[ADUHF]

I don't really have a specific set of frequencies that I use for EQ-ing by ear btw.

The fewer controls the better though. So, rather than using the standard 10, 15 or 31 bands, what I will sometimes do is use an arrangement of points which are based on the particular inflection points (peaks and valleys) in either my headphone's frequency response curve, or its EQ curve (after I've roughed one out), or in my target response curve. Or some combination of these.

The Equalizer APO's Configuration Editor allows you to stack as many graphic or parametric EQ controls together as you want. So I will frequently use multiple graphic EQ's at the same time with different configurations of points.

The simplest of these might have only 2 points, at 20 Hz and 20 kHz, to control just the overall tilt of the curve. Another EQ might be used to bring the midrange more forward or backward, like a Fletcher-Munson effect. Others might be configured to match the center and cross-over frequencies of a loudspeaker's drivers (ie the sub-woofer, midrange driver and tweeter). Another EQ might be used to control the falloff in either the bass or treble, or both... And so forth. The possibilities are really endless with such an interface.

I have also used EQ controls which are based on octave intervals, or fractions (usually 1/2 or 1/3), or multiples of same. And will also often use one or more sets of EQ controls for the broader tonal adjustments (ie bass, midrange, treble, or something similar), in conjunction with a separate set of more carefully and discretely targeted controls, based (as I said above) on the inflection points in my target curve, or headphone's FR or EQ curves, for fine-tuning specific areas of its frequency range. I generally need more points for the upper mids and low treble than for the lower mids and bass for example. But it really sort of depends on where the specific trouble spots are in the headphone's response.

 

[ADUHF]

It may also be helpful to have some way of adjusting the "tilt" or darkness/brightness of just the midrange between about 200 and 2k Hz, around a center point in roughly the middle of the frequency range. Which works independently of the headphone's overall 20 to 20k Hz tilt. As that seems to be a fairly critical area for alot of headphones.

 

[ADUHF]

As you described in one of your posts, you can also use a system of controls that divides the frequency range into sub-divisions of the bass, midrange and treble, usually either in thirds or halves. Some examples of how this might work...

THIRDS:
lower and/or sub-bass
mid bass
upper bass
lower mids
middle mids
upper mids
lower treble
mid treble
upper treble

HALVES:
lower or sub-bass
upper bass, or just bass
lower mids
upper mids
lower treble
upper treble

A typical 10-band graphic EQ works something like the first example which is divided into thirds, with bands at octave intervals of 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, and 16k Hz. There are other configurations which might work just as well though. This particular 10-band configuration is based on frequencies of the C-note btw, spaced at one octave intervals apart...

C0 (Usually not included in 10-band EQ)	16 Hz
C1	32 Hz
C2	64 Hz
C3	125 Hz
C4 (Middle C)	250 Hz
C5	500 Hz
C6	1 kHz
C7	2 kHz
C8	4 kHz
C9	8 kHz
C10	16 kHz

(Frequencies above are only approximate.)

This is probably one of the simpler ways of dividing up the frequency range, especially for someone who's relatively new to EQ, and more musically inclined.

 

[vessel]

I aim at achieving something similar. But instead of calling it "bass, mid, treble" it would be something like "bass, vocals, clarity and whatever". Something a little smarter and at the same time easier to understand for the average joe. If you want to push the vocals you press "vocals" and the system does the rest : you don't try to find the right bass, mid and treble balance to achieve that..

Have you seen MSEB on a Hiby DAP? It does basically what you are describing, I think.

 

[ADUHF]

An ability to adjust the general area around the 2k to 2.5k range is rather important imo, especially for vocals. Because many speakers will have a dip in their response around that general range, due to the cross-over of the midrange and tweeter drivers. And as a result, the sound can often be over-compensated and mixed/mastered too hot in that range. And sound too harsh. This is why most mixers have their midrange EQ controls at around this frequency imho. Though it's also useful for moving vocals more forward and backward in the mix. Especially female vocals.

You could think of it sort of as the "vocal harshness zone". This range could cover up to about 2 octaves btw, or from about 1 to 4 or 4.5 kHz, at its extremes.

Alot of headphones will also have a dip in this range, to reduce some of the potential harshness. This is easiest to see on diffuse field compensated plots. Most of the HiFiMans, for example, have a fairly pronounced dip there. Select Diffuse Field from the Target Response options, and set Include Raw to No, and then choose some Headphones from the drop-down Selector here, to see some examples of this...

https://headphonedatabase.com/oratory

 

[ADUHF]

I haven't really looked at vocal EQ charts like the one above before. But this is also a fairly reasonable and easy to understand arrangement of the frequency range, which essentially breaks down the bass, midrange and treble frequencies into halves....

Lower/Sub Bass (20-80 Hz)
(Upper) Bass (100-300 Hz)
Lower Mids (350-600 Hz)
Upper Mids (1-4 kHz)
Lower Treble (5-8 kHz)
Upper Treble (10-20 Hz)

As mentioned previously, I will often use a few more points of control in the upper mids and lower treble than the above. But something sort of along these lines seems like a fairly intuitive arrangement, especially if you want to keep the number of controls to an absolute minimum.

The listed frequency ranges are based on the above picture btw. And may not be totally accurate.

 

[ADUHF]

The 6k to 12k range can also be a bit of a trouble zone for some headphones, due to spikes or sibilants in that range. So I often seem to need a few more controls to better shape what's going on in that area.

The general area where I tend to need a bit more granular controls though could extend anywhere from about 800 Hz up to maybe 13 kHz, give or take. That is the general range where alot of my attention often seems to be focused.

 

[bigshot]

Those charts are someone's visual poetry. They aren't specific at all. If you want to relate sound to words, you do it with musical instruments. Everyone knows what a violin sounds like, But who the hell knows what "bite" is. I'm also constantly amazed at how many people throw around numbers they don't understand. Today I watched a youtube video of a person who claimed to be an engineer who said that midrange was 2500 kHz. I watched people represented as headphone designers review a set of headphones without once mentioning frequency response. The emperor is stark naked in consumer audio journalism. It's a profound waste of time to pay attention to a lot of this stuff.

There is no particular range where we should be focused. We need a balance between the entire spectrum. Sometimes I think people online talk about things they have absolutely no clue about. Numbers are wonderful, but we're talking about sound. If you can't relate the number to a sound, you might as well not have a number.

 

[ADUHF]

Audiophiles and musicians will also use other terms to describe the upper frequencies. In addition to "sibilance" for the low treble, and "air" for the upper treble, they'll also use terms like "presence" for the low treble, and "brilliance" for the mid and upper treble.

 

[bigshot]

And they'll use descriptive terms like "veils" and "analog" too. Meaningless. Flowery words aren't substitutes for specific frequency ranges. Anyone who's had experience with an equalizer should be able to point to a frequency band with enough specificity to get their idea across without resorting to poetry or vague analogies.

 

[ADUHF]

There was a somewhat interesting discussion on how to break down the frequency ranges here as well, particularly the bass and sub-bass...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/am-i-not-an-audiophile.932476/page-8

I'm not sure we actually reached any definitive conclusions, but at least I understood a little better what some Head-Fiers were referring to in terms of the upper mids after this.

 

[ADUHF]

Those charts are someone's visual poetry. They aren't specific at all. If you want to relate sound to words, you do it with musical instruments. Everyone knows what a violin sounds like, But who the hell knows what "bite" is. I'm also constantly amazed at how many people throw around numbers they don't understand. Today I watched a youtube video of a person who claimed to be an engineer who said that midrange was 2500 kHz. I watched people represented as headphone designers review a set of headphones without once mentioning frequency response. The emperor is stark naked in consumer audio journalism. It's a profound waste of time to pay attention to a lot of this stuff.

There is no particular range where we should be focused. We need a balance between the entire spectrum. Sometimes I think people online talk about things they have absolutely no clue about. Numbers are wonderful, but we're talking about sound. If you can't relate the number to a sound, you might as well not have a number.

The "bite" range is what people on this forum generally refer to as the upper mids, between about 1 and 4 kHz. There is alot of attention on this area for a couple of different reasons, including the ones I mentioned above about the loudspeaker cross-overs. And because this is also the approximate area where the ear resonances produce the greatest boost in volume (generally around 3k on most measurement rigs). And because alot of older audiophiles suffer from some hearing loss in this range (maybe related to the boosting effect?). And conversely, because alot of younger listeners, with less hearing loss, will have greater sensitivity in this range. Which is sometimes misinterpreted as a preference for more bass.

This makes it a fairly contentious area for debate and disagreement in terms of what sounds best. Another reason why it would be useful to have an EQ for this.

Although I suffer from hearing loss (and tinnitus) in the upper frequencies, my ears still seem to be fairly sensitive to the sound in this range. So I often find myself wanting to dial down the levels in the area around 2k a bit to compensate. Especially on headphones with a more mid-forward sound. This reduces some of the harshness, and allows the sound in the other frequencies above and below that range, esp. in the treble, to come through a little better. Which tends to improve the sound quality to my ears.

Some headphone manufactures will over-compensate for the harshness in this area though. And reduce the volume in this range too much, which can adversely effect the clarity of vocals, and other instruments. Which is another good argument for EQ in this area.

 

[bigshot]

OK

 

[ADUHF]

There are probably also courses you could take and articles you could read on music theory, audio engineering, and the equalization of voices, instruments and effects for both music and video (which may also include other kinds of EQ "cheat sheets") that might also give you some other ideas on how to break up the frequency range in a more easily accessible way that a layperson could more easily understand.

Music has been around for a long time. So there are obviously a number of different ways of potentially breaking down the ranges, based on what you're trying to accomplish. Some of these methods might be for music creation or equalization. While others might be to correct issues in the recording or playback chains, gear/equipment, or environments, to give a couple different examples. I'm sure you've thought of some others as well, Jose.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

You see, we sort of understand each other. EQ presets named as genres are useless indeed. A basic bass-treble control is always more useful.
I aim at achieving something similar. But instead of calling it "bass, mid, treble" it would be something like "bass, vocals, clarity and whatever". Something a little smarter and at the same time easier to understand for the average joe. If you want to push the vocals you press "vocals" and the system does the rest : you don't try to find the right bass, mid and treble balance to achieve that.
And cranky is my middle name, that's why.

Hiby has something like what you are seeking. It's called MSEB. I've used it and it's okay. It's slightly better than something like a Loki. I much prefer EQing to a target and then adjusting it to my taste.