[XTF1]

Many other options now for PEQ on mobile devices, not just other dongles. Like I said above, an entry-level dongle like the 5K isn't just competing against other dongles. It's competing against people who just use their phones, a DAP, or even a desktop setup in some cases. As for me, I'm finding that I actually use Roon ARC for PEQ more often than I use the PEQ on the 5K. And if that's the case, there's less reason for me to bother with the 5K.

Ok, you got a valid point here! But, it's a quite different approach: Roon ARC is perfect as you use it and stay within Roon boundaries. I'm on iPhone, using a few different sources... and Roon is not one of them.

 

[zilax002]

That's exactly the point: the Speaker (or HP, or IEM) PEQ is where AutoEQ presets are applied. They do 90% of the heavy-lifting for you. Then you can use the User EQ to adjust & fine-tune your personal preferences> As an example, I think the new option to combine a 10-band Speaker PEQ with a 10-band GEQ makes perfect sense: you get the "complex" PEQ in Speaker PEQ and a more intuitive 10-band GEQ in User GEQ... Hiby DAPs are moving in the same direction when you combine the PEQ--the equivalent of Speaker PEQ--and MSEB--the equivalent of User EQ.

Except, and hear me out, as someone who think AutoEQ profiles often suck (especially the more they're changing):

I don't want to use that as a base, given I'm likely to remove or adjust almost every filter.

I don't like making AutoEQ this central element of the device, this "gate" you're supposed to pass by.

It's great that it's there, but I didn't need it implemented like this.

It's a different conversation altogethe but I also fundamentally disagree with the idea we should EQ everything to the same target. I don't want every headphone to sound the same and I don't think doing so gets the best results. I want to fix obvious flaws or lean more into the headphone's existing subjective and tonal characteristics.

 

[speedingcheetah]

I flat-out admire your dedication and patience !!! For me, if a HP/IEM needs more than say 5-6 PEQ filters to sound "right", it is an utter garbage, not worth my time...

Having the sliders, GEQ, make is super easy to play with things, move up or down and hear how each freq band they have affects the sound.
I like the more freq steps. I allowed me to dial in much more areas i wanted to tweak, vs a shotgun broad adjustment.
Most so for me is in treble, i don't like hiss, or over sharpness, but i do want to boost treble to make things more clear and open.
The more options given, more fine tune the exact range that, to my ears, are to sharp or hissy, and adjust my curve with that information.
Or do the opposite, with headphones that i find are too harsh.

As far as what gear i use, headphones or speakers, for certain applications, i can only use what i have, or, I have been unable to find a suitable replacement/upgrade. (is the case for my main speakers for tv/pc, they do not make them like they used to, the older Creative and Logitech speakers systems absolutely kill any of their modern offerings.)
For TV/ home theater, today, is all about stupid sound bars, which i hate.

 

[XTF1]

Except, and hear me out, as someone who think AutoEQ profiles often suck (especially the more they're changing):

I don't want to use that as a base, given I'm likely to remove or adjust almost every filter.

I don't like making AutoEQ this central element of the device, this "gate" you're supposed to pass by.

It's great that it's there, but I didn't need it implemented like this.

It's a different conversation altogethe but I also fundamentally disagree with the idea we should EQ everything to the same target. I don't want every headphone to sound the same and I don't think doing so gets the best results. I want to fix obvious flaws or lean more into the headphone's existing subjective and tonal characteristics.

I see… You still have the 20-band PEQ/GEQ option then…

Disclaimer: I’m not a Qudelix fanboy. I was very puzzled by the T71. But I think Qudelix is on the right track with V3.0.

 

[speedingcheetah]

For me, if a HP/IEM needs more than say 5-6 PEQ filters to sound "right", it is an utter garbage, not worth my time...

I spent way too much time and money, years back, trying various "popular" headphones, IEM, and Full Sized.
They all sucked imo, even the very well praised by reviewers ones like Airpods Max and Bose...etc
I have hard time with IEM's as my left ear canal is a tad smaller then my right. And in general, most IEM's tips are either too small, or too big for me.
I was using a pair of random "AKG" earbuds (EO-IG955) that apparently came with some older Samsung phone, dual driver says some china flyer for them.
Recently got a pair of "ARTTI T10 Magnetic Circuit Planar Driver" IEM's cheap off Amazon. They are a bit better sound to my ears than the AKG with the 5K, more clear and imaging is great. (even ended up using the same EQ i was using already lol)
Full sized headphone, me being a bass head, Skullcandy Crusher Evo. Sound amazing on the 5K, but moved to a Fosi K5 Pro DAC cause i need the optical input on the DAC side, and i find that DAC to have a wider sound stage.
Some point in the future though, looking to replace them with more, tame headphones.
But, recently, not been using headphones due to inner ear issues with my right ear.

 

[XTF1]

Having the sliders, GEQ, make is super easy to play with things, move up or down and hear how each freq band they have affects the sound.

Same as previous comment: you know that the 20-band GEQ is still available?
The 10-band User PEQ + 10-band Speaker PEQ is ‘just’ one option. 10-band User GEQ + 10-band Speaker PEQ is another option…

Edit: oh, and I forgot the 10-band independent L/R on Speaker PEQ. If there is one thing confusing on V3.0…. It is all these options!

 

[speedingcheetah]

Same as previous comment: you know that the 20-band GEQ is still available?
The 10-band User PEQ + 10-band Speaker PEQ is ‘just’ one option. 10-band User GEQ + 10-band Speaker PEQ is another option…

Edit: oh, and I forgot the 10-band independent L/R on Speaker PEQ. If there is one thing confusing on V3.0…. It is all these options!

Indeed. That is what surprised me, as all their posts on their own forms, clearly state they intend to only have 10+10, removing the 20 band fully.
They had not posted any updates for a few months now.
They still do not even have a change log or announcement post.
All i find is the "5K SW Update Plan" thread and the Announcement thread for the v2 firmware launch, when they added the 20 band EQ in 2022.
All the app says is "V3.0 Major Upgrade"

I updated to V3 the 5K i use on my Apple TV and speakers, and it did save the 20 band Profiles i already had.
However, i did do a Reset All Settings, and started over, imported the previous exported .txt files of my EQ Profiles. It worked fine.

So, good job Qudelix, now you made both type of users happy. Those who preferred just a single 20 band EQ, and those who want the 10+10 style, thing.
As long as they keep it this way, i am happy to still use the 5K.

 

[Hypops]

Ok, you got a valid point here! But, it's a quite different approach: Roon ARC is perfect as you use it and stay within Roon boundaries. I'm on iPhone, using a few different sources... and Roon is not one of them.

I’m also on an iPhone, so yeah it really limits PEQ options. It’s actually the reason I got a 5K in the first place!

It's a different conversation altogethe but I also fundamentally disagree with the idea we should EQ everything to the same target. I don't want every headphone to sound the same and I don't think doing so gets the best results. I want to fix obvious flaws or lean more into the headphone's existing subjective and tonal characteristics.

Ha. You just described what I find most useful about AutoEQ. Different contributors use their own custom target curves. I don’t know of any who just use straight-up Harman. It’s why I often have a few different profiles for each headphone. I regularly hop between different targets and profiles based on different AutoEQ profiles.

 

[XTF1]

I also fundamentally disagree with the idea we should EQ everything to the same target. I don't want every headphone to sound the same and I don't think doing so gets the best results. I want to fix obvious flaws or lean more into the headphone's existing subjective and tonal characteristics.

Ha. You just described what I find most useful about AutoEQ. Different contributors use their own custom target curves. I don’t know of any who just use straight-up Harman. It’s why I often have a few different profiles for each headphone. I regularly hop between different targets and profiles based on different AutoEQ profiles.

I’m really not far off of you guys, but my “workflow” is slightly different: I start with a Harman AutoEQ—not because it’s the best, but because it ‘mostly’ works for me. I then add a few ‘usual’ personal touches, a couple of typical filter corrections. That’s my baseline…I then work my way backward: reducing, changing, or removing these AutoEQ-generated filters to go back to the original ‘as-is’ HP/IEM. Sometimes, it is interesting: I think I get what the manufacturer wanted to do with their HP/IEM, and I discover something new/ interesting . Other times (often!) I just don’t get it… Oh well, in one of these proverbial drawers it goes…

 

[zilax002]

I’m really not far off of you guys, but my “workflow” is slightly different: I start with a Harman AutoEQ—not because it’s the best, but because it ‘mostly’ works for me. I then add a few ‘usual’ personal touches, a couple of typical filter corrections. That’s my baseline…I then work my way backward: reducing, changing, or removing these AutoEQ-generated filters to go back to the original ‘as-is’ HP/IEM. Sometimes, it is interesting: I think I get what the manufacturer wanted to do with their HP/IEM, and I discover something new/ interesting . Other times (often!) I just don’t get it… Oh well, in one of these proverbial drawers it goes…

I feel you.

I've worked in a similar manner before. It sort of varies case by case for me.

Sometimes the AutoEQ adjustments are just too jarring and I prefer to manually enter adjustments so I get a better sense for how the sound is changing gradual filter by filter.

Occassionally AutoEQ sounds pretty good as is and then I just dial things in a bit.

I only started using EQ in the last six months or so so I don't have much of a methodology at this point.

 

[ChangTan]

I'm still having this issue with the new FW3.0.
can anybody help to test if their unit have this bug?

Normal Output Power sounds better than the High Output power.
When using High Output power, my music sounds like they are behind a this veil and makes the music sounds suppressed. This issue is the same on both balanced annd unbalanced output.
anybody else can help confirm this? The iems I’m using is very easy to drive as well. Moondrop blessing 2 and moondrop variations.

https://www.qudelix.com/pages/forum...power-mode-aka-2-vrms-12495280?pid=1336049270

 

[speedingcheetah]

I'm still having this issue with the new FW3.0.
can anybody help to test if their unit have this bug?

Normal Output Power sounds better than the High Output power.
When using High Output power, my music sounds like they are behind a this veil and makes the music sounds suppressed. This issue is the same on both balanced annd unbalanced output.
anybody else can help confirm this? The iems I’m using is very easy to drive as well. Moondrop blessing 2 and moondrop variations.

https://www.qudelix.com/pages/forum?p=post/sound-quality-degradation-in-high-output-power-mode-aka-2-vrms-12495280?pid=1336049270

Normal Output power has always sounded better to me. Even before v3. Though, the difference has always been some what minimal to me.
I just tried toggling with the 5K i updated to v3, that is connected to my Apple TV and 2.1 speakers, minimal difference. ( I can't test with headphones though)

 

[Hypops]

I'm still having this issue with the new FW3.0.
can anybody help to test if their unit have this bug?

Normal Output Power sounds better than the High Output power.
When using High Output power, my music sounds like they are behind a this veil and makes the music sounds suppressed. This issue is the same on both balanced annd unbalanced output.
anybody else can help confirm this? The iems I’m using is very easy to drive as well. Moondrop blessing 2 and moondrop variations.

https://www.qudelix.com/pages/forum?p=post/sound-quality-degradation-in-high-output-power-mode-aka-2-vrms-12495280?pid=1336049270

Like @speedingcheetah says, the difference has always been there. My guess is that the IEMs you're using are very sensitive (I'm guessing greater than 110dB?) so they reveal the noise floor on high gain. You even say that your IEMs are "very easy to drive." That's not necessarily a good thing, as you've discovered. The 5K is a moderately noisy device as is, even on low gain, so the noise floor doesn't take much to hear. If you're using bluetooth, it gets even noisier. I haven't tried (or seen tested) the balanced connection, but depending on its implementation that could either be more or less noisy than the 3.5mm output.

Switch back to normal/low gain, try it over USB, and try the other output if you can. And you really don't need high gain for IEMs.

 

[WilcoRoger]

Guys, while you're EQ-ing, PEQ-ing and GEQ-ing the hell out of your gear, do you sometimes just, khm, just listen to the music?

 

[XTF1]

Guys, while you're EQ-ing, PEQ-ing and GEQ-ing the hell out of your gear, do you sometimes just, khm, just listen to the music?

Emhhhh…. what are you talking about ??? Oh yeah, music & songs! I forgot about that!!!