HD800's with software EQ - Sounds good man! - Page 2

Very interesting point. So many people here are against EQs. I used to be one of them. That's only because I bought into the hype that EQs are a no no. But they do exist for a reason. One thing that is important is the quality of EQ. A lot of them suck. I mean absolutely suck. And they do more harm than good. A good EQ does the same thing as someone replacing an amp because their current amp may not have enough bass, too much bass, too bright etc. Now an amp is suppose to be as neutral and transparant as possible. But in most instances that is not the case. And some amps are not a good match for some headphones. So instead of spending hundreds or even thousands on an amp/source to better match your headphones, in many cases a "good" EQ could achieve the same results. One example is my fisher X100C. It doesn't have a full EQ, but it does have analog bass and treble controls. Also a nice bonus is they have a their own tube preamp for the controls. All of my headphones sound drastically different, but with the controls I can tone down the highs on my bright cans, bring it up on my dull sounding cans, boost the bass on my bass shy cans, etc. And with the very high quality of the controls, the results sound completely natural without sounding processed or artificial. This really isn't a necessity for me since I like all of my cans the way they are, but it is a lot of fun experimenting with and getting different sound signatures with just one amp and one pair of cans.

What are the best equalizers for PC? My Cowon mp3 player has my favorite portable EQ, but the Cowon PC jetaudio player has a TERRIBLE EQ.

 

Windows player EQ has the worse phasing with the smallest db change. I've been using Itunes. So far, so good

A few parametric EQs for windows:
 

Electri-Q

Redline Equalizer

IZotope Ozone (the EQ is part of the whole package)

 

Most parametric EQ are in the 100$ range, but often have a limited edition just for audio playback which is either free or less expensive.

For me, the HD800 balance is just fine with some genres.  However, it's not so with others.  To be truthful, I'm yet to put on a pair of cans that's genuinely well balanced to my ears, no matter what I listen to.  Invariably, I'll play an album where I'd prefer more bass or less bass, more treble or less treble, more mids or less mids.  I'd EQ more, if it weren't a hassle to be adjusting repeatedly.  

 

Yes, but now that is Sennheiser's fault -isn't it :P.

 

In all seriousness, if thats what he needs to like them, and is happy spending that kind of cash its not that bad.

Source and Amp changes also won't add 5db in the bass and take 5 db away from the highs lol. Looks like the OP managed to keep what he liked about the HD 800, and add what he though was missing... I say bravo!

That's different (ie. for speakers) and they're professionals. I EQ my speakers too to correct for room resonance and peaks.

For headphones, I use minor EQ'ing (within 1dB) and only when necessary. Extreme changes to the frequency response like what you see in this thread smear the transients, subdue detail and make the sound diffused and fuzzy.

 

There are many things EQs will not give that component upgrades provide. EQs won't increase resolution, soundstage, imaging accuracy/sharpness or transient response, or add "liquidity" etc. Unless you're very good with EQs, you will always get the desired effect by compromising some other aspect of the sound.

 

My point to the OP was to upgrade his DAC and amp if he feels the need to administer such equalization. He said that he's planning on a Buffalo II and Beta22, so I'm happy and have nothing to add.

I don't think that many big studios EQ their main reference monitors, not the ones I've work at anyway. Good studios spend a lot of time and money on the design of the control room to get a flat frequency response rather then relying on EQs. Maybe you can EQ a pair of monitors to get a flat FR for a particular listening position, but then the person sitting a foot away from you would be hearing something completely different.

I personally would rather get a pair of headphones with the sound signature that I want than to EQ a pair to my reference, but I don't see anything wrong if someone wanting to use EQ on theirs.



Edited by Danz03 - 10/25/10 at 3:07pm

I doubt anyone would not wish for a Headphone with a sound signature that they want.  However, there are many circumstances that can prevent this.  You may purchase one and it doesn't turn out to be quite the balance you prefer, though you love a lot about it.  You may then go for another can, only to find that the balance again is not quite what you'd want.  I haven't found one yet that's just for me either.  After a while, you don't feel for yet another can (see my inventory and I've sold others), so I EQ.  

You are absolutely right, I really like the HD800s apart from that 6k spike, was even considering trimming it out with an EQ, but then I discovered the LCD-2s, lucky enough was exactly what I was looking for.
So yes, I think EQ is a good, simple and economic option unless you're a purist. BTW, using EQs to do trims and cuts is supposed to cause less distortions than boosting.

 

 

The funny thing is the bs graph they'll send you if you ask.

 

we all hear differently >1kHz, this graph is nonsense.

Edited by leeperry - 10/27/10 at 12:24am

If they follow the HD600 -> HD650 trend, then the HD850 will be exactly that

I tried the same EQ settings with my HD 800.
Great, love it like that for some of my music!