[BassDigger]

Personally, I'm against EQing. But only because I'm a purist and don't want any such hardware in my audio chain.
 
But, if you're already using hardware that can EQ (like a computer), you've got nothing much to lose by experimenting with it. Just don't expect it to be able to make your phones defy the laws of physics (captain); if your transducers (phones) simply aren't capable of doing what you want them to do (better clarity, better bass, better whatever...), no amount of EQing will make them.
So, you have to do your research and try and find some phones that are closest to your 'taste', and the right amp to drive them. You can then refine the sound, a little, with an EQ (if you must 

).

 

[Zan.Tiago]

I am new to the headphone arena, and audio for that matter.

I want to know why the sound quality of a expensive headphone matters when equalizing could be done to the headphone.


Take for example :

LCD2 and HD800.


The lcd2 is known for being warm and having a rolled off treble, whereas the HD800 has a bright sound and less bass.



Couldnt I just EQ either headphone to be the same as the other?

I am trying to understand why the base sound qualities of each headphone matter when an equalizer seems like it could shift the primary sound of any headphone to what you want it to sound like considering the headphone driver is capable of producing said frequencies.

Hi, Ilitirit

The difference is how they produce all those frequencies.
You can have the LCD-2 and HD 800 with the exact same frequency response but it would sound different.
You can have a Piano playing a middle C 261hz and a trumpet doing the same middle C at 261 hz and they sound pretty different.
Harmonics and timbre

 

[Beagle]

Personally, I'm against EQing. But only because I'm a purist and don't want any such hardware in my audio chain.

But, if you're already using hardware that can EQ (like a computer), you've got nothing much to lose by experimenting with it. Just don't expect it to be able to make your phones defy the laws of physics (captain); if your transducers (phones) simply aren't capable of doing what you want them to do (better clarity, better bass, better whatever...), no amount of EQing will make them.
So, you have to do your research and try and find some phones that are closest to your 'taste', and the right amp to drive them. You can then refine the sound, a little, with an EQ (if you must

).

It's like believing that putting salt and pepper on any kind of dish will make it taste good to you.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

It's like believing that putting salt and pepper on any kind of dish will make it taste good to you.

EQ is more like a sauce. The problem is that its usage is a spectrum, meaning there are extremes.

On one end there's the people who drown burned meat in A1 sauce. At the other end are people who will only order an extremely marbled piece of beef and would absolutely not want anything on it thinking it an insult to either the chef or the cow.

Somewhere in between is the guy who wants a rather thinner slice of short rib from the same cow and just lightly dips it in salted sesame oil straight off the tabletop grill then lets the excess drip off right before wrapping it in a perilla leaf and eating it, with bites of kimchi between each mouthful of beef and leaf.

 

[ponyhead]

Is passive EQ more harmless than active?

 

[kukkurovaca]

Is passive EQ more harmless than active?

Neither is harmful if well implemented and used tastefully.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Is passive EQ more harmless than active?

If neither adds noise, then no.

Digital EQ however provides more options than just a slider for each frequency. Like more curve types, widening or narrowing the Q, etc.