Focal Stellia Review (Closed Back Headphone)

[Fifoumed]

Bought a Focal Elegia 6 months ago at 450 USD for its comfort, average audio qualities, and knowing there would be a real change with the right equalization : @amirm's review confirms that. Nevertheless the cable is very noisy (a slight touch on it induces a big harsh rubbing sound!) and the inside of the headband has already begun changing its color to a darker one. On a 999USD catalog priced product, I think they could have used genuine lether or resistant timeproof fabric. Then I'm convinced that the technical difficulties are only a small part in the balance... This Stellia review confirms that, sadly, Focal's priority, like soooo many, is on marketing. They worked on a pair of headphones (the first at Focal, I think the objective was the Utopia), then it seems that the marketing did take the levers and designed a whole collection of open and closed cans for the 5 years to come, thinking og every possible markets and audience, and then sent the joblist to the technical department... The Stellia, the Celestee, Elear, The Bugatti model (can't remember the name) etc. Every year you change a thing, the aspect matching an audience, then you send the right advertising on the right media to catch your target, and if it succedds you make lot of money with some "new product"... money with no R&D, often even worse product than the last ones... But who cares? Visual aspect, Brand and marketing represent 80% of what makes a high volune headphone sellings... Kinda like @vco1 thought. A mass market thing.

Technically speaking, I personally wonder if a stock Dan Clarcke Aeon Noire, stock and/or equalized, is better and justifies a change from an Elegia.

Last question, how could we find a way to objectively mesure the listening instrument separation, and the openness? Addind these 2 parameters would be a GREAT addon to the reviews (like an objective mesure of the size of the sound source (punctiful like the Genelec Ones, or huge like the Reveal Saloon2). Any ideas on a protocol addon @amirm?

 

[Rottmannash]

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.

I was speaking mainly of the power required to really let these high end HP's shine. I can tell you a smartphone cannot drive my Elex nor my Aeon Opens to even remotely satisfying levels and I have a Samsung S10+ and S20+. I have to use my Hiby R5 on high gain balanced to drive the Aeons if I want to go portable. The 9038D can't drive them well, nor can the Qudelix 5K. Of course I never take my HP's out of the house so it's a moot point for me but apparently some folks walk around w/ $3000 HP's on their heads

 

[Spocko]

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/

Yet another Focal headphone requiring EQ to sound neutral. Without having to resort to EQ, my recommendation for closed back headphones with midrange-treble neutrality (250Hz to 10K) is definitely the Beyerdynamic DT1770Pro (I have the Drop DT177X Go variant because balanced). Measurements here and here , perfect for all day monitoring/mixing if your focus is midrange clarity and treble management. Light enough and perfect for smaller heads although may be tight for larger heads. The much cheaper DT 770 Pro is similar (less well built, no detachable cord) and also highly recommended.

 

[Spocko]

Last question, how could we find a way to objectively mesure the listening instrument separation, and the openness? Addind these 2 parameters would be a GREAT addon to the reviews (like an objective mesure of the size of the sound source (punctiful like the Genelec Ones, or huge like the Reveal Saloon2). Any ideas on a protocol addon @amirm?

I suspect you're looking for a waterfall plot showing decay (cumulative signal attenuation after impulse shows resonances and reverberations after the headphone ceases to produce the signal)? Below is the comparison between the Beyerdynamic DT 1770 Pro and the Focal Stellia. It appears that the Stellia has worse decay times (broad red/yellow above -18dB around 3.5k - looks bad) with 2 peaky resonances between 8K and 11K while the DT1770Pro has a narrow peak at 10K but looks good everywhere else. Maybe others can chime in to help better decipher these waterfall graphs. Decay times are color coded:

 

[Helicopter]

But who listens to a $3000 HP on a smartphone??

I listen to my Focal Utopia headphones with my Samsung Galaxy S9 whenever I take them out of the house. I also listen to Celestee at work either plugged into the phone for music or plugged into the laptop for reviewing recordings of phone calls. I find the high sensitivity to be a big bonus.

I also use the $9 Sony headphones for Teams meetings in the office. In fairness, the Bose QC35ii get the most use with the phone.

 

[Helicopter]

Bought a Focal Elegia 6 months ago at 450 USD for its comfort, average audio qualities, and knowing there would be a real change with the right equalization : @amirm's review confirms that. Nevertheless the cable is very noisy (a slight touch on it induces a big harsh rubbing sound!) and the inside of the headband has already begun changing its color to a darker one. On a 999USD catalog priced product, I think they could have used genuine lether or resistant timeproof fabric. Then I'm convinced that the technical difficulties are only a small part in the balance... This Stellia review confirms that, sadly, Focal's priority, like soooo many, is on marketing. They worked on a pair of headphones (the first at Focal, I think the objective was the Utopia), then it seems that the marketing did take the levers and designed a whole collection of open and closed cans for the 5 years to come, thinking og every possible markets and audience, and then sent the joblist to the technical department... The Stellia, the Celestee, Elear, The Bugatti model (can't remember the name) etc. Every year you change a thing, the aspect matching an audience, then you send the right advertising on the right media to catch your target, and if it succedds you make lot of money with some "new product"... money with no R&D, often even worse product than the last ones... But who cares? Visual aspect, Brand and marketing represent 80% of what makes a high volune headphone sellings... Kinda like @vco1 thought. A mass market thing.

Technically speaking, I personally wonder if a stock Dan Clarcke Aeon Noire, stock and/or equalized, is better and justifies a change from an Elegia.

Last question, how could we find a way to objectively mesure the listening instrument separation, and the openness? Addind these 2 parameters would be a GREAT addon to the reviews (like an objective mesure of the size of the sound source (punctiful like the Genelec Ones, or huge like the Reveal Saloon2). Any ideas on a protocol addon @amirm?

The car headphone is so stupid. I might have bought it if it had the normal Focal logo, but never with that car logo. As it is I have no interest. They probably sold more for it though. I know some members liked the marketing partnership.

I am really interested in seeing how the Noire does too, though I am not sure I have an application for a closed headphone that needs a headphone amp.

 

[Luke Lemke]

If you're buying these for the looks, get the Clear MG instead. In my opinion, it looks better and it's half the price. Sounds pretty good too, but who cares?

 

[CopperFox]

If and when the reviews on ASR go wrong, they do so by omitting or failing to recognize some obvious strengths of various products instead of forcibly highlighting some perceived weaknesses. For example, who can name the best-measuring tube amplifier reviewed here? As far as I know, it would be the iFi Pro iCan, however this was not mentioned in its review which instead ended in a scalding to "get rid of the tube nonsense".

Here the Stellia are arguably the best-measuring closed dynamic driver headphones reviewed on the site, the other contenders being E-Mu Teak and ATH M50x (?). The Stellia have some advantages the rest, one of the more obvious being far lower bass distortion at high levels. This was not mentioned in the review which seemed more focused on the ways in which the Stellia is not a black planar magnetic headphone from another manufacturer.

 

[MalinYamato]

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/

Amir is really focusing on reviewing all focals there is.

Stella orange color may be good for finding me when I am lost deep in the mountain with it but since I am not going to hike with it, can you DIY spray it with a different color that suits us, fine ladies, better?

I have a Denon AH-D9200 which sounds ok. The question is if it is worth trying a focal as an upgrade.
and, so, when will the reviewing battle between Stella and AH-D9200 begin, both being closed with dynamic drivers?
A small disclaimer, AH-D9200 should be regarded as semi-closed.

 

[MalinYamato]

If and when the reviews on ASR go wrong, they do so by omitting or failing to recognize some obvious strengths of various products instead of forcibly highlighting some perceived weaknesses. For example, who can name the best-measuring tube amplifier reviewed here? As far as I know, it would be the iFi Pro iCan, however this was not mentioned in its review which instead ended in a scalding to "get rid of the tube nonsense".

Here the Stellia are arguably the best-measuring closed dynamic driver headphones reviewed on the site, the other contenders being E-Mu Teak and ATH M50x (?). The Stellia have some advantages the rest, one of the more obvious being far lower bass distortion at high levels. This was not mentioned in the review which seemed more focused on the ways in which the Stellia is not a black planar magnetic headphone from another manufacturer.

don't forget to put AH-D9200 in the list of top closed cans

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

Had both here.
Stellia kills the 9200 easily...
The 9200 is sounding very very boxy...

 

[MalinYamato]

Had both here.
Stellia kills the 9200 easily...
The 9200 is sounding very very boxy...

so you kept Stella and sold the Denon?
Stella is double the price and far away from what I can afford, so what is the price/performance ratio according to you?

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

No. The Stellia had to go. The bass was to "soft".

Best price/performance ratio?
In my opinion Focal Elegia with Dekoni Stellia pads and Oratorys Harman setting.

 

[tifune]

I have a Denon AH-D9200 which sounds ok. The question is if it is worth trying a focal as an upgrade.
and, so, when will the reviewing battle between Stella and AH-D9200 begin, both being closed with dynamic drivers?
A small disclaimer, AH-D9200 should be regarded as semi-closed.

How do you mean semi-closed? I don't remember even seeing a port on mine.

Had both here.
Stellia kills the 9200 easily...
The 9200 is sounding very very boxy...

My vote goes completely opposite. you'd have to pay *me* $3k to use the Stellia; the sound and fit were both atrocious given the price. OTOH, if Stealth weren't invented I'd still be using 9200 over all other commonplace closed back flagships: MDR-Z1R, Stellia, TH900mk2, HD820, or LCD-XC.

I will admit the 9200 has unique character, someday I hope to find out exactly what it is but I haven't seen any comprehensive measurements other than typical FR.

Edit: just remembered RFA exists, some good info here

https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/denon-ah-d9200.php#gsc.tab=0

 

[MalinYamato]

How do you mean semi-closed? I don't remember even seeing a port on mine.



My vote goes completely opposite. you'd have to pay *me* $3k to use the Stellia; the sound and fit were both atrocious given the price. OTOH, if Stealth weren't invented I'd still be using 9200 over all other commonplace closed back flagships: MDR-Z1R, Stellia, TH900mk2, HD820, or LCD-XC.

I will admit the 9200 has unique character, someday I hope to find out exactly what it is but I haven't seen any comprehensive measurements other than typical FR.

Edit: just remembered RFA exists, some good info here

https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/denon-ah-d9200.php#gsc.tab=0

I have used the 9200 for a year and it leaks and I can hear sounds from outside. it is not in my opinion closed but semi-close. These Denon phones I love more than anything I have heard so far, but I am not very happy about Denon support.

To clarify, they are closed but I don't know why Bambu wood lets so much sound leak from the outside, which makes them pretty much like sem open.

 

[srkbear]

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/

I’m starting to wonder whether these measurement assessments of headphones (unlike DACs) are betraying how the cans perform after a proper break in and with objective listening—because I own both the Utopias and Stellias, after auditioning an insane number of alternatives, and I haven’t found any others that sound as precise, resolving and celestial anywhere on the planet. I haven’t tried the Empyrean Elites (or Dan Clarks), but I haven’t detected a whiff of distortion and although I do play mine with the xBass and tube features on on my Pro iCAN Signature, I couldn’t imagine tolerating more bass than what I get on either the Utopias or the Stellias.

Amir, wondering why your reviews deviate so starkly with the myriad raves about Focal’s offerings elsewhere?

 

[MayaTlab]

I’m starting to wonder whether these measurement assessments of headphones (unlike DACs) are betraying how the cans perform after a proper break in and with objective listening—because I own both the Utopias and Stellias, after auditioning an insane number of alternatives, and I haven’t found any others that sound as precise, resolving and celestial anywhere on the planet.

If I understand well you're concerned about whether or not, or to which degree, these measurements are representative of how you'll actually be experiencing the headphones ?

While I'll be the first in line to temper over-interpretation of headphones measurements as the actual on-head FR may differ quite audibly from what's measured for plenty of reasons (leakage issues, sample variation, feedback mechanism + possibly some specific acoustic properties with some active / ANC headphones, geometry around the pinna not matching the ear simulator, pad wear and / or break-in, etc.), not anything goes either. These ear simulators aren't some random bits put together by bob in his garage and are purposefully designed to be representative of a real human to a degree. There's a truckload of red flags for me with the Stellia starting from the collection of high-Q resonances and nulls scattered throughout the mids (as with most of Focal's closed backs), which are in my limited experience with on-head measurements (and, well, just running sweeps when I had the recent opportunity to listen to the Celeste and Elegia) highly unlikely to all magically disappear once on someone's head.

 

[Skinner001]

I’m starting to wonder whether these measurement assessments of headphones (unlike DACs) are betraying how the cans perform after a proper break in and with objective listening—because I own both the Utopias and Stellias, after auditioning an insane number of alternatives, and I haven’t found any others that sound as precise, resolving and celestial anywhere on the planet. I haven’t tried the Empyrean Elites (or Dan Clarks), but I haven’t detected a whiff of distortion and although I do play mine with the xBass and tube features on on my Pro iCAN Signature, I couldn’t imagine tolerating more bass than what I get on either the Utopias or the Stellias.

Amir, wondering why your reviews deviate so starkly with the myriad raves about Focal’s offerings elsewhere?

So, on the Utopia thread you say "I’d have to say that I definitely don’t think I can afford utopia, but when I listen to these I get to visit." - but you own both, might be an issue of expressing it precisely, but do you own both, or can't afford Utopia, because I guess these two would be mutually exclusive.

Ah, "objective listening" which is an oxymoron, and celestial which is a beautiful word, very nice, stylish language - and it's all it is.
Focal is overblown, overhyped and overpriced - everything from Elegia to these - but the industry is what it is, mostly marketing.

If someone likes them subjectively, kudos, enjoy them and rejoice. That means nothing for the average consumer, in an age where you can't possibly try everything yourself measurements even the playing field. If a person understands what they prefer they can narrow their decision making based on measurements which are not burdened by inconsistent subjective impressions.

Most reviewers out there get stuff for free, and earn money through the content they make - if they are not constrained by objective measurement (and some are starting to do so which is a good trend) then their impression is worth about as much as the marketing material that comes from the compony itself. And some are just deaf, like Zeos.

 

[CopperFox]

There's a truckload of red flags for me with the Stellia starting from the collection of high-Q resonances and nulls scattered throughout the mids (as with most of Focal's closed backs), which are in my limited experience with on-head measurements (and, well, just running sweeps when I had the recent opportunity to listen to the Celeste and Elegia) highly unlikely to all magically disappear once on someone's head.

So which closed back dynamic headphone would you see as better or best in these regards?

The Stellia can not be considered anything less than stellar in performance only when compared to absolutely nothing in the same category.

 

[Jimbob54]

So which closed back dynamic headphone would you see as better or best in these regards?

The Stellia can not be considered anything less than stellar in performance only when compared to absolutely nothing in the same category.

Why does closed back dynamic need to be a category? Why not just closed back? What are we defining as the performance metrics?

EDIT- but OK I will bite, this is without seeing the distortion numbers for the AT nor having heard the Stellia, but:

Audio Technica ATH-A2000Z.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Higher preference score before EQ, same after per Oratory

Very similar deviation from target.

So are we playing the numbers game, or defending our heroes?