[goodvibes]

I personally think quality transcends response curvves well beyond what EQ can fix. If ut's grnuinely good and close enough tonally, I'm generally happy. Beyond that point, EQ won't get me there. Works better for items with lower expectations.

I also find EQ circuits rob a smidge of goodness when everyhing else is top notch.

That said, I'm not against things like tweaking impedance to tailor, like adding a couple ohms to passively drop the bass of an Andromeda if that's preferred.

 

[Francisk]

I believe that the sole purpose of EQ is for frequency compensation and correction so if the IEM is tuned well then there shouldn't be any need to use EQ except for those who wants to tune it to their own sound signature preference. On the other hand, why purchase an IEM that's not tuned to your taste? Look for one that's tuned to your liking and there's no need to EQ. That's the reason why there's so many IEMs that's tuned differently because everyone have their own individual taste in sound. I have nothing against EQ, in fact I love it for mixing audio tracks but having to use EQ on all the IEMs that I use on 10 different sources that I plug it into can be a real pain.

 

[aleksanderp]

311 IEM measured, still haven't found what I am looking for though -> EQ

 

[Francisk]

311 IEM measured, still haven't found what I am looking for though -> EQ

Keep looking aleksanderp...aren't all of us on HeadFi the same...including me...lol
Btw, I'm very interested in your measurement of 311 IEMs, kindly share the link to your measurement site.

 

[aleksanderp]

Keep looking aleksanderp...aren't all of us on HeadFi the same...including me...lol
Btw, I'm very interested in your measurement of 311 IEMs, kindly share the link to your measurement site.

No I am talking about Crin's measurement, I only have dozens or unworthy iems.

Unwanted peaks at 6k, 10k etc are hard to get rid of even in high end iems...

 

[Francisk]

No I am talking about Crin's measurement, I only have dozens or unworthy iems.

Unwanted peaks at 6k, 10k etc are hard to get rid of even in high end iems...

No I am talking about Crin's measurement, I only have dozens or unworthy iems.

Unwanted peaks at 6k, 10k etc are hard to get rid of even in high end iems...

I totally agree with you on the high frequency peaks of many IEMs. For universal IEMs, I prefer using foam tips to smooth out those peaks rather than using EQ...you'd be surprised how tip rolling can affect the sound quality of IEMs. For custom IEMs, you don't have any choice except to resort to EQ for correction. That's partly the reason why I avoid CIEMs other than resale value.

 

[crinacle]

I personally think quality transcends response curvves well beyond what EQ can fix. If ut's grnuinely good and close enough tonally, I'm generally happy. Beyond that point, EQ won't get me there. Works better for items with lower expectations.

I also find EQ circuits rob a smidge of goodness when everyhing else is top notch.

That said, I'm not against things like tweaking impedance to tailor, like adding a couple ohms to passively drop the bass of an Andromeda if that's preferred.

To be fair, you can get the same changes on EQ by replicating the impedance curve. When done properly, it shouldn't add any unwanted distortion (measured and tested on my rig).

I believe that the sole purpose of EQ is for frequency compensation and correction so if the IEM is tuned well then there shouldn't be any need to use EQ except for those who wants to tune it to their own sound signature preference. On the other hand, why purchase an IEM that's not tuned to your taste? Look for one that's tuned to your liking and there's no need to EQ. That's the reason why there's so many IEMs that's tuned differently because everyone have their own individual taste in sound. I have nothing against EQ, in fact I love it for mixing audio tracks but having to use EQ on all the IEMs that I use on 10 different sources that I plug it into can be a real pain.

No IEM is perfect. I still EQ my W900 to my preferred target curve. Other than that, I'm still chasing the dragon that is "my perfect IEM". (Fourte is about 90% there but... 10% is quite the gap)

No I am talking about Crin's measurement, I only have dozens or unworthy iems.

Unwanted peaks at 6k, 10k etc are hard to get rid of even in high end iems...

Unique Melody Legacy. That is, purely on FR.

 

[tieuly1]

Does anyone have any recommendation EQ for Andromeda. Likewise newbie, I find sometimes my EQ make the IEM distortion

 

[crinacle]

Does anyone have any recommendation EQ for Andromeda. Likewise newbie, I find sometimes my EQ make the IEM distortion

Set the pre-amp/pre-gain to the maximum boost on your EQ program. If your maximum boost is +5dB, make sure your pre-amp is -5dB.

 

[goodvibes]

To be fair, you can get the same changes on EQ by replicating the impedance curve. When done properly, it shouldn't add any unwanted distortion (measured and tested on my rig).



No IEM is perfect. I still EQ my W900 to my preferred target curve. Other than that, I'm still chasing the dragon that is "my perfect IEM". (Fourte is about 90% there but... 10% is quite the gap)



Unique Melody Legacy. That is, purely on FR.

I don't disagree and why I said adding resistance is viable for me as are other passive mechanical tweaks. This isn't the forum for it so call this IMO but with good source material and kit, I generally hear a minor loss of goodness when engaging an EQ circuit... even when it measures as something that shouldn't be audible or significant enough to matter. When I get a dap, I turn off everything like gapless, timers etc and see what effect engaging them has. I haven't heard the latest ibasso but I suspect this is why they offer dual boot to Mango or Android. In some better pro programs, varying buffer size is enough to affect the sound beyond bit loss or lag. Like I said, other's opinion will vary and that's great but if you ever heard a change after a fw update that uses the same codecs...

I'll not continue this as it can become pages of off topic. Just stating my take. I did use EQ after back venting some PL50s with a Fuse/Clip and Rockbox back in the day. By ear, I knocked down a narrow band, I think, at 2.4K by a couple/few db and lifted very deep bass and around 16k a touch. This was before anyone measured them. Back venting and tips did the rest. I did prefer that combo EQ'd and it was amazingly good for cheap thrills. The venting eventually caused the PL50s to fail. it allowed more driver flex and broke the lever supporting the diaphragm of the siren driver. Cheap and cheerful was awesome. I never felt the need to eq the se530s I had at the time. I would still prefer them to the warmer 535s. Everyone should experiment for themselves and do whatever rings their bell.

 

[castleofargh]

well it's about frequency response. I look at IEM measurements to get an idea about how I'm likely to enjoy them, but I'm also thinking stuff like "oh that spike at 6khz is really narrow and going to be hard to EQ without making a mess, probably not worth getting this IEM". to me FR and EQ go hand in hand. I actually measure the response with EQ applied in the loop to check that I'm getting what I want from the IEM, and that I'm not creating a distortion golem (also sometimes I alter the phase response, but I can't say that I really notice a difference). so at least to me, we're dead on topic ^_^.

turning ON the EQ will at best tell something about that one EQ, but it could also be very revealing for the wrong reasons:
- subjective failure. when turning the EQ ON lowers the volume level as a small precaution against clipping, people notice something changed but attribute it to the first thing they "feel". usually it's soundstage, clarity, or bass quality. it's the same joke as people changing the gain setting and making up subjective changes when half the time it really only changed the gain. everybody hates the loudness war but do they love falling for the "louder is better" trap.
- the EQ on the DAP can be utter crap. for the last 4 years I've made µSD libraries with the music converted to lossy+ EQ (plus usually some sort of crossfeed)applied in foobar while converting. PITA, extra work, and the need for one µSD per IEM I use, simply because of how some DAPs have crappy or way too limited EQ functions. I mean on my Sony DAP I can't lower the sub!!! one step on the slider is about 3dB at once when I notice 0.5dB easily in the midrange. and of course I can't relocate the frequency or change Q. it's a toy EQ for babies like the old "rock", "jazz", "classic" options. the DAP is at fault. not EQ.

my EQ on the computer is great(fanboy talking), it's probably the best stuff I have, digital or analog on my playback system. when I fail to get a good result, I only have the organic mass between the IEMs to blame. ^_^

 

[goodvibes]

I'm not hearing gain but yes, I'm sure it happens and that 6k spike is a good point. EQ doesn't eliminate resonances. Not the same thing but similar to room correction that alters the1st arrival to less linear to make a linear average energy response. If correction is required, getting a perfectly flat room response may not be the best compromise especially when you consider different volume levels then when tested. These are not cure alls but band aids that are sometimes useful or needed.

I don't want anyone to misread what I'm saying. I find the info of the OP quite good and useful but that said, I read somewhere that Skullcandy smokin buds 2 were good and had a very similar response to Beyer Xelento. I wasn't expecting much but found a pair for about $10 so bought them for giggles. I got what I expected. No black, hazy, loose sound, even after doing a subtle James444 front vent mod to drop the bass to a reasonable but still high level. They're fine or even good for what they cost but not something I could personally listen to music with. While response is important, there's lots more to goodness.

By the same token, when I see reviewers that always prefer 'reference' tuning, or deduct for extra bass, all love something like the Andromeda. I suspect there is something beyond frequency response exciting them and likely myself. I also felt my now gone JH13fp had a bit too much low bass and could have had a touch more air but preferred them sans EQ. They were close enough and good at playing music.

 

[Francisk]

well it's about frequency response. I look at IEM measurements to get an idea about how I'm likely to enjoy them, but I'm also thinking stuff like "oh that spike at 6khz is really narrow and going to be hard to EQ without making a mess, probably not worth getting this IEM". to me FR and EQ go hand in hand. I actually measure the response with EQ applied in the loop to check that I'm getting what I want from the IEM, and that I'm not creating a distortion golem (also sometimes I alter the phase response, but I can't say that I really notice a difference). so at least to me, we're dead on topic ^_^.

turning ON the EQ will at best tell something about that one EQ, but it could also be very revealing for the wrong reasons:
- subjective failure. when turning the EQ ON lowers the volume level as a small precaution against clipping, people notice something changed but attribute it to the first thing they "feel". usually it's soundstage, clarity, or bass quality. it's the same joke as people changing the gain setting and making up subjective changes when half the time it really only changed the gain. everybody hates the loudness war but do they love falling for the "louder is better" trap.
- the EQ on the DAP can be utter crap. for the last 4 years I've made µSD libraries with the music converted to lossy+ EQ (plus usually some sort of crossfeed)applied in foobar while converting. PITA, extra work, and the need for one µSD per IEM I use, simply because of how some DAPs have crappy or way too limited EQ functions. I mean on my Sony DAP I can't lower the sub!!! one step on the slider is about 3dB at once when I notice 0.5dB easily in the midrange. and of course I can't relocate the frequency or change Q. it's a toy EQ for babies like the old "rock", "jazz", "classic" options. the DAP is at fault. not EQ.

my EQ on the computer is great(fanboy talking), it's probably the best stuff I have, digital or analog on my playback system. when I fail to get a good result, I only have the organic mass between the IEMs to blame. ^_^

Totally agree with you on the crappy EQ on most if not all DAPs. To do proper EQ correction, be prepared to use a good parametric EQ with bandwidth Q if you want to accurately notch out the frequency spike. It's almost impossible to do that with the built-in graphic EQ on DAPs that's why I didn't bother to.

 

[goodvibes]

Rockbox actually offers Q with adjustable frequency center in their EQ circuit. My issue with rockbox is that it's limited to redbook standard. Not a problem for most. The bump I removed from the PL50 was with a narrowed Q. Here's a graph that shows what I heard. It gave the earphone a slightly glassy nature I couldn't adjust to so EQ was a must here but we're not talking about a TOTL type product here. The vent added bass below 300hz but was very critical for diameter. I'm a proponent of Harmon curve considerations though not sure it's the final word on the subject.

 

[crinacle]

Went to A2A once again and finally managed to get a curve for the Westone W80. Woo!

Westone W80

And some remeasures of previously dubious curves:

Campfire Vega

Spoiler: Etymotic HF5

Default
20ohm resistor
75ohm resistor

A&K T8iE MK2
Shure SE535

And a cheapo yet strangely great sounding IEM from Woolies:

Philips SHE3595

Notes and impressions:
The W80 was not impressive to me. Tonality is a little off, upper midrange is a little too subdued, bass is still slightly one-dimensional, treble is still typically "Westone" and lacks proper definition. To be fair, I absolutely loathe the Westone house sound so I may not be the best person to ask. But still, even the technicalities of the W80 were not apparent to me, at least with the little time I had with it.