New Fresh member in the club, how many hours of burn-in for those ? tubed they sound better so far, someone else that feels the same ?
Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250ohm Impressions Thread
- Thread starter Matrixnobu
- Start date
bobkiksbread
New Head-Fier
Does anyone have experience with Dekoni pads on these headphones? My original pads are getting close to changing time
SilverEars
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Posts
- 14,570
- Likes
- 6,549
I'm impressed with these with the Shure HPAEC1540 pads. It reduces the treble to tolerable degree, and warms up the sound a bit, which it needs. DT770 is a great value of a closed-back! Nice hard hitting fast bass. These sound like closed-back HD600 with bass.
Last edited:
mojorisin35
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 26
I just purchased these and on first listening they are amazing. I am listening through my Little Dot MK 3 through a 1967 Amprex Orange Globe 6DJ8. A tube amp and these seem to be a match made in heaven!
I have done a couple of mods which I can recommend. The first being getting a hold of a 3 ply toilet paper and cutting circles to the size of the foam. I separated a 3 ply piece of toilet paper before inserting them behind the foams.
Secondly I purchased the damper kit from custom cans and installed them in the head phones.
The results of the mods where quite noticeable. The toilet paper mod took just a touch of simbalance from what I was hearing, not so much so that it took away from the Beyer sound. After all if you are not after crystal clear highs what are you doing buying beyers.
The dampening kit mod firmed up the bass response and opened up the mids a bit without messing with the beautiful highs. It also firmed up the sound stage, which I am finding hard to describe. Without the sound stage is large but like being in a plasticky room. With the dampening it took away the palstikyness of the sound while retaining the largeness or the sound stage, if that makes any sense
I made a playlist for myself to test headphones and man i am discovering new things in ever song! Headphone Test Tracks
enjoy
Gary
I have done a couple of mods which I can recommend. The first being getting a hold of a 3 ply toilet paper and cutting circles to the size of the foam. I separated a 3 ply piece of toilet paper before inserting them behind the foams.
Secondly I purchased the damper kit from custom cans and installed them in the head phones.
The results of the mods where quite noticeable. The toilet paper mod took just a touch of simbalance from what I was hearing, not so much so that it took away from the Beyer sound. After all if you are not after crystal clear highs what are you doing buying beyers.
The dampening kit mod firmed up the bass response and opened up the mids a bit without messing with the beautiful highs. It also firmed up the sound stage, which I am finding hard to describe. Without the sound stage is large but like being in a plasticky room. With the dampening it took away the palstikyness of the sound while retaining the largeness or the sound stage, if that makes any sense
I made a playlist for myself to test headphones and man i am discovering new things in ever song! Headphone Test Tracks
enjoy
Gary
Last edited:
Damper kit? Interesting, have any pics of your process? I used Dynomat on mine along with other tuning. Used the kind of stretchy paper towels for front application.
mojorisin35
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 26
It is this one. I just followed the video. although they have upgraded a little since the video was made. there is now a strip to lay in the groove in the back of the cup before you apply the disc to the back of the cup. https://customcans.co.uk/s/s/index.php/acessories/beyerdynamic/dt770-mass-loading-mod.html
Hah yeah, looks kind of like what I did. Dynomatted the entire inside cup area. I also tuned the bass port a bit to even the bass out.
wijnands
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Posts
- 337
- Likes
- 110
I've had mine for about a decade now (And they show it but that's another story). I think old age is getting to me now, that and the fact that I work from home 90% of my time now and have rigged up a nice sony cd player to an old technics amp I had lying around. Thing is.. if I hook up my Fiio X1 mk2 to the amp my music sounds a little more full bodied than when I connect the cans directly to the Fiio. So perhaps I need to admit I would benefit from an amp.
Does this make sense? Am I imagining things? Any experience with an affordable portable amp?
Does this make sense? Am I imagining things? Any experience with an affordable portable amp?
Consider the FiiO A5, I guess, or even better, a NecoSoundlab Portable v4.1 or newer, The Neco has a bigger voltage swing than most other portable amps, ideal for Beyerdynamic headphones.
CustomcansUK puts dynamat in the cup depth where I wouldn't, don't like how it affects the sound, I instead loaded my DT770 (when I had it) in a very similar fashion as my T90: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/beyerdynamic-t90-discussion-and-support-thread.607079/post-15017844
You can see a ring of dynamat in the cup in the photo, sort of camouflages due to it being a piece with more dynamat logo print. I recommend a ring like that in any full-sized Beyer, add dynamat in the cup depth like Customcans Uk if you wish as well.
CustomcansUK puts dynamat in the cup depth where I wouldn't, don't like how it affects the sound, I instead loaded my DT770 (when I had it) in a very similar fashion as my T90: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/beyerdynamic-t90-discussion-and-support-thread.607079/post-15017844
You can see a ring of dynamat in the cup in the photo, sort of camouflages due to it being a piece with more dynamat logo print. I recommend a ring like that in any full-sized Beyer, add dynamat in the cup depth like Customcans Uk if you wish as well.
Last edited:
Finished reading the whole thread. As my sig indicates, I'm using these with a little ~1 ohm solid state amp made by Rolls-Bellari, which has both RCA and XLR inputs.
I have looked at and listened to many closed headphones in the sub-$200 range, including the 80-ohm DT-770, the original wired Beats Solo 2, Senn 280 & 380 Pro, AKG K361, K371 and K553 Pro, AudioTechnica M30x, M40x and M50x, KRK KNS6400, etc. And think these are some of the best-sounding in that price range, after some EQ. I also find the stock velour earpads fairly comfortable for longterm use, after stretching the headband out a little to reduce the clamp a bit.
I'm not interested in doing any physical mods at this point. I did try closing the bass ports though, after reading about them here, to see what effect that might have. And found that the bass is better extended with the ports left open.
The main reason I got these was because my old AKG K553 Pro's finally died after about 5-6 years of extremely heavy use. And I needed something new to replace them. Preferably something that was a bit different than my old HPs (though I also liked the sound on them after some EQ). I also wanted some higher impedance headphones to use with higher impedance pro audio amps, if the need ever arose. And wanted headphones that were comfortable, and had good extension in both the sub-bass and treble, like my old AKG K553's, so I could more easily tune the frequency to my preferred response.
Like some others here, I also found that the 250 and 80 ohm versions have a somewhat different sound. According to Beyerdynamic, the main difference between the two is the thickness of the voice coils. The 32 ohm version has the thickest coil, and the 250 ohm has the thinnest. So the thicker coils are apparently somewhat easier to drive, and louder. Imo, the 250 ohm has more sub-bass than the 80-ohm. And possibly also a little better extension in the high treble, though the difference there is more subtle. There are also some slight differences in the midrange as well imo. Both headphones have a fairly noticeable notch at around 3.5 to 4 kHz (based on looking various plots), which makes the sound a bit dark in that region, and vocals a little unnatural sounding. There is also a depression in the upper bass at around 200-250 which makes the headphone sound a little lacking in some warmth and body in that region.
The natural sound sig of these HPs is bright imo, and also has a wide U-shape, due to the emphasis in both the sub-bass, and in the treble above 5 kHz, and the depression in the upper bass. The brightness in the treble is more noticeable though. I also find that there's a little too much emphasis for my taste in the ~1 kHz range apparently due to the upward slope of the midrange in that area. YMMV though on that.
The uneven response in the bass on the above plot may be partially due to pad flap btw.
For EQ, I'm currently using a basic 10-band graphic EQ software extension in my browser. And I have tried all of the 10-band EQ configurations posted on AutoEQ for this particular model...
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/INDEX.md
...in addition to a number of my own "experimental" settings. Some of the AutoEQ settings sound pretty ok. Generally speaking though, they are a bit too rolled off in the upper treble for my liking. And some also drop the level in the bass quite a bit, making the DT-770 sound more like an open-back headphone, which I don't really like.
Some more raw plots of the 250-ohm DT-770 from Rtings...
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
The main contenders for my dollars from among the other headphones I listened to were the AudioTechnica M50x and AKG K371. I decided to get the M50x as well. And take a wait and see posture on the AKG, due to some issues with the hinges on that model.
It was always my intention to EQ whatever headphone I got. So I wasn't overly concerned about the brightness, lack of warmth or uneveness on any of the above HPs. All that really mattered was that they were close to neutral, and had reasonably decent extension in the sub-bass and treble. And relatively low distortion.
I have looked at and listened to many closed headphones in the sub-$200 range, including the 80-ohm DT-770, the original wired Beats Solo 2, Senn 280 & 380 Pro, AKG K361, K371 and K553 Pro, AudioTechnica M30x, M40x and M50x, KRK KNS6400, etc. And think these are some of the best-sounding in that price range, after some EQ. I also find the stock velour earpads fairly comfortable for longterm use, after stretching the headband out a little to reduce the clamp a bit.
I'm not interested in doing any physical mods at this point. I did try closing the bass ports though, after reading about them here, to see what effect that might have. And found that the bass is better extended with the ports left open.
The main reason I got these was because my old AKG K553 Pro's finally died after about 5-6 years of extremely heavy use. And I needed something new to replace them. Preferably something that was a bit different than my old HPs (though I also liked the sound on them after some EQ). I also wanted some higher impedance headphones to use with higher impedance pro audio amps, if the need ever arose. And wanted headphones that were comfortable, and had good extension in both the sub-bass and treble, like my old AKG K553's, so I could more easily tune the frequency to my preferred response.
Like some others here, I also found that the 250 and 80 ohm versions have a somewhat different sound. According to Beyerdynamic, the main difference between the two is the thickness of the voice coils. The 32 ohm version has the thickest coil, and the 250 ohm has the thinnest. So the thicker coils are apparently somewhat easier to drive, and louder. Imo, the 250 ohm has more sub-bass than the 80-ohm. And possibly also a little better extension in the high treble, though the difference there is more subtle. There are also some slight differences in the midrange as well imo. Both headphones have a fairly noticeable notch at around 3.5 to 4 kHz (based on looking various plots), which makes the sound a bit dark in that region, and vocals a little unnatural sounding. There is also a depression in the upper bass at around 200-250 which makes the headphone sound a little lacking in some warmth and body in that region.
The natural sound sig of these HPs is bright imo, and also has a wide U-shape, due to the emphasis in both the sub-bass, and in the treble above 5 kHz, and the depression in the upper bass. The brightness in the treble is more noticeable though. I also find that there's a little too much emphasis for my taste in the ~1 kHz range apparently due to the upward slope of the midrange in that area. YMMV though on that.
The uneven response in the bass on the above plot may be partially due to pad flap btw.
For EQ, I'm currently using a basic 10-band graphic EQ software extension in my browser. And I have tried all of the 10-band EQ configurations posted on AutoEQ for this particular model...
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/INDEX.md
...in addition to a number of my own "experimental" settings. Some of the AutoEQ settings sound pretty ok. Generally speaking though, they are a bit too rolled off in the upper treble for my liking. And some also drop the level in the bass quite a bit, making the DT-770 sound more like an open-back headphone, which I don't really like.
Some more raw plots of the 250-ohm DT-770 from Rtings...
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
The main contenders for my dollars from among the other headphones I listened to were the AudioTechnica M50x and AKG K371. I decided to get the M50x as well. And take a wait and see posture on the AKG, due to some issues with the hinges on that model.
It was always my intention to EQ whatever headphone I got. So I wasn't overly concerned about the brightness, lack of warmth or uneveness on any of the above HPs. All that really mattered was that they were close to neutral, and had reasonably decent extension in the sub-bass and treble. And relatively low distortion.
Last edited:
Some tips on EQ-ing the DT-770...
Although I don't have any specific settings to recommend at this time, based on my experiments it is my opinion that the sound, dynamism, openness and neutrality of these headphones can be improved substantially with the use of some equalization. And my experiments on this have focused on a couple different areas using the above raw frequency response graphs as a rough guide.
The graphic EQ I'm using has settings for 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k and 16k Hz. So ten settings in all.
The first area of correction is the tilt in the midrange, which begins at the dip in the upper bass at 200 Hz, and ends at around 1-1.5 kHz in the midrange. Using 500 Hz as my baseline or "zero" level... to correct that tilt, I have been raising the level at 250 Hz by a few dBs. And lowering the level at 1 kHz by approximately 1 to 2 dBs.
Another area I've been looking at is the notch at around 3.5 to 4 kHz. And I've been also raising that up by a few dBs.
The Crinacle and Rtings plots don't quite agree on the levels at 2 kHz. On the two Rtings plots (for left and right channels), the level at 2k appears a little too high. While on the Crinacle plot it appears a bit too low. So it's a bit unclear to me whether it needs to go up or down relative to the baseline at 500 Hz. It sounds reasonably ok left near or at the baseline. Some people might prefer a little more or less brightness in that vicinity though. So I might recommend trying both. And probably no more than a dB in either direction.
The increase at 4 kHz will naturally tend to lift some of the area around that as well though. So the area around 2k probably doesn't need to be lifted alot (if it all). And might need to be reduced just a bit depending on which plots you believe. So far, it sounds fairly ok to me somewhere near 0 though fwtw. (Though I may change my mind about that after listening to some more music.)
Another area I've been looking at is the treble. To fix the brightness in that area, I've been bringing the levels down at both 8 kHz and 16 kHz, by at least a few dBs.
The Crinacle and Rtings plots are also not consistent about the levels at 9 kHz btw. Rtings shows a pronounced spike there, while Crinacle shows a dip. Imo though, there is a spike there. If you try to overcompensate for it though, then you will lose some additional detail in the frequencies around that area.
Because the plots are inconsistent in that area, I'm inclined to sort of split the difference between the two. And use the levels in the surrounding areas on the Crinacle plot as sort of a rough guide for how much to lower both the settings for 8 and 16 kHz. So maybe around 4-5 dBs down for both, give or take? That might be too much though for some people, and not enough for others.
The area around 8 kHz might need to come down a little more than 16 kHz. Or it might not. If you believe the Rtings plots, then it probably needs to come down more than the level at 16 kHz. Most of the AutoEQ curves lower the level at 16 kHz more than at 8 kHz though. So that's somethin you might want to consider as well. My hearing in the upper treble is quite poor unfortunately. So all I can really say with certainty is they need to come down.
Some of the AutoEQ settings are based on the above plots though, so I guess you can be the judge of their accuracy in that regard.
That leaves the settings in the bass at 32, 64 and 125 Hz.
The plots are also somewhat inconsistent in these areas. Both sets of plots show a fairly sizable bass bump though. On the Crinacle plot, the level at 32 Hz in the sub-bass is about 8 to 9 dBs above the level at 500 Hz, which is our baseline. The difference on the Rtings plots is more like 5 or 6 dBs, which is close to what the generic Harman target suggests for a bass rise. Rtings actually measures their bass in the ears of their employees btw, as opposed to on their dummy head (which is used only for the treble and midrange).
I tend to like a little more bass. So I might leave the sub-bass where it's at in its current 5-9 dB range. And therefore set 32 Hz to the baseline level of 0. Or possibly even raise it a bit more. If you're not as big a fan of bass though, then you might want to either leave it alone, or possibly lower it a bit.
Both sets of plots show a small depression in the lower bass at around 70-80 Hz. That could be just an anomaly of the pads bouncing at louder volumes in the frequency tests. Or it could not. Since both plots are showing it though, I'm inclined to think that a small correction could be warranted there, using the 64 Hz setting, of maybe a dB or thereabouts. Personal taste, and also the amount wear on the DT-770's earpads will probably be large factors in how much bass you prefer, relative to the mids and treble. So factor that in as well.
That leaves the area of 125 Hz in the mid-bass. On the Rtings plots, that area is only about 1.5 dBs above the baseline at 500 Hz (if even that). Which, if you're a true bass fan, is a bit whimpy. Crinacle however put the level there at closer to 5 dBs, give or take a dB. Which is fairly respectable, and maybe even a bit on the high side. The discrepancy between the two sets of plots is fairly large here, unfortunately. Since I like a little more bass and warmth in my headphones, I'm inclined to split the difference, and raise that area by maybe a dB (or possibly a bit more) as well. YMMV though.
Quick recap...
This is of course for unmodded, and preferably newer headphones. And you should also use an appropriate preamp value which is the inverse of your highest EQ setting to ensure that no clipping occurs, if that option is provided in your EQ. Or transpose all the values by an appropriate amount, so none go above zero.
I have tried to tailor these suggestions so they will take nothing away from the otherwise stellar performance of the 250-ohm DT-770. And only enhance their accuracy and musicality. None of this is engraved in stone though. So if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, conflicts, etc. on any of the above, feel free to share them. And I'll try to respond with whatever other guidance, insights, etc. I can.
Final tip: If you notice too much sibilance between 2 and 4 kHz, or between 4 and 8 kHz due to raising the values at 4 kHz and lowering them at 8 kHz, the only way to really mitigate that is to adjust the values at 4 and/or 8 kHz a bit closer to the baseline level, to reduce the amount of overshoot between the two. EQ-ing is unfortunately never an exact science when it comes to these kinds of things.
Although I don't have any specific settings to recommend at this time, based on my experiments it is my opinion that the sound, dynamism, openness and neutrality of these headphones can be improved substantially with the use of some equalization. And my experiments on this have focused on a couple different areas using the above raw frequency response graphs as a rough guide.
The graphic EQ I'm using has settings for 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k and 16k Hz. So ten settings in all.
The first area of correction is the tilt in the midrange, which begins at the dip in the upper bass at 200 Hz, and ends at around 1-1.5 kHz in the midrange. Using 500 Hz as my baseline or "zero" level... to correct that tilt, I have been raising the level at 250 Hz by a few dBs. And lowering the level at 1 kHz by approximately 1 to 2 dBs.
Another area I've been looking at is the notch at around 3.5 to 4 kHz. And I've been also raising that up by a few dBs.
The Crinacle and Rtings plots don't quite agree on the levels at 2 kHz. On the two Rtings plots (for left and right channels), the level at 2k appears a little too high. While on the Crinacle plot it appears a bit too low. So it's a bit unclear to me whether it needs to go up or down relative to the baseline at 500 Hz. It sounds reasonably ok left near or at the baseline. Some people might prefer a little more or less brightness in that vicinity though. So I might recommend trying both. And probably no more than a dB in either direction.
The increase at 4 kHz will naturally tend to lift some of the area around that as well though. So the area around 2k probably doesn't need to be lifted alot (if it all). And might need to be reduced just a bit depending on which plots you believe. So far, it sounds fairly ok to me somewhere near 0 though fwtw. (Though I may change my mind about that after listening to some more music.)
Another area I've been looking at is the treble. To fix the brightness in that area, I've been bringing the levels down at both 8 kHz and 16 kHz, by at least a few dBs.
The Crinacle and Rtings plots are also not consistent about the levels at 9 kHz btw. Rtings shows a pronounced spike there, while Crinacle shows a dip. Imo though, there is a spike there. If you try to overcompensate for it though, then you will lose some additional detail in the frequencies around that area.
Because the plots are inconsistent in that area, I'm inclined to sort of split the difference between the two. And use the levels in the surrounding areas on the Crinacle plot as sort of a rough guide for how much to lower both the settings for 8 and 16 kHz. So maybe around 4-5 dBs down for both, give or take? That might be too much though for some people, and not enough for others.
The area around 8 kHz might need to come down a little more than 16 kHz. Or it might not. If you believe the Rtings plots, then it probably needs to come down more than the level at 16 kHz. Most of the AutoEQ curves lower the level at 16 kHz more than at 8 kHz though. So that's somethin you might want to consider as well. My hearing in the upper treble is quite poor unfortunately. So all I can really say with certainty is they need to come down.
Some of the AutoEQ settings are based on the above plots though, so I guess you can be the judge of their accuracy in that regard.That leaves the settings in the bass at 32, 64 and 125 Hz.
The plots are also somewhat inconsistent in these areas. Both sets of plots show a fairly sizable bass bump though. On the Crinacle plot, the level at 32 Hz in the sub-bass is about 8 to 9 dBs above the level at 500 Hz, which is our baseline. The difference on the Rtings plots is more like 5 or 6 dBs, which is close to what the generic Harman target suggests for a bass rise. Rtings actually measures their bass in the ears of their employees btw, as opposed to on their dummy head (which is used only for the treble and midrange).
I tend to like a little more bass. So I might leave the sub-bass where it's at in its current 5-9 dB range. And therefore set 32 Hz to the baseline level of 0. Or possibly even raise it a bit more. If you're not as big a fan of bass though, then you might want to either leave it alone, or possibly lower it a bit.
Both sets of plots show a small depression in the lower bass at around 70-80 Hz. That could be just an anomaly of the pads bouncing at louder volumes in the frequency tests. Or it could not. Since both plots are showing it though, I'm inclined to think that a small correction could be warranted there, using the 64 Hz setting, of maybe a dB or thereabouts. Personal taste, and also the amount wear on the DT-770's earpads will probably be large factors in how much bass you prefer, relative to the mids and treble. So factor that in as well.
That leaves the area of 125 Hz in the mid-bass. On the Rtings plots, that area is only about 1.5 dBs above the baseline at 500 Hz (if even that). Which, if you're a true bass fan, is a bit whimpy. Crinacle however put the level there at closer to 5 dBs, give or take a dB. Which is fairly respectable, and maybe even a bit on the high side. The discrepancy between the two sets of plots is fairly large here, unfortunately. Since I like a little more bass and warmth in my headphones, I'm inclined to split the difference, and raise that area by maybe a dB (or possibly a bit more) as well. YMMV though.
Quick recap...
| Graphic EQ Frequency Band: | Suggested Adjustment: |
| 32 Hz | Around the baseline of 0, or maybe up a small amount, depending on your bass preference. |
| 64 Hz | Up maybe a dB or so, depending on your bass preference. |
| 125 HZ | +1 dB, give or take, depending on your bass preference. |
| 250 Hz | Up a few dBs. |
| 500 Hz (baseline) | 0. |
| 1 kHz | Down 1 or 2 dBs |
| 2 kHz | Around the baseline of 0, with probably no more than a dB change up or down. Err on the lower side of that range though to mitigate any overshoot between the 2k and 4k frequency bands. |
| 4 kHz | Up a few dBs. |
| 8 kHz | Down at least a few dBs. |
| 16 kHz | Down at least a few dBs (maybe a little more or less than at 8 kHz, depending on which graphs and sources you trust). |
This is of course for unmodded, and preferably newer headphones. And you should also use an appropriate preamp value which is the inverse of your highest EQ setting to ensure that no clipping occurs, if that option is provided in your EQ. Or transpose all the values by an appropriate amount, so none go above zero.
I have tried to tailor these suggestions so they will take nothing away from the otherwise stellar performance of the 250-ohm DT-770. And only enhance their accuracy and musicality. None of this is engraved in stone though. So if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, conflicts, etc. on any of the above, feel free to share them. And I'll try to respond with whatever other guidance, insights, etc. I can.
Final tip: If you notice too much sibilance between 2 and 4 kHz, or between 4 and 8 kHz due to raising the values at 4 kHz and lowering them at 8 kHz, the only way to really mitigate that is to adjust the values at 4 and/or 8 kHz a bit closer to the baseline level, to reduce the amount of overshoot between the two. EQ-ing is unfortunately never an exact science when it comes to these kinds of things.
Last edited:
Approximate ranges of adjustment I've been using for equalization. I will probably continue to adjust and refine these as I listen to more material. The values in parentheses are at the more extreme ranges of adjustment imo, but still maybe within the realm of possibility for some. Since 500 Hz is my baseline that value just remains at 0.
Remember to also use an appropriate preamp value (maybe somewhere in the -3.0 to -3.5 range?) to ensure that there is no clipping of the 250 Hz and 4 kHz frequency bands. Or to transpose the values so they are all below zero, if your EQ does not have a preamp option.
Harman curve approximations from AutoEQ, with all values transposed to baseline (0) at 500 Hz:
i. Oratory1990 with worn pads (16 kHz = -9.2)
ii. Headphone dot com (16 kHz = -15.8)
iii. Rtings (16 kHz = -10.8)
iv. Crinacle (32 Hz = -7.3, 16 kHz = -8.1)
v. Oratory1990 with new pads (16 kHz = -12.1)
Remember to also use an appropriate preamp value (maybe somewhere in the -3.0 to -3.5 range?) to ensure that there is no clipping of the 250 Hz and 4 kHz frequency bands. Or to transpose the values so they are all below zero, if your EQ does not have a preamp option.
| 32 Hz | 64 Hz | 125 Hz | 250 Hz | 500 Hz | 1 kHz | 2 kHz | 4 kHz | 8 kHz | 16 kHz | |
| +5.0 | (+5.0) | (+5.0) | ||||||||
| +4.5 | i | (+4.5) | (+4.5) i, ii | |||||||
| +4.0 | +4.0 | +4.0 | ||||||||
| +3.5 | +3.5 i, iv, v | +3.5 iv | ||||||||
| +3.0 | (+3.0) ii | (+3.0) | +3.0 ii | +3.0 iii | ||||||
| +2.5 | (+2.5) | (+2.5) | +2.5 iii | +2.5 v | ||||||
| +2.0 | +2.0 | +2.0 | (+2.0) | (+2.0) | ||||||
| +1.5 | (+1.5) | +1.5 | +1.5 | (+1.5) | i | i | (+1.5) | |||
| +1.0 | (+1.0) | +1.0 | +1.0 | ii | (+1.0) ii, iv | |||||
| +0.5 | +0.5 | +0.5 | +0.5 | iii | (+0.5) v | |||||
| 0 | 0 | (0) | (0) i | 0 i, ii, iii, iv, v | (0) | 0 iii | ||||
| -0.5 | -0.5 | (-0.5) iii | (-0.5) | (-0.5) v | -0.5 | |||||
| -1.0 | (-1.0) i, ii | iii | -1.0 | -1.0 | ||||||
| -1.5 | (-1.5) iii | iv | v | -1.5 iv | -1.5 | |||||
| -2.0 | -2.0 | (-2.0) | (-2.0) i | |||||||
| -2.5 | -2.5 | (-2.5) | (-2.5) | (-2.5) | ||||||
| -3.0 | -3.0 | -3.0 | (-3.0) | |||||||
| -3.5 | ii, iv | (-3.5) | -3.5 iii | -3.5 | ||||||
| -4.0 | (-4.0) | -4.0 v | -4.0 | |||||||
| -4.5 | v | -4.5 | -4.5 | |||||||
| -5.0 | (-5.0) | -5.0 | ||||||||
| -5.5 | (-5.5) ii, iv | (-5.5) | ||||||||
| -6.0 | (-6.0) | |||||||||
| -6.5 | v |
Harman curve approximations from AutoEQ, with all values transposed to baseline (0) at 500 Hz:
i. Oratory1990 with worn pads (16 kHz = -9.2)
ii. Headphone dot com (16 kHz = -15.8)
iii. Rtings (16 kHz = -10.8)
iv. Crinacle (32 Hz = -7.3, 16 kHz = -8.1)
v. Oratory1990 with new pads (16 kHz = -12.1)
Last edited:
The proximity of many of the AutoEQ results to my own more subjective results has given me a little more confidence in using some of that data as another potential source for computing an EQ curve.
Below is the same plot as above, but with all of my values removed, and just the AutoEQ settings left. I've also computed some average values to try based on different groupings of the AutoEQ datapoints. Those values are shown in boldface on the graph, followed by the list of datapoints used to compute them in parentheses.
I'm not sayin these are necessarily "correct". But thought it might fun to give them a try. I suspect that most of the AutoEQ curves are overcompensating a bit too much at 125 Hz, for example. And that value should probably be a little higher.
I also tended to like the levels at 1 kHz and 2 kHz set a bit lower in my subjective tests than the typical AutoEQ values. Possibly because alot of the popular music I listen too is on the brighter side, and also heavily compressed in the dynamic range for greater loudness. Which seems to make the sound more shrill to my ears at those particular frequencies.
If you're listening to higher quality music though (esp. acoustic music), that's not as heavily DRC'd, then perhaps some of the higher AutoEQ values for 1k and 2k may sound ok.
Harman curve approximations from AutoEQ, used above...
i. Oratory1990 with worn pads
ii. Headphone dot com (16 kHz = -15.8)
iii. Rtings (16 kHz = -10.8)
iv. Crinacle
v. Oratory1990 with new pads (16 kHz = -12.1)
vi. Reference Audio Analyzer (4 kHz = +6.9, 16 kHz = -13.3)
All AutoEQ datapoints shown above have been transposed to a baseline of 0 at 500 Hz.
Below is the same plot as above, but with all of my values removed, and just the AutoEQ settings left. I've also computed some average values to try based on different groupings of the AutoEQ datapoints. Those values are shown in boldface on the graph, followed by the list of datapoints used to compute them in parentheses.
I'm not sayin these are necessarily "correct". But thought it might fun to give them a try. I suspect that most of the AutoEQ curves are overcompensating a bit too much at 125 Hz, for example. And that value should probably be a little higher.
I also tended to like the levels at 1 kHz and 2 kHz set a bit lower in my subjective tests than the typical AutoEQ values. Possibly because alot of the popular music I listen too is on the brighter side, and also heavily compressed in the dynamic range for greater loudness. Which seems to make the sound more shrill to my ears at those particular frequencies.
If you're listening to higher quality music though (esp. acoustic music), that's not as heavily DRC'd, then perhaps some of the higher AutoEQ values for 1k and 2k may sound ok.
| 32 Hz | 64 Hz | 125 Hz | 250 Hz | 500 Hz | 1 kHz | 2 kHz | 4 kHz | 8 kHz | 16 kHz | |
| +5.0 | vi | |||||||||
| +4.5 | i | i, ii | ||||||||
| +4.0 | ||||||||||
| +3.5 | i, iv, v | iv +3.7 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) +3.4 (i, iii, iv, v) | ||||||||
| +3.0 | ii | ii +3.2 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) | iii +3.1 (iii, iv, v) +2.8 (iii, v) | |||||||
| +2.5 | iii | v +2.4 (v only) | ||||||||
| +2.0 | ||||||||||
| +1.5 | +1.7 (i, ii, iii, vi) +1.3 (i, ii, iii, iv) | i | i | |||||||
| +1.0 | +0.8 (ii, iii, vi) | ii | ii, iv | |||||||
| +0.5 | +0.5 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) | iii, vi | v +0.7 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) +0.4 (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi) | |||||||
| 0 | vi +0.1 (i, ii, iii, iv, v,vi) | i -0.2 (i only) | i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi 0 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) | iii +0.2 (iii, v) 0 (ii, iii, v, vi) | ||||||
| -0.5 | iii | -0.5 (i, iii) | v -0.4 (iii, iv, v) -0.4 (iv, v, vi) | -0.5 (iii, v, vi) -0.7 (iii, vi) | ||||||
| -1.0 | i, ii -0.8 (ii only) -1.0 (i, ii) -1.2 (i, ii, iii) | iii -0.8 (i, iii, v) | -0.8 (iv, v) | |||||||
| -1.5 | iii | iv | v -1.5 (i, ii, iii, v) | iv -1.3 (iv only) | vi -1.4 (vi only) | |||||
| -2.0 | i | |||||||||
| -2.5 | ||||||||||
| -3.0 | -3.2 (i, iii, v) | |||||||||
| -3.5 | ii, iv, vi | iii | ||||||||
| -4.0 | v -3.8 (i, ii, iii, v) -4.1 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) | |||||||||
| -4.5 | v | -4.6 (ii, iii, iv, v) | ||||||||
| -5.0 | -5.0 (ii, iv, v) | |||||||||
| -5.5 | ii, iv | |||||||||
| -6.0 | ||||||||||
| -6.5 | v | |||||||||
| -7.0 | vi | |||||||||
| -7.5 | iv, vi | |||||||||
| -8.0 | iv -8.1 (iv only) | |||||||||
| -8.5 | -8.7 (i, iv) | |||||||||
| -9.0 | i | |||||||||
| -9.5 | -9.4 (i, iii, iv) |
Harman curve approximations from AutoEQ, used above...
i. Oratory1990 with worn pads
ii. Headphone dot com (16 kHz = -15.8)
iii. Rtings (16 kHz = -10.8)
iv. Crinacle
v. Oratory1990 with new pads (16 kHz = -12.1)
vi. Reference Audio Analyzer (4 kHz = +6.9, 16 kHz = -13.3)
All AutoEQ datapoints shown above have been transposed to a baseline of 0 at 500 Hz.
Last edited:
AudioManNewb
100+ Head-Fier
Through up my pair of DT 770 250ohm with angled brainwavz pads and all original accessories only a couple months old. In the for sale section.
Wish I had the $$ for another pair. But alas it is not to be.
I'm continuing to add some different (and hopefully useful) average values at the different frequencies on the AutoEQ table above btw. And have also added more data points from another AutoEQ curve, namely the Reference Audio Analyzer curve. The RAA EQ curve is a bit funkier, and possibly less accurate in some spots than some of the others (which is why I initially omitted it). But it provides a bit more wiggle room to compute some other average values, particularly in the 64 Hz and 2 kHz frequency settings. So it's useful in that way. Its setting for 2 kHz is notably lower than most of the others, for example. Which puts some of the average values in that frequency a little more within my comfort zone.
The wide dispersion in the recommended AutoEQ settings at 64 Hz is interesting btw. That could perhaps be an indicator of the degree to which different HATS systems can vary and diverge in agreement in their measurements in the lower bass frequencies. Or it could perhaps have something do with variations in the units being measured. Like different amounts of wear on the earpads, or the quality of the seals, for example. Or possibly some combination of all the above.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
