Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound? - Page 12

Poll Results: Do you use EQ regularly?

 
  • 34% (82)
    Yes
  • 40% (95)
    No
  • 18% (44)
    Absolutlely not!
  • 5% (14)
    Of coarse!
235 Total Votes  
post #166 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Photoshop might not be as good an example as dodging and burning in the dark room.  And dodging/burning is usually always encouraged-- not because you have to, but because you want to.  Of course you'll want to have the best photography to work with, but instead of an elitist purist standpoint, there's nothing wrong with taking a perfectionist standpoint and dodging/burning your already good photograph to perfection based on your likings and/or other people's likings.

 

At the end of the day, it really is a purist attitude mandating whether you're for or against EQ (crappy EQs aside).  Even a friend of mine, who doesn't consider himself an audiophile at all, is very much against using any EQ because he said it "wasn't what the artist intended."  Even though his pair of Skullcandy Aviator aren't perfectly flat, he still approaches EQ in the same purist manner.  Right then I knew that a good part of bias against EQ because of purism like that was full of hot air.  (Not saying all is)

 



True. If you see any of Ansel Adams photos pre-darkroom they're really not impressive at all. His skill as a photographer was mainly dodging and burning. He was also limited by the technology at the time though. But to me Photoshop work and dodging/burning are one in the same, both are necessary.

 

I work with some other professional photographers more talented than I and with much better equipment and it's amazing how their photos are close to perfect straight out of the camera. They always need some retouching, maybe punch up the shadows, edit out some spots, but you are merely polishing a close to perfect piece.

 

I don't think it's an either/or choice with EQ. There is no debating EQ is a necessity to perfect your sound. I think it's more a matter of minimalism vs. overabundance. IMO EQ should be done minimally to try and fix any inconsistencies in an already ideal signal chain, not used as a magic fix-all to completely alter the sound signature of components.


Edited by sesshin - 6/25/11 at 10:33am
post #167 of 299

I agree.  It should be used to polish a sound off, not completely alter it, but I think it is a necessity regardless-- but only in the respect of being something you perfect a sound with.

post #168 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by sesshin View Post

In recording school they taught us that EQ, while integral and important, should always be the last resort. You should strive to get your audio sounding as perfect as it can without EQ, and then EQ the bare minimum amount and not any more in order to sculpt the sound the way you see fit.

 

 "(...)yield richer results as opposed to EQing the crap out of it."

 

Thanks for your input!


I agree and I have managed to do so... hopefully. I'm not an audio professional, I'm still just a music lover but I have ambitions for the future...

My GMP 450 Pro voice is very easilly changed by playing with earpads and I was able to achieve a more balanced and flatter frequency response by placing a pair of different earpads on top of the stock ones.

 

Here's my current EQ curve for the GMP 450 Pro doublepadded with 41-6050 earpads (the most balanced configuration I was able to achieve):

 

Equalização German Maestro GMP 450 Pro Dupla almofada2.png

 

The sound in this configuration is indeed better than EQed non-doublepadded but, from what I could discern untill now, the reasons for the better sound has to do with the fact of the drivers being further away from my ears and from the sonic properties of the 41-6050 earpads themselves... I can't assess if this EQ settings are less prejudicial than the previous ones I posted (non-doublepadded configuration).

 

Do you guys find this EQ curve still to much?

 

MORE INPUT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

post #169 of 299

Yes. A little EQ is good. Sometimes a lot as well. Why not? I switch headphones when I need an SQ change. I roll tubes too to get a little variety going on the same music selections. So I use a little EQ too. Fun. (Sometimes I add a little cayenne pepper to my food, sometimes not.)

post #170 of 299

@kkl110

There's no ideal EQ, just listen at different music, and tweak until you find something more satisfying. People that claim that they found the ideal EQ for a particular set of headphone are just lying, or at least misleading other people.  You could try to simplify your EQ, for the sake of simplicity.

Also I  guess all EQ  are not reacting the same way, it might just be a matter of getting a more "focused" or distant sound.

 

post #171 of 299

I used to never use an EQ, but I do in the car and with my Sony X-Series Walkman (this is stunning and I can't recommend it strongly enough), and now I have the sub in the house set to move the floorboards even though it's not as accurate when used like this.

 

The thing with an EQ is knowing what sounds good and knowing when you've gone too far and made the sound fatiguing. And whatever your preference, you still need good stuff to play your music on.

post #172 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post
The thing with an EQ is knowing what sounds good and knowing when you've gone too far and made the sound fatiguing.


+1 , and I  would add it's also being careful of not removing interesting part of music, because you've exagerated on some settings.

 

post #173 of 299

anyone can give a good software EQ? maybe some your own eq for headphone's like LCD-2, HD800, and W11R?( these my hps) and explain it a bit? 

post #174 of 299

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sesshin View Post





True. If you see any of Ansel Adams photos pre-darkroom they're really not impressive at all. His skill as a photographer was mainly dodging and burning. He was also limited by the technology at the time though. But to me Photoshop work and dodging/burning are one in the same, both are necessary.

 

I work with some other professional photographers more talented than I and with much better equipment and it's amazing how their photos are close to perfect straight out of the camera. They always need some retouching, maybe punch up the shadows, edit out some spots, but you are merely polishing a close to perfect piece.

 

I don't think it's an either/or choice with EQ. There is no debating EQ is a necessity to perfect your sound. I think it's more a matter of minimalism vs. overabundance. IMO EQ should be done minimally to try and fix any inconsistencies in an already ideal signal chain, not used as a magic fix-all to completely alter the sound signature of components.


I agree with this. However, I found some EQs like the ones in the newer Cowons, such as J3 and S9, when used in addition to BBE, the results can be incredibly different from the original sound yet phasing and reduction in audio quality is almost inaudible. I have yet to find a software EQ that is this powerful.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by BrucYSN View Post

anyone can give a good software EQ? maybe some your own eq for headphone's like LCD-2, HD800, and W11R?( these my hps) and explain it a bit? 



You have an ATH-W11R? Wow, where have you been? biggrin.gif  This is my EQ for the W11R as I find the upper mids to be slightly boosted and also neutral upper mids tend to be fatiguing on dynamic headphones. I like the PSP Neon HR for it's oversampling (FAT mode), spectrum analysis, linear phasing, and other features. For a more transparent EQ, I would turn off the green and purple bars.

 

Untitled.png


Edited by wind016 - 6/25/11 at 2:30pm
post #175 of 299

i use an eq and liberally, especially in games. I prefer to eq a neutral-but-capable headphone a lot than to have a bass-boosted type headphone to start with. 

in other words i will do a deep V eq on a k701 rather than use a sony xb or skullcandy headphone

post #176 of 299

Uhm, why? I think that's exactly what you're not supposed to do, but I'm open to new opinions.

post #177 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrucYSN View Post

anyone can give a good software EQ? maybe some your own eq for headphone's like LCD-2, HD800, and W11R?( these my hps) and explain it a bit? 


I use the Fabfilter Pro-Q. It's great: transparent, flexible, high quality. The Pure Music people recommended it.
post #178 of 299

I will occasionally use EQ to encourage what the headphones already do well. For example, my PRO5MK2's are bass heavy DJ phones. On my E7 I use it's built in EQ to inch the bass up a little. I don't think it's cheating but you have to be reasonable, and understand that you're not going to change the headphones you're wearing simply with EQ. Its something you have to work with, and very delicately I may add.

post #179 of 299

@butler

Quote:
I will occasionally use EQ to encourage what the headphones already do well. For example, my PRO5MK2's are bass heavy DJ phones. On my E7 I use it's built in EQ to inch the bass up a little.

I thought EQ would help to moderate at least what they do wrong. But boosting bass on a bass light headphone might give wrong results,  I guess.

post #180 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post
 But boosting bass on a bass light headphone might give wrong results,  I guess.


It just feels dirty to me. Like, the headphones don't do bass well, trying to make them have better bass via EQ just seems wrong. Physically modding them to have better bass is another thing.

 

Its like asking a track and field olympian to hop on a football team and saying he'll be good beause they're both athletes - They just wear different equipment.

 

Maybe I'm just weird. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound?