Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to... - Page 6  

Poll Results: White list at the bottom of the first post.

 
  • 75% (9)
    Disagree because I dislike you, that's why!
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, one of the brands may not be considered trustful, the reason i will live in the commentary section below.
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, need to add the brand i'll speak about in the commentary section below.
  • 8% (1)
    Agree, full&true list I suppose.
  • 16% (2)
    Disagree, because I think you have the wrong vision regarding the term "Brand" and i'll leave the reason in the commentary section below.
12 Total Votes  
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

It would be good to spend a little time learning about frequencies. An equalizer is a million times more precise and flexible than juggling various colored components in the hopes that the right combination will come up with something good. EQing properly just takes practice.

Could you recommend some resources for learning about equalizing for me?

post #77 of 115

Well, I'm afraid I taught myself through experimentation. The first thing to do is to get a graphic equalizer and figure out what sound corresponds to what number. Get so you can call frequencies by name. Then you can identify problems. There are test tone sweeps you can run through your system to look for volume changes at particular frequencies, or you can look up the response curve of your particular headphones and try to reverse the bumps to even it out.

 

Xnor, do you know of an EQ tutorial?

post #78 of 115
Thread Starter 
I invite every subscribed good sir to answer the thread's poll and/or give me feedback in that regard. Thank you!
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Well, I'm afraid I taught myself through experimentation. The first thing to do is to get a graphic equalizer and figure out what sound corresponds to what number. Get so you can call frequencies by name. Then you can identify problems. There are test tone sweeps you can run through your system to look for volume changes at particular frequencies, or you can look up the response curve of your particular headphones and try to reverse the bumps to even it out.

 

Xnor, do you know of an EQ tutorial?

Yea that's what I did. Just fiddle around with an EQ using while listening to your favorite music. With enough time you'll get the hang of it 

 

and don't make it chore, after a while you'll start to know what frequancys sound like what


Edited by Mshenay - 11/17/13 at 7:16pm
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post
 

Could you recommend some resources for learning about equalizing for me?

There are a couple in Head=Fi. One is by Joe Blogg. I think you can do a search and find them.

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvw View Post
 

There are a couple in Head=Fi. One is by Joe Blogg. I think you can do a search and find them.

Thanks :).

post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

Yea that's what I did. Just fiddle around with an EQ using while listening to your favorite music. With enough time you'll get the hang of it 

 

and don't make it chore, after a while you'll start to know what frequancys sound like what

 

Problem is that if you make EQ for one song to sound the best, than lots of others usually gets bad. Tried EQ on HD700 yesterday and after hour I gave up because something was always wrong somewhere. Even just -4 dB at that famous 5.75k ringing mountain isn't ok, because than it sounds absolutely off, like being closed in box.

 

I would really love to get my hands on some phenomenal EQ file for headphones I own.

 

I know we are in "Sound Science" but this is lot of theory and no "real stuff". 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MygpuK View Post


1. I said echoes to point out i'm speaking of resonance as a myth ONLY if resonance=acoustic_reverb. Of course we have mechanical/acoustic ones. As a fact.
2. Lol you have no 2 biggrin.gif I suppose enclosure type modifies how X sounds, so it is possible to nivelate (level to the good sound) that. (done by engineers, developers, etc)
3. Materials should be true high-end, that's the whole point.
4. Same wink.gif
P.S.: Trouble with our high-end is: BRANDS are the ones from high-end you can trust. I can't trust nowadays high_end because money are the whole point for differentiate medi-fi from hi-fi.
/discuss started: Which physic parameter should a true_high-end have? Materials, transducer type, enclosure type ( etc.
 
 
Of course "mid-fi" and "hi-fi" will differ in price, otherwise nobody would buy "mid-fi".
 
Also could you please tell us something about your experience in the this field ? Electronics, sound science and headphones ? I can't help it, but I feel like you just saw same graphs and theory.
 
And what brand you can't "trust" in terms of high-end ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

CAN YOU _please_ (at least) "try to" /post _normal_sentences_?

 

 

Agreed


Edited by Flisker - 11/18/13 at 12:34am
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post

Could you recommend some resources for learning about equalizing for me?

Yeah I had a tutorial thread on equalizing. It's also a complete mess tongue.gif
I would instead invite you to add my skype: joe0bloggs (with a zero in the middle). Note in your add request that you are Todd asking about EQ and then we can chat about it. There's too much talking and interaction needed for a fixed thread to do the job (at least, with my limited writing organization skills tongue.gif)
post #84 of 115
Frankly I think we need a more eloquent fella to carry the flag of the Grand EQ Manifesto (lol). Anyone up for thejob? I used to be the only declared member of Team EQ on head-fi (as well as the founding member of the head-fi SWAT Team biggrin.gif) so maybe I should do it? I'll rewrite that wall of text one small paragraph a day...? blink.gif
post #85 of 115

there must be some home secrets about EQ in the audio engineering business, even if it's about the mastering instead of the gear.

 

I remember something on dr olive's blog ... thx google http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.fr/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html

it won't help to EQ but will help to listen. (although it is very long and a boring sometimes, don't expect to have fun with this). I remember it helped me get a general idea of what I should look for in a recording.

it showed me my limits(mostly in the high freqs), but also the limits of my gears. there is very little interest in using this software if you're just going to plug a crappy phone directly into your laptop HO.

 

and back to EQ I started with something like that http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

I often come back to it when I try to get a specific instrument back. 

 

 

the rest is how your phone will react, and that obviously means that you will need time and go by trials and errors. listen for a few days and see if it's ok, then go back to some minor tweaks etc... 

my one advice is to abuse the EQ values when you're looking for a specific frequency, and when you found it, always EQ less than your hears tell you to. for 2 reasons:

-1/ you just pushed the 4khz to +8db to clearly hear what it does, your brain will now take anything lower as "not enough" for some times. like lowering the overall volume will instantly make you feel like you lost bass. and after a minute bass comes back. your brain will always mess with you so again time is a must for judging a given setting.

-2/ as everything in life, we beginners will always abuse. ^_^

 

I often make a parallel with photo manipulation(photoshop). beginners will tend to use loads of flashy stuff, too much saturation, too much contrast, too much whatever unrealistic filter, HDR and what not. and with passing years you often go back to subtle changes and just try to max out the quantity of available information instead of just max out what's impressive.

in photo as in audio, this usually gives an almost dull result. neutrality and balance rarely impressive, but that's where you get the most out of everything. it took me 10 years to get there in photo (not being a good photographer, just being ok with post processing), and it reminds me how far I am in my audio trip, as my EQ settings are faaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAARRRRR from neutral and subtle. :rolleyes: 

 

 

 

my nemesis in EQ is 3-3.5khz I hate it (mostly when battery guy is on cocaine), it is the frequency range that brings the most fatigue and stress to my ears. so obviously I tend to "slightly" eradicate it for comfort. no luck that's a major part for vocals and bringing the 3khz down also ruins my favorite voices. finding the right balance there is always my biggest challenge in EQ and I end up EQing almost everything else just to get the 3khz right ^_^.

post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

my nemesis in EQ is 3-3.5khz I hate it (mostly when battery guy is on cocaine), it is the frequency range that brings the most fatigue and stress to my ears. so obviously I tend to "slightly" eradicate it for comfort. no luck that's a major part for vocals and bringing the 3khz down also ruins my favorite voices. finding the right balance there is always my biggest challenge in EQ and I end up EQing almost everything else just to get the 3khz right ^_^.

Might want to experiment with a multiband compressor, set a band around this frequency to compress the annoying peaks and preserve the rest of the music. I roll with 4 bands compressing frequencies from 2.5kHz to 16kHz to different extents. My nemesis is sibilance deadhorse.gif
post #87 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flisker View Post

Problem is that if you make EQ for one song to sound the best, than lots of others usually gets bad. Tried EQ on HD700 yesterday and after hour I gave up because something was always wrong somewhere. Even just -4 dB at that famous 5.75k ringing mountain isn't ok, because than it sounds absolutely off, like being closed in box.

I would really love to get my hands on some phenomenal EQ file for headphones I own.

Also could you please tell us something about your experience in the this field ? Electronics, sound science and headphones ? I can't help it, but I feel like you just saw same graphs and theory.

And what brand you can't "trust" in terms of high-end ?

I know we are in "Sound Science" but this is lot of theory and no "real stuff". 


Agreed

1. We need certain lists: EQ lists for certain genres' full pleasure-able. By genre I mean standarts. Yes, I consider "genre" a myth. Yes, its busted.
2. Closed in a box - I suppose you're "trance frequencies/bass frequencies" are put way too high, they "dim" that very frequency.
3. There is a big but(t): Basically, all my experience is a low-end 5.1 and I am certain about how true_high-end must "be heard".
4. The but(t): I'm a scientist. With that being given, i'm as objective as possible with the condition I AGREE where i've been proven wrong.
5. I cannot trust any brand without any proper info WHY I can not. I read reviews and decide whether they are objective or not. I cannot overview ALL THE BRANDS. Loss of time.
6. I trust only the White list in the first topic. Regarding true high-end I cannot know. Because I need to buy it and do researches. Basically, dismember them and see "how this stuff was made".

[A note for the readers: I suppose I know how the express myself the appropriate way NOW, i'll overhaul the thread in that regard ASAP.]
post #88 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

Yea that's what I did. Just fiddle around with an EQ using while listening to your favorite music. With enough time you'll get the hang of it 

and don't make it chore, after a while you'll start to know what frequancys sound like what
Good sir, I suppose you are the only one who has chosen the poll option "True&full white list"
If i'm right, I'm fascinated. It was a theory, based on the thought you are objective and that has been proven by the objective reviews!
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

my nemesis in EQ is 3-3.5khz I hate it (mostly when battery guy is on cocaine), it is the frequency range that brings the most fatigue and stress to my ears. so obviously I tend to "slightly" eradicate it for comfort. no luck that's a major part for vocals and bringing the 3khz down also ruins my favorite voices. finding the right balance there is always my biggest challenge in EQ and I end up EQing almost everything else just to get the 3khz right ^_^.

Might want to experiment with a multiband compressor, set a band around this frequency to compress the annoying peaks and preserve the rest of the music. I roll with 4 bands compressing frequencies from 2.5kHz to 16kHz to different extents. My nemesis is sibilance deadhorse.gif

 

 

 

\o/

 

had no idea I could do that. I just tried the first vst I could find and it seems to do exactly what I need (although I will need time to get exactly what I want).

I'll use what you suggest here http://www.head-fi.org/t/563120/multiband-compressor-just-the-thing-to-tame-bad-recordings-overbright-phones  as the interface looks more dummie friendly to me.

/me feels like he will end up ripping his CDs in foobar with gain+EQ+compressor into one mess of a mp3 for my portable daps. ^_^

 

 thank you very much. (that's internet, I post trying to help by sharing my XP, and end up being helped)

 

post #90 of 115
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone. Got fresh PROOFS:
1. Is a FACT now that EQ can make X sound perfect: No proper new myths/arguements were given AND I did some "test" and found out that:
a) To make X sound well, you should KNOW it's frequency(or range).
b) The higher/lower from 8 kHz the frequency is, the bigger "tune" is needed to achieve "ideal sound".
c) Test: Violin in a TRANCE (dubstep) track. Violin is a complex instrument, I like it when it HITS like 11,2 kHz. I have such a track: Tiesto - Adagio for strings (BlasterJaxx) The higher frequencies' GAIN i highered, the BRIGHTER the Violin sounded. The extra-low violin quality was because of "front placing" of bass/trance frequencies, which made it sound "boxed"/"underwater"/"bathroom effect".

Will add to the thread ASAP.
I suppose, you, reader, did not read my messages below. Check them out, please.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread