[Joe Bloggs]

So I've run into a bit of a situation with the review thread I just started a few days ago. I started doing quick A/B comparisons between different IEMs EQed to flat response and resonances ironed out, and am able to hear differences I thought didn't exist before. I find myself at a loss for words to describe and assign value (ie better or worse) to the differences I hear. It's like entering a fine wine tasting session for the first time and being asked to be a reviewer. What I can be certain of though is that all the phones sound unigormly awful without EQ save for etys. Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to.review phones without EQ...

 

[manveru]

EQ is impure. It's the work of the devil!

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to.review phones without EQ...

More variables make for a less objective review. If you're reviewing X, you should try to listen to X with everything else as flat as possible. If you introduce anything else in the chain, it become an "X + EQ" review. Then you have to use the same EQ settings for every single review, and your opinions still won't correlate with X's actual sound. If I pull down -12dB everything from 200Hz up, I can make my B2's sound "warm and with a smooth bass", but that's not their actual sound. I'm all up for EQ, but I don't think it makes much sense in a review.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

More variables make for a less objective review. If you're reviewing X, you should try to listen to X with everything else as flat as possible. If you introduce anything else in the chain, it become an "X + EQ" review. Then you have to use the same EQ settings for every single review, and your opinions still won't correlate with X's actual sound. If I pull down -12dB everything from 200Hz up, I can make my B2's sound "warm and with a smooth bass", but that's not their actual sound. I'm all up for EQ, but I don't think it makes much sense in a review.

I EQ all phones to the same reference frequency response using different EQs tailored to each phone. Haven't you heard?

 

[firev1]

Yesterday I talked to someone who did not believe in EQ, saying that "high end does not need eq, headphones as well", he went on to talk about his experiences in high end speaker exhibition while talking about how aiming for a studio response was totally different from the audiophile aim and saying, "I never listened to test tones". While I do see where he is coming from, trying and doing it properly never hurts anyone right? 
 
Disclaimer: He is a awesome guy, but sometimes beliefs get in the way of things.

 

[xnor]

He seems to be confusing high-end with puristic approaches.

 

[bigshot]

Joe, I've found that as you get closer to flat, little things seem to make a bigger difference. I suspect it has something to do with masking frequencies. When you've tamed the overall, one little spike that may be too small to deal with might cause masking.

At least that's my guess. I find that EQ often requires a lot of back and forth fine tuning and repeated sweeps to get perfect. I'll let you know when I achieve perfection myself!

 

[ultrabike]

There are different types of equalizers with different properties, and several different approaches to equalization. One may think of a tone approach as a type of gain adaptive equalizer. There are powerful adaptive approaches (a huge family of them in fact) that rely on scramblers/m-sequence/pseudo-random generators (not just tones.) Some are convolution (typical wireline.) Some are circular convolution (typical wireless.) Which one is best depends on the application. In some cases, gain adaptive equalizers are the preferred approach.
 
One thing we avoid in any communication system (and perhaps headphones) is harmonic distortion (all components in the chain), noise (from the amp), severe quantization (from the dac), and frequency nulls (mainly headphones I guess.) Those issues are difficult to equalize.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

One thing we avoid in any communication system (and perhaps headphones) is harmonic distortion (all components in the chain), noise (from the amp), severe quantization (from the dac), and frequency nulls (mainly headphones I guess.) Those issues are difficult to equalize.

 

 

[ultrabike]

LOL!!!, yeah man just that one thing... details, details 

 

[firev1]

I think the reason why no one does EQ during a review is to account for the fact that very few people do it. I personally don't do it for portable use in that case I would prefer to mod to my preferred response. However for home use, dialing an EQ is the way to go for sure. One thing I love about EQ is how it makes response to HRTF dsps so much more convincing. 
 
PS: Anyone has thoughts on resonators? I heard them(ASI sugar cubes) reduce the noise/ringing in the LCD3 quite noticeably, is it really the case? or am I affected by McGurk?. 1 of the things I suspect is that reflection/diffusion of sound from the rosewood cubes on top of the driver cup might actually be helping the LCD3 rather than the cubes actually resonating at all.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Hey guys what's the best way to tell if a headphone is flat? 

 

[xnor]

Careful listening, experience, comparisons and measurements.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Careful listening, experience, comparisons and measurements.

Thanks. I think I should have been more specific. Is a frequency sweep a good way to tell if an iem has bass roll off? Or are there better methods short of performing full on measurements? I'm looking to test out flatness using just my computer and my ears (and the iems of course).

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Is a frequency sweep a good way to tell if an iem has bass roll off?

Only if you factor in equal loudness curves and perhaps distortion.
 
Quote:

Or are there better methods short of performing full on measurements? I'm looking to test out flatness using just my computer and my ears (and the iems of course).

Other than what I posted before? I don't think so.