[BiggerHead]

   
 
You keep focusing on this whole "HTRC has nothing to do with brain perception" thing, and you are wrong. HTRC was developed to create what our brains have perceived to be the best and most satisfying sound, modeled after the best sounding speakers in the best room. It isn't just measurements--it includes psychoacoustic considerations. They actually tested many people and recorded their preferences for what sounds the most satisfying, and the final result is NOT equivalent to microphone measurement of a flat sounding pair of speakers--thi

 
I realize that the HTRC isn't designed to actually give a traget reponse based on a flat speaker.  I said this with about 20 astereisks in my original post.  It is though the target response, based on whatever reasoning they use, FOR, TO BE COMPARED TO, what the microphone reading for the headphone is.  My most recent simplified argument with flat spectra was to make a point, but anyway, we are talking about relatively flat spectra anyway.    I don't have time now.  I'll go back one more time and read what Joe said (you certainly didn't clarify).   It sound to me like basically this is 
 
a) start by programming the inverse of a tyll's response curve measured realative to the HTRC.
b) Fix the remaing sharp peaks.
 
You certainly did not make any of this clear in the OP.  You keep saying try it.  What I'm saying is I can't try what is clear as mud.
 
As for the target resxponse not being flat.  I disagree with that anyway.  I don't need a listening room bass boost in my headphones.  I'm not in a listening room when I listen to headphones.   this notion that the headphones should sound liek a good room was an ASUMPTION  of the HTRC, not a conclusion of it.  The conclusions was that people think a good room (not headphones) should have a bass boost.

 

[BiggerHead]

OK, so basically joe boggs confirms my strong attempt at finding a reasonable interpretation of the OP.  I cannot find anywhere where the OP actually says to do step 2 of Joe boggs latest post, or step one of mine.  Maybe lunatique could kindlly point me to a quote of that part.

Anyway, fine. Use an inverse Tyll, HTRC corrected measurement as a starting eq.  Of course that's reasonable, but hardly a simple way for anyone to find their own eq for THEIR particular cans and hardly enlightening.  It's just using one Tyll already found and fixing it a little.

 Mine don't even have measurements of that quality.  And.. as said, I disagree with the bass boost.

I do like Joe boggs guide quite well, but I suppose we could say it comes down to a difference in opinion.  His FM technique takes into account everything the microphone method does minus the "preferences" aspect of things like bass boost which you're welcome to color back in to your personal liking.

 

[BiggerHead]

Reading in bits and pieces today...
 
I like "perceptual target curve" PTC as JB called it.  Although in practice we can't print PC's to compare to PTC's so it's easier to use the inverse and target a flat PC.
 
So some definitions:
F: Flat curve (mathematically 0 in additive log math)
 
PTC: Perceptual target curve, target perceived response from a flat source (normally used in inverse).
 
ECTRC:  Ear canal TRC  target for mic measurement in an ear canal from a flat source. HTRC is an example of one of these.
 
ATRC: Air target response curve, target for mic measurement in a listening room from a flat source as needed to make a "desirable" sound field in that room (not a flat sound).  The harmon version (HATRC) includes the "bass boost" and other "preferences" for a how room stereo should sound.
 
HTRF (did I get those letters right?): Head transfer response function: Response for mic measurement in an ear canal from a flat air spectrum (free field seems to essentially match latest thinking, but never mind that for now).
 
ELC: equal loudness curve, air (let's say free field?) spectrum which produces equal volume perception in brain.
 
BRC: Brain response curve: perceived response curve to a flat spectrum at the ear canal... transfers an ECTRC to a PTC   (maybe better to call it a BRTF, transfer function, oh well).
 
 
some relationships then:
F =0 so can be ommitted below, but I include it for effect:
 
PTC=F+ATRC+HTRF+BRC   (note that this separates perceptual preferences in overall sound signature, ATRC, from transfer functions which are non negotiable, the perceptual preferences are even separated from the perceptual transfer function for individual frequencies which is perceptual but more objective).  The HTRC is NOT including BRC; it's including ATRC.)
 
ECTRC (HTRC being an example) = F+ATRC+HTRF  
    or, for the harmon versions specifically:
HTRC=F+HATRC+HTRF
          So an HTRF is just an ECTRC with the ATRC set to zero, which is why Tyll just replaced his prior use of HTRF's  with HTRC's, which just added the HATRC.
 
and we see a
PTC=ECTRC+BRC
 
so a "harmon PTC" would be:
HPTC=HTRC+BRC
 
More interestingly:
-ELC (note the negative)=F+HTRF+BRC
          = PTC-ATRC  
          =ECTRC+BRC-ATRC
 
using the harmon examples:
-ELC=HTRC+BRC-HATRC
 
So an inverse ELC is just the HTRC propogated from the ear canal to the brain, minus the subjective room sound preferences!
 
..which is what JB's EL method is using, an inverse harmon target response curve, transformed to the percieved curve, without the harmond stuff... or with the preference for a non flat room sound set to zero(flat). 
 
Note that the ATRC curve is NOT objective even in the sense of defining how volumes of individual tones are perceived by the brain.  That's done by the BRC which is included already in the inverse ELC.  It is a non-fidelity subjective term related not to perception of tone volumes but to subjective preferences for overall sound mix in a room, and is the only difference between the ELC method and HTRC methods other than shifting the measurement point through the BRC. 
 
And in my opinion these sound preferences if they are truly universal should be in either a) in the recording or b) are something we expect to hear in a room, not in (possibly closed) headphones.. that I think take most of us away from the room we're in.  
 
So that's all sorted (if I had no typos).. hah.

 

[Malfunkt]

This is a great thread. Thanks Lunatique and everyone contributing.
 
I've done a small bit of amateur engineering before, and have always been interested in musical composition and production. So I'm somewhat familiar with these techniques.
 
I tried Joe Bloggs suggestions as well, and using Adobe Audition ran his test pink noise video.
 
Have to say, this is really difficult, and Lunatique you likely have a more experienced ear for this. With my MDR-7520 I couldn't pick out any obvious peaks, well aside from its large bass boost (which I'm happy with) its a pretty smooth ride all the way up to around 8khz where I detected a spike. I just wasn't really that comfortable making any significant adjustments. Felt like the headphone was pretty damn near perfect. A number of engineers have said the same online, that this headphone is very close in presentation to calibrated room monitors.
 
Again, I also had difficulty calibrating my LCD2, though casual observations of my own have brought attention that the upper registers of this headphone aren't quite perfect in presentation. 
 
I'll try your HD650 setting though, as it seems pretty close to my own assessment of where it needs EQ. Of headphones I've owned, the 650 has been closest to rendering binaural recordings of nature as realistic as possible, which for myself seems like a great reference (barring that the original recordings are meticulous) as we are intimately familiar with these ambient soundscapes.
Sounds like you have a studio reference with a calibrated room and monitors. That right there is enough to give you the ear and experience with music to know where you might need to make adjustments. Harder probably for those that don’t have this.
 
Although I'm somewhat 'studio minded' I don't bother EQing my headphones often. My LCD2 seem almost perfect in presentation, my ears adjusting to their 'darker', relaxed but still incredibly clear sound.

One thing I find a bit amusing, that so many people are chasing ‘synergies’ with DACs, amps, and mods when a small EQ adjustment could remedy many headphone issues and a fraction of the price. EQ won’t fix distortion, ringing or other issues, but neither will cables, amp pairings, etc. 
 
Another claim I see often, is that a member may have heard many pieces of equipment, and this is only relevant to a degree, as you may hear obvious technical capabilities, but overall reference for neutrality won’t necessarily get better by hearing more pieces of gear. Having a reference for how music and sound is reproduced on a calibrated system and room space.

All this said, one can enjoy their gear, and using their own ears can evolve a taste for what their listening preferences are - even if these aren’t perfectly neutral or balanced - they are subjectively valid. Would just caution users that before spending major cash, may consider experiencing such a reference, as it might be helpful in guiding them to a more audiophile grade level of sound or help them decide that it isn’t that important.
 

 

[Lunatique]

  This is a great thread. Thanks Lunatique and everyone contributing.
 
I've done a small bit of amateur engineering before, and have always been interested in musical composition and production. So I'm somewhat familiar with these techniques.
 
I tried Joe Bloggs suggestions as well, and using Adobe Audition ran his test pink noise video.
 
Have to say, this is really difficult, and Lunatique you likely have a more experienced ear for this. With my MDR-7520 I couldn't pick out any obvious peaks, well aside from its large bass boost (which I'm happy with) its a pretty smooth ride all the way up to around 8khz where I detected a spike. I just wasn't really that comfortable making any significant adjustments. Felt like the headphone was pretty damn near perfect. A number of engineers have said the same online, that this headphone is very close in presentation to calibrated room monitors.
 
Again, I also had difficulty calibrating my LCD2, though casual observations of my own have brought attention that the upper registers of this headphone aren't quite perfect in presentation. 
 
I'll try your HD650 setting though, as it seems pretty close to my own assessment of where it needs EQ. Of headphones I've owned, the 650 has been closest to rendering binaural recordings of nature as realistic as possible, which for myself seems like a great reference (barring that the original recordings are meticulous) as we are intimately familiar with these ambient soundscapes.
Sounds like you have a studio reference with a calibrated room and monitors. That right there is enough to give you the ear and experience with music to know where you might need to make adjustments. Harder probably for those that don’t have this.
 
Although I'm somewhat 'studio minded' I don't bother EQing my headphones often. My LCD2 seem almost perfect in presentation, my ears adjusting to their 'darker', relaxed but still incredibly clear sound.

One thing I find a bit amusing, that so many people are chasing ‘synergies’ with DACs, amps, and mods when a small EQ adjustment could remedy many headphone issues and a fraction of the price. EQ won’t fix distortion, ringing or other issues, but neither will cables, amp pairings, etc. 
 
Another claim I see often, is that a member may have heard many pieces of equipment, and this is only relevant to a degree, as you may hear obvious technical capabilities, but overall reference for neutrality won’t necessarily get better by hearing more pieces of gear. Having a reference for how music and sound is reproduced on a calibrated system and room space.

All this said, one can enjoy their gear, and using their own ears can evolve a taste for what their listening preferences are - even if these aren’t perfectly neutral or balanced - they are subjectively valid. Would just caution users that before spending major cash, may consider experiencing such a reference, as it might be helpful in guiding them to a more audiophile grade level of sound or help them decide that it isn’t that important.
 

You might want to also take a look at my LCD-2 EQ curve here to get an idea of how much tweaking was required to get it to sound more neutral/accurate: http://www.head-fi.org/t/551426/my-eq-curves-for-lcd-2-hd650-m50-and-007mk2
 
You and I totally agree on the silliness of spending so much time and money on different amps, DACs, and headphones, hoping and praying that they just happen to cancel out each other's shortcomings and create "synergy." But I suspect a lot of people really enjoy all that, and to them it's just as much about playing with gear. I'm far more pragmatic and don't have a collector's mentality, and I have other passions in life that are more meaningful to me than buying/trading/selling electronics. For me, It's always been about simply achieving the most neutral/accurate/satisfying sound, and once I attained that, I stopped with the never-ending treadmill of buy, trade, sell, and simply focus on my passion for music. And the only reason I was able to get off that tiresome treadmill was because of EQing. 

 

[Malfunkt]

  You might want to also take a look at my LCD-2 EQ curve here to get an idea of how much tweaking was required to get it to sound more neutral/accurate: http://www.head-fi.org/t/551426/my-eq-curves-for-lcd-2-hd650-m50-and-007mk2
 
You and I totally agree on the silliness of spending so much time and money on different amps, DACs, and headphones, hoping and praying that they just happen to cancel out each other's shortcomings and create "synergy." But I suspect a lot of people really enjoy all that, and to them it's just as much about playing with gear. I'm far more pragmatic and don't have a collector's mentality, and I have other passions in life that are more meaningful to me than buying/trading/selling electronics. For me, It's always been about simply achieving the most neutral/accurate/satisfying sound, and once I attained that, I stopped with the never-ending treadmill of buy, trade, sell, and simply focus on my passion for music. And the only reason I was able to get off that tiresome treadmill was because of EQing. 

Thanks Lunatique, I'll have a look.

I think there are just different paths. If you start a path is music, and more specifically, as a recording or mastering engineer you are going to learn a whole different side of audio. If those on head-fi had a different experience - such as using a mixing board (analog or digital), applied EQ or dynamic compression to audio, or have gone through a bit of the recording process - I think their take on audio would be a lot different.

For many, playing with their gear, is in a way learning sound engineering (to a degree), but one that is slow, and expensive and not necessarily accurate. You could save yourself years and many dollars just by knowing some solid audio engineering basics. I really feel that some people are 'chasing the dragon' sometimes. Further, manufacturers may be taking advantage of consumer ignorance and exploiting areas of ambiguity.
 
I think sites like Innerfidelity are moving in the direction towards measurement, but they should not be the lone voice. Would be great to hear from some recording industry heavy weights and I'm not talking the 'artists', but the mastering and recording engineers behind the magic to help set the record straight. Would be great to have a video having one of them explain audio calibration and in turn how it could apply to headphones and what one might look for in a reference.

 

 

[davidsh]

I would love to get my hands on some good room correction software/a solution that will allow me to apply the result system wide on windows 10. I got a calibrated measurement mic. Presently, I use Equalizer APO, which also has support for FIR filters.
 
Ideally, I think what I need is something that does
 
Measurements -> FIR filter 
 
the best way, and allows me to import the FIR filter into EQ APO. What are the options? Is this actually what I want?
 
How much better is FIR compared to IIR? 
 
Generally, I really need some ressources on how to measure my speakers and what to do with the measurements. Presently just using REW

 

[Lunatique]

  I would love to get my hands on some good room correction software/a solution that will allow me to apply the result system wide on windows 10. I got a calibrated measurement mic. Presently, I use Equalizer APO, which also has support for FIR filters.
 
Ideally, I think what I need is something that does
 
Measurements -> FIR filter 
 
the best way, and allows me to import the FIR filter into EQ APO. What are the options? Is this actually what I want?
 
How much better is FIR compared to IIR? 
 
Generally, I really need some ressources on how to measure my speakers and what to do with the measurements. Presently just using REW

This is probably what you're looking for:http://realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm

 

[BiggerHead]

I get that there a many details that real engineers in the field are familiar with for making sound come out enjoyable in practice using realistic gear, but it's easy to also rationalize fixes to real world situations or simply habits until reference has no meaning. 
 
If the microphone on stage doesn't pick up the same bass a person in the audience would, it's obviously not the job of a reference playback system to fix what wasn't recorded.  You might though want your (non-reference) stereo to do that.  Better yet, the recording should probably be modified to fix the problems inherent in the recording system.  Reality is reality though.
 
We also should not be defining the meaning of a flat recorded spectrum as being an intention to produce a bass boosted free field spectrum.  That's just doesn't make sense, and in this sense I don't think innerfidelity is going the right direction. We can define the meaning of the recording however we want of course but there is no sensible choice other than that flat is meant to be flat in some suitably defined listening-room-agnostic sense.
 
I am quite sure that people with good "ears" do mentally separate effects of the music from effects of the room to some extent.  This is like how our brains interpret color.  The measured color of light seen reflecting from a printed photo of an orange shirt  is drastically different when viewing the photo in indoor light and outdoor light.  However our brain is aware of both the shirt and the lighting environment where we hold the photo, and we deconvolve the two to interpret the color as being pretty close to the same either way, even though by measurement, it's not!    So it's perfectly reasonable, even necessary to allow that a spectral measurement of the photo is different indoors and out, and if you tried to correct the photo for the viewing environment, you would actually cause a distorted perception!  
 
For this reason I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow a listening/playback room to do a bit of what it does, including boosting bass in a measurement, if that's what the room does.  
 
But that's not a reference definition of what the recording fundamentally means and it's probably not even a definition that will be suitable for every room you listen in.  That's allowance for an environment-based presentation of the recording.  Headphones though are a very different playback environment and as I've said before, I think the HTRC assumption (not conclusion) that headphones should sound like a good listening room, is just not right.  As I recall Tyll is a bit of a bass head, and I certainly don't mean him any disrespect, but maybe he's finding ways to rationalize it a little?  Certainly not intentionally, and maybe not at all, but anyway, I don't like intentionally distorting the notion of reference, the very definition of a what a recording is meant to mean.

 

[Lunatique]

  I get that there a many details that real engineers in the field are familiar with for making sound come out enjoyable in practice using realistic gear, but it's easy to also rationalize fixes to real world situations or simply habits until reference has no meaning. 
 
If the microphone on stage doesn't pick up the same bass a person in the audience would, it's obviously not the job of a reference playback system to fix what wasn't recorded.  You might though want your (non-reference) stereo to do that.  Better yet, the recording should probably be modified to fix the problems inherent in the recording system.  Reality is reality though.
 
We also should not be defining the meaning of a flat recorded spectrum as being an intention to produce a bass boosted free field spectrum.  That's just doesn't make sense, and in this sense I don't think innerfidelity is going the right direction. We can define the meaning of the recording however we want of course but there is no sensible choice other than that flat is meant to be flat in some suitably defined listening-room-agnostic sense.
 
I am quite sure that people with good "ears" do mentally separate effects of the music from effects of the room to some extent.  This is like how our brains interpret color.  The measured color of light seen reflecting from a printed photo of an orange shirt  is drastically different when viewing the photo in indoor light and outdoor light.  However our brain is aware of both the shirt and the lighting environment where we hold the photo, and we deconvolve the two to interpret the color as being pretty close to the same either way, even though by measurement, it's not!    So it's perfectly reasonable, even necessary to allow that a spectral measurement of the photo is different indoors and out, and if you tried to correct the photo for the viewing environment, you would actually cause a distorted perception!  
 
For this reason I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow a listening/playback room to do a bit of what it does, including boosting bass in a measurement, if that's what the room does.  
 
But that's not a reference definition of what the recording fundamentally means and it's probably not even a definition that will be suitable for every room you listen in.  That's allowance for an environment-based presentation of the recording.  Headphones though are a very different playback environment and as I've said before, I think the HTRC assumption (not conclusion) that headphones should sound like a good listening room, is just not right.  As I recall Tyll is a bit of a bass head, and I certainly don't mean him any disrespect, but maybe he's finding ways to rationalize it a little?  Certainly not intentionally, and maybe not at all, but anyway, I don't like intentionally distorting the notion of reference, the very definition of a what a recording is meant to mean.

No, Tyll is not a basshead. In fact he's known for not being a basshead. He likes mainly neutral sonic signature with some warmth but enough detail and airiness in the high treble. If he wants a little bit of elevated bass it's only to emulated the visceral feel of speakers. He has learned to appreciate how some sonic signature that can be fun, including bass-heavy ones, but that is not his natural preference. 
 
You assumption that our ears and brain can acclimate to a room's sound is partially correct. It is true only up to a certain point, but once we get past minor to somewhat moderate coloration, the brain is no longer capable of adjusting itself to that much coloration. It's just like if you take the lamp in a room and then put in a RGB LED light bulb that can change color with a controller. You can push it slightly towards red and if it's not too severe, our brain will adjust to it, just like it does to warm tungsten lights or greenish fluorescent lights, but once you push it far enough towards red, all the relative differences between the hues starts to disappear and past a certain point, all you can see is just red and you cannot see other colors anymore. (I know this stuff because I teach art to visual artists that work in Hollywood special effects and video games, as well illustrators and photographers). 
 
The only way you can tell how bad the room mode is in any given room, is to actually measure it at the listening position. You can "think" that maybe it sounds decent enough, but unless you are very experienced and knowledgeable in acoustics and audio, you're likely wrong, and ought to do measurements to be sure. 
 
Have you ever actually been in an acoustically ideal room, such as a professional mastering grade studio, or a very well designed (and likely expensive) listening room such as some rich audiophiles listening room? How about just someone who's done extensive acoustic treatment and applied room/speaker correction? See, if you don't have experience with any of that, your opinions and assertions have only speculation to stand on. You seem to be quite passionate about this stuff, and I suggest you follow your passion and actually become educated about this stuff. I can recommend you books on acoustics and recording studio design, books with audio CDs that teach you critical listening for audio professionals, as well as how to approach local professional audio facilities to request a tour and possibly even get an internship so you can really learn something from a pro audio studio. 

 

[BiggerHead]

Yes, I have been in a professional recording studio.  Simply being in one, with no sound at all, is a sonic experience.

 

[BiggerHead]

oh.. but we're talking about the bass boost from a reference class room, that's the boost at issue in the HTRC and the one that I think you and I both agree, should probably be there, based on the actual "lighting" of a very good room, not a lousy  one with red light bulbs so to speak.

 

[Lunatique]

  Yes, I have been in a professional recording studio.  Simply being in one, with no sound at all, is a sonic experience.

How about actually sitting down in the audio engineer's chair and then listening to a selection of musical material and hearing how music you're familiar with actually sounds in a mastering grade room?
 
BTW, a lot places might seem like "professional recording studio" to the lay person, but in reality they might be anything but. Many smaller studios are far from mastering grade, using very cheap monitors in inadequate sounding rooms and improper placements.
 
This is what professional mastering studios looks like (and some cost millions of dollars):
https://www.google.com/search?q=mastering+studio&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrmd3m-oXLAhWEKGMKHalOCRQQ_AUIBygB&biw=1270&bih=1464#tbm=isch&q=professional+mastering+studio
 
And you might be interested in reading this:http://www.recordingconnection.com/reference-library/recording-entrepreneurs/how-much-does-a-music-studio-cost-2-0611/

 

[Lunatique]

  oh.. but we're talking about the bass boost from a reference class room, that's the boost at issue in the HTRC and the one that I think you and I both agree, should probably be there, based on the actual "lighting" of a very good room, not a lousy  one with red light bulbs so to speak.

I really wish you lived close to me. I would love to have you come over to my studio, and I'll play some music for you on my full-range system and you can hear for yourself just how powerful and visceral the bass sounds and feels. And then we can put a pair of headphones on you that's tuned to Harman Target Response Curve, and you can hear for yourself why it works the way it does, and why that is the result of extensive research. All this talk on paper (or more correctly, typing posts in forums) mean very little without actual experience hearing the sound and comparing them with your own ears. 

 

[BiggerHead]

Just to be clear, we're talking about a 5 or 10db (I forgot at the moment) smooth bass boost.  That's all.  That isn't going to turn a cheap system into a reference one or vice versa.  It's just going to boost the bass 5 or 10 db.  Seriously.