[Joe Bloggs]

The method can be outputting directly from the computer via soundcard line-out to (amp and) headphones or burning modified wavs to CDR(W)s to be used in HiFi equipment.

I just wonder why people keep on complaining about this or that pair of phones being too dark, bright and stuff and buy $100+ phones one after another until they have quite a few of them at home! (well maybe they're rich... of course why didn't I think of that??

)

Anyway there's so much you can do with a computer with respect to music these days... some to compensate for your headphones' deficiencies, some just to spice up the music

Personally I crossfeed and EQ my music for my earphones, then burn them to CDRs.

 

[MooGoesTheCow]

Joe, what setup are you using? What eq are you using and how did you adjust it to enhance your headphones? I'm just curious because a lot of people seem to think that eq's tend to distort or add artifacts to the sound.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Glad you asked... I'm trying to win some converts here!

I'm using Naoki Shibata's EQ plugin for Winamp:
http://www.winamp.com/plugins/detail...mponentId=4591

and Headwize's own crossfeed plugin:
http://headwize.com/projects/kopjov_prj.htm

I have no idea why so few people use EQs with their expensive Senns or Beyers or Grados, as they even have the luxury of frequency response graphs charted for them at HeadRoom! Just take the lowest point of the curve as the baseline (ie the frequency at which the phones have the least response) and apply cut to the rest of the spectrum according to how many dB it is above the floor. The end result is a nearly completely flat frequency response!

E.g. Suppose your Senn 580's have the floor at -5dB at 20Hz.
Slight complication here; the lowest band in Naoki's EQ is 55Hz. So let's take it from here. Suppose it's 0dB at 55Hz. Let's take that as the floor instead.

So suppose at ~220Hz the graph shows that they have +8dB. The difference is 8 - (-5) = 13dB. So at 220Hz your phones are responding 13dB louder than at 55Hz. Very well, move the 220Hz slider on the EQ to -13dB.

(dammit, why is it that I still can't view the graphs at HeadRoom!!)

Do the same thing for all the other sliders and you are finished!

NEVER boost any frequencies directly using a digital EQ. Digital EQ works directly on the digital signal. If a signal of a particular frequency is near the digital volume ceiling and you apply boost to it you're going to clip it, resulting in ugly distortion. For that reason Naoki's eq only allows you to cut frequencies. To boost a frequency you should cut all other frequencies instead. Winamp's bundled EQ allows you to boost as much as you cut, and this results in some EQ setting sounding like listening to someone fart!!

Most horrible. This is the worst kind of digital EQ distortion.

For a poor guy like me who can't afford any cans that are expensive enough to have the frequency response curves charted in HeadRoom (I use the AIWA HP-X225 right now

) EQing can be a difficult job. To find out how I do it:

http://www.epinions.com/511722_Aiwa_...sed_Headphones

This is my epinion review of my phones!

I talked about EQing my phones in the middle of it all.

Final results? Check out 'More Budget Headphone Madness: AIWA HP-X225+crossfeed+EQ vs Senn HD565' in the Headphone forum here. It should still be in the first one or two pages, even though nobody ever replied to it since I posted it

To sum it up: using the EQ puts it amazingly close to the Senns, sort of like the budget miracle the Labtec Elite 840s had promised to be--before MacDEF's review

If I can EQ my $20 phones to sound so good without ever looking at a graph, imaging how good you can make your $100+ phones sound, *looking* at the exact frequency response graph at www.headphone.com!!

The crossfeed comes as an afterthought in my pursuit for budget audiophile haven, but it does add some to the experience. Nothing near what EQ did for me though.

Give it a try! Connect your BlockHead / Antique Labs / whatever to the line out of your computer and see what difference an EQ can make for just about any phones! (the HD580s are supposedly one of the flatter phones there are, but when I could still look at it (on the old site) the frequency response curve still fluctuates within a 10dB range if I remember correctly! Hell, if you're not convinced yet, just try out the Winamp EQ. (remember: NEVER boost, only CUT! Although if you end up boosting frequencies anyway you can cut at the 'preamp' to prevent clipping

) If you like the results there you'll like the results coming from Naoki's EQ even better! It's got *18* bands to start with and if that's not enough you can add as many lines of parametric EQ as you want!! Imagine how much this would cost if it came as stereo equipment

Using my EQ I know I won't be buying $100+ headphones until (if ever) I have the $$$ and desire to buy a top-end CDP and amp that would show the difference between really good cans and mine. The CD640 at the university music library doesn't even come close--my AIWAs can definitely sound better there than the HD565s if only I'd cut some more mid..high treble!! (not so if I'd EQed the HD565s as well, but that's another story

) That doesn't mean I think frequency response is the only thing that matters, that just means that the CD640 wasn't able to reveal to me the *other* things that matter yet!!

[/preaching]

 

[Joe Bloggs]

BTW I don't notice any distortions or artifacts

 

[morphsci]

No EQ for me in my main or headphone system. The reason is that unless you are using a computer based system, a quality digital DSP/equlization unit is not cheap. Analog equalization has some serious problems with artifacts depending on the quality of the electronics in the unit. So again, good equalization in a non-computer-based system is expensive. The only place I use DSP/equalization is my automobile. If the police around here did not frown on it so much I would much prefer headphone listening there. Reequalizing CD's as I transfer them to CDR is not how I want to spend my time. Life is to short and there is so much music to listen to. As always IMO.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Reequalizing CD's as I transfer them to CDR is not how I want to spend my time. Life is to short and there is so much music to listen to. As always IMO.

So true >.< It does take some time to do each CD... but people here spend heaps of time on audio, one way or another

It's just that I don't spend so much money along with it

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Joe Bloggs, there's a reason why headphones don't have a flat frequency response. A true flat frequency response would not sound good. Headphone makers intentionally roll off the higher frequencies to simulate what happens with speakers. Your ears are a lot further from speakers than headphones. The higher frequencies are more easily destroyed and so you do not hear them as loudly as the lower frequencies. Getting the HD580's to sound darker than other headphones was intentional. It would have been easier for them to just produce headphones that had a true flat frequency response because getting strong bass is a difficulty in driver design, especially in open systems.

 

[Tim D]

If you use well written EQ programs with proper high accuracy calculations, edit FULL-size wavs, and burn to CDP, you are bypassing a lot of the GUNK common in conventional cheeze on-the-fly EQ. I actually like burning CDP's since you can get better than original CD quality IF you have the proper burn hardware/software tools. This is a bold statement in itself, but this is due to the fact that EAC will try its hardest to extract correct original information from discs that typically may not be 100% easily read on the fly. Also the typical glass mastering process where the pits of your CD's are not burned necessarily in the same fashion that is read, but I think STAMPED with pits inner to outter (i.e. not linear in terms of data progression). Since a burner burns the pits in a linear fashion (or more correctly an arc of increasing radius), it can also prove to be more accurately readable. Also the possibility that the pits aren't STAMPED in perfect alignment with the rotation of the CD giving your laser motors on your CD player a good work-out (not an issue with the burn since the data should be burned in correct alignment with the disc since it is being rotated). The only possible drawback is that the burned/dyed pits of CDR may not be so readable on your CDP, but that depends on your CDP and the CDR media you use. However do you have a high-speed CD-rom in your computer? Have you ever noticed how some CD's spin incredibly noisy and some are well-behaved? Again a possible balance issue with the original CD that not only gives you the laser motor workout, but the CD spindle as well. So yes when you pay the record industry to make your CD's, you are paying for the fact that your BURN of that original CD can actually be better...spiffy huh?

However, the obvious issue is the amount of time you spend on each recording. You can argue that not all recordings are EQ'd to the way you like it as well, so you could also spend time basically eqing every selection you own.

Getting a much better burner was something I wanted on my to-do list, but I already had a cheezy burner (for mostly data burns) and realized I'd be too lazy to make too many audio burns. On the otherhand it is an excellent way to not only archive your music, but possibly get better reads while keeping originals safe from use. Unfortunately if you have a big collection...well good luck and have fun. CDR's are cheap, but you still want good CDR media. Obviously I'd probably ignore EQ...but I have Ety's. Honestly however, do you really WANT to reburn and EQ everytime you upgrade your audio system? Again you can't polish a turd into a diamond. The upgrade craze may still hit, and you might have a bunch of CDR's EQ'd for stuff you don't use anymore.

 

[dngl]

No, headphones were equalized for a reason. If you like it better flat, that's fine. I don't

 

[Joe Bloggs]

OOOPPPSS!!

Definitely missed something there.

Yes after you flattened the earphone response you should put back in the earphone Head-Related Transfer Function to make it sound more like loudspeakers.

e.g. http://headwize.com/articles/accguide_art.htm--the biophonic curve in the Equlizer section.

Moo, hope you're getting this!

I missed this because I never had a use for it because I never had frequency response graphs for my headphones in the first place. I had to test it by ear using test wavs:

(extracted from my epinion review; BTW, that review was probably over-optimistic by the standards of head-fi!)
1. Get your hands on a test CD (or make some test wav files) that includes sound from all frequencies that are supposed to have the same amplitude.

2. Play the sounds out loud (say what you perceive to be 70dB) and adjust your equalizer (EQ) until all frequencies sound about as loud as each other.

3. Look up the Fletcher-Munson curve (look up ‘Fletcher-Munson’ curve on any search engine and you’ll find a bunch of them on the Web) and correct the EQ to convert it from a setting that makes all frequencies *sound* as loud as each other to one that makes all frequencies *be* as loud as each other (i.e. an EQ setting that flattens your equipment’s frequency response! Hooray and three cheers!)

With the method I used there's no need to apply any HRTFs because the Fletcher-Munson curves themselves were determined using loudspeakers, so in my final settings I'm automatically obtaining the headphone-->loudspeaker HRTF!

 

[skippy]

i think the biphonic curve is an approximation of HRTF's (probably for 'flat' headphones that have not been equalised in a free field, diffuse field manner). a diffuse field equalised headphone without additional equalisation will probably be more accurate in this regard than a 'flat' headphone with a biphonic curve.

if you equalise your cans with pink noise (perceived equal amplitudes of all frequencies) to be flat, then there should be no further equalisation necessary since it's already supposed to be flat (in other words your ear should have already accounted for the fletcher munson curves).

Quote:

With the method I used there's no need to apply any HRTFs because the Fletcher-Munson curves themselves were determined using loudspeakers, so in my final settings I'm automatically obtaining the headphone-->loudspeaker HRTF

there's a bit of flawed logic here. just because the F-M curves were determined with speakers does not equate to loudspeaker HRTF. they are two seperate and different things.

can you make sweep tones on your computer? try playing a few sweep tones on your computer and see how flat and smooth your headphones are. then try equalising the sweep tone file, so that it sounds even. then apply the same equalisation to your cans.

 

[Tim D]

How well matched are the left and right channels on your Aiwa phones? Shouldn't you apply left and right EQ to match those as well?

BTW, it is also possible to apply Dolby-Headphone algorithms to any recording and burn that as well and it would sound just as good if not better than the hardware processed counterpart provided the calculations and processing is correct. This is how there is a demo disc of Dolby Headphone with those Grados without Dolby Headphone hardware.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Tim: now you're making me mad!!

Actually they are pretty well matched, except for some irregularities in the treble.

Still I'm not saying these are good cans, I will get better ones when the opportunity presents itself.

Quote:

there's a bit of flawed logic here. just because the F-M curves were determined with speakers does not equate to loudspeaker HRTF.

Really? Think harder

First I make some sweep tones and EQ that to make the loudness even (yes this is already what I do) But then I use the Flether-Munson curve to correct for the difference between every frequency *sounding* as loud as each other and every frequency *being* as loud as each other, coming from loudspeakers. Theoretically after these steps I will get the perceived frequency response of completely flat loudspeakers positioned however they were in the experiments that determined the Fletcher-Munson curves, no matter what sound equipment I was actually equilizing, be they loudspeakers, headphones, canalphones or auditory nerve stimulators!

Of course, the Fletcher-Munson curve is only a statistical average of normal hearing. The results will be more accurate if you went and got your own audiogram! But I find that this method works well enough for me

 

[skippy]

the F-M curves just state that as volume goes down you'd need to boost the bass and treble to get a flat sound (that's all it says.... it has nothing to do with loudspeakers. the same curve could have probably also been generated with headphones). now if you already equalised the cans to sound flat at a given sound pressure level, then the F-M curves have already been taken into account, since all frequencies sound just as loud as each other.

i'm sure you realise that HRTF=head related transfer function. for example, crossfeed is a HRTF. i don't think that the F-M curves are HRTFs.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

One thing you might be missing: I'm only using the Fletcher-Munson curves in the case of headphones that do not have frequency response graphs at HeadRoom. That's when I have to fly by ear...

Oh, and there's two types of Fletcher-Munson curves: one is the equalizer curve, which may be the one you're talking about here; the other one looks like this. It's much more complicated

If you follow the link and understand the article you just might understand why I claim what I claim here.

Oh, and I never said that the Fletcher-Munson curve is by itself a HRTF. If I have to equate something to a Transfer Function it would be something like

EQ to make all frequencies sound at loud as each other at X phons + 'Transfer Function' specified by the Fletcher-Munson curve at X phons-->X dB SPL = EQ to flatten frequency response + 'Transfer Function' from your own hearing equipment to loudspeakers used in Fletcher-Munson tests--in the case of EQing headphones it would be HRTF, in the case of EQing loudspeakers it wouldn't.

The point is that whether it's a HRTF is determined by the 1st stage where you're lisetening to the phones and trying to determine how far down to cut a particular frequency to make it *sound* as loud as 1kHz. This is determined by

1. Actual difference in response to the 2 frequencies by your phones
2. The Fletcher-Munson curve
3. The difference between listening with headphones and listening with loudspeakers.

Because of pt 3 the final result already factors in the difference between listening with headphones and listening with loudspeakers without having to add a HRTF. That's different from saying that the F-M curves *are* HRTFs...

Experimental support: all my headphones EQ done by this method have big dips around 7.5kHz as the HRTF says there should be (sometimes I feel like I've overdone it!) whereas the one time I used this method to EQ speakers, I ended up *boosting* around 7.5kHz! I didn't program this in or anything