Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › My EQ curves for LCD-2, HD650, M50, and 007mk2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My EQ curves for LCD-2, HD650, M50, and 007mk2 - Page 2

post #16 of 45

wow, you impress me again lunatique!  this is a really great thread.   I took your advice, and re-eq's my lcd-2's (rev.2) based on the graph and within just a few minutes I had something, that for the first time since your original advice, actually sounded even better.   AWESOME!!!  what a great system you have invented!!!!

 

i would love to know why you have two dips in your eq setting for your rev1's  as i dont see anything going above the white line?

 

 

 

 

post #17 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

wow, you impress me again lunatique!  this is a really great thread.   I took your advice, and re-eq's my lcd-2's (rev.2) based on the graph and within just a few minutes I had something, that for the first time since your original advice, actually sounded even better.   AWESOME!!!  what a great system you have invented!!!!

 

i would love to know why you have two dips in your eq setting for your rev1's  as i dont see anything going above the white line?

 

 

Those two are "control points" to sculpt the curve. When you have boots close to each other, they will raise everything in the region (a sort of compound effect), including frequencies that shouldn't be raised, so you have to do cuts to bring those unwanted boosts back down.
 

 

post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post



 

Those two are "control points" to sculpt the curve. When you have boots close to each other, they will raise everything in the region (a sort of compound effect), including frequencies that shouldn't be raised, so you have to do cuts to bring those unwanted boosts back down.
 

 



 

yeah, i just realized that and redid my curve before you posted. 

 

man you should see the sheet that comes with the miracles.. something is clearly not right because the sheet vs how they sound DO NOT match, in fact unless i'm missing something or having some unknown issue, there is no way this can be right.. the highs would be SCREAMING  - to get them to sound right i actually have to add in most of the areas that are already peaked into the stratosphere according to this photo...

 

miracle3.jpg

post #19 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

man you should see the sheet that comes with the miracles.. something is clearly not right because the sheet vs how they sound DO NOT match, in fact unless i'm missing something or having some unknown issue, there is no way this can be right.. the highs would be SCREAMING  - to get them to sound right i actually have to add in most of the areas that are already peaked into the stratosphere according to this photo...

 

miracle3.jpg


Why the hell is that graph showing the measurement taken at 110 dB? Who the hell listens to headphones that loud? It should be around 80~90 dB, because any louder than that you'll damage your hearing.

 

 

post #20 of 45

could that effect the way its produces measurements?

post #21 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

could that effect the way its produces measurements?


Well, measuring mics don't react like human ears do, so there's no equal loudness contour, which means it shouldn't matter too much if they were 20 dB's over the typical listening level. It just seems weird, that's all. 

 

That graph looks absolutely horrid though--like, ear-bleed inducing brightness from hell. 

post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post




Well, measuring mics don't react like human ears do, so there's no equal loudness contour, which means it shouldn't matter too much if they were 20 dB's over the typical listening level. It just seems weird, that's all. 

 

That graph looks absolutely horrid though--like, ear-bleed inducing brightness from hell. 



 

and yet they sound dark if anything..

post #23 of 45

i went through and meticulously balanced my eq based on your diagram with the white line angling down based on my LCD-2 rev2 chart that they came with.    Its a bit intense.  people's voices are a bit cutting.. certainly brigher vocals than I'm used to.   If this is neutral for these headphones, I'm not sure i can handle it.   Much of my music sounds different than i've ever heard it, which I'm trying to keep an open mind about, but boy.. voices and symbals are pretty sharp.  it kind of makes me cringe.   I need some time to get used to it and then reassess. 

post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

i went through and meticulously balanced my eq based on your diagram with the white line angling down based on my LCD-2 rev2 chart that they came with.    Its a bit intense.  people's voices are a bit cutting.. certainly brigher vocals than I'm used to.   If this is neutral for these headphones, I'm not sure i can handle it.   Much of my music sounds different than i've ever heard it, which I'm trying to keep an open mind about, but boy.. voices and symbals are pretty sharp.  it kind of makes me cringe.   I need some time to get used to it and then reassess. 



If you don't like it, why the heck are you using it? So you've come on the INTERNETZ, someone says this is the EQ that needs to go on the LCD-2 rev 2 and you will ignore what your ears tell you? 

 

 

P.S: These EQs are for people who like mid-happy sound. You know, the likes of which you hear in the PA in a train station rolleyes.gif

P.P.S: One EQ does not 'rule them all'. Each song needs its individual correction. Rock needs one EQ, techno another, voice, another, etc. 


Edited by Wishmaker - 12/3/11 at 12:09pm
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaker View Post


If you don't like it, why the heck are you using it? So you've come on the INTERNETZ, someone says this is the EQ that needs to go on the LCD-2 rev 2 and you will ignore what your ears tell you? 

 

 

P.S: These EQs are for people who like mid-happy sound. You know, the likes of which you hear in the PA in a train station rolleyes.gif

P.P.S: One EQ does not 'rule them all'. Each song needs its individual correction. Rock needs one EQ, techno another, voice, another, etc. 



 

you're taking this dialogue out of context... and putting words in my mouth... and dont seem very informed about the scope of the conversation we are having...

post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

i went through and meticulously balanced my eq based on your diagram with the white line angling down based on my LCD-2 rev2 chart that they came with.    Its a bit intense.  people's voices are a bit cutting.. certainly brigher vocals than I'm used to.   If this is neutral for these headphones, I'm not sure i can handle it.   Much of my music sounds different than i've ever heard it, which I'm trying to keep an open mind about, but boy.. voices and symbals are pretty sharp.  it kind of makes me cringe.   I need some time to get used to it and then reassess. 



 

well.. a very good oops on this one.. after deciding this eq scheme simply did not work, i became quite frustrated.. where to go now????

 

so I went back to the plot that came with the headphones.. i realized that somewhere in the back of my head i had decided that anything past 10k didnt need adjusting.. why?.. who knows.. but sure enough i needed to take a pretty big chunk out of that range, and when i did... PERFECT!  better than ever!

post #27 of 45

i've gotta say, the more meticulously i plot out the exact, exact parameters, the better things sound.. i've gone back and made the littlest changes a few times and once in a while the sound alters substantially.   sometimes its the difference between sibilance and none, or an echoey sound going away by making the slightest refinement.

 

so glad you made this thread!!!  going back to your original plot (though i didnt realize you had rev1 and i had rev2 at the time) is a huge difference from where things are now.  much improvement to an already amazing sound! wooh!!!  now if I could only get the miracles sounding this good.. whoooff what a chore!

post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

man you should see the sheet that comes with the miracles.. something is clearly not right because the sheet vs how they sound DO NOT match, in fact unless i'm missing something or having some unknown issue, there is no way this can be right.. the highs would be SCREAMING  - to get them to sound right i actually have to add in most of the areas that are already peaked into the stratosphere according to this photo...


Its just not compensated for HRTF like the headroom graphs are, right?

post #29 of 45

someone in another thread explained that measuring IEM's is alot different and alot more tricky than full size cans, which explains why their graphs are the way they are.

 

Meanwhile, here is what i get when i follow Lunatiques instructions and meticulously compensate based on the lcd-2 graph my r2's came with.  There is no personal preferece in this eq.. strictly by the book.

it is certainly the best they have ever sounded, but i feel there is still room for improvement... maybe...

 

CLICK TO ENLARGE PHOTOS

 

 

lcd-2 graph compensation.JPG

 

 

and here's my r2 and miracle plots.. very different as you an see, yet the miracles are darker than the r2's .. clearly tuning or measuring IEM's is not the same as full sizers...

 

DSCN2378.JPG

post #30 of 45

Check out the two sets of FR curves on Tyll's measurements of the LCD-2 Rev 2.  The top ones which are averaged and compensated look like the graph Audeze sent you.  They raw data on the bottom is probably what's more comparable to your Miracle's graph.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › My EQ curves for LCD-2, HD650, M50, and 007mk2