[roskodan]

Is anyone using the RME ADI-2 with the LCD2C? If so, are you EQ'ing them? Is there a common agreed EQ for these 2 components that helps correct the LCD2C? Thanks.

Check in the manual (page 22 onward I guess). Parametric EQ, need to manually set the bands. AutoEQ oratory1990 data is the most harman, so try that first. The problem is you only have 5 bands in the RME PEQ. So you are better off using your PC with a PEQ like Equalizer APO + PEACE GUI for Windows or something else for other OS.

If you do use RME PEQ, try this sets of filters for the presence region:

oratory1990:
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2761 Hz Gain -2.9 dB Q 4.10
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3708 Hz Gain 7.0 dB Q 1.65
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4689 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 4.23
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5500 Hz Gain 0.3 dB Q 2.61
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 6128 Hz Gain -4.4 dB Q 3.24

InnerFidelity:
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 757 Hz Gain -2.6 dB Q 0.21
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3913 Hz Gain 7.2 dB Q 1.67
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5913 Hz Gain -5.7 dB Q 4.31
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8753 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 1.49

PEQ is a game changer. Especially when we have the AutoEQ data base ready to use, just find your headphone and load the bands/filters. Enjoy!

 

[phthora]

I don't trust EQ settings like that. Decibels narrowed down to 1/10th of a decibel, Q values to 1/100th, targeted frequencies down to a specific individual hz. Come on. Behind that patina of precision and specificity and implied reference to measurements lies the facts that the result is completely subjective, measurements aren't capable of reliably discerning those fine-tuned differences due to human error, these minute adjustments are smaller than the differences between gear or unit-to-unit variation, and that entirely unnoticed things like your own personal hydration at the moment of listening is going to make much more difference than would rounding a Q of 1.67 down to 1.5. I'm all for EQ, but this is just silly. Just round the numbers for **** sake.

 

[roskodan]

I also do not think the LCD2C needs 'fixing'. When I used them with my ADI-2 I only added some DSPs but not EQ. I do use Reveal plugin though with my Audeze headphones.

DSP=EQ, Reveal plugin=EQ

I don't trust EQ settings like that. Decibels narrowed down to 1/10th of a decibel, Q values to 1/100th, targeted frequencies down to a specific individual hz. Come on. Behind that patina of precision and specificity and implied reference to measurements lies the facts that the result is completely subjective, measurements aren't capable of reliably discerning those fine-tuned differences due to human error, this minute adjustments are smaller than the differences between gear or unit-to-unit variation, and that entirely unnoticed things like your own personal hydration at the moment of listening is going to make much more difference than would rounding a Q of 1.67 down to 1.5. I'm all for EQ, but this is just silly. Just round the numbers for **** sake.

Your thinking, complaint, doesn't make sense. Why would you round up the numbers? Because you are lazy? If you start rounding up every value the summed error over many calculations and filters will be much bigger and rising.

 

[betula]

DSP=EQ, Reveal plugin=EQ




Your thinking, complaint, doesn't make sense. Why would you round up the numbers? Because you are lazy? If you start rounding up every value the summed error over many calculations and filters will be much bigger and rising.

I know, friend. What I meant is after Reveal+ I don't feel it is necessary to adjust certain frequency ranges. I did not touch the 5 band PEQ.

 

[phthora]

DSP=EQ, Reveal plugin=EQ




Your thinking, complaint, doesn't make sense. Why would you round up the numbers? Because you are lazy? If you start rounding up every value the summed error over many calculations and filters will be much bigger and rising.

DSP=EQ, Reveal plugin=EQ




Your thinking, complaint, doesn't make sense. Why would you round up the numbers? Because you are lazy? If you start rounding up every value the summed error over many calculations and filters will be much bigger and rising.

Yes, I am too lazy to narrow down my EQ like that. In the same way that I am too lazy to compensate for variations in blood pressure, hydration, age, hearing fatigue, or mood, or my current altitude, humidity, and temperature, time of day, or changes in time of pad compression, head position, length of hair, position of glass, etc. Many, if not all, of those will make a bigger difference to the sound than 1/100 of a Q or changing the targeted frequency by 1 measly hz. I am simply too lazy to do things that have utterly no point. It's a real failing in my character.

Since I'm here, I will also mention this. If you're sharing this EQ and have taken the time to narrow it down so specifically, that implies that you believe that between units there is less than 1/10 of a decibel of difference at every individual hz in the spectrum. After all, if unit-to-unit variation were larger than that (a consistency between units that no manufacturer would ever claim), it would be pointless to narrow your EQ down that far, since the EQ wouldn't work for the person you're sharing with. Of course, if units do vary AND your EQ still works, then there's no reason to think that rounded numbers wouldn't also work. So which is it? Actually. Strike that. Don't care.

 

[roskodan]

You make no sense at all. Those are computer generated numbers. Never heard of Copy / Paste / Import?

 

[Neweymatt]

I don't trust EQ settings like that. Decibels narrowed down to 1/10th of a decibel, Q values to 1/100th, targeted frequencies down to a specific individual hz. Come on. Behind that patina of precision and specificity and implied reference to measurements lies the facts that the result is completely subjective, measurements aren't capable of reliably discerning those fine-tuned differences due to human error, these minute adjustments are smaller than the differences between gear or unit-to-unit variation, and that entirely unnoticed things like your own personal hydration at the moment of listening is going to make much more difference than would rounding a Q of 1.67 down to 1.5. I'm all for EQ, but this is just silly. Just round the numbers for **** sake.

Wait, what? If someone, or in this case something, has gone to the trouble of producing EQ settings with precision, why not just use them? It takes all of about 30 seconds to copy/paste those settings into your PEQ, what’s the drama. Are you going to notice differences of 1/100th Q? Probably not! Does the length of your hair, width of your glasses frames, viscosity of your earwax also affect how you hear your headphones? Maybe! You are welcome to EQ to whatever works for you.

I really appreciate the efforts folks have gone to to produce things like the AutoEQ project, oratory1990's EQ database etc. Tweaking the sound of gear is what this hobby is all about, right? I don’t have an RME, but if I did, the fact @roskodan has kindly shared filter settings you can use to the benefit of the LCD2C would be very handy.

 

[Tuneslover]

Yes.
Absolutely not.
I have no idea but agreement in audio is rare.

What's wrong with the LCD-2C? I don't believe in EQing anything except in extreme cases.

I don't EQ my LCD2C either but there appears to be some discussion on this thread about the "need" to do so. I guess I was beginning to think that I'm missing something by not EQ'ing. So I was interested in seeing how LCD2C owners are EQ'ing them seeing how the RME DAC has the parametric EQ function.

 

[ics1974]

I personally do not like to EQ. Especially if you spend a large amount of money on a headphone and have to EQ it to sound better. This is a deal breaker to me. The thing to remember is you are NOT EQing your headphones you are EQing the source and changing the frequency response of the source not the headphone.

 

[roskodan]

I don't EQ my LCD2C either but there appears to be some discussion on this thread about the "need" to do so. I guess I was beginning to think that I'm missing something by not EQ'ing. So I was interested in seeing how LCD2C owners are EQ'ing them seeing how the RME DAC has the parametric EQ function.

Just wanted to add that if using the AutoEQ InnerFidelity bands I suggested earlier for the RME onboard PEQ:
InnerFidelity:
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 757 Hz Gain -2.6 dB Q 0.21
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3913 Hz Gain 7.2 dB Q 1.67
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5913 Hz Gain -5.7 dB Q 4.31
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8753 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 1.49

You have room for one more band. I suggest one for the bass boost with low shelf filter option (bands 1, 5, should have the shelf option, as per the manual):
Filter bass: ON shelf Fc 75 Hz Gain 6 ~ 8 dB (Q 1)

Or the oratory1990 bass filter which is more subtle:
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 15 Hz Gain 3.8 dB Q 0.30 (Q 0.5 or higher on RME)

 

[Neweymatt]

I personally do not like to EQ. Especially if you spend a large amount of money on a headphone and have to EQ it to sound better. This is a deal breaker to me. The thing to remember is you are NOT EQing your headphones you are EQing the source and changing the frequency response of the source not the headphone.

Well, I see this exactly the opposite. I've spent $1000s on headphones and IEMs in a pretty short period of time, I figure why not tweak them with EQ to improve (to me anyway) how they sound? Would you not also use different cables/earpads/tips to likewise alter the sound or overall listening experience?

As far as whether EQ is changing the source and not the headphone FR, all I really care about is how the sound waves hit my eardrums in a pleasing manner.

 

[roskodan]

I personally do not like to EQ. Especially if you spend a large amount of money on a headphone and have to EQ it to sound better. This is a deal breaker to me. The thing to remember is you are NOT EQing your headphones you are EQing the source and changing the frequency response of the source not the headphone.

I was in the same boat years ago. There were no popular tutorials and actual quality EQ data. Only GEQ (graphic equalization) which was rather challenging to get right.

PEQ (Parametric equalization) is something else entirely, with the quality data available from sources like AutoEQ, it's easy to set up, use and play with, thanks to the multitude of software available that supports PEQ.

The functions behind PEQ are able to generate complex EQ curves with just a few parameters, and the data from AutoEQ are based on quality measurements. For example oratory1990 measures headphones pre and post PEQ (with Harman response as target, in most cases, LCD2C here).

Also agree with @Neweymatt , more expensive headphones are supposed to be more technically capable, but that doesn't mean their tonality can't be improved to taste. Good new is that more technically capable headphones will take equalization better, with less distortion. The fact that one is able to precisely change the "source" digitally, only adds to the fidelity of the end result, as opposed to physical mods or quirky out of the box tonality.

Of course not every headphone will sound good equalized to Harman. For example to my ears the Clear equalized to Harman (either Innerfidelity or oratory1990 data) sounds sterile and boring. On the other hand the LCD2C are saved by it (although I do boost the bass a little higher than Harman ).

 

[kyotousa]

I don't trust EQ settings like that. Decibels narrowed down to 1/10th of a decibel, Q values to 1/100th, targeted frequencies down to a specific individual hz. Come on. Behind that patina of precision and specificity and implied reference to measurements lies the facts that the result is completely subjective, measurements aren't capable of reliably discerning those fine-tuned differences due to human error, these minute adjustments are smaller than the differences between gear or unit-to-unit variation, and that entirely unnoticed things like your own personal hydration at the moment of listening is going to make much more difference than would rounding a Q of 1.67 down to 1.5. I'm all for EQ, but this is just silly. Just round the numbers for **** sake.

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell if you are being serious or not lmao

 

[kyotousa]

I was in the same boat years ago. There were no popular tutorials and actual quality EQ data. Only GEQ (graphic equalization) which was rather challenging to get right.

PEQ (Parametric equalization) is something else entirely, with the quality data available from sources like AutoEQ, it's easy to set up, use and play with, thanks to the multitude of software available that supports PEQ.

The functions behind PEQ are able to generate complex EQ curves with just a few parameters, and the data from AutoEQ are based on quality measurements. For example oratory1990 measures headphones pre and post PEQ (with Harman response as target, in most cases, LCD2C here).

Also agree with @Neweymatt , more expensive headphones are supposed to be more technically capable, but that doesn't mean their tonality can't be improved to taste. Good new is that more technically capable headphones will take equalization better, with less distortion. The fact that one is able to precisely change the "source" digitally, only adds to the fidelity of the end result, as opposed to physical mods or quirky out of the box tonality.

Of course not every headphone will sound good equalized to Harman. For example to my ears the Clear equalized to Harman (either Innerfidelity or oratory1990 data) sounds sterile and boring. On the other hand the LCD2C are saved by it (although I do boost the bass a little higher than Harman ).

Is Parametric eq adjust based on some set parameter? In mathematical term parametric analysis means there's pre-set distribution.
I'm just wondering if it came from the same concept.

 

[phthora]

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell if you are being serious or not lmao

Lighthearted criticism. I'm sure the EQs posted sound good, or at least just as good as they would rounded off. Personally, I don't see the point in trying to EQ more precisely than what can be measured reliably, but whatevs. People can fret over hundredths of a Q if they want to. I'll be listening to my 2C uncorrected. To hell with 4khz!