[Anathallo]

You can never make guitars coming from iBuds sounds like guitars from high-end Grados, the same way you can't make kick drums from 940s sound like LCD2s.  EQ won't fix that.
 
Quote:

I agree with you, that's why "over time" was included in my earlier post. EQ won't make a a HD800 sound exactly like an LCD-2, but saying that EQ won;t change timbre is simply false.
 
 

 

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

You can never make guitars coming from iBuds sounds like guitars from high-end Grados, the same way you can't make kick drums from 940s sound like LCD2s.  EQ won't fix that.
 
Quote:

I agree with you, that's why "over time" was included in my earlier post. EQ won't make a a HD800 sound exactly like an LCD-2, but saying that EQ won't change timbre is simply false.

You are using a false dichotomy, there's a difference between EQ doesn't change timbre and EQ will allow to to replicate the sound of any headphone.
 
 

 

[Anathallo]

Isn't the sound of a headphone directly linked to timbre?  Am I missing something here?
 
Timbre, noun...
 
"The combination of qualities of a sound that distinguishes it from other sounds of the same pitch and volume.
 
EQ will not alter the quality or the shape of a certain tone/pitch/note/whatever.  It will increase the volume of that tone in the headphone.  The housing, driver and materials used will change the other factors.
 
 
 
 
Quote:

You are using a false dichotomy, there's a difference between EQ doesn't change timbre and EQ will allow to to replicate the sound of any headphone.
 
 

 

 

[ac500]

The definition of Timbre is basically "anything and everything that makes note A sound different from note B, where A and B are notes which seem to be the same tone and volume." So for example piano vs guitar.
 
EQ will ABSOLUTELY change timbre, but it's only scratching the surface of the different ways timbre can be changed. But there's only so far a headphone or any sound device can go to effect timbre -- for example no headphone is going to make guitars sound like pianos -- sorry that's just not going to happen. More specifically, you can characterize the signal processing effects a headphone has on the sound waveform, and characterize those and what it does to the sound -- anything else is pointless.
 
In other words, arguing about "timbre" or "texture" is absolutely pointless - they're meaningless words. Headphones have their own EQ curve as well as a variety of other factors in the interaction between waveforms. You can debate about those effects and how they sound, but using blanket terms like "timbre" don't get you anywhere.
 
The reason iBuds will never sound like an LCD2 or HD800 is simply because they are not capable of conveying the full dynamic range and details in the sound. It has nothing to do with frequency response.
 
But ultimately, saying you should never EQ is about as silly as saying every recording has a 100% perfect frequency response AND your headphone has a 100% perfect frequency response. But this never has happened, so that argument against EQ is dead.
 
The ONLY argument against EQ is the fear that it might degrade sound quality. That's a potentially valid debate, but that's another matter than what's being pointlessly quibbled over in the posts above.
 
In any case I don't see how this has anything to do with the SRH1840 and SRH1440, and if a mod sees this I'd have no problem with deleting ALL of these posts that have nothing to do with these new headphones from Shure.

 

[khaos974]

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre

Many commentators have attempted to decompose timbre into component attributes. For example, J. F. Schouten (1968, 42) describes the "elusive attributes of timbre" as "determined by at least five major acoustic parameters", which Robert Erickson (1975) finds "scaled to the concerns of much contemporary music":

• The range between tonal and noiselike character.
• The spectral envelope.
• The time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR—attack, decay, sustain, release).
• The changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation).
• The prefix, an onset of a sound quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration.

 
Specifically, EQ changes the spectral envelope of a sound, thus it changes timbre. I never claimed that it could make a pair of headphone sound exactly like another.

 

[roma101]

Deleted, pointless.

 

[khaos974]

Read more carefully, I never wrote that EQ could make something sound as natural as a live performance, I didn't imply it either, I also never wrote that EQ could totally fix the timbre of a headphone.
There's a huge margin between fix and alter!
 
Can EQ change the timbre of a transducer? By definition, it's true, timbre is partly defined by the spectrum of the sound, if you change that spectrum, you change the timbre.
Can EQ improve the timbre accuracy of a pair of speakers/headphone? Certainly.
Can EQ tune the timbre accuracy to perfection / to mimic exactly another headphone? Certainly not!

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Some of you people are seriously confused about what "the original sound" is. There is no such thing as "original" except a live performance. ALL microphones, headphones, amps, etc. are colored in one way or another -- compounding so that what you hear is never going to be truly perfect.

Wouldn't 'original sound' imply no coloration (if you're talking about pure instruments and vocals)? As in, just the instruments/vocals by themselves, naked, without the use of a microphone, amp, headphones, etc?
 

 

[ac500]

> Wouldn't 'original sound' imply no coloration (if you're talking about pure instruments and vocals)? As in, just the instruments/vocals by themselves, naked, without the use of a microphone, amp, headphones, etc?
 
That is what "original sound" implies, yes. But I said there is no such thing, because no such thing exists for any headphone or speaker system in the world. There is NO chain that perfectly reproduces the recording as though you were listening to it live. 
 
I think khaos said it best in his most recent post above.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

The ONLY argument against EQ is the fear that it might degrade sound quality. 

....and degrade what the recording was originally intended to sound like, the way the producer intended, not necessarily the recording engineer. With EQ, you are just playing God to make things sound the way YOU think they should. That is a personal choice. It was not the producer's choice. You make it sound like every producer and engineer is incompetent, have no idea what they are doing and are using bad gear that needs to be 'corrected'. I just take each recording as it is, assuming it to be what was intended, and try to hear it that way.
 

 

[funkmeister]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANDk0SWzplo&feature=related
 
There will always be misunderstandings.

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

Quote:

The ONLY argument against EQ is the fear that it might degrade sound quality. 

....and degrade what the recording was originally intended to sound like, the way the producer intended, not necessarily the recording engineer. With EQ, you are just playing God to make things sound the way YOU think they should. That is a personal choice. It was not the producer's choice. You make it sound like every producer and engineer is incompetent, have no idea what they are doing and are using bad gear that needs to be 'corrected'. I just take each recording as it is, assuming it to be what was intended, and try to hear it that way.

Not necessarily so, you assume that your speaker system reproduces what the producer intended you to hear more accurately. Let's imagine that your speakers+room have a 3 dB dip in the midrange at your listening position, the producer declared that he was satisfied in a the studio where there wasn't a 3 dB dip, so by Eqing out this 3 dB dip you are getting closer to what he producer heard.
 
I suggest reading this http://www.head-fi.org/t/564465/misconception-of-neutral-accurate
 
 

 

[Beagle]

There it is.
 
One could imagine that there is something wrong with all equipment and all recordings and go nuts with EQ. Or they could trust their own ears and enjoy music.
 
Quote:

Not necessarily so, you assume that your speaker system reproduces what the producer intended you to hear more accurately. Let's imagine that your speakers+room have a 3 dB dip in the midrange at your listening position, the producer declared that he was satisfied in a the studio where there wasn't a 3 dB dip, so by Eqing out this 3 dB dip you are getting closer to what he producer heard.
 
 

 

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

There it is.
 
One could imagine that there is something wrong with all equipment and all recordings and go nuts with EQ. Or they could trust their own ears and enjoy music.
 
Quote:

Not necessarily so, you assume that your speaker system reproduces what the producer intended you to hear more accurately. Let's imagine that your speakers+room have a 3 dB dip in the midrange at your listening position, the producer declared that he was satisfied in a the studio where there wasn't a 3 dB dip, so by Eqing out this 3 dB dip you are getting closer to what he producer heard.

It's a good thing that I can enjoy music with ibuds then

, but the hobby is also named high fidelity.
And is the use of "imagine" difficult to understand? Having no knowledge of your specific system, it was a hypothetical situation, why would you assume that your speakers+room matches the studio where the producer heard the mix? After all you are imagining the what the producer heard too!
What's bothering you with EQ specifically? Would you against eliminating room modes via bass traps? correcting resonances and reverberation times/ All those are means to achieve better fidelity.
 
 

 

[funkmeister]

I neither condemn nor condone arbitrary EQ usage. I only use EQ to neutralize a headphone's exaggerations and shortcomings in the FR based on measurement data and not my ears. That's just my choice. Below is an illustration of a beloved can and its massive imperfections. A headphone's unrivaled detail extraction does not equate to an even tonality in any rigid way.
 

 
Here's hoping that the Shure SRH1840 will actually be more neutral for real than these buggers. I don't have EQ everywhere the headphones go, which bugs me. So a more neutral pair would be appreciated.
 
To all the HD800 fans and owners, I challenge you to set EQ as an inverse of this chart and listen to Trevor Pinnock's masterful production of Vivaldi's Concerto for 2 Violins with the English Concert Orchestra, all movements. With a flatter FR response, it does sound more like a live performance's excellent yet striking tonal balance (or imbalance as some may find), exuding pressure in similar ways. At least that's my experience on my AKGs, and I highly doubt my AKGs are superior to these cans or to the Shures.