How would you EQ these cans?

[DeadMan]

I'm curious as to where the EQ curve should be to correct these cans. Can someone draw on the second graph illustrating where they would change the EQ to make them sound closer to what they should be?

 

[obobskivich]

Well, what "should" they be? 
 
You aren't going to change their overall tonal character, but you might be able to make things sound "better" to you. Play around with it, as long as you don't over-extend the amplifier or drivers, you shouldn't do any harm. 
 
 

 

[DeadMan]

Well basically I tried an inverse curve to the frequency response so a boost to the bottom up to 80Hz then a boost around what I am guessing is the 2KHz mark, pulldown at 8-10KHz and then a boost back up to the end line. This appears to give a a more satisfying sound. Not sure if it's correct though. It's just a guess on my part.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

That curve looks familiar.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

That curve looks familiar.

From here ?
 

 

[DeadMan]

lol. You know your curves.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

It's which model ? Trying to reverse the frequency response curve from headroom doesn't work, you'd get too much treble, and not enough bass punch.
 
The ideal curve looks more like this:

 
The curve was deduced by the explanations from headroom , i.e how to interpret a curve:
 
Quote:

 
How to interpret the line: A "natural sounding" headphone should be slightly higher in the bass (about 3 or 4 dB) between 40Hz and 500Hz. This compensates for the fact that headphones don't give you the physical punch or 'impact' that the sound waves from a room speaker have; so a slight compensation for increased bass response is needed for natural sound.
Headphones also need to be rolled-off in the highs to compensate for the drivers being so close to the ear; a gently sloping flat line from 1kHz to about 8-10dB down at 20kHz is about right. You'll notice all headphone measurements have a lot of jagged ups & downs (peaks & valleys) in the high frequencies; this is normal and mostly due to reflection cancellations in the folds and ridges in the outer part of the ear. Ideally however, the ups and downs of the frequency response should be fairly small and average out to a flat line. Large peaks or valleys over 3kHz in width usually indicate poor headphone response, and should be viewed as a coloring of the sound. Some small dips in the highs may actually be desirable and should exist in the 2kHz to 8kHz region.

 
http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php
 
And also comparing high end models. I  noticed that all curve are passing through the point (1000 hz, 0 db).

The curves from headroom comes from the guy at innerfidelity.

 

[obobskivich]

Not all HeadRoom and InnerFidelity data are the same - some of them look quite different actually. And as far as "correct" - it's personal taste; you'll never make them ruler flat and even if you did that doesn't mean it's what sounds "best" (and you're ignoring a lot of other variables that dictate sound; FR is just one). My point is, if you don't like them how they are, they probably aren't for you. 
Quote:

It's which model ? Trying to reverse the frequency response curve from headroom doesn't work, you'd get too much treble, and not enough bass punch.
 
The ideal curve looks more like this:

 
The curve was deduced by the explanations from headroom , i.e how to interpret a curve:
 
 
http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php
 
And also comparing high end models. I  noticed that all curve are passing through the point (1000 hz, 0 db).

The curves from headroom comes from the guy at innerfidelity.

 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

My point is, if you don't like them how they are, they probably aren't for you. 

But if you like them, you can try to make them better.

 

[obobskivich]

Better is subjective here - you cannot fundamentally change their characteristics with an EQ. You can just re-shape the signal going into them. You aren't going to change other characteristics of how the system responds - if it rings at a given frequency, it will still ring. If it isolates only X well, that's what you get. I think EQs do have a place, and I entirely believe people should play with them, but they aren't going to change ZX700s into something entirely different. 
Quote:

But if you like them, you can try to make them better.

 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Well, if you have a bit unbalanced headphone and that they react well to eq, there's no reason to not do it.
This won't improve the clarity, the details, the tightness of bass,  but the overall balance, which makes music more enjoyable.
Off course you can consider that "neutral" is subjective, but there are limits, and I  think graph can help.
Also there's the quality of EQ that matters, I'm not a fan of the electri-q vst, suggested by a tutorial thread.

 

 

[DeadMan]

So even if you apply EQ you can't correct for the response curve? I understand how it does not change the actual way the speakers are driven. They are what they are in the manufacturing process. However surely you can compensate for some missing freqeuncy response at the expense of a little harmomic distortion (which is usually what happens when you drive them harder than their native response). After all speakers get driven by the frequncies they are fed + amplitude/impedance/wotnot. If a sone has more bass then that will follow through into the overall performance of the cans. By bumping a particular frequency before it hits the cans you are effectively doing the same thing. A poorly master track with overemphasized frequencies will also cause the same harmonic distortions (rather like deeply cut record grooves). Anyhow my EQ probbaly looks incorrect. For each dropoff or peak in the cans native frequency response I either lifted or dropped it in those regions of the graph. I am pleased with the sound even if it's probably not that accurate (I suffer from high frequency hearing loss too so might be pushing the treble much more than I should).
Also I am driving it from my Asus P5Q inbuilt Sound chippery rather than a DAC (I don't see the need just yet) so not exactly audiophile gear. I am using Winamp and the 250 band EQ stacked with HeadPlug for crossfeed.
 
That reference graph looks like I would not like it at all. But then again I would have to hear something that could achieve that to give an opinion (which no cans can do AFAIK).
 
Anyhow here is what I ended up with and you will probably think the bass and treble is off the scale. Yet it sounds good to my 'damaged' hearing (If only I could go back in time and warn myself about loud clubs and wearing ER20's to protect my hearing. So take anything I say with a pinch of salt as I definitely don't have hearing like a lot of folks on this forum anymore).

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

. Yet it sounds good to my 'damaged' hearing

It would probably sound good without the eq too. 
 

 

[DeadMan]

Probably but I am missing some soundstage presence because of it. It's unfortunate my hearing is impaired but I should still be able to enjoy music should I not? Anyhow I am thinking of getting the Beyer DT 990 Pro's a bit later on and assigning these to portable use. I still believe there is more to be had SQ wise and yes I can hear the difference.

 

[obobskivich]

You cannot change their fundamental response. What you are saying is correct, but it doesn't change how the drivers will behave - you're changing the signal parameters not the device's FR. Does that make sense? (I don't know if I'm making sense - I'm not trying to be confrontational). Sometimes, yes, an EQ can be helpful - but it won't change headphones into something they are not. In other words, you cannot run the bass up and turn those into an XB1000 or something else silly. If the curve you've built sounds good to you, that's great! 
 
Quote:

So even if you apply EQ you can't correct for the response curve?