I know what you mean, I've tried HD800 without HPEQ too, but sounds a bit too tizzy.
Did you try using the manual HPEQ routine and doing it properly?
You say UERM works good/excellent? That's one thing I could consider, I think they would also be more comfortable sitting (well usually laying) on the sofa..
Here's a new headphone that can virtualise 25 speakers and has head tracking in a relatively traditional looking headphone for $299.
No personalisation, but the neat thing is that you don't have to wear a separate head tracking device, and it works even when you turn completely around.
I've been listening to it using Shure SE535s and it's really good. The difficulty is in creating a good HPEQ file. I created mine using the very latest technology to create a seal between the IEMs and the microphone (the latest technology being Blu-Tac). It works *really* well with armature drivers. And you can save the virtualised file using optical out and listen to Realiser music on the go.
If anyone wants a copy of the HPEQ file for the Shure IEMs, let me know...
I've been listening to it using Shure SE535s and it's really good. The difficulty is in creating a good HPEQ file. I created mine using the very latest technology to create a seal between the IEMs and the microphone (the latest technology being Blu-Tac). It works *really* well with armature drivers. And you can save the virtualised file using optical out and listen to Realiser music on the go.
If anyone wants a copy of the HPEQ file for the Shure IEMs, let me know...
I have used the Realiser with IEMsS/CIEMs, but I was never able to get a useable HPEQ with IEMs/CIEMs. I just didn't load an HPEQ file when using IEMs. Generally I thought they worked really well.
I am surprised that you were able to get a good HPEQ even with acoustic coupling. I just thought the Realiser was not designed to EQ directly coupled drivers. I always thought the mics were intended to measure the response from a driver that is away from the ear. But I will have to try the Blu-Tac some day. That would mean you can create a "universal" HPEQ for that model since there is no pinnae interaction. Interesting...
I always thought the mics were intended to measure the response from a driver that is away from the ear. But I will have to try the Blu-Tac some day. That would mean you can create a "universal" HPEQ for that model since there is no pinnae interaction. Interesting...
Yep - that's why I offered the 'universal' Shure SE535 HPEQ file if anyone wants it..
It took me a few tries with the Blu-Tac and I compared different HPEQ files to get the best one. I figured that armature drivers need a good seal with your ears to work properly, so therefore I should create a seal when making a HPEQ file. This made a big difference - previous HPEQ files created without a seal were, quite frankly, useless.
I just thought the Realiser was not designed to EQ directly coupled drivers. I always thought the mics were intended to measure the response from a driver that is away from the ear.
The mic simply hears what it hears and flattens it out. How would it know if a driver is far or near? Over-ear vs on-ear etc headphones vary a lot... obviously there can't be any "extra" processing assuming anything.
Good thinking with the bluetack, I might just try some cheap IEMs now..
I don't think its possible, one can't fit both the microphones and the IEMs into the ears canals. The thing with IEMs is that the sound doesn't get affected by the outer ears like with over or on ear headphones, just the shape and size of the inner ears matter in this case.
Fake ear canals are not real ear canals so I think that would be a bit pointless, it will not be the same shape and size as yours and blu tac will not reflect or absorb sound waves like human skin. Probably just tunning the IEMs by ear with EQ would be more accurate.
Fake ear canals are not real ear canals so I think that would be a bit pointless, it will not be the same shape and size as yours and blu tac will not reflect or absorb sound waves like human skin. Probably just tunning the IEMs by ear with EQ would be more accurate.
You are theorizing and someone just posted it works good. I'm sure theoretical differences in 1cm of small canal are much smaller than without running HPEQ at all. You could simply try different sizes etc, and listen which sounds best (which is exactly what was done by previous poster).
Sure, it goes without saying that any headphone could be manually EQd, but I don't want to run Equalizer APO or such to EQ all of my PC apps. Much simpler to use HPEQ. Also I'm not sure manual EQ would result in exact same difference as good HPEQ which works a little differently (it's using convolving techniques instead of "traditional EQ" which can mess up phase responses etc?).
I'm very well aware, but now you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. How about instead trying it and then posting some impressions which would be much more beneficial.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Did you try using the manual HPEQ routine and doing it properly?
