The most reliable/easiest way to EQ headphones properly to achieve the most ideal sound (for non-professionals)

[Hypops]

I’ve found that big adjustments just confuse me. I do better working on one segment of sound at a time and make small changes, then listen for a while and see if it’s an improvement. Sailing a ship is about tacking back and forth a little at a time to keep going in the right direction. It’s the same with EQ.

A friend of mine is a sound mixer for live concerts. This is the technique he taught me. He said random corrections make random results. Better to focus and refine in passes.

I agree. I was making the suggestion for the newcomer above who is just starting out with EQ. I find it can be very helpful when you're just beginning to exaggerate adjustments so you can more easily spot the changes in certain regions (or combinations of regions). As you get more experience, then you get better at being able to make subtler adjustments. It takes a lot of practice before you can spot a 1dB change to a particular region, especially if it's outside of the vocal region where human ears/brains are especially sensitive.

Heck even now, after being in the audio hobby for decades, I still often will start out with somewhat bigger adjustments (~3dB), then refine them down over time as I start to lock in a particular EQ profile. But, again, we all have our different philosophies and strategies.

 

[BS5711]

Unless you're just learning how to EQ. Then I'd start out swinging big just to learn what different kinds of corrections sound like (with appropriate negative gain, of course). I agree that smaller and fewer corrections are best, but it takes a lot of practice and experience to know how to do small adjustments efficiently and effectively IMO.

I agree entirely in respect of getting started.

I never got heavily into EQ since I didn’t feel I had the need but with the minor fiddling around that I did I found it helpful initially to make broad changes at various frequencies and Q values to get a big picture sense of what changes did what.

 

[XTF1]

I use EQ a lot… In fact, except for a few HP/IEMs that just sound right “out of the box” for me, and my AirPods—the convenience tradeoffs—I constantly switch from ‘no-EQ’ to some ‘ever-work-in-progress’ PEQ set with whatever HP or IEM I currently use.

Sailing a ship is about tacking back and forth a little at a time to keep going in the right direction. It’s the same with EQ.

+1 on this !!!

The bad (?) part of EQ is that it makes buying more HP & IEM difficult to rationalize…

 

[Ghoostknight]

The bad (?) part of EQ is that it makes buying more HP & IEM difficult to rationalize…

you can easly change frequency response, but you cant change transient/impulse response that easy (atleast not make it better than it originally ist) add to this the resonances of the driver (the "tone" of the driver) and you have reasonns why to buy new headphones

imo you want a nice "base" for the headphones you are going to EQ, also if the frequency response is closer to your endtarget than you need less EQ, (less phaseshift/pre-/postringing)

these additional variables are of course all less audible than some db change in the frequency response, i guess everyone has to decide for themself if they care or not

 

[Ghoostknight]

i usually adjust in 1db steps unless i know 2-5db is needed for example, tho i wouldnt go lower than 1db, its small enough to get where you want to go (but feel free to test 0,5db after you are "finished", sometimes its just what was needed)

but having said that, i found myself quite often giving a EQ 10-15db, just to see what it sounds like and to get a feel for it (only db reduced, not increased)


so imo its:
feel free to experiment and what feels best to you, i would just advice to not go below 1db steps unless you know its really needed, it makes the whole process a lot quicker than starting with decimal points even if i think 0,2db can be heared in the overall balance, specially with broader EQ's

 

[XTF1]

you can easly change frequency response, but you cant change transient/impulse response that easy

If you mean the strict (correct) definition of impulse response, then frequency response and impulse response are two representations of the same thing. If one changes, so is the other.

 

[Hypops]

you can easly change frequency response, but you cant change transient/impulse response that easy

IMO it's quite easy to boost the transient response. Just like "detail," transients are almost always just a matter of treble level. However, decay/impulse response are not things you can easily EQ. Like other timing-related traits, decay/impulse response are almost entirely dependent on the driver(s). And decay/impulse response are directly related to what we often call "timbre," especially driver-specific timber (BA timbre, DD timbre, planar timbre, etc). All about how quickly a driver leaves from and returns to its resting state.

 

[bigshot]

A 20kHz sound wave is a transient that defines 1/20,000th of a second. If your transducer can reproduce a full range of audible sound, it should be more than capable of reproducing any transients in music, which occupy a MUCH larger time footprint.

 

[gregorio]

I’ve found that big adjustments just confuse me. …
A friend of mine is a sound mixer for live concerts. This is the technique he taught me. He said random corrections make random results. Better to focus and refine in passes.

As a general “rule of thumb” when applying EQ professionally by ear, it’s best practice to start initially with a big adjustment, as @Hypops suggested. There’s a number of reasons for this; to make sure you’re in exactly the right region and that the EQ band is actually engaged, as well as to help reduce the potential for expectation bias/placebo to influence the decision when making small changes. There are however a number of exceptions, two of which are: Obviously you can’t make a big adjustment when boosting a signal that’s quite high in level, because you’ll likely clip, and this approach is not appropriate when live sound mixing, because if you need to make a relatively small, subtle change you obviously don’t want to make a big over-adjustment that will stick out like a sore thumb to the audience (or potentially cause feedback). So the general rule is start bigger and work your way down (not just with EQ but with the application of most effects), except in live sound mixing where the general rule is the opposite, start at zero and work your way up.

And decay/impulse response are directly related to what we often call "timbre," especially driver-specific timber (BA timbre, DD timbre, planar timbre, etc). All about how quickly a driver leaves from and returns to its resting state.

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, what we call “timbre” is the human brain’s interpretation/perception of the different balances and numbers of harmonics/overtones produced by all natural sounds. I’m not sure how that’s directly related to decay and would only be related to transients in terms of harmonic distortion, which would need to be quite severe to be audible due to the very short duration of transients. “BA timbre”, “DD timbre”, etc., sounds to me like the common audiophile habit of misappropriating an already well established audio/sound term.

G

 

[Blackwoof]

All about how quickly a driver leaves from and returns to its resting state.

Basically music with long or stop/start bass will shine on ER3XR or HE400se. On my ER3XR I can hear hidden textures/notes missing on the ER2XR because the DD struggles with 4+ downtuned guitars + synths being played all at once, Common in Drone Doom like Sunn O))) or Nadja.

 

[Hypops]

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, what we call “timbre” is the human brain’s interpretation/perception of the different balances and numbers of harmonics/overtones produced by all natural sounds. I’m not sure how that’s directly related to decay and would only be related to transients in terms of harmonic distortion, which would need to be quite severe to be audible due to the very short duration of transients. “BA timbre”, “DD timbre”, etc., sounds to me like the common audiophile habit of misappropriating an already well established audio/sound term.

Agreed. But, no, I wasn't talking about harmonic overtones in the recording itself (instrument timbre). I was talking about driver behavior (BA timbre, planar timbre, etc). Two different kinds of timbre. One is reproduced in recordings; the other is produced directly by the drivers themselves. It's not so much misappropriation as it is thinking about drivers as instruments too.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah, I didn’t mean starting. Obviously the starting point is just a spit in the wind. I meant making adjustments beyond wherever you choose to start.

 

[OCC7N]

For any NOS listener that wants a great level of EQ without effecting the ´air´ and choke the music.

Get the UAD-2 Solo or Duo and buy the Sonnox Oxford cheap. It is pure HiFi heaven. Even on a flat EQ.

I wish Windows would allow and implement a feature .... or Universal Audio to come up with this idea to have it on natively instead of only Jriver which sucks big time. Using Foobar2000...my point is that it could be awesome if all softwares/programs/players could take advantage of this big feature DSP in Windows 11

 

[OCC7N]

To the OP. You have not mentioned any reference of DAC? talking from a deltasigma standpoint even that signal can differ from system to system:

Delta-sigma (ΔΣ; or sigma-delta, ΣΔ) modulation is an oversampling method for encoding signals

Not trying to create a shadow on the topic because it is important to have great EQ(curve or maybe flat) to perfect according to taste.

Where is the reference of any given event of recording? - the recordings of the microphone - does the producer really hear everything on his dynamics/speakers - what would have happened if the producer used another technology for speakers?

If you reference for audio playback is based on what you record your audio in/DAW I would guess its deltasigma. In my opinion, to experience a natural pure sound it is not deltasigma but rather R2R/NOS. Talking from a musical standpoint not EDM music or electronic genres where deltasigma wins on transitens/timing -> but true musicians -> R2R will always win on neutral respons, no matter the EQing.

EQ has nothing to do with neutral sound or warm sound. Most people ignore the fact, it just move levels of frequencies up and down -effecting the whole spectrum. Increasing the mids does not make it warm, just higher volume/level

.---

The day R2R gets more positive hype and recoignition I am willing to bet, when it is implemented into DAW interface for input, it could change the industry positively.

 

[bigshot]

^ no