[Skylab]

Quote:

Do you still have that sexy (Marantz?) EQ? That thing was fantastic. 
 
Either way, I actually usually prefer hardware EQ to software EQ. For instance, the EQ controls on my Pioneer SX-255R are fantastic. The bass knob is so smooth and subtle (the SUPER BASS button isn't). 
 
All this being said...I hardly ever EQ anything anymore. I always think about doing it and then the anti-EQ mindset...sets in again.
 

 
Yes, I have that EQ - it's a Sansui, and analog, and on some really bad recordings it can be quite effective.  I like using EQ, and tone controls, to deal with certain recordings. I do NOT like using it to correct for overal system sonics.  I want my system (speakers, headphones, whatever) to have a sound that pleases me on the vast majority of reasonably well recorded material.  And then I will EQ recordings that are not reasonably well recorded.
 

 

[MorbidToaster]

That's pretty much what it's come down to for me too...though I wish I had an EQ that nice when I have to use one.
 
Quote:

 
Yes, I have that EQ - it's a Sansui, and analog, and on some really bad recordings it can be quite effective.  I like using EQ, and tone controls, to deal with certain recordings. I do NOT like using it to correct for overal system sonics.  I want my system (speakers, headphones, whatever) to have a sound that pleases me on the vast majority of reasonably well recorded material.  And then I will EQ recordings that are not reasonably well recorded.
 

 
 

 

[DarknightDK]

Quote:

I'm actually in the middle of testing out SonoReplicator, and so far it's been promising (but do NOT follow their instructions on setting the "level," because you'll completely screw up the sound. I find that keeping the level fairly high is much better and natural (the sweet spot for me was near 0.6, but this probably depends on the headphone). I just fired off a critical question for those guys, and I'll finalize my review of SonoReplicator once they give me their answer. If their answer is satisfactory, then I would start recommending it as the no-brainer way for everyone to measure and perfect the frequency response of their headphones--all done automatically for you, not fuss, no guess work.
 

 
Sounds great.  Shall wait for your review and recommendations.

 

[purrin]

You are not necessarily going to get good results with those instructions on the SonoReplicator website. Using a cheap un-calibrated PC microphone could leave you with worse results. Using a CD as a coupling plate is not a good idea either: a lot of reflections which the ear/brain are able to filter out will end up as measured peaks in the FR; open cans will measure inaccurately with more bass than they really have. The reflective and absorbative properties of the CD surface are different from human skin.
 
Assuming you can get good measurements, you are better off using a parametric EQ so you can manually override the results.
 
As for the LCD3, from my limited listening, it doesn't seem to need any surgical EQ.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.
 
For people who find it too much work to learn to EQ properly, you can even just use something like SonoReplicator: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/
 
Comfort-wise, that's a different matter and very subjective.
 
My custom EQ for my LCD-2 turns it into a something much more accurate/neutral (good enough for professional critical audio production), and the comfort isn't too much of an issue for me, so I'm saving a ton of money by no longer chasing after more expensive products.
 
 

EQ doesn't fix ringing, which was my only problem with the LCD-2, and it seems is my problem with the majority of headphones though I can't be sure.  I imagine EQ might help mask a ringing issue, but the LCD-2's ringing didn't come with much of a peak and it was still very bothersome for me.  At least on my pair.  EQ also doesn't change the tonality or the way the driver is damped, which can be an issue, with headphones sounding too "dry" ala HE6 or HD650 or DT150. 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

EQ doesn't fix ringing, which was my only problem with the LCD-2, and it seems is my problem with the majority of headphones though I can't be sure.  I imagine EQ might help mask a ringing issue, but the LCD-2's ringing didn't come with much of a peak and it was still very bothersome for me.  At least on my pair.  EQ also doesn't change the tonality or the way the driver is damped, which can be an issue, with headphones sounding too "dry" ala HE6 or HD650 or DT150. 

Which headphones have you found that do not exhibit ringing?
 

 

[Radio_head]

not sure if it's the same ringing that rhythm devils is alluding to, but I hear a ringing which is akin to Squillo (which is actually a good thing for an opera singer, but the same reason why you never want to be in close proximity to them when they sing) in about 90% of vocal music with almost every dynamic and ortho headphone I have used.  The JH13's had the least I have ever heard, with LCD-2 second.  Stats may well ameliorate this issue (which I have almost never heard of someone else having) but I haven't had much experience.

 

[dagothur]

You know what's the best way to smooth out faults in the LCD-2?  Getting a different headphone that you like better.  If you need to EQ or color the headphone sound that much, it's not the right headphone for you.

 

[rgs9200m]

 I think I said this before here, but I'll repeat it since it's come up here. I also was bothered by the "ringing" vocals in the LCD2 Rev 1 (and I *think* I was the first ever to mention it in the forums), but the Rev-2 fixed that problem.
Also, I've never met an equalizer that I could live with long-term; EQ always adds some grunge, like a layer of glass vs. an open window.
 
 
 

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

You are not necessarily going to get good results with those instructions on the SonoReplicator website. Using a cheap un-calibrated PC microphone could leave you with worse results. Using a CD as a coupling plate is not a good idea either: a lot of reflections which the ear/brain are able to filter out will end up as measured peaks in the FR; open cans will measure inaccurately with more bass than they really have. The reflective and absorbative properties of the CD surface are different from human skin.
 

These are the exact critical questions I'm currently firing away at the folks behind SonoReplicator, plus a few others based on my testing so far. Depending on how they answer my questions and what they advise me to do, I'll draw a final conclusion regarding their product. 
 

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

EQ doesn't fix ringing, which was my only problem with the LCD-2, and it seems is my problem with the majority of headphones though I can't be sure.  I imagine EQ might help mask a ringing issue, but the LCD-2's ringing didn't come with much of a peak and it was still very bothersome for me.  At least on my pair.  EQ also doesn't change the tonality or the way the driver is damped, which can be an issue, with headphones sounding too "dry" ala HE6 or HD650 or DT150. 

Is it ringing or reverb? 

 

[Mochan]

Oops double post

 

[Mochan]

 

Quote:

 

 
I dunno: I remember watching Beyerdynamic add a new driver to basically the same enclosure design and charging almost 4x (also about $1000) more for the T1 vs DT990, in reaction to the HD800. Today there are many who still prefer the older models. Seems like so much water under the bridge today ... and there's no question Audeze is much smaller as a company.
 
There really is a legitimate consideration to be made for R&D/production costs and sales volumes for boutique vs established companies. I've seen small shops go under trying to match the relative pricing of the big-name companies, when basic accounting dictated that they should have charged more just to protect themselves. So even if Audeze is truly testing the ultra high-end headphone waters with the LCD-3, I imagine they'd move much quicker into the red with a failed product than Sennheiser would. Isn't this obvious?
 
I may be an enthusiast, but that just exposes the realities of boutiques to me all the more clearly. Audeze seems to be on more solid footing than most, which can only be good for our little slice of hifi. Buy according to the size of your wallet, or work to get a bigger one!

My remonstrations aren't limited to small boutiques; I charge all companies equally. I flay the skin off of Grado, Beyer, etc. all the time for what I consider vastly overpriced products. 
 
Small companies definitely would move into the red quicker if they -- so if they want to charge more, sure. It's up to the buyers here to foot the bill for them. Your choice.  I still say this kind of thinking, making excuses for the companies, is dangerous. I'm surprised we can get this kind of mentality in Capitalist America where the consumers typically massacre companies for not providing value. Like I said, this kind of mentality somehow manages to thrive in our hobby as opposed to most other markets. It's a mystery to me.
 

 

[Tranducer]

If that's the case, why did you even get the LCD-2? Why not just get a pair of HD650 and eq the hell of it and turn it into LCD-2 R1, R2 or LCD-3, Stax 007, 009? If that is so easily done, I don't think anyone here would need to get expensive headphones or amps anymore. In fact someone should just release an emulator software which one could just get a pair of HD650 and select the headphones they like instead of actually buying the real ones, that would definitely be a big seller. For me, I think it's BS. :rolleyes:

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

If that's the case, why did you even get the LCD-2? Why not just get a pair of HD650 and eq the hell of it and turn it into LCD-2 R1, R2 or LCD-3, Stax 007, 009? If that is so easily done, I don't think anyone here would need to get expensive headphones or amps anymore. In fact someone should just release an emulator software which one could just get a pair of HD650 and select the headphones they like instead of actually buying the real ones, that would definitely be a big seller. For me, I think it's BS.

There is a threshold to what you can do with a specific driver/housing design. For example, if you can't turn small multimedia speakers into large reference studio monitors because the driver/housing/electronics simply cannot go beyond a certain threshold, due to physical limitations. 
 
But, if the headphones you are trying to mimic actually have similar physical capabilities, then YES, you can get pretty damn close by EQ'ing. I know this because I have made all of my headphones sound more or less similar by making each of them as neutral/accurate as possible. When I swap out between the different headphones, it's obvious to me they are far more similar than different after EQ'ing. In fact, I bet if I invited you guys to my studio and did double blind tests, most of you probably wouldn't be able to guess which is which. I can't convince you of this unless you actually try it yourself, or come visit me in my studio.
 
BTW, did you listen to the link I provided where the guys at SonoReplicator duplicated the sonic signature of a more expensive headphone with a much cheaper one, by essentially measuring both and applying the difference EQ between the two? Listen to the examples here: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/mp3demo.htm
 
And that's done with an automated algorithm that does all the calculation for you--all you have to do is measure the headphones (preferably with a pro audio grade measuring mic). It doesn't even involve any critical listening, comparing, testing...etc--all the work is already done for you--a complete no-brainer product. 
 
While trying to use SonoReplicator to create the "ideal" frequency response might prove to be problematic, due to the previous discussed issues (ones I'm grilling the guys behind SonoReplicator about at the moment), but for purely emulating another headphone's sonic signature, it really is damn effective and straightforward.