• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Focal Stellia Review (Closed Back Headphone)

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 66 31.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 94 44.3%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 35 16.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 17 8.0%

  • Total voters
    212

Zensō

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2,740
Likes
6,740
Location
California
Ugh. Another Veblen good from Focal. And you can’t even wear them comfortably outdoors where you can show off your overpriced fashion statement. They must have the engineering chops to do better than this. I wish they’d focus more on performance and less on bling, though I suppose that’s where the profits are.
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
440
Likes
3,703
Location
French, living in China
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Focal Stellia closed back headphone. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,990.

Stellia like other Focals oozes luxury:
View attachment 165794

"Brown is the new black" so fits in with the color theme of this decade although some may think it is a bit much.

When it comes to the included balanced cord, company misses to promote the secondary use for it: should your sailboat every try to get away from you at mooring, you could use this stiff and heavy cord to pull it back to shore! It is mechanically very microphonic as it brushes against your body and does not way to lay softly anywhere.

This is heavy headphone:

View attachment 165795

But the design is so comfortable you would not know it when wearing it.

The pads are oval and drivers are mounted at an angle. Dimensions are: 62x51x31 mm (height, width, depth).

Note: The measurements you are about to see are made using a standardized Gras 45C. Headphone measurements by definition are approximate and variable so don't be surprised if other measurements even if performed with the same fixtures as mine, differ in end results. Protocols vary such as headband pressure and averaging (which I don't do). As you will see, I confirm the approximate accuracy of the measurements using Equalization and listening tests. Ultimately headphone measurements are less exact than speakers mostly in bass and above a few kilohertz so keep that in mind as you read these tests. If you think you have an exact idea of a headphone performance, you are likely wrong!

Fitment on the fixture was miserable. Slightest movement would make a huge change in bass and more so in one channel than the other. What you are about to see below is the best I could get it.

Focal Stellia Measurements
Let's start with our usual frequency response:

View attachment 165796

We have decent compliance from about 60 Hz to 3 kHz which means it should sound OK without equalization. We see some early in the response dips around 3 to 4 kHz which should not be there.

Relative frequency response for equalization purposes is thus:

View attachment 165797

I was disappointed to see this level of distortion in such a high-end and expensive headphone:

View attachment 165798

View attachment 165799

I expect the 94 dB line to hug the floor above deep bass but here, it wiggles around. And gets worse with higher amplification.

Group delay is decently clean other than the same 3.2 kHz anomaly we saw in frequency response:

View attachment 165800

Wonder if this is a reflection from back of the cup. Fortunately it is better than the Focal Elegia I reviewed which had to such cancellations.

Impedance is the same as Elegia:
View attachment 165801


View attachment 165802

Sensitivity is excellent:

View attachment 165803

Be very careful as you compare this headphone to others that may be much less sensitive. It will play much louder making you think it sounds better, it is more dynamic, etc. where it might not be.

Focal Stellia Listening Tests and Equalization
Measurements completely predict the sound of this headphone: it sounds "OK" out of the box. A bit heavy sounding due to boosted upper bass. It lacks spatial qualities due to lack of energy in lower treble. Deep bass response is decent though. All can be improved substantially with a bit of equalization:


View attachment 165804

This combination sounded a tad bright but with that came very nice spatial qualities. It goes from almost having none to B+/A- level.

I performed AB testing against my Dan Clark Stealth headphone without equalizing the Stellia. It was no match. Stealth had correct tonality with better bass and much better spatial qualities. With EQ, Stellia become far more competitive, maybe slightly pulling ahead Stealth in spatial qualities. Tonality was a bit brighter which may have aided that. Note that matching levels was critical for this. With a comfortable level for Stellia, Stealth makes almost no sound! :) I am exaggerating but the sensitivity difference is massive.

Conclusions
Focal had two jobs here:

1. Optimize styling. They get A+ here. Even the case and packaging oozes luxury and greatness and would be at home at a Prada store.

2. Optimize technical performance. This is basically an objective failure. There is not one thing you can hang your hat on that they have done right. Distortion is high. Frequency response doesn't comply with anything known and is yet again different from the rest of their headphones. Simple measurements like impedance indicate resonances and problems in the design. Company talks about "pure copper" wire uses to make the driver. Who the heck cares if you can't get a linear driver and produces proper response without so much distortion??? Very disappointing.

Thankfully equalization rescues it and brings out benefit of such things as angled drivers to produces enjoyable sound. But come on Focal. Please start with a clean sheet of paper and pay as much attention to electroacoustic design that you put in styling. I don't have a mirror in front of me and can't see what the headphone looks like when I am using it. I hear the sound so please focus on that. Forget whatever random ideas that are behind each headphone. Get behind one response curve and minimize distortion. I am confident you can do it.

I can't recommend the Focal Stellia without EQ. With EQ, it is very nice and salvages this headphone nicely.
----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.


Notes about the EQ design:


  • The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
  • The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
  • A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
  • The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve with a fixed complexity.
    This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
    It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be more neutral.
  • The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF).
  • The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
  • I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
  • With some HP/amp combo the boosts and preamp gain need to be carefully considered to avoid issues
  • Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit.
  • YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.

OK L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 69.0
Score Armirm: 80.7
Score with Light EQ: 90.2
Score with Full EQ: 94.5

Code:
Focal Stellia APO RME EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
November172021-093545

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 54.05 Hz Gain 2.58 dB Q 1.45
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 104.58 Hz Gain -6.54 dB Q 1.49
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 302.23 Hz Gain -2.50 dB Q 0.36
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1503.55 Hz Gain -6.46 dB Q 0.98
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8194.66 Hz Gain -4.16 dB Q 5.97

Focal Stellia APO Full EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
November172021-093324

Preamp: -3.1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 55.95 Hz Gain 3.34 dB Q 1.47
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 101.30 Hz Gain -6.44 dB Q 1.38
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 346.82 Hz Gain -2.86 dB Q 0.32
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1173.01 Hz Gain -4.25 dB Q 1.71
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1799.42 Hz Gain -4.93 dB Q 2.91
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2807.58 Hz Gain -2.49 dB Q 4.47
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3550.58 Hz Gain -2.49 dB Q 7.47
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4106.76 Hz Gain 4.75 dB Q 5.96
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8127.40 Hz Gain -4.45 dB Q 5.87

Focal Stellia APO Full EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz.png
Focal Stellia APO RME EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz.png
 

Attachments

  • Focal Stellia APO RME EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz.txt
    329 bytes · Views: 105
  • Focal Stellia APO Full EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz.txt
    535 bytes · Views: 129

Rottmannash

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
2,969
Likes
2,606
Location
Nashville
Wow I didn't even see the price at first.

Same for me. I don't want to mess around with an equaliser. Especially for this price.
But who listens to a $3000 HP on a smartphone??
 

wisechoice

Active Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
155
Likes
141
OK, am I the only one who doesn't actually find the Focal designs attractive? For one thing, the massive logo and foregrounded branding is so tacky. Maybe without that, I'd suppress any latent trypophobia these might trigger. But for this price, why am I also having to advertise for you? Great design should speak for itself.
 

elgeeko

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
6
Location
San Francisco, CA
I agree that the THD measurements, and the absolutely terrible stock cables, are disappointing at this price.

I also agree that the spacial qualities of this headphone are spectacular.

It's easy to scoff at an expensive pair of cans that isn't flawless, and some criticism is warranted. Still, the spaciality of the Stellia is in a class of its own, a distinct and compelling characteristic that is complimented by its overall performance.

Are the Stellia as detailed as the HD 800s, or as neutral as the Dan Clark Æon? No, but as noted in the review, with EQ the Stellia stands out against the Dan Clark Stealth (33% higher MSRP) in the qualitative measure of spaciality. In my listening I find the Stellia to project music in a larger theater than the HD 800s, which are known and lauded for their ability to project music outside the listener's head. And for this reason I believe the Stellia earns it's place as a unique and compelling headphone.

I believe if Focal addresses the technical performance of the Stellia without sacrificing its spacial sound, it will be easier to justify the $3k cost.

What I find interesting is that while terms like 'detailed', 'analytic' and 'neutral' are more easily mapped to measurements like frequency response and distortion, "spacial" somehow evades measurement yet it is often cited as an important performance characteristic of a headphone. I would love to find a measurement for spacial.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,745
Likes
20,757
Location
Canada
OK, am I the only one who doesn't actually find the Focal designs attractive? For one thing, the massive logo and foregrounded branding is so tacky. Maybe without that, I'd suppress any latent trypophobia these might trigger. But for this price, why am I also having to advertise for you? Great design should speak for itself.
This is the epitome of tacky advertising. :facepalm:
audio-technica_ath-m50x_cover_ndtv.jpg
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
They do look and feel gorgeous, but their price is ridiculous.

Let's put this into perspective. You can buy an excellent pair of loudspeakers (or even a very decent 2nd hand car), for less money. The value proposition is simply not there.

The problem is really just their performance for the price, not the price itself. It's not like anyone is cross-shopping speakers and headphones.
 

Zensō

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2,740
Likes
6,740
Location
California
In my listening I find the Stellia to project music in a larger theater than the HD 800s, which are known and lauded for their ability to project music outside the listener's head. And for this reason I believe the Stellia earns it's place as a unique and compelling headphone.

Really? I’ve compared these directly, and to my ear the Stellia soundstage is nowhere near as expansive as the HD800S soundstage.
 

elgeeko

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
6
Location
San Francisco, CA
Really? I’ve compared these directly, and to my ear the Stellia soundstage is nowhere near as expansive as the HD800S soundstage.

Fascinating. This, this is why we need to figure out some way to measure soundstage!
 

Pugsly

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
98
Likes
122
@amirm Have you ever considered trying to host hold a convo with some of the more rational, measurement-respecting headphone reviewers and having an exchange for broadcast? I am specifically thinking of Crinacle, whose rankings of Focal headphones seems so out of sync with yours, but who is also interested in measurements and has expressed skepticism regarding at least some high-end nonsense (I saw one video where he mentioned that he used an iPhone dongle and basically said 'come at me, bro, I don't care about your snake-oil BS.') Even if you did not come to an agreement, I think such an exchange would be extremely valuable and interesting!
 

Bow_Wazoo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
758
Likes
661
...I don't want to mess around with an equaliser. Especially for this price.
I see it completely differently.

The following statement is completely independent of the price range:

I owned a number of TOTL headphones. Basically, I was able to increase the listening pleasure of everyone by using an EQ (Harman was always aimed at).
I call this personalization.
With some headphones, I would even speak of a complete change.
For example Empyrean:
Out of the box, this HP was unusable for me. Adjusted according to Harman, the Meze was a revelation, and I had a lot of fun for many months.

I have been the owner of an Lcd-i4 for some time.
Here the story is repeated 1:1.
The Harman Settings from Crinacle, can be used on the Lcd-i4 without any changes. Adjusted like this, this In-Ear is the best I have ever heard.

It becomes completely absurd for me when the Stellia owner tries to raise the bass of this HP by a desired 2-3db with a $ 1000 Lazuli cable
(and best of all, demonize the DSP).

The FR measurements and EQ settings from Oratory 1990 and Crinacle,
are the best thing that has happened to me in the HP area.

It is your own fault if you do not use this personalization option,
and instead wander around the snake oil department...
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
When using headphones l use a mid-range smartphone and dongle as a matter of course. It's not even a high end flagship model (I have a OnePlus Nord) and I use the cheap OnePlus dongle. For what it's worth, I find it entirely satisfactory and see no need to go higher if it's just about SW. Power output would probably be derided but it drives my IEMs and headphones loud enough for my needs which is all that matters to me.
 

deafenears

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
398
Likes
476
I'd like to see more Grados, some of these models sound very good to my ears but measurments are hard to find from trusted sources.
Did someone say Grado's?

 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
OK, am I the only one who doesn't actually find the Focal designs attractive? For one thing, the massive logo and foregrounded branding is so tacky. Maybe without that, I'd suppress any latent trypophobia these might trigger. But for this price, why am I also having to advertise for you? Great design should speak for itself.
They're a bit "try hard" aren't they, each time I'd pick them up to put them on I'd probably think they've spent way too much effort tweaking how this thing looks!
 

vco1

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
155
Likes
153
By no means meant as critique on the review process, but I don't think I've read any review of headphones at ASR (perhaps with the exception of the Stealth) where the results were anything near satisfying. Especially not without EQ'ing.
That could mean a few things:
- headphones are mostly a pile of sh*t. No matter the price. The manufacturers just don't know what they're doing.
- It's extremely difficult to build decent headphones.
- The standards here are (way) too high... The reviewer is expecting the impossible or has a different view on headphones than the rest of the world.
- The rest of the world is crazy. They're all listening to inferior products. And seem to like it too!

I'm a bit exaggerating of course, but you get the point hopefully. Even good doesn't seem good enough for headphones on ASR it appears.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
But who listens to a $3000 HP on a smartphone??
Ironically its the only place I use an equaliser, because it makes my Sony wireless headphones sound a lot better and they are the only noise cancelling headphones I have.
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
- It's extremely difficult to build decent headphones.

If the industry continues to stubbornly restrain itself with passive designs, they're not making it easy on themselves indeed, given the quality of currently available small, portable electronics.

The real difficulty is designing headphones to deliver a desirable FR at anyone's eardrum (HPTF).

Active headphones have a strong advantage in that regard for various reasons.
ANC headphones, for example, can use their feedback mechanism to deliver an exact, constant FR below 800Hz or so.
But even non-ANC designs may benefit from being active, by enabling the designer to focus on the stuff that for now can't be actively corrected (high-Q resonances / nulls, undesirable HPTF variability, sealing issues, pad deterioration over time, comfort, non-linear distortion, etc.), and tuning the response afterwards with the DSP. If it weren't for the difficulties I'm experiencing right now with its pads / earcup design (the HPTF issue), the Austrian Audio Hi-X65 would be a textbook example of a design that's begging to become active (very few resonances / nulls, very low THD).
In the future it's possible that active designs may have real-time, individualised FR compensation above 1kHz as well.

- The standards here are (way) too high... The reviewer is expecting the impossible or has a different view on headphones than the rest of the world.

Not really. At least in purely technical terms (lack of resonances / nulls, low distortion), a passive open design like the HD650 is near ideal above 200Hz, so I think that it's entirely justified that any other passive, open design above $200 should at least match what is now a three decades old design in that regard.
And making headphones active can make short work of a lot of issues so that you can focus on the difficult bits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pjn

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
Did someone say Grado's?

Ah OK yeah those are terrible, there are some good ones.
 
Top Bottom