My meticulously tweaked EQ settings for Shure SE535 and Westone 3

I just spent the whole night creating the ideal EQ settings for the Westone 3 and Shure SE535. I used all of my best headphones as well as my Klein + Hummel O 300D's as references, and the goal was to make them sound as close to the ideal hybrid of those references as possible, while using the least number of bands (since IEM's are usually used with portable players, and EQ's drain batteries faster, although fewer bands will use less CPU while processing). It's generally it's best to use as few bands as possible, as that's just good mixing/mastering advice, and it's always better to cut than boost. But don't be afraid to boost if that's what it takes--you just have to learn how to do it with surgical precision at exactly the frequency you need, and often a broader bandwidth is better than a steep one--unless you know exactly what you're doing and exactly where the problematic area is.

Anyway, here are the settings for those of you who are using portable players that have quality parametric EQ (such as EQu or Equalizer for iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad) or use your IEM's with the computer and have a setup that allows you to use quality parametric EQ plugins with your chosen media player/librarian (I use J River Media Center 16--it's got the most supreme native VST hosting implementation of all media players/librarians). If you own either one of these IEM's, give them a try and see just how much better these two IEM's can sound. They can get much, much, closer to the expensive high-end headphones with these settings.

You can download EasyQ from rs-met.com for free. It's one of the best free EQ's out there. If you don't know anything about VST plugins or how to host them, you ought to google and learn a bit about them.

Shure SE535

Westone 3

I would suggest that when you do A/B between the EQ'd and bypassed version, you listen for about 30 seconds and get used to the sonic signature before you switch--don't just go back and forth quickly--that's not how you do A/B comparisons. I'm pretty sure that once you guys have listened to a wide range of musical material with my EQ settings, you'll see just what I mean by how much better these two IEM's can get with careful EQ'ing.

Personally, I like the EQ'd SE535 a bit more than the EQ'd Westone 3, but before EQ'ing, it's hard to say since both have glaring problems (SE535 is a too bright/fatiguing, and W3's bass is too bloated). After EQ'ing, I find the SE535 a bit more natural and a bit smoother overall, but they are very close since they were EQ'd using the same references and based on my ideal.

One last note--I didn't try to EQ them so they are pushed too much and try to do what dynamic technology isn't supposed to do, such as trying to match the very articulate treble of the Stax 007mkIi--that just wouldn't be appropriate IMO. I never go beyond 12 dB when I EQ, and when possible, I try to keep within 6 dB, unless that's just not enough. This is simply a matter of good mixing/mastering practice.

yuriv - That's very interesting that Linkwitz had almost an identical cut near 7KHz. If most IEM's have this problem, then that means no matter what I buy, I'd have to EQ anyway, unless that 7KHz range EQ cut is designed into the IEM, which is probably rare.

Yes, my optimal listening volume is around 85 dB. 90 dB is about as loud as it gets on sudden peaks (particularly in movies or games), but usually 80~85 dB average.

After a couple of years of constant tweaking and perfecting, my listening position is like a seat in sonic paradise. None of my headphones can get close to that. If I still lived in the States, I would totally invite any head-fier interested to come to my studio and listen for themselves what audio nirvana sounds like.

The interesting thing about the HD650 is that even though it isn't the kind of headphone that really makes you cream your pants at how amazing it is, it's also one of the few that has stood the test of time and is quite neutral in general. I actually don't EQ the HD650, and the only reason I would ever EQ it is if it became the only headphone I own--in that case, I'd boost the sub-bass region like this:

That low shelf boost isn't really a surgical one, but since the drivers of the HD650 doesn't seem to respond to surgical EQ'ing in the bass region too well, I find a more general one with wider bandwidth works better. This boost gives the HD650 more gravity, since it's missing that quality compared to headphones like the LCD-2, 007mkII, M50, D7000...etc.

The reason I don't EQ the HD650 is because I mainly use it to check the mids on my mixes. I don't use it for leisurely listening anymore since I prefer the LCD-2 for that. The HD650's mids are some of the most neutral sounding of all my headphones.

I don't even have the M50 out anymore--it stays in my storage closet until I need to do tracking. But I did try to EQ it to sound more neutral before, and this is the setting I came up with:

This setting tames the boomy bass of the M50, as well as that etched/metallic treble, while fills a narrow notch in the upper-mids. The M50's mids are slightly lush, but it doesn't bother me so I don't EQ it. Some people might want to put a very subtle wide bandwidth cut in the mids.

I also don't EQ the LCD-2. It's sonic signature is pleasant enough that I don't really need to, and if I'm missing that little bit of the mids, I'd might use v.1 of my LCD-2 EQ setting. As my main headphone, the LCD-2 is used for everything--from leisurely listening to late night critical audio production, but in general I don't use EQ for the headphones since I prefer to just swap headphones to check mixes. Each headphone presents an alternate opinion on the mix, which is more helpful to me overall. Even though I do have EQ settings I made for the LCD-2, I don't really use them. I originally created them when I tried to get the LCD-2 to sound closer to my reference monitors, since the LCD-2's mids are a bit recessed. I have two settings I created and they do different things. The first one is this one:

This is a general "EQ by feel" setting that makes the LCD-2 a bit more involving. It fills up the recessed mids, adds a little bit of sparkle in the treble, and slightly more punch to the mid-bass. This is a "feel good" setting and is not meant to be totally neutral (especially that slight bass boost--that's meant to be sinful).

The second setting I have is this one:

This version is based on the measuring I took with a the measuring mic that came with the IK Multimedia ARC System (using a CD as the barrier and placed in the hole of the CD) as well as scrutinizing the frequency response graph of my LCD-2 (each LCD-2 is shipped with its own unique graph). I then used a pink noise and Voxengo SPAN to create the most neutral EQ setting. That low shelf bass boost is not necessary, but does help since our hearing is a lot less sensitive in the sub-bass region--especially on headphones, so I was just trying to get the LCD-2 to "feel" more like speakers. I really don't use this one though since it's a bit too bright for me. I kept this setting just for the sake of archving, that's all.

You can't really judge the headphones by my EQ settings though. If we're to completely disregard EQ's, I would put the LCD-2 high up on my list, with the 007mkII very closely behind, and then further behind would be the HD650, then M50, and so on. The IEM's can't even compete with the full-sized headphones due to the inherent limitations of the physical design. With EQ, they become much, much better though, and are able to compete, but that's hardly fair since the full-sized headphones can be EQ'd too.

kkl10 - I know Electri-Q, and it's fine, but I don't like its interface that much.

In general, all EQ's are so close to being identical that unless the designer purposely built in some kind of "creative coloration" (for example, to emulate the sonic signature of some vintage EQ hardware unit where there's interesting colorations like overtones or saturation), all EQ's can pretty much be nulled completely, meaning they are identical. The only real differences between them is the interface and the style (graphic, parametric, linear phase...etc).

I prefer EazyQ (the one in the screencaps) because its interface is very easy to use. I don't use it in my audio productions though--only for EQ'ing headphones and speaker. For audio production I use commercial pro audio EQ's.

In general linear phase EQ's (or any plugin) will give you the most transparent sound, as they are designed to be mastering algorithms that don't mess with the phase response, and LP EQ's don't allow really narrow/steep bandwidths, which further prevents possible destructive tweaking. But the truth is, most people really can't tell the difference unless we're talking about some extremely dramatic cuts and boots with severe settings, and that's usually not something you'd end up doing for headphone/speaker correction anyway. I find that my usage of "normal" parametric EQ on my headphones and speakers don't cause any audible issues, and when I check the phase response, my settings don't screw up the phase either. So you probably don't need to worry too much. You should do some reading up on proper EQ'ing techniques that audio professionals use when doing mixing/mastering though. There are tons of articles about this online.

-8 to -10 dB cut in the mids sounds really wrong to me. I cannot see how this is necessary. You should post the frequency response graphs of those headphones, and then also a screencap of your EQ setting.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kkl10 

Thank you!

 

My purpose is to equalize my headphones so that they become more transparent/accurate in their sound reproduction:

 

Right now I'm doing it on my Head Direct RE0 and Soundmagic PL-50 IEMs and my German Maestro GMP 450 Pro full sized headphone.

All of these have a great emphasys on the midrange (500 - 2000) where I have to cut roughly 8 to 10 dbs. From there I smooth out any peaks I can find...

I'm using various sinus sweeps and pink noise files...

 

I'm trying to make their FRs as flat has possible to my ears - is this the right approach to achieve my purpose?

 

Will certainly make some more reading.

I would apprecciate if you could give me some links.

 

Thanks!

The best way to immediately find awesome tips and articles on EQ'ing is simply this:

http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=How+to+EQ+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Start from the first link and work your way down, until you feel like you know what's up (it's best to actually apply what you're reading about as you read about it, for immediate audio feedback).

It's best to get an idea of what your actual loudness curve is, since you may or may not have hearing anomalies/damages (just to be safe). Use this site to test yourself:

www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

That site can also be used to test your audio gear's frequency response.

I use pink noise and log sweeps too, and I also reference against my already tweaked to perfection reference studio monitors. I also check against the headphones I have with sonic signatures I find ideal in specific frequency ranges and try to EQ to match those ranges. This way, I can create my ideal "hybrid" sonic signature by for example, matching the LCD-2's treble, HD650's mids, LCD-2 bass with a bit of 007mkII's punch, and so on. The EQ tweaks I just did on the SE535 and W3 turns them into INCREDIBLE sounding IEM's, and I'm willing to bet that they rival the extremely expensive customs on the market with my EQ settings. With my settings, they sound NOTHING like themselves and are completely transformed in the most unexpected and amazing way. I would have to say that this particular experience of EQ'ing the IEMS into my ideal hybrid sonic signature has become one of those rare memorable landmarks in my audio journey, and I would officially list them as the 6th time in my life I was blown away sonically (I mentioned the other 5 times in the "How did you start" thread). For the first time in my life, I'm finally getting a great sound out of IEM's--one that I feel isn't merely a compromise in order to obtain portability and noise isolation. They actually now sound much closer to my full sized favorite headphones.

Ahh, ok, now it makes sense. You're basically trying to recreate the typical EQ'ing approach by using only cuts if you could help it, but if we were to raise the gain of the entire EQ plot so the average hovers near 0 dB, then it'll look more like a "normal" EQ plot. I'm not quite sure if what you're doing makes it any better sonically. I'll have to look into it. Let me discuss this with fellow pro audio colleagues and get back to you on that. Direct RE0 still looks a bit strange to me though, since it's very usual for any headphones to have such an exaggerated 1KHz range. Typically, 1KHz is the starting point where it tends to fall on 0 dB, and other frequency ranges are the ones that move up and down. This is mainly because 1KHz test tone is the industry standard in broadcasting. I'm also surprised to see that the Direct RE0 doesn't require any surgical cuts in the upper-mids, since that's where most IEM's have their glaring faults (ear canal resonance peak).

One problem I found with your approach right off the bat is that you cannot reproduce some shapes with cuts only, since the inherent behavior of the Q shape only allows a certain level of gentleness in the curve, so if you want a sharper shape in your peaked shapes, you cannot get it with cuts only. So let's say a headphone has a pretty obvious and sharp dip right at 2KHz, and you want to fill that hole. If you went with your approach, you will not be able to precisely fill that dip since all the cuts you make will only emulate a relatively gentle peak shape.

In general, I don't think you should worry about any of this--just cut and boost as you need to. Part of the reason why most say it's better to cut than boost is very simple--if you boost, you're raising the noise level of that frequency. It's really not a problem though, since the noise floor level is so damn low in today's audio devices. I doubt you can "hear" the noise floor being raised unless you boost the f-ck out of the most sensitive range of our hearing while listening to material that's got a lot of noisy in the first place. But that's never going to happen because your ears can't take that kind of reckless boosting anyway, so it's not even something to worry about.

kkl10 - Another thing that you need to consider is that if you are cutting the bulk of the "meat" of the audition frequency range, then very likely when you are listening to music with that setting, you'd turn the volume up to make up for the loss of overall level, and when that happens, you are actually reducing perfectly good audio data over a large area and then raising the noise floor on the entire track, which technically reduces the quality of your audio. The general consensus after discussing the issue with others is that you shouldn't complicate things--boost and cut exactly what you need, and that's it.

yuriv -  There are less sophisticated room correction hardware units on the market like the KRK and JBL products, but on paper, they are not as complex or encompassing as the ARC System. I did consider them, as well as units like the ones that dbx and Samson makes for doing loudspeaker corrections for live venues. In the end, the ARC System's implementation of the Audyssey technology appears to be the most hassle-free yet the most sophisticated. My main source is always the computer anyway so using a VST plugin doesn't bother me much.

It would be very interesting to compare a corrected pair of Mackies (HR824?) to the much higher-end monitors like the Opal, MM27, O 300D's...etc. In my own experience, I have discovered that the frequency response is the bulk of what makes up a sonic signature, and if you alter the EQ setting, it will often improve other areas like transient response, distortion, resolution, stereo imaging..etc. I think it's because some of the problems heard in those other areas are caused by the frequency response anomalies (for example, muddy lower range that becomes very articulate and fast once you EQ out the muddy frequencies). Obviously, the physical limitations of the drivers and material used will still be part the equation, but SO MUCH can be altered by simply EQ'ing that it's mind-boggling. It makes me feel even weirder to know that so often we are paying a lot of money for what's essentically an EQ upgrade, when we could get that same sonic upgrade for free just by knowing how to properly EQ a cheaper product (unless it has severe physical limitations in its design in the first place, such as 2.1 speaker systems with tiny satellites and a subwoofer--you just can't do a thing about the crossover problems, or the tubby resonance of a sub that relies too much on it's port for a tuned "fake" low end).
 

Here's the latest update for the LCD-2 EQ curve. I think this one is even better than the previous ones since it is more spot on and concise, while still retaining the smoothness of the LCD-2 sonic signature:

And here's the Stax 007mk2: