[vvanrij]

Tbh the last posts of this thread don't hold any value at all, imo

 

[Lad27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tbh the last posts of this thread don't hold any value at all, imo

Hah! So is it yours or mine?

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EYEdROP /img/forum/go_quote.gif But your not getting the fact that all systems are colored differently in their unique ways. Thats why flat is the industry standard because its not in favor of one coloration or one type of stereo. The music producer knows there are so many different sound systems out there that people will be listening to the recording on. The only way to be faithful to all of them at once is to use the flat EQ as a reference point.

Bravo lll

 

[EYEdROP]

Thank you sir.

 

[esuko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EYEdROP /img/forum/go_quote.gif But your not getting the fact that all systems are colored differently in their unique ways. Thats why flat is the industry standard because its not in favor of one coloration or one type of stereo. The music producer knows there are so many different sound systems out there that people will be listening to the recording on. The only way to be faithful to all of them at once is to use the flat EQ as a reference point.

Even we had flat response does not mean that it would sound the same. Distortion response effects greatly how people understand the sound for example HD650 has very low distortion over 300Hz and under it steep rise, creating an unique sound signature. Resonance created in high frequencies by the driver distance, earcup dimension and listeners personal ear canal dimension will be different from person to person.

If everybody would be listening the same headphone with same physiological portioned ears everything would be ok. Until then people wil change their equiptment, mod, eq.....to the point they feel that this is the sound I want.

 

[zithro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bravo lll

I do not agree . Since every HP manufacturer makes their HP like they want them to sound does not mean it is right for you allthough you do like the most of the housesound . So you are only doing the same thing as the recordcompany / hifi man. / HP man. etc etc ... you tweak the sound like you want it . Why does a sound which sounds better to your ears then the standard flat not be corrected by EQ it ??? If you do like your HP but like a bit more bass , tune the EQ a bit and you get it / you can also tweak cables or some other thing , as long as it sounds good for your ears it is OK .

 

[mark_h]

Some headphone manufacturers tweak the frequency response to best emulate the way sound in our environment enters the human ear and is registered at the eardrum. The peaks and dips are often their attempt to compensate for the delivery method of, say, an in ear IEM, that removes from the process, the outer sections of the ear i.e. The Pinna etc. It is an attempt to compensate for the physical effect this geometry of the ear has on the waveform and thus present a corrected version (that compensates for the excluded geometry) to the tympanic membrane/eardrum. The 'house sound' I imagine comes form different methods of trying to do this and its success or faliure to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[ecruz]

I use this digital EQ for my 2-channel system and could never go back to listening without it.
Tact digital amplifiers and preamplifiers

When I bypass the room correction, everything sounds fuzzy and lacks any punch. I'm sold!

 

[zithro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some headphone manufacturers tweak the frequency response to best emulate the way sound in our environment enters the human ear and is registered at the eardrum. The peaks and dips are often their attempt to compensate for the delivery method of, say, an in ear IEM, that removes from the process, the outer sections of the ear i.e. The Pinna etc. It is an attempt to compensate for the physical effect this geometry of the ear has on the waveform and thus present a corrected version (that compensates for the excluded geometry) to the tympanic membrane/eardrum. The 'house sound' I imagine comes form different methods of trying to do this and its success or faliure to a greater or lesser degree.

Does that mean that you 100% should like the sound without EQ ??? Not every earshape is the same , so small variations in sound entering the brain are there . The point to me is , so many people are against EQ because of the audiophile standpoint but it actually makes no sense ... not to me it doesn't . Nothing is 100% what you exectly want . If you buy a HP which you like for let's say 90 or 95% or even 99% why not try to make it closer to 100% by putting the EQ in . Probably you lose maybe a littlebit here or there but if it is closer to what you want , then there is no reason not to do it ... whatever all the so called "audiophiles" say . Everybody agrees that Grado and Sennheiser both make great HP , but some like Grado more and others like Sennheiser more . Is 1 better then the other ??? Is the Sennheiser non EQ better then the EQ Sennheiser ??? It is all dependent on what you like your HP sounds . If it is ok to you , hey nothing wrong with that ... if you like to EQ them well that is fine also . A HD650 with EQ will still be a lot better then a HD555 with or without EQ .

 

[esuko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some headphone manufacturers tweak the frequency response to best emulate the way sound in our environment enters the human ear and is registered at the eardrum. The peaks and dips are often their attempt to compensate for the delivery method of, say, an in ear IEM, that removes from the process, the outer sections of the ear i.e. The Pinna etc. It is an attempt to compensate for the physical effect this geometry of the ear has on the waveform and thus present a corrected version (that compensates for the excluded geometry) to the tympanic membrane/eardrum. The 'house sound' I imagine comes form different methods of trying to do this and its success or faliure to a greater or lesser degree.

Great writing, those huge peaks can also be the effect of the driver's resonance. Like in the case of Stax Lambdas.

 

[EYEdROP]

Im not for or against using EQ. It has its applications and benefits. But with flat, you really cant go wrong. If I want more bass, I turn up the volume, not the bass. Another reason I use flat is because it makes the recordings sound proper. Sometimes adding even a little EQ can mess up the proper amount of punch the track was supposed to have relative to the other frequencies going on. With other tracks, it will bring out the punch much better, which wasnt even recorded like that in the first place. Is one EQ better than the other? No. As someone said, everyone has the right to EQ because of different ear shapes and tastes. Thats fine. I just know that with flat, things to me sound more realistic, balanced detail (which dosent mean more necessarily), and less fatiguing to my ears. Im currently reading the proper EQ thread, so Im open to ideas for sure, but until then Im skeptical about using EQ. I dont even use an amp or mods or anything (Ok, my MS-1 pads are modded).

 

[fjrabon]

dang, took a couple of days off of head-fi and this thread is still raging. Probably too much work to go back through it all and figure out what is going on now.

If nothing else, it helped spawn piccolonamek's (sp?) excellent proper headphone EQing thread.

 

[MaZa]

Nothing against EQ, but to my ears it always screws up something in the sound. For example, if I want more bass I enhance the bass frequences, but using EQ it always seem to make those sounds "stand out" completely separated from rest of the music, and im not talking about volume difference. It sounds wierd, I know. But if I use equipment with different sound signatures the music still sounds integrated despite their obvious coloration.

This is probaply because only experience I have with EQs are with Winamp and Foobar equalizers, or I just plainly dont know how to use it properly and enhance the right frequencies to support those I want to enhance? I have never heard a proper hardware EQ either.

 

[darklegion]

I'll have to agree that this should be moved to the Sound Science forum ; it would be nice to get more input from there.

I agree that I've also never been able to get EQ to sound quite right ; it always seems to result in more harm than good.I've only used software equalizers and one old cheap hardware eq, though.I'm getting some AD700s soon, and considered all the discussion of weak bass response, I may have to get reaquainted with EQs again.

 

[rodentdog]

I have used hardware eq for more than 30 years. Flat is not better, it is just flat, a starting point. I bought the music, I can decide how I want it to sound, bottomline. Using eq is not rocket surgery, Ha!. Mastering engineers who brickwall recordings, is that how music is "supposed" to sound? Many monitors used in recording studios were/are anything but neutral (JBL, Yamaha). I also use a dynamic range expander on old recordings. The RIAA curve is not sound flattering, unless you like your dynamic range squished down to 60db. But that's a story for another thread.