[JJ15k]

Hello,
I was wondering, since a lot of us already have computer based systems, why couldn t we buy a high end microphone and EQ our headphones/speakers to get a flat response?
I m not too familiar with the technical aspects of headphones themselves, I guess we couldn t eliminate distortion created by the physical imperfection of the headphone, but it would solve darkness/brightness problems and we might get away with cheaper phones.
I d appreciate some thoughts on this........

 

[grawk]

The reason EQ is generally not used is because while it may change the response curve, it introduces other artifacts and distortion.

 

[jagorev]

Google for HRTF. In short: the headphones are already equalized to produce a realistic sound based on their position in relation to the ear. The humps and dips in any hi-fi headphone's curve are not flaws.

 

[PeeeMeS]

You could... but the only people who would want that are "Audiophiles"
and they don't like adding anything to the signal
It "destroys the sound" I hear

On the other hand, the non-"audiophiles" find flat freq response very boring
You find a lot of people turning a flat frequency into a non-flat one(Bass Boost, yea!)

 

[JJ15k]

Could you elaborate grawk?
Edit: I understand people "dont like" adding anything to the signal, but don t studios EQ their gear?(I have no idea, just asking)
Flat may seem very boring, but I think it s only because we are used to imperfect equipment.
/Googling HRTF

 

[K2Grey]

While I don't have any kind of philosophical objection to equalization, it would probably be best to start with the most neutral phone and then EQ it to total perceptual flatness. An EQ'ed HD600 is likely to own EQ'ed iBuds for example (assuming you could even get the iBuds to flat without huge distortion occuring).

I would definitely disagree with jagorev's claim that all headphones produce a realistic sound in the sense that while it may be realistic, there are certainly flaws, in the sense that different headphones produce different sounds and thus they cannot all be perceptually flat simultaneously.

 

[JJ15k]

jagorev, you mean that because of the shape of our ears, it would be difficult to EQ the phones so that we could HEAR a flat response?
Silly me I forgot about that.
So, instead of canal phones, let s get canal mics

 

[pencechp]

That assumes, too, that we really *want* flat response.

The different characteristics that we debate so hotly in these forums (sibilance, brightness, warmth, the tube-sound vs. the solid-state-sound) are all significantly effected by equalization. Of course reproduction quality, resolution, and soundstage are big pieces as well, but especially when you hear about brightness, warmth, sibilance, and so on, you're talking about equalization issues.

I, for one, think that a perfectly-flat equalized headphone would be pretty darned boring (and I own HD280Pros, one of the flattest EQs in the business--one reason I'm thinking about switching).

 

[simond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ15k Hello, I was wondering, since a lot of us already have computer based systems, why couldn t we buy a high end microphone and EQ our headphones/speakers to get a flat response? I m not too familiar with the technical aspects of headphones themselves, I guess we couldn t eliminate distortion created by the physical imperfection of the headphone, but it would solve darkness/brightness problems and we might get away with cheaper phones. I d appreciate some thoughts on this........

Because there is FAR more to music replay than the frequency response of the gear. Music is information transferred using sound, sound is just ...sound. The two often get confused because it's easy to talk about sound, it's hard to discuss the complexities of the way music makes you feel - that's precisely what music is for, otherwise we'd all be listenting to spoken-word recordings.

Dynamics is one area that's crucial to music replay and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with frequency response.

 

[ElectricBlack]

You don't want a flat response. It sounds awful.

Quote:

The reason EQ is generally not used is because while it may change the response curve, it introduces other artifacts and distortion.

Professional EQ's don't introduce any significant distortion. Listen to me: It's not too uncommon for professional studios/engineers to EQ nearly every track on every song they mix/master. (EDIT: It does depend, but that's too complex to get into here). I've seen all 32 tracks of one song with an EQ on each track.

If you think that a good EQ will ruin your sound, you've got a bit of ignorance going on there. No offence, but it's true. (You do have to lay down some good money for this kind of equipment, though.)

 

[Snake]

Very old argument and question rolled into one.

Classically Grawk and PeeeMeS' (first) answer is correct - as "audiophiles" we do not wish to add devices into the audio path which [can] add distortion. Now it is true that your question is directed towards computer-based listeners but that could be an answer in itself - the very highest of "high end" gear will not be used on computer systems as we know the inherent limitations of such devices. Therefore "audiophiles" who select fine quality "high end" gear (a) do not have easily accessible software equalization as they are not using this fine gear on computers and (b) they select equipment still based upon the mantra of high-end gear buyers - the less in the signal path the better.

It is..."distasteful"...to a high-end "audiophile" to purchase gear which seems to require equalization in order to meet the demands of 'flat' frequency response in playback that the audiophile demands. Equalization in the analog world has the appearance of adding, at the minimum, phase shifts to any frequency so equalized and while in the digital realm such phase shifts can be a 'moot point' they still hold the stigma.

So for "high end audio" it is a matter of pride, and the raison d'etre, to attempt to achieve the most neutral response characteristics with the components in a bare, unequalized reproduction chain in order to remove as many uncontrollable variables as possible. This leaves the differences you can indeed discuss - the changes in spectral balance you can hear directly attributable to the components themselves and the positives or negatives of same.

Well, you asked for it!

 

[ElectricBlack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake It is..."distasteful"...to a high-end "audiophile" to purchase gear which seems to require equalization in order to meet the demands of 'flat' frequency response in playback that the audiophile demands. Equalization in the analog world has the appearance of adding, at the minimum, phase shifts to any frequency so equalized and while in the digital realm such phase shifts can be a 'moot point' they still hold the stigma.

Exactly, which is silly. Mono phase shifts have been shown to be inaudible. In the world of pro audio engineering, EQ'ing is DEMANDED. You have to know it and make use of it for every song you mix/master, or you don't get hired! They're silly, these audiophiles who avoid EQ's, because the songs they listen to have already been "tainted"!

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElectricBlack Exactly, which is silly. Mono phase shifts have been shown to be inaudible. In the world of pro audio engineering, EQ'ing is DEMANDED. You have to know it and make use of it for every song you mix/master, or you don't get hired! They're silly, these audiophiles who avoid EQ's, because the songs they listen to have already been "tainted"!

I guess the argument can go both ways. Yes indeed the original sound has been changed in almost all recordings by the recording engineer during the mixdown process. But the point of being an "audiophile" is to remove as many alterations from that point on, as possible. Whether or not that is reality has been the subject for debate since the entire "audiophile" movement began.

Also note that there are some "audiophile" pressings / recordings that have very little, if any, post equalization.

 

[PeeeMeS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake I guess the argument can go both ways. Yes indeed the original sound has been changed in almost all recordings by the recording engineer during the mixdown process. But the point of being an "audiophile" is to remove as many alterations from that point on, as possible. Whether or not that is reality has been the subject for debate since the entire "audiophile" movement began. Also note that there are some "audiophile" pressings / recordings that have very little, if any, post equalization.

Interesting thing is, once you take away their eyes, it seems like their ears don't agree with their preconcieved notions of EQ "destroying" the music
Yes, things in the signal path "degrade" the signal but they usually lead to more enjoyment to our ears(golden ears or not, our ears are limited... and adding a proper EQ introduces "signal degradation" way below what our ears can detect)

Most "audiophiles" hear with their eyes while introducing their bias/elitism/ignorance
The kind of advice you want to follow are from engineers who hear with their ears. Such advice is hard to come by though...

 

[Snake]

For sure, I guess. I have been keeping my eye out for a Stax ED-1, the near-field equalizer, to add to my Stax system for quite a while. Interesting that while it is indeed an "equalizer" the end results are a system considered "better'.

Maybe it is the "black box" syndrome - as the ED-1 has no controls nor can you see what is going on inside it, and it was manufacturered by the same people as the headphones, it eliminates that "stigma" and overcomes it. Since it was created by the same manufacturer, and the manufacturer themselves claimed improvements, it is (somewhat) reasonable for an "audiophile" to believe that the new device will function with the least possible "damage" but the most possible "benefit". Yes, I have seriously considered what 4 new interconnects in the audio chain will sound like but yet, since the ED-1 is a Stax device, I am willing to "risk it" and try.