You can't accept a truce but then say "you haven't corrected me on anything". Your mechanical engineering schooling does not automatically make you correct with everything you say.
I first mentioned "air-flow" with this statement:
"In addition, their stock pads' small openings restrict the air-flow from [the] drivers, limiting their sound-stage. That's a hard fact."
In this use of the term "air-flow", thought it was obvious that I meant moving air that humans perceive as sound. You then responded:
"The pad opening is not restricting the airflow to the drivers. That's nonsense. The change you;re noticing is the once angled driver now being position flat in relation to your ear. The pads you also mention are thicker so the drivers are being pushed further away from your ears. That's why you're hearing these differences. That's still a hard fact."
So, I said from the drivers; you said to the drivers. Did you mean to say "to"... and the run with that concept, which is very different than air "from" the drivers? If the correct terminology for my use of "air-flow" was "pressure or intensity", why did you first start using the term "flow"?
You go on to say:
"Why you're stuck on flow is beyond me. You have changed the angle in which sounds are entering the ear, as well as their distance from their original reflection point. Increasing the inner diameter of the pad as well as changing the height is also changing the reflection paths as they leave the driver. If anything, you have reduced the amount of flow by widening the opening. The stock, angled pads work more like a funnel with a wide mouth to assist with a smooth, even, controlled flow. Very much in the same vein as a water hose compared to a water jet. The larger opening is irrelevant if the smaller opening has a higher flow rate and greater control. At least in this scenario in which flow is being discussed. That's the physics of the situation that you either carelessly disregarded or blatantly ignored."
I called you out on that ridiculous statement:
"Increased covering of the driver results in "less diffusion"? Perhaps smaller pad openings would be akin to a "water jet" if the sound was emanating from a central location. But on a planar magnetic headphone where sound emanates from the entire plane, your analogy is wholly incorrect."
... but you continually refuse to admit that the small openings of the stock pads impede direct sound from the planar drivers.
Let's take this case of pad-driver relationship to the extreme. With the stock 4XX (FocusA) pad as-is, lets use them on the Edition XX - the drivers of which have a much larger ear-facing area than that of the 4XX drivers. Would this still be an example of a trumpet projection (small-to-big, like the 6XX or horn-loaded speaker drivers) or funnel direction (big-to-small, like in your IEM example)? Keep in mind, these are very different sound concepts... and that you said the FocusA pads are both funnel and trumpet when used with the 4XX.
The answer is, of course, no. The too-small FocusA pads (and openings) would be neither trumpet projection or funnel direction. The pads would simply be impeding a significant amount of direct sound from the planar drivers. The same concept applies with the 4XX headphones and drivers - just not as extreme a case since the drivers are not quite a large. Can you agree on this?
Moving on... You just said:
"... all you had to do was state that in your opinion, I think I can feel an increase of flow through the drivers due to a pad swap. Myself and anyone reading would have seen that and thought that sounds plausible and reasonable. Instead, you claimed the flow is indeed increased. Which turns your opinion into a fact. That's the issue at hand here and you keep proclaiming your opinions as facts."
... but before said:
"For the last time, having a larger diameter opening doesn’t increase flow rate. It can increase overall CAPACITY but the rate at which sounds are exiting the transducer have not changed. This is why I mentioned a water hose and a water jet. Despite the water jet having the smaller opening, it flows substantially more due to its increased force to make it out of a smaller nozzle. The larger opening on the garden hose COULD achieve the same effect if more force was being applied to push it at the same rate as the water jet. You have also increased the distance and angles that sound has to travel to your ear which will increase the amount of pressure required even further to match the same rate of flow as the FocusA pads."
So you contradicted yourself regarding 'increasing flow'. Based on your habit to (attempt to) correct me, I refuse to believe that adding "I think I can feel" to my statement would have excused my opinions and statements from your critiquing, elitist attitude.
I will "dismiss what [you] have to say" when you conflate principles like 'funnel direction' and 'trumpet projection' (as they relate to sound) being similar concepts when the physical designs are only identical in shape. And you say that I have 'butchered the science at hand' without having presented any scientific proof regarding the 4XX drivers and its pads. This is 'shenanigans on your end'.
I consider my uses of the word "fact", correct. I may be "stubborn as hell" but I accept your apology for 'reacting for the worst'. And I thank you for providing those informative links.
As for my "love" of the 4XX, I find myself hot-swapping (without the attachment rings) the various models of Brainwavz XL pads based on the specific genre/mix/frequency presentation of the particular music I'm listening to. I will likely avoid other mods... and upgrade my DAC/amp before buying a superior headphone, which could be the Edition XX. Though, I will wait for reviews to see - and for others to hear - if it is worth consideration.