Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well? - Page 5

post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Whenever I hear people say that it's impossible to EQ perfectly, it's always followed by "so we don't even try".
Yesterday, a DSP designed around the sound signature of Apple earbuds was released...
Dirac HD Player Lite by Dirac
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dirac-hd-player-lite/id551661761?mt=8
I haven't heard it, but supposedly it is a DSP designed to correct for the deficiencies of earbuds and make them. Sound MUCH better. This is a very interesting concept to me.

 

the only issue is that I doubt those apple earbuds have consistent specifications.

The best thing to do is of course is to take measurements with your headphones and optimize the EQ accordingly. I always wanted to program a self-optimizing EQ with a measurement microphone.

post #62 of 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post

the only issue is that I doubt those apple earbuds have consistent specifications.

The best thing to do is of course is to take measurements with your headphones and optimize the EQ accordingly. I always wanted to program a self-optimizing EQ with a measurement microphone.

 Me too. But all of this is making me consider buying the mini iPad and put in it Dirac and Accudio.

post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

 Me too. But all of this is making me consider buying the mini iPad and put in it Dirac and Accudio.

 

Accudio seems impressive. Its about damn time someone did something like that.

post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post

I always wanted to program a self-optimizing EQ with a measurement microphone.

I haven't had a lot of luck with microphone based speaker EQ.
post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


I haven't had a lot of luck with microphone based speaker EQ.


The automatic one that comes with my Yamaha is not all that good IMO. But I've heard great things about REW + Behringer FBQ-2496...

post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


I haven't had a lot of luck with microphone based speaker EQ.

 

It'd be much easier with headphones of course

 

Although it might get to the point where the frequency response of the studio's monitors that recorded the music is worse than your headphones

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post


The automatic one that comes with my Yamaha is not all that good IMO. But I've heard great things about REW + Behringer FBQ-2496...

 

JBL used to have one for their mid and pro tier monitors as well - but I always ended up bypassing it. 

post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post

 

Accudio seems impressive. Its about damn time someone did something like that.

 

To me accudio is proof that a ruler flat sound is better.  Every earphone i've ever owned sounded better with the accudio hi-fi "flat" setting.  I don't think people think that flat is better, because they're never heard it.  The most impressive difference I've ever heard with a really flat speaker or earphone is the bass response.  Because everything above the bass is so flat, there is nothing in the way of all the bass details and fullness if the recording allows it.

 

So many people have inferior speakers all around let alone headphones.  I think most people are so familiar with bad speakers that they think they're missing bass, so they boost bass and then want bass boost in earphones as well. That of course makes things dark and muddy, so then they add treble.  Before you know it you have the most common earphone signature, the v-shape.  The treble also isn't as detailed so they boost it to try and compensate with brightness, which gives the impression of more details.  Whereas a high quality driver reproduces treble that is super detailed without being overly bright.

 

I think if more people heard a really really flat earphone that fit every important criteria, such as fitting well and deep, sealing properly and being very very flat response, then I think they would be more blown away by the sound.  And while I understand the desire for color in that you want a "certain" sound you like, I don't understand why anyone would want anything but "flat" so you can hear the song how it was designed to be heard.  It the same with a bluray and tv.  You want the most accurate tv calibration to see the movie as it was recorded.  I think part of this belief is because not everyone gets the proper seal, depth, etc.  So a flat earphone to one person isn't a flat earphone to another person.

 

I think someone needs to come up with something like an er4s with the bass brought up to a truly flat level and then design some sort of universal eartip that sites deep comfortably and somehow molds to the ear.  Not foam or silicon as they are now, but something that really easily fits and seals.  Perhaps something more like a custom ear tip of soft silicon, but some sort of shape and consistency that is malleable enough to insert but strong enough to seal...  Anyway, I recommend everyone try the free accudio with your earphone on hi-fi setting for a while, get used to it and then switch back.  It's interesting how much a sound that you though you like can become undesirable...


Edited by luisdent - 5/24/13 at 4:31pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well?