[ADUHF]

I was reading through some of the usage info on AutoEQ here tonight, to try to get a little better understanding of how some of the data on the site was arrived at...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq#results

And did find this comment which may help to explain why my bass preferences seem a bit higher, and upper midrange preferences a bit lower than some of the AutoEQ results...

All of the results use frequency response targets that were specifically developed for this project except oratory1990 and Crinacle's IEM measurements which use standard Harman targets. The target curves were developed by calibrating measurements against reference measurements by oratory1990 and Crinacle (IEMs) and modifying the Harman 2018 over-ear and 2019 in-ear targets with the calibration data.

None of these targets have bass boost seen in Harman target responses and therefore a +4dB boost was applied for all over-ear headphones, +6dB for in-ear headphones and no boost for earbuds. Harman targets actually ask for about +6dB for over-ears and +9dB for in-ears but since some headphones cannot achieve this with positive gain limited to +6dB, a smaller boost was selected.

Apparently while adapting the Harman targets to the different measurement systems, the approximately 6 dB bass boost in the latest Harman headphone target got lost somewhere. And had to be put back in again. So a new boost was added. But it was only 4 dBs, instead of the approximately 6 dB boost in the generic Harman curve.

Supposedly, the oratory1990 graphs are an exception to the above, because they use the same measuring system as Harman. And therefore should be able to use the Harman headphone target response curve as-is, with no adjustment. If you look at the two plots for the 250-ohm DT-770 based on the oratory1990 data though, it appears they have also used a version of the Harman curve with a lower bass boost closer to 4 dB, like the other "calibrated" targets. Rather than using the more generic Harman target with an approximately 6 dB boost. The target curve for EQ adjustment is represented by the light blue line on these two graphs...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Beyerdynamic DT 770 250 Ohm
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Beyerdynamic DT 770 250 Ohm (worn earpads)

On both plots, the bass boost on the light blue target curves appears to be less than 6 dB. And closer to 4 dB.

This is probably something to bear in mind when using the AutoEQ correction curves, especially if you like a somewhat warmer, and bassier response (like I do). Chances are most of those correction curves will be a little (or in some cases alot) on the lower side in the bass. And conversely, maybe also a little too bright in the upper midrange. And possibly also in the treble.

The net result of this is that I'll probably be relying more on my own interpretations of the raw frequency response data and subjective listening tests to create an EQ correction curve for the DT-770 (and other headphones) than on the AutoEQ settings. Since the latter is somewhat skewed away from the normal levels in the generic Harman headphone response curve.

 

[ADUHF]

Sort of doin a rethink in my approach to correcting these after the somewhat unsuccessful (for me anyways) experiments with the AutoEQ tunings.

For the kind of music I listen to, I'm now thinkin that the levels at 2k and above may need to come down a bit more than in my original EQ table/suggestions. And maybe down a bit less at 1k. Still not sure about this though, because I haven't had the chance to listen to enough music yet. Or to plot the results on an FR graph.

Revised table of possible values...

	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		(+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 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	ii, iv	+1.0
+0.5	+0.5	(+0.5)	+0.5			iii, vi	v	(+0.5)
0	0	(0) vi	0 i		0 i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi	(0)	iii	(0)
-0.5	-0.5	iii	(-0.5)			(-0.5) v	(-0.5)
-1.0	(-1.0) i, ii		(-1.0) iii			-1.0	(-1.0)
-1.5	(-1.5) iii	iv	v			-1.5 iv	-1.5 vi
-2.0						-2.0	-2.0		i
-2.5						(-2.5)	-2.5
-3.0						(-3.0)	-3.0		(-3.0)
-3.5			ii, iv, vi				(-3.5)		(-3.5) iii
-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)	-6.0
-6.5	v								(-6.5)	-6.5
-7.0									vi	-7.0
-7.5	iv, vi									-7.5
-8.0										(-8.0) iv
-8.5										(-8.5)
-9.0										i

AutoEQ curves notated 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.

 

[ADUHF]

My original table and the one above, merged together into a single table of expanded values. Also expanded the ranges slightly at 32, 64 & 125 Hz.

	32 Hz	64 Hz	125 Hz	250 Hz	500 Hz	1 kHz	2 kHz	4 kHz	8 kHz	16 kHz
+5.0				(+5.0) vi				(+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)				+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	+1.0
+0.5	+0.5	+0.5	+0.5			iii, vi	(+0.5) v	(+0.5)
0	0	0 vi	0 i		0 i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi	(0)	0 iii	(0)
-0.5	-0.5	(-0.5) iii	-0.5			(-0.5) v	-0.5
-1.0	-1.0 i, ii	(-1.0)	-1.0 iii			-1.0	-1.0
-1.5	-1.5 iii	iv	(-1.5) v			-1.5 iv	-1.5 vi
-2.0	-2.0		(-2.0)			-2.0	-2.0		(-2.0) i
-2.5	(-2.5)					-2.5	-2.5		(-2.5)	(-2.5)
-3.0	(-3.0)					-3.0	-3.0		-3.0	(-3.0)
-3.5			ii, iv, vi			(-3.5)	(-3.5)		-3.5 iii	-3.5
-4.0						(-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)	-6.0
-6.5	v								(-6.5)	-6.5
-7.0									vi	-7.0
-7.5	iv, vi									-7.5
-8.0										(-8.0) iv
-8.5										(-8.5)
-9.0										i

AutoEQ curves notated 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 data points above are transposed to a baseline of 0 at 500 Hz.

 

[ADUHF]

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets

Oratory1990's own 10-band settings are similar to the ones shown in the above table, with a couple of minor exceptions. When normalized to the 0 dB baseline at 500 Hz, his suggested setting for the 16 kHz high-frequency band is around -5 to -5.5 dB, which is quite a bit higher than most of the AutoEQ settings (and a little more in line with my original suggested range fwtw). And his suggested settings for 8 kHz are also toward the higher end of the ranges shown above at roughly -2 for worn pads, and -3.5 for new pads.

His suggested EQ settings for worn earpads are also somewhat higher than the average AutoEQ settings at 32 and 64 Hz in the bass. My guess is that's because he is using something closer to the generic +6 dB Harman over-ear bass boost on his target response curve. Unlike the +4 dB bass boost used by AutoEQ. When adjusted for the 0 dB 500 Hz baseline, his suggested settings for worn pads are around +1.5 dB at 32 Hz and +3.0 dB at 64 Hz. His suggested values for 32 and 64 Hz with new pads are both around -3.5 Hz, which is somewhere in the middle of the AutoEQ ranges on the 32 Hz band. And on the lower side for the 64 Hz band.

A couple other notes. As far as I can see, the impedance of the DT-770 isn't mentioned anywhere on his graphs (though it's apparently assumed to be 250 ohm by AutoEQ). And the suggested AutoEQ settings for his two frequency response plots are represented by the "i" and "v" symbols on the above table, for used and new pads respectively. AutoEQ suggests a higher value at 64 Hz for the headphones with used pads (i above) than Oratory1990's own settings, in spite of the fact that their target curve is about -2 dBs lower in the bass, which is an interesting anamoly. I suspect that's because AutoEQ is trying to (over?) compensate for the rather larger notch shown on Oratory1990's plot in that frequency range. Which is probably not such a good idea in my view.

 

[ADUHF]

The fairly wide discrepancies in the bass between the different AutoEQ plots is also a bit frustrating. Though that could also be related to the amount of wear on the pads. Or the clamping force (which may loosen a bit with use). Or the seal. Or just inconsistencies between the measurement rigs and/or the people using them.

There is a fair amount of variability in the bass response shown in the different samples on Rtings raw frequency graphs though, which is interesting. And possibly worth noting...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012

I'm not sure if those different curves represent the responses for different individuals in their sampling. Or different positionings of the headphones relative to the ear. So it's a little hard to know how to interpret them. The higher samples on the Rtings raw frequency plots are a bit more in line though with the higher bass levels shown on both Crinacle's raw plot, and Oratory1990's raw plot with new pads...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/crinacle/gras_43ag-7_harman_over-ear_2018/Beyerdynamic DT 770 250 Ohm
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Beyerdynamic DT 770 250 Ohm

I'm not sure I would read a whole lot into that. But it's an interesting aside, if nothing else, which may indicate a little better consistency or agreement between the three sets of measurements than may at first be apparent from looking just at the raw AutoEQ data. For the sake of completeness, here is also AutoEQ's plot of the Rtings curve for comparison to the above...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/rtings/rtings_harman_over-ear_2018/Beyerdynamic DT 770 250 Ohm

It's a bit hard to see, but the raw frequency responses on the AutoEQ plots are represented by the black and gray lines on all three graphs above.

If the bass response can indeed be as high as +9 dBs on some DT-770 headphones (as some of the above plots appear to indicate), then I'm tempted to expand the ranges of adjustment a bit lower in that area on the table posted above, to better reflect that. Mainly in the 32, 64 and 125 Hz frequency bands. For a true basshead though, +9 dB is probably not so out of line.

The good extension in the sub-bass on the 250 ohm DT-770 is also one of this headphone's strong points, imho, for those who wish to hear frequencies that low.

 

[ADUHF]

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Using this table to post some of my EQ preferences for different YouTube clips, which will be listed after the graph. These initial tests will not be very accurate, because I'm only making adjustments in about 1.5 dB increments, to get a general feel for where things sound approximately right to me.

The current average levels are also shown for each frequency. That may well change as more tracks are added.

	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		004				i, ii
+4.0
+3.5				i, iv, v AVG.				iv
+3.0		ii 004		ii 001, 002, 003				iii 001, 002, 003, 004 AVG.
+2.5				iii				v
+2.0		AVG.
+1.5		001, 002, 003	004			i	i
+1.0						ii	ii, iv
+0.5			AVG.			iii, vi	v
0	001, 004	vi	i 001, 002, 003		i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi 001, 002, 003, 004 AVG.		iii
-0.5	AVG.	iii				v
-1.0	i, ii AVG.		iii
-1.5	iii 002,003	iv	v			iv 001, 003	vi
-2.0						AVG.			i
-2.5						AVG.
-3.0						002, 004	001, 003, 004		001, 004
-3.5			ii, iv, vi				AVG		iii AVG.
-4.0									v AVG.
-4.5		v					002		002, 003	001
-5.0
-5.5									ii, iv
-6.0										003, 004 AVG.
-6.5	v
-7.0									vi
-7.5	iv, vi									002
-8.0										iv
-8.5
-9.0										i

001. CHARLEY PRIDE - I Don't Think She's in Love Anymore (0, +1.5, 0, +3, 0, -1.5, -3, +3, -3, -4.5)
002. LOONA - Star (-1.5, +1.5, 0, +3, 0, -3, -4.5, +3, -4.5, -7.5)
003. DANIELLE BRADBERY - Never Have I Ever (-1.5, +1.5, 0, +3, 0, -1.5, -3, +3, -4.5, -6)
004. APRIL - Oh! My Mistake (0, +3, +1.5, +4.5, 0, -3, -3, +3, -3, -6)

 

[Mad Max]

DT770-250 never reaches +9dB bass, there is certainly very noticeable variability between samples of 770 (and all Beyers in general), but not to such extremes, in my experience.

 

[cobrabucket]

I jusy got a 250Ohm DT770. Paired it with a BottleHead Crack + Speedball upgrade and it sounds INCREDIBLE!

 

[yeboyi]

Did anyone compared these to LCD 2C Closed Back ? FR seem similar, 2C CB little less bright though.

 

[pail]

What are the enhancements compared to a DT 990 PRO ?

 

[Oscarilbo]

How is distortion at high volume of the DT 770 - 250 ohm - compared to the new DT 700 pro X ???? (using an amp, of course)

 

[ADUHF]

What are the enhancements compared to a DT 990 PRO ?

Old post. But the DT-990 Pro is open-back. So it doesn't extend as deep into the sub-bass frequencies as the closed-back DT-770.

The DT-990 is also warmer in the upper bass. Perhaps to make up for the lack of sub-bass extension. The DT-770 has more of a dip in this range, at around 210 Hz, give or take.

Both are bright in the treble. And both can probably benefit from some EQ to improve their overall tonal balance.

 

[ADUHF]

How is distortion at high volume of the DT 770 - 250 ohm - compared to the new DT 700 pro X ???? (using an amp, of course)

Don't know. I generally listen at moderate volumes. And haven't listened to the DT 700 Pro X for any comparisons.

I haven't seen recent distortion measurements on the two as well. Though I'm sure there are some floating around out their.

The high impedance and low sensitivity of the 250-ohm DT-770 is pretty good at keeping both source-based noise and distortion to a minimum though. Which can make a noticeable difference in sound quality versus some lower impedance/high sensitivity headphones. Whether you will like the difference is somewhat subjective though.

 

[dakanao]

So I did some mods to these. My pair was pretty neutral on arrival with a distant midrange mild treble peak, certainly no boosted bass but rather linear until the upperbass dip.

First I removed the plastic felt ring and the plastic tab on the driver magnet. Both are there just to restrict airflow, this will just limit the bass emphasis, dynamics, worsens separation, make the sound edgier/more restrained/compressed.

After that I widened the bass port by poking the damping sticker on the inside of the cup. Then I put a 3 ply layered piece of toilet in the earcups to absorb the high freq resonances. Last thing was a 1 ply layer of toilet paper in front of the driver, with the stock felt on top.

All in all this did gave me a bass boost, better separation, less edge, better dynamics, but the treble peak and distant midrange still wasn't fixed.

In the end I settled with some cheap yet soft, thin random pleather pads I had laying around.

This transformed the headphones. Treble texture and peak has become noticably smoother, mids more forward and bass stayed at the same level.

They sound similar to my modded DT-250 this way, which is expected as now they have the same damping and pads, just different enclosures and slightly different drivers, but same material.

The driver is actually rather smooth sounding, it's just that Beyers choice of pads and damping materials makes them sound harsh. That foam is too thick and dense to work with this driver, they need a thin and soft earpad to work well.