EQ Settings for 700+ Headphones
Dec 31, 2020 at 7:41 AM Post #91 of 105

jaakkopasanen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
230
Likes
160
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Amazing job! Thank you! I own some old Ultrasone HFI-550 headphones. I couldn't find it on the list. I assume because those are a bit too old to have response graph available? that's the basic thing I will need to produce EQ results?
It's simply because none of the supported sources have measured them. I don't measure headphones so I can't really help you out here. If you happen to find the frequency response graph somewhere, you can try to generate eq settings yourself by following the guide linked to the top of the results page.
 
Dec 31, 2020 at 12:47 PM Post #92 of 105

Okiba

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Posts
27
Likes
1
It's simply because none of the supported sources have measured them. I don't measure headphones so I can't really help you out here. If you happen to find the frequency response graph somewhere, you can try to generate eq settings yourself by following the guide linked to the top of the results page.
I'm not sure there's a response graph available for it, but I check Google again, and if so - will generate the EQ settings like you suggested. Thank you for an awesome job!
 
Jan 2, 2021 at 8:07 PM Post #93 of 105

69VanNuys

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 12, 2020
Posts
20
Likes
4
Location
U.S.
HNY2021! I have really been enjoying the Head-fi community. Does anyone have any recommendations on sites to find Parametric EQ settings for full size speakers? I spent a lot of time finding some great settings for the Focal Clear's and find the changes to be dramatic. Wondering whether the same exists for full size speakers. D
 
Jan 13, 2021 at 8:27 AM Post #94 of 105

batfier

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Posts
93
Likes
75
Location
.
HNY2021! I have really been enjoying the Head-fi community. Does anyone have any recommendations on sites to find Parametric EQ settings for full size speakers? I spent a lot of time finding some great settings for the Focal Clear's and find the changes to be dramatic. Wondering whether the same exists for full size speakers. D

i thing full size speaker is a different game. the room where your speakers are located has much more influence. can't imagine useful generic settings like for headphones. most modern speaker already have a good frequency response. so basically it's your individual room, which has to be EQed.
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2021 at 1:09 PM Post #95 of 105

Dogway

New Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Posts
46
Likes
2
Location
Spain
I mostly use equalization along HeSuVi HRIRs. Now I noticed that measurements of any source compensate for the pinna, in other words Harman is a target of how we hear with HP, and not how the headphones performs independently (is that the RAW option in oratory database?)

If you are creating your own HRTF via impulcifier or using some of the HRIRs in HeSuVi wouldn't it be more preferable to remove the artificial pinna compensation from the measurements and add in those from you or the HRIRs?

Oratory1990 uses KB5000/5001. If we could find its contribution to the FR we could be able to do this, so far I found this PDF. I look at the GRAS 90º azimuth table, but it uses a KB0065 pinna.

Now my point of contention is, should we really compensate the HRTF to Harman? Given this can shape the FR cues for sound localization, my suggestion would be to compensate the RAW FR to Harman (or Diffuse Field), then leave the HRTF contribution as is.

Does any of this make sense?
 
Jan 22, 2021 at 4:08 AM Post #96 of 105

jaakkopasanen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
230
Likes
160
Location
Helsinki, Finland
I mostly use equalization along HeSuVi HRIRs. Now I noticed that measurements of any source compensate for the pinna, in other words Harman is a target of how we hear with HP, and not how the headphones performs independently (is that the RAW option in oratory database?)

If you are creating your own HRTF via impulcifier or using some of the HRIRs in HeSuVi wouldn't it be more preferable to remove the artificial pinna compensation from the measurements and add in those from you or the HRIRs?

Oratory1990 uses KB5000/5001. If we could find its contribution to the FR we could be able to do this, so far I found this PDF. I look at the GRAS 90º azimuth table, but it uses a KB0065 pinna.

Now my point of contention is, should we really compensate the HRTF to Harman? Given this can shape the FR cues for sound localization, my suggestion would be to compensate the RAW FR to Harman (or Diffuse Field), then leave the HRTF contribution as is.

Does any of this make sense?
Makes sense, at least to a degree. The one thing you missed here is that the HRIRs in HeSuVi are all over the place and your scientific approach is attempting to create improvements which are minor compared to the deviation in the HeSuVi HRIRs. If I were to create a commercial surround virtualization product with a single HRIR (like most of the HeSuVi HRIRs are), I would make it so that it sounds good with neutral headphones because people that's more or less the average of what the consumers are using. Therefore I would claim that there's no point in trying to do anything else but eq to neutral with HeSuVi.

Impulcifer is a different story because it's tailored to each listener separately. Impulcifer also has a headphone compensation function where the headphone frequency response is measured at the ear canal entrance with the same binaural mics and then a compensation filter is created with makes the headphone frequency response (at ear canal entrance) completely flat. This ensures that when signal is reproduced with headphones using the produced HRIR, the headphone itself won't color the sound.
 
Jan 23, 2021 at 9:26 AM Post #97 of 105

mikel

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Posts
25
Likes
15
Jan 26, 2021 at 1:23 PM Post #99 of 105

HiFiHawaii808

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Posts
1,035
Likes
940
Location
Honolulu
Is there a way to create equalization presets that transform a given headphone to a different target curve? I am interested in learning how to create in Equalizer APO a set of EQ settings that can transform my HD800S into any other headphone's frequency response like the app Morphit does. Is there any way to do that?
 
Jan 27, 2021 at 4:43 AM Post #100 of 105

jaakkopasanen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
230
Likes
160
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Is there a way to create equalization presets that transform a given headphone to a different target curve? I am interested in learning how to create in Equalizer APO a set of EQ settings that can transform my HD800S into any other headphone's frequency response like the app Morphit does. Is there any way to do that?
Yes there is. Take a look at the equalizing instructions in AutoEq documentation. There are even direct examples of how to do this.
 
Jan 27, 2021 at 11:53 AM Post #101 of 105

bhima

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Posts
505
Likes
498
Location
California
If anyone owns a KB EAR Believe this profile is designed to fit the Believe to the Sony 1ZR curve. Its the first time I've eq'd a headphone to a different headphone and actually like it better than the stock tuning:

Preamp: -7.6 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 25 Hz Gain 4.6 dB Q 0.18
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 37 Hz Gain 1.4 dB Q 1.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 63 Hz Gain 0.4 dB Q 1.41
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 98 Hz Gain -1.8 dB Q 1.4
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1253 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 4
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1576 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 3
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2251 Hz Gain 3.4 dB Q 3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7309 Hz Gain -2.8 dB Q 8
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8354 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 6
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10506 Hz Gain -4.2 dB Q 3
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 12555 Hz Gain 4.6 dB Q 4
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 6354 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 1.4
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 4174 Hz Gain 0.6 dB Q 10
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 2885 Hz Gain -2.8 dB Q 2
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 3652 Hz Gain 3 dB Q 6
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 293 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 0.5
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 990 Hz Gain 1.4 dB Q 4
Filter 21: ON PK Fc 5283 Hz Gain -3.6 dB Q 5
 
Jan 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM Post #102 of 105

HiFiHawaii808

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Posts
1,035
Likes
940
Location
Honolulu
I bought a Hiby R6 2020 and I've had it for just over 24 hours. I tried Wavelet, which works, but I am a little bit disappointed in that it doesn't have the same dramatic effect that Equalizer APO had on the sound of my headphones. My HD800S headphones don't sound very good on it no matter what I do. My ZMF Verite Closed sound too bright. MSEB isn't much better. I am so spoiled with Equalizer APO. Someone should make that a commercial product and port it over to multiple platforms.
 
Jan 31, 2021 at 11:48 AM Post #103 of 105

jaakkopasanen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
230
Likes
160
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Dips in a headphone frequency response are a problem for equalization because a naive approach would "fix" them the by producing a narrow (high Q) spike in the equalizer frequency response at the same frequency. These narrow spikes are not wanted though because they introduce ringing. Dips are also not very audible, so a trade between ringing and fixing the frequency response doesn't serve us well in this case. Therefore it's better to leave the dips alone. Unfortunately there are no good existing solutions to this problem, or at least any that I would know of.

Here's an equalizer frequency response for Beyerdynamic DT 770 without any smoothing or reqularization for the spikes. Those 4 kHz and 9 kHz ones do not sound good.
DT 770 Naive.png

Any kind of smoothing tricks are not going to help here since they are all affected by the depth of the dip / height of the peak. It doesn't matter if the peak would naively be 10 dB or 30 dB, it needs to be avoided all the same. The width of the dip does play a role however, wider the dip the more it needs to be equalized because wider means less ringing and a more audible error in the frequency response.

I came up with a novel reqularization algorithm to address this problem. The peaks in the equalizer requency response are limited by the steepness of the slope (first derivative). This approach produces the same result regardless of the dip height but produces more correction for wider dips. Let's take a look at the same DT 770 equalizer frequency response with reqularization.
Beyerdynamic DT 770 80 ohm 18.png

Here the dashed green curve is the same naive equalizer frequency response and the orange curve is the reqularized one. The naive frequency response is first smoothed to avoid problems caused by noisy artifacts and then traversed left to right and right to left. In both directions the slope is limited to 18 dB per octave. The smaller value of the two curves is the selected at each frequency and finally sharp kinks are rounded by smoothing the curve. The graph above also shows the areas where the slope has been limited. Blue areas for left to right traversal and red aread for right to left traversal. The green areas are excluded from the limited slope. This is done to avoid widening narrow dips in the equalizer frequency response. A better example of this is Adam SP-5.
Adam SP-5 18.png

Pay attention to the 6 kHz dip. Without the green zone, the orange curve would have a much wider dip there. Dips in the frequency response don't cause ringing so there's no need to limit them in any way.

So how does this sound then? A lot better, if you ask me. I own 80 ohm DT 770, Sennheiser HD 800 and Custom Art FIBAE 3 headphones, all of which have some kind of dips in the frequency response (HD 800 only has the 9 kHz one which should be there) and I clearly prefer the reqularized equalization to the one with only smoothing. I encourage you to test it out for yourself, assuming you have headphones which have these problems, not all do. The current state of AutoEq results has the reqularized eq settings and the Git history holds the old results.

I believe this new algorithm concludes my search for automatic headphone equalization. There are some things still to do however. The 18 dB per octave limit is somewhat arbitrarily chosen. It's the maximum slope in a parametric filter with 10 dB of gain and Q of 2.0. I did some testing to compare 18 dB/oct vs 24 dB/oct vs 12 dB/oct but the test wasn't blind so cannot really say anything conclusive. 18 dB/oct is more relaxed than 24 dB/oct and 12 dB/oct tends to produce problems because it starts to cut things which should not be cut. We eyeballed the debug plots with oratory1990 and it looks like 18 dB/oct produces somewhat similar reqularization as he has been doing manually. I still want to conduct a proper double blind listening test with a decent population to have more data for the decision.

Parametric equalizers are not completely solved with this new algorithm. AutoEq has an algorithm to produce parametric eq settings by searching for an optimal combination. While the search target is now good, the end result might still contain parametric filters with positive gain and too high Q values. The parametric eq optimizer in AutoEq is a very creative creature and might produce things we humans can't think of. This will be solved later time when I implement a Q reqularization specifically for the parametric eq filters.

I hope you enjoy the new settings and if there are any questions, leave a comment and I'll try my best to clarify. Happy listening!
 
Feb 22, 2021 at 8:02 PM Post #104 of 105

Knightsfan11

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
152
Likes
43
Any chance of getting EQ results for LZ A7 IEM's?

Also, how would we go about applying these to apps with only a 5 band EQ?
 
Feb 23, 2021 at 11:53 AM Post #105 of 105

jaakkopasanen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
230
Likes
160
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Any chance of getting EQ results for LZ A7 IEM's?

Also, how would we go about applying these to apps with only a 5 band EQ?
AutoEq can only produce eq settings for headphones that have been measured by one of the supported sources. In other words, if the headphone is not already included, there's nothing I can do.

Parametric eq settings produced by AutoEq support 5 filters out of the box. Just use the first five of the filters. If you're talking about a fixed band or graphic eq with only five filters, then that would be possible but you'd have to install AutoEq and produce the results yourself. Also keep in mind that 5 fixed frequency filters hardly can fix any problems in headphones apart from the very broad tonality.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top