[omniweltall]

No can is flat out of the box. If you can afford a Susvara, fine. BTW, those Koss and Beyers are not for anyone as is.

The Loki is a piece of shiit, pardon my French. Try a digital parametric 10 band. It doesn't suffer obviously audible phase issues like an analog. A digital can also take adjacent settings say +5.5 at 1980 Hz and -6,5 at 2800 Hz and not have audible side effects. No analog I ever used can do that.

I have 4 cans that I listen too, I hate about 6, and sold off about 12 since '15. I desire about 5 I cannot afford. All 4 cana I use can be listened to w/o EQ, all sound better with EQ. Not to use EQ given those conditions is willfully ridiculous IMO - esp with a $5 one time fee.

@bagwell359 why the Loki is a piece of Schiit? Because it tuning capacity is limited compared to digital EQ?

 

[roskodan]

Idk about that Schiit, but, the convoler plugin for foobar2000, with AutoEQ oratory1990 .wav FIR, is blowing my mind... science is blowing my mind guys.

VS PEQ it seems to have that "analog" level of refinement.

 

[bagwell359]

Wow, you people are really dedicated to EQ'ing. Enjoy yourselves.

After trying two analog EQ's in '77 and '78 I swore off - because they was audible and the freqs were not adjustable. Then 42 years later I got into TIDAL MQA/UAPP, and then tried Toneboosters EQ. I did discover while the measuring capability of cans is improving - but the recommended settings (using user popularity - specially under 100 Hz are ludicrous).

I built dedicated sound rooms first for myself, then for others (paid) and unless you try very hard and spend some real money no speaker is going to work near its max capability in a given room. Headphones are quite the same. HFM IMO spend a lot of effort on the drivers but the rest of the package is below average. Did the designer specify crap outside of his design. No, they lived with what corporate/finance dictated. The other day a guy argued that cans are just as the designer planned. Please. Then of course unit-to-unit variability Music played, differences in human hearing.

But jeez that's complicated, let's just pretend they built this can just for me, my system, my tastes, my hearing, my associated equipment.

I am most invested so far with cans in listening, evaluating, modifying of my HFM HE-500. I recommend on this site quite a few times, in order:

1. stock silver plate cable? get/build an OFC cable. Upgrade to XLR if amp works better with it.

2. stock pads are meh, leather angled better, Dan Clark Ether Angled lambskin best - $80

3. replace rear screens with more open mesh, or no screen,

4. install fuzzor mod = most important mod, but as removing takes patience, list it here.

5. on amps that don't control bass and yet deliver impact there are few issues in the bass. Otherwise the "Q" can be too high/sloppy. Most notable with bass guitar with other bass instruments playing at same time. Dynamat on the outer ring of the backside does it.

6. EQ - digital parametric 10 band. This is FR domain only. It cannot give the expansive wide headspace from the pads, it cannot cut the early reflections and cancellation that the fuzzor does. EQ cannot cut the stuffy closed in sound with the stock mesh. Bass can be one note and sloppy without Dynamat - no cure from EQ.

So, after one improves the environment the drivers work in, then the EQ. Complete make over? Not needed. Compared to other cans I have EQ'd - they do not sound the same. Cuts fatigue. allows one to listen into the music easier and better.

 

[bagwell359]

@bagwell359 why the Loki is a piece of Schiit? Because it tuning capacity is limited compared to digital EQ?

Yes, and analog is going to be more audible than digital. I love Schiit. I have two of their highest end pieces, I'd like to have 3 others, but, the Loki isn't a full solution. At best its a tease.

 

[ThanatosVI]

Yes, and analog is going to be more audible than digital. I love Schiit. I have two of their highest end pieces, I'd like to have 3 others, but, the Loki isn't a full solution. At best its a tease.

The Loki is a simple but great implemented solution.
Very clean EQ without losing clarity or resolution as with cheap/bad Software EQ.(i.e. Android System EQ)

 

[bagwell359]

Wow, you people are really dedicated to EQ'ing. Enjoy yourselves.

Dedicated? I use what works to get me more audio value than I spent. It's a calling that's lasted almost 50 years. They didn't always work, but most sure did/do.

The Loki is a simple but great implemented solution.
Very clean EQ without losing clarity or resolution as with cheap/bad Software EQ.(i.e. Android System EQ)

I take it you own one. I can get decent coverage on my cans with 6 parametric presets, 10 is better so I can employ one or two as notch filters.

I have one can that could make use of settings at 20, 2000. 8000 but 400 is useless, and there are 5 more frequencies that the Loki does nothing with. Also its connections are SE which is useless to those using XLR. I've been using XLR for over 20 years, not planning on going backwards for a unit that doesn't meet even minimal standards. My technology doesn't need another cable either.

I had analog SOTA EQ's in the lase 70's and they were quite audible in effect (a-musical that is). Cannot get my method to be a-musical with any settings I use normally or test. Of course a Loki can't be tested with adjacent settings to see if they would be audible since they are set: ~5, 3+, 2 octaves from each other not including the ~1 1.4 above 8 kHz. Never heard the LOKI - with its four fixed frequencies - not interested in toys. If it really works for you, great.

 

[Slaphead]

if you prefer the german piercing, then maybe lcd 2f is the saint grial.

You'd have been right about German piercing a few years ago - the DT770 and DT990 were terrible with regards to piercing treble - I couldn't listen to them at all. But the new generation using "Tesla" drivers have really come a long way from that. The DT1770 and DT1990 are way more balanced. I doubt the "Tesla" driver per se has much to do with the tonal changes, but rather that Beyer has moved their tuning away from the overly bright treble as a whole.

 

[ThanatosVI]

Dedicated? I use what works to get me more audio value than I spent. It's a calling that's lasted almost 50 years. They didn't always work, but most sure did/do.

I take it you own one. I can get decent coverage on my cans with 6 parametric presets, 10 is better so I can employ one or two as notch filters.

I have one can that could make use of settings at 20, 2000. 8000 but 400 is useless, and there are 5 more frequencies that the Loki does nothing with. Also its connections are SE which is useless to those using XLR. I've been using XLR for over 20 years, not planning on going backwards for a unit that doesn't meet even minimal standards. My technology doesn't need another cable either.

I had analog SOTA EQ's in the lase 70's and they were quite audible in effect (a-musical that is). Cannot get my method to be a-musical with any settings I use normally or test. Of course a Loki can't be tested with adjacent settings to see if they would be audible since they are set: ~5, 3+, 2 octaves from each other not including the ~1 1.4 above 8 kHz. Never heard the LOKI - with its four fixed frequencies - not interested in toys. If it really works for you, great.

Yes I do own one but currently don't use it in my setup anymore.
It might not fit your use case but it certainly is no bad unit for what it's supppsed to do.

 

[Lolito]

You'd have been right about German piercing a few years ago - the DT770 and DT990 were terrible with regards to piercing treble - I couldn't listen to them at all. But the new generation using "Tesla" drivers have really come a long way from that. The DT1770 and DT1990 are way more balanced. I doubt the "Tesla" driver per se has much to do with the tonal changes, but rather that Beyer has moved their tuning away from the overly bright treble as a whole.

I don't know either, there are also reported a lot of unit variances, plenty, at least on the 770 pro 80 ohm, just ask metal571. but i bought one of those 770 pro 80ohm, and the mids are scooped and the treble a bit sibilant. much flatter and pleasurable and bassy the hd25 I also own... specially the scooped mids was in my pair what made them not acceptable. all the music is in the mids, the body of the music, the glue, is the mids. V shape is great for low level listening, but this was putting any guitar or piano in a third background.. horrible really horrible. A shame cause i had a crush on the design of these headphones... I might give a try to 1770 if i find them at a good price, but many people say those are even worse, more sharp, more in your face, less depth, less image, too much separation... a shame really.

 

[Slaphead]

I don't know either, there are also reported a lot of unit variances, plenty, at least on the 770 pro 80 ohm, just ask metal571. but i bought one of those 770 pro 80ohm, and the mids are scooped and the treble a bit sibilant. much flatter and pleasurable and bassy the hd25 I also own... specially the scooped mids was in my pair what made them not acceptable. all the music is in the mids, the body of the music, the glue, is the mids. V shape is great for low level listening, but this was putting any guitar or piano in a third background.. horrible really horrible. A shame cause i had a crush on the design of these headphones... I might give a try to 1770 if i find them at a good price, but many people say those are even worse, more sharp, more in your face, less depth, less image, too much separation... a shame really.

Honestly having experienced the 770 880 and 990 I would have to disagree with "these people". The new range is way better balanced (although the 880 was never problematic for me). The only people who I can imagine that find the 1770 and the 1990 worse than the previous generation are the ones who loved the 770 and 990 tendencies towards excruciating brightness.

As for trying the DT1770 then sure, but demo them if possible and not buy them on a whim. Personally I'd highly recommend them, as far as closed backs go, but I sense that our headphone tonality preferences differ, which is not a bad thing at all. However that makes it impossible for me to make an absolute recommendation to you for the 1770. All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoy them - take from that what you will.

 

[Lolito]

Honestly having experienced the 770 880 and 990 I would have to disagree with "these people". The new range is way better balanced (although the 880 was never problematic for me). The only people who I can imagine that find the 1770 and the 1990 worse than the previous generation are the ones who loved the 770 and 990 tendencies towards excruciating brightness.

As for trying the DT1770 then sure, but demo them if possible and not buy them on a whim. Personally I'd highly recommend them, as far as closed backs go, but I sense that our headphone tonality preferences differ, which is not a bad thing at all. However that makes it impossible for me to make an absolute recommendation to you for the 1770. All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoy them - take from that what you will.

Yes, but do not mix personal preferences with freq response. The first one is personal, the second it is not. The 770 80ohm i got had very scooped mids, and I have better 100€ headphones, so I returned them. If you like headphones with scooped mids, good for you, I do not like them, if I wanted to remove a part of the music and put it behind I can do it myself with the eq, but I do not want that. If it's unit variation, I really do not know, but it had sibilant treble and scooped mids, and I have red the same from several sources, and the unit disparity is also well documented. So price wise, if hd6xx costs 200€ and soudn great and 770 costs 100€ and sound so bad, I find the 770 extremely expensive at 100€ with such a sound really, hd6xx is double the price and it is so much cheaper than the 770 at 100€.

Beyer I do not need to test before buying, it is very complicated, it is much easier to buy and return if I dont like it, big shops here prefer that too.

 

[Slaphead]

Yes, but do not mix personal preferences with freq response. The first one is personal, the second it is not. The 770 80ohm i got had very scooped mids, and I have better 100€ headphones, so I returned them. If you like headphones with scooped mids, good for you, I do not like them, if I wanted to remove a part of the music and put it behind I can do it myself with the eq, but I do not want that. If it's unit variation, I really do not know, but it had sibilant treble and scooped mids, and I have red the same from several sources, and the unit disparity is also well documented. So price wise, if hd6xx costs 200€ and soudn great and 770 costs 100€ and sound so bad, I find the 770 extremely expensive at 100€ with such a sound really, hd6xx is double the price and it is so much cheaper than the 770 at 100€.

Beyer I do not need to test before buying, it is very complicated, it is much easier to buy and return if I dont like it, big shops here prefer that too.

I think you've misunderstood my post - I very much dislike the 770 and the 990 for the exact reasons you've stated, and I would in no way recommend them. Then newer 1770 and 1990 I would recommend, at least for a demo, as the frequency response is much more balanced.

 

[HTSkywalker]

Honestly having experienced the 770 880 and 990 I would have to disagree with "these people". The new range is way better balanced (although the 880 was never problematic for me). The only people who I can imagine that find the 1770 and the 1990 worse than the previous generation are the ones who loved the 770 and 990 tendencies towards excruciating brightness.

As for trying the DT1770 then sure, but demo them if possible and not buy them on a whim. Personally I'd highly recommend them, as far as closed backs go, but I sense that our headphone tonality preferences differ, which is not a bad thing at all. However that makes it impossible for me to make an absolute recommendation to you for the 1770. All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoy them - take from that what you will.

Seems you have good experience with the Beyer cans, which one would you recommend the 880 or 990 both 600 Ohms for my Darkvoice amp

 

[HTSkywalker]

I think you've misunderstood my post - I very much dislike the 770 and the 990 for the exact reasons you've stated, and I would in no way recommend them. Then newer 1770 and 1990 I would recommend, at least for a demo, as the frequency response is much more balanced.

Seems the 880 is better than both the 770 and 990

 

[Slaphead]

Seems the 880 is better than both the 770 and 990

Yeah, it's by far to most balanced of the 3 and is actually a really good headphone for it's vintage. There are those that say the 600Ω is superior, however I've never heard them - I use the 880 Pro 250Ω. As for your Darkvoice amp then I can't comment as to it's synergy with the 880 as I don't have a Darkvoice

Do, however stay away from the 770 and 990 as the treble there could be weaponized if the Geneva convention didn't forbid it - unless you happen to like tinnitus.