[bigshot]

  Joe, I was thinking the same for different genres of music as I was even thinking that some headphone work better with wider genre vs other that are limited(and this is based on their FR, which is obvious), so why not have the source be changed accordingly to the type of genre of music which can be predicted to have heavily compressed output?

 
Correcting for lousy engineering is another thing altogether. EQ won't do everything. Dynamic expansion, filters to soften clipping, etc can help as far as they can. If I really liked the music, but the engineering sounded like a horse's hind end, I wouldn't buy headphones or amps that presented lousy engineering better, I'd probably just edit it in a sound program and bounce out a version with a band aid on it.

 

[SilverEars]

Check this out!  Clie measured the X5 DAP EQ output.  I'm curious how the output looks with EQ on other hardware.
 

  First, it might worth point out that the EQ system on X5 is entirely software based and dynamic in nature. The level of boosting is calculated in real time based on the relative voltage of other frequency and therefore it is not a straight line like a hardware boost.
 
Anyway, here is what EQ on X5 looks like:

• flat EQ (off)
• +6dB across the whole range
• +6dB from 31Hz to 125Hz and -6dB from 4kHz to 16kHz.

 

 

  As promised, here is EQ off vs. EQ 0dB @ Custom.
 

 
As you have seen 0dB @ Custom is not totally smooth. But given it is within +/-0.2dB, I don't think it is audible for the most part. However, one thing that is apparent from the RMAA measurement is the -6dB worsening of noise and dynamic range with 0dB @ Custom. the result is of course expected - however, the point is don't use 0dB @ Custom if you are not going to adjust the EQ. Just uses EQ off for better SQ.
 

 

[castleofargh]

I remember reading something with a few daps and EQ(sorry I don't know where it was) there was an old ipod, default foobar EQ and something else I think. the result was that foobar default EQ really deserved to be upgraded with something better. I would suggest xnor's EQ or other parametric VSTs.
and the ipod was making some kind of smoothed staircases.
 
anyway most EQ on DAP aren't great and have limited and lousy amplitude settings. my sony's lowest slider is at 400hz and is limited to +3/-3 db...
good luck with that when your IEM has too much bass :'( 
when I had only one IEM, I used to rip to mp3 with an EQ so that I could have the sound I wanted on a DAP. to me it sounded clearly better than using the DAP's EQ.
but on the sansa clip the EQ possibilities are really really cool and work nicely. I couldn't say if it's really smooth and at the precise values I set, but it's certainly the only DAP where I can get what I want as long as I spend some time on it.

 

[SilverEars]

I'm thinking the X5 just has poor EQ implementation?  Cowon P1's EQ was measured that I posted awhile back.
 

 
 
I'd like to see some EQ measurements out of the computer to see how accurately they are done.  

 

[bigshot]

I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.

 

[GrindingThud]

Totally agree! I usually do a scan over at http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/talking-heads-do-i-need-upgrading.78834/ or http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/your-favorite-version-of-pink-floyd-wish-you-were-here-on-cd.265127/ (for example) prior to buying a new CD to get an idea of what the different masters sound like. Some are hideously awful like the EMI remasters of Duran Duran where fans actually claimed the CDs were defective. Moody Blues has various clicks and pops on certain masters and not others. And of course there is the mountain of Pink Floyd masters with varying cult followings. Some masters even have different track lengths, no gaps, etc. Understanding the exact master, who did it and when, is critical to understanding quality. It's horribly confusing for those that care. Also beware some older CDs have pre-emphasis set...that is a pain to undo cleanly....itunes does an ok job as does the right filter for foobar....both do a digital filter and it is not the same as the original going through a CD player with the hardware.

I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.

 

[swspiers]

  I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.

And surely the difference in quality will not only be attributed to the resolution but the choice of cable/interconnect/DAC/amp, etc.  Oh, and the latest pad modification as well...

 

[anetode]

The sad thing is that some of these "audiophile" remasters sound worse than the originals due to tape decay in the interstitial period. So you might end up with less dynamic compression and superior dynamics, but also more hiss and a smeared sound.
 
Also sad is that if you want an uncompressed master of a recording from the past 15 years then sometimes your only hope is to pony up the extra dough for the SACD or other such format.

 

[Rajikaru]

  Just get one really good pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.

 
I came across this article and thought it might be relevant to the EQ discussion: 
 
Perceiving and Measuring Headphone Sound Quality (2014 Loudspeaker Industry Sourcebook)
http://read.uberflip.com/i/324330/22
 
The article mostly distills everything down to frequency response. I question whether a headphone's sound signature is all just frequency response though, in which case an equalizer adjustment can make a really good linear headphone sound like anything else. I would think the size, type, and quality of the driver, as well as the resonances in the cups and pads, and other headphone design elements would have as much to do with it. 
 
This got me thinking, because one headphone + EQ is an elegant concept. However, with the current equalizer I have on hand (DAP X5 EQ and Foobar), it is practically impossible to make the headphones I have sound similar. (At least for me. I spent the last hour 'playing' with the idea.)
 
Much of this comes down to (using the above article's terminology): perceived spectral balance (by ear) vs. actual measured response. I suppose finding ideal EQ setting to get one headphone as close to the other as possible  would be easier if I had a G.R.A.S. ear simulator.
 
Frankly, I'd rather just listen to music and switch headphones when I feel like it. I like the wabi-sabi  quality of using headphones either without EQ or just using EQ as corrective adjustments for certain tracks. 

 

[bigshot]

I'm figuring some stuff out... The HD tracks that sound different/better than the CD generally have been completely remixed. Talking Heads' "Remain In Light" isn't the same mix at all. Some, like David Bowie's "Let's Dance" sounds great on my CD and sounds the same on SACD. Led Zeppelin seems to have a gazillion different flavors. I sampled the original LPs, HD tracks, the old CD, the remastered CD and the new remasters. Every one had different dynamics (most of them muddy and flat). I lost track of which was which, but there is one release that is significantly louder and punchier but the stereo spread was different than the original. I think it is the newest remaster, but I'm not sure. A couple of the LP versions sounded awful (Mothership in particular). What a mess. I give up. This is way too much work.

 

[bigshot]

OH MAN! I just realized something else doing direct comparisons... Originally, the Rolling Stones best ofs "Hot Rocks" were the SINGLE VERSIONS.... Different mix. In your face for 45s. Now that they have remixed the Rolling Stones albums for SACD, they cut the ALBUM VERSIONS into Hot Rocks. There is absolutely no reason to buy the album any more. It's just an ordinary greatest hits collection now.
 
But the SACD version of the song "Avalon" on the album "Avalon" sounds much better than the same song on the Roxy Music best of SACD. An ordinary greatest hits collection is now an inferior one.
 
I can see why the SACD format failed. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether something sounds better or worse without buying it. And it is a lot of work to rack up the various versions and compare them. I can totally sympathize with the person who just buys the cheapest version, and folks who worship at the altar of high bitrates aren't getting what they are paying for.

 

[ab initio]

I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.

Please do. Looking forward to it!

Cheers

 

[bigshot]

I'm afraid I got frustrated and gave up. Too many different formats and too many different mixes to be able to make any kind of general statement about which format has the best sound.
 
I found out what I was trying to find out... I wanted to know if HD or SACD versions consistently had better mastering than CDs. The answer is sometimes yes, but not often.
 
It's easier to predict sound quality based on the artist than the format. Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are remixed totally different than the way they originally sounded. Whether or not any of the mixes sound *better* or not, I don't know. They just sound *different*. (I really didn't really care for the sound of any of the remixes all that much.) Most of the stuff I looked at sounds very close to my old 24 bit remastered CDs... David Bowie, Steely Dan, Dire Straits... No reason at all to buy the HD or SACD version of those. They already sound as good as they are going to sound on CD. In some cases, the sound of the SACD was clearly worse... My Roxy Music CD of Avalon sounds better than the same track on the SACD best of. The only high bit rate ones that were significantly better sounding than my CDs were Elton John and Talking Heads, but they may have been released in a newer version on CD using this same remastering since I got my CDs. (My copies of their CDs are very old.)
 
I see absolutely no reason for high bit rate music to exist. The format isn't higher quality to human ears and the mastering isn't even necessarily better. I'm not going to bother with them any more because they are more trouble than they're worth.
 
Next I am going to check out multichannel. I got a DVD-A of Elton John, bl-ray audio of Led Zeppelin's Celebration Day and a stack of Pentatone SACDs. I'll see how that stuff sounds.

 

[swspiers]

  I'm afraid I got frustrated and gave up. Too many different formats and too many different mixes to be able to make any kind of general statement about which format has the best sound.
 
I found out what I was trying to find out... I wanted to know if HD or SACD versions consistently had better mastering than CDs. The answer is sometimes yes, but not often.
 
 

Wow, thanks for taking one for the team- I feel your pain!
 
You have touched upon an essential truth that most audio enthusiasts fail to grap: the technology, while cool for its own sake, is utlimately at the mercy of the mastering of any given recording.
 
It's something so true, one can barely say it...

 

[bigshot]

My new Oppo player is arriving today, and I've assembled a little pile of surround sound disks to try in it. (My current SACD player will only connect to my amp as 2 channel.) But I am already smelling trouble.
 
By far, the most prolific label for multichannel sound is PentaTone. I got a 11 disk sampler box set and a couple of Wagner operas to try out. But now I am reading the liner notes, and I find out PentaTone doesn't record in 5:1. They record in 5:0- no sub channel. The notes say that it is very difficult to adjust the crossover between the mains and subs in 5:1 systems, and movies use it primarily for low frequency effects, so they have eliminated that channel.
 
WAIT A MINUTE! I have a 5:1 system with a very carefully calibrated crossover between the mains and sub. I did that by EQing the mains to eliminate frequencies below 80Hz and EQing the sub so it doesn't produce anything above 80Hz. If they eliminate the sub channel, I get *nothing* below 80Hz. THEY WANT ME TO COMPLETELY RE-EQ MY MAINS TO SUIT THEIR NON-STANDARD MULTICHANNEL FORMAT. Yeah, sure... I'm going to revamp all my settings to suit 5:0 just for one record label... Don't hold your breath!
 
I'm so mad right now I could spit. I spent over $125 on NON-STANDARD multi-channel recordings. I suspect that the only way I am going to get any decent sub bass playing these is to run it through my stereo to multichannel DSP. And I have no idea how that will react to a 5:0 input instead of a 2:0. I have a feeling that I am going to be right back to 2 channel SACD again.
 
I hope the Blu-Ray-Audio and DVD-Audio disks I ordered work properly. I'd kind of like to hear what really good multichannel music recordings sound like.