[ADUHF]

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.

Haven't tried the above app.

About the simplest system I can think of though (which I will often use in my own EQ projects for tweaking the overall sound of recordings or headphones, and also creating target response curves), would be a tilt adjustment to control the overall brightness/darkness of the recording. Probably in combination with some kind of a general midrange/Fletcher-Munson control, to adjust how forward or backward the midrange is relative to the bass and treble.

Having separate add'l adjustments for tweaking just the upper mids at around 2k, and maybe also the brightness in the low treble/sibilant range at around 8k or thereabouts could also be useful though, in addition to the two other types of controls above. And some ability to tweak both the center frequencies and bandwidths (or Q-factors) of the general Fletcher-Munson control, and maybe also the upper-mid and low-treble controls would probably also be useful in this type of setup.

As previously mentioned, a system of controls like this is relatively easy to set up or configure in Equalizer APO's Configuration Editor, using combinations of different graphic EQ and parametric EQ filters. The Equalizer APO Configuration Editor's interface is not particularly easy or intuitive to use though. Which is why I've tried to include some tips on it in the link in my signature. (Some others prefer to use the Peace add-on, which I have not used. And there are also some instructions on how to download and set this up on the official Equalizer APO webpage.)

Whether something like the above would actually work any better or more effectively or intuitively than the more traditional/old-school 3-band approach for bass, midrange and treble, I can't really say. It would probably take a bit of practice though to get the hang of this somewhat different and newer system though.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Haven't tried the above app.

About the simplest system I can think of though (which I will often use in my own EQ projects for tweaking the overall sound of recordings or headphones, and also creating target response curves), would be a tilt adjustment to control the overall brightness/darkness of the recording. Probably in combination with some kind of a general midrange/Fletcher-Munson control, to adjust how forward or backward the midrange is relative to the bass and treble.

Having separate add'l adjustments for tweaking just the upper mids at around 2k, and maybe also the brightness in the low treble/sibilant range at around 8k or thereabouts could also be useful though, in addition to the two other types of controls above. And some ability to tweak both the center frequencies and bandwidths (or Q-factors) of the general Fletcher-Munson control, and maybe also the upper-mid and low-treble controls would probably also be useful in this type of setup.

As previously mentioned, a system of controls like this is relatively easy to set up or configure in Equalizer APO's Configuration Editor, using combinations of different graphic EQ and parametric EQ filters. The Equalizer APO Configuration Editor's interface is not particularly easy or intuitive to use though. Which is why I've tried to include some tips on it in the link in my signature. (Some others prefer to use the Peace add-on, which I have not used. And there are also some instructions on how to download and set this up on the official Equalizer APO webpage.)

Whether something like the above would actually work any better or more effectively or intuitively than the more traditional/old-school 3-band approach for bass, midrange and treble, I can't really say. It would probably take a bit of practice though to get the hang of this somewhat different and newer system though.

I think someone has tried to do something similar to what you are describing. As I look through the Auto EQ parametric settings, some are labelled with adjustments like "treble air", "vocals", etc. It wouldn't be too hard to determine the ideal center frequency and Q value for such adjustments and then create an error correcting algorithm that forces those parametric settings. It would be similar to how it needs to be done for a graphic equalizer. Then, you could EQ any headphone to any other headphone and have dials for EQing specific sound attributes to taste.

 

[bigshot]

The reason a parametric equalizer is able to deal with any correction necessary is because the frequency and Q are all adjustable. If you put in hardwired bands to correct "air" or "female vocals" or "male vocals" or whatever with a fixed frequency and Q, when you cut in more than one correction at once, there might be overlap. For instance, say female vocals are a little too hot and cymbals are a little recessed. If you made that correction the overlapping frequencies between the two would be both cut and boosted. So the lower end of the female vocals would be pulled back and the esses and tees would end up emphasized.

I'm not sure a system like that would be better than just an iTunes ten band equalizer with equal spacing of frequencies and little or no spill between bands. It could conceivably be a lot worse if corrections overlapped and interfered with each other.

 

[ADUHF]

You make some goods points, bigshot.

A general tilt control, and a midrange bow or bias adjustment to control how forward or backward the mids are, could very easily be used in combination with a simple graphic EQ with 6 or 10, or however many bands you prefer. (I do this frequently in Equalizer APO's Config Editor.) There are probably other methods of shaping or biasing the entire frequency range as well. Maybe using something like a low or high shelf adjustment with positive or negative gain. This is not something I've played around with as much though.

There are alot of different ways you could go though with this type of thing. And the only way to know which will work best is probably to experiment and try some of them out with similar tools that are already available, to figure out what configurations are the most intuitive and easy to use.

The Graphic EQ filters in Equalizer APO's Configuration Editor do not apply any smoothing or Q factor between the different bands or control points btw. So the interpolation between them is just linear. This means that you need more points to create a really smooth looking curve. But it also means you can create something like a simple tilt adjustment with only two points at the ends of the frequency range. Which takes more work to set up with a graphic EQ that has more bands (such as 10, 15 or 31 bands). So there are some upsides and downsides to both approaches. I prefer the linear interpolation for some jobs though, because it can make some of the plotting more precise and predictable than using parametric filters, or smoothed frequency bands.

Some examples of different types of curves plotted with Equalizer APO's Variable Graphic EQ filter. (Variable just means you can configure as many bands/control points in the curves as want, at whatever frequencies you want.)

You can also go beyond the usual 20 Hz to 20 kHz limit as well with a variable graphic EQ. The frequency range is limited though on the high end by the sample rate of your audio device. So if you're using 44.1 kHz, then the max frequency would be about 22 kHz, or 1/2 that sample rate. And if you are using a 48 kHz sample rate, the max frequency would be about 24 kHz. These are probably beyond most people's normal hearing ranges though.

I generally use 48 kHz btw (with a 24 bit depth). For better compatibility with YouTube videos encoded with the Opus codec, since that's where most of my music and MV listening and viewing is done these days.

 

[bigshot]

If you're allowing shifting frequency and adjusting Q, you might as well just use a standard multiband parametric equalizer. Learning how specific frequency bands sound and discerning what is imbalanced by listening is part of learning how to use an equalizer.

 

[redrol]

Well I can say that sub-bass is easy as can be, throw some 20-60hz and done. I do it at least half the time I'm listening to headphones. I dislike changing mids and treble because its just too much for me to deal with, with a variety of devices. So.. I just buy a tuning that suits me.

 

[bigshot]

You only need to EQ for your transducers, not every device in the chain. If you balance your response for your headphones, everything else will fall into place.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Thank you all for bringing some really interesting and useful insights to my OP. I'm glad it finally took off. Much appreciated !
For the record I had a similar topic going on in another forum where people actually made similar interesting comments, which is a good thing.

I didn't know at all about Hiby MSEB, but I'm glad that other people have been working on alternative EQ ways to the traditional bass-mid-treble knobs. Things like tilt control or focusing on some specific frequency ranges like shown in the posted diagrams (warmth, harshness, clarity, you name it) are quite appealing to me. There are of course too many of them, but my point is finding the ones that could really make a difference for most people.

bigshot raised some concerns about overlapping, and it's totally true. But overlapping can be managed.
If for example we have Preset 1 (one or several filters, hence "preset") @ 300 Hz and Preset 2 @ 2500-3000 Hz, then if we want to activate both presets, instead of just chaining Preset 1 + Preset 2, we can add a Preset 3 that is equivalent to the overlapping part, and do something like Preset 1 + Preset 2 - Preset 3.
That is actually simple to do, we just need to remember it.

I forgot to say in this topic that my starting point was having already EQed our device to a given target curve (e.g. Harman), so they all sound similar.
So it's not about adjusting devices to a target curve, but rather about adjusting them afterwards to our liking by additional filters.
And if such additional filters can be easily adjusted, then everything can be done with very little thinking, on a song-per-song basis and without disrupting our listening session.

Which is why I'm currently developing a free Windows app to do it. That has always been my goal.
I already have a working app (currently in private Beta) that can easily manage a multi-device collection with EAPO without resorting to PEACE or any complicated stuff. You can see it as a PEACE alternative, much simpler, with an unobtrusive GUI, and more aimed at EQ presets, hotkeys and listening sessions. I've been testing it for 1 or 2 months now and it works great. Now I'm in the process of improving it to add some user-configurable filters. Hopefully it will be ready shortly for all to enjoy.

 

[ADUHF]

I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me to mention this earlier, but I believe there are also apps which can be used to normalize, equalize and also re-expand the dynamic range of music files, on-the-fly in some cases. I have not used any of them though.

There may be others as well, but here are two recent discussions that go into these topics a bit, that might be worth a look...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fre...remedy-move-thread-to-appropriate-sub.954577/
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/found-out-why-95-3-of-modern-remasters-sound-bad.956359/

 

[ADUHF]

There are a few shortcomings in the Harman target as well imo. But they are somewhat dependent on the frequency response/EQ data you're using. That's one of the reasons I'm trying to come up with a better target for my own use primarily with Oratory's diffuse field graphs. Based on the sound power response of neutral loudspeakers. I've been a little stymied in my efforts though lately due to some other priorities, such as finishing up my taxes, and moving into a new place.

If you are using Jaakko's AutoEQ data as a starting point though, then there are some fairly obvious and relatively straightforward ways of tweaked that EQ data for a potentially somewhat better (and also more accurate imho) sound. Which I can try to describe, if you'd like. It'll be a little easier after I've done some more sound power plots. But I can give you some opinions on it now. Because most of it is pretty straightforward. And it ties in pretty well with some of the other stuff already discussed above.

A more accurate target response curve, which is based on the sound of actual loudspeakers in room, is my primary goal in all of this though. So that is where most of my energy is going to be directed.

 

[bigshot]

You shouldn't need to equalize song by song. I have recordings of all types and eras in my library and only a very small percentage don't adhere to my standard response curve for my system.

Also, it seems to me that if you are adding two overlapping corrections, and then subtracting the overlap with a third pot, that would be more complex to balance than simply taking a 15 or 31 band graphic equalizer and just labelling the frequency bands by descriptive names, or labelling ranges on the controls. Especially if you have four or five ranges going with multiple overlap subtractions.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

@ADUHF : I'm now back to the developing board, I have enough info to (re)start working on it. Will keep you guys posted, hopefully shortly. Good luck with your target curve, that looks promising and I'll be happy to see what you come up with.

@bigshot : I understand what you're saying. Actually I'm already resorting to Graphic EQ sometimes, for the Tilt effect for example, like explained in this thread. For some other stuff, PEQ is better. I will consider all alternatives. Just leave it to me for the moment, and we'll see.

 

[ADUHF]

@ADUHF : I'm now back to the developing board, I have enough info to (re)start working on it. Will keep you guys posted, hopefully shortly. Good luck with your target curve, that looks promising and I'll be happy to see what you come up with.

I was lookin at some of the plots of raw and diffuse field response curves that I posted here, btw...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fre...-move-thread-to-appropriate-sub.954577/page-7

And some of my latest iterations of this are already looking (and sounding) a bit different than the ones there. So take the plots there with a little grain of salt. The work continues though. And I'll post more about this, after I get further along with the speaker data. I have already posted some plots of headphones that I think are in the general neutral ballpark though, with good extension in the bass. And there is a fairly predictable pattern to the sound signatures, and also how it deviates from the Harman target.