[dd051]

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.

Thanks much for the files!

I'm still listening to tracks and trying to gather what I feel like could be improved on.
One thing is that I think the bass/subbass tuning is a touch soft and could use a bit more presence. Absolutely not in a basshead way, but there are many songs where I feel like a bit of extra bass reverberation would be advantageous.

There's something I'm so curious about, as well - is this a difference in mixing?
So, on tidal, there is a song https://tidal.com/browse/track/69459015 . The upper strings? that accompany the voice (there is an instrument I am not certain as to what it is - a harp?) seem to harmonize well with your settings.
However, in the same music but with a countertenor instead of a soprano, those same metal string sounds get pushed way far back and have no detail or presence. (I wasn't able to find a tidal link for this - I searched spotify as well, and it seemed region locked?)

It's also interesting to be because I tried adjusting your 3500 filter up to adjust this. While it did make those frequencies 'louder', it left them feeling anemic and without body or fullness.

 

[dd051]

Yes, this makes total sense!

Thinking about sound as energy has really helped me come to terms with the fact that changes can have an effect both in the frequency AND time domain at the same time.

Could you expand on what you mean by time? A track with X amount of time takes X amount of time to play it. Are you saying that, by changing frequency ranges, certain notes/frequencies will appear slower/faster? The best info on time domain I found after googling briefly was from here: https://gearspace.com/board/showthread.php?p=14441275 , which does not make it sound like a real thing, which coincides with logic, as the energy is moving at the same speed regardless of frequency.

Or do you mean more like this : https://old.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/12yncfn/what_is_meant_by_the_time_domain/

 

[dd051]

I missed this post @dd051. Hopefully it’s better with some answers late rather than never

Initially I bought the Ananda Nano out of frustration and as a temporary solution. At the time I still had my Focal Utopia but it didn’t connect on an emotional level and was looking for another headphone. On a whim I decided to try something less expensive and was drawn to the technology that had trickled down from the Susvara to the Nano.

After a while (and with some burn in!) it dawned on me that it was a very capable headphone, like REALLY capable. It’s technical capabilities are actually much closer to TOTL headphones than people seem to understand (or are willing to express). IMHO. So I decided to see how far I could take the Ananda Nano with EQ and thanks to @martel80 it turned out very, very well. At this point I consider the Ananda Nano the best headphone I’ve owned because it brings me joy EVERY time I put it on.

P.S. Keep in mind that I don’t especially like the most common Harman tuning so the vast number of available EQ for different headphones are often of little use to me.

Your extolment of these headphones is high praise, indeed! I'm glad you were able to find headphones and tuning that can bring you such pleasure!
It also seems like, not only have these headphones brought you musical enjoyment but, through working with martel, they've also brought you a much deeper understanding of audio engineering and tuning.

Do you think you will continue to study more and more on the technical-side of audio?

 

[martel80]

Thanks much for the files!

I'm still listening to tracks and trying to gather what I feel like could be improved on.
One thing is that I think the bass/subbass tuning is a touch soft and could use a bit more presence. Absolutely not in a basshead way, but there are many songs where I feel like a bit of extra bass reverberation would be advantageous.

There's something I'm so curious about, as well - is this a difference in mixing?
So, on tidal, there is a song https://tidal.com/browse/track/69459015 . The upper strings? that accompany the voice (there is an instrument I am not certain as to what it is - a harp?) seem to harmonize well with your settings.
However, in the same music but with a countertenor instead of a soprano, those same metal string sounds get pushed way far back and have no detail or presence. (I wasn't able to find a tidal link for this - I searched spotify as well, and it seemed region locked?)

It's also interesting to be because I tried adjusting your 3500 filter up to adjust this. While it did make those frequencies 'louder', it left them feeling anemic and without body or fullness.

You should mostly never put reverb on bass. Unless in a orchestral group in a dedicated space , for example church etc…

You will never find any frequency that gives body or fullness under 3500 hz. That’s just not where that lives.

If you need meat and bones, you’ll need to go play between 100 to 500 hz .

You also need to keep in mind that if you are aiming for consumer electronic frequency response ( aka Harman curve and your tv for example) you will never be able to appreciate reference calibration and the frequency flat calibration I provided. Matter of fact, you will need to work on the opposite way and boost your trebles , lower your mids and boost your bass by a good 3 to 6 db. That will give you a big smiley curve very satisfying for blockbuster movies and home theater lovers .

Hope that help.

 

[dd051]

You should mostly never put reverb on bass. Unless in a orchestral group in a dedicated space , for example church etc…

You will never find any frequency that gives body or fullness under 3500 hz. That’s just not where that lives.

If you need meat and bones, you’ll need to go play between 100 to 500 hz .

You also need to keep in mind that if you are aiming for consumer electronic frequency response ( aka Harman curve and your tv for example) you will never be able to appreciate reference calibration and the frequency flat calibration I provided. Matter of fact, you will need to work on the opposite way and boost your trebles , lower your mids and boost your bass by a good 3 to 6 db. That will give you a big smiley curve very satisfying for blockbuster movies and home theater lovers .

Hope that help.

Definitely not reverb - I meant more like a bit more presence in the bass/sub-bass.

Anyway, it does help a lot, thanks! I will try tweaking it a bit more and, if I feel like I have a version I am comfortable with, I'd like to share it with you and get your feedback!

Also, if it doesn't bother you, could you share a bit about how you tuned the curve? Kind of like the process. Do you first target a frequency response curve and then adjust it later? The curve style you used, is that more considered a reference curve or is it just how you tuned these headphones?

 

[martel80]

Definitely not reverb - I meant more like a bit more presence in the bass/sub-bass.

Anyway, it does help a lot, thanks! I will try tweaking it a bit more and, if I feel like I have a version I am comfortable with, I'd like to share it with you and get your feedback!

Also, if it doesn't bother you, could you share a bit about how you tuned the curve? Kind of like the process. Do you first target a frequency response curve and then adjust it later? The curve style you used, is that more considered a reference curve or is it just how you tuned these headphones?

The curve I created for you is based out of a calibration file I got for my specific nanos that I sent to Latvia back in August to get it measured. It was created by a company that use a curve to bridge the gap between multiple devices and studio monitoring solution used in over 160,000 music studio around the world. From professional to amateur . Their target is definitely close to ruler flat frequency response but still has a bit of treble and bass boost. It is not as steeply corrected in the treble as the B&K curve from the 80’s and doesn’t boost as much bass as that said curve but is subtentialy more flat then the Harman curve that used a pool of under 100 person to create their research and curve.

I don’t have the numbers in hand but the curve I rely on is based out of a company that conducted a far deeper research for target then Harman. I can pull out the numbers and info for you if you want.

 

[Ichos]

Always a pleasure to read your reviews

This is spot on, from your review:

The HIFIMAN Ananda Nano is a breeze to power, just make sure you have a source with decent power output. Forget about the rumors of needing tons of power or excessive current, it's all urban legends. However, it does shine when paired with higher quality sources. Despite being a mid-range headphone, it's incredibly transparent and precise, capable of bringing out the best in high-end sources.

In one post I wrote something to the effect that the Ananda Nano should be treated as a TOTL headphone. This was exactly what I meant, but you’re more to the point

I remember reading that! You are %100 right!

 

[Ichos]

Thank you very much Ichos, it was a pleasure to read you and confirm things.

I can't stop falling in love with this headphones.

Greetings and thanks again

Thank you very much for reading!

 

[TheR0v3r]

Your extolment of these headphones is high praise, indeed! I'm glad you were able to find headphones and tuning that can bring you such pleasure!
It also seems like, not only have these headphones brought you musical enjoyment but, through working with martel, they've also brought you a much deeper understanding of audio engineering and tuning.

Do you think you will continue to study more and more on the technical-side of audio?

Thanks

Just want to clarify that I consider them my ”best headphones” because of the consistent enjoyment. In comparison, the Audeze LCD-4 was technically very good (better) but in the end just too heavy. I just wasn’t looking forward to using them ’cause of that. The Focal Utopia OG is also technically amazing but also very demanding. It’s like a person always clamoring for attention - look at ME! The combination of technical chops, tuning and precise imaging made it hard for me to relax. In contrast the Ananda Nano somehow hits a personal sweet spot of sorts between technical capabilty, tuning and presentation (plus price!) that I just really, really like

When it comes to the more technical-side of audio I find it very interesting and will continue to study that. Or maybe practice is the right word, I really enjoy experimenting and tweaking. In audio engineering I just love interacting with pros like @martel80 because the things they do make practical sense and they get results. (That’s probably what defines being a pro!). Then I try to figure out why it works

I’m much more comfortable with the digital side of audio having spent over a decade working in information and IT security. And I continue to be amazed by people stating that ”bits are bits” when I spent a lot of time working in organisations that implemented countermeasures on the analog side of digital.

 

[TheR0v3r]

Could you expand on what you mean by time? A track with X amount of time takes X amount of time to play it. Are you saying that, by changing frequency ranges, certain notes/frequencies will appear slower/faster? The best info on time domain I found after googling briefly was from here: https://gearspace.com/board/showthread.php?p=14441275 , which does not make it sound like a real thing, which coincides with logic, as the energy is moving at the same speed regardless of frequency.

Or do you mean more like this : https://old.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/12yncfn/what_is_meant_by_the_time_domain/

Ha, ha, I will have to read up on that

The thing about time was just me trying to understand what @martel80 was saying with ”phase”. As I understand it sound travels in waves (Hz) but there are many, many waves travelling at the same time. I just felt that if we also view sound as the transmission of energy it would make total sense that EQ etc should have/could have an impact on the waves travelling over time (time domain).

 

[Stach]

It's nice to have a case included with the Nano's but I'm struggling to find a good one that allows a cable to be connected while stored in the case. Does anyone have a recommendtion for a good travel / storage case for the Nano with the cord still attached?

 

[HiFiWar]

I missed this post @dd051. Hopefully it’s better with some answers late rather than never

Initially I bought the Ananda Nano out of frustration and as a temporary solution. At the time I still had my Focal Utopia but it didn’t connect on an emotional level and was looking for another headphone. On a whim I decided to try something less expensive and was drawn to the technology that had trickled down from the Susvara to the Nano.

After a while (and with some burn in!) it dawned on me that it was a very capable headphone, like REALLY capable. It’s technical capabilities are actually much closer to TOTL headphones than people seem to understand (or are willing to express). IMHO. So I decided to see how far I could take the Ananda Nano with EQ and thanks to @martel80 it turned out very, very well. At this point I consider the Ananda Nano the best headphone I’ve owned because it brings me joy EVERY time I put it on.

P.S. Keep in mind that I don’t especially like the most common Harman tuning so the vast number of available EQ for different headphones are often of little use to me.

Agreed. The Ananda Nano is excellent, and not just for the price. The comfort...could use a little work since the headphones sit on my neck in the smallest setting for some reason. But the sound is great.

 

[martel80]

Ha, ha, I will have to read up on that

The thing about time was just me trying to understand what @martel80 was saying with ”phase”. As I understand it sound travels in waves (Hz) but there are many, many waves travelling at the same time. I just felt that if we also view sound as the transmission of energy it would make total sense that EQ etc should have/could have an impact on the waves travelling over time (time domain).

To add to your explanation, from @dd051 last quoted Reddit post;

The acoustical event has four phases in the basic model: attack, decay, sustain, release.

In simpler terms, the frequency spectrum of the acoustical event is different at first, when the string is just being plucked, then when it reaches full volume and then when it lingers for a while and fades into silence.

Uneven FR or intentional processing in the music production phase, can make those "phases" of the acoustical events to stand out more or less, leading to the impression of "snappy" or "muddy" sound, etc.

So to put things in context, as we are changing the frequency response of the cans by applying filters ( eq settings) we are also changing the phase of the signal so if we apply sharp filters, the neighbouring frequencies could possibly be canceled ( well, not that much ) or diminished by a serious amount where some frequencies should normally be present. That doesn’t happen with linear phase EQ’s but that introduce a lot of latency to process as it is auto correcting in real time the normal phase shift happening.

So to come back to the benefit of a flat frequency response vs a coloured one, you get the benefit of having a true(er) response in the frequency and time domain ( think kick and snare attack for example) .

If we were to boost the lows , that would result in kicks having less attack because the decays and release (which are basically living in the low end for a kick ) would overthrow the energy of the attack . So in return , by boosting the lows, you’d get some boomy kicks with lesser attack ( all in correlation to the amount you add or subtract).

By boosting the highs , you’ll get more attack
In your kicks but less body ( boomy or fullness)

I took a kick as example as it might be easier to visualize but now you can take that idea and transform it into each and every instrument fundamental frequencies.

That’s the reason why “frequency flat” is a must as it not only gives space to the instrument to be truely represented but it also let them express themselves better .

No cans are perfectly flat. None. So to know why and how to EQ is a must if your goal is to really enjoy the piece of art you want to experience as the artist and engineers intended them to be.

Hope that help.

 

[Lightspeed12]

To add to your explanation, from @dd051 last quoted Reddit post;

The acoustical event has four phases in the basic model: attack, decay, sustain, release.

In simpler terms, the frequency spectrum of the acoustical event is different at first, when the string is just being plucked, then when it reaches full volume and then when it lingers for a while and fades into silence.

Uneven FR or intentional processing in the music production phase, can make those "phases" of the acoustical events to stand out more or less, leading to the impression of "snappy" or "muddy" sound, etc.

So to put things in context, as we are changing the frequency response of the cans by applying filters ( eq settings) we are also changing the phase of the signal so if we apply sharp filters, the neighbouring frequencies could possibly be canceled ( well, not that much ) or diminished by a serious amount where some frequencies should normally be present. That doesn’t happen with linear phase EQ’s but that introduce a lot of latency to process as it is auto correcting in real time the normal phase shift happening.

So to come back to the benefit of a flat frequency response vs a coloured one, you get the benefit of having a true(er) response in the frequency and time domain ( think kick and snare attack for example) .

If we were to boost the lows , that would result in kicks having less attack because the decays and release (which are basically living in the low end for a kick ) would overthrow the energy of the attack . So in return , by boosting the lows, you’d get some boomy kicks with lesser attack ( all in correlation to the amount you add or subtract).

By boosting the highs , you’ll get more attack
In your kicks but less body ( boomy or fullness)

I took a kick as example as it might be easier to visualize but now you can take that idea and transform it into each and every instrument fundamental frequencies.

That’s the reason why “frequency flat” is a must as it not only gives space to the instrument to be truely represented but it also let them express themselves better .

No cans are perfectly flat. None. So to know why and how to EQ is a must if your goal is to really enjoy the piece of art you want to experience as the artist and engineers intended them to be.

Hope that help.

How do you guys combat music that is already digitally enhanced/coloured in the recording, doesn't that have an effect on the sound you hear. There can be a lot of difference in remastered tracks.
Just trying to get my head around equalising with so many varieties of music.

 

[martel80]

How do you guys combat music that is already digitally enhanced/coloured in the recording, doesn't that have an effect on the sound you hear. There can be a lot of difference in remastered tracks.
Just trying to get my head around equalising with so many varieties of music.

You cannot fight what’s already recorded. What we can do is neutralize as much as possible what we have in hand.

The goal is not to get a song to sound flat, the goal is to get our devices to sound as flat as possible.