Pricing, tiers, TOTL, etc. - What is the *material* difference?

[evanft]

EQ distorts the signal, that is of course the whole point of EQ but it doesn’t add distortion (THD) and he did not note that it does. That is why it is NOT a “no no” on an expensive system! In fact, it’s actually a requirement for a system to qualify as “high end” in the first place. EQ is not necessarily required for a HP system though, unless one is trying to create a perceptually high end HP system (with a HRTF, etc.), but it can be applied according to personal preference without being a “no no”

I have some ideas on why some are so staunchly anti-EQ.

• It's free and available for a wide variety of platforms. Whether someone is using a lowly KSC75 or has a maxed-out electrostat system, they can tweak the sound to better suit their desired response. Gatekeeping what is and isn't "high end" is very important for a lot of audiophiles, so something free that allows anyone to get better sound is a big no-no. Improvements in audio quality can only come from purchasing more and more expensive gear, especially that which just came out and has fancy marketing about some esoteric design features.
• Using it is a passive acknowledgement that frequency response, especially in headphones, is the single most important property in an audio system. The fact that you can get changes to soundstage, "resolution", etc. by simply changing a few filters means that these aspects of system performance are not some ethereal property that we haven't figured out how to measure yet. Instead, they're just part of the frequency response, which we have figured out how to measure and are only getting better at it all the time.
• It makes the inherent sound quality of a headphone less important. It's hard to justify getting a 500g+ planar if I could get something that weighs half as much and use EQ to get the sound I want.
• EQ is extraordinarily effective at changing the sound of a system, and is easily the most effective change you can make besides the transducer. No amount of amps, DACs, cables, etc. can have as much of an effect as a single EQ filter. This makes discussion of this hardware, which is already overblown and full of audiophool nonsense, even more ridiculous.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

I have some ideas on why some are so staunchly anti-EQ.

• It's free and available for a wide variety of platforms. Whether someone is using a lowly KSC75 or has a maxed-out electrostat system, they can tweak the sound to better suit their desired response. Gatekeeping what is and isn't "high end" is very important for a lot of audiophiles, so something free that allows anyone to get better sound is a big no-no. Improvements in audio quality can only come from purchasing more and more expensive gear, especially that which just came out and has fancy marketing about some esoteric design features.
• Using it is a passive acknowledgement that frequency response, especially in headphones, is the single most important property in an audio system. The fact that you can get changes to soundstage, "resolution", etc. by simply changing a few filters means that these aspects of system performance are not some ethereal property that we haven't figured out how to measure yet. Instead, they're just part of the frequency response, which we have figured out how to measure and are only getting better at it all the time.
• It makes the inherent sound quality of a headphone less important. It's hard to justify getting a 500g+ planar if I could get something that weighs half as much and use EQ to get the sound I want.
• EQ is extraordinarily effective at changing the sound of a system, and is easily the most effective change you can make besides the transducer. No amount of amps, DACs, cables, etc. can have as much of an effect as a single EQ filter. This makes discussion of this hardware, which is already overblown and full of audiophool nonsense, even more ridiculous.

Absolutely agree, especially on the gatekeeping of what is and isn’t “high-end”. Kind of silly if you ask me.

That said, if you like the sound of your headphones/IEMs (NOT speakers, those absolutely need EQ due to room acoustics) as is, EQ isn’t needed (thankfully I was blessed with finding my perfect IEM already), which significantly enhances the convenience.

 

[XTF1]

I’m an advocate of sound being preference-based and that the best frequency response and harmonic distortion is completely up to you. What sounds good is separate from what’s high fidelity.

Yes, however, there are some FR characteristics that are preferred by large groups of individuals. This is what the Harman Lab studies showed: the “Harman targets” maximize the preference ratings for a representative group of users, but the target itself may not be the perfect best for any particular individual. Harman targets are intended to be good starting points: you EQ from that target toward your actual preference, or you find a HP/IEM that has the deviations from the target that you actually prefer.

Conversely, I believe some characteristics are either not important, or negatively impact preferences. Distortions, very uneven FR, are examples. There may be exceptions, such as the euphonic 2nd harmonics of a tube amplifier: it’s a “defect” that may be preferred by some user. But I think those are rare.

As for the Raal Immanis… I’m sure a few folks will love it. But I doubt that group is going to be very large, unless preference is only based on price…

 

[evanft]

Yes, however, there are some FR characteristics that are preferred by large groups of individuals. This is what the Harman Lab studies showed: the “Harman targets” maximize the preference ratings for a representative group of users, but the target itself may not be the perfect best for any particular individual. Harman targets are intended to be good starting points: you EQ from that target toward your actual preference, or you find a HP/IEM that has the deviations from the target that you actually prefer.

Conversely, I believe some characteristics are either not important, or negatively impact preferences. Distortions, very uneven FR, are examples. There may be exceptions, such as the euphonic 2nd harmonics of a tube amplifier: it’s a “defect” that may be preferred by some user. But I think those are rare.

As for the Raal Immanis… I’m sure a few folks will love it. But I doubt that group is going to be very large, unless preference is only based on price…

The odds of someone preferring a weird frequency response dramatically rises when they've spent a large amount of money on it.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

Yes, however, there are some FR characteristics that are preferred by large groups of individuals. This is what the Harman Lab studies showed: the “Harman targets” maximize the preference ratings for a representative group of users, but the target itself may not be the perfect best for any particular individual. Harman targets are intended to be good starting points: you EQ from that target toward your actual preference, or you find a HP/IEM that has the deviations from the target that you actually prefer.

Yes, for sure. All I was saying is that there is no objectively correct way for a HP or IEM to sound.

Conversely, I believe some characteristics are either not important, or negatively impact preferences. Distortions, very uneven FR, are examples. There may be exceptions, such as the euphonic 2nd harmonics of a tube amplifier: it’s a “defect” that may be preferred by some user. But I think those are rare.

It’s not a defect if you prefer it. It’s not high fidelity, but if it’s designed to sound that way, it’s not a defect.

As for the Raal Immanis… I’m sure a few folks will love it. But I doubt that group is going to be very large, unless preference is only based on price…

It’s probably a small group, but they exist.

The odds of someone preferring a weird frequency response dramatically rises when they've spent a large amount of money on it.

For sure.
Imagine an extremely wonky FR in your head. Give a cheap HP that FR, people will call it bad. Give that exact same FR to an ultra-expensive flagship HP, people will call it “unique” and “adventurous”.
I’m not saying you can’t like an unusual FR. I’m just saying that, because of confirmation bias, people will generally like expensive HPs more simply because they’re expensive.
That’s not a bad thing, though. Why do people buy Rolex or Gucci? It’s the exact same thing. If you can afford it, great. If you can’t, no problemo.

 

[theveterans]

I have some ideas on why some are so staunchly anti-EQ.

• It's free and available for a wide variety of platforms. Whether someone is using a lowly KSC75 or has a maxed-out electrostat system, they can tweak the sound to better suit their desired response. Gatekeeping what is and isn't "high end" is very important for a lot of audiophiles, so something free that allows anyone to get better sound is a big no-no. Improvements in audio quality can only come from purchasing more and more expensive gear, especially that which just came out and has fancy marketing about some esoteric design features.
• Using it is a passive acknowledgement that frequency response, especially in headphones, is the single most important property in an audio system. The fact that you can get changes to soundstage, "resolution", etc. by simply changing a few filters means that these aspects of system performance are not some ethereal property that we haven't figured out how to measure yet. Instead, they're just part of the frequency response, which we have figured out how to measure and are only getting better at it all the time.
• It makes the inherent sound quality of a headphone less important. It's hard to justify getting a 500g+ planar if I could get something that weighs half as much and use EQ to get the sound I want.
• EQ is extraordinarily effective at changing the sound of a system, and is easily the most effective change you can make besides the transducer. No amount of amps, DACs, cables, etc. can have as much of an effect as a single EQ filter. This makes discussion of this hardware, which is already overblown and full of audiophool nonsense, even more ridiculous.

None of these are the reasons for me and others (not saying everyone) being anti digital EQ on very resolving systems. I would digital EQ the heck out of any non-resolving audio system though since I won't hear any sins of commission of digital EQing those systems

 

[colonelkernel8]

None of these are the reasons for me and others (not saying everyone) being anti digital EQ on very resolving systems. I would digital EQ the heck out of any non-resolving audio system though since I won't hear any sins of commission of digital EQing those systems

I mean you simply don't know what you're talking about. You enjoy coloration, but only coloration that arises from the poor engineering/mechanical deficiencies of the headphones you're listening to.

The best recording studios with the most resolving main monitor systems on the planet use EQ for room correction even with the heavy acoustic treatment studios like that have. Are you really claiming your system is more resolving than the equipment used to CREATE the music? Delusional.

 

[theveterans]

I mean you simply don't know what you're talking about. You enjoy coloration, but only coloration that arises from the poor engineering/mechanical deficiencies of the headphones you're listening to.

As if you can actually hear what the mastering engineer heard at the studio lol. Their audio system and room have a specific sound characteristics that you can never ever ever replicate in your system

You just have to admit you want to proclaim the superiority of an Apple Dongle and Truthear Zero over any TOTL stuff out there

 

[colonelkernel8]

As if you can actually hear what the mastering engineer heard at the studio lol. Their audio system and room have a specific sound characteristics that you can never ever ever replicate in your system

You just have to admit you want to proclaim the superiority of an Apple Dongle and Truthear Zero over any TOTL stuff out there

Sure you can replicate it at home. EQ gets you there along with room treatment and some excellent speakers.

I'm listening to relatively expensive TOTL gear right now. Why do you want "TOTL" defined by MSRP instead of performance?

 

[Diet Kokaine]

None of these are the reasons for me and others (not saying everyone) being anti digital EQ on very resolving systems. I would digital EQ the heck out of any non-resolving audio system though since I won't hear any sins of commission of digital EQing those systems

Most setups where people slap on EQ are already a distorted mess.
Those switching boxes? They’ll butcher even a killer rig. And that’s *before* you factor in the dozen other garbage-tier components people cram into their signal chain without any consideration.

Cheap DACs, garbage low quality source, switching power supplies, MP3s, stranded extremely poor quality cables, Low quality amplifiers (if you think they all sound the same, you'll always get the cheapest one) the list is sooooo long.

EQ is the least of their problems.

 

[theveterans]

Sure you can replicate it at home. EQ gets you there along with room treatment and some excellent speakers.

. One of the biggest misinformation I've ever heard lately so far

I'm listening to relatively expensive TOTL gear right now. Why do you want "TOTL" defined by MSRP instead of performance?

I didn't mention MSRP lol. TOTL just literally means the best unit/model a manufacturer offers. You're implying it to $$$. If a manufacturer declares a product as TOTL, at least you're upping your chance (not guaranteeing) of actually having a resolving gear

 

[Metalingus]

Trifecta?

That was my experience with most TOTL IEMs. If you want a significant step up from $5K IEMs, you can try $100 Chi-Fi models.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

That was my experience with most TOTL IEMs. If you want a significant step up from $5K IEMs, you can try $100 Chi-Fi models.

You didn't like the graph?

 

[evanft]

For sure.
Imagine an extremely wonky FR in your head. Give a cheap HP that FR, people will call it bad. Give that exact same FR to an ultra-expensive flagship HP, people will call it “unique” and “adventurous”.
I’m not saying you can’t like an unusual FR. I’m just saying that, because of confirmation bias, people will generally like expensive HPs more simply because they’re expensive.
That’s not a bad thing, though. Why do people buy Rolex or Gucci? It’s the exact same thing. If you can afford it, great. If you can’t, no problemo.

The Audivina thread is proof of this lol.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

That was my experience with most TOTL IEMs. If you want a significant step up from $5K IEMs, you can try $100 Chi-Fi models.

This made me chuckle.
TOTL-priced IEMs can obviously be good (and often are, like my beloved $800 Aful Cantor (not sure if that price qualifies as TOTL)), but for whatever reason a lot of manufacturers intentionally give their expensive IEMs ridiculous tunings.
I explained why before.

The Audivina thread is proof of this lol.

Oh dear…