Massdrop Focal "Elex"

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, PorkChop said:

Tempted.  Haven't heard the Elears, but I'm a fan of Focal's sound signature and have no doubt they'll sound amazing.

I had the Focal Spirit Pro - signature was very decent albeit maybe slightly weak in the deeper bass.  But the Elear had a big recess between 4 and 5 khz, much like the AudioQuest NightHawk I had.

[dalethorn]

One thing about the Elear that might confuse some users is the lack of reflections in the earcups.  Stunning, in a direct comparison to most other headphones.

 

[dalethorn]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I have to admit I am perhaps not you typical HP enthusiast in that I don't think HP's really do "soundstage and imaging" at all.  Stereo simply does not work as designed with he speakers right next to your ears on either side of your head.  This is not to say that the effect is totally lost, but it mostly is and what is left is not right.  Some modern electronic music takes advantage of the skewed "imaging" of HP's and sounds off when played over a two channel...

You do realize that your eyes see upside down, physically.  Yet they work.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, Mshenay said:

 

Good analogy, I've yet to really dabble in speakers. So I learned how to perceive "imaging" in headphones over the years. Spending some time at live shows and being a very limited an modest musician my self, I've never felt the image presented was wrong but I'd imagine hearing a really impressive speaker set up my... change my perception entirely! Sadly the live venue's I've attended may not have been the very best stereo set ups and my own personal musical experience is really limited just small groups in smaller rooms or outside. More intimate settings, I've yet to attend a fully staffed Orchestra that spans across hundreds of feet! So having only listened to recordings of such venue's my mind obviously fills in some gaps, and with a real love for Orchestral music I do like how the HD 800 really opens up the space! My own Near Fields don't even match it, but again my point of reference... the ULTIMATE speaker system I heard was only a pair of Maggie 3.07s in a room that was apparently too small for them [very tall but not to deep]

 

This set up impressed me more with it's tactility and resolve than it's imaging. For I felt no real DRASTIC improvement over the headphones I had at the time. Though I only had some Jazz to listen to... I'm excited to hear an orchestral ensemble on maybe a pair of dynamics in a more fitting room.  These days I not even impressed with how Planar Magnetic headphones "image" 

 

My point being,  as impressed as I am with Headphone imaging, even a bad speaker set up seems to match an AMAZING headphone. I'm in agreement with @crenca, I certainly appreciate an brag  about headphones that have good imaging based on my experince, but I've heard enough from speaker rigs to know... the limits of headphones... Headphones are by their design and nature limited in the image they can present and I'm sure as @crencasays headphones compared to speakers don't and won't sound right. 

 

I'll continue to enjoy my headphones ^^ I'm just hoping I can still enjoy the collection I have once I start to attend those larger venues and get some real experience with how "stereo" can and should sound..

 

As for the Elex, is any one here planning to purchase it? If I didn't have a Pre Fazor LCD 2.2 I might consider it but... between the HD 800 and LCD 2.2 I have I doubt the Elex would get much head time

A "good" speaker setup does two basic things to recordings that many audiophiles love.  1) They bounce the sound around, creating delay (short-duration echos basically) that mimics a larger space, and 2) They mix (smear) the sound, which lessens the effects of harshness in the recording, which in conjunction with the time delays and so on makes the sound more "pleasant".  I see how people would enjoy that, but it's hardly a sonic ideal.

[dalethorn]

9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

A better analogy would be if you took your eyes and put them where your ears are (each looking out the side of your head).  You know, like a fish.

 

What would happen to your depth perception?

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stereoscopic-vision

 

Fish are great at finding food that darts and tries to evade them.

 

You can divert attention away from the acoustic realities of speaker problems, but it doesn't work with this headphone user.  The presentations are all fiction, but the truth is that good recordings sound awesome on good headphones, just like having a good seat at the concert.

 

Unfortunately, many people listen to bad recordings, and speakers help bury much of the bad.

[dalethorn]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Dale,

 

I think you are misreading me.  I am in no way denying the " acoustic realities of speaker problems," or the many advantages of HP use.  All I am saying is that one of the few areas where two channel has a clear advantage is the much talked about soundstaging and imaging.  I don't even deny that HP give you a bit of this, but I am claiming (somewhat controversially) is that even what they give you is wrong - it is still "in the head" and not on a soundstage in front of you.  I know that many HP users don't agree with this, but as someone who is a season ticket holder to my local symphony and a jazz fan, I just can't convince myself that the soundstage I hear through HP (even the best of rigs) in any way approaches the soundstage of a well set up two channel when compared to the real thing.  I have never owned a top of the line 800(s) rig (what most HP enthusiasts point to as the archetypical "soundstaging" system) but I have listened to them at dealers/shows/meets and they have not changed my opinion.  Would quality time spent with this rig in my home make a difference?  I am not convinced and have not committed the $ to finding out.

 

All that said, HP for me give such an advantage in other areas that at least 80% of my listening through HP's...

 

Perhaps a simplification will do.  Yes, the sound is literally "in the head"**, but the "soundstage" is not necessarily in the head.  Binaural recording sound is just as physically in the head as otherwise, but the soundstage is not. 

 

Before anyone argues about binaural sound, I for a fact have many recordings (the Ellington Indigos on gold CD for example) that are NOT binaural that sound as good as or better than binaural recordings I've heard.  Soundstage particularly.

 

**We can also argue that not all of the headphone sound goes into your ears - some of it impacts your body, albeit a smaller segment of the body than with speakers in a room.

 

Note: There are many, many reasons why some users still believe that headphones still can't get it "right", and recorded quality is just part of it.  Another huge factor that's pretty much ignored by so-called experts is equalization, as it pertains to soundstage.  Get the equalization right, and soundstage blossoms like magic.  Been there, done that with 200 different headphones.

[dalethorn]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

This is true, and at the risk of poking a hornets nest, one of the few areas where a HP system falls short when compared to a good two channel is the "dynamics" of live acoustic music - that "feel it in your chest and whole body" thing.

 

Fear not HP users, I am still a HP fan!!

 

Mostly disagree.  I've been to many concerts (pop, country, acoustic, but no rock concerts), and never felt anything in my chest or other parts.  The pipe organ (tracker organ) concerts I've been to have generated a slight amount of anomalous "feel it" bass, but I feel as much or more in my ears.

 

Since I spent a few years with Stereophile-recommended speakers and can compare that sound to live concerts, it's clear to me that most of the speaker "feel it" is artificial or greatly exaggerated.

[dalethorn]

6 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

You must have NEVER been to a concert with a pipe organ Or an arena rock concert.  The sound is more "body" than "ears".

 

I've been to many pipe organ concerts, but I suspect you don't know what a tracker organ is.  There is very little "feel", and zero body impact.

 

Anyone who values the "body impact" that much just doesn't fall into what I call a music-lover class of person.  That person might actually prefer car racing or surfing, and settle for "feel-it" music when they're too tired for outdoor adventure.  I prefer the sound of music myself.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

...or we can also say that headphones and speakers are apples and oranges and call it a day maybe? 

 

I mean, we can go on like this literally forever 

 

Actually, I never start the headphone versus speaker "debates", but I feel pretty good about debunking the most common myths of speaker superiority, since many headphone users benefit from that.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, davide256 said:

Attending a concert with the Navy or Air Force doing a "big band" program would provide that physical sensation.  Big band music was the "rock" music of its day;  loud, forceful music without electronic amplification.

 

I support the local police when they support Special Olympics, and in doing so I get a dozen Krispy Kremes and a hat.  But I don't eat the donuts, and I don't listen to wumpum-wumpum-wumpum muzak.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

 

I've been a professional classical musician for 35 years, thank you - so, yeah, I know what a tracker organ is. LOL.

 

No need to throw around the "music-lover" vs. "feel-it" BS, either.  I used to have you blocked, and now I remember why.  Back to the block list.

 

Block away, but you still have zero idea about tracker organs, which goes to your credibility, not mine.

[dalethorn]

5 hours ago, davide256 said:

 

Tracker is the key control mechanism type, it has nothing to do with what the lowest note pipes of the organ are.

Your music education appears  limited. Try some Harry James if you want to correct that.

 

 

 

Wow - wave your ignorance like a flag.  Try "low pressure" versus "high pressure" pipes.  Very different type of organ with very different sound.  

[dalethorn]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have been following this with interest.

 

As far as I can tell, tracker is just a way of allowing wind to enter the pipes and is a mechanical method as opposed to pneumatic or electrical actions.

 

Are you saying that tracker organs have a different sound than organs that use other kinds of actions?

 

Can you provide a reference so I can learn more?

 

I found this by google in about 5 seconds.  You can find a lot more.  The primary reason churches go for trackers isn't the nitpicky aspects of fingering and stop-pulling - it's the sound.

 

That said of course, I suppose someone could build a hybrid organ so as to get the worst features of both.  Fortunately that isn't the rule.

 

http://www.savetheorgan.org/tracker.htm

[dalethorn]

Here's another article that illustrates the basics of different designs, discusses historic and modern designs, recent trends, etc. 

 

I like to think of organ design as ranging from a more-or-less pure acoustic instrument (wind, horn, ....) to something highly controlled by electronics that has a much smoother tone.

 

http://www.enchamade.com/hendricksonorgan/wb/pages/articles/windpressures.php

 

And that to me is the key (no pun intended) in classic tracker design - as E. Power Biggs often explained - to get a more authentic tone.

[dalethorn]

A little adendum - it's been about 40 years since I regularly attended organ recitals at the church on 25th street in Cleveland, and today it's hit or miss for me.  A good starter on "classic" tracker design as played by Biggs is the recording of the Flentrop organ at Harvard U.  That would be ca. 1960-61, a Bach classics CD, now sold by Sony.  A great second for Bach fans is (was) E. Power Biggs Plays Bach at the Thomaskirche (ca. 1970), but that CD is under a different title now.

 

In the Flentrop recording, you can really hear the difference this type of organ makes.

[dalethorn]

3 hours ago, jbparrish said:

Dale, your reference to www.enchamade.com is no longer supported, FYI. The domain name expired 12/19.

 

Amazing!  It's like the Langoliers eating up the past right behind me.

[dalethorn]

Assuming it comes with only the Massdrop pads, if I could buy the original or Utopia pads for less than $100 extra, I'd call it a good deal.

[dalethorn]

8 hours ago, buonassi said:

Bingo....headphones are technically binaural while speakers are stereo.  You can emulate more of a speaker type of "delivery" by using crossfeed, which preserves the separation of high frequencies while summing the low frequencies into mono.  Really good algorithms like Goodhertz's CanOpener Studio also do spectral delay modeling  which help with stage.  Still no speaker system, but much more enjoyable for longer listening as well as more slightly out of head experience.  Though I've never heard it in front of me, it does quite well pulling it further out above and sideways to your head.  Very worth the expense as it's processing is done with top shelf sonics.  

 

I've listened to speakers for 30 years, headphones for 40.  None of the above is absolutely true, even if there are some useful tips there.

 

The biggest problem with headphones by far is their ragged frequency response, which makes the sound unnatural and (what few users realize) damages the soundstage.

 

A far better fix for "headphone sound" is to use a parametric equalizer to achieve a natural sound, rather than just "mix and smear" with crossfeed.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

I agree with you, but EQ with crosfeed is even better, IME.

 

A few years ago I got a Dirac app made for Apple's Earpods (the greatly improved earbud), and it did wonders for those buds.  I've heard a few stirrings about Dirac recently, but only for room treatments as I remember.

 

I would suggest as a proof of concept, that a maker of DSP's create an alternate music player with goodies for iOS and Android, like the Audioforge EQ app, that uses the built-in music code so all the user needs do is download the app and play the files they were playing on the standard app that comes with the phone.

 

Putting aside any considerations for non-audiophiles, it should be possible to get thousands, if not millions, of users' feedback as to the improvements they get with the new (very low cost) player app.

 

I'm not optimistic about that, only because the EQ is the most important feature for achieving a natural sound from the frequency domain, and it's also difficult to achieve without providing hundreds of default settings for different headphones.  When the EQ is missing, the crossfeed is a bust, and all you need do is look around - a billion headphone users with no satisfactory solution that doesn't require hours of work to tune the headphone themselves.

[dalethorn]

I would like to add for those who have the interest -- I EQ partly to compensate for obvious large deviations from "flat" in the frequency response, but from there my objective is NOT to bias anything for my hearing or "tastes", rather it's to achieve a natural sound just like I hear in the real world.  So whatever the quirks are in my hearing, they don't bias the EQ because my EQ'd sound is the same as what I hear live.

 

The reason I think this is so important is 1) I can hear the difference, and natural sound sounds OK to me, and 2) I believe all those other "fixes" have audiophiles chasing their tails trying to achieve something that's rarely if ever satisfactory.

 

Here's an example of a tutorial I wrote for the Audioforge equalizer.  I've got quite a bit more in various places.

 

http://dalethorn.com/Headphone_Audioforge_Eq_App_Tutorial.txt

[dalethorn]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

For example, a 20Hz sound coming from an instrument 20m away will be about 10dB louder than a 20KHz sound from the same distance. That's how my house curve is constructed. To my ear, orchestra sounds unnatural when recorded and played back with all the frequencies having equal weight (flat). But that's just me and the music I listen to  YMMV.

 

 

That's where a lot of unnecessary controversy creeps into discussions of headphones and natural sound.  If a person is compensating for their hearing, or for reproduced sound that doesn't work because certain aspects of the recording don't sound right (an issue in the recording most likely), then they should offer those as a disclaimer up front when suggesting EQ curves and so on.  That way, interested users will have more reliable reference points from which to build their own correction curves.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

EQ works and is even necessary with lo- and mid-fi headphones. EQ doesn’t work and is moreover destructive with hi-fi headphones. Hi-fi headphones such as the HD800, TH900, LCD-4, Utopia, etc and so on, are already meticulously tuned to achieve a certain sound and messing with the frequency response just ruins them.

 

Umm, no.  Until their curves are truly neutral, a tweak here and there helps make for a more natural sound.  Many audiophiles have complained about irregularities in the HD800's response, but very few have suggested that it's perfect as-is.

[dalethorn]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

True. And I think I did just that:

 

 

I agree that you did what is rarely done here.  Thank you.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

@GUTB This reminds me of why I have you on my ignore list (I think everyone else on it has been banned).  This might be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said, though I am sure you will top it soon...

 

And so it goes....

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

@GUTB believes that expensive equipment is equivalent to perfection. Anyone with even a slightly less expensive set up is simply lying when they say that they can get great performance from their system.

 

 

Belief is one thing, but the only real problem I have in this business is "sales" sites that ban people for trying to save users money.  Sales includes taking a *lot* of ads.