[briskly]

Quote:

  not sure an EQ can do that. AFAIK the fazor thing was to improve on air flow disturbances(did I get that right?), so if it does as advertised that should help as much for distortions than it may change the signature.
also using online measured graphs are of limited interest as you never know that the signature of your headphone is the same as the pair measured. for a hd800 it shouldn't be too far off as they really try to hit the target specs. but for audeze, between the eternal tweaking going on under the same model name, and usual manufacturing variations, it's hard to say that one pair sounds like another pair.

I think the stated goal was for acoustic impedance matching and managing wave diffraction. I don't know the dimensions of the slits well enough to evaluate if any meaningful impedance difference is to be had from it. There was the disassembly of the LCD-3F a while back that makes it all a bit questionable whether Audeze can achieve their stated goals.
With the limited driver excursion and volume displacement through the wide slits that LCDs used in their stators, I find it difficult to envision the relevance of turbulent fluid flow for the Fazor, or for a certain other Ether. Of course, I could be wrong.
 
 
Quote:

There are linear problems (frequency response, phase) and non-linear problems (distortion), and your typical EQ can only address ½ of the linear problems. That is, you can control the frequency response, but too much adjustment can mean issues with phase and distortion. Then consider the sometimes massive differences in FR between headphones, and you can see how sometimes you just can't turn all problems into nails for the EQ hammer.

If you're just trying to EQ the headphone to flat, the minimum phase EQ is the more accurate solution. Single driver headphones are a mostly minimum phase device anyway, so EQ'ing it flat improves phase accuracy as well. More so for the LCD-2 with a minimized all-pass part in its bass, unlike other moving coil  headphones.

 

[RRod]

  If you're just trying to EQ the headphone to flat, the minimum phase EQ is the more accurate solution. Single driver headphones are a mostly minimum phase device anyway, so EQ'ing it flat improves phase accuracy as well. More so for the LCD-2 with a minimized all-pass part in its bass, unlike other moving coil  headphones.

 
Absolutely; I wouldn't expect much leftover all-pass component after a minimum phase correction between cans. I was just being overly cautious, in that if there IS a remaining all-pass component then you need another weapon in your arsenal. Thankfully headphone-land is a much nicer place than speaker-room-land.

 

[kAi117]

For some reason, for me I can find a way to equalize any and every headphone i've owned to sound better with more clarity and punch to it, HOWEVER, I never use equalization on anything anymore. Why? I have this strange philosophy about sound signatures of the headphones I buy now. Even though I can equalize a headphone I buy to sound better suited to my tastes, I for some odd reason find this "cheating". Like, I bought these expensive pair of headphones so I can listen to the artfully crafted sound sig and capabilities the engineers meant for me to hear, and by tuning it differently, I almost feel like it's me always thinking "well no matter what headphone I buy, it'll never be good enough, so i'll always have to tune it to my liking". Yeah I know it's weird. I have the Sennheiser ie80's and I absolutely love them, but I could even EQ these to sound even better, but i've just learned to appreciate how they sound by default instead of constantly tampering with EQ.

 

[castleofargh]

  For some reason, for me I can find a way to equalize any and every headphone i've owned to sound better with more clarity and punch to it, HOWEVER, I never use equalization on anything anymore. Why? I have this strange philosophy about sound signatures of the headphones I buy now. Even though I can equalize a headphone I buy to sound better suited to my tastes, I for some odd reason find this "cheating". Like, I bought these expensive pair of headphones so I can listen to the artfully crafted sound sig and capabilities the engineers meant for me to hear, and by tuning it differently, I almost feel like it's me always thinking "well no matter what headphone I buy, it'll never be good enough, so i'll always have to tune it to my liking". Yeah I know it's weird. I have the Sennheiser ie80's and I absolutely love them, but I could even EQ these to sound even better, but i've just learned to appreciate how they sound by default instead of constantly tampering with EQ.

but then you can just move your reasoning to another place in the audio chain and justify the opposite. I understand your idea, but did the engineer who mastered the album think about that headphone signature? doubtful.
and did the engineer who made the headphone think about your hearing and ear shape when he made the headphone? again, small chance as they aimed for an average ear(dummy head), or for their own ears, or maybe for a few test subjects who said they preferred one prototype over the other... but not your own ears and own preferences.
I don't think your idea is wrong, you make a choice and it's for your own enjoyment, there is no wrong answer in subjectivity. I just personally think that idea should be expended beyond the headphone itself.
 
the IE80 is a fun toy, if we were only trying to get the original sound, we wouldn't buy such an IEM in the first place. I have IEMs not too far off my perceived neutral, that I bought for that reason and EQed further with that objective. the IE80 was never one of those. I got it to have some bass fun moments from time to time and don't try to be true to anything or anybody with them.^_^

 

[desik]

  not sure an EQ can do that. AFAIK the fazor thing was to improve on air flow disturbances(did I get that right?), so if it does as advertised that should help as much for distortions than it may change the signature.
also using online measured graphs are of limited interest as you never know that the signature of your headphone is the same as the pair measured. for a hd800 it shouldn't be too far off as they really try to hit the target specs. but for audeze, between the eternal tweaking going on under the same model name, and usual manufacturing variations, it's hard to say that one pair sounds like another pair.

I actually had the graphs of the exact headphones in my possession, LCD-2.1 and 2.2F. Didn't try parametric EQ, just graphical. Possibly that's why I didn't get any success. Even graph comparison is of limited use. I spoke with Audeze sales manager on the phone at that time. 3 curious things he told:
 
- In theory you can EQ 2.2F to 2.1, if only you would know what the diff is.
- Audeze changed measurement methodology about 1.5 years ago.
- Innerfidelity methodology is different than Audeze one, and was changed ~4 months ago.
 
Essentially no graphs can be compared.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  not sure an EQ can do that. AFAIK the fazor thing was to improve on air flow disturbances(did I get that right?), so if it does as advertised that should help as much for distortions than it may change the signature.
also using online measured graphs are of limited interest as you never know that the signature of your headphone is the same as the pair measured. for a hd800 it shouldn't be too far off as they really try to hit the target specs. but for audeze, between the eternal tweaking going on under the same model name, and usual manufacturing variations, it's hard to say that one pair sounds like another pair.

I actually had the graphs of the exact headphones in my possession, LCD-2.1 and 2.2F. Didn't try parametric EQ, just graphical. Possibly that's why I didn't get any success. Even graph comparison is of limited use. I spoke with Audeze sales manager on the phone at that time. 3 curious things he told:
 
- In theory you can EQ 2.2F to 2.1, if only you would know what the diff is.
- Audeze changed measurement methodology about 1.5 years ago.
- Innerfidelity methodology is different than Audeze one, and was changed ~4 months ago.
 
Essentially no graphs can be compared.

 
yeah that's the problem with measurements, unless you get them done the same way on the same system, they're of little objective interest. you could get even a crappy microphone and measure yourself. if you find a way to place the mic at the same position on both headphones reliably, I can think of a few methods to approach the signature of the other headphone.
I do that with room eq wizard(free but has a learning curve because of all the settings and functions). it took me some times to get it right, but in the end the real challenge is to be able to put whatever you measure at the exact same position consistently. I do that with IEMs and it's a struggle sometimes(never really bothered trying on headphones and making a dummy head with a box etc, as I own only 2 including a BT one that already comes with it's own signature compensation ^_^) . still, even without the perfect placement, you usually get ok with the mid frequencies. both ends of the audible range can really got to shiit from a small misplacement.  obviously that applies when wearing the headphone too.
 
the other option might be to find a nice guy who mac gyvered such a headphone measurement rig not too far away from you, and send him your headphones for measurements.
 
 
 
about graphical EQ ^_^, to me a parametric EQ is the graphical EQ as I "draw" directly on the graph most of the time

, and only use values when I'm trying to reproduce something. but of course having control over the shape of the EQ is very significant when you know what response your looking for, I can't recommend parametric EQ enough.

 

[alffla]

   
There are linear problems (frequency response, phase) and non-linear problems (distortion), and your typical EQ can only address ½ of the linear problems. That is, you can control the frequency response, but too much adjustment can mean issues with phase and distortion. Then consider the sometimes massive differences in FR between headphones, and you can see how sometimes you just can't turn all problems into nails for the EQ hammer.

So basically what you're saying is it's nigh impossible to have a 'perfect' dynamic driver which can be EQed to sound like any other product out there right now because boosting or reducing different frequencies will create distortion? Also, I thought phase problems only occurred with multi-driver setups (such as multi-BA IEMs)
 
Also wondering - even if EQ can't help recreate exactly every sort of sound signature out there, is it still capable of cutting out for example all the bass frequencies to emulate some of those earphones like Final Audio's product range which only really focuses on the mids and highs for a pronounced vocal experience? If it can, doesn't that make products who only emphasize certain frequency ranges and can't reproduce anything else huge scams? 
 
Is there basically no reason to go for a single balanced armature configuration since it'll basically never be able to reproduce a convincing bass response even if it has extreme clarity in mids and highs? To my understanding, a single DD, even if it was the cheapest driver out there with crappy clarity would still be able to better cover the entire frequency range, right?

 

[castleofargh]

the headphones with best signal measurements will be the best candidate to come closer to whatever sound you try to achieve. and it should work pretty well for most situations if you go at it seriously with good measurement methods. but it soon becomes an exercise in futility, because it means taking a better often more expensive headphone and "ruining" it with DSP to make it sound as bad as another model. not many people will be interested in buying a hd800 or a stax and use them to get the sound of a porta pro. no doubt you can do a good job, but why? ^_^
so people with such headphones just don't really spend time trying to copy other headphones, instead they try to get the signature they like or the signature that sounds neutral to them. it's just a more logical approach.
 
I do buy cheap IEMs and play around, like Joe Bloggs and a few other people around here do. but I honestly never though "I wish I could get this to sound like that other IEM". I have a target I enjoy in my head, and it's not another IEM, no IEM has exactly the sound I want so none are exactly my target sound. I don't know if that makes sense to you?
on the other hand, when I'll get the smyth realiser, and try mimicking speakers in a room, then I will buy a headphone that measures well for that purpose as my comfy hd650 might not be up for the task. different needs for different jobs.

 

[RRod]

  So basically what you're saying is it's nigh impossible to have a 'perfect' dynamic driver which can be EQed to sound like any other product out there right now because boosting or reducing different frequencies will create distortion? Also, I thought phase problems only occurred with multi-driver setups (such as multi-BA IEMs)

 
That was a pessimistic list of what can possibly go wrong. My feelings on the matter are much more optimistic. See here for a more recent take. The very existence of something like the Smyth Realiser shows that the answer to the question of "how much can we do to get the sound signature we want" is "a whole lot!"

 

[alffla]

thanks for the responses guys.

   
That was a pessimistic list of what can possibly go wrong. My feelings on the matter are much more optimistic. See here for a more recent take. The very existence of something like the Smyth Realiser shows that the answer to the question of "how much can we do to get the sound signature we want" is "a whole lot!"

so you are saying I could take something like a Sennheiser IE80 and EQ / use the Smyth Realiser to make it sound like a Noble K10 or Campfire Audio Andromeda? Could you also address my point about the value / lack thereof of single armature configurations and IEMs that are tuned only to emphasize certain frequencies? I'm honestly really curious as to the scientific and engineering aspect of this audio hobby - it would reassure me that I didnt' just fall into a huge scam to burn all my money haha.

 

[RRod]

  thanks for the responses guys.
so you are saying I could take something like a Sennheiser IE80 and EQ / use the Smyth Realiser to make it sound like a Noble K10 or Campfire Audio Andromeda? Could you also address my point about the value / lack thereof of single armature configurations and IEMs that are tuned only to emphasize certain frequencies? I'm honestly really curious as to the scientific and engineering aspect of this audio hobby - it would reassure me that I didnt' just fall into a huge scam to burn all my money haha.

 
Well the issue with IEMs is always measurement. It's mighty inconvenient to get a probe mic at your actual eardrum, thus there's always a chance that whatever ear simulator you are using isn't exactly matching up with what you're getting in your own ear. That being said, using a good measurement rig I imagine you could get pretty good results just using EQ if you use software to help with the choice of filter settings.

 

[Ancipital]

  I may be stating the obvious, but the felt resolution of a headphone may have little to do with the actual resolution. many headphones pass for detailed/resolving headphone with one or 2 ugly spikes in the mids/trebles. while very competent headphone with a warm signature will end up branded as slow/unresolving/... 

 
Yep, witness all the completely unjustified love for Bose headphones, with that novelty frequency response suitable only for listening to boy bands. If it wasn't coloured until it made your teeth hurt, the crappiness of the underlying sound would be more obvious to even fairly uninformed listeners.

 

[alffla]

Well the issue with IEMs is always measurement. It's mighty inconvenient to get a probe mic at your actual eardrum, thus there's always a chance that whatever ear simulator you are using isn't exactly matching up with what you're getting in your own ear. That being said, using a good measurement rig I imagine you could get pretty good results just using EQ if you use software to help with the choice of filter settings.

Are you saying that this whole hobby of getting IEMs with different sound signatures is pointless because we could use digital filters and equalization to get any sound we want out of a capable single dynamic driver ?

Yep, witness all the completely unjustified love for Bose headphones, with that novelty frequency response suitable only for listening to boy bands. If it wasn't coloured until it made your teeth hurt, the crappiness of the underlying sound would be more obvious to even fairly uninformed listeners.

Why only hate on Bose though ? Doesnt every different headphone or earphone product have it's own sound signature , colored in their own way ? Since this thread is about equalization, can the Boses simply be EQed to sound more neutral ?

 

[desik]

Are you saying that this whole hobby of getting IEMs with different sound signatures is pointless because we could use digital filters and equalization to get any sound we want out of a capable single dynamic driver ?

In theory EQ might reduce the need for this hobby considerably. In practice you'll either need a dummy head in your home to make measurements for your particular IEM unit, or extraordinary well trained hearing. I tried once to EQ LCD-2.2F into LCD-2.1, bug gave up, because I have neither.

 

[Ancipital]

Why only hate on Bose though ? Doesnt every different headphone or earphone product have it's own sound signature , colored in their own way ? Since this thread is about equalization, can the Boses simply be EQed to sound more neutral ?

 
Criticising a poor product != hating "on" something.