You didn't understand my post because you didn't understand the Sonarworks article. Sonarworks measured M50x, and I assume they got something similar to RAA raw graph, because it's the same model. Then they compensated that raw in accordance with their ideal (to see how far it is from it - that's the blue lines), which I'm arguing looks something similar to Harman in raw form. Then they calibrated (equalized) the headphones and measured again - and that's the purple lines - close to their flat, compensated ideal. If the measurements of the equalized headphones were posted raw, not compensated (which is made look flat, because flat is the ideal in audio people's lingo and because it's generally an easy to understand form), it would look close to the Harman target curve (because of the reasons I laid out in the preceding post).Hey! Sorry, I didn't understand your post very well but I wanted to point out that the Sonarworks Calibrated L&R graphs of the M50x are in PURPLE. Those lines are 'almost' flat with minimal small peaks and cuts of not more than 0.5dB throughout the spectrum. I think that's the best you can get towards a Flat Frequency Response (FFR) with a counter EQ curve in reality, like Sonarworks did. Most people can't even perceive a 0.5 dB boost in an isolated frequency (a simple test is to take a parametric eq to a song, select a frequency and raise the Q factor so that it focuses on that frequency only and raise the gain by just 0.5dB. See if you hear that particular frequency more).
The 2 BLUE lines indicate the Uncalibrated (Original) frequency response of the M50x's Left and Right channels. They have peaking boosts, some even of 6db, which are neither considered nor perceived flat and you can certainly hear them in a headphone.
What I simply want to convey is that a song has a dynamic frequency response(let's call it DFR). Consider an IEM's frequency response an EQ. When a song plays through an IEM, it plays through that EQ. The lesser the boosts and cuts, the lesser impact the IEM has on the original DFR of the song. More the boosts and cuts in the freq. response of an IEM, more the IEM EQ is added to that song.
Now when brands tune an IEM for V-shape, if you boost some bass for enjoyment, you will have to boost some highs as well in order to compensate for the boosted bass, to have instruments dependent on treble cut through. You will then tend to cut some mids as well because that is where the mud region of the frequency spectrum lies. This leads to a V-Shaped sound signature in an IEM. Sure it's fun and widely loved. A lot of times, this trick is used in Mastering of a song, if the mix received was boring. Now in theory, imagine a V shaped mastered song playing through an even more V shaped IEM.
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents about FFR in reality in layman's language. This no way proves every IEM ever advertised as flat, to be any good. You gotcha try and see for yourself. I also want to mention again that I really enjoy some V-shaped IEMs myself and am thinking of picking up a Hifi Boy OS v3 or Anew U1 now.
Anyway, I don't want to populate this thread more on this topic. We can always discuss more of this in a PM. Cheers!
But, yeah, I suppose if the IEC standard, according to which the raws are made, was changed to be the same as Sonarworks' compensated, that would make a flat measurement the same as the most used sound signature. Or if all the people doing mastering in the world agreed to turn up those frequencies that are different between IEC raw and a compensated graph and then the gear that looks flat according to current IEC would sound right. While the compensated flat wouldn't anymore.
Yeah, this really is nowhere in a billion mile radius close to the name of this topic. I like off-topic almost as much as graphs.
Last edited:
