[morijinal]

This is quite the run-away thread. It all started by me suggesting that the superb Sennheiser 558 could be made to sound more exciting with the use of EQ if the listener is in the mood for something more engaging. Does anybody have any custom EQ settings that accomplish this?

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

This is quite the run-away thread. It all started by me suggesting that the superb Sennheiser 558 could be made to sound more exciting with the use of EQ if the listener is in the mood for something more engaging. Does anybody have any custom EQ settings that accomplish this?

apart from me i do not know of anyone else, most of the case because not too many people use the eq in the first place.... and not too many people use the HD558 as well (unlike the HD800,HD650,LCD3 and the other super popular ones)

and yes this has become a full fleged debat about eq tuning vs pure natural

 

[drtturnip]

Quote:

This is quite the run-away thread. It all started by me suggesting that the superb Sennheiser 558 could be made to sound more exciting with the use of EQ if the listener is in the mood for something more engaging. Does anybody have any custom EQ settings that accomplish this?

I messed around with this a while back with my hd595 which are similar to the hd558 though probably have more peaks and valleys. I used the eq on my emu patchmix dsp and tone sweeps.
 
+7db @ 4253hz narrow band
-5db @3150hz  not so narrow band about .75 octave
+5.5db @5150hz narrow band
+4.2 @7400hz narrow band
-.4db @ 435hz not so narro band about .75 octave
+3.5db shelf @ 87hz
 
The sound was much more accurate and I suppose better. I have not used these settings much though as I got some different headphones that are more accurate. I use the 595 for tv listening or for old vinyl because they mask the clicks and pops.

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

I messed around with this a while back with my hd595 which are similar to the hd558 though probably have more peaks and valleys. I used the eq on my emu patchmix dsp and tone sweeps.
 
+7db @ 4253hz narrow band
-5db @3150hz  not so narrow band about .75 octave
+5.5db @5150hz narrow band
+4.2 @7400hz narrow band
-.4db @ 435hz not so narro band about .75 octave
+3.5db shelf @ 87hz
 
The sound was much more accurate and I suppose better. I have not used these settings much though as I got some different headphones that are more accurate. I use the 595 for tv listening or for old vinyl because they mask the clicks and pops.

is it alright if you post a picture of your graph? im quite curious to try it out myself

 

[vid]

Quote:

well though we have these devices to please ears and not microphones lol
so im not sure about its effectiveness

Quote:

and yes this has become a full fleged debat about eq tuning vs pure natural

 
A problem with being suspicious of microphones is that the music you listen to will most likely have passed through one. If you feel that the microphone categorically fails to indicate some physical aspect of the sound that the ear can pick out, all of that detail will have been filtered out of your music at the studio anyway. In which case there is no 'natural purity' to retain by not using EQ.
 
Quote:

-5db @3150hz  not so narrow band about .75 octave

 
This one is possibly ear canal-related. Meaning the peak that's being reduced here might be below 3 kHz for some listeners, or notably above 3.1 for others.

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

 
A problem with being suspicious of microphones is that the music you listen to will most likely have passed through one. If you feel that the microphone categorically fails to indicate some physical aspect of the sound that the ear can pick out, all of that detail will have been filtered out of your music at the studio anyway. In which case there is no 'natural purity' to retain by not using EQ.
 
 
This one is possibly ear canal-related. Meaning the peak that's being reduced here might be below 3 kHz for some listeners, or notably above 3.1 for others.

but measuring headphones with a mic is much harder and less accurate than measuring a human voice with a mic.
and also note my goal of eqing is not to archive perfect neutral, but the overall best listening experience. what i feel is not right in the response, i eq fix it. its really that simple for me (and im starting to forget what the point of this discussion was about already, bad memory)

 

[vid]

Measuring headphones with a microphone is very easy. Accounting for the physical aspects of the ear requires more effort, but is far from hard. Correlating the measurements to how human auditory perception works is more difficult, but you need to bother with it only if you're specifically wanting to find out about the effects of perception (like if you want to show a frequency graph of how the sound might be perceived rather than how it's picked up by the ear, for which you don't need the correlation). The experiment you were referring to had little error in frequency measurement due to the nature of the convolution filter, which worked on relative rather than absolute values. In other words, whichever response was fed into it, the filter successfully created the exact opposite of that, and when that was sent into the headphones and measured again at the same location, the desired outcome resulted. Whether the microphone is down a well or at the eardrum should make no difference.
 
Measuring the vocal range (or up to 2 kHz anyway, and in any case above 100 Hz) on headphones is the easiest thing, even if you're trying to account for effects of perception.

 

[drtturnip]

I don't have a graph sorry.

 

[streetdragon]

maybe, just maybe you could some how eq the frequency response to pure flat. soundstage performance is still questionable

 

[vid]

Quote:

maybe, just maybe you could some how eq the frequency response to pure flat. soundstage performance is still questionable

 
The response can be equalized to pure flat; I've shown how. However, to equalize to pure flat to your ears rather than to someone else's, you need to know the frequency response at your own eardrum, which you can't at this moment. And I don't recommend trying. So yes, the response can be made pure flat, no worries, but not to your specific ears.
 
Soundstage is created ultimately by the brain, not the headphones (which are two speakers strapped to the sides of your head). Modify the sound coming to the eardrums and you modify the soundstage. No magic involved, just effort.

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

 
The response can be equalized to pure flat; I've shown how. However, to equalize to pure flat to your ears rather than to someone else's, you need to know the frequency response at your own eardrum, which you can't at this moment. And I don't recommend trying. So yes, the response can be made pure flat, no worries, but not to your specific ears.
 
Soundstage is created ultimately by the brain, not the headphones (which are two speakers strapped to the sides of your head). Modify the sound coming to the eardrums and you modify the soundstage. No magic involved, just effort.

so you theorize that with just the eq alone being used perfectly, it is possible that a ibud or lets say a Solo can turn into a HD800? 

and when you stated modlify the sound, do you also mean use the eq? 

 

[vid]

Yes.
 
Yes.

 

[streetdragon]

so in theory i can get stick some metal electrode plates into a plastic plate an suspend them in a bunch of magnets and get HD800 sound with just the eq. seems legit

 

[vid]

"Theory" and "in theory" are different things. What's interesting about this thread in general is the seemingly deep-rooted concept of end-user EQ as an outsider - an idea for which a rational basis can't seem to be found - and at the other end the empty notions of purity in non-EQ which are best described as a semantic massage.

 

[Hooster]

Are you really just talking about eq, vid or are you also talking about things like phase and impulse correction and resonance control? I would appreciate some clarity here because it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding here and you may not be doing everything you could be doing to clear that up.