[Swisstoni]

Any chance it’s hifiheadphones.co.uk?

No Hifonix in Birmingham

 

[Terco]

Do i care that the cable costs more than the Dap ? No, good for @Terco . People need to put down the pitchforks and stop forcing advice onto others and projecting their previous experiences.
I don't care if people EQ or not, i'm not saying i won't, I'm saying at 4.5k you shouldn't have to. Which is probably the case.

The cable cost $160 and it's 4.4 mm for portable use, super flexible, light and minimal look, my most expensive cable is actually the one Audeze include with the 5s.
I actually love Audeze cables hopefully in the future they can offer some with 4.4mm termination.

 

[KMann]

I believe they have a valid point and have well chosen points, but went a bit too far (IMO)

I agree and it is intentional (to make a point). The article is a light hearted attempt (loosely based on several pages of a white paper I created for our internal use). We do not want the readers to lose interest after the first few lines, if you read the whole article, you just proved the method worked!

 

[04gto]

I feel the need to drop in at the expense of getting booed but the same people that are anti-eq seem to be the same ones chasing the perfect silver plated gold thousand strand whatever cable to clear the lower midrange and boost some other stuff don't know.

I will help cancel out the boos with my and some

I see it completely differently.

The following statement is completely independent of the price range:

I owned a number of TOTL headphones. Basically, I was able to increase the listening pleasure of everyone by using an EQ (Harman was always aimed at).
I call this personalization.
With some headphones, I would even speak of a complete change.
For example Empyrean:
Out of the box, this HP was unusable for me. Adjusted according to Harman, the Meze was a revelation, and I had a lot of fun for many months.

I have been the owner of an Lcd-i4 for some time.
Here the story is repeated 1:1.
The Harman Settings from Crinacle, can be used on the Lcd-i4 without any changes. Adjusted like this, this In-Ear is the best I have ever heard.

It becomes completely absurd for me when the Utopia owner tries to raise the bass of this HP by a desired 2-3db with a $ 1000 Lazuli cable
(and best of all, demonize the DSP).

The FR measurements and EQ settings from Oratory 1990 and Crinacle,
are the best thing that has happened to me in the HP area.

It is your own fault if you do not use this personalization option,
and instead wander around the snake oil department...

On the nose!

 

[adrianm]

No one is saying you have to, but that it offers improvement.

For the sake of argument: Say i start to EQ all my headphones and trust that the software i use doesn't cause a loss of transparency. What target do i EQ to? Whatever some guy on the internet tells me to? Why would i trust him more than the people who make the gear? Also, is that guy using that headphone with my chain? And even so, how exactly would i validate my results (I know the people just assume they are right, but i'm more ocd )
Because newsflash i wasn't in the room of the recording, i have no idea how a lot of the instruments actually sound live, not to mention the room and mastering.
Subjective improvement is my point. If it's objective, why doesn't the manufacturer use that default tuning out of the box? You can add a filter to a photo to make it more to your liking, but you can't add more resolution. And the same filter won't work for all photos. And i honestly don't care that much so as to go through all this. YMMV. First world problems.

 

[Tachyon88]

Fine if you insist.... KMann already did the heavy lifting for me.

Is kmann talking about what you are talking about ? Because he uses EQ.

It is relevant. If I'm paying 1.5k for an LCD-X i might bother putting the work in, at 4.5k i have different expectations. Not to say the LCD-5 won't be enjoyable/worth the price without EQ. The issue is the people's attitude.

To your purchasing decision, but not in the scope of the physical limitations of these devices. What is the difference between a 1.5k and 4.5k transducer?.....its still a transducer with the same limitations, so it reality it doesn't matter if you think price is a factor, because it doesn't change this fact. Price doesn't defy physics.

See point 1 of Kmann's post. To this point : Cross feed function on Chord dacs do boost the bass a bit. So i do use EQ and have no problem with that, because i know it's done in a transparent way and CF adds a lot more depth to the sound. That's done in the Dac though, by people who know what they're doing.

"But if the 'bits' are altered in the right way then it is still OK".....So you have a 12k "hardware EQ" and want a 4.5k headphone that doesn't require it because you think price equates into some magical transducer that shouldn't need it...

Yes tech from the 1970's is about to hit it big in 2030. People are still asking for EQ profiles for gaming for some reason. Meanwhile my 200$ Sennheiser GSX uses DSP to create positional audio that no hi-fi rig can dream of, with a cavernous soundstage. Because it takes sound from 7.1 real channels and processes it through a proprietary binaural engine.
And 7.1 sound is a complete joke compared to Dolby Atmos, in which format you're already seeing recordings. But people are still using their Hi-fi rigs for movies when you can get an Atmos system for 1/10th of the price that puts it to shame for the intended purpose.
The fact that Sony and Apple are all in on positional audio should tell you that the gear we're using now will be as much "the new norm" as cassette players currently are.
I don't have the time or the interest to do it, that's part of what I'm paying a premium for. If you enjoy it and think it's "that easy" to do right, go nuts.

If you don't want to do something then why spend so much time telling us you don't want to do something ? Fine. I get it. You don't have to justify your expensive gear to us.

 

[BassicScience]

For the sake of argument: Say i start to EQ all my headphones and trust that the software i use doesn't cause a loss of transparency. What target do i EQ to? Whatever some guy on the internet tells me to? Why would i trust him more than the people who make the gear? Also, is that guy using that headphone with my chain? And even so, how exactly would i validate my results (I know the people just assume they are right, but i'm more ocd )
Because newsflash i wasn't in the room of the recording, i have no idea how a lot of the instruments actually sound live, not to mention the room and mastering.
Subjective improvement is my point. If it's objective, why doesn't the manufacturer use that default tuning out of the box? You can add a filter to a photo to make it more to your liking, but you can't add more resolution. And the same filter won't work for all photos. And i honestly don't care that much so as to go through all this. YMMV. First world problems.

Tuning a headphone precisely during design is not trivial. It's generally much easier to do so after the fact via EQ. That said, I strongly prefer a headphone I'm not required to EQ to get to sound great. I'm still planning to give the LCD-5 a serious audition at some point, but the stock tuning sounds inferior to the Susvara's based on what I'm reading here. That was also my impression based a cursory audition at CanJam (all usual show disclaimers apply).

 

[Undun]

For the sake of argument: Say i start to EQ all my headphones and trust that the software i use doesn't cause a loss of transparency. What target do i EQ to? Whatever some guy on the internet tells me to? Why would i trust him more than the people who make the gear? Also, is that guy using that headphone with my chain? And even so, how exactly would i validate my results (I know the people just assume they are right, but i'm more ocd )
Because newsflash i wasn't in the room of the recording, i have no idea how a lot of the instruments actually sound live, not to mention the room and mastering.
Subjective improvement is my point. If it's objective, why doesn't the manufacturer use that default tuning out of the box? You can add a filter to a photo to make it more to your liking, but you can't add more resolution. And the same filter won't work for all photos. And i honestly don't care that much so as to go through all this. YMMV. First world problems.

Here's something to consider. EQ is free, so you can download the profile and try it whenever you want. Use "internet guy x's" profile, import it into equalizerAPO or PEQ app of choice and see whether or you like the differences in tonality or not. If you don't, you can easily tweak the values using the initial suggestion as a starting point and listen to it yourself and determine (with your own ears instead of a graph/suggested target) if the changes add something make certain changes to vocal/instrumental tonality that reflects what you have heard IRL (you don't necessarily need to be in-and-out of studios to know how certain instruments sound).
If you don't care to do this, just leave it be and enjoy your music.

 

[phthora]

Here's something to consider. EQ is free, so you can download the profile and try it whenever you want. Use "internet guy x's" profile, import it into equalizerAPO or PEQ app of choice and see whether or you like the differences in tonality or not. If you don't, you can easily tweak the values using the initial suggestion as a starting point and listen to it yourself and determine (with your own ears instead of a graph/suggested target) if the changes add something make certain changes to vocal/instrumental tonality that reflects what you have heard IRL (you don't necessarily need to be in-and-out of studios to know how certain instruments sound).
If you don't care to do this, just leave it be and enjoy your music.

Somebody give this man a ******* medal for common sense!

 

[OneEyedHito]

Tuning a headphone precisely during design is not trivial. It's generally much easier to do so after the fact via EQ. That said, I strongly prefer a headphone I'm not required to EQ to get to sound great. I'm still planning to give the LCD-5 a serious audition at some point, but the stock tuning sounds inferior to the Susvara's based on what I'm reading here. That was also my impression based a cursory audition at CanJam (all usual show disclaimers apply).

I would agree with your reading of the posts here (you have obviously read more than a few of my comments) and the Sus vs 5 stock. I can say that the Susvara stock is the best sounding headphone I have ever heard, truly effortless and smooth with good power. Stock the 5's mids are noticeably forward, EQ'd they smooth out and bring the low end theory to dinner making the 5 with EQ right there with the Susvara on all tracks and on some tracks (ambient/electronic) preferred by my ears 2-1.

 

[KMann]

Tuning a headphone precisely during design is not trivial. It's generally much easier to do so after the fact via EQ. That said, I strongly prefer a headphone I'm not required to EQ to get to sound great. I'm still planning to give the LCD-5 a serious audition at some point, but the stock tuning sounds inferior ...

It is easy to confuse a preference to what is right. Is the preference based on a reference or what one thinks something should sound like?

Brighter signatures always have an allure and impress easily, that has never been our preference. Then there are other factors to consider too, making exceptionally difficult to drive headphones makes them less appealing to a lot more people. It is relatively easy to create a design that is very very open sounding with thinner magnets and more spacing, reduce damping to increase treble energy but compromise on control on lower frequencies (because the force on the diaphragm is not uniform and the driver is under damped), or use excessive material between the diaphragm and the ear to shape the sound and compromise on dynamics or intentionally introduce an air gap to provide the feeling of more bass due to resonance, and the list goes on.

Every manufacturer has their own design ideologies, and they may not suit everyone's preference but the hope is they will appeal to the majority.

 

[adrianm]

If you don't want to do something then why spend so much time telling us you don't want to do something ?

I'm just allergic to people being wrong on the internet, it's a devastating condition that doesn't get enough media attention.

Is kmann talking about what you are talking about ? Because he uses EQ.

I was talking about the correct way to do EQ. Described by him. No EQ is bit perfect and some EQ degrades transparency .

"But if the 'bits' are altered in the right way then it is still OK".....So you have a 12k "hardware EQ" and want a 4.5k headphone that doesn't require it because you think price equates into some magical transducer that shouldn't need it...

A dac is just hardware eq? Even so, if it's validated properly, by a company i trust and am paying to do the job, I'm all for whatever it is, as long as it sounds good I didn't buy the hardware thinking " i'll just make it sound good after".

Somebody give this man a ******* medal for common sense!

Most streamers don't really support eq , except via roon (which i don't care about), and my pc sounds objectively worse than my streamer. So why would i bother? I'll listen to the LCD-5 when i get a chance and decide if i like it...like a normal person.

 

[adrianm]

It is easy to confuse a preference to what is right. Is the preference based on a reference or what one things something should sound like?

Thank you, this was my point.

We have recordings we made using a Grammy award winning engineer, we were in the venue when they were recorded, we were monitoring the recording as it was being performed, we used multiple Mic configurations including but not limited to stereo mic and ambisonic recordings we work with the recording engineer to get close to what we heard at the live recording by EQing reference monitors (this was one way to close the circle of confusion) at least for the limited set of recordings we did. Our philosophy behind tuning and EQing has always remained the same, get close to the tonal balance of well recorded music played via a pair of reference monitors EQd to sound subjectively flat. We also receive feedback from customers in pro audio on how their mixes translate when using our headphones and any EQ they apply.

We generally wait for a significant period to receive feedback from a broad range of customers but we weigh feedback from mixing and mastering engineers more as that tends to align with our design philosophy. We also try not to change the character of the headphones much and make sure the end result is still close to how we wanted the headphone to sound.

I love how everyone just casually ignored this part and went right back to " you're wrong if you don't eq , you can't expect Audeze to get it right out of the box " LOL.

 

[chargedcapacitor]

Guys, stop feeding the trolls Can we get off of EQ now?

 

[Tachyon88]

I'm just allergic to people being wrong on the internet, it's a devastating condition that doesn't get enough media attention.

What was I wrong about and why does it need media attention ?

I was talking about the correct way to do EQ. Described by him. No EQ is bit perfect and some EQ degrades transparency .

So am I, and in the end its a distinction without a difference as when done right its completely transparent.

A dac is just hardware eq? Even so, if it's validated properly, by a company i trust and am paying to do the job, I'm all for whatever it is, as long as it sounds good I didn't buy the hardware thinking " i'll just make it sound good after".

I really don't care about your philosophical mental barriers to audio. We now fully understand that money buys your "faith" and you continue to justify your hardware as to why you are not going to do something.