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

[watchnerd]

   
Loudspeakers may sound better than headphones for some people, but not me. Sure, loudspeakers can do plenty of things headphones can't, and they do sound big and impressive...but also distant and impersonal. I don't connect with the music at all with them. I prefer headphones nearly 100% of the time, partially due to the more intimate presentation that makes me feel one with the music.
 

 
So when you listen to live music does it sound distant and impersonal to you?

 

[castleofargh]

I'm also one to find that speakers are better than any headphone. simply because they're so close to the experience of real sound. when headphones, as long as the music is mastered with speakers, it will never be completely right (or we'll have to go with DSPs and HRTF like the realiser device). also bass vibrating into the body, that's something special to me.
now all isn't dark for headphones, they actually tend to measure way better than speakers on many aspects. so the potential is certainly there. but we need stuff mastered for headphones or some other trick.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  So when you listen to live music does it sound distant and impersonal to you?

 
Sometimes. lol. I see your point, but for me it's different. Headphones are just magical for me despite their limitations.
 
I'm a fairly experienced musician too. From my profile:
 
"I have been in everything from orchestras to jazz bands to metal bands, and have done vocals practically my entire life, piano since ~1993, and trombone and guitar since ~1996."
 

  I'm also one to find that speakers are better than any headphone. simply because they're so close to the experience of real sound. when headphones, as long as the music is mastered with speakers, it will never be completely right (or we'll have to go with DSPs and HRTF like the realiser device). also bass vibrating into the body, that's something special to me.
now all isn't dark for headphones, they actually tend to measure way better than speakers on many aspects. so the potential is certainly there. but we need stuff mastered for headphones or some other trick.

 
Since you've seen even more anime than I have, do you enjoy watching anime more on a TV with speakers across the room? I enjoy it more watching it on my laptop with headphones, personally.
 
But for gaming, I do prefer a TV and speakers most of the time, unless it's a portable console.

 

[briskly]

  "Neutral" is kind of a loaded word, especially due to the debate over which compensation curve is the most neutral one.

Neutral curve has a simple answer: headphone insertion gain matched to or approximately close to the subject's diffuse field transfer function. You would get that using reference noise and sweeps.
 
The problem is that people tend not to like that, which is what inspires all this research. Harman takes the position that a downward sloping response, from room absorption and LF bumps, in speaker listening seem more natural to listeners, and thus should be reflected in headphones.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Neutral curve has a simple answer: headphone insertion gain matched to or approximately close to the subject's diffuse field transfer function. You would get that using reference noise and sweeps.
 
The problem is that people tend not to like that, which is what inspires all this research. Harman takes the position that a downward sloping response, from room absorption and LF bumps, in speaker listening seem more natural to listeners, and thus should be reflected in headphones.

 
There are a few things your post made me think about. The first post of this thread suggests using reference noise and sweeps. But then, he also suggests following the Harman curve instead of diffuse-field. I'm not sure whether the OP implied that simply using the reference noise and sweeps would get you a response that follows either curve in itself. And some have said that the equal loudness contour thing would result from that instead of a response that follows either curve. Thoughts?

 

[briskly]

There are a few things your post made me think about. The first post of this thread suggests using reference noise and sweeps. But then, he also suggests following the Harman curve instead of diffuse-field. I'm not sure whether the OP implied that simply using the reference noise and sweeps would get you a response that follows either curve in itself. And some have said that the equal loudness contour thing would result from that instead of a response that follows either curve. Thoughts?

Our goal in this case of equalizing by ear is get a response that seems flat. Diffuse field response is not intended, but that is the result these tend to follow.
Loudness adjustments will be needed when done by ear, especially as dependent on level. The middle and inner ear have compression mechanisms that increase the input range of sound, and also affect the transfer response when active.
 

This is the response of the loudspeaker in the listening room used in the Harman tests, equalized to a flat response over the listening position.


Then, that room response is measured on a not-mannequin at eardrum equivalent, with an HD 800 matched to that response.
The curve shown here has a strong resemblance to the diffuse field response of human subjects, as measured at the eardrum. The end headphone result has more bass and less treble than the flat room-equivalent response shown here, a result also shown with a slightly different magnitude in the preferred speaker target.
 
 
From a different Harman study.

The blue trace is the response from microphones inside the headphone, the red trace is the response determined subjectively, with loudness adjusted pink noise bands. These are both roughly in the range of the diffuse field adjusted response of the headphone under test.
The subjective responses don't seem to indicate a particularly "analytical" headphone, but practically every Head-Fi review of this set discusses its lack of bass, lean tone, lack of warmth, and so on.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Our goal in this case of equalizing by ear is get a response that is flat. Diffuse field response is not intended, but that is the result these tend to follow.

 
Good info, but it doesn't seem to define what "flat" is in this context.
 
Perhaps you could put together your own guide to supplement the first post of the thread and show exactly what to do to achieve the desired result, in your opinion.

 

[Lunatique]

   
Loudspeakers may sound better than headphones for some people, but not me. Sure, loudspeakers can do plenty of things headphones can't, and they do sound big and impressive...but also distant and impersonal. I don't connect with the music at all with them. I prefer headphones nearly 100% of the time, partially due to the more intimate presentation that makes me feel one with the music.
 
Here's one thing that can make headphones sound more like speakers, but it's a little pricey: http://www.smyth-research.com
 
If you don't mind divulging, how much did it cost to do all that?
 
Also, I'm still curious about my question relating to whether Harman-equalized headphones sound like your speaker system in terms of frequency response.

How do you listen to your speakers though? What kind of listening space? What kind of speakers? At what distance from the listening position? Is the space acoustically treated to adequate level for critical monitoring? Is there room/speaker correction applied? All of these factors can make or break your speaker listening experience. If your setup is not optimal then it's understandable that it won't sound as good as your headphones. But a speaker system that's of high quality and properly set up, will beat the vast majority of headphones on the market with the exception of maybe the absolute apex of headphones that cost more than some cars. 
 
I'm aware of the Smyth Research products and used to follow it. I don't feel the need to go to that extent for my headphone listening experience. I'm satisfied with TB Isone (still the best HRTF plugin for headphones I've heard to date):http://www.toneboosters.com/tb-isone/ It is created by Jeroen Breebaart, an audio engineer with some impressive credits under his belt: http://www.jeroenbreebaart.com/ It sounds realistic enough that several times in the past I had forgotten I was wearing headphones and thought I was blasting my speakers late into the night and panicked. Many users of Isone have reported similar experiences. 
 
You don't need to spend a ton of money to achieve a great setup with a speaker system (but this is obviously relative, since for some people even a couple thousands of dollars is a fortune). If I were to help someone put together a great speaker system in a good listening space that can stand up to critical scrutiny (that even a high-end audio professional can approve of), it'll probably cost the person about $4,000 total (this includes a pair of professional quality speakers that have amazing bang for the buck, acoustic treatment kit, and room/speaker correction). If the person is willing to go the DIY route and buy used, that total can go down even lower. 
 
I'll give you a couple of example packages I would put together for the person:
 
Package One:
Event Opal monitor speakers
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Opal/?adpos=1t1&creative=88122131521&device=c&matchtype=b&network=g&gclid=Cj0KEQiAoby1BRDA-fPXtITt3f0BEiQAPCkqQcCFsfSPkHhA_RWSWxYY7ZExQJJOdmMAbCyzqf7tBBQaArPh8P8HAQ
 
GIK Acoustics Room Kits
http://www.gikacoustics.com/product-category/room-kits/
 
IK Multimedia ARC System 2
http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arc/
 
Package Two:
Neumann KH120 monitor speakers
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/KH120
 
Neumann KH805 subwoofer
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/KH805
 
Whichever acoustic room kit of your choice here
http://www.sweetwater.com/c673--Complete_Room_Systems
 
Acourate room/speaker correction
http://www.audiovero.de/en/acourate.php
 
(There are hardware room/speaker correction products too, such as the KRK Ergo and JBL MSC1, but hardware alternatives tend to be more limited in their capabilities--at least they have been so far.)
 
These two example packages can give you an idea of what it takes to attain a great sounding speaker system. There are other alternatives too, but the main essentials will always be:
 
1) Quality speakers that are adequately full-ranged (I think down to 40Hz is acceptable, but it's better to get it down to 30~35Hz, and if you can afford to go down to 20Hz, even better). Also, it's important to avoid speakers that have problematic bass port resonances, since that's nearly impossible to correct. Not all ported speakers have this problem. The Opals are ported but have no such problem.
 
2) Room/speaker correction. This is IMO even more important than acoustic treatment because some situations prevent you from being able to use acoustic treatment. Also, this is probably the number one important element, since even subpar speaker systems can be vastly improved to decent quality.
 
3) Acoustic treatments. If your living space allows them, they will help you attain the best sound possible, and they will make the room/speaker correction system work less hard and thus decrease the likelihood of distortions caused by drastic corrections. The better your room can sound without correction, the better starting point you have when you do room measurements.
 
As for myself, my system is this:
Klein+Hummel O 300Ds (I lucked out and got mine on ebay for only $3,000 back in 2007, when most people in the States didn't know about Klein+Hummel. They retailed at the time for close to $7,000 for a pair. Currently, the successor to the O 300 series is the Neumann KH310. It's the updated model after Neumann bought Klein+Hummel. And some of you might know that Neumann is owned by Sennheiser.)
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct04/articles/kh300d.htm
 
Neumann KH805
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/KH805
 
IK Multimedia ARC System 2
http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arc/
 
DIY acoustic treatment (I don't remember exactly how much I spent on just the acoustic treatments, since the total budget included the construction of the studio. Back then commercial acoustic treatment was a lot more expensive, so I went DIY. Today, I think commercial options are cheap enough for most people.)
 
BTW, if you want to see the entire construction process as well as the design schematics of the studio (my previous studio), here are a bunch of photos and design diagrams (keep in mind that was for a full-blown professional music production studio, and you do not need to go to such lengths for just a home sound system): 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct13/articles/neuman-kh310a.htm
 
So total amount spent (if I'm guesstimating how much the acoustic treatment portion cost and not counting the construction) is probably around $6,000 only. In the grand scheme of things when you look at the ridiculous amount of money some audiophile guys spent on their system (while completely ignorant of acoustics and room correction, thus their speaker systems are totally skewed anyway), $6,000 isn't much at all. And as I showed above, it's possible to attain the same level of sound quality with as little as $4,000 or less. Some of you have spent more than that on headphones and amps already.

 

[Lunatique]

  Also, I'm still curious about my question relating to whether Harman-equalized headphones sound like your speaker system in terms of frequency response.

Sorry, I keep getting sidetracked by other questions. 
 
In my experience, the Harman Target Response Curve (or Tyll's modified version of it) closely approximates what a good pair of full-range speakers sound like in an ideal acoustic space. I use it as the standard to EQ my headphones. When I listen to my EQed headphones, the frequency response is very similar to my speaker system, but of course, it's an approximation that cannot match the sense of dimensionality and visceral impact, and it's always going to sound a bit... as if the headphones are trying too hard to live up to expectations they can't quite meet. Sort of like they are straining while pretending to be a full-range speaker system. That's my impression. 
 
If any of you live near me, I welcome you to come to my studio and listen to my system. I'm sure it would be fun, sort of like what Tyll did when he invited those people to his place and tested a bunch of headphones and then posted the videos.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  How do you listen to your speakers though? What kind of listening space? What kind of speakers? At what distance from the listening position? Is the space acoustically treated to adequate level for critical monitoring? Is there room/speaker correction applied? All of these factors can make or break your speaker listening experience. If your setup is not optimal then it's understandable that it won't sound as good as your headphones. But a speaker system that's of high quality and properly set up, will beat the vast majority of headphones on the market with the exception of maybe the absolute apex of headphones that cost more than some cars. 

 
You're missing the point here. I prefer the presentation of headphones. It doesn't matter how good the speaker system and room are.
 

So total amount spent (if I'm guesstimating how much the acoustic treatment portion cost and not counting the construction) is probably around $6,000 only. In the grand scheme of things when you look at the ridiculous amount of money some audiophile guys spent on their system (while completely ignorant of acoustics and room correction, thus their speaker systems are totally skewed anyway), $6,000 isn't much at all. And as I showed above, it's possible to attain the same level of sound quality with as little as $4,000 or less. Some of you have spent more than that on headphones and amps already.

 
That's relatively affordable. The total value of all the headphone-related gear I've owned so far (if you use the original MSRPs, and bear in mind that I'm sort of at the mid-point of my journey) is nearly $10K...and I spent two to three times as much on my music collection. I may end up coming to you for advice if/when I build a speaker system...but I love headphones so much that I'd rather focus on building the best headphone systems first.
 
There are more members here than you may realize who think that the best headphones are better overall than the best speakers regardless of price.

 

[Lunatique]

   
You're missing the point here. I prefer the presentation of headphones. It doesn't matter how good the speaker system and room are.
 
 
That's relatively affordable. The total value of all the headphone-related gear I've owned so far (if you use the original MSRPs, and bear in mind that I'm sort of at the mid-point of my journey) is nearly $10K...and I spent two to three times as much on my music collection. I may end up coming to you for advice if/when I build a speaker system...but I love headphones so much that I'd rather focus on building the best headphone systems first.
 
There are more members here than you may realize who think that the best headphones are better overall than the best speakers regardless of price.

Do you think that part of the reason you prefer the presentation might include psychological too, and not purely aural? By that, I mean the feeling that you are entitled to your privacy and don't want to announce to those within earshot what you're listening to, and feeling that wonderful immersion of being lost in your own private little world. I know that I feel it when I use headphones--it helps me disconnect from the rest of the world and enjoy my own little universe. 
 
I'll be glad to help you or anyone with any questions you might have. I'm sure you can tell by now that I enjoy helping others and passing on knowledge (I'm actually a teacher in my "day job" right now.) 
 
I'm sure there are members who prefer headphones to speakers just like you, and I have encountered them in my years here at head-fi. However, what percentage of them have actually heard a professional mastering grade sound system in an excellent acoustic space before? I wonder how many of them would change their mind if/when they do?
 
Different speaker systems in different listening environments can differ wildly from each other, including the presentation, since a typical living room consumer speaker system will have different presentation than a nearfield monitoring system in a professional studio. For many people, until they have heard truly excellent speaker systems in a really good acoustic space, they really don't know how amazing speakers can sound. Most people have never even heard full-range speaker systems before in their lives, and have only been exposed to multimedia speakers, bookshelf speakers, mediocre home theater sound systems living rooms, those tall tower speakers that looks pretty with multiple bass drivers but can't even go down past 50Hz, or low-end so-called "professional monitors" that sound anything but, and all without any acoustic treatment and room correction, in rooms with severe asymmetrical layouts in both room shape and furniture placement, as well as have terrible echo problems that smears all the transients and screws up the imaging.
 
My thinking is that until the person has actually heard a truly excellent speaker system in a good acoustic space, it's hard to say if their preference for headphones is an informed one. This isn't to say there won't be those who have heard amazing speaker systems and still prefer headphones--I'm just wondering what percentage of the people who prefer headphones fall in that category.
 
When I have online discussions with people about these types of topics, I often think to myself, "I wish that person can hear what I'm hearing right now with my speaker system--it'll likely change that person's entire outlook about audio." That's why I say I welcome anyone who lives nearby to come and visit me and hear it for themselves.

 

[castleofargh]

there is a feeling of pinpoint accuracy on headphones, the imaging isn't realistic but it feels super precise with some headphones at least. I do not think that trumps the thrilling experience of good speakers in a treated room, but it's a very different experience and I can understand that some people prefer it. just like I know a few guys who prefer the sound of IEMs over even some of the best fullsize headphones. I could never agree, but again it can be a different experience.
 
 
and yeah I enjoy animes more on headphones somehow ^_^(maybe some subconscious shame to be heard looking at animes at almost 40... but I doubt it as I have no self esteem

). but I prefer most movies on speakers.

 

[watchnerd]

To me, they're both tools.  And I can't get a good handle on a mix I'm working on without both.
 
If I mixed entirely with headphones, I'd miss a lot of soundstaging information, 'power band' info in the upper bass / lower midrange, and mid- to macro-dynamics.
 
If I mixed entirely with speakers, I'd miss the ability to take room acoustics out of the equation and listen for micro-dynamics.
 
Reproduced music is an artifice...from the moment the sound hits the microphones it has been morphed by transducer colorations and distortions.
 
The best we can hope for is to make a recording that is evocative, rather than duplicative, of reality.

 

[Lunatique]

  there is a feeling of pinpoint accuracy on headphones, the imaging isn't realistic but it feels super precise with some headphones at least. I do not think that trumps the thrilling experience of good speakers in a treated room, but it's a very different experience and I can understand that some people prefer it. just like I know a few guys who prefer the sound of IEMs over even some of the best fullsize headphones. I could never agree, but again it can be a different experience.
 
 
and yeah I enjoy animes more on headphones somehow ^_^(maybe some subconscious shame to be heard looking at animes at almost 40... but I doubt it as I have no self esteem

). but I prefer most movies on speakers.

Funny you mention pinpoint accuracy. After my most recent rearrangement of placement of my speaker system (based on advice from Neumann's product manager), I started to get fooled often, thinking my 5.1 surround system is on instead of my 2.1 system. The imaging is so precise that I often think the sound is coming from the surround system's center channel or a surround channel. It is by far the most precise imaging I've ever heard.
 
Your comment about anime made me laugh. I just turned 43, so I can relate. For me, it's K-Pop. My wife likes to tease me about my guilty pleasure. She'd walk into my studio and say, "Watching Korean chicks shaking their asses again?" or "Listening to those Korean butt-wagging girls again?" 

 She's not jealous or anything, since she actually looks like a K-Pop idol herself (she used to be a model and actress in China), and still looks better than most of the K-Pop idol girls half her age (I've posted my photography of her here before in a photography thread). She just likes to watch me get indignant and defend my guilty pleasure with complaints like, "But they're not all just butt-shaking chicks! Some are actually really good singers and songrwiters! Look at IU! She's uber talented and don't do the overly sexualized thing!" 

 
 

  To me, they're both tools.  And I can't get a good handle on a mix I'm working on without both.
 
If I mixed entirely with headphones, I'd miss a lot of soundstaging information, 'power band' info in the upper bass / lower midrange, and mid- to macro-dynamics.
 
If I mixed entirely with speakers, I'd miss the ability to take room acoustics out of the equation and listen for micro-dynamics.
 
Reproduced music is an artifice...from the moment the sound hits the microphones it has been morphed by transducer colorations and distortions.
 
The best we can hope for is to make a recording that is evocative, rather than duplicative, of reality.

Absolutely. I always check my mix/master on both studio monitors and headphones, just to cover my ass and make sure the track sounds good from both perspectives. 
 
I think how realistic/natural and how artificial but evocative to make the mix/master depends on the style and the aesthetic sensibility of the artist and the engineers working on the track. Some really go out of their way to produce the most natural and realistic sound possible, and some don't even pretend to want that and use all the tricks possible to simply create something that's very compelling to listen to. When it comes to production, I have no stance on this--as long as it sounds great, who cares? 

 

[gregorio]

You have to compensate for human hearing.

 
I'll admit to being a little confused by some of the posts in this thread. For example, the quote above. Do you mean compensate for an individual's hearing or for human hearing in general? This question might sound like semantics but it really isn't, it makes a substantial difference!
 
If we are talking about an individual's hearing, *maybe* there is some benefit to compensating for a particular deficiency that an individual might be experiencing, say a loss of sensitivity of one or both ears in a particular frequency band, due to some illness or hearing damage.
 
If on the other hand we are talking about compensating for human hearing in general, say compensating along the lines of the Fletcher-Munson curves, then this is something we/you should definitely NOT be doing! Sure, if you are listening ONLY to individual sine waves or sweeps, then by all means compensate for loudness contours if you wish but, if you are listening to commercial music, film or other content then you are listening to a mix created for human beings and by human beings (who obviously have human hearing). In other words, compensation for the Fletcher-Munson contours has already been built-in to the audio mixes to which you are listening. Applying EQ to compensate for a loudness contour is, in effect, compensating for the second time and is obviously going to take you a long way away from neutral. The only caveat I would make to this statement is if one listens to music at a very low level, in which case boosting the bass a little is not such a bad idea.
 
I would also add that most commercial recording studios are not designed with a flat/neutral frequency response, most apply a "house curve". House curves vary from studio to studio but they usually include some amount (up to about 6dB) of bass boost. This is to compensate for the fact that most consumer music systems usually have a bass boost. The exception to this is dubbing theatres (where theatrical films are mixed), which are usually quite flat, with the exception of slight bass and treble roll-offs (the x-curve). However, I mention dubbing theatres only as a point of interest, it does not affect/concern consumers.
 
G