[Audman71]

gregorio,

I would have used one equalizer to compensate one time but it's easier to work with multiple equalizers brcause not only am I dealing with multiple different and specific curves but I like the ability to turn off some of the elements for comparison purposes.

Also, the Fletcher Munson Curve doesn't compensate for my ears completely. There are still some peaks and dips after I apply it.

 

[gregorio]

No, I didn't mean why are you using 2 EQ instances, I meant why are you compensating for the Fletcher-Munson curves?
 
G

 

[Audman71]

I'm not sure what you mean, then, if you don't mean what I said before.

 

[gregorio]

  I'm not sure what you mean, then, if you don't mean what I said before.

 
OK, I'll try and be very specific. You stated that you applied EQ to make a logarithmic sine sweep sound the same loudness throughout the spectrum. In effect, applying an EQ compensation, along the lines of a Fletcher-Munson curve, to achieve a perceived flat frequency response. Maconi effectively stated the same. If this is the case, then you are making a significant mistake! You are failing to consider the fact that the music, film or other audio content to which you are listening has been mixed by human beings. Human beings which, like you, have a frequency response along the lines of the Fletcher-Munson curves. In other words, when the engineer has completed a mix he/she is happy with, this mix already has a built-in compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curve. If you (and Maconi) apply EQ to this mix to compensate for a Fletcher-Munson curve, you are in effect compensating twice!! You will achieve a flat response only when listening to unadulterated sine waves (or sweeps) but when listening to any sort of audio content mixed by a human being, the response you achieve will be out by roughly the Fletcher-Munson EQ compensation you have added!
 
Another point, which I haven't referred to previously, is that consumer headphones (and speakers) generally have a roll-off in low (and often high) frequencies within the audible range. This isn't because the manufacturers have just decided to apply an EQ filter but because that is the mechanical limitations of the components they have designed/used. Trying to compensate with EQ is not going to give accurate results because you are effectively trying to push the headphones/speakers beyond their physical/mechanical limits. If the solution were as simple as a bit of EQ, the manufacturers would have been foolish not to have already done that. It's a bit like putting a 6 litre V12 Ferrari engine in a Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta isn't suddenly going to get Ferrari like performance, if anything it's actually going to perform less well than a stock Fiesta because if you try to actually use more than a few percent of that extra power the Fiesta's other components will just start to crumble (clutch, gearbox, other drive-train components, etc.) and if you don't use that extra power not only haven't you gained anything but you've actually degraded the suspension/handling/braking!
 
G

 

[Maconi]

 

  I'm not sure what you mean, then, if you don't mean what I said before.

 
OK, I'll try and be very specific. You stated that you applied EQ to make a logarithmic sine sweep sound the same loudness throughout the spectrum. In effect, applying an EQ compensation, along the lines of a Fletcher-Munson curve, to achieve a perceived flat frequency response. Maconi effectively stated the same. If this is the case, then you are making a significant mistake! You are failing to consider the fact that the music, film or other audio content to which you are listening has been mixed by human beings. Human beings which, like you, have a frequency response along the lines of the Fletcher-Munson curves. In other words, when the engineer has completed a mix he/she is happy with, this mix already has a built-in compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curve. If you (and Maconi) apply EQ to this mix to compensate for a Fletcher-Munson curve, you are in effect compensating twice!! You will achieve a flat response only when listening to unadulterated sine waves (or sweeps) but when listening to any sort of audio content mixed by a human being, the response you achieve will be out by roughly the Fletcher-Munson EQ compensation you have added!

 
I'm still confused as to what you're implying. The way I think of it, we're trying to adjust the headphones so that they'll accurately reproduce the original mix for our ears (assuming the content creator was using accurate/flat response gear). Basically we're trying to calibrate our gear so that we hear what was intended (just because the headphones have a flat response doesn't mean our ears are capable of hearing that response, so we compensate for our natural deficiencies). Are you saying that you think it's better to just EQ to absolute flat vs perceived flat?

 

[watchnerd]

   
I'm still confused as to what you're implying. The way I think of it, we're trying to adjust the headphones so that they'll accurately reproduce the original mix for our ears (assuming the content creator was using accurate/flat response gear). Basically we're trying to calibrate our gear so that we hear what was intended (just because the headphones have a flat response doesn't mean our ears are capable of hearing that response, so we compensate for our natural deficiencies). Are you saying that you think it's better to just EQ to absolute flat vs perceived flat?

 
Yes, the transducer should be flat because the engineer already adjusted the mix to make it perceptually balanced according to the artistic intent using human ears that are already subject to the Fletcher-Munson curve.  And, just as importantly, he did so under the assumption that they playback systems themselves are reasonably flat (dance clubs excepted).

 

[jcx]

Fletcher/Munson Loudness curves show that absolute SPL at our ears matter for perceived frequency balance - different loudness == different perception of frequency response
 
and then there's the whole headphone vs speakers in a (acoustically small) room issue - with commercial music overwhelmingly mixed, mastered for the latter over monitors in a purpose designed and often acoustically treated room
 
with headphones there is no added room reflection/reverberation which can add up to 1/2 of the sound power in music playback over speakers in domestic listening rooms
 
so headphones are generally given built in EQ - designed with non-flat frequency response to give the best impression with commercial recorded music intended for speakers and rooms
 
and that EQ is then related to expected SPL, some headphones look like a "Smile EQ" is built in - which would be expected to allow listening at lower than "Live Performance" SPL, partially compensating the Fletcher/Munson curve
 
 
these issues are long known, unfortunately head-fi dominant "just listen" naive subjectivism and violent allergic response to "Sound Science" in general forums limits the spread of real and relevant Psychoacoustics

 

[gregorio]

  Basically we're trying to calibrate our gear so that we [1] hear what was intended (just because the headphones have a flat response doesn't mean our ears are capable of hearing that response, [2] so we compensate for our natural deficiencies).

 
What I'm saying is that you can't have both #1 and #2 because #1 already includes #2! If you try to compensate for #2 you are moving away from #1 because #1 was mixed by a human being who, being human also had "our natural deficiencies" and mixed/mastered the music to sound good (hopefully) with those natural deficiencies. This is essentially exactly the same as what watchnerd has stated.

  Are you saying that you think it's better to just EQ to absolute flat vs perceived flat?

 
In effect, yes. Although, just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, it's a bit of a fallacy that the recording and mastering studios where the mixes have been produced are flat (absolute). 1. Flat is a relative term here, even high quality commercial studios exhibit swings (peaks and troughs) between certain frequencies of 6dB or so, due to room acoustics but are still considered "flat". 2. Even accepting this slightly vague definition of what is considered "flat", most studios do not attempt to achieve it, they commonly apply a "house curve". This house curve usually contains a boost to the low frequencies, to counteract the bass boost of most consumer music systems. 3. When speaking specifically about headphones, jcx makes a very valid and important point.
 
All these variables at play make a very valid argument against EQ'ing headphones and just trusting that within their price point the manufacturer has done a better job than we can. I have heard headphones EQ'ed which I preferred though, so I'm a bit on the fence over this issue. If you do want to EQ your headphones I would personally offer this advice: 1. Don't try to compensate for general hearing deficiencies (eg. Fletcher-Munson curves), 2. Don't try to compensate for mechanical limitations (eg. Freqs below the headphones' natural roll-off). 3. Be sure you're not compromising the manufacturer's level of success in compensating for headphone (rather than speaker) presentation and 4. Some bass boost (eg. Up to as much as 6dB from flat) might be appropriate, to copy studio house curves, experiment and apply to taste, obviously avoiding any distortion which could be caused by #2.
 
G

 

[watchnerd]

   Are you saying that you think it's better to just EQ to absolute flat vs perceived flat?

 
The Fletcher-Munson curve tells us that "perceived flat" varies with loudness.
 
You can't EQ to perceived flat unless a) you have a super-sophisticated dynamic EQ system that adjusts the EQ on the fly according to volume or b) you only listen in a very narrow volume range to low dynamic music.

 

[Audman71]

   
OK, I'll try and be very specific. You stated that you applied EQ to make a logarithmic sine sweep sound the same loudness throughout the spectrum. In effect, applying an EQ compensation, along the lines of a Fletcher-Munson curve, to achieve a perceived flat frequency response. Maconi effectively stated the same. If this is the case, then you are making a significant mistake! You are failing to consider the fact that the music, film or other audio content to which you are listening has been mixed by human beings. Human beings which, like you, have a frequency response along the lines of the Fletcher-Munson curves. In other words, when the engineer has completed a mix he/she is happy with, this mix already has a built-in compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curve. If you (and Maconi) apply EQ to this mix to compensate for a Fletcher-Munson curve, you are in effect compensating twice!! You will achieve a flat response only when listening to unadulterated sine waves (or sweeps) but when listening to any sort of audio content mixed by a human being, the response you achieve will be out by roughly the Fletcher-Munson EQ compensation you have added!
 
Another point, which I haven't referred to previously, is that consumer headphones (and speakers) generally have a roll-off in low (and often high) frequencies within the audible range. This isn't because the manufacturers have just decided to apply an EQ filter but because that is the mechanical limitations of the components they have designed/used. Trying to compensate with EQ is not going to give accurate results because you are effectively trying to push the headphones/speakers beyond their physical/mechanical limits. If the solution were as simple as a bit of EQ, the manufacturers would have been foolish not to have already done that. It's a bit like putting a 6 litre V12 Ferrari engine in a Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta isn't suddenly going to get Ferrari like performance, if anything it's actually going to perform less well than a stock Fiesta because if you try to actually use more than a few percent of that extra power the Fiesta's other components will just start to crumble (clutch, gearbox, other drive-train components, etc.) and if you don't use that extra power not only haven't you gained anything but you've actually degraded the suspension/handling/braking!
 
G

 
First, As I am doing this mainly for experimental reasons, I have no goal in mind. Therefore, there is no mistake to be made here. Second, I am aware about the process of mixing, That alone does not compensate for the Fletcher-Munson curve that we all have similar variations on. Precisely equalizing the entire signal at once does that. Sure, one can look at mixing as compensation for the FM curve, but speaking from my experience, if you really want to get a percieved flat, use EQ or manufacture specifically engineered headphones to get there.
 
Third, you bring up a good point about EQing headphones pushing them too hard. I know about this too, as I have heard the car engine metaphor before. However, I am deliberately not taking this into account, for two reasons: 1) I have experimented before with this sort of thing and one of the things I did was take a walkman tape player pack-in pair of headphones and equalize them, by ear, using the same tools to sound like my Shure SRH940's. It worked spectacularly, and sounded great too. 2) I am not especially concerned with durability because the headphones I am working with are so cheap. I'm not made of money, and can't afford $1,000+ headphones with almost ludicrously engineered drivers with super-flat EQs.
 

 
In effect, yes. Although, just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, it's a bit of a fallacy that the recording and mastering studios where the mixes have been produced are flat (absolute). 1. Flat is a relative term here, even high quality commercial studios exhibit swings (peaks and troughs) between certain frequencies of 6dB or so, due to room acoustics but are still considered "flat". 2. Even accepting this slightly vague definition of what is considered "flat", most studios do not attempt to achieve it, they commonly apply a "house curve". This house curve usually contains a boost to the low frequencies, to counteract the bass boost of most consumer music systems. 3. When speaking specifically about headphones, jcx makes a very valid and important point.
 
All these variables at play make a very valid argument against EQ'ing headphones and just trusting that within their price point the manufacturer has done a better job than we can. I have heard headphones EQ'ed which I preferred though, so I'm a bit on the fence over this issue. If you do want to EQ your headphones I would personally offer this advice: 1. Don't try to compensate for general hearing deficiencies (eg. Fletcher-Munson curves), 2. Don't try to compensate for mechanical limitations (eg. Freqs below the headphones' natural roll-off). 3. Be sure you're not compromising the manufacturer's level of success in compensating for headphone (rather than speaker) presentation and 4. Some bass boost (eg. Up to as much as 6dB from flat) might be appropriate, to copy studio house curves, experiment and apply to taste, obviously avoiding any distortion which could be caused by #2.
 
G

 
I don't think flat is a relative term with audio. If I said I want my spectrum to sound flat, perceptually or not, I'm not going to be happy if, say, the 4-6khz was raised by about 6 db and the bass\sub bass was lowered by about 8 db. That's not nothing. Besides, if someone really is going for flat, they should do their best to achieve it regardless. I don't think they should settle for too much less if they are going for perfectly flat. I would assume studios likely have the equipment and the budget to accomplish this.
 
That last part is subjective and it depends on what you are going for. For me, EQing headphones, no matter how ridiculous the curve, has never caused any problems with the speakers themselves.

 

[gregorio]

  I am aware about the process of mixing, That alone does not compensate for the Fletcher-Munson curve that we all have similar variations on. ... but speaking from my experience, if you really want to get a percieved flat, use EQ or manufacture specifically engineered headphones to get there.

 
No one I've ever worked with, taught, encountered or heard of "really wants to get a perceived flat" when mixing. Consumers don't buy audio content to perceive it as flat, they buy it to perceive it as good. And that means, pretty much by definition, that we have to compensate for Fletcher-Munson! In some genres, acoustic performance genres like orchestral music for example, we as mixers don't have to do much (or anything) because the manufacture and use of the instruments is already specifically designed to compensate for Fletcher-Munson. Other genres, like rock/pop for example, which are not designed for purely acoustic performance, generally have to be manipulated during mixing to compensate for Fletcher-Munson and therefore sound "good". Look at the gain structure on the mixing desk of any piece of rock; the bass guitar will generally be at least 30dB higher (and often considerably more) than say the high-hats to produce a pleasing balance. High-hats produce much/most of their energy where our hearing, according to the Fletcher-Munson curves, is particularly sensitive, bass guitars produce much of their energy below 200Hz, where our hearing is least sensitive. If we mixed rock music to be flat, rather than accounting for Fletcher-Munson, every rock track would sound like a high-hat concerto, with the bass guitarist performing from their dressing room!
 

  I am not especially concerned with durability because the headphones I am working with are so cheap.

 
I wasn't talking about not pushing headphones up to or beyond their limits because of longevity concerns but because of the likelihood of inducing distortion.
 

  I don't think flat is a relative term with audio. If I said I want my spectrum to sound flat, perceptually or not, I'm not going to be happy if, say, the 4-6khz was raised by about 6 db and the bass\sub bass was lowered by about 8 db. That's not nothing. Besides, if someone really is going for flat, they should do their best to achieve it regardless. I don't think they should settle for too much less if they are going for perfectly flat. I would assume studios likely have the equipment and the budget to accomplish this.

 
Regardless of what you think, I'm afraid "flat" has to be a relative term with professional audio reproduction. Your assumption is incorrect on two levels: 1. Studios do not have the equipment or budget to accomplish "flat". Due to the nature of room acoustics and workflow compromises, achieving "flat" is a practical impossibility, regardless of how much budget one has to throw at the issue. Sure, with 6 or 7 figure budgets we can get relatively close but it's always going to be "relatively" close, not perfectly. 2. Again, you are thinking along the lines of achieving perfectly flat, no professional mixing environments I'm aware of, have this specific goal. Ultimately, the basic principle of all commercial studios is to create a listening/monitoring environment which aids the creation of good audio content and that means a flat response is a consideration but not the overriding consideration.
 
BTW, you mentioned the boosting and attenuation of quite large frequency bands. In room acoustics, that's generally not the case or rather, it's only one of the issues. The more tricky issue preventing a flat response is numerous dramatic swings within narrow frequency bands, caused by room modes and other reflections interacting with the direct signal from the speakers. Studio design/treatment is mostly about dealing (as best as practical) with the worst of those peaks and troughs below about 800Hz. Above that point, it's mostly just generalised broadband treatment, as treating individual peaks/troughs is usually counter-productive. When we talk of "flat" with regard to say converters for example, we are talking about "flat" relative to fractions (often very small fractions) of a dB but in listening/monitoring environments "flat" is going to be many times, possibly even orders of magnitude, higher than that. IE. It's relative!
 

  That last part is subjective and it depends on what you are going for.

 
True but then you have mainly be talking about achieving some notion of absolute or perceived "flat" response. Applying a compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curves is by definition not going to get you anywhere near an absolute flat and, it's not going to get you anywhere near a perceived flat either, because it's already been compensated for! Maybe you subjectively like the sound of what is in effect a double over-compensation, and that's fine for you personally, but let's not kid ourselves it's some sort of attempt to achieve (any notion of) a flat response!
 
G

 

[Audman71]

   
No one I've ever worked with, taught, encountered or heard of "really wants to get a perceived flat" when mixing. Consumers don't buy audio content to perceive it as flat, they buy it to perceive it as good. And that means, pretty much by definition, that we have to compensate for Fletcher-Munson! In some genres, acoustic performance genres like orchestral music for example, we as mixers don't have to do much (or anything) because the manufacture and use of the instruments is already specifically designed to compensate for Fletcher-Munson. Other genres, like rock/pop for example, which are not designed for purely acoustic performance, generally have to be manipulated during mixing to compensate for Fletcher-Munson and therefore sound "good". Look at the gain structure on the mixing desk of any piece of rock; the bass guitar will generally be at least 30dB higher (and often considerably more) than say the high-hats to produce a pleasing balance. High-hats produce much/most of their energy where our hearing, according to the Fletcher-Munson curves, is particularly sensitive, bass guitars produce much of their energy below 200Hz, where our hearing is least sensitive. If we mixed rock music to be flat, rather than accounting for Fletcher-Munson, every rock track would sound like a high-hat concerto, with the bass guitarist performing from their dressing room!
 
 
 

I should have clarified that when I do mixing, I do not go for perceived flat. I go for what sounds good to me on the equipment I have, as I would assume anyone would for them. And what sounds good to me for purposes of mixing has never been a totally perceived flat. It's true, mixing to be totally flat would make it sound like it had a lot of treble and very little bass. I look at the spectrum of a song and it looks more like pink noise rather than white noise across the spectrum. But when I mix something I don't automatically think, "Let's see if I can make it sound like the FM equal loundess curve." I think, "Let's make it sound good."
 
The Fletcher-Munson curve is never totally compensated for during the mixing process because to do that you'd need to equalize it out dynamically with volume.
 
Also, I do believe completely precise compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curve is impossible because it varies at different volume levels and everyone's ears are different. The curve I chose to experiment with is leveled on the graph I used at around 60 dB. When I translated it to my equalizer it stays there with volume changes because there isn't a way I can move the points with volume.
 

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I wasn't talking about not pushing headphones up to or beyond their limits because of longevity concerns but because of the likelihood of inducing distortion.

 
Ah. Well, maybe it's just me, but the only distortion I have noticed specifically out of headphones comes from the software.
 

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Regardless of what you think, I'm afraid "flat" has to be a relative term with professional audio reproduction.

 
I'm splitting hairs here, but flat doesn't mean slight hills or valleys, peaks or troughs, flat mean a flat line. If I drove on a brick road, it's not a flat surface, even though some might call it flat because it is relatively flat. You can be flat or relatively flat, but the word "flat" is not a relative term.
 
 

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
True but then you have mainly be talking about achieving some notion of absolute or perceived "flat" response. Applying a compensation for the Fletcher-Munson curves is by definition not going to get you anywhere near an absolute flat and, it's not going to get you anywhere near a perceived flat either, because it's already been compensated for! Maybe you subjectively like the sound of what is in effect a double over-compensation, and that's fine for you personally, but let's not kid ourselves it's some sort of attempt to achieve (any notion of) a flat response!

This is just an experiment. I'm not trying to get anything out of this. I just want to see what it sounds like and if I actually did anything other than create a really cool-sounding EQ. I think it's great sounding, but a giant U-shaped Eq could sound great to some too. I just wanted to know if anyone found that I did anything other than an elaborate EQ setup. I suspect I didn't, but I want to make sure.
 
EDIT: After taking another look at my setup, it seems you may have a point regarding compensating twice. I'm not saying that's what is actually happening, but I did notice that the curves for each of my ears I did look strikingly similar to an inverted FM curve.

 

[audioholics]

watchnerd, jcx and gregorio are telling you (Audman71 and Maconi) the same thing expressed in different ways. As we already have perception of the sound hitting our ears according to the Fletcher-Munson's curve that has been discovered through measurements and calculations, let me be simple in explanation, as watchnerd, jcx and gregorio are explaining in a bit more technical way than you can understand obviously, no offense here really. Think of this, EQing the EQed. Clear? If we perceive sound according to Fletcher-Munson's curve, what we hear coming from the 'cans' is already 'EQued' in our heads, so if you apply additional instance of EQ according to Fletcher-Munson's curve it will degrade the perception. Our heads are like microphone boxes (yeah funny) with all the components inside and outside to neutralize resonances as much as possible for the perceived sound by the capsule(our ear) to  give as accurate as possible sound through the input line.
 
Offcourse, we are 'engineered' to perceive the sound loudness that has been adjusted according to the environment, so we can enjoy our lives without worrying that some frequency will hurt us one day with its loudness. Higher frequencies have shorter cycle than lower ones, and when you have this in mind, you will see that higher frequencies travel faster than lower ones, that is they hit faster in our ears than lower frequencies, and if they are as big (louder) as the lower ones, our ears will be fried at extended periods of listening. It will hurt so much.
 
So to sum up, you must be very accurate by judging in what range is your hearing and it is the most important thing to know first. If you perceive the sound from your headphones as is, you don't have to worry about those frequencies that peak through the spectrum, instead, only EQ them until you don't feel the hurting when hearing at the same loudness and don't forget to leave the peak so it can be heard. If you hear too much hiss from the headphones, EQ it until it is gently above the rest of the spectrum. Also don't compensate for the roll-offs as this can result in damaging your ears at extended periods of loud hearing, it's a silent killer believe me. All in all, EQing headphones is not recommended, instead, buy good flat response headphones and slightly compensate for the dips and peaks that occur. AKG K77 are budget headphones that will give you nearly flat FR and there are more similar out there to AKG K77s.
 
P.S. Learn a bit more about THD, impedance, frequency responses and how to mix through them, noises and their compensations.

 

[Audman71]

  watchnerd, jcx and gregorio are telling you (Audman71 and Maconi) the same thing expressed in different ways. As we already have perception of the sound hitting our ears according to the Fletcher-Munson's curve that has been discovered through measurements and calculations, let me be simple in explanation, as watchnerd, jcx and gregorio are explaining in a bit more technical way than you can understand obviously, no offense here really. Think of this, EQing the EQed. Clear? If we perceive sound according to Fletcher-Munson's curve, what we hear coming from the 'cans' is already 'EQued' in our heads, so if you apply additional instance of EQ according to Fletcher-Munson's curve it will degrade the perception. Our heads are like microphone boxes (yeah funny) with all the components inside and outside to neutralize resonances as much as possible for the perceived sound by the capsule(our ear) to  give as accurate as possible sound through the input line.
 
Offcourse, we are 'engineered' to perceive the sound loudness that has been adjusted according to the environment, so we can enjoy our lives without worrying that some frequency will hurt us one day with its loudness. Higher frequencies have shorter cycle than lower ones, and when you have this in mind, you will see that higher frequencies travel faster than lower ones, that is they hit faster in our ears than lower frequencies, and if they are as big (louder) as the lower ones, our ears will be fried at extended periods of listening. It will hurt so much.
 
So to sum up, you must be very accurate by judging in what range is your hearing and it is the most important thing to know first. If you perceive the sound from your headphones as is, you don't have to worry about those frequencies that peak through the spectrum, instead, only EQ them until you don't feel the hurting when hearing at the same loudness and don't forget to leave the peak so it can be heard. If you hear too much hiss from the headphones, EQ it until it is gently above the rest of the spectrum. Also don't compensate for the roll-offs as this can result in damaging your ears at extended periods of loud hearing, it's a silent killer believe me. All in all, EQing headphones is not recommended, instead, buy good flat response headphones and slightly compensate for the dips and peaks that occur. AKG K77 are budget headphones that will give you nearly flat FR and there are more similar out there to AKG K77s.
 
P.S. Learn a bit more about THD, impedance, frequency responses and how to mix through them, noises and their compensations.

 
It's been a while since I viewed this thread. I have since changed what I do to try to get the sound to be flat. What I do now is closer to what I believe castleofargh tried to say in his response to my first post, where I trust my ears more than a graph, since graphs can have varying results. I now use a test tone sweep file at or close to the loudest commonly used volume I can tolerate to check for a flat signal. After days of equalizing to adapt to my changing ears (and *maybe* the headphones too, though I have my doubts), The changes I made to the frequencies, as of now, are significantly less dramatic than they were when I was using an inverted graph.
 
Also, whether or not EQing headphones is a bad idea or not doesn't need to be said here. Yes, you can equalize on the fly, say, on your phone, but the way I do it in this situation, It is a bad idea. It's terribly impractical to have to render every song I want to listen to with these equalizer settings applied in a DAW based on my hearing which is constantly changing. Not to mention that every time I make a change to the equalizer I have to re-render every song one by one from the beginning. Of course it's a bad idea to do what I do. It's practicality isn't even the point. The point of this, the reason I am doing this at all is it is very thrilling for me to know that I can make a terrible headphone sound better than almost any other headphone I have heard, excluding every factor that goes into headphones other than simply the flatness of the frequency spectrum.

 

[audioholics]

Yes, it is great that we all have enthusiastic approach to every thrill, but to the point, as you can actually realize from the readings on almost every forum and tutorials on the internet, the directions lead mostly towards the understandings of non-flat Audio FR philosophies than to flat responses. Lately, here on this forum I read something about Harman curve which sounds interesting to me, that a great person such as Bob Katz agrees on the quality of sound he can produce when implementing this curve and I said to myself that in this part here there must be something interesting to analyze for the final results.
Actually as my knowledge permits, non-flat responses tend to be much more interesting than flat ones, because of the simple fact that averages are implemented for wide use and they really offer great results when leaving as they are. My point is, everything that is made for professional use already have the characteristics of the Fletcher-Munson curve implemented, but to the extent of this, the Harman Institute theory is now much of interest to a great population, and also some of the creators of professional headphones even they implemented this theory in their designs already.