I’d argue that’s true only if we’re talking a 1 dB discrepancy between L/R channels. If we’re talking about a 1 dB discrepancy from their target, which is what they appear to be saying (see below), it’s highly unlikely anyone would hear it.
So am I right in thinking that Ollo users could use the USC (Unit Specific Calibration) aspect, which is the calibration from Ollo, and then use Waves NX to either choose one of the Ollo Target Curves or an Oratory EQ to Harman, and this would all be done through Waves NX (including the USC aspect)?
If you look at Oratory's EQ's then there's normally only one or two filters per headphone that could be described as mild gain and high Q, so it's not true what you say that "many of those filters don't do anything in practice" - plus those filters can help add up to an accumulative effect if two of those filters are working in the same direction. But intrinsically that doesn't make 10-band EQ bad, even if those filters you mentioned don't do much they're not detrimental. 10 band EQ is a sensible number to choose - doesn't take too long to input into your device when you're setting up the EQ and it's certainly enough to fix headphones. To adapt your opening phrase: It's still a good idea, and it works great in theory as well as in practice.
I don't think so, as the 'USC' EQs to their made-up target(s) anyway.
That would be a bit disappointing if the implementation of the individualised unit calibration was restricted in that way, because theoretically it could be added to the headphone to remove unit variation before then applying an EQ of choice on top of it (eg an Oratory EQ). I mean it could still be done, if the USC thing EQ's it to their Ollo Target then you're removing the unit to unit variation, then it just needs to allow for the Oratory EQ to be put on top of that, but that's only valid if the Ollo Target is an average of many units of S5X that have been measured, but if the Ollo Target sits consistently away from the S5X in some way then you couldn't put an Oratory EQ on top of it, as Oratory's EQ are based on an average of whatever numbers of S5X he would measure, so the individual unit calibration is only gonna work if Ollo were to calibrate all their units to their average S5X, which would still remove unit to unit variation for them, maybe they could think about implementing it in that way to give users more flexibility to put different EQ's on top of their unit calibration too.
I'm not sure about that, it's a moot point anyway. 10 band EQ is a good idea, it's not detrimental, and it doesn't matter if one or two of those filters are hard to spot the difference - it doesn't invalidate the whole endeavour, it doesn't invalidate the benefits of EQ. What exactly is your beef with EQ, are we on an anti-EQ crusade here?! (It's not going too well.)
No.
Yes.
You are. This will not necessarily be the case. An example:
Thanks. That was unclear in the product description, at least to me.
I think I see your point. With Oratorys1990 presets there's not a large difference in post EQ score, between the full, and RME ADI presets with limited bands. I once asked Oratory1990 to make a PDF of a octave band preset I had made manually in REW. Even he was surprised how close the post EQ score was to his full version preset.
There are several resonances in the mids and treble here, but none of them show nonlinear level-dependence. Only the bass does, and only a small amount, and only at very high levels, so not really a problem anyway. And of course, this bass nonlinearity, here manifesting as dynamics compression, will also show up as distortion
That may be true if the FR and distortion you are referring to is the FR and distortion we perceive. Surely it is NOT true for the 1/12 octave smoothed, rig specific, unreliable measurement data we have though. Let's not pretend they are the same.
Yes. It seems that one of the main things here in ASR is educating people to either stop buying equipment or doing tweaking that doesn't actually do anything OR owning it that these changes are for non-audio quality reasons. Buying better DAC for the best SINAD or tweaking to perfect FR even though you can't hear the difference.
Yesterday evening I tried amirm’s eq setting again, but this time just the 213 Hz setting, omitting the others. When the full setting is applied, ie the four different settings, then the difference in soundcharchter is not subtle. It is very obvious. Better? not to me, but others may differ in their verdict.
We're not gonna go through all that again, we've debated the pros & cons of EQ vs insert, so I don't have anymore to say on that. I also pointed out earlier that you were getting confused by bringing in the whole topic of "EQ'ing a headphone from a measurement you find on the internet" whilst we were actually talking about insert vs EQ that replicates that insert's effect. (Going back to this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../ollo-s5x-headphone-review.46166/post-1675154 ). So it's not relevant to be going on about the pros & cons of "EQ'ing a headphone from a measurement you find on the internet" here in this thread - do it if you want to, don't do it you don't want to. I made an (in brackets) reply to you when you were commenting off track from the discussion on your opinion of 10-band EQ, and then we also had a quick subsequent discussion on that even though it's not relevant. So I think we're dead on this topic now. (You can find many discussions here on ASR on pros & cons of Harman Curve EQ's (using 10 band EQ for instance because Oratory's EQ are the most common), so I'm not going through all the pro's & cons of all that as it's not relevant.
