- Thread Starter
- #21
Not yet but it is my mission to make it so.
Not yet but it is my mission to make it so.
The headband is quite bulky and stiff, putting fair bit of pressure on the pads.
How does it feel on your head @Amir? If it wasn't horrible I would find one and try to EQ it. The review left me with so much curiosity haha
Find those old youtube clips of people powering their JVC HA series with giant amps and making paper flutter with the bass.
Jeepers
If you or anyone else actually gets to it and makes an EQ, do you have the ability to test the distortion characteristics post-EQ? That always makes me curious when a headphone is recommended but only with EQ. How close can tracking truly get? At what cost?How does it feel on your head @Amir? If it wasn't horrible I would find one and try to EQ it. The review left me with so much curiosity haha
If the listening level is within the range of distortion measurements, you can mentally add the EQ to the distortion graph.If you or anyone else actually gets to it and makes an EQ, do you have the ability to test the distortion characteristics post-EQ? That always makes me curious when a headphone is recommended but only with EQ. How close can tracking truly get? At what cost?
Especially for Windows there is Equalizer APO which is freeware, very easy to install and use and works system wide (also with Youtube etc.), since its discovery it has replaced all my past hardware and software EQs and is my only EQ source even for my hifi systems.Until EQ becomes universally available, I like to see a response much closer to target than these deliver. In my situation, youtube listening on Windows for example is without EQ.
If the listening level is within the range of distortion measurements, you can mentally add the EQ to the distortion graph.
Since distortion tends to get worse with higher db and EQ only adds and subtracts db for specific frequencies, the effect of EQ is predictable within the measurement range.
Especially for Windows there is Equalizer APO which is freeware, very easy to install and use and works system wide (also with Youtube etc.), since its discovery it has replaced all my past hardware and software EQs and is my only EQ source even for my hifi systems.
Interesting, I have it running on 6 different Windows machines currently without any problems, the only period I had few problems was a couple of years ago on some Windows 10 service pack but was solved from MS quickly.There are many of us who can't get this to work on anything, and others for whom it's flakey, suddenly stopping working for no reason, etc.
Until EQ becomes universally available, I like to see a response much closer to target than these deliver. In my situation, youtube listening on Windows for example is without EQ.
This is actually how high-end PAs operate (stuff you'll see at Tomorrowland, Wacken or a Taylor Swift concert).Still many people here believe that EQ is mandatory anyway. If the Idea is to leave the frequency response task to what can be done digitall more easily than with mechanical tuning, it does look like a good candidate for high fidelity no? To me there is some merit to achieve distortion that low if you are going to EQ anyway. isn’t digitally crafting the response with EQ going to bring less degradation that trying to play with the physics to ask a driver to follow a certain curve? I think this make sense, let the drivers do what they do at their optimal mechanical capabiilities, and do the frequency response thing the most transparent way.. Maybe.
I agree and while it definitively isn't a well tuned headphone, the fixed frequency based choice of the reference curve makes it look worse than it is, below I redraw it manually quick and dirty at a difference level and there you can see it mainly needs 2 PEQ with approximately -7 dB for the two upper bass / lower mid bumps and possibly smaller one for its "Beyer" bump between 7-10 kHz (would experiment if filling partially the narrow-ish dip between 1-2 kHz is worth it):
View attachment 200907