[purrin]

Yep. It's not possible to subtract or add energy storage either, or simulate non-linear harmonic distortion. These also contribute to a headphone's sonic signature.

 

[donunus]

All this nonsense is whats making me proud to be a cheapskate and just finding the sound thats a good balance of "neutral enough" and "musically enjoyable" to me.... The dt250-250 ohm

 

[donunus]

 
Quote:

Yep. It's not possible to subtract or add energy storage either, or simulate non-linear harmonic distortion. These also contribute to a headphone's sonic signature.

 

Thumbs up on that. This applies to headphones as well as speakers. Even amps, dacs and the kitchen sink as well LOL

 

[RexAeterna]

I could never really understand how someone can call k701s neutral.

i thought i was the only one.

also i agree above about the screen analogy thing bout better for it having neutral color accuracy and contrast. that's why i still use CRT monitors.

 

[purrin]

Why I am thinking of Ken Rockwell's over-saturated yellow tinted photos right now? 

 

[Lunatique]

 
Quote:

Well written but I have to disagree completely here... mostly because you've inaccurately used the screen analogy.

TVs are not always better with upgrades:
 
-Everyone I know usually turns 120hz TVs to 60hz because 120hz is too smooth and unnatural.
-Pre HD-console consoles look better on EDTVs because the bleeding effect is a natural aliasing effect better than HDTV upscales.
-Too much aliasing can look bad. 
-People still use effects like grain filters and black and white so even though it is not inherent in the TV, visual fidelity does not always correspond to what you are discussing
-3D is not enjoyable for all
 
There is less room in TVs for interpretation but it is still certainly there.
 
Relating to music, I have been in your "typical consumer" to "low end audiophile range" for years now (bought stuff like Skull Candy headphones, bose headphones, moved onto klipsch and entry level Beyers). I joined Head-fi awhile after buying the v-moda m-80 and began to pick up steam in terms of audio gear.

While it is probably true that you are closer to the true production by getting neutral/accurate phones, I do not believe in any way that this makes music better. Colored sound seems perfectly legitimate in terms of producing enjoyment and I often don't even like the headphones that are considered more neutral. Music is far too subjective to make accurate comparison with visual fidelity, which is much more straight forward. My example for this would be the fact that I personally, have enjoyed new genres of music or music I did not enjoy previously due to certain headphones that are supposedly "colored". I frequently enjoy and use both my bass and treble boost to give an abnormal about of focus towards certain parts of a production.

That I enjoy these "colorations" is a fact and is a reality for many people. I do not understand choosing neutrality over enjoyment as a more educated way to make purchases. I am a fairly new member which is probably why I am going against the grain here. Maybe I will conform to this topic when I move up on your scale ^^'

 
I don't recall saying upgrades automatically = better. There are some very expensive gear out there that sounds like crap. Ultrasone's Edition 10 is one such product (Read Tyll's scathing review of it).
 
You have to be educated in what you are pursuing in order to make the right decisions--be it a hobby, a career, or life choices. This thread is all about promoting education. No one is pointing a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy or not buy anything. You don't have to agree.
 
Quote:

I like neutral equipment with simple bass and treble tone controls. I don't like non-neutral gear because then you are screwed if particular records or genres don't play well with such gear, or if the mastering engineer "colors" the sound (for artistic effect) the same way your gear may happen to be colored. Neutrality is the best guarantee that the widest range of recordings will sound good. And I don't want to futz with EQ every time a new song on my playlist comes up.
 
I also like my TV's calibrated to be neutral in color, accurate in detail (that is no excessive sharpness), and realistic in contrast (where I can see shadow detail.)
 
I don't like TVs looking like this:
 

 
nor headphones sounding like this:
 

 
or this:
 

 
Exactly. The closer we are to neutrality, the wider the range we'll be able to hear, because we're starting from a place that has the least bias. 
 
Quote:

Thats exactly how I see it too. Since nothing is completely neutral though, personal bias in judging which anomalies are more pleasing and musical come into play. Take me for example, I could never really understand how someone can call k701s neutral. I mean the person has either have to have totally different hearing than I do or is probably just being part of the herd that believes in good advertising LOL

 
Remember, an overwhelming percentage of people who post in forums are not educated or adequately experienced in what they are talking about. You'll be much better off trusting those who have demonstrated their knowledge and experience and expertise--someone like Tyll Hertsen: http://www.innerfidelity.com/. 
 
Quote:

Tweaking each songs EQ settings is completely impractical and requires a certain amount of motivation to discover to begin with. Enjoying music shouldn't really be a chore... Also, how am I suppose to tweak the EQ settings to make my v-moda sound like UM3x or Grado's? The EQ settings on my iPod are pretty terrible if that was what I was suppose to do. 
 
Also, if every range of headphones could be easily replicated with an EQ setting on my ipod than what would be the point of all these different headphones? Everyone should just focus on things like improving the soundstage, imaging and precise details? Obviously there are a lot of things that come into play when choosing a headphone and I think "sounding neutral" places absolutely nowhere on the list unless you LIKE neutral or are an audio engineer. Some people just love lots of bass. Some people just like lots of treble. Some people hate harsh highs and get fatigued easily. Arbitrarily saying that people who like bright/dark headphones will suffer when they listen to treble heavy/light music is an extremely black and white view of the issue that has almost no practical value.
 
I know the logic behind this idea but I really don't see this as practical at all considering the nature of headphones and sound. Can you turn a K701 into a Grado SR325i sound or an HD650 sound except with a huge headstage just from EQ settings? I feel like this is what newbies would take away from the people posting in this topic more than anything else in which case, I find this topic is promoting gross misinformation in the guise of enlightenment.

 
That's why you tweak your headphone to sound neutral, and then leave it be. Once it's neutral (or close enough to it), it'll handle any kind of music you throw at it and not veer off the cliff in any frequency range. 
 
 
Nothing I said is arbitrary. It's all based on professional audio standards used by audio engineers, musicians, producers, and gear manufacturers world-wide. 
 
It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp--that if yo start off with a biased foundation, then anything you build on top of it will be skewed. If someone has a biased preference for big bass and hyped treble, and buys a headphone with monster bass and shrill treble, what's going to happen when he listens to songs that were mastered to have monster bass and sharp treble? The bass is going to completely overload and overwhelm the entire lower half of the frequency region, and all the details, transients, textures, and overtones will be completely obliterated into a bloated mess, and in the treble region, the treble would be so shrill and spiked that you couldn't even listen at normal volumes because it'll destroy your hearing. 
 
Let the music itself be the bias, not your sound reproduction system. 
 
As for the validity of EQ'ing audio gear, in the pro audio world, there are products that do only one job--and that is to tweak the speakers's sound by equalization and delay and other methods, so that they can get the venue/location to sound as neutral as possible, no matter what speaker system is being used, or what the acoustic space is like. This is a similar concept to EQ'ing headphones. Look up these products:
 
dbx DriverRack
Samson D-1500
IK Multimedia ARC System
KRK Ergo
JBL MSC1
 
There's a similar product for headphones, but I don't think they've achieved the level of accuracy I deem acceptable yet. I trust my own method a lot more, and until they improve the product enough to win me over, I'll continue to rely on the method I developed.
 
Obviously, if you can acquire gear that neutral to begin with, then not having to tweak anything would be ideal--it saves you from the trouble of measuring, testing, and tweaking, but it's extremely expensive to achieve it in hardware, and that's why we see such steep diminishing returns the higher-end we go. With each improvement, often we are only getting a minor change in sonic signature, yet we could be paying double or triple just to get that 5% to 10% of difference. We see so many people buying over a dozen headphone amps--for what? Most people who do that are just using them as if they are fixed/locked position EQ units--to slightly alter the sound this and that way, so a specific amp's coloration will happen to cancel out or enhance a specific headphone's coloration. That's a damn expensive way to "EQ" your gear.
 
But if one is willing to take the time to learn properl EQ'ing techniques, it's very possible to achieve something that the person deems to be his ideal range of neutrality, without having emptied his bank account. But the key here, is the person must be willing to educate himself and take the time to learn. For all the debates that's taken place in this thread, how many people actually took the time to learn and try what I've suggested? How many actually followed my tutorial/advice on how to achieve the ideal neutrality in headphones? How many actually took the time required to do the comparison tests and kept a record of their findings? In the threads where I posted my custom EQ curves and taught people how to properly EQ their headphones for neutrality, I don't see the same debate happening--why? Because those people actually tried it and the results speak for themselves--there's no need for debate.
 
 
 

Yep. It's not possible to subtract or add energy storage either, or simulate non-linear harmonic distortion. These also contribute to a headphone's sonic signature.

 
 
While you can't get an exact replica of another headphone by EQ'ing, you'll get much closer to it than you probably thought you could. Sure, there are other properties in sound that can't be tweaked by an EQ, but frequency response is the most notable property that we associate with the general tonality--it's what we hear first and foremost, while the other properties are not as dominating in forming one's impression of a sonic signature. 
 
I would advice people to never use the EQ on the iPod, or any graphic equalizer in general, unless you only need to make imprecise and broad tweaks that don't require surgical precision. For accurate and flexible/powerful EQ'ing, use a parametric EQ such as the Equalizer App or EQu App, available for a modest price, but far superior, and works on any iOS device. 
 
Quote:

All this nonsense is whats making me proud to be a cheapskate and just finding the sound thats a good balance of "neutral enough" and "musically enjoyable" to me.... The dt250-250 ohm

 
I can take low-costing headphones like the M50 and make it sound like it should cost triple its price by simply EQ'ing properly. For those of you who own the M50, just replicate my custom EQ curve for the M50 and you'll hear it for yourself (look in my profile and search for the EQ curve in a thread I made about it). I have posted my custom EQ curves for a number of different headphones and IEM's, and those who have actually tried them all pretty much agreed. If I had a dt250-250 ohm, I'm pretty sure I can do the same for it.
 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

 
I can take low-costing headphones like the M50 and make it sound like it should cost triple its price by simply EQ'ing properly. For those of you who own the M50, just replicate my custom EQ curve for the M50 and you'll hear it for yourself (look in my profile and search for the EQ curve in a thread I made about it). I have posted my custom EQ curves for a number of different headphones and IEM's, and those who have actually tried them all pretty much agreed. If I had a dt250-250 ohm, I'm pretty sure I can do the same for it.

 
The M50 is a decent headphone which is already more neutral than 90% of what's out there. It doesn't suffer from any nasty ringing. It's a headphone that responds well to EQ. Not all headphones are this way. You can apply surgical EQ all you want to a Grado or Ultrasone, and it still isn't going to sound right. I have measuring equipment, pro audio EQ gear, etc. I've tried - certain headphones are just a lost cause. Also, transient response is another factor.
 
While you can EQ an HD800 or LCD3 to have the same frequency response as a STAX SR009 or 007, it's not going to sound remotely the same. Again I've tried. EQ, even surgical EQ, works best when the application is light-handed.

 

[DNZGamer]

 
Quote:

 
 
That's why you tweak your headphone to sound neutral, and then leave it be. Once it's neutral (or close enough to it), it'll handle any kind of music you throw at it and not veer off the cliff in any frequency range. 
 
This is the part of your argument that completely breaks down for me. It makes absolutely no sense... if I liked the neutral sound, I would have bought neutral headphones.
 
Nothing I said is arbitrary. It's all based on professional audio standards used by audio engineers, musicians, producers, and gear manufacturers world-wide. 
 
Basically, things irrelevant to the mass market that you are attempting to educate??? Someone who produces music on a regular basis will hear and look for different things in sound. I don't understand who you are trying to help right now. I don't care what audio engineers enjoy or what a violinist enjoys.
 
It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp--that if yo start off with a biased foundation, then anything you build on top of it will be skewed. If someone has a biased preference for big bass and hyped treble, and buys a headphone with monster bass and shrill treble, what's going to happen when he listens to songs that were mastered to have monster bass and sharp treble? The bass is going to completely overload and overwhelm the entire lower half of the frequency region, and all the details, transients, textures, and overtones will be completely obliterated into a bloated mess, and in the treble region, the treble would be so shrill and spiked that you couldn't even listen at normal volumes because it'll destroy your hearing. 
 
I have a Grado RS1 and I have never once in my life felt like I needed to tone down the treble and I listen to a wide variety of music. In fact, after I got my new map, I've been using treble boost on some of the songs where there was lots of treble... Bass is even a worse example. The tracks with the heaviest bass are often the ones where I feel I want to boost the bass the most going all out with the 9dB boost..... So yes, this statement is arbitrating people's enjoyment of music based on a shallow generalization.
 
Edit: I use bass boost on bass heavy tracks on my m-80 which is already bass heavy.
 
Let the music itself be the bias, not your sound reproduction system. 
 
This statement is empty to someone like me who wants to enjoy music. I have absolutely no interest in the original sound reproduction. Just like I don't understand why people always think "authentic ethnic food" is better. I prefer good food over authentic food. K701 just doesn't give me the kind of bass I like. I don't care that its neutral and that I could buy hundreds of dollars of gear and spend lots of time just to get it a bit better.
 
As for the validity of EQ'ing audio gear, in the pro audio world, there are products that do only one job--and that is to tweak the speakers's sound by equalization and delay and other methods, so that they can get the venue/location to sound as neutral as possible, no matter what speaker system is being used, or what the acoustic space is like. This is a similar concept to EQ'ing headphones. Look up these products:
 
dbx DriverRack
Samson D-1500
IK Multimedia ARC System
KRK Ergo
JBL MSC1
 
So we are attempting to educate entry level headphone audiophiles by recommending intimidating and expensive solutions for things that aren't even related to headphones?
 
There's a similar product for headphones, but I don't think they've achieved the level of accuracy I deem acceptable yet. I trust my own method a lot more, and until they improve the product enough to win me over, I'll continue to rely on the method I developed.
 
I think you are pressing too hard for what you deem "acceptable" and "enjoyable". I have no doubt that you are far more knowledgeable than me and most consumers. That does not mean you know anything about our music preferences though.
 
Obviously, if you can acquire gear that neutral to begin with, then not having to tweak anything would be ideal--it saves you from the trouble of measuring, testing, and tweaking, but it's extremely expensive to achieve it in hardware, and that's why we see such steep diminishing returns the higher-end we go. With each improvement, often we are only getting a minor change in sonic signature, yet we could be paying double or triple just to get that 5% to 10% of difference. We see so many people buying over a dozen headphone amps--for what? Most people who do that are just using them as if they are fixed/locked position EQ units--to slightly alter the sound this and that way, so a specific amp's coloration will happen to cancel out or enhance a specific headphone's coloration. That's a damn expensive way to "EQ" your gear.
 
Again, you are generalizing. People who buy an amp to tame the Grado high aren't exactly transforming its EQ that dramatically. It enhances and refines the natural EQ of the headphones. You are assuming that with amps, you are able to transform headphones on a fundamental level (perhaps some do like the ZO2.3, but most amps are really just refinements and/or enhancements). If you can truly do this (say give the HD650 an RS1i signature) then I am more than willing to listen and judge whether it is practical or feasible for the average consumer/audiophile.
 
But if one is willing to take the time to learn properl EQ'ing techniques, it's very possible to achieve something that the person deems to be his ideal range of neutrality, without having emptied his bank account. But the key here, is the person must be willing to educate himself and take the time to learn. For all the debates that's taken place in this thread, how many people actually took the time to learn and try what I've suggested? How many actually followed my tutorial/advice on how to achieve the ideal neutrality in headphones? How many actually took the time required to do the comparison tests and kept a record of their findings? In the threads where I posted my custom EQ curves and taught people how to properly EQ their headphones for neutrality, I don't see the same debate happening--why? Because those people actually tried it and the results speak for themselves--there's no need for debate.
 
I did not see all the posts in this topic. Please link me your tutorial and I will definitely give it a try (barring that it doesn't require expensive equipment). I would be more than happy to transform my Grado RS1i into Ultrasone Pro 900 or HD650 sound signatures since that would save me a lot of future purchases and I would gladly put in the time.
 

 
 

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

 
I can take low-costing headphones like the M50 and make it sound like it should cost triple its price by simply EQ'ing properly. For those of you who own the M50, just replicate my custom EQ curve for the M50 and you'll hear it for yourself (look in my profile and search for the EQ curve in a thread I made about it). I have posted my custom EQ curves for a number of different headphones and IEM's, and those who have actually tried them all pretty much agreed. If I had a dt250-250 ohm, I'm pretty sure I can do the same for it.

 
The M50 is a decent headphone which is already more neutral than 90% of what's out there. It doesn't suffer from any nasty ringing. It's a headphone that responds well to EQ. Not all headphones are this way. You can apply surgical EQ all you want to a Grado or Ultrasone, and it still isn't going to sound right. I have measuring equipment, pro audio EQ gear, etc. I've tried - certain headphones are just a lost cause. Also, transient response is another factor.
 
While you can EQ an HD800 or LCD3 to have the same frequency response as a STAX SR009 or 007, it's not going to sound remotely the same. Again I've tried. EQ, even surgical EQ, works best when the application is light-handed.

You're probably right. I haven't tried EQ'ing headphones that are "lost causes," because I avoid buying such headphones in the first place, and among my own collection, the really cheap stuff I never bothered EQ'ing because I know I'll never use them anyway. I suppose for the sake of science I should try it just to see how neutral I can make them. To date, the ones I have EQ'd are:

Stax 007 MK2
Denon D7000
LCD-2
HD650
M50
Westone 4
Westone 3
Shure SE535
Shure SE530

All of them achieved good enough neutrality that I was satisfied with the results. But none of them are crappy headphones to begin with--they're all quality products. I wouldn't advise anyone to use a crappy pair of headphones on purpose and then try to muscle them into submission with EQ'ing. It's always best to start with a good foundation and work from there.

 

[DNZGamer]

 
Quote:

You're probably right. I haven't tried EQ'ing headphones that are "lost causes," because I avoid buying such headphones in the first place, and among my own collection, the really cheap stuff I never bothered EQ'ing because I know I'll never use them anyway. I suppose for the sake of science I should try it just to see how neutral I can make them. To date, the ones I have EQ'd are:
Stax 007 MK2
Denon D7000
LCD-2
HD650
M50
Westone 4
Westone 3
Shure SE535
Shure SE530
All of them achieved good enough neutrality that I was satisfied with the results. But none of them are crappy headphones to begin with--they're all quality products. I wouldn't advise anyone to use a crappy pair of headphones on purpose and then try to muscle them into submission with EQ'ing. It's always best to start with a good foundation and work from there.

 
I'm very curious... since you are discussing the mighty power of EQ, would you say these 4 headphones essentially all sound the same after EQing? Considering what has been posted, it would seem like that those purchases are completely redundant because any of those headphones should be able to sound like the next outside of a few elements.
 

 

[purrin]

@DNZ:
 
You realize Lunatique is not forcing you do any of these things. They are simply considerations. While I don't totally agree with Lunatique - mainly because some of those products he mentioned above are meant for low-end home studio and have craptastic sound quality; and that most headphones, unlike speakers, are simply just too far gone to be cured  - I do agree with him on that neutral is good.
 
I don't know how long you've been in this hobby, but many of my friends and I started out with RS-1s over ten years ago and absolutely loved them back in the time. Today, these RS-1s have either been sold off or are stored in a nice box as a nostalgic reminder of our younger days. As we've gotten older and more educated about audio reproduction, we've since moved on to more neutral gear. We look back and laugh - and ask ourselves how we ever liked them. Maybe on occasion we'll pull out the RS-1 out and give it a spin, but we fully understand where the RS-1 stands.
 
--
 
As for K701s, they are not neutral. The have a fairly smooth response, but have an upward tilt. They are lean/bright. Just another opinion and measurement method:

 
 
 
 

 

[Mauricio]

 
Quote:

... Analog EQ just cannot change the difference in time the sound gets to one's ears when comparing a front firing dome tweeter vs a dipole ribbon for example.

 
Right.  The velocity at which a sound wave travels through a medium is not at all determined by the emitting source, let alone an equalizer, a dome tweeter or dipole tweeter.  The only way that you can change the velocity of sound is by altering the temperature/density of the fluid (air).

 

[DNZGamer]

@Purrin
 
I am not saying he is pushing anyone to do anything. I am saying that he is attempting to guide people out of ignorance. Like I said, as I move up his "scale" I may appreciate neutrality more (just like people are claiming that the scale of an audiophile is "likes more bass", "likes more treble", "likes more midrange" and finally, "likes neutrality". 
 
I think it is just a silly categorization of musical preferences. It assumes that audiophiles who never strive for neutrality are never true audiophiles. I am not at a point where I really like neutrality and it is odd sending people on a wild goose chase for something that someone who does not have the same audio tastes deems the audio pinnacle.

Maybe one day I will laugh at my previous musical tastes (and I have already since I come from skull candies, apple ear buds and Bose headphones). But within my price range right now, what Lunatique is essentially saying is that if I had to spend money on headphones, there is always only one choice (or the neutral choices) within that price range that are worth getting and that is what all people buying audio should do.
 
I don't have the golden ears like other true audiophiles who apparently can't stand MP3 formats and see night and day differences between copper and silver cables so I totally admit I am probably not on par with some of the other people here. But that is no reason for me to conform my taste in music just to follow the ideals of others. There is no logical reason for me to force myself into liking a sound signature that I have not yet developed a taste for.
 
So we are telling people that it does not matter what you enjoy - it only matters what the top audiophiles enjoy and that one day we will be enlightened enough to appreciate it. And apparently all other suggestions outside of this are deemed ignorant. Sorry but this topic did come off as overly arrogant in exactly that sense.
 
Also, I did not know the K701 was not neutral. What are considered neutral headphones in the $500 range for me to compare?
 
Edit: I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just speaking as a person who is still in the Low End Audiophile part of the circle and am adding my perspective to this as someone who is still discovering their own audio needs. Since we are trying to bring these "low end audiophiles" out of ignorance, questioning the intentions and reasonings of all the aficionados around here would be the best way to start, especially since there is so little consensus on just about everything.

 

[Lunatique]

The EQ threads are here:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551426/my-eq-curves-for-lcd-2-hd650-m50-and-007mk2/30#post_7977938
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/546077/my-meticulously-tweaked-eq-settings-for-shure-se535-and-westone-3/15#post_8075721
 

Quote:

I'm very curious... since you are discussing the mighty power of EQ, would you say these 4 headphones essentially all sound the same after EQing? Considering what has been posted, it would seem like that those purchases are completely redundant because any of those headphones should be able to sound like the next outside of a few elements.
 

 
After EQ'ing, they sound enough like each other that I can pretty much sell all but one and not feel too bad about it, BUT, this is a very broad statement, and obviously I haven't sold them all.
 
I sold the Stax 007MK2 and kept the LCD-2, because it's a lot cheaper (save money), and it's also got a full-bodied sound that no other headphone I've ever heard can match, and it's not something you can EQ. This is something unique to the LCD-2's design. With EQ'ing, the 007 MK2's distinct sonic signature was tamed and became much more neutral, and it became pointless to keep such an expensive rig ($3,000+), since I don't necessarily get more enjoyment out of that specific sonic signature (meaning without EQ'ing). It's great on very specific songs where certain attribute are colored in a way that I probably would've mastered the same song to sound like if I was the guy who was hired to master it, but such cases are so few and far between. Holding on to $3k+ worth of money that I could be using for something else, just for such rare cases, just wasn't pragmatic. Also, that specific coloration is sometimes not a good thing on some songs that happen to be hyped or recessed in the same regions as the 007 MK2. I don't get such negatives with a neutral sonic signature. 
 
I kept the M50 because I need at least one pair of closed-back headphone for tracking (so the headphone doesn't bleed into the microphone during recording sessions). I also have a pair of Equation RP-21 and Pioneer SE-DJ5000 for that purpose (for recording multiple musicians/singers at once). I also would want to have at least one closed-back for when I simply want isolation. When I travel and stay somewhere for short duration, I take the M50 because it folds down to a compact size, is durable, cheap and replaceable, and sounds good enough that I don't feel cripple by it. With EQ'ing it sounds much more neutral, and I could certainly use it without feeling any negative feelings about it, but the LCD-2 is just a superior headphone overall. So even if the two might sound more similar than different with EQ'ing, there are still factors that make one sound better than the other, although the gap is much narrow compared to before EQ'ing. For people who can't afford expensive headphones, EQ'ing something like the M50 will get them far more bang for the buck than they could ever have imagined. But if they can afford it, getting a superior headphone and then EQ'ing it would get even better results (dimensionality, imaging, transients, resolution, etc). 
 
I kept the HD650 only as a backup, so that if the LCD-2 ever gets broken in an accident or just fails unexpectedly, I have another good pair of headphones to immediately take its place, while I buy a replacement. Sure, I can just use the M50 as temporary replacement, but I dislike closed-back headphones and only use them when I have to. So essentially the HD650 is totally unnecessary and I can sell it without feeling bad. But another reason I keep it around is because I admire what Sennheiser achieved with it--a very good balance that's far closer to being neutral than most headphones on the market. If it wasn't for the fact it is missing an authoritative sub-bass presence, it would be one of the most neutral headphones I've ever head (and I disagree with those who keep saying it has a veil. I suspect they are just used to brighter sounding headphones). 
 
As for IEM's, I sold them all and only kept the Westone 4, because I only need one IEM. I actually preferred the SE535 over the Westone 4 after EQ'ing both, because the SE535 was a bit lusher--which I liked for leisurely listening. But I also judge headphones by how well they sound without EQ'ing, so that in situations where I can't EQ, I still have to like the sound. Without EQ'ing, the Westone 4 is much more agreeable for me, since it's not as piercing in the sibilance region as the SE535, even though the Westone 4's bass is a bit bloated in comparison--which I'd rather live with because at least it doesn't hurt my ears. 
 
 
 

 

[proton007]

 
Quote:

 
Let the music itself be the bias, not your sound reproduction system. 
 

 
You sir, have made my day.