Disappointed in the "audiophile" community...

[Silverprout]

  Or... well, they just have a lot of senior (read: old and experienced) engineers.
 

Yes,
 
Listen (or read) carefully the video after 7:50... they know what music is... 

 
 

 

[vid]

 
The first link is not for audiophiles. Like I said, it's an electrical discussion, which means it's mostly for engineers.
 
And your article is not about EQ. It's a study on using HRTF (head-related transfer function) to produce localization cues for listeners. Or in other words, it's basically testing people's responses to HRTF techniques.
 
HRTF can be mistakenly regarded as EQ, but it's more complicated than that. It also takes into account the spatial information of the impulse, whereas EQ only takes into account the frequency.
 
To be more precise, I'd think of HRTF more as a DSP (digital signal processing) technique rather than an EQ (equalization) technique. Hence why you will not be able to find a single word related to "equalization" in there.
 
Also of note is that the article did not discuss "distortion" at all, but rather, it repeatedly mentioned "errors" made by the listeners. "Errors" are purely subjective in this case, and should not be taken as "distortions", which is a completely different issue.
 
I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on making it look like "audiophiles" are somewhat fixed to some sort of "belief", whereas you yourself are fixed in a belief regarding EQ. Have you re-evaluated your beliefs with actual facts and understanding of what EQ entails both in the digital domain (or at least mathematically) or in the electrical domain at the very least?
 
There are many audiophiles who are engineers and physicists as well, and they do not advocate equalization. Have you wondered why?

 
I think there might be some fundamental misunderstanding of what HRTF is, and all I can say without being too impolite is that we disagree in our interpretations of the study...
 
I guess it's easier anyway to internalize simple statements like "EQ adds distortion" than to wade through the scientific literature to find confirmation. In this way the development of one's audiophilia (or the 'audio journey') reminds me of the theory in psychology of positive disintegration.

 

[Bill-P]

   
I think there might be some fundamental misunderstanding of what HRTF is, and all I can say without being too impolite is that we disagree in our interpretations of the study...
 
I guess it's easier anyway to internalize simple statements like "EQ adds distortion" than to wade through the scientific literature to find confirmation. In this way the development of one's audiophilia (or the 'audio journey') reminds me of the theory in psychology of positive disintegration.

When the actual definition of HRTF and also the interpretation of its being is not "equalization", I think you really need to re-evaluate your view of it. I am merely restating what Wikipedia and many other sources view HRTF as.
 
And it's not easier to internalize the simple statement. It's just hard to prove to you why because no one has actually bothered to do a study on this. But it's really not because it's uncharted territory (EQ has been around for a long time), but it's just... really basic.
 
I hope that's not coming off as snobbish... because all I can tell you is this... that you can go around and ask any electrical or computer engineer about EQ, either in the digital or analog domain, and I think you will basically get the same answers that I'm trying to convey here.
 
This does not really have much to do with "audiophilia", as it is more an engineering question.
 
On that note, I would admit audio engineers tend to resort to EQ to fix a bad recording, yes, but that's only to "mask" the faults and limitations of the equipments that they used, not as a means to bring out better sound quality from an already bad recording.
 
So... similarly, you can use EQ to mask the flaws of your equipments, yes... but that does not mean they will suddenly and magically turn into something much better.

 

[HMSIV]

Indeed recreating (time or space-shifting) an existing soundfield seems to me toatlly different from using equipment to modify an existing work. 
Audio recording capabilities have well evolved, considering DSD 128x for instance in relation to 16-bit PCM of the late seventies, with very few people able to differentiate even 96KHz/24bit DVD-Audio from 1-bit SACD, assuming transparent output stage. 
Meanwhile microphone techniques evolved to better dummy heads as far as frontal image, like Head Acoustics Aachen Head in 1984, probably trying to bank on Hugo Zuccarelli's success, hence affording the capability to recognize your name spelled by someone agitating a matchbox. 
As far as output transducers, the Jecklin Float and Lambda Pro got us very close to reality in the early eighties. 
Whereas the whole effort was to preserve the original performance, with the work delivered on-stage (or in studio, etc...), even with classical compositions like Stockhausen's Gruppen featuring an electric guitar, yet no DJ / equalizer or other coloration artifacts reminiscent of going to visit the Louvre with pink glasses.
 
From that point, everyone started reinventing the wheel with audio compression, e.g. mp3 and the like, 24-tracks recordings, 5.1 channels as if Calrec/Ambisonics had "grown" us additional ears...
It's a different field alltogether, and I have heard remixes of David Guetta's When Love Takes Over, or Röyksopp Only This Moment or Vision One, but these are more spectral-only compositions than space-bound environments such as a Béla Bartók piano concerto or Renaud Gagneux' Requiem. 
 
As I found that the Zuccarelli 3D speakers would have little chance to be released because of patent protection, Head-Fi is to me more in focus than ever. 
Also there is a renaissance of better quality online sources like Tidal (FLAC 1411) and DSD online availability  http://www.saidera.co.jp/seigenono/ono.html  and other various sources http://www.realhd-audio.com/?cat=13 or DXD. 
Optimistic I am.

 

[vid]

When the actual definition of HRTF and also the interpretation of its being is not "equalization", I think you really need to re-evaluate your view of it. I am merely restating what Wikipedia and many other sources view HRTF as.

 
Yeah, I'm fairly sure you misunderstood the study I linked you to. It happens - a re-reading is usually helpful in general.
 
As far as support for your argument goes, there was a guy on the first page of the first thread you linked me to who refuted it. Doesn't exactly paint the picture of common knowledge that you say it does.

 

[elvergun]

I personally see most bassheads here as being on an audio journey, that will end with no eq one day. I hope so, looking at the Mona Lisa with blue tinted specs or eating Chateaubriand smothered with ketchup may be fun for a while, but unsatisfying in the end.
 

 
 
Haha...this is so true.
 
 
My journey started out that way - I was a basshead looking for bass above all else.  Now I'm happy with a flat headphone...but when the moon is full, I still turn into a basshead, so I keep a couple of basshead cans around

.

 

[Bill-P]

  Yeah, I'm fairly sure you misunderstood the study I linked you to. It happens - a re-reading is usually helpful in general.
 
As far as support for your argument goes, there was a guy on the first page of the first thread you linked me to who refuted it. Doesn't exactly paint the picture of common knowledge that you say it does.

 
Well, would you mind pointing out exactly where in the study I will find words such as "equalization", "equalizer", "equalize", "distort", "distortion",... or the likes? Or at least let me know exactly what I need to find in the study? Because I read it already, and I can't find what you're claiming. Also, I am pretty sure the study is about using HRTF to simulate free-field listening. They mentioned digital filters, which... as far as I know, is DSP, so it's not equalization.
 
Or perhaps you would like to point out how this PhD does not know what he is talking about?
http://www.dspguide.com/ch14.htm
 
And I don't think nitpicking is going to support your case any further. The thread is read by many, including those who are not engineers, so it's not a surprise to find one or two refuting the responses, not knowing the full scope of the discussion. But that does not make the following responses, many of which agree with what I have been saying, any less true, wouldn't you say?

 

[Silverprout]

IMHO the best equalizer is your brain... (the body again !!!)

The brain is in a permanent adaptation to his environment, i have a ear disease that boost my treble perception on the right side.
My brain make the balance by itself within time, i remark it only when i change my headphones.

The brain resilience is making a permanent equalization of the unnatural balance within time (bassheads will need more and more bass each time their brain regulate the perception)

 

[vid]

 
Well, would you mind pointing out exactly where in the study I will find words such as "equalization", "equalizer", "equalize", "distort", "distortion",... or the likes? Or at least let me know exactly what I need to find in the study? Because I read it already, and I can't find what you're claiming. Also, I am pretty sure the study is about using HRTF to simulate free-field listening. They mentioned digital filters, which... as far as I know, is DSP, so it's not equalization.
 
Or perhaps you would like to point out how this PhD does not know what he is talking about?
http://www.dspguide.com/ch14.htm
 
And I don't think nitpicking is going to support your case any further. The thread is read by many, including those who are not engineers, so it's not a surprise to find one or two refuting the responses, not knowing the full scope of the discussion. But that does not make the following responses, many of which agree with what I have been saying, any less true, wouldn't you say?

 
I'm not sure what you're saying. What is digital equalization if not digital signal processing? Also, how can the HRTF be classified as digital signal processing? Unless we live in the Matrix, I don't see it.
 
But it's fair enough if you don't condone the use of digital filters by that name. I've done some experiments using nothing but Electri-Q - that's as EQ as you can get.
 

 
The left image above is without Electri-Q; the right image is with Electri-Q. First, you can see a large decrease in distortion in the frequency response with EQ - no surprise there, right? Second, you can also see a large reduction in decay over the midrange with EQ, which translates subjectively to more realistic detail and responsiveness. Third, my subjective impression is that, overall, EQ improved the sound quality by a large margin here.
 
I've also done some experiments with xnor's graphic EQ, in case parametric EQs like Electri-Q don't count.
 


 
The top-most image of the three above is of a pair of headphones without any mods. The left image below that is of the same phones but with mods to reduce the bass hump. The right image is again of the same phones, without mods as in the first image, but with EQ applied to roughly estimate the response of the modded phones on the left. You can see the reduction in distortion in the frequency response along the lower frequencies with both actual mods and EQ. You also see that decay in the lower frequencies was improved by about as much with both actual mods and EQ - better detail whichever way you did it. The twist to this experiment was that I modded one side of the phones and EQd the other side, then had a listen. The phones sounded normal, ie. no noticeable skew towards either side, and with sound much improved from the original.
 
As far as cherry-picking goes, I don't think the argument is improved by saying that people who disagree are automatically wrong - better if you can come up with observations that show them wrong. But as it stands, you or someone else who is of the opinion that EQ doesn't improve sound quality would need to show that my observations above are mistaken and so don't count as proof against the argument, otherwise it's simply sticking to beliefs and leaving audiophilia by the wayside.

 

[Silverprout]

   
   

you can see a large decrease in distortion in the frequency response with EQ.

Excuse me... could you make some pedagogy please ?
How do you see the distortion in the spectral decay ?

 

[Redcarmoose]

When we are at the impressionable age of 16 we walk into our friends den to see the Father listening to a bit of Classical on a giant system. What is this? This is an audiophile on a journey.


Wow we can't afford a rig like that he must know what he is doing.


Ya, the Son says. It re-creates the sound of live music. Oh he thinks he is listening to live music?


40 years later we ourselves sit and listen to the same type of rig, maybe digital. Nothing has ever changed, Hi-FI is Hi-Fi and it never really sounded like live music. We knew that at 16, but still chose to chase the illusion.

Another 40 years from now someone will wonder if Hi-FI is treble-centric.

 

[Silverprout]

When we are at the impressionable age of 16 we walk into our friends den to see the Father listening to a bit of Classical on a giant system. What is this? This is an audiophile on a journey.


Wow we can't afford a rig like that he must know what he is doing.


Ya, the Son says. It re-creates the sound of live music. Oh he thinks he is listening to live music?


40 years later we ourselves sit and listen to the same type of rig, maybe digital. Nothing has ever changed, Hi-FI is Hi-Fi and it never really sounded like live music. We knew that at 16, but still chose to chase the illusion.

Another 40 years from now someone will wonder if Hi-FI is treble-centric.

 

[goodvibes]

  ... A lot of audiophiles are old !

They need a brilliant treble to compensate their natural loss.
 
... growing old is the real problem IMHO.

I think you'll find that untrue. You relate sound to what you hear in nature so your reference changes along with your hearing. The loss tends to more frequency limiting than the sort of gradual rolloff that would accommodate that thinking anyway. While growing old is a real problem

, the only reason there would be more 'audiophiles' in that age group is the low standard of MP3s and DAPs that many of have come to expect. That said, I'm not sure there are more elder audiophiles. I think it's more like most aren't as into headphones or portable audio because it's a
less natural and encompassing experience.
 
I'm older, critical, and find the highs of the GR07 too hot to accept. Bass is fine, just a little warm, a touch up in the midbass and could be a little stronger in the deep bass. Mids are quite good. Have you ever checked how much music energy there is above 16kHZ in a recording?
 
HiFi rarely approaches live but when it's good, the message of the performance is more relatable. Goosebump factor increases. The art is better understood.

 

[gahung]

  Excuse me... could you make some pedagogy please ?
How do you see the distortion in the spectral decay ?

Yeah, from what he said, I don't think there is any other way to convince him his is wrong except giving him some fundamental DSP text to read. No need to argue further.

 

[Silverprout]

  I think you'll find that untrue. You relate sound to what you hear in nature so your reference changes along with your hearing. The loss tends to more frequency limiting than the sort of gradual rolloff that would accommodate that thinking anyway. While growing old is a real problem

, the only reason there would be more 'audiophiles' in that age group is the low standard of MP3s and DAPs that many of have come to expect. That said, I'm not sure there are more elder audiophiles. I think it's more like most aren't as into headphones or portable audio because it's a
less natural and encompassing experience.
 
I'm older, critical, and find the highs of the GR07 too hot to accept. Bass is fine, just a little warm, a touch up in the midbass and could be a little stronger in the deep bass. Mids are quite good. Have you ever checked how much music energy there is above 16kHZ in a recording?
 
HiFi rarely approaches live but when it's good, the message of the performance is more relatable. Goosebump factor increases. The art is better understood.

I find all the in-ear wide range big dynamic driver treble atrocious, and be very surprised by the sound signature of my last (nano) BA.
The treble is lot less aggressive than ER4 and more precise and defined.
 
20 to 20K