[martel80]

Ugh, this is terribly annoying. I feel like Equalizer/Peace APO is so popular because it's effective, free, easy to use and widespread . No way I'm spending money on software that a free option replicates exactly what I would use it for.

Pedalboard seems to fail as, even after renaming the .ffp to .fxp, the preset won't load into the software. The idea I had for 'let's make an EQ setup that is generally good for musical enjoyment' seems to require professional software now .

In accordance with what you said earlier, @martel80 , there's no good way to translate those FFQ3 settings into something that everyone can use? I still think it's a good idea that an EQ can be made for everyone to use - not just for those that have $170 audio software for these headphones, which will be about <1% of the users of these headphones, I'd guess.. If you can write down some EQ filters, I can set them up in Peace and upload the file here so that you and others can listen and tweak it later.

Thanks.

Im definitely NOT saying you should spend any money on ANY software. What I’m saying is that if I give you all the filters setting I applied in Pro Q3, it will inevitably create heavy phase shifting which will result in frequency cancellation. That defeat the purpose of your goal as far as I understand.

If you can find a system wide EQ that has a linear phase option, then you could implement the settings we have in Pro Q3 and get great result.

So whenever you find one, let me know and I’ll give you the +/- 20 filter setting we created.

To repeat myself, if you cannot find one, you should seriously consider applying only a very few (4 or 5 maximum) filter correction in your EQ. Make sure not to use sharp Q points and use a broad but effective high shelf and low shelf filter + 3 of the biggest mid range flaws corrected as bell .

I can give you such settings but, and Rover will be a testimony to this, it won’t be anything close to what we use.

Your call !!

Let me know.

I’m always happy to help.

Edit : to put things in context, you are comparing EQ apo to Fabfilter Pro Q3 and saying they both do the same. To me, knowing the difference, it’s like saying you got a Sony Walkman you found in a pawn shop for 5$ and feel annoyed because you don’t have the functionality we use in our DAC. Don’t get me wrong , I love tape decks but to me it feels like you are trying to achieve hi-rez from Under par software and feel frustrated because it cannot achieve something only a very specific type of software can achieve. I feel your pain about putting money out of your wallet only to get the advantage of having higher quality but the reality is that it’s pretty much how it is in everything in life unless you find a way through and that usually involve a lot of time and effort researching such solutions.

You can settle for less and be happy ever after. Just don’t try to do the finicky stuff we did with the wrong tools. You’ll ruin your experience even more.

 

[Lightspeed12]

This is becoming more an equalizer thread than a nano thread
Do you guys really enjoy having to do so much to a pair of cheap headphones just to change the sound signature. Why not just buy the arya organic
I know I'm stirring the pot. Lol

 

[martel80]

This is becoming more an equalizer thread than a nano thread
Do you guys really enjoy having to do so much to a pair of cheap headphones just to change the sound signature. Why not just buy the arya organic
I know I'm stirring the pot. Lol

Arya organic ? I like transient in my cans

Joke aside, that’s what passionate do with the things they like. They discuss and try to better what they already love . See car forums, food forums, wife not listening forums .

 

[Lightspeed12]

Arya organic ? I like transient in my cans

Joke aside, that’s what passionate do with the things they like. They discuss and try to better what they already love . See car forums, food forums, wife not listening forums .

I'm a mechanic so I know cars I eat simple but well Don't have a wife so even a happy-er life
Which also means i can buy what i like.

 

[martel80]

I'm a mechanic so I know cars I eat simple but well Don't have a wife so even a happy-er life
Which also means i can buy what i like.

I’m an audio engineer. I know audio devices.

 

[Silence33]

Martel80, one question:

Do you think that good (pristine) sound can be achieved with EffectRack and the Tidal application in Windows 11? .... better than jRiver driver?

I'm doing tests and I managed to get it to sound the way I need it .... but it doesn't respect the bit rate .... and it goes up to 44.1Khz .... no more than that ... I don't know what to think ... jRiver seems better to me .... even APO Eq seems ... any recommendations to implement EffectRack?

Thank you !!

 

[martel80]

Martel80, one question:

Do you think that good (pristine) sound can be achieved with EffectRack and the Tidal application in Windows 11? .... better than jRiver driver?

I'm doing tests and I managed to get it to sound the way I need it .... but it doesn't respect the bit rate .... and it goes up to 44.1Khz .... no more than that ... I don't know what to think ... jRiver seems better to me .... even APO Eq seems ... any recommendations to implement EffectRack?

Thank you !!

As far as I Know, Soundtoys don’t have a linear phase EQ in their line-up so I don’t think it’s useful to set it up in EffectRack.

I think you’re better off with pedalboard.

I just made a quick google search and it seems like there’s a free multiband linear phase EQ. It’s called SplineEQ.

I’d try that with pedalboard.

If it work, you’ll be able to set your sample rate and use a free linear phase EQ for a big total of 0 dollars and 0 cents.

You might need to follow a few tutorials to get it to work properly.

Hope that help.

Edit: apparently, the free version of SplineEQ only allow for 4 band. I just watched a tutorial and I think it’s a bit too finicky. I’ll see if I can find another one. But I think you said you have Pro Q3. So you should definitely use it imo.

 

[Silence33]

Ok .... I think I'm going to continue with jRiver and its driver .... it has an excellent sound, its simple and it respects the characteristics of each song file.

Thank you my friend .... now I log off to welcome the new year.

Greetings and happy new year !!

 

[dd051]

Im definitely NOT saying you should spend any money on ANY software. What I’m saying is that if I give you all the filters setting I applied in Pro Q3, it will inevitably create heavy phase shifting which will result in frequency cancellation. That defeat the purpose of your goal as far as I understand.

If you can find a system wide EQ that has a linear phase option, then you could implement the settings we have in Pro Q3 and get great result.

So whenever you find one, let me know and I’ll give you the +/- 20 filter setting we created.

To repeat myself, if you cannot find one, you should seriously consider applying only a very few (4 or 5 maximum) filter correction in your EQ. Make sure not to use sharp Q points and use a broad but effective high shelf and low shelf filter + 3 of the biggest mid range flaws corrected as bell .

I can give you such settings but, and Rover will be a testimony to this, it won’t be anything close to what we use.

Your call !!

Let me know.

I’m always happy to help.

Edit : to put things in context, you are comparing EQ apo to Fabfilter Pro Q3 and saying they both do the same. To me, knowing the difference, it’s like saying you got a Sony Walkman you found in a pawn shop for 5$ and feel annoyed because you don’t have the functionality we use in our DAC. Don’t get me wrong , I love tape decks but to me it feels like you are trying to achieve hi-rez from Under par software and feel frustrated because it cannot achieve something only a very specific type of software can achieve. I feel your pain about putting money out of your wallet only to get the advantage of having higher quality but the reality is that it’s pretty much how it is in everything in life unless you find a way through and that usually involve a lot of time and effort researching such solutions.

You can settle for less and be happy ever after. Just don’t try to do the finicky stuff we did with the wrong tools. You’ll ruin your experience even more.

Yeah, I'm definitely not familiar with the realm of what you all do in audio engineering. My goal with starting this "let's get a good EQ that generally sounds good" was to use Peace or something similar. There are very few available EQ settings for the Ananda Nanos - googling for XS, Aananda, Arya, etc. reveals dozens or more of 'respectable' EQ filters for Equalizer. That was where I was trying to go with this topic.

I think it's great that you and rover were able to come together and make a much more professional version of it that could be used in your settings as audio engineers. However, I do wonder if we could also have a more simple EQ that, when people google for "Ananda Nano EQ settings" or something similar, they can come here, copy the Equalizer settings and be satisfied with the improvement in their cans.

Do you think that's something you could whip up? I know it won't be as perfect as what you are using with your more professional software but, for the vast majority of users, I think it would be good. I spent like 30 mins - 1hr googling, downloading and trying to get FPQ3 working with free software and it just wasn't happening. So, for most users, I think keeping it simple would be better. We also still have the pro option that you and rover created. It'd be nice if we could have something for the, what I would guess would be, vast majority of owners of these headphones that don't know what linear phase EQ is and are looking for a workable solution without tons of setup.

I didn't mean to come off like I was telling you about the differences between the software you were using - What I meant was, for the vast majority of users, the software you are using is, at best, moot to them, as they wouldn't understand the options within.

So, if you would be willing to put together a more 'simple' EQ filter that many people would use, it would be appreciated! Then we can have the filter settings for 'pro's' and for 'joe's'.

Thanks!

 

[dd051]

This is becoming more an equalizer thread than a nano thread
Do you guys really enjoy having to do so much to a pair of cheap headphones just to change the sound signature. Why not just buy the arya organic
I know I'm stirring the pot. Lol

Well...why not just buy the Sennheiser Orpheus or whatever other headset, following that logic?
Also, if you want to say the Ananda Nano are cheap, I think you would also say the Arya Organic are cheap as well?

It seems like, with the Ananda Nano, Hifiman released a pair of very technically capable headphones that can get close to the Arya Organics for less than half the price. However, they do seem to need EQ to achieve very high performance.

So, I think the Ananda Nano is actually a hard sell atm. The Edition XS, according to what I've read on the 'net, seem to be relatively close to them and also are better tuned out of the box as well as having a vast number of EQ settings available online. It seems like the Ananda Nano has not been met with such a popular reception.

However, from what people have said, the Ananda Nanos do seem to have a technical ability that significantly surpasses the XS's. I'd be curious for @TheR0v3r @martel80 opinions on the XS/Ananda Nano, as they both seem to have much more professional opinions.

So, why do this with the Ananda Nanos?
1) There isn't a good set of EQ settings available for them
2) It's interesting to see what performance can be drawn from them
3) It's helpful to other people that might be looking for the same information
4) It's Hifiman's 'mid-range' headphone offering atm and some kind of combination of Arya Organic's clarity with the previous Nano's slightly warmer, (Sennish? ) presentation.

I could be wrong on that last point.

 

[Lightspeed12]

Well...why not just buy the Sennheiser Orpheus or whatever other headset, following that logic?
Also, if you want to say the Ananda Nano are cheap, I think you would also say the Arya Organic are cheap as well?

It seems like, with the Ananda Nano, Hifiman released a pair of very technically capable headphones that can get close to the Arya Organics for less than half the price. However, they do seem to need EQ to achieve very high performance.

So, I think the Ananda Nano is actually a hard sell atm. The Edition XS, according to what I've read on the 'net, seem to be relatively close to them and also are better tuned out of the box as well as having a vast number of EQ settings available online. It seems like the Ananda Nano has not been met with such a popular reception.

However, from what people have said, the Ananda Nanos do seem to have a technical ability that significantly surpasses the XS's. I'd be curious for @TheR0v3r @martel80 opinions on the XS/Ananda Nano, as they both seem to have much more professional opinions.

So, why do this with the Ananda Nanos?
1) There isn't a good set of EQ settings available for them
2) It's interesting to see what performance can be drawn from them
3) It's helpful to other people that might be looking for the same information
4) It's Hifiman's 'mid-range' headphone offering atm and some kind of combination of Arya Organic's clarity with the previous Nano's slightly warmer, (Sennish? ) presentation.

I could be wrong on that last point.

There's a lot more to enjoyable headphones than their technical ability.
Its ok for you trying to get the most out of them with equalizer profiles but the majority of people don't have the skills or patience to waste so much time on the nano when there is other good headphones out there that don't need so much work to sound right.
I bought the ananda stealth after reading most of this thread & the arya stealth mainly because I am sensitive to treble.
I do plan on getting the organic very soon also because unfortunately don't have the luxury of trying before buying. I think most headphones have some aspect that isn't quite right but its a matter of getting the one with the least worries. Also that is why most of us own more than one set of headphones.

 

[martel80]

Yeah, I'm definitely not familiar with the realm of what you all do in audio engineering. My goal with starting this "let's get a good EQ that generally sounds good" was to use Peace or something similar. There are very few available EQ settings for the Ananda Nanos - googling for XS, Aananda, Arya, etc. reveals dozens or more of 'respectable' EQ filters for Equalizer. That was where I was trying to go with this topic.

I think it's great that you and rover were able to come together and make a much more professional version of it that could be used in your settings as audio engineers. However, I do wonder if we could also have a more simple EQ that, when people google for "Ananda Nano EQ settings" or something similar, they can come here, copy the Equalizer settings and be satisfied with the improvement in their cans.

Do you think that's something you could whip up? I know it won't be as perfect as what you are using with your more professional software but, for the vast majority of users, I think it would be good. I spent like 30 mins - 1hr googling, downloading and trying to get FPQ3 working with free software and it just wasn't happening. So, for most users, I think keeping it simple would be better. We also still have the pro option that you and rover created. It'd be nice if we could have something for the, what I would guess would be, vast majority of owners of these headphones that don't know what linear phase EQ is and are looking for a workable solution without tons of setup.

I didn't mean to come off like I was telling you about the differences between the software you were using - What I meant was, for the vast majority of users, the software you are using is, at best, moot to them, as they wouldn't understand the options within.

So, if you would be willing to put together a more 'simple' EQ filter that many people would use, it would be appreciated! Then we can have the filter settings for 'pro's' and for 'joe's'.

Thanks!

Totally understandable.

See file attached for Equalizer APO 1.2.1.

Let me know how it feel.

Do yourself a favour. Stop debating audio engineering related subject with someone that think that injecting money in a new device will magically fix the issue. That's the most undeniable and ridiculous proof of how uneducated and unsavvy he is about any part of audio related subject. If you like the Nanos, dont touch any Arya with a 12 foot pole. Their PRaT are not up to par. Not even close. And that's one thing you cannot change. The XS are also not a technically impressive set of cans. You'd be throwing your money by the window by buying any of those.

Edit: See updated file for the Nanos.

 

[TheR0v3r]

Im definitely NOT saying you should spend any money on ANY software. What I’m saying is that if I give you all the filters setting I applied in Pro Q3, it will inevitably create heavy phase shifting which will result in frequency cancellation. That defeat the purpose of your goal as far as I understand.

If you can find a system wide EQ that has a linear phase option, then you could implement the settings we have in Pro Q3 and get great result.

So whenever you find one, let me know and I’ll give you the +/- 20 filter setting we created.

To repeat myself, if you cannot find one, you should seriously consider applying only a very few (4 or 5 maximum) filter correction in your EQ. Make sure not to use sharp Q points and use a broad but effective high shelf and low shelf filter + 3 of the biggest mid range flaws corrected as bell .

I can give you such settings but, and Rover will be a testimony to this, it won’t be anything close to what we use.

Your call !!

Let me know.

I’m always happy to help.

Edit : to put things in context, you are comparing EQ apo to Fabfilter Pro Q3 and saying they both do the same. To me, knowing the difference, it’s like saying you got a Sony Walkman you found in a pawn shop for 5$ and feel annoyed because you don’t have the functionality we use in our DAC. Don’t get me wrong , I love tape decks but to me it feels like you are trying to achieve hi-rez from Under par software and feel frustrated because it cannot achieve something only a very specific type of software can achieve. I feel your pain about putting money out of your wallet only to get the advantage of having higher quality but the reality is that it’s pretty much how it is in everything in life unless you find a way through and that usually involve a lot of time and effort researching such solutions.

You can settle for less and be happy ever after. Just don’t try to do the finicky stuff we did with the wrong tools. You’ll ruin your experience even more.

This

It’s just such a pleasure to read posts like these. My mistake early on was making too complicated corrections without understanding what was happening in practice.

When you EQ your actually working in both the frequency AND time domain (even though it’s always depicted in the frequency domain with a frequency curve). This actually made me sell some really good equipment because everything sounded wrong… As I understand it that’s also why @martel80 is making a point about phase shifting etc

P.S. Continued to be amazed by this community and the willingness of pros like @martel80 to contribute

 

[martel80]

This

It’s just such a pleasure to read posts like these. My mistake early on was making too complicated corrections without understanding what was happening in practice.

When you EQ your actually working in both the frequency AND time domain (even though it’s always depicted in the frequency domain with a frequency curve). This actually made me sell some really good equipment because everything sounded wrong… As I understand it that’s also why @martel80 is making a point about phase shifting etc

P.S. Continued to be amazed by this community and the willingness of pros like @martel80 to contribute

You underlined something that I was saying but that might have been misleading. Especially on that PRaT that I keep on bringing back without context.

It is true that by lifting the veil (correcting the frequency ), you are thereof giving your cans the opportunity to be more dynamic because they will have more headroom to give the listener to hear details where, before correction, it would have been masked or should i say, more difficult to hear because it’s buried under neighbouring or over powering frequencies. A good example
Is the treble that, to some, is just good as is. (See the reviewer and is award for example). When you actually correct the treble, you are not only lowering the amount of info coming from that region so it translate more naturally but you are also helping the rest of the frequency range having more room to transmit their energy through their transducers. Thats also the reason why you would lower the gain on your digital EQ in proportion to the highest peak so not only your digital signal won’t peak your DAC but also because it will, again, give more headroom for your signal to articulate its full transient response without having the digital ceiling acting like a limiter and cutting off peaks of your outgoing signal.

 

[Lightspeed12]

You underlined something that I was saying but that might have been misleading. Especially on that PRaT that I keep on bringing back without context.

It is true that by lifting the veil (correcting the frequency ), you are thereof giving your cans the opportunity to be more dynamic because they will have more headroom to give the listener to hear details where, before correction, it would have been masked or should i say, more difficult to hear because it’s buried under neighbouring or over powering frequencies. A good example
Is the treble that, to some, is just good as is. (See the reviewer and is award for example). When you actually correct the treble, you are not only lowering the amount of info coming from that region so it translate more naturally but you are also helping the rest of the frequency range having more room to transmit their energy through their transducers. Thats also the reason why you would lower the gain on your digital EQ in proportion to the highest peak so not only your digital signal won’t peak your DAC but also because it will, again, give more headroom for your signal to articulate its full transient response without having the digital ceiling acting like a limiter and cutting off peaks of your outgoing signal.

I have a basic question about all this work after getting your parameters right on the nano, what happens if you go out & buy a new dac/amp or go from solid state to tube amp or even your mobile dac/amp will you have to re-do or adjust anything to suit your constant changing source ?