss notes, edges, emphases.
I'm also wrong. There is objective data in the bits. But the illusion is never perfect, and to me, objective measurements and their relationship to "better" is worse than pointless. What god does one defer to? I can claim to have fantastic ears. But whether or not I'm objectively better that 99.9999% of music lovers at auditory discrimination tasks, I have no authority to tell anyone else how to listen. or whether they're doing it wrong. But even the best designs have compromises which a given person either doesn't hear, doesn't base their pleasure and judgment upon, or, maybe just feels good. And I doubt the audio gods, or God as an audiophile, considers it a sin to prefer equipment with a lumpy FR, among other "flaws". And the Utopia gets the flow and impact of the music very correct, for me. And it DOES reveal a great deal. It's not a muddled headphone, at all.
But, about being "wrong"... Cognitive dissonance: The Utopia presents music in ways I disapprove of (on the Flagship Rating Scale, which doesn't exist, it gets a B for resolution. Objectively, according to me. I'm a detail freak). But it brings me more PLEASURE than the Abyss 1266TC. And, thinking of music as a whole experience, I sorta sense that the Utopia's qualities were VERY carefully considered, and that the result reflects some sophisticated understanding of how people hear music. Not how they evaluate it. How they EXPERIENCE it. And in this sense, the Utopia may be a greater engineering achievement, even if the Abyss is more resolving in some ways.
My favorite music through the Utopia FEELS better. The Abyss IS better because it reveals more.... but does it? , or does it reveal more of certain things which matter less to my audio-pleasure gland and more to my full-disclosure/truth/whole-truth/nothing-but-truth detector?
I'm selling stuff. I have too many headphones, and I can't fool myself into believing I can afford them. I've spent over a month changing my mind about what has to stay, and what can go. The Abyss is "clearly better". But I won't miss it (much). And the thought of selling the Utopia '22 made me sad, and made me think of how damned MOVING it was to hear certain pieces through it.
Come to think of it, I also LIKED the Empyrean. Which was, in an analytical mindset, a big bowl of oatmeal with berries. Nourishing moosh. One of its dealers cautioned me that it was not good for "critical listening". I disparaged that remark, since the Empyreans were pretty and I wanted them. But he was right. Without hearing the details, the gestalt ain't worth it. Not in the four digit price range. My 600 dollar Grados - not cheap - as well as the GS3000X, made the Empyreans seem muddled and confused, even if the warm hug of their sound was pleasant in itself. But I wouldn't have tolerated paying good money for concert tickets if the acoustics were as muddled as the Empyreans. And, yeah, I get it: thousands of experienced audio buffs love the Empyreans. I found the Elites to be a big jump in the right direction, while maintaining the tonal pleasantness and spatiality of the Empyreans. But still just MISSING lots of the music.
According to me. And as far as the measurement crowd goes, my own personal ears have not found the better-measuring devices to be more enjoyable or MUSICALLY communicative than the worse-measuring ones more than half the time. Measurements and "objectivity" certainly have their place in engineering; but I'm a psychologist and, by training and bad habit, a philosopher. most of the time, the word "objective" as used, is misunderstood, misapplied, or is simply a competitive or defensive way of saying that one knows better data and knows it without bias. My objective subjectivity - the clean, clear fact that it is ME experiencing a and b, and that some of you will have similar experiences, allows me to say, here's how I experienced it, here's how it made me feel and think.
But no independent data will ever carry more authority than that experience, that phenomenology. What it is like to BE ME, listening to this music through this equipment. The Abyss 1266TC is "objectively" a better set of headphones than the Utopia... until I play music through them and make note of how I feel. And then the Utopia is objectively better, because the pairing of ME + Utopia results in a more fulfilling musical experience much more often than the ME + Abyss1266TC combo. That is an objective fact about my musical subjectivity, which will closely resemble that of many other people. Measurements which do not agree can only do so by referring to an inhuman, non-musical standard which simply will not and cannot have any bearing on a living listener's experience, except to make them wonder whether their own experience is incorrect, whether they should feel and hear differently, defer to the math.
