[unkoman]

Instead of using eqs on players, I eq each of my music files. It takes tremendous amount of time but it lets me eq really precisely to the point.

 

[ferraro]

Edited about a million times, ended up with this after changing mind several times: I have decided to not eq.

 

[xand1x]

Nope I dont EQ. I've noticed that certain chracteristics of your system that you don't like can be changed without EQ. (EQ for me distorts alot)

 

[cheechoz]

It's funny, when I started out here on Head-Fi, I was using an iPod, and always had the rock or R&B setting in use. Then I moved to better things, and got an X5. I used the bass boost and the BBE settings, but not the custom EQ. Anyway, little by little, I reduced the numbers on both, until there were none. Now I am quite happy with the sound I get from my X5, with either my E5c's or my ER-4P's. No EQ is the way to go, if you want to here the sound as it was meant to be!

 

[Rockem]

I use +2db on the treble
with my iRiver H340 and my PortaPro headphones

 

[RedLeader]

on the go I'm a bit of a bass-monster, so I need to eq my er6i. The karma eq isn't bad at all though, and as soon as I get my Xenos I won't need to play with the eq anymore.

 

[Veniogenesis]

No EQ or crossfeed on my SA5K or HD650 has sounded good to me. EQing the SA5K is horrible. As for my A500 and SR60, I rarely EQ them either. I also disliked EQ with my DT880 and K271S when I had them. I strongly dislike EQing, but I did use EQ with my V6 however.

 

[Cthulhu]

The "way it was meant to be" arguments appear to have a critical flaw. For music involving things like synths and amplified instruments, how can you possibly say what it was 'meant' to soundlike? The mixing and mastering certainly wasn't performed on your rig - and even if we focus on the critical component - the headphone/IEM itself - they have widly varying sound signitures and the like. If I listen to rock on my ety's and DT-770's it sounds completely different, and it likely sounds different again to whatever it was mastered with - almost certainly studio monitors.

The only time the way it was meant to be seems relevant is when discussing acoustic and unamplified vocal performances, where one can conduct a real comparison to the sound to cellos or what not.

That said, I don't EQ. I tend to unconciously select music that matches the headphone I am using at the moment! I have recently noticed this trend when I compared my most played list on my ipod (where I listen with Ety 4S) and my computer rig (Where I listen with DT770). The difference was quite astounding!

 

[sgrossklass]

In my home setup, I EQ all my cans - it's a good way of improving already good cans with a weakness here or there if you can't afford to buy near-perfect ones. It usually gives best results when you only have to make small, virtually continuous adjustments, at least as far as n-band EQs are concerned (large steps in the freq response may introduce phasiness; any software EQs with interpolation out there?); n should be rather large of course. For example, this is the EQ I worked out for the vintage HD420SL yesterday:
(sliders in Shibatch Super EQ) (adjustment/dB)
55...77 0
110...220 -1
311...3520 -2
4978...9956 -1
14080 -2
19912 0

So basically only +1 dB for the highs, yet the (positive) effect is not negligible. I should really get a measurement mic one of these days, you only get so far with purely hearing-based adjustments (that grey cell EQ is rather powerful...).

 

[cheechoz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu The "way it was meant to be" arguments appear to have a critical flaw. For music involving things like synths and amplified instruments, how can you possibly say what it was 'meant' to soundlike? The mixing and mastering certainly wasn't performed on your rig - and even if we focus on the critical component - the headphone/IEM itself - they have widly varying sound signitures and the like. If I listen to rock on my ety's and DT-770's it sounds completely different, and it likely sounds different again to whatever it was mastered with - almost certainly studio monitors. The only time the way it was meant to be seems relevant is when discussing acoustic and unamplified vocal performances, where one can conduct a real comparison to the sound to cellos or what not. That said, I don't EQ. I tend to unconciously select music that matches the headphone I am using at the moment! I have recently noticed this trend when I compared my most played list on my ipod (where I listen with Ety 4S) and my computer rig (Where I listen with DT770). The difference was quite astounding!

Very nicely said, I take back, when I said "like it was meant to be heard"

I would rather select various headphones, and IEM's, to the desired music.

 

[imz14u2nv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlw yeah. Do you EQ your headphone? I do that all the time. Otherwise I dont get that sound I realy like.

I most definitely EQ if the source calls for it (meaning if I don’t like how it sounds, I make it sound the way I like).

I don’t see anything wrong with applying EQ to your sound, it’s nice to say that you are listening to music the way it was meant to be, but what does that really mean??

Were you there at the recording session??

Did you consult the producer of the music (Mixing Technician, etc.)??

I think even classical can sometimes benefit from some EQ, making a violin sound a little sweeter , or that acoustic bass a little more present is not a bad thing if that’s what you want to hear (Who paid for the music, shouldn’t it sound good to the purchaser??).

I say, if you have not been in the hall where the music was recorded and witnessed it (the performance) for yourself real-time, then you have no idea what the original really sounded like, so do yourself a favor and enjoy the music not the technical stuff, that may mean with EQ or not, let the final choice be yours, that is why everyone on the planet is just a little different.

 

[AsuAmo76]

Quote:

sort of like the sixth-order Butterworth alignment

I like it.

In theory the digital filtering supposed to produce the linear phase response as well. Howether, the real time plugins are not good enough. If I'd had really good analogue EQ - I would like to try it, at least to reduce hd600 mid-bass.

 

[augustwest]

I used to EQ my MS2i's to give them more bass, in an effort to make them sound more PS1 like. Finally I just bought the PS1's, so that was the end of EQing.

- augustwest

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlw yeah. Do you EQ your headphone? I do that all the time. Otherwise I dont get that sound I realy like.

No. I don't need to

 

[Fatality_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass In my home setup, I EQ all my cans - it's a good way of improving already good cans with a weakness here or there if you can't afford to buy near-perfect ones. It usually gives best results when you only have to make small, virtually continuous adjustments, at least as far as n-band EQs are concerned (large steps in the freq response may introduce phasiness; any software EQs with interpolation out there?); n should be rather large of course. For example, this is the EQ I worked out for the vintage HD420SL yesterday: (sliders in Shibatch Super EQ) (adjustment/dB) 55...77 0 110...220 -1 311...3520 -2 4978...9956 -1 14080 -2 19912 0 So basically only +1 dB for the highs, yet the (positive) effect is not negligible. I should really get a measurement mic one of these days, you only get so far with purely hearing-based adjustments (that grey cell EQ is rather powerful...).

Care to share your HD590 EQ settings?