Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › How to equalize your headphones: A Tutorial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to equalize your headphones: A Tutorial - Page 57

post #841 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by trunolimit View Post

Can you use EQ to increase headphone sound stage?

 

If you make a measurement of the frequency response of a loudspeaker playing in front of you using mics placed in your ears then EQ phones to have the same frequency response playing into your ear, you should be able to make mono recordings have the same soundstage depth (out-of-head spatialization) as that mono speaker.  To recreate the soundstage of stereo you need to fiddle with crossfeed.  A Smyth Realizer creates a very lifelike soundstage with its digital manipulation of the stereo signal based on the measurements they make for you at the studio.  It does more than EQ, but I think EQ can help with soundstage to the extent that choosing different headphones can help with soundstage.

 

That said the method outlined in this thread doesn't really help with that;  at its best it lets you balance out all frequencies to an extent not possible even in a real sound field; sort of an audio analog to High Dynamic Range photography.  I think this method helps create the ultimate detailed soundfield (where you can hear absolutely every instrument in just the right proportion, none masking the others) but spatial imaging isn't really dealt with here.


Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/14/12 at 2:37am
post #842 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

If you make a measurement of the frequency response of a loudspeaker playing in front of you using mics placed in your ears then EQ phones to have the same frequency response playing into your ear, you should be able to make mono recordings have the same soundstage depth (out-of-head spatialization) as that mono speaker.  To recreate the soundstage of stereo you need to fiddle with crossfeed.  A Smyth Realizer creates a very lifelike soundstage with its digital manipulation of the stereo signal based on the measurements they make for you at the studio.  It does more than EQ, but I think EQ can help with soundstage to the extent that choosing different headphones can help with soundstage.

 

That's basically what the Smyth Realiser does. But it also EQ's your headphones. You leave the microphones in your ears and then put on your headphones. Then it sends test signals to the headphones and measures the resulting frequencies that come out of the headphones. It also takes into account the shape of your outer ear. Once the measurement is done, it then processes the audio to give you a very flat frequency response and also cancels out any interaction of the sound with your outer ear such as reflections,resonances, etc.. It's really quite remarkable and does the ultimate headphone EQ. (Along with reproducing very accurately the sound coming out of a speaker system.) When you listen to a Realiser, it sounds as if you are not wearing headphones. If it wasn't for the weight and pressure of the headphones on your head, I don't think you would be able to tell if the sound you hear was coming from headphones or speakers. I often trick myself and think that the speakers were on, when in fact they are off and I had the headphones on. It's that good. I now turn off my speaker amps just to be sure I am not hearing the speakers and disturbing others in my house.

 

(I own a Smyth Realiser and always wondered why people on Head-Fi never really talk about it much. To me it's the ultimate in headphone listening.)

post #843 of 968

I once EQd my K 241 to closer match the response of the K 240 DF, and what I got was a massive increase in the K 241's soundstage (i.e. in my perception of its soundstage). The tonality was off, though; it was a quick test only.

post #844 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinf View Post

That's basically what the Smyth Realiser does. But it also EQ's your headphones. You leave the microphones in your ears and then put on your headphones. Then it sends test signals to the headphones and measures the resulting frequencies that come out of the headphones. It also takes into account the shape of your outer ear. Once the measurement is done, it then processes the audio to give you a very flat frequency response and also cancels out any interaction of the sound with your outer ear such as reflections,resonances, etc.. It's really quite remarkable and does the ultimate headphone EQ. (Along with reproducing very accurately the sound coming out of a speaker system.) When you listen to a Realiser, it sounds as if you are not wearing headphones. If it wasn't for the weight and pressure of the headphones on your head, I don't think you would be able to tell if the sound you hear was coming from headphones or speakers. I often trick myself and think that the speakers were on, when in fact they are off and I had the headphones on. It's that good. I now turn off my speaker amps just to be sure I am not hearing the speakers and disturbing others in my house.

 

(I own a Smyth Realiser and always wondered why people on Head-Fi never really talk about it much. To me it's the ultimate in headphone listening.)

 

I believe you when you say how incredible the Smyth Realiser is.  It's a fantastic concept.  But it gives a "very flat frequency response" in the sense of reproducing the sound field of flat-EQed loudspeakers.  Which is not a flat response at the ear.  There will be peaks and dips, sharp notches even I believe, from the occluding effect of the head and pinna--which the Realiser should not just "cancel out";  rather, loudspeakers interact with the head and pinna in one way and headphones in another way, the Smyth Realizer should "cancel out" the headphone interaction and simulate the loudspeaker interaction instead.

 

Thus I believe if you play a sine sweep through a Smyth Realiser, through the headphones it's calibrated for and into your ears, you'd still hear sharp peaks and dips in the response--unlike what you'd hear if you go through the tutorial in this thread.  It's just that the peaks and dips through the Smyth mimic loudspeaker HRTF.

 

The upshot of all this is that a Smyth Realiser will give you loudspeaker soundstage and detail.  But many people will tell you that headphones can do detail better than loudspeakers.  And I believe that going through the tutorial in this thread will give you the ultimate in headphone detail.  Although not ultimate headphone soundstage.

 

BTW there are parts of this tutorial I do not agree with, namely how the EQing is done (pink noise) and the goal (equal perceived loudness at all frequencies).  I believe the EQing can be done more easily by EQing Sinegen and all system sounds directly using VAC and VSTHost, and the goal should be equal perceived loudness at all frequencies, WITH an equal loudness curve applied.  I tried to detail my modified approach here

http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress

 

but honestly it's a bit of a mess.  If anyone is interested but don't understand what I wrote do please leave a reply there or a pm and I'll answer everything!


Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/14/12 at 7:59am
post #845 of 968

i was able to increase the percieved soundstage of the HD202 from stuck in the head to at the edge of your head, it was basically cutting volumatic frequencies to decrease the cloudyness in the sound, therefore giving an illusion of a more transparent sound

post #846 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

I believe you when you say how incredible the Smyth Realiser is.  It's a fantastic concept.  But it gives a "very flat frequency response" in the sense of reproducing the sound field of flat-EQed loudspeakers.  Which is not a flat response at the ear.  There will be peaks and dips, sharp notches even I believe, from the occluding effect of the head and pinna--which the Realiser should not just "cancel out";  rather, loudspeakers interact with the head and pinna in one way and headphones in another way, the Smyth Realizer should "cancel out" the headphone interaction and simulate the loudspeaker interaction instead.

That's exactly what it does.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the Realiser only flattens out the headphone interactions with your ear. It does NOT change the sound coming from the speakers. It does not try to EQ the room or the speakers. It only EQ's the headphones so that it can feed the most accurate signal possible to reproduce all the speaker interactions/resonances/peaks, etc. good or bad. The point is to reproduce the sound of the speakers EXACTLY, not adjust the sound from the speakers. That's why it works so well.

post #847 of 968

Wow. First off I'd like to thank you all for the mountain of information. I hope to one day be at the hi-fi level where I'd seriously consider something like Smyth Realiser. 

 

I achieved some what success. I'm using a pair of sennheiser HD 25-c ii plugged into a galaxy s3. I started playing with the built in EQ after reading some of this thread and was gladly surprised that my music did seem more spaced out. I increased the room size and added a little Reverb. I ordered an E17 so hopefully I can get some better results. I'm also considering switching to something like the HD 598 for a bigger stage. I had a pair of HD600 but I didn't have the means to amp them so I sold them for a song and dance. 

post #848 of 968

hi guys very interesting thread, i have a pair  Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro-80 but i dont quite understand all that has been explained in the guide (yup i´m a newbi) so i´d like to know if anyone has done this to this pair of headphones could provide me with the final EQ so i can test the sound of it since iam really interested in listening how it sounds with the final result, thanks in advance guys
 

post #849 of 968
this is so ******* wrong

ugh
post #850 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

this is so ******* wrong
ugh

what about it? (that is wrong)

post #851 of 968
sorry! just came here to delete that :3

just take it that i don't agree
post #852 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

sorry! just came here to delete that :3
just take it that i don't agree

ah its okay^^ you are against the use of the eq i assume?:P

post #853 of 968
Well it appears that the original poster doesn't know what they're talking about: frequencies cannot mask other frequencies, and working the EQ buy using spurious logic rather than by ear seems counter-intuitive.

Music is here to be enjoyed, and unless you have training in production, whatever sounds best is generally best. There are some DSPs and EQs on the market that improve the sound, and many many that do not. I don't really need a thousand words of questionable advice to know when to push bass boost and matrix, or when to push direct.

Sorry if this seems high handed, but EQs do not fix things. The engineers at the plant designed the headphones a certain way so you have a starting point if you want to alter the sound. Generally speaking, don't buy crap, and your headphones will look after you. If you want a different sound, get another pair. EQs are fine, but not magic. Buy some people's logic you can get the sound of Stax from dollar store dynamic drivers. No.
post #854 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

Well it appears that the original poster doesn't know what they're talking about: frequencies cannot mask other frequencies

 

I believe the OP was merely exaggerating, or else trying to come up with words to describe a difficult concept. If I shine a light in my eyes it doesn't mask the general room illumination, but it does distract me from it, perhaps to an extent that I don't register some of the details I'm seeing in the room. Shutting off the light (or getting rid of the frequency spike) eliminates the distraction.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

and working the EQ buy using spurious logic rather than by ear seems counter-intuitive.

 

Um, where do you get that from? What spurious logic is this? This tutorial functions entirely by using the ear. I don't need to ask if you've actually tried it since you've made it clear you don't believe in it. If you're not willing to test any of this yourself, or in the very least offer "improved" logic (since you have found fault with that expressed in the tutorial), you have no basis to call anything spurious.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

I don't really need a thousand words of questionable advice to know when to push bass boost and matrix, or when to push direct.

 

Neither do I, nor does the OP, and nor do any of the people who posted here because none of this has anything to do with this thread.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

EQs do not fix things...EQs are fine, but not magic

 

You're right in the sense that they don't get blood from a turnip, but from the tone of your latest post and that of your initial one it sounds like you have a rather closed mind on the subject. You also contradict yourself four sentences later by saying that "EQs are fine, but not magic." I've quoted both. Which is it?

 

Incidentally, I agree with the second one 100%. EQ isn't magic. Its uses are limited and targeted, just like the tutorial states. If there are people who are misusing it or expecting more, that doesn't change the fact.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

Buy some people's logic you can get the sound of Stax from dollar store dynamic drivers. No.

 

The OP at no time made such a claim. In fact, despite how long it's been since I read the post, I distinctly remember him stating specifically that headphones with a reasonably flat response would be the best candidates. He may also have said that this technique, if properly applied, can improve any headphone. Improve. Not turn into Stax.

 

That said, there have been numerous people in the many following posts who either expected too much or misapplied the principles. There were also quite a few claims, I seem to remember, that people were making their cheapos sound like high-dollar cans. People get excited when they find a new thing to play with and are prone to exaggeration. The enthusiasm and "poor logic" of "some people" do not lessen the value of the tutorial. If it is your opinion that this methodology has no value, then that's another thing entirely. But setting up strawmen isn't going to help you make your point.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

Generally speaking, don't buy crap, and your headphones will look after you. If you want a different sound, get another pair.

 

Generally good advice. However, all headphones have flaws, even the Staxes you mention. The hallmark of a good headphone is that its flaws are minor. My DT880 is not crap. Apart from the electrostatic realm, when it was released it was one of the three best headphones in production. And yet its habit of exaggerating sibilance is an annoying flaw in its tuning. I could "get another pair" as you say and simply trade one set of flaws for another.

 

Or I could apply the technique in this thread and get to keep the set that I happen to love apart from the treble spikes. It's not exactly a difficult choice. I don't want a different sound. I want the same sound, from the same headphone, with very specific flaws targeted and eliminated. I have achieved this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

Sorry if this seems high handed...

 

Your judgement is impeccable. Inexplicably, you still decided to pursue the line of reasoning that followed it.

 


 

It's clear that you disagree at a fundamental level with the subject and methodology expressed in this thread. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by coming here not once but twice to pass judgement on what we're doing. If you hoped to convince us of your viewpoint, you could possibly have done better than to declare ours to be "******* wrong." If you hoped to impress us with your confidence in how "******* wrong" we are, I'm not sure you've succeeded. If you were merely answering streetdragon and have no idea why your post inspired this long breakdown, well, now you've done that, and it might be time to move on.

 

In any event, you made the first move two posts up, so you clearly intended to say the things in your latest post regardless of whether you were asked to clarify or not. That first post was unsolicited and derisive. Your subsequent post lacks the former as an excuse.

 

 

 

FWIW, I've been about as patient and reasonable as I feel is warranted. You have essentially walked into a lion's den and declared that all tawny, four-legged, long-maned animals are a fundamental abomination. You should have expected far worse than what I've put into this post. That said, I have no ill will toward you whatsoever. If my post makes it seem that way, I apologize.


Edited by Argyris - 10/29/12 at 8:58am
post #855 of 968
Oh, you don't have to dress it up. If my attitude offends, you so be it. It's not like I'm going to take it to heart (note to self: do not let him see you crying).

Ok, let's take this slowly: the analogy with light is as poor as it would be with flavours or colours. Simply put, our ears can hear different frequencies concurrently. This is why we can hear a bass drum at the same time as the vocals. A thing like a jet engine will cover noise because it's approaching white noise and goes across the entire spectrum. So when a person says that they want to alter the characteristic of a headphone so that the mids don't cover the highs, they're looking at it wrong. If they needed to move the spectrum due to a design choice or fault they would require a parametric equaliser and a fine ear, so they could literally take a section of the sound and alter its pitch.

Likewise, you cannot really remove the sibilance, only make it quieter. Sibilance is the price you pay for having treble detail. If you make it quieter, you don't fix it, you just have less treble, sibilance and all. Why would you pay for some of the best headphones in their category, just to muck with them? I know I pick my headphones according to mood and the album, and it seems like the whole point of using headphones: you can have more than one setup.

To shift a paradigm, all of this messing about with settings is like when you go to a bad cooking forum and people have mind-blowingly complex ways of making very ordinary food. I just thought it was a very verbose and loose post; the kind of hearsay and guesswork which audiophiles are known for making.

If it had been about the crystalline structure of oxygen free cables or some other ridiculous thing, I wouldn't have even put my view across. I'd have just walked on by.

So which one is it? Pro-skub or anti-skub? It has a time and place, and if we're going to discuss the science of mastering, we should probably leave it to the experts.



And no i am damn well not to point out every single little loose point in the original post. Life is too short.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › How to equalize your headphones: A Tutorial