[Hypops]

I'm new to IEMs. I've been a dedicated EQ junkie for all of my over-ear headphones for years, but I'm finding that EQ for IEMs just doesn't... work? I mean, yes, my EQ adjustments are all audible, but everything I try sounds off. I can pretty confidently improve the sound quality on any pair of over-ear headphones with EQ, but I'm finding the same process leading to dead end after dead end on IEMs. My sample size of IEMs is admittedly very low, so it's possible the issue is just with the two particular IEMs I own (Truthear Hola and Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite). But after a few weeks devoted to the task of EQing these IEMs, I might be ready to give up and just leave them without any EQ at all.

I'm curious what others think: is EQing IEMs a fool's errand, while EQing over-ear headphones is perfectly manageable? Why would there be such a big difference between the two?

 

[leo5111]

is EQing IEMs a fool's errand? NO...what i have learned is some IEMS will respond well to EQing and some dont respond that well

 

[KinGensai]

The problem with IEMs is how much of your HRTF is ignored vs HPs, so the FR requirements are more finicky. Pinna gain response tuning is entirely personal, balance level between mid-bass and upper mids also need some tuning, sub-bass needs elevation to approximate the bass feel vs HPs on paper, treble tuning is extremely finicky as well, so it's much more involved.

Ideally, you could measure your HRTF using speakers treated to your preferences and an in-ear mic to get your exact pinna gain response. That is assuming you have those two things of course.

I use center stage height perception to tune the pinna gain response region. The upper harmonics of vocals and instruments falling into the 1k to 4k region are affected heavily by your HRTF, so you can reference that region on your IEM's graph on squig.link and an audio track's graphic visualization to locate and target said harmonics with peak filters.

For treble, I suggest just hitting 12k+ with a high shelf filter and ignore finer adjustments because that region is very susceptible to phase interference and comb filtering.

It's not a fool's errand, you just need some help with visualizers is all.

 

[Hypops]

The problem with IEMs is how much of your HRTF is ignored vs HPs, so the FR requirements are more finicky. Pinna gain response tuning is entirely personal, balance level between mid-bass and upper mids also need some tuning, sub-bass needs elevation to approximate the bass feel vs HPs on paper, treble tuning is extremely finicky as well, so it's much more involved.

Ideally, you could measure your HRTF using speakers treated to your preferences and an in-ear mic to get your exact pinna gain response. That is assuming you have those two things of course.

I use center stage height perception to tune the pinna gain response region. The upper harmonics of vocals and instruments falling into the 1k to 4k region are affected heavily by your HRTF, so you can reference that region on your IEM's graph on squig.link and an audio track's graphic visualization to locate and target said harmonics with peak filters.

For treble, I suggest just hitting 12k+ with a high shelf filter and ignore finer adjustments because that region is very susceptible to phase interference and comb filtering.

It's not a fool's errand, you just need some help with visualizers is all.

This is kind of where I've landed, except that I'm starting to feel like EQing IEMs is simply too complicated and idiosyncratic for me to do well (or at least, well enough to be worth my while). It's too hard to EQ by measurements--whether my own or someone else's--since there are so many invisible variables (HRTF, etc). I'm used to a certain amount of "editorializing" when it comes to over-ear headphone measurements and EQ, but with IEMs, there's even more subjective editorializing that goes into measuring and EQing IEMs. Moreover, the underlying science/engineering behind IEMs keeps shifting so quickly that today's "accepted wisdom" will be tomorrow's busted myth.

Basically seems to leave only one option for EQ: doing it by ear and subjective preference. Maybe I'm just hoping for accessible and accurate measurement tools that don't yet exist?

 

[KinGensai]

The best objective measure we have now is in ear mic recordings. Personalized HRTF software developed for gaming is getting close by scanning the pinna, but the best is still recording the real thing.

You'll never get away from subjective analysis of sound for EQ purposes because we all have unique psychophysiological characteristics. Just keep at it, you get a better feel for how to do it by practicing.

 

[o0genesis0o]

I'm new to IEMs. I've been a dedicated EQ junkie for all of my over-ear headphones for years, but I'm finding that EQ for IEMs just doesn't... work? I mean, yes, my EQ adjustments are all audible, but everything I try sounds off. I can pretty confidently improve the sound quality on any pair of over-ear headphones with EQ, but I'm finding the same process leading to dead end after dead end on IEMs. My sample size of IEMs is admittedly very low, so it's possible the issue is just with the two particular IEMs I own (Truthear Hola and Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite). But after a few weeks devoted to the task of EQing these IEMs, I might be ready to give up and just leave them without any EQ at all.

I'm curious what others think: is EQing IEMs a fool's errand, while EQing over-ear headphones is perfectly manageable? Why would there be such a big difference between the two?

IMHO, IEM tonal balance is trickier because it bypasses the outer ears and how sensitive IEMs are to the way you wear them. Maybe you made a good EQ that is highly specialised to your ears, but then you don’t wear the IEM at exactly the right spot the next day, and it does not sound right precisely because how specialised you tuned it.

For me, I’ll just use a wide band to adjust rather than trying to hunt for dip and peaks. Moreover, I find that IEMs nowadays rarely if ever have wrong tonal balance, but rather “colouring”. So I tend to leave the tonal balance alone. No point in trying different gears if I try to override the vision of the tuner with my vision. Though if I have a convenient access to PEQ that can be baked into a dongle or something, I might do the EQing more often.

 

[Hypops]

For me, I’ll just use a wide band to adjust rather than trying to hunt for dip and peaks. Moreover, I find that IEMs nowadays rarely if ever have wrong tonal balance, but rather “colouring”. So I tend to leave the tonal balance alone. No point in trying different gears if I try to override the vision of the tuner with my vision.

Yeah, the IEM market is so ridiculously cutthroat that I’ve similarly noticed that, in contrast to full size headphones, most IEMs are all tuned at least “good enough.” The differences between them seem much smaller than the differences between headphones. So, yeah, I can see a much stronger case for not EQing IEMs.

Though if I have a convenient access to PEQ that can be baked into a dongle or something, I might do the EQing more often.

Ha. This is part of my issue. Because I’m such a dedicated EQer with my full size headphones, I’ve got plenty of PEQ options ready to go for IEMs too. Telling myself not to obsess about EQing IEMs is an exercise in willpower. Hence this thread.

 

[kmhaynes]

How about just start with flat, then EQ in small increments. Many people here do not EQ and appreciate the straight sound of each IEM. Others, like me, don't have the $$ to fill up a case with IEMs that sound different, and use EQ to achieve an approximation of what I want to hear.
ALL THIS assumes all music sounds the same! Albums are engineered and mixed differently, sone wildly, so that can defeat a one size fits all EQ.
Bottom line, enjoy the music!

 

[MudEnjoyer]

Yes. All EQ is cope. It's a valid workaround for outdated tech like headphones and that's about it.

 

[lgcubana]

I'm new to IEMs. I've been a dedicated EQ junkie for all of my over-ear headphones for years, but I'm finding that EQ for IEMs just doesn't... work? I mean, yes, my EQ adjustments are all audible, but everything I try sounds off. I can pretty confidently improve the sound quality on any pair of over-ear headphones with EQ, but I'm finding the same process leading to dead end after dead end on IEMs. My sample size of IEMs is admittedly very low, so it's possible the issue is just with the two particular IEMs I own (Truthear Hola and Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite). But after a few weeks devoted to the task of EQing these IEMs, I might be ready to give up and just leave them without any EQ at all.

I'm curious what others think: is EQing IEMs a fool's errand, while EQing over-ear headphones is perfectly manageable? Why would there be such a big difference between the two?

IEMs are a more intimate experience, than headphones. It's much easier to parse out nuances, when the playback is in your ear canal, vs. over your ears.

As other have said, unless you're a budding sound engineer, make broad strokes, to see what frequency range improves and don't spend hours tweaking.

When I first got into IEMs, I went a bit loco (top graph), with the PEQ tweaking. Now, I've minimized the peaks and made a rounder setup, as my base setting.

I found this video to be somewhat, helpful
Link to Crinacle, how to tune

 

[kmhaynes]

Yes. All EQ is cope. It's a valid workaround for outdated tech like headphones and that's about it.

I wouldn't go that far. Brand new IEMs are not outdated tech and a listener may EQ it some. And many old HPs don't need EQ at all.
It completely depends on the listener to use it or not.

 

[PixelSquish]

Headphones are outdated tech? Are they good for anything?

Fascinating take.

 

[Hypops]

I'm still committed to my fool's errand. Some things I've learned from everyone's replies and from my continued experimentation:

1) My ears are unusually sensitive to the pinna gain slope on most "neutral" targets. Most ostensibly "neutral" IEMs are shouty AF for me in that part of the upper midrange that rises sharply. I chose the Orchestra Lite precisely because of its more relaxed pinna gain (it's also what I love about Focal's headphone tunings). Even so, I've found that any additional EQ bump between ~1.5kHz-3.5kHz on these IEMs is agony (and the Orchestra Lite is already very relaxed in that area). This is an area I have struggled with EQing even on full-size headphones, but on IEMs it's nigh impossible for me to get right. I think I need to leave that area alone.

2) Insertion depth (and by extension, nozzle length and ear tip size) has a far more dramatic impact on what I hear than just about any other variable (including EQ). I've gone through about a half dozen different tips. The fact that tips vary so widely in their FR effects suggests to me that these might be a better place to start before futzing too much more with EQ. In other words, I probably need to do more tip rolling.

3) The glare I get in the upper midrange is exacerbated by my desktop amplifier (Singxer SA-1). If instead I just plug my IEMs directly into my Mojo 2 (which I use as my desktop DAC), most of that glare vanishes. Not sure what that's about. It's a pretty flat and neutral amplifier in every other context, but with IEMs, it brings out something painfully sharp and bright. Maybe something to do with my using a balanced connection on the amp, but SE on the DAC.

4) It's weird to me that IEM manufacturers don't publicize the crossover points for different drivers. That's, like, square one for knowing how to EQ speakers well. Without knowing the crossover regions, wouldn't you introduce the same phase problems in IEMs that you would with loudspeakers? By contrast, full-size headphones are (mostly) just one isolated driver, so EQ is all minimum phase correction. But many IEMs these days are made up of multiple drivers (and combinations of different driver types), so there are timing/phase issues to consider... I think? I dunno. I'm just extrapolating based on what I know about speakers. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[KinGensai]

@Hypops
I disagree, the pinna gain region is the #1 region you should learn how to manipulate precisely because human hearing is most sensitive in that region and the most affected by HRTF variation. The other regions are mostly tonal preference, but the pinna gain region also distorts spatial cues so it's important to get that part right.

Your amp might be delivering too much current for the Orchestra Lite, that's a sensitive IEM so you don't need much power at all.

 

[Hypops]

@Hypops
I disagree, the pinna gain region is the #1 region you should learn how to manipulate precisely because human hearing is most sensitive in that region and the most affected by HRTF variation. The other regions are mostly tonal preference, but the pinna gain region also distorts spatial cues so it's important to get that part right.

But then I'm left doing EQ entirely by ear. I have no problem trusting my own judgment, but I like to EQ with at least some "objective" reference in mind. IEMs weird me out because they are so physiologically dependent. Each person literally hears each IEM different from how any other person hears that same IEM. Ultimately, I'd much rather leave that technical craft to IEM designers than to my own ear. That seems like a key region for a designer. I trust them more than I trust myself to that work.

Your amp might be delivering too much current for the Orchestra Lite, that's a sensitive IEM so you don't need much power at all.

Huh. Didn't actually think to try low-gain mode until now (I use high gain because I often run an HE6se V2 off of the same amp).