[muckluck]

I'm an EQer because I don't have a collection of cans. The A700s have those recessed mids and sometimes I have to EQ a bit to bring them out. Now if I had a few pair of headphones, I would switch between them to get the sound I want. Whoever would like to donate to my EFTN (Eargasms For The Needed) fund, then please PM me.

 

[sgrossklass]

Dunno whether HD590s count as >$200 cans, but yes, I wouldn't want to use them without EQ in my main rig. It is to be hoped that headphones in these price regions do not *need* EQ ("high fidelity" and all), but they sure may benefit from some to get the sound even closer to the ideal... or to what one likes, which may not be all that different without the equipment to take good-quality measurements. If it's just the frequency response that needs to be tweaked, a digital EQ of good quality isn't a bad idea. (Something modeling the inverse transfer function to compensate for bass rolloff, within reason that is, would be yet more nifty.) It cannot, however, correct for issues like phasiness (insufficient damping of resonances), which may be audible even with a freq response EQ'd to ruler-flat, so only a physical mod will fix stuff like that. (E.g. swap grilles on HD580.)

 

[saturnine]

I do, but only with the ER-4p. I try to do system tweaks if a certain range needs boosting

 

[Steve999]

I usually do. I have a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer, which is the world's best audio toy in my book. I do like to listen without EQ, because I find the differences in sonic signature in my headphones very interesting from a design and technical point of view. But when it comes time to just listen to the music and not the phones, I set my EQ for "maximum fidelity." In my view, with a pair of top-notch headphones (HD580, DT880, HD595, and up) and transparent amplification (which is not that hard to find, in my view), a well-informed and judicious use of digital EQ is the single most effective and in fact only way to absolutely max out the fidelity of my rig. Plus it is a very rich and fascinating aspect of the hobby to me, a gold mine of learning.

 

[Edwood]

I used to but Convolver is the new hotness. -Ed

 

[LFF]

I hate EQ.

 

[Max Minimum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve999 I usually do. I have a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer, which is the world's best audio toy in my book. I do like to listen without EQ, because I find the differences in sonic signature in my headphones very interesting from a design and technical point of view. But when it comes time to just listen to the music and not the phones, I set my EQ for "maximum fidelity." In my view, with a pair of top-notch headphones (HD580, DT880, HD595, and up) and transparent amplification (which is not that hard to find, in my view), a well-informed and judicious use of digital EQ is the single most effective and in fact only way to absolutely max out the fidelity of my rig. Plus it is a very rich and fascinating aspect of the hobby to me, a gold mine of learning.

Well put, imo.

 

[Gorthon]

I learned long ago when building my home loud speaker system that recordings are made to be listened to in a non-EQ'd state. If what you have is good, EQ should not be needed. EQ is used to compensate when the system or listening environment has inadequacies.

 

[Max Minimum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF I hate EQ.

Honestly, there's a part of me that doesn't like the idea either. Still, I find I can get better, or what I believe to be better, sound with equalization. And then there are also times when I feel like whoever did the mixing of an album or song just didn't quite know what they were doing, so I'll eq to make the tracks 'better' (imo, of course). I find myself being the 'end producer', so to speak. Ideally I'd be able to adjust the individual tracks in a song, but that's just not possible.

 

[Max Minimum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorthon I learned long ago when building my home loud speaker system that recordings are made to be listened to in a non-EQ'd state. If what you have is good, EQ should not be needed. EQ is used to compensate when the system or listening environment has inadequacies.

Which they always do, to one degree or another.

 

[Publius]

I always use EQ with my etys + gilmore, and lots of it. Right now I'm cruising at +7db at 30hz and +4db at 19khz. That said, I wound up having to write my own equalizer from scratch for me to really trust the results.

Every system has inadequate frequency response when not compensated. Every single one. Seriously, I dare you to find cans that are flat +-1db from 20hz to 20khz, or even speakers that can do that at all off-axis angles. They don't exist. To achieve optimal sound, at least from a numeric point of view, you must use eq.

That said, there are a lot of crappy eqs out there and it's easy to use them poorly.

 

[Kram Sacul]

EQing is like adjusting the various settings on a monitor. Unless you have the right calibration equipment then forget about it.

 

[Old Pa]

Equalizing sound pressure levels across the audio spectrum may be necessary to compensate for room acoustics with speakers, but the same circumstances do not exist with headphone listening. Besides adding the complexity (and distortion) of a bunch of additional pots and interconnects, EQing headphones stands as clear demonstration that you do not like the sound of your headphones (or system) as designed and employed. For many it is a surprise after years of EQing to just turn the controls to flat and listen to their systems long enough to hear what's actually there. If your headphone system has a frequency response problem, then fix it. Generally speaking EQing is a bandaid, and an imperfect one at that.

 

[DougGreenberg]

I don't understand the various comments that indicate the using EQ is a bad, even terrible thing, that it counteracts what the "musicians intended," etc.

Hey, it's my/your ears; the music should be adjusted so that it sounds best for one's own listening preferences. Where did all this sanctimony come from?

The truth is that for most of us who don't own zillion-dollar audiophile equipment, we can be darned sure that what we're hearing over our humble equipment is NOT the same as the performance was "live." This is particularly true when listening to portables. And I KNOW that my Etymotic ER-4's aren't reproducing the bass frequencies at the power/volume of the original performance. When using the Ety's I always EQ to increase the level of bass.

And this is particularly true when I listen to bass-heavy dance music. I have been to live situations in which this kind of music is being sent out throughout a club environment. The bass is so powerful it veritably vibrates throughout one's body. I would say that via ANY kind of headphone arrangement one is not going to experience the music this way. I daresay the same is true for many/most rock music reproductions. In person the bass is physical, immediate, penetrating. Via headphones, no way. Given this reality, why not EQ the bass to bring its "presence" up to a higher level than otherwise will be the case?

That said, I realize that the quality of EQ'd sound from a lot of sources leaves something to be desired. And yes, from the iPod it's pretty horrendous. I really wish there were a good, small EQ device one could splice into a decent small headphone-based audio system.

 

[DougGreenberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa Equalizing sound pressure levels across the audio spectrum may be necessary to compensate for room acoustics with speakers, but the same circumstances do not exist with headphone listening. Besides adding the complexity (and distortion) of a bunch of additional pots and interconnects, EQing headphones stands as clear demonstration that you do not like the sound of your headphones (or system) as designed and employed. For many it is a surprise after years of EQing to just turn the controls to flat and listen to their systems long enough to hear what's actually there. If your headphone system has a frequency response problem, then fix it. Generally speaking EQing is a bandaid, and an imperfect one at that.

This is valid if either you 1) have a stock of components/headphones that allows you to switch pieces in and out to tailor the sound reproduction system to each type of music you enjoy; or 2) you always listen to the same kind of music.

I can't believe that any particular sound system is automatically optimized to reproduce all kinds of music equally well. A major function of EQ is to compensate and adjust for the tendency of any sound system to have some kind of 'signature.' It's possible that there are possible systems that are neutral/optimal for all types of music, but I'm a bit skeptical.