[martel80]

This seems to absolutely kill violins and orchestral music. Completely hollows them out. I guess it technically sounds more reference? But oh my, the trade off is not even close to worth it in terms of musicality, I think. I like your previous ones much more - this one feels like you combined Martel's and yours. I liked yours a lot more than his....this one seems like the worst of both worlds, at least for me.

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

I'm running one of your other ones, I think. And, while the treble is more forward, the gain in musicality is fantastic, I think.
22 3 1.41
55 3 12LSQslope
163 -1 1.41
1890 4 2.6
5750 1.3 4.3
8400 -2 5

Perhaps I should also say that I like the way Amir from ASR EQs his headphones and dislike how oratory does his

You pin pointed it. My curve is an audio engineering reference curve. It has nothing to do with enjoyment but all to do with evenness in the frequency spectrum. It helps a trained ear listen to flaws in recordings.

It’s a good thing that you mentioned it as I think some people might still confuse the Harman curve and the reference curve.

Also Note that some audio engineer also use the B&K reference curve ( which is even more pronounced in the amount of treble that is deducted from the Harman curve compared to the one I use) and some others some slightly modified of the so said curves.

I have yet to meet an audio engineer that use something close to the treble bump in the Harman curve.

Might be one of the reason why so many audio engineers lack confidence in most hifi reviewing website.

We need to read between the lines at some point. At least I do.

 

[marekm]

It appears that I lead a very simple audiophile life

If headphones do not sound right without EQ, they are probably not for me, so I move on

 

[martel80]

It appears that I lead a very simple audiophile life

If headphones do not sound right without EQ, they are probably not for me, so I move on

And I think that’s a very fair approach.

I love cars but I’m not a mechanical engineer so I would never look at a car for its potential after modifications. I would buy one that serve the purpose at my budget point and move on happily with my life ever after.

But still, I follow Formula one religiously and cherish the idea that one day I’ll be able to buy (or at least ride one for a day or a weekend) an old Ferrari .

 

[TheR0v3r]

This seems to absolutely kill violins and orchestral music. Completely hollows them out. I guess it technically sounds more reference? But oh my, the trade off is not even close to worth it in terms of musicality, I think. I like your previous ones much more - this one feels like you combined Martel's and yours. I liked yours a lot more than his....this one seems like the worst of both worlds, at least for me.

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

I'm running one of your other ones, I think. And, while the treble is more forward, the gain in musicality is fantastic, I think.
22 3 1.41
55 3 12LSQslope
163 -1 1.41
1890 4 2.6
5750 1.3 4.3
8400 -2 5

Perhaps I should also say that I like the way Amir from ASR EQs his headphones and dislike how oratory does his

Thank you, I really appreciate your comments

Very much enjoying the process of sharing and getting feedback. It actually helps me understand what’s happening.

PS. So maybe I somewhat inadvertently stumbled on two different tunings

 

[martel80]

Thank you, I really appreciate your comments

Very much enjoying the process of sharing and getting feedback. It actually helps me understand what’s happening.

PS. So maybe I somewhat inadvertently stumbled on two different tunings

I think your quest to the perfect EQ can be only achieved by believing in your own preference and applying it and testing it for a while until you ear something is off. Then you’d go back to your correction EQ, apply what’s bothering you and repeat the process until you reach a level of satisfaction where you and only you believe that it’s the best trade off based out of your own preferences.

Some songs will inevitably sound off with some correction you will make and some will sound superb and embellished.

At one point you will need to be able to take the decision that some recordings are simply not to your liking and therefore, the EQ you believe in do deliver the frequency response you enjoy most in your most trustworthy songs.

As an example, I would use the idea that audio engineers use commercially released records to reference, critically analyze and judge certain specific criteria of those said songs.

I already saw audio engineers saying that one specific song is perfect in all aspect but I’ve never stumbled upon one of those. There’s always something I would have loved to hear differently.

With that in mind, I believe that’s the field your set to play your game on.

I think it’s also important to mention that sometimes, like anything in life, it is important to challenge our own beliefs to be able to achieve the best outcome for us, personally.

It’s not an easy task to change bad habits especially when all we are surrounded with is consumer electronics with emphasis on a specific frequency range. Not to point out their distortion level which makes it even more prominent.

Just the fact that you are open to test different curves to then listen to some specific songs and pin point some issues makes me believe that you’re not far from reaching your goal.

It will obviously change a bit over time but you will gain a confidence at one point that what you have is on the verge of perfection to you and you only.

I sadly don’t have that luxury because I work in different environments and the quality of sound at my mixing position need to be restrained into a very tight and specific sets of criteria’s that need to follow from place to place and across all my devices. This lead to mixing and decision making confidence and highly cut on the guessing game and doubtful correction that need to be applied when mixing or mastering a song.

 

[TheR0v3r]

I think your quest to the perfect EQ can be only achieved by believing in your own preference and applying it and testing it for a while until you ear something is off. Then you’d go back to your correction EQ, apply what’s bothering you and repeat the process until you reach a level of satisfaction where you and only you believe that it’s the best trade off based out of your own preferences.

Some songs will inevitably sound off with some correction you will make and some will sound superb and embellished.

At one point you will need to be able to take the decision that some recordings are simply not to your liking and therefore, the EQ you believe in do deliver the frequency response you enjoy most in your most trustworthy songs.

As an example, I would use the idea that audio engineers use commercially released records to reference, critically analyze and judge certain specific criteria of those said songs.

I already saw audio engineers saying that one specific song is perfect in all aspect but I’ve never stumbled upon one of those. There’s always something I would have loved to hear differently.

With that in mind, I believe that’s the field your set to play your game on.

I think it’s also important to mention that sometimes, like anything in life, it is important to challenge our own beliefs to be able to achieve the best outcome for us, personally.

It’s not an easy task to change bad habits especially when all we are surrounded with is consumer electronics with emphasis on a specific frequency range. Not to point out their distortion level which makes it even more prominent.

Just the fact that you are open to test different curves to then listen to some specific songs and pin point some issues makes me believe that you’re not far from reaching your goal.

It will obviously change a bit over time but you will gain a confidence at one point that what you have is on the verge of perfection to you and you only.

I sadly don’t have that luxury because I work in different environments and the quality of sound at my mixing position need to be restrained into a very tight and specific sets of criteria’s that need to follow from place to place and across all my devices. This lead to mixing and decision making confidence and highly cut on the guessing game and doubtful correction that need to be applied when mixing or mastering a song.

Thank you so much for this very insightful post

In this field i*m an amateur and this is, as you point out, also a blessing because I only need to achieve the best outcome for me. And me alone. After having tried different settings and tweaking them now is maybe the time to take a step back in order to reflect upon my preferences. The Ananada Nano is the first headphone I’ve been able to work with in this way were the sound ends up being different rather than better or worse.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write this.

 

[martel80]

Thank you so much for this very insightful post

In this field i*m an amateur and this is, as you point out, also a blessing because I only need to achieve the best outcome for me. And me alone. After having tried different settings and tweaking them now is maybe the time to take a step back in order to reflect upon my preferences. The Ananada Nano is the first headphone I’ve been able to work with in this way were the sound ends up being different rather than better or worse.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write this.

I completely agree with you. The Nanos really take EQing really well. There’s only one thing I noticed as a “trade off” when I first received my custom calibration. At first listen I noticed some sort of sizzling. Sort of a raw low bit resolution in the 2khz to 5 kHz range. I don’t hear it anymore but maybe that was also just an issue with a playback of a song I was listening. Or maybe it was the new tuning that helped me reveal something that was happening at that specific moment. We’ll never know.

Anyhow, I hope you’ll discover beautiful details that you never knew was there in some songs you love .

 

[dd051]

You pin pointed it. My curve is an audio engineering reference curve. It has nothing to do with enjoyment but all to do with evenness in the frequency spectrum. It helps a trained ear listen to flaws in recordings.

It’s a good thing that you mentioned it as I think some people might still confuse the Harman curve and the reference curve.

Also Note that some audio engineer also use the B&K reference curve ( which is even more pronounced in the amount of treble that is deducted from the Harman curve compared to the one I use) and some others some slightly modified of the so said curves.

I have yet to meet an audio engineer that use something close to the treble bump in the Harman curve.

Might be one of the reason why so many audio engineers lack confidence in most hifi reviewing website.

We need to read between the lines at some point. At least I do.

Understandable, as you're looking primarily for a headphone with superb technical qualities, I would assume - especially speed, textural reproduction ability, etc.

I do wonder, however - could perhaps you, rover and hardstyle put your EQing skills, after you've found the neutral monitoring curves you like, together to make a 'musicality' curve - one designed for enjoyment of music? Obviously, a person could say - 'people enjoy different tunings etc.' But I'd like to think that, in an audio circle such as this, we all could probably agree on what sounds good, musically, even if we still have some differences of opinion. I don't think anyone here is loving the tuning of Beats headphones or the super treble forward stock presentation of this headphone - however, we can also appreciate the effects of low/sub-bass in a song and the detail retrieval afforded by the aforementioned qualities - which means, how do we put the positive aspects of those qualities in an EQ curve while removing or minimizing the negative aspects (bass bloat, overly forward/bright treble).

 

[martel80]

Understandable, as you're looking primarily for a headphone with superb technical qualities, I would assume - especially speed, textural reproduction ability, etc.

I do wonder, however - could perhaps you, rover and hardstyle put your EQing skills, after you've found the neutral monitoring curves you like, together to make a 'musicality' curve - one designed for enjoyment of music? Obviously, a person could say - 'people enjoy different tunings etc.' But I'd like to think that, in an audio circle such as this, we all could probably agree on what sounds good, musically, even if we still have some differences of opinion. I don't think anyone here is loving the tuning of Beats headphones or the super treble forward stock presentation of this headphone - however, we can also appreciate the effects of low/sub-bass in a song and the detail retrieval afforded by the aforementioned qualities - which means, how do we put the positive aspects of those qualities in an EQ curve while removing or minimizing the negative aspects (bass bloat, overly forward/bright treble).

In a perfect world, that would be ideal but I think the best we could achieve is an average of the three curves, because , as you mentioned, we all love different tuning.

And just to make things clear, If I was strictly enjoying music and not using them strictly as an analytical tool, I would not tune them that way. The recessed treble on my curve is extreme but there's a reason for that. I also am used to my Cellphone and TV sound so it is not ''natural'' to me the way my cans are EQ'd. So I would probably compromise the treble EQ cut just like R0v3r did.

I'm also a bass head and I would probably try to search for the breaking point in the sub bass range until the whole spectrum start to fall apart. (I really really love sub bass )

But I'm definitely open to play the game if someone want to start. We'll see where it lead us.

 

[HardstyleLoco96]

Understandable, as you're looking primarily for a headphone with superb technical qualities, I would assume - especially speed, textural reproduction ability, etc.

I do wonder, however - could perhaps you, rover and hardstyle put your EQing skills, after you've found the neutral monitoring curves you like, together to make a 'musicality' curve - one designed for enjoyment of music? Obviously, a person could say - 'people enjoy different tunings etc.' But I'd like to think that, in an audio circle such as this, we all could probably agree on what sounds good, musically, even if we still have some differences of opinion. I don't think anyone here is loving the tuning of Beats headphones or the super treble forward stock presentation of this headphone - however, we can also appreciate the effects of low/sub-bass in a song and the detail retrieval afforded by the aforementioned qualities - which means, how do we put the positive aspects of those qualities in an EQ curve while removing or minimizing the negative aspects (bass bloat, overly forward/bright treble).

For me, my EQ is no where near neutral. I'm aiming for a warm harmen curve. I do agree, we all eventually will enjoy a different eq. But if musical is what you want. Try my EQ, and bump that low shelf to 4.5db at 105hz . To my ears, I am loving this eq. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But overall, to my ear. It's nicer than stock . Every now and then. I set the highshelf at 3850 to -2.2 if I want a little more sizzle

 

[TheR0v3r]

In a perfect world, that would be ideal but I think the best we could achieve is an average of the three curves, because , as you mentioned, we all love different tuning.

And just to make things clear, If I was strictly enjoying music and not using them strictly as an analytical tool, I would not tune them that way. The recessed treble on my curve is extreme but there's a reason for that. I also am used to my Cellphone and TV sound so it is not ''natural'' to me the way my cans are EQ'd. So I would probably compromise the treble EQ cut just like R0v3r did.

I'm also a bass head and I would probably try to search for the breaking point in the sub bass range until the whole spectrum start to fall apart. (I really really love sub bass )

But I'm definitely open to play the game if someone want to start. We'll see where it lead us.

Yeah, I think this can be an interesting experiment.

The key for me is working together on creating different curves specifially for the Ananda Nano. It’s a very flexible headphone when it comes to the range of EQ settings that work. In my experience with many other headphones you fairly quickly run up against technical limitations were things start sounding disjointed/distorted/incoherent.

 

[Toriga]

I use this.
Preamp: -4.8 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 31 Hz Gain 4.6 dB Q 1.41
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 62 Hz Gain 1.5 dB Q 1.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 125 Hz Gain 0.2 dB Q 1.41
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 250 Hz Gain -0.7 dB Q 1.41
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 500 Hz Gain -0.8 dB Q 1.41
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1000 Hz Gain 0.6 dB Q 1.41
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2000 Hz Gain 3.2 dB Q 1.41
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4000 Hz Gain -3.6 dB Q 1.41
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8000 Hz Gain 0.3 dB Q 1.41
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 16000 Hz Gain -12.0 dB Q 1.41
GraphicEQ: 20 -0.7; 21 -0.2; 22 -0.2; 23 -0.5; 24 -0.7; 26 -1.0; 27 -0.8; 29 -0.4; 30 -0.4; 32 -0.6; 34 -0.8; 36 -0.8; 38 -0.7; 40 -0.8; 43 -0.9; 45 -0.9; 48 -1.1; 50 -1.2; 53 -1.4; 56 -1.7; 59 -1.9; 63 -2.3; 66 -2.6; 70 -2.8; 74 -3.0; 78 -3.1; 83 -3.2; 87 -3.3; 92 -3.6; 97 -3.8; 103 -4.0; 109 -4.2; 115 -4.4; 121 -4.6; 128 -4.7; 136 -4.5; 143 -4.0; 151 -3.3; 160 -3.1; 169 -3.2; 178 -3.7; 188 -4.1; 199 -4.5; 210 -4.8; 222 -5.1; 235 -5.4; 248 -5.5; 262 -5.5; 277 -5.5; 292 -5.4; 309 -5.2; 326 -5.2; 345 -5.3; 364 -5.4; 385 -5.3; 406 -5.5; 429 -5.3; 453 -5.1; 479 -4.9; 506 -4.9; 534 -4.8; 565 -4.8; 596 -4.6; 630 -4.1; 665 -3.4; 703 -3.0; 743 -3.1; 784 -3.6; 829 -3.9; 875 -4.1; 924 -4.4; 977 -4.6; 1032 -4.4; 1090 -4.2; 1151 -4.0; 1216 -3.2; 1284 -2.5; 1357 -2.0; 1433 -1.5; 1514 -1.3; 1599 -1.6; 1689 -1.6; 1784 -1.6; 1885 -1.5; 1991 -1.4; 2103 -1.5; 2221 -2.1; 2347 -3.1; 2479 -4.1; 2618 -5.0; 2766 -5.6; 2921 -6.2; 3086 -6.7; 3260 -6.6; 3443 -6.9; 3637 -7.6; 3842 -7.0; 4058 -6.6; 4287 -6.6; 4528 -6.5; 4783 -6.6; 5052 -6.6; 5337 -5.7; 5637 -5.3; 5955 -6.1; 6290 -6.7; 6644 -5.5; 7018 -4.3; 7414 -4.4; 7831 -4.9; 8272 -5.3; 8738 -5.2; 9230 -5.3; 9749 -5.5; 10298 -5.9; 10878 -6.5; 11490 -7.1; 12137 -7.9; 12821 -8.8; 13543 -9.7; 14305 -10.8; 15110 -11.9; 15961 -13.2; 16860 -14.5; 17809 -16.0; 18812 -17.5; 19871 -19.1

 

[dd051]

For me, my EQ is no where near neutral. I'm aiming for a warm harmen curve. I do agree, we all eventually will enjoy a different eq. But if musical is what you want. Try my EQ, and bump that low shelf to 4.5db at 105hz . To my ears, I am loving this eq. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But overall, to my ear. It's nicer than stock . Every now and then. I set the highshelf at 3850 to -2.2 if I want a little more sizzle

Can you let me know if I have made your EQ better or worse? I spent like...more than an hour trying to alter some values just for mostly one song -
Fleetwood Mac - Landslide (1) and Tracy Chapman - Fast Car. (2). I spent maybe 10 minutes? on Fast Car.

I tried to keep the reverberatory sparkle from the single string picking in Landslide while also trying to keep a close balance with the vocals. With the vocals, I wanted them to be in a level that was still forward but not fatiguing/aggressive.

Then, I switched to Fast Car and tried to drop the aggressiveness of the vocals there, but I wasn't sure of the frequency range? So, I added that 5k filter and tried to play with it there.

Then, I switched to an orchestral track and found the violins to be too depressed, but I wasn't sure what freq range to use for that...so I put in a 12k filter and brought it up, which didn't help....then I brought it down, which seemed to bring the violins to a better level of brightness.

Perhaps I've just made your EQ set much worse, thought. hahaha

 

[dd051]

I also think it would be a great experiment and something that can help other nano users.

 

[martel80]

Whats the EQ you guys are using so we can all be on the same page ?