Focal Elegia Review (Closed Back Headphone)

[GaryH]

I'm interested in what the subjectivists mean by "punch and slam", but I'm not going to buy this just for that reason.

Some have postulated “slam” is related to the amount of driver excursion. I have no idea if this is real or if it’s just another pseudo-scientific audiophile concept.

I suggested a possible cause in this thread - the static pressure inside the front volume of the headphone, which is dependent on the degree of seal between it and your head / the environment i.e. the degree to which the front volume is 'closed'/'open'. As Oratory says here:

The exact shape of the [bass] drop-off then depends on how well this resonance is damped - with a critically damped vent like on the Aeon Flow you can achieve static pressure reduction while still keeping the bass response linear down to 10 Hz.

Maybe this reduced static pressure is behind some people's subjective impression of headphones by Dan Clark lacking in 'punch and slam', even though they have well-extended sub-bass.

 

[Anmol]

I don't have the Stelia but for me the problem with DCA or most planars for that matter is the necessity of a good amp to drive them. It highly limit versatility, I have a good amp at my desk, but quite often the situation ask for plugging straight into an I Pad or laptop. Dan Clark will perform poorly at that. "value" is really something that depends on peoples needs.

I do have hd800s and love it with eq. It is not a planer. Without a proper amp it is not so great. I do have a planer sundara too and have no issues listening to it from tempotec hd sonata and cellphone(actually sounds great) . Use case does determine value for sure. However based on measurements , dan Clark outperforms this headphone for less. These reviews are for assessing performance not every use case.

 

[PeteL]

I do have hd800s and love it with eq. It is not a planer. Without a proper amp it is not so great. I do have a planer sundara too and have no issues listening to it from tempotec hd sonata and cellphone(actually sounds great) . Use case does determine value for sure. However based on measurements , dan Clark outperforms this headphone for less. These reviews are for assessing performance not every use case.

OK, So what was your question then? Why put a question mark when what you wanted to do is a statement that DCA is a better headphone for the price? My answer was about telling why Focal's line are a better value for me. Not more expensive if you consider the premium for the amp. I said DCA like most planars needs a desktop class amp, Yes there are hard to drive dynamic out there, but we where comparing 2 specific headphones.

 

[Rottmannash]

3.5 m

They sure are a good looking pair of headphones. They'd be on my list to listen to, just based on looks

@amirm With repsect to the stiff and microphonic cable, what is the connection to the headphone? Mini XLR or 3.5mm? Funny, the first thing I did with my AKG-702s was replace the skinny and very soft 3M cable with a shorter cable I made up with fatter/stiffer pro-mic cable.

3.5 mm I think.

 

[amirm]

If "The final arbiter of any correction must be your ears" wouldn't you have to do some double-blind listening to show that your EQ curve was effective?

And I do when the correction is subtle, resulting in many cases where I abandon a certain filter because of that.

Or are you saying that your ears are the gold standard?

My ears are aided by a wonderful tool called measurements relative to a preference. And power of being able to toggle a filter on and off, blind or otherwise, to assess the correctness of what we are seeing in measurements.

My EQ is then provided to membership at large to try, again blind or sighted, and report back.

Aren't we trying to get away from the subjectivists?

Not remotely so. Subjectively better sound is the core to all loudspeaker and headphone research. Measurements are correlated to try to predict that but ultimate arbiter are the ears.

This is not the same as the nonsense that "subjectivist audiophiles" do, imagining differences that are not objectively there. I am talking about true subjectivity. Here is Dr. Olive's bio on AES for example:

So please don't go equating one with the other. There is no crime committed by using one's ear to assess headphone and speaker sound. You just need to do it properly which calls for AB comparisons. Just listening to a headphone or a speaker sighted without measurements is bogus indeed. Doing the way I do it has very solid foundation.

 

[Rottmannash]

OK, So what was your question then? Why put a question mark when what you wanted to do is a statement that DCA is a better headphone for the price? My answer was about telling why Focal's line are a better value for me. Not more expensive if you consider the premium for the amp. I said DCA like most planars needs a desktop class amp, Yes there are hard to drive dynamic out there, but we where comparing 2 specific headphones.

I can easily drive my Elex with a smartphone and/or dongle but need a high power amp for the DC Aeon Opens. The only portable thing I have that will drive the Opens is my Hiby R5 on high gain 4.4 balanced and that's at almost full volume.

 

[amirm]

@amirm With repsect to the stiff and microphonic cable, what is the connection to the headphone? Mini XLR or 3.5mm?

It is mono 3.5mm on the headphone side so very easy to replace.

 

[Anmol]

OK, So what was your question then? Why put a question mark when what you wanted to do is a statement that DCA is a better headphone for the price? My answer was about telling why Focal's line are a better value for me. Not more expensive if you consider the premium for the amp. I said DCA like most planars needs a desktop class amp, Yes there are hard to drive dynamic out there, but we where comparing 2 specific headphones.

My statement was rhetorical one as I could not understand why people fancy this headphone over another which is objectively superior for lesser price. i have no issue how you spend your money and find value in things for specific use case. $100 for a great amp and even less in used market. amp price would have been a good $ consideration a few years ago.

 

[PeteL]

My statement was rhetorical one as I could not understand why people fancy this headphone over another which is objectively superior for lesser price. i have no issue how you spend your money and find value in things for specific use case. $100 for a great amp and even less in used market. amp price would have been a good $ consideration a few years ago.

And I give you my reason. Do gou understand it now?I get that it don’t matter to you, but that you don’t understand why? My point is, it’s the DCA that have a very specific use case, Something like this Focal does not force you to use in only one way, at only one place, tied to your desk or where your amp is hooked up. The beauty of headphones, unlike speakers, is that you can carry them to where you feel like listening to music. Hard to drive headphones cancel that benefit.

 

[Acerun]

I have not. Here it is:

I was able to import 57 tracks out of 119 into Quboz. Spotify plus didn't recognize any of them. How are you all importing them and with what success?

 

[wisechoice]

Nice review, thanks Amir. Seems to be few, if any, hp's that can stand on their own without EQ.

From what I can tell, the Shure SRH1840 (which I own) and Sennheiser HD650 both qualify, but both come with heavy doses of measured distortion—especially the SRH1840. Whether or not that distortion is audible or disagreeable is another question. The 1840s are absolutely glorious for classical music, jazz, a lot of pop, and especially piano, and I've never found myself bothered by it in everyday listening. The FR itself is not only perceptibly flat, but extremely smooth. For piano tonality, they handily beat my Neumann KH120s, which are also extremely flat.

I've been reading reviews like this one obsessively for almost 6 months, trying to see if there might be a better headphone out there for my purposes (mostly reference sound work for film, and electric piano, besides everyday music listening), and I haven't found one. In fact, I've settled on my next pair being either the SRH1540s (for some isolation with similar mid neutrality, plus boosted bass) or the SE535 IEMs (for neutral mids, portability, and even more isolation).

I'm actually shocked that more expensive headphones consistently measure so poorly when it comes to frequency response. After binging on audio gear and developing a serious shopping habit in the last six months, and embarking on a steep learning curve, which all started with the SRH1840s, it's remarkable to me that I haven't gone out and purchased the HD800s or another more expensive set, or even run to the store to try something else. I'm sure my girlfriend would say that I'm addicted but what I have still gives me my fix, lol. And despite Amir's insistence that EQ is our friend and we must use it, I'm just horrified by the way other headphones all measure. It kills my mood every time.

At the same time, I'm almost afraid for Amir to review a pair of the SRH1840, because I'm constantly doubting that they can be as good as I think they are. But they complement the sound of my QC 35 IIs, which also measure very well and don't need EQ. I basically lived in those for almost two years, until I started to get annoyed by the sound being in my head, and started to explore open backs. And coming from the MDR-7506, which has been standard in my industry for ages, it's a world of difference.

I'd love for someone to tell me that I'm wrong, but if frequency response is what matters most, I'm really not sure there are better headphones out there than the two pair that I own (the 1840 for critical listening in a quiet environment, and QC35 II for noise cancelling/wireless). Maybe the HD650, by a hair?

One thing that I've never seen mentioned is how our ears adapt to whatever it is that we're listening to, which means for professionals, all our gear needs to be neutral or reference quality—even the recreational gear. Otherwise, we'll make bad decisions based on our ears having adapted to compromised sound. I've decided that this is important for my eyes, as well. I can't watch or listen to one kind of monitor for enjoyment, and then go make critical decisions on something that is calibrated totally differently. How would I ever be sure that my subjective decisions weren't being coloured by what I had grown used to on objectively compromised equipment?

 

[Acerun]

I was able to import 57 tracks out of 119 into Quboz. Spotify plus didn't recognize any of them. How are you all importing them and with what success?

I got all but 9 to import into Tidal

 

[PeteL]

From what I can tell, the Shure SRH1840 (which I own) and Sennheiser HD650 both qualify, but both come with heavy doses of measured distortion—especially the SRH1840. Whether or not that distortion is audible or disagreeable is another question. The 1840s are absolutely glorious for classical music, jazz, a lot of pop, and especially piano, and I've never found myself bothered by it in everyday listening. The FR itself is not only perceptibly flat, but extremely smooth. For piano tonality, they handily beat my Neumann KH120s, which are also extremely flat.

I've been reading reviews like this one obsessively for almost 6 months, trying to see if there might be a better headphone out there for my purposes (mostly reference sound work for film, and electric piano, besides everyday music listening), and I haven't found one. In fact, I've settled on my next pair being either the SRH1540s (for some isolation with similar mid neutrality, plus boosted bass) or the SE535 IEMs (for neutral mids, portability, and even more isolation).

I'm actually shocked that more expensive headphones consistently measure so poorly when it comes to frequency response. After binging on audio gear and developing a serious shopping habit in the last six months, and embarking on a steep learning curve, which all started with the SRH1840s, it's remarkable to me that I haven't gone out and purchased the HD800s or another more expensive set, or even run to the store to try something else. I'm sure my girlfriend would say that I'm addicted but what I have still gives me my fix, lol. And despite Amir's insistence that EQ is our friend and we must use it, I'm just horrified by the way other headphones all measure. It kills my mood every time.

At the same time, I'm almost afraid for Amir to review a pair of the SRH1840, because I'm constantly doubting that they can be as good as I think they are. But they complement the sound of my QC 35 IIs, which also measure very well and don't need EQ. I basically lived in those for almost two years, until I started to get annoyed by the sound being in my head, and started to explore open backs. And coming from the MDR-7506, which has been standard in my industry for ages, it's a world of difference.

I'd love for someone to tell me that I'm wrong, but if frequency response is what matters most, I'm really not sure there are better headphones out there than the two pair that I own (the 1840 for critical listening in a quiet environment, and QC35 II for noise cancelling/wireless). Maybe the HD650, by a hair?

One thing that I've never seen mentioned is how our ears adapt to whatever it is that we're listening to, which means for professionals, all our gear needs to be neutral or reference quality—even the recreational gear. Otherwise, we'll make bad decisions based on our ears having adapted to compromised sound. I've decided that this is important for my eyes, as well. I can't watch or listen to one kind of monitor for enjoyment, and then go make critical decisions on something that is calibrated totally differently. How would I ever be sure that my subjective decisions weren't being coloured by what I had grown used to on objectively compromised equipment?

HD-650‘s bass rolls off quite early, I don’t have it anymore, sold it now but it wasn’t cutting it for me. Beside that great tonality but no subs.

 

[wisechoice]

From what I can tell, the Shure SRH1840 (which I own) and Sennheiser HD650 both qualify, but both come with heavy doses of measured distortion—especially the SRH1840. Whether or not that distortion is audible or disagreeable is another question. The 1840s are absolutely glorious for classical music, jazz, a lot of pop, and especially piano, and I've never found myself bothered by it in everyday listening. The FR itself is not only perceptibly flat, but extremely smooth. For piano tonality, they handily beat my Neumann KH120s, which are also extremely flat.

I've been reading reviews like this one obsessively for almost 6 months, trying to see if there might be a better headphone out there for my purposes (mostly reference sound work for film, and electric piano, besides everyday music listening), and I haven't found one. In fact, I've settled on my next pair being either the SRH1540s (for some isolation with similar mid neutrality, plus boosted bass) or the SE535 IEMs (for neutral mids, portability, and even more isolation).

I'm actually shocked that more expensive headphones consistently measure so poorly when it comes to frequency response. After binging on audio gear and developing a serious shopping habit in the last six months, and embarking on a steep learning curve, which all started with the SRH1840s, it's remarkable to me that I haven't gone out and purchased the HD800s or another more expensive set, or even run to the store to try something else. I'm sure my girlfriend would say that I'm addicted but what I have still gives me my fix, lol. And despite Amir's insistence that EQ is our friend and we must use it, I'm just horrified by the way other headphones all measure. It kills my mood every time.

At the same time, I'm almost afraid for Amir to review a pair of the SRH1840, because I'm constantly doubting that they can be as good as I think they are. But they complement the sound of my QC 35 IIs, which also measure very well and don't need EQ. I basically lived in those for almost two years, until I started to get annoyed by the sound being in my head, and started to explore open backs. And coming from the MDR-7506, which has been standard in my industry for ages, it's a world of difference.

I'd love for someone to tell me that I'm wrong, but if frequency response is what matters most, I'm really not sure there are better headphones out there than the two pair that I own (the 1840 for critical listening in a quiet environment, and QC35 II for noise cancelling/wireless). Maybe the HD650, by a hair?

One thing that I've never seen mentioned is how our ears adapt to whatever it is that we're listening to, which means for professionals, all our gear needs to be neutral or reference quality—even the recreational gear. Otherwise, we'll make bad decisions based on our ears having adapted to compromised sound. I've decided that this is important for my eyes, as well. I can't watch or listen to one kind of monitor for enjoyment, and then go make critical decisions on something that is calibrated totally differently. How would I ever be sure that my subjective decisions weren't being coloured by what I had grown used to on objectively compromised equipment?

Also, I will just add to this that, as Amir has rightly emphasized (and I think cited as the motivation for starting this whole site), in the film and video world we have embraced extremely strict standards by which to calibrate displays and projectors. The smallest variation on a piece of equipment that is intended for making creative decisions just would not be acceptable when you're at the end of the process in the colour grading suite. And Apple, at least, has done an excellent job in making properly calibrated displays that fulfil a standard intended for the creative industry (the P3 colour space) ubiquitous.

As far as I can tell, sound has escaped that same rigour because it just isn't regarded as equally important to visual media. Maybe I'm wrong, and it has more to do with subjective variability, the difficulty of controlling for different rooms, etc. But I have to say, the circle of confusion can only end if music and audio starts being mixed on equipment that is properly calibrated to a standard, and people get used to listening on similarly calibrated equipment. Then artists can make creative choices based on their ears, and people can hear things the way they were intended, instead of everybody trying to guess what will produce something that they will most enjoy. This is absolutely understood in the film and video world. The fact that the audio world isn't there yet is a travesty for creators, in my opinion.

 

[PeteL]

Also, I will just add to this that, as Amir has rightly emphasized (and I think cited as the motivation for starting this whole site), in the film and video world we have embraced extremely strict standards by which to calibrate displays and projectors. The smallest variation on a piece of equipment that is intended for making creative decisions just would not be acceptable when you're at the end of the process in the colour grading suite. And Apple, at least, has done an excellent job in making properly calibrated displays that fulfil a standard intended for the creative industry (the P3 colour space) ubiquitous.

As far as I can tell, sound has escaped that same rigour because it just isn't as important as visual media. Maybe I'm wrong, and it has more to do with subjective variability, the difficulty of controlling for different rooms, etc. But I have to say, the circle of confusion can only end if music and audio starts being mixed on equipment that is properly calibrated to a standard, and people get used to listening on similarly calibrated equipment. Then artists can make creative choices based on their ears, and people can hear things the way they were intended, instead of everybody trying to guess what will produce something that they will most enjoy. This is absolutely understood in the film and video world. The fact that the audio world isn't there yet is a travesty for creators, in my opinion.

I don’t think there is a proper mastering studio that don’t use acoustic and digital room and speaker correction to be calibrated to a neutral reference. at least as close as the current technology and physics allow.

 

[wisechoice]

HD-650‘s bass rolls off quite early, I don’t have it anymore, sold it now but it wasn’t cutting it for me. Beside that gread tonality but no subs.

Fair enough. I wonder why nobody has made a tonally neutral headphone that also has great bass extension and volume, at whatever price. Maybe somebody here can explain it? In the pro video world, you can spend tens of thousands to get everything right according to the standard (although there will still be one or two tradeoffs between different technologies for illumination, e.g. OLED vs dual-layer LCD vs FALD). In the audio world, it really does seem to be the wild west.

 

[wisechoice]

I don’t think there is a proper mastering studio that don’t use acoustic and digital room and speaker correction to be calibrated to a neutral reference. at least as close as the current technology and physics allow.

Yeah, I'm sure it's much better now with ubiquitous use of DSP and software like Sonarworks, even for small studios and artists. I went to film school between 2002-2007, and we had nothing like that available to us at the time. So I'm catching up. Perhaps the question is really why there's so much variability in consumer equipment. And in fairness, the same problem exists for consumer TVs and projectors, which is what led to the push for a "filmmaker mode" on TVs.

Maybe there needs to be a similar push for a "neutral tone" EQ setting on phones and music players that can take into account the curve of the headphone. Sonarworks for all…

 

[Zensō]

Fair enough. I wonder why nobody has made a tonally neutral headphone that also has great bass extension and volume, at whatever price.

Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the just announced Dan Clark Audio Stealth closed back planar magnetic headphone. Company was kind enough to share with me a couple of samples which I have been testing and playing with in the last couple of weeks. It costs US $3999. The price...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Zensō]

Maybe there needs to be a similar push for a "neutral tone" EQ setting on phones and music players that can take into account the curve of the headphone. Sonarworks for all…

A Deep Dive Into Harman Curves - The Long Way Round (Part 1)

In Part 1 of the Harman Target Curve deep-dive series, we explore the fundamental of human hearing and how it is related to the Harman Curve.

www.headphonesty.com

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[PeteL]

Yeah, I'm sure it's much better now with ubiquitous use of DSP and software like Sonarworks, even for small studios and artists. I went to film school between 2002-2007, and we had nothing like that available to us at the time. So I'm catching up. Perhaps the question is really why there's so much variability in consumer equipment. And in fairness, the same problem exists for consumer TVs and projectors, which is what led to the push for a "filmmaker mode" on TVs.

Maybe there needs to be a similar push for a "neutral tone" EQ setting on phones and music players that can take into account the curve of the headphone. Sonarworks for all…

Maybe a few step behind sure, But hey it have been the goal to get flat reaponse for years for speakers. Cost consideration, miniaturatisation, and many more physical aspects are responsible for us not always getting that but it’s the goal. The challenge is translating that to headphone, thats where studies like Sean Olive’s Harman curve pinch in, but yeah not there yet but as long as. music is mastered for speakers first, headphone response will always be based on an interpretation, on how we prefer that to translate.