How about EQ with headphones?

[DanielT]

You who do EQ with headphones . EQ setting,it's based on subjective, liking and taste in terms of sound, right? Subjectively because frequency curves and headphones are pretty pointless (how measure?) to start with because our ears look different, right?

Or what do I know there may be special microphones that you push into your ears and measure?

 

[tomtoo]

If its tested here, you can eq to harman curve as orientation.
@Maiky76 is so nice and gives the peq settings.

 

[DanielT]

Thanks tomtoo

Of course it is a curve, but how practical do you set it up?

Take a pair of closed headphones. Weigh in that our ears look different, have different cavities.

What you set up EQ with Headphones X gets a frequency curve for your ears. If I were to take the same headphones led the same setting, it would not be the same frequency curve for my ears, when I listen. That should be true, right?

Which then leads back to my question, how do you measure with the microphone, in support of setting EQ setting, in terms of headphones?

In practice, how do you tune in so that you with headphones X get the harman curve you mentioned?

Edit:
Do you mean what is said here:

Hifiman Arya Review (headphone)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Hifiman Arya (2021 edition) planar magnetic open back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $1,299. This is a very large headphone: It is also on the heavy side: Yet it provided very good comfort. It actually feels...

audiosciencereview.com

But it does not say anything, what I can see, regarding how to measure and how to take into account that our ears are different (cavities for example). I may have missed it.

 

[LTig]

I adhere to the EQ settings recommended by @amirm in his reviews, except for the bass (I prefer some 3 dB less SPL).

 

[tomtoo]

Thanks tomtoo

Of course it is a curve, but how practical do you set it up?

Take a pair of closed headphones. Weigh in that our ears look different, have different cavities.

What you set up EQ with Headphones X gets a frequency curve for your ears. If I were to take the same headphones led the same setting, it would not be the same frequency curve for my ears, when I listen. That should be true, right?

Which then leads back to my question, how do you measure with the microphone, in support of setting EQ setting, in terms of headphones?

In practice, how do you tune in so that you with headphones X get the harman curve you mentioned?

Edit:
Do you mean what is said here:

Hifiman Arya Review (headphone)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Hifiman Arya (2021 edition) planar magnetic open back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $1,299. This is a very large headphone: It is also on the heavy side: Yet it provided very good comfort. It actually feels...

audiosciencereview.com

But it does not say anything, what I can see, regarding how to measure and how to take into account that our ears are different (cavities for example). I may have missed it.

Not sure if i get you. We all hear a littel different, no way to change or measure that. Thats why i say for orientation. But you have to see what a enormous progress this is compared to only using words and subjective impressions.

 

[tomtoo]

I adhere to the EQ settings recommended by @amirm in his reviews, except for the bass (I prefer some 3 dB less SPL).

Amir is a basshead

 

[DanielT]

Not sure if i get you. We all hear a littel different, no way to change or measure that. Thats why i say for orientation. But you have to see what a enormous progress this is compared to only using words and subjective impressions.

Then you have to put EQa a little on feeling. There is nothing wrong with doing that. If you like a lot of bass, for example, pull on.Then you can ask yourself the question what a measurement of frequency curve/respons regarding headphones actually adds? If it dont have any major practical significance that is.Low distortion is always good to have, so it makes sense for you if it is tested.

Took from another forum regardning headphones:

Headphones are hopeless in terms of frequency with huge deviations and require equalization to be truly sound balanced.

I do not understand at all how to give high marks to passive headphones, regardless of principle or price. I usually speculate that listening to headphones means such an unnatural experience that you easily lose your temper in terms of judgment. As an example, it can be mentioned that better in-ears often have 10-15 dB broadband for a high level around 5-8 kHz, followed by +/- 10 dB narrowband over 10 kHz. Over-ears are better, but even here the deviations are very large and would never be tolerated for speakers. In addition, in principle, all passive headphones lack a low base.

The tricky thing, however, is that only the listener can make the treble in particular because the ear canals (and in this respect the less important outer ears) differ enormously between different individuals.

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - Inställning av laptop för bästa ljud

There is a report online about it, among other things. Can not put in a link, google on:

Transfer characteristics of headphones measured on human ears

Møller, Henrik; Hammershøi, Dorte; Jensen, Clemen Boje; Sørensen, Michael Friis
Published in:
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society

 

[tomtoo]

Took from another forum regardning headphones:

Headphones are hopeless in terms of frequency with huge deviations and require equalization to be truly sound balanced.

I do not understand at all how to give high marks to passive headphones, regardless of principle or price. I usually speculate that listening to headphones means such an unnatural experience that you easily lose your temper in terms of judgment. As an example, it can be mentioned that better in-ears often have 10-15 dB broadband for a high level around 5-8 kHz, followed by +/- 10 dB narrowband over 10 kHz. Over-ears are better, but even here the deviations are very large and would never be tolerated for speakers. In addition, in principle, all passive headphones lack a low base.

The tricky thing, however, is that only the listener can make the treble in particular because the ear canals (and in this respect the less important outer ears) differ enormously between different individuals.

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - Inställning av laptop för bästa ljud

There is a report online about it, among other things. Can not put in a link, google on:

Transfer characteristics of headphones measured on human ears

Møller, Henrik; Hammershøi, Dorte; Jensen, Clemen Boje; Sørensen, Michael Friis
Published in:
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society

But thats what i say, eq to harman curve for orientation. I can tell you that that cheap panasonic iems tested in here dont lack low bass.They have other problems. What he says is not new. Thats why eqing makes so much sense. If you eq to harman curve you have at least some orientation. What is your orientation if you dont do? Even there is no perfect beer in this world, i prefer a good beer over no beer.
Nobody is the slave of a fu**ing curve, but its a orientation. And a littel orientation is better than running without orientation trough the world.

 

[Berwhale]

This is why Oratory1990 suggests adjusting to preference. Here's his settings for the HD 660s...

Sennheiser HD660S.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[LearningToSmile]

I kinda gave up on EQing headphones because I hated not having the feedback loop of having measurements available. I tried EQ that should be preferable(basically tuning to harman), hated it, and was stuck not being sure if my hearing just differs that much or maybe my pair of headphones actually differs from measurements I was referencing, like maybe the dip that I was trying to correct for was slightly different and that's why I ended up with weird sound. Since I was perfectly fine with non-EQ sound I kinda abandoned the idea. In contrast my room EQ experience using s measurement microphone was very fast, easy, and left me with a huge improvement in sound.

That's for more complex EQ though, for simple stuff like boosting bass in deficient headphones it's reasonably easy to do by ear with a little bit of help with measurements.

 

[solderdude]

You who do EQ with headphones . EQ setting,it's based on subjective, liking and taste in terms of sound, right? Subjectively because frequency curves and headphones are pretty pointless (how measure?) to start with because our ears look different, right?

Or what do I know there may be special microphones that you push into your ears and measure?

Indeed there are many questions and viewpoints.

Some EQ based on taste, others based on measurements, and yet others based on measurements and listening (both can be incorrect)
Some insist measurements should be averaged (positional or samples).
Some insist the EQ should be the exact opposite of a measurement (set) of the averaged result which is published.
Some insist using tones, some insist using noise (bands), some prefer sweeps.
Some insist using a specific type of fixture.
Some insist only 1 specific 'target' (boosted bass for whatever reason) and treble roll-off based on things they believe is correct.
Applied EQ can certainly improve tonal accuracy but when the measurement is incorrect it can still be somewhat wrong.
EQ based on the wrong measurement(s) or someones (flawed) sense of how things should sound can produce results some may like but others do not.
Measurements and listening to actual headphones will reveal placement of the headphone (on head and fixture) as well as seal and pads can substantially change the sound (in bass and treble region)
Measurements differ between test fixtures... which one is correct or are all of them somewhat wrong ?
Can fixture 1 be more correct than fixture 2 on headphone A but headphone B be more correct on fixture 2 ? Which one is the most correct one ?

Yes, there are mics that can be put in the ear canal entrance.
They block the ear canal which also imparts some emphasis in specific frequencies.
You would have to compensate the mic as well.
It would measure that pinna only so would only be valid on that ear with the headphone in a specific position. When you change its position the curve will change. Which one to use ? average or not ? and when you do what positions ?
You can measure ear drum levels with special mics but you can't do that simply at home.
Besides.. you only will know the SPL at that point and don't know tell what tonal balance to EQ to.

I see it this way:
Measurements are leading because they are more trustworthy than your average ear.
Trained ears with access to references. Your brain can get quickly accustomed to a sound signature and erroneously except it as a reference so a true reference will be needed to compare the DUT to.
Both are valuable tools and can help with improving tonal accuracy as a whole (NOT exact)

So what you should do when you want to apply EQ.
Look at various measurements done with various types of fixtures (so not all using the same fixture !)
Understand the measurement conditions.
Look for commonalities in various measurements.
When the needed correction is substantial (say over 6dB) look for another headphone.
Then use some basic EQ that adresses the aspects. The fewer needed and the smaller the better.
Listen to the headphone with and without EQ and validate the EQ'ed version to a known reference.

Chances are that EQ will be objectively the most correct.

Then use basic tone controls to correct recordings (these can be totally off).

Yes... difficult and the reason why one can find many different EQ's for the same headphone.
Tonal improvements, in general, are still to be expected so can be worth it.

 

[DanielT]

But thats what i say, eq to harman curve for orientation. I can tell you that that cheap panasonic iems tested in here dont lack low bass.They have other problems. What he says is not new. Thats why eqing makes so much sense. If you eq to harman curve you have at least some orientation. What is your orientation if you dont do? Even there is no perfect beer in this world, i prefer a good beer over no beer.
Nobody is the slave of a fu**ing curve, but its a orientation. And a littel orientation is better than running without orientation trough the world.

Thanks for the input tomtoo!

Of course as an orientation, but you still do not know if it is the curve you set, other than that you listen with your ears and think that it is that curve? There's nothing wrong with that, because it seems to be the only way to do it in practice. If I now get it all right?

Imagine speakers, if those who tune in with EQ did not have the opportunity to measure their house curve with a microphone but only setting up a harman curve with their ears. The challenge with that. Nothing wrong with doing so (set without measuring), just a general reflection.

This seems exciting (there are probably several different solutions, but still).

Hi-res audio player and recorder apps

The audiophile software for music playback (Neutron Music Player) and audio recording (Neutron Audio Recorder) with in-house developed 32/64-bit audiophile-grade hi-res audio engine which supports rich set of DSP tools that meet any need in sound tuning.

neutroncode.com

 

[DanielT]

Indeed there are many questions and viewpoints.

Some EQ based on taste, others based on measurements, and yet others based on measurements and listening (both can be incorrect)
Some insist measurements should be averaged (positional or samples).
Some insist the EQ should be the exact opposite of a measurement (set) of the averaged result which is published.
Some insist using tones, some insist using noise (bands), some prefer sweeps.
Some insist using a specific type of fixture.
Some insist only 1 specific 'target' (boosted bass for whatever reason) and treble roll-off based on things they believe is correct.
Applied EQ can certainly improve tonal accuracy but when the measurement is incorrect it can still be somewhat wrong.
EQ based on the wrong measurement(s) or someones (flawed) sense of how things should sound can produce results some may like but others do not.
Measurements and listening to actual headphones will reveal placement of the headphone (on head and fixture) as well as seal and pads can substantially change the sound (in bass and treble region)
Measurements differ between test fixtures... which one is correct or are all of them somewhat wrong ?
Can fixture 1 be more correct than fixture 2 on headphone A but headphone B be more correct on fixture 2 ? Which one is the most correct one ?

Yes, there are mics that can be put in the ear canal entrance.
They block the ear canal which also imparts some emphasis in specific frequencies.
You would have to compensate the mic as well.
It would measure that pinna only so would only be valid on that ear with the headphone in a specific position. When you change its position the curve will change. Which one to use ? average or not ? and when you do what positions ?
You can measure ear drum levels with special mics but you can't do that simply at home.
Besides.. you only will know the SPL at that point and don't know tell what tonal balance to EQ to.

I see it this way:
Measurements are leading because they are more trustworthy than your average ear.
Trained ears with access to references. Your brain can get quickly accustomed to a sound signature and erroneously except it as a reference so a true reference will be needed to compare the DUT to.
Both are valuable tools and can help with improving tonal accuracy as a whole (NOT exact)

So what you should do when you want to apply EQ.
Look at various measurements done with various types of fixtures (so not all using the same fixture !)
Understand the measurement conditions.
Look for commonalities in various measurements.
When the needed correction is substantial (say over 6dB) look for another headphone.
Then use some basic EQ that adresses the aspects. The fewer needed and the smaller the better.
Listen to the headphone with and without EQ and validate the EQ'ed version to a known reference.

Chances are that EQ will be objectively the most correct.

Then use basic tone controls to correct recordings (these can be totally off).

Yes... difficult and the reason why one can find many different EQ's for the same headphone.
Tonal improvements, in general, are still to be expected so can be worth it.

Thanks Solderdude. Interesting thoughts from your side.A more interesting topic than I initially thought it would be!

Ploping in specially designed measuring microphones in the ears might be something. I mostly listen through speakers, but of course if there is a cheap, sensible solution for that, so I like to test. That's what's fun with Hifi, to try it out.

Exciting with EQ and headphones.

 

[tomtoo]

Of course as an orientation, but you still do not know if it is the curve you set, other than that you listen with your ears and think that it is that curve? There's nothing wrong with that, because it seems to be the only way to do it in practice. If I now get it all right?

Imagine speakers, if those who tune in with EQ did not have the opportunity to measure their house curve with a microphone but only setting up a harman curve with their ears. The challenge with that. Nothing wrong with doing so (set without measuring), just a general reflection.

This seems exciting (there are probably several different solutions, but still).

Hi-res audio player and recorder apps

The audiophile software for music playback (Neutron Music Player) and audio recording (Neutron Audio Recorder) with in-house developed 32/64-bit audiophile-grade hi-res audio engine which supports rich set of DSP tools that meet any need in sound tuning.

neutroncode.com

Yes, get the neutron, the apple dongle or better, that chep panasonics. 35Euro.
Eq to harmann curve.
Now there is a universe to learn. And that all for 35Euro. Best investment in knowledge you can do. Buy the way you have a not to bad sound. Not so much years ago we had dreamed about this possibilitys. Now you can get them nearly for free. No gazillion dollar studio equipment. 35euros all in your hand.

 

[solderdude]

Exciting with EQ and headphones.

Yes, to me the whole headphone measurement thingy is still in pioneering phase although many want you to believe it is 100% science and accurate and all it takes is the latest, greatest and most expensive equipment.
Steps have been made and it is better to measure than not to measure.

(Various) measurements can be used to improve the overall sound though which is a good thing.
Just realize it is not an exact science based on a specific measurement but a single measurement (with or without a specific tonal character) can be a good starting point.

 

[DanielT]

Yes, get the neutron, the apple dongle or better, that chep panasonics. 35Euro.
Eq to harmann curve.
Now there is a universe to learn. And that all for 35Euro. Best investment in knowledge you can do. Buy the way you have a not to bad sound. Not so much years ago we had dreamed about this possibilitys. Now you can get them nearly for free. No gazillion dollar studio equipment. 35euros all in your hand.

New times, wonderful Times!

OT
What was better with Hifi before? The only thing I can think of is the look.

Or it depends on. It has been as well as badly, then as now. . Apparently this measures well (depending on what you compare with):

Yamaha CR-600 AM/FM Stereo Receiver Manual | HiFi Engine

www.hifiengine.com

Compared better than:

Rega IO Review (stereo amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Rega IO stereo integrated amplifier with phono input. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $649 on Amazon including Prime shipping. It is designed and built in UK and price there seems much more reasonable (379 pounds). The front...

audiosciencereview.com

That choice, between them (given a well-functioning, serviced and so on Yamaha) is what is it called in English, no brain?

 

[tomtoo]

Nothing was better, you had to dig much deeper in your pocket for good sound.

 

[MayaTlab]

I mostly listen through speakers

To the long list of relevant points mentioned by Solderdude, I think that having some experience with decent speakers / monitors (as measured at the listening position) might be helpful to EQ headphones.
It's listening to sweeps on my first pair of half-decent, not horribly setup near fields and then doing the same on headphones that made me realise that most headphones are, at least to me, quite rubbish, particularly in the trebles.
So you already may have a pretty good reference to ground your proceedings.

Ploping in specially designed measuring microphones in the ears might be something.

I've spent the last 6-8 months DIYing several mics to that effect and while I do think that measuring HPs on head is an approachable practice below 1kHz or so, above that's a completely different story. After all this time and by now I think a few hundreds of individual sweeps (probably in excess of thousands actually, I haven't counted) I still feel that the only thing I've been doing so far is learning the limits of such practice rather than coming up with a fully realised solution (but I still consider it the best thing I've been learning in years to assist in EQing headphones).

 

[tomtoo]

New times, wonderful Times!

OT
What was better with Hifi before? The only thing I can think of is the look.

Or it depends on. It has been as well as badly, then as now. . Apparently this measures well (depending on what you compare with):

Yamaha CR-600 AM/FM Stereo Receiver Manual | HiFi Engine

www.hifiengine.com

Compared better than:

Rega IO Review (stereo amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Rega IO stereo integrated amplifier with phono input. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $649 on Amazon including Prime shipping. It is designed and built in UK and price there seems much more reasonable (379 pounds). The front...

audiosciencereview.com

That choice, between them (given a well-functioning, serviced and so on Yamaha) is what is it called in English, no brain?

Dont like to talk about that rega. That thing is for me more like shiiiit happens.

But what to do with a FM tuner this days? Imo useless. Sure you can remember this nights recording FM to tape an being happy. But hell, kids today press a button and stream cd quality whatever music they like. So if you look only for sound quality its easy, forget ancient analog times.

 

[DanielT]

Dont like to talk about that rega. That thing is for me more like shiiiit happens.

But what to do with a FM tuner this days? Imo useless. Sure you can remember this nights recording FM to tape an being happy. But hell, kids today press a button and stream cd quality whatever music they like. So if you look only for sound quality its easy, forget ancient analog times.

In a week I will pick up my bedroom receiver. It has been with my friend who serviced and recap it. Sure, the sound may not be comparable to modern Hifi equipment, amplifiers but it does not sound that bad.

Damn good FM radio reception in it. I do not care so much about the actual sound quality in the bedroom (or if I have it in the basement, some hobby room).In fact, it will be with the one I will use headphones with. Together with FM radio and streamed (Spotify or if they do not come with lossless this year, it will be Qubuz). plus that neutron player. All that together somehow.

The HK 330C looks good, at least I think it do (of course a matter of taste).

Here a video, vintage HK 330C.
(not mine, it was just a video I found on Youtube. in the video tested FM radio and after 50 seconds it switches to another source of music)