MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread

[Flisker]

  I like how Joe B sees things. there are some limitations to this, but trying to get rid of some electrical or acoustical dampings and replace them by EQ might actually work for the best in lots of situations(desired reverb excluded). but it's a real effort to get it right and it would probably make most give up.
 
 audiophile hatred of EQ is a mix of ignorance and intellectual ideas of "real sound". acoustic chamber, phase mismatch, electrical damping, pressure dampers, choice of this or that driver, choice of an amp or a source only based on how it sounds, tube rolling, cable "upgrade"...  it all looks perfectly hifi to people for some puzzling reason, but turn a knob yourself and you're galactus the devourer of sounds.
and of course people taking us for fools have actually no idea how much distortion is involved with a good EQ and how ludicrously low it can be compared to almost everything else.
 
 
 
@flisker. the point is to admit that EQ can improve you enjoyment of music and correct some defaults in a given headphone, instead of having to try hundreds of phones in the hope of one day finding the perfect candidate (and by that time you would probably have changed your source anyway).
I agree with you that it would be challenging at best to make one headphone sound exactly like another just with EQ. but that's not what we try to do. if I preferred the hd700 to my relaxing hd650, well I would buy a hd700.
also just trying to reverse engineer the sound of one can into another using both FR graphs is bound to fail.  FR graphs don't take a lot of the sound into account, distortions of all kind, and the way one given frequency will rebound in the headphone and affect the quantity resulting, by cancelling itself or multiplying. none of those are on the FR graph. and it will make some headphones great to EQ, and others almost impossible to tweak.
only by listening can you get really close to what you're looking for(well I'm sure a good measurement system and some acoustic software with the 3D schematics of the headphones could do it better, but I don't happen to have any of those ^_^).
 
for bass tightness, you can't make the coil start and stop moving faster that is does (given that the source already provides what it should at all time). but you can play around with sub bass and bass, and fool your brain a good deal. but then reverb can't be simulated with EQ, and some cans just can't make some frequencies without unbearable distortions. so EQ is not an all in one solution, but it can do a lot more good than it does bad.

 
Great answer, In this case I agree of course.

 

[MygpuK]

I have no time to respond ATM.
Please, wait a bit so I can get some spare time to discuss it with you, guys.

Best regards,
Max.

 

[MygpuK]

Flisker&Castleofargh get some huge thumbs up from me.

 

[MygpuK]

Still, why the hell 9 people want me to delete my profile?
(the poll)

 

[ssrock64]

Most of the community here is very skeptical about what you're saying, and I certainly still am. However, the use of accurate EQ to seriously improve mid-fi or even low-fi cans is a genuine theory that can be practiced. I don't believe for a second that it can really change the speed of a headphone's impulse response or enclosure limitations, but at the very least it can make headphones more pleasing.

 

[Magick Man]

Most of the community here is very skeptical about what you're saying, and I certainly still am. However, the use of accurate EQ to seriously improve mid-fi or even low-fi cans is a genuine theory that can be practiced. I don't believe for a second that it can really change the speed of a headphone's impulse response or enclosure limitations, but at the very least it can make headphones more pleasing.

That's the whole truth of it, right there. EQ does not improve detail retrieval, and bass "tightness" isn't a myth. The sheer fact those statements were made with such authority leaves me mystified. I've performed extensive EQ on headphones and it really can make a large difference, but it can't magically transform a mediocre driver into a great one.

 

[bigshot]

A balanced frequency response provides better detail because of the psycho acoustic principle called "frequency masking". An imbalance at one frequency can block frequencies an octave higher. If this occurs in the upper mids, it can kill high end detail.

 

[xnor]

EQ does not improve detail retrieval, and bass "tightness" isn't a myth.

 
Well it kinda can. Masking is a well known phenomenon in psychoacoustics, so when there's a peak in the frequency response it will mask details. Reduce the peak and the details will unveil.
 
I'd argue that bass tightness in headphones is also primarily a function of frequency response, but I still have no idea what this thread is about so ... that's part of the reason I voted #2, and also because "delete your profile!" was too funny not to choose.

 

[Copperears]

A balanced frequency response provides better detail because of the psycho acoustic principle called "frequency masking". An imbalance at one frequency can block frequencies an octave higher. If this occurs in the upper mids, it can kill high end detail.

This is it exactly.

It is true that EQ will not fix a "sloppy" driver, or one inside a design that doesn't correct/filter for generated THD/IM products. Otherwise, reputable companies like Sennheiser and Shure wouldn't be selling anything more complicated than the HD 600 or IE80 or SE215. A lot of engineering has gone into those for the sake of better retrieval of transient details, a key thing for delicate, plucked instruments in particular (guzheng, lute, harpsichord).

However, recordings of those will "lose detail" if there is emphasis in lower frequencies, with louder sounds that mask out the ear's ability to hear the higher-frequency sparkle. Even if they have excellent transient response.

 

[MygpuK]

Disclaimer: I ain't giving any response because I have no time ATM.

Bigshot gets a huge thumbs up again. That info shall be added to the thread.

This is it exactly.

It is true that EQ will not fix a "sloppy" driver, or one inside a design that doesn't correct/filter for generated THD/IM products. Otherwise, reputable companies like Sennheiser and Shure wouldn't be selling anything more complicated than the HD 600 or IE80 or SE215. A lot of engineering has gone into those for the sake of better retrieval of transient details, a key thing for delicate, plucked instruments in particular (guzheng, lute, harpsichord).

However, recordings of those will "lose detail" if there is emphasis in lower frequencies, with louder sounds that mask out the ear's ability to hear the higher-frequency sparkle. Even if they have excellent transient response.

We have fake high-end product developers. I agree, some of them (you know these are Sennheiser and Shure) are true. Some are not.
The point is that the majority of true high-end product developers rise product pricing because of "the brand". They have the right, but:
Fake high-end product developers (prices) use that to place a similar price tag for an overrated product (not high-end really).

We have also underrated product developers, such as:
Avlex, AKG.
Still completing this list.

I paid attention to respond just because I consider it crucial.

 

[bigshot]

Of course, a good speaker system sounds better than headphones, and it's likely much looser with transients. The fact is, the transients we're talking are are several orders of magnitude faster than the transients in any music. By the time the attack of a drum hit is affected, the reproduction is so sloppy, it can't even reproduce most frequencies in any kind of accurate way.
 
Masking affects one octave above and below. Imbalanced bass can't affect the high end.
 
Sloppy bass is a function of poor frequency response balance. Probably a hump in the mid bass that masks the "pluck" that carries the attack an octave higher. It has nothing to do with "speed", because bass frequencies are much wider apart than upper ranges. I think the modulation on a 20Hz tone is as long as a Mack truck. Speed isn't going to make much of a difference there.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

It would be ridiculously difficult, if not impossible, to accurately equalize dynamics, detail, imaging, sound-stage, resonances, and the sound of a particular driver material or transducer type. Even if you tried you would likely end up with a sluggish, difficult to drive, distorted headphone. There are some things you cannot do with equalization and not many people can equalize very well to begin with. Changing the tone of a headphone and even changing some of the things listed above is certainly possible with limitations, but equalization isn't the substitute for a change in the audio chain.

 

[MygpuK]

It would be ridiculously difficult, if not impossible, to accurately equalize dynamics, detail, imaging, sound-stage, resonances, and the sound of a particular driver material or transducer type. Even if you tried you would likely end up with a sluggish, difficult to drive, distorted headphone. There are some things you cannot do with equalization and not many people can equalize very well to begin with. Changing the tone of a headphone and even changing some of the things listed above is certainly possible with limitations, but equalization isn't the substitute for a change in the audio chain.

1. Detail, sound-stage, resonances are myths. (We may have only echoes AFAIK)
2. My point is "true high-end" definition.
3. The "some things you cannot do" must be pointed out. Which you suppose them to be?
4. Agreed on the last part. The audio "chain" (physical material of the "true high-end") must be true high-end.

 

[MygpuK]

Most of the community here is very skeptical about what you're saying, and I certainly still am. However, the use of accurate EQ to seriously improve mid-fi or even low-fi cans is a genuine theory that can be practiced. I don't believe for a second that it can really change the speed of a headphone's impulse response or enclosure limitations, but at the very least it can make headphones more pleasing.

1. What headphone's impulse response is? Frequency response?

2. Enclosure limitations. I don't know what that properly means, my bad, my english

3. If bass tightness isn't a myth, be so kind, sirs, explain me in simple terms what is that tightness, so I can go on with my research. You may explain it to me by using a concrete track as an example for that.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

1. Detail, sound-stage, resonances are myths. (We may have only echoes AFAIK)
2. My point is "true high-end" definition.
3. The "some things you cannot do" must be pointed out. Which you suppose them to be?
4. Agreed on the last part. The audio "chain" (physical material of the "true high-end") must be true high-end.

1. Detail exists in the instrumental separation and texture of instruments. I can hear sounds that I never knew existed in recordings thanks to the imaging of my Paradigm Mini Monitors. Sound stage is a human perception, so I guess it can be counted as a myth. Resonance itself certainly isn't a myth. I've taken physics and despite only getting a basic introduction to sound science, I know this for a fact. You should read these Wikipedia articles in your native language to make it easier to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance
 
3. The things you cannot do are overcome the materials used in a headphone. You cannot overcome resonance, materials, transducer type, and enclosure type (vented, closed, open), some hardware characteristics cannot be overcome with software.
 
4. I'm glad we agree on at least something

.