Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I am now a true believer in "flat" ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I am now a true believer in "flat" ... - Page 2

post #16 of 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

I EQ the heck out of my headphones to get a flatter FR. I hardly ever like how a headphone sounds by default. Like you, It does seem more natural to me, and I can hear details that were not there before!

 

I'm not sure headphones should be completely flat (unless playing binaural recordings). The reason is that the petina of the ear affects the frequency/spl heard. When you are reproducing something recorded in a room with a speaker placed in a room, this is irrellevant (the petina interferes with the sound from the speaker the same as it would from the original sound), but because headphones are placed directly to the sides (generally, things being recorded are in front), the ear modifies the sound differently and you may not be as true-to-life.

post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I'm not sure headphones should be completely flat ...


This seems to be generally accepted.  But does anyone know how a HP designer lays out the rises and falls and peaks and valleys?  Trial and error?  Luck?  Or what?

post #18 of 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by InnerSpace View Post
This seems to be generally accepted.  But does anyone know how a HP designer lays out the rises and falls and peaks and valleys?  Trial and error?  Luck?  Or what?


Like I've written in #3 there is DF and FF equalization for headphones.

 

There are some errors on beyerdynamic's pages, but take a look at the FAQ "What is diffuse-field equalisation?" or look it up on google.

(JerryLove, you might want to take a look too.)

post #19 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

I EQ the heck out of my headphones to get a flatter FR. I hardly ever like how a headphone sounds by default. Like you, It does seem more natural to me, and I can hear details that were not there before!

 

I'm not sure headphones should be completely flat (unless playing binaural recordings). The reason is that the petina of the ear affects the frequency/spl heard. When you are reproducing something recorded in a room with a speaker placed in a room, this is irrellevant (the petina interferes with the sound from the speaker the same as it would from the original sound), but because headphones are placed directly to the sides (generally, things being recorded are in front), the ear modifies the sound differently and you may not be as true-to-life.

I don't disagree really, I just think headphones should be much flatter than they usually are.
 

post #20 of 32

EQ isn't the problem, as all headphones will resonate in your ear canals(like in an empty room), as explained here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial

 

the problem is that most EQ's rape the phase coherence...and the linear phase EQ's create pre-ringing: http://www.soundfirst.com/EQ_Phase.html

 

My fav EQ is the Sonnox OXFORD, it's minimum phase and based on the Sony OXF-R3 pro mixing board algorithm, it sounds amazing...and even the peeps on gearslutz agree. A good sounding "musical sounding" EQ does take rocket science: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=eq+linear+phase+site%3Awww.gearslutz.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

the problem is that most EQ's rape the phase coherence...and the linear phase EQ's create post-ringing: http://www.soundfirst.com/EQ_Phase.html

 

Although this EQ talk is kinda off-topic, I want to point a few things out...

 

Most EQ's are in fact minimum phase so the phase isn't messed up and except for very low frequencies / some special cases headphones usually are minimum systems too.

Countless tests have shown the inaudibility of phase shift in such setups.

 

And linear phase EQ's create post-ringing? I guess you confused this with pre-ringing.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

My fav EQ is the Sonnox OXFORD, it's minimum phase and based on the Sony OXF-R3 pro mixing board algorithm, it sounds amazing...and even the peeps on gearslutz agree. A good sounding "musical sounding" EQ does take rocket science

 

The sonnox EQ is nothing special at all, it can be nulled with stock EQ's built into various DAW's.. or other free/cheap EQ plugins.

Rocket science, right. x_x

post #22 of 32

 

Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post
 

 

is it ridiculous that I have to EQ something so heavily to achieve this sound? I don't believe that it's my ears - it can't be. They are my reference for what sounds "life like". Vocals in my music now sound essentially perfect, like real life.

 

Depends what you're EQ'ing, your ear resonances or the native FR of your headphones? Ideally you want to use headphones w/ the flatest FR to boot:

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/t50rp.html

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/ath-ad700.html

 

And I rest my case that all EQ's are not equal(but to some ppl everything sounds the same anyway): http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/174530-sonnox-eq-outdated.html

 

I've tried all the VST EQ's I could put my hands on, the best one still is Sonnox, as they said in that gearslutz thread: "The Sony Oxford is my favorite multi-purpose EQ plugin", and "I like the sonnox for razor blade sharp High Q cuts or small corrections it's very clean and precise"...that's exactly what we need for headphones EQ, and it's the best for the job to my ears. The worst by far is PLParEQ, its upsampling is unbearable to my ears.

 

An EQ comparison with samples: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/477502-linear-phase-eq-shootout.html

 

Is EQ evil? yes in 99.99% of cases, coz cheap EQ's sound horrid.

post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

And I rest my case that all EQ's are not equal(but to some ppl everything sounds the same anyway): http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/174530-sonnox-eq-outdated.html

 

If "some ppl" is supposed to include me then I have to disappoint you, because I didn't say that everything (particularly EQ's) sound the same.

 

What is very ironic is that the link you posted contains this:


"Can it null with other lesser EQs? Yes."

 

I guess you just picked out a few posts that praise this expensive EQ.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

Is EQ evil? yes in 99.99% of cases, coz cheap EQ's sound horrid.

 

More prejudices and presumptions please. :D

post #24 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 

Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post
 

 

is it ridiculous that I have to EQ something so heavily to achieve this sound? I don't believe that it's my ears - it can't be. They are my reference for what sounds "life like". Vocals in my music now sound essentially perfect, like real life.

 

Depends what you're EQ'ing, your ear resonances or the native FR of your headphones? Ideally you want to use headphones w/ the flatest FR to boot:

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/t50rp.html

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/ath-ad700.html

 

And I rest my case that all EQ's are not equal(but to some ppl everything sounds the same anyway): http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/174530-sonnox-eq-outdated.html

 

I've tried all the VST EQ's I could put my hands on, the best one still is Sonnox, as they said in that gearslutz thread: "The Sony Oxford is my favorite multi-purpose EQ plugin", and "I like the sonnox for razor blade sharp High Q cuts or small corrections it's very clean and precise"...that's exactly what we need for headphones EQ, and it's the best for the job to my ears. The worst by far is PLParEQ, its upsampling is unbearable to my ears.

 

An EQ comparison with samples: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/477502-linear-phase-eq-shootout.html

 

Is EQ evil? yes in 99.99% of cases, coz cheap EQ's sound horrid.

 

. . . sorry I just don't buy it. . .

post #25 of 32

if you're happy w/ the stock EQ of winamp/foobar, more power to you.

post #26 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 

Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post
 

 

is it ridiculous that I have to EQ something so heavily to achieve this sound? I don't believe that it's my ears - it can't be. They are my reference for what sounds "life like". Vocals in my music now sound essentially perfect, like real life.

 

Depends what you're EQ'ing, your ear resonances or the native FR of your headphones? Ideally you want to use headphones w/ the flatest FR to boot:

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/t50rp.html

http://www.geocities.co.jp/ryumatsuba/ath-ad700.html

 

 

I wonder if it would be worth the time to form a basic graph of what I am changing about my DT880, and do comparisons with HeadRoom graphs and find something that is much closer to what I am aiming for to begin with? I know their graphs aren't perfect (measurements susceptible to even slight changes in position) but it could be worth a shot. 

post #27 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

if you're happy w/ the stock EQ of winamp/foobar, more power to you.



I wouldn't even classify those as "cheap EQ", I'd put them below that.

post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

if you're happy w/ the stock EQ of winamp/foobar, more power to you.


More putting words into other people's mouth... and I even measured those EQ's and came to the conclusion that they're "subpar".

Seriously, this is starting to look like trolling leeperry.

post #29 of 32

 

Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post

 

I wonder if it would be worth the time to form a basic graph of what I am changing about my DT880, and do comparisons with HeadRoom graphs  


Not really...what's your EQ like?

 

tried those 2 tutorials?

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial

 

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/headphones.htm

post #30 of 32

The procedure in the first link makes a lot of sense, this is similar to what I do. The procedure in the second doesn't.

 

The first procedure equalizes away both headphones' and listener's frequency response curve peaks and valleys. Which makes the music sound very lifelike, or, to be more precise, it makes it sound like it would sound to an average healthy 20-year old.

 

The second procedure just makes headphones sound like monitors. If an individual in question has hearing characteristics significantly different from the "youthful average", that won't result in lifelike sound reproduction.

 

The most significant issue, in my opinion, is that effective frequency response curve of an individual's hearing system changes (most often deteriorates) with age. Listening to music without EQ is about as smart for such individuals as trying to read without glasses/lenses for people with deteriorated vision.  

 

Good news, on the other hand, is that one can effectively go back to his/her youth and enjoy music fully once more after one employs a quality EQ. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 

Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post

 

I wonder if it would be worth the time to form a basic graph of what I am changing about my DT880, and do comparisons with HeadRoom graphs  


Not really...what's your EQ like?

 

tried those 2 tutorials?

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial

 

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/headphones.htm

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I am now a true believer in "flat" ...