Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?

[solderdude]

Or I am typing on a phone (Which I am)


Loudness contours have NOTHING to do with EQing headphones nor does anyone suggest this.
You are mixing up equal loudness contours with equal SPL or target curves.

 

[Robbo99999]

Or I am typing on a phone (Which I am)


Loudness contours have NOTHING to do with EQing headphones nor does anyone suggest this

Loudness contours are definitely relevant if you're gonna be EQ'ing all frequencies to be perceived volume matched. If you do that then you end up EQ'ing to the perceived volume curve which is essentially those loudness contours. And who said all frequencies from 20Hz - 20kHz should have the same perceived loudness in an EQ'd speaker or headphone? I mean literally that is what you end up with if you follow the Equal Loudness EQ procedure. It's clearly wrong.

 

[solderdude]

Not when it is performed at 80dB.
In that case, armed with knowhow, you can use Griesingers method. Alternatively by measurements. Just not with a HATS above 5kHz.

 

[Robbo99999]

Not when it is performed at 80dB.
In that case, armed with knowhow, you can use Griesingers method. Alternatively by measurements. Just not with a HATS above 5kHz.

What is magical about 80dB? Why should all frequencies from 20Hz-20kHz be volume matched when at 80dB?

EDIT: I fail to see why frequencies should be volume matched at any given dB level because it's plain to see that our ears/brain do not perceive frequencies with equal loudness across the frequency range at any dB level which is seen by the graph below, therefore any attempt at EQ'ing to equal loudness accross the frequency range is unnatural colouring away from what would naturally be heard. It's a totally flawed concept that I find completely irrefutable.

EDIT#2: well you could EQ using Equal Loudness from 300 to 4000Hz with some limited degree of accuracy because the curve is generally flat there and hence 'equal loudness' between those points at 80dB as seen in the graph above, but that says nothing for the rest of the frequency range, and nor does it add in 'room tilt' for instance.

 

[Dreyfus]

@Robbo99999
Please read post #204 carefully.
First of all, the 'subjective loudness equalization' method and the 'measured speaker HRTF to headphone' method accomplish different purposes. There is no right or wrong, just different reference points and practical applications.

To be honest I don't understand why the subjective loudness equalization should be flawed with unnatural coloration due to overboosted frequencies that wouldn't be there in such intensity in real life. The only way I could imagine such is when wearing an unequalized and heavily colored headphone which does not follow the curve of natural hearing. With the loudness equalization though you ARE including your actual hearing just as in real life because you are adjusting the intensity only by ear. Listening to a test signal (say pink noise) through a headphones is the same as taking a small speaker and placing it right infront of your ear in a dry room. You get all the natural feedback of your ear canal, middle ear and inner ear as much as some psychoacoustic variations (e.g. hearing loss and spectral L/R balance) and adjust the source equalization so that there is no additional frequency-depended gain ontop of your individiual hearing curve. That's what I would call subjectively flat.

The difference to the enhanced HRTF speaker method is that you of course do not include things like head shadowing or broad pinna interactions to accomplish the specific localization of a frontal loudspeaker. That's what I meant with the different reference points. One method tries to be flat infront of a speaker, the other tries to be flat with the sound source being directly tied to your ears.

IMO there is nothing wrong to that. Depending on the source you are playing back one method might work better than the other. The HRTF compensation for example is best when trying to recreate the studio standard with frontally placed flat loudspeakers. That's where good studio productions can really shine on headphones. The equal loudness compensation without external localization on the other hand is better for rendering stereo sources that try to recreate enhanced spatiality: binaural recordings, mixes with a lot of room fx and video games. It may not reach full fidelity when listening to recordings matched to studio standards (flat speakers infront of the artist / engineer). Still way better than listening to random peaks of badly designed headphones. You could say it gets the best out of headphone sound without forcing an external (out of your head) localization.

I prefer the equal loudness equalization for my headphones because it sounds way smoother than any random voicing "made for the masses". When I want speaker sound, I either switch to my DIY impulse response rendering my desktop speakers, or, I switch to my speakers.
Capturing a dry HRTF response of my own head would be great for emulating studio standards on my headphones. But I doubt that I will ever get the chance for such an experiment. That's why the subjective loudness matching is practically the best for me as ordinary mortal.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999
Please read post #204 carefully.
First of all, the 'subjective loudness equalization' method and the 'measured speaker HRTF to headphone' method accomplish different purposes. There is no right or wrong, just different reference points and practical applications.

With "subjective loudness equalization" then that does take HRTF into account if done on a speaker, but obviously not when done for earphones. (EDIT: second thoughts, actually it would take into account even if done on earphones, see my other responses to you below.)

To be honest I don't understand why the subjective loudness equalization should be flawed with unnatural coloration due to overboosted frequencies that wouldn't be there in such intensity in real life. The only way I could imagine such is when wearing an unequalized and heavily colored headphone which does not follow the curve of natural hearing. With the loudness equalization though you ARE including your actual hearing just as in real life because you are adjusting the intensity only by ear. Listening to a test signal (say pink noise) through a headphones is the same as taking a small speaker and placing it right infront of your ear in a dry room. You get all the natural feedback of your ear canal, middle ear and inner ear as much as some psychoacoustic variations (e.g. hearing loss and spectral L/R balance) and adjust the source equalization so that there is no additional frequency-depended gain ontop of your individiual hearing curve. That's what I would call subjectively flat.

Of course equal loudness equalization will result in unnatural colouration because our ears/brains do not perceive equal loudness across the frequency range, and therefore if you try to EQ on the assumption that they do...which is definitely implied by the equal loudness equalisation process....then you for sure end up with something that is unnaturally boosted in the lows and also the highs which can be inferred by the graph I keep showing:

and as I said in my last post I concur there could be some value in loudness matching at 80dB between the frequencies of 300Hz and 4000Hz as the curve in the graph above is generally flat (and therefore equal loudness) between those two points at 80db, but that doesn't help you with the frequencies outside of those ranges, and it also means that you have to ensure your speakers or headphones are at 80dB at least, and yes that doesn't add in room tilt for headphones and it doesn't add in room tilt when done on speakers (it would add in HRTF for headphones because the above graphs were I imagine created by subjects listening to speakers in a room). So I see Equal Loudness Matching to be very limited considering all of these points.

The difference to the enhanced HRTF speaker method is that you of course do not include things like head shadowing or broad pinna interactions to accomplish the specific localization of a frontal loudspeaker. That's what I meant with the different reference points. One method tries to be flat infront of a speaker, the other tries to be flat with the sound source being directly tied to your ears.

Well you are taking somekind of an average HRTF into effect if the graph above was created by subjects listening to speakers. But anyway, like I said equal loudness matching is only of limited use between 300Hz and 4000Hz when done at 80dB.

IMO there is nothing wrong to that. Depending on the source you are playing back one method might work better than the other. The HRTF compensation for example is best when trying to recreate the studio standard with frontally placed flat loudspeakers. That's where good studio productions can really shine on headphones. The equal loudness compensation without external localization on the other hand is better for rendering stereo sources that try to recreate enhanced spatiality: binaural recordings, mixes with a lot of room fx and video games. It may not reach full fidelity when listening to recordings matched to studio standards (flat speakers infront of the artist / engineer). Still way better than listening to random peaks of badly designed headphones. You could say it gets the best out of headphone sound without forcing an external (out of your head) localization.

I agree with you about HRTF compensation and it's relation to studio standard mixes and good studio productions really shining on headphones in those instances. I think that also applies equally to those same mixes when listened to on a perfectly arranged 2.0 system, equilateral triangle - because it's emulating the position of the mixers/producers setup when they were creating the music, so it means the imaging effects are 'exactly' as they intended. I for sure notice massive differences in some tracks in their imaging on my 'perfectly' arranged JBL 308 speakers.

Yeah, I also agree about the binaural recordings, they're gonna be best suited to a flat headphone that is behaving just like 2 speakers inside of your ear rather than accounting for HRTF or room effects. (because binaural recordings already include HRTF and room effects baked in, albeit of whoever was wearing them and for whatever room/environment they were in).

I prefer the equal loudness equalization for my headphones because it sounds way smoother than any random voicing "made for the masses". When I want speaker sound, I either switch to my DIY impulse response rendering my desktop speakers, or, I switch to my speakers.
Capturing a dry HRTF response of my own head would be great for emulating studio standards on my headphones. But I doubt that I will ever get the chance for such an experiment. That's why the subjective loudness matching is practically the best for me as ordinary mortal.

I see your point about just plain not liking the average HRTF that is created by the Harman Curve, and that's your preference, and it may well just come down to the shape of your head & ears being very different to average....maybe you're like Spocks & Elephant Man's love child or something! Nooo, but I can see your point, and yes real speakers are the real deal, I do enjoy mine more than my headphones. Having said that, I do find the HRTF built into the Harman Curve very appealing in headphones and the best headphone experience I've had so far.....so when it comes to headphones I am a proponent of the Harman Curve and Oratory1990's implementation of it.

 

[solderdude]

E

What is magical about 80dB? Why should all frequencies from 20Hz-20kHz be volume matched when at 80dB?

EDIT: I fail to see why frequencies should be volume matched at any given dB level because it's plain to see that our ears/brain do not perceive frequencies with equal loudness across the frequency range at any dB level which is seen by the graph below, therefore any attempt at EQ'ing to equal loudness accross the frequency range is unnatural colouring away from what would naturally be heard. It's a totally flawed concept that I find completely irrefutable.
View attachment 73436

EDIT#2: well you could EQ using Equal Loudness from 300 to 4000Hz with some limited degree of accuracy because the curve is generally flat there and hence 'equal loudness' between those points at 80dB as seen in the graph above, but that says nothing for the rest of the frequency range, and nor does it add in 'room tilt' for instance.

You EQ headphones for equal SPL not for equal Phone. Equal loudness contours has NOTHING to do with EQ for headphones.
NOTHING at all.
You can use measurements (not HATS) and apply a target curve or without.
You can also do it by ear when by comparing to flat speakers when you use the same SPL. As long as your reference is valid the results will be OK.
When you want to include your HRTF then Griesinger works fine. Do this at an SPL of around 75 to 80dB and the results will be fine. Not with tones but narrowband noise.
The reason is recordings are mastered at those levels as well.

Prefereer method is measurements though.

Again. Equal loudness is NOT equal SPL

 

[Robbo99999]

E

You EQ headphones

Is that a statement or a question, you been drinking solderdude?? You don't EQ your HD800's, damn you crazy, you want any ears left??

 

[solderdude]

I already told you i am typing on a frikkin phone.

 

[Robbo99999]

I already told you i am typing on a frikkin phone.

frikkin stop it then man!

 

[solderdude]

You don't EQ your HD800's, damn you crazy, you want any ears left??

I certainly do and for good reason.

 

[solderdude]

frikkin stop it then man!

If only I could

 

[Robbo99999]

E

You EQ headphones for equal SPL not for equal Phone. Equal loudness contours has NOTHING to do with EQ for headphones.
NOTHING at all.
You can use measurements (not HATS) and apply a target curve or without.
You can also do it by ear when by comparing to flat speakers when you use the same SPL. As long as your reference is valid the results will be OK.
When you want to include your HRTF then Griesinger works fine. Do this at an SPL of around 75 to 80dB and the results will be fine. Not with tones but narrowband noise.
The reason is recordings are mastered at those levels as well.

Prefereer method is measurements though.

Again. Equal loudness is NOT equal SPL

Ok, you're not interpreting that graph right nor seeing how it fits together. The y-axis of that graph is in dB SPL, and it's graphed for equal loudness. So it is showing you the effect of frequency on the required dB SPL to maintain equal loudness. So it's totally easy to see from that graph that our ears don't have an equal response to dB SPL across the frequency range and therefore it's wrong to assume that they do & therefore it's wrong to use loudness matching across the frequency range. How do you not see this, you've seen graphs before yeah. I find it astounding that you're not joining those dots. I have admitted though that at 80dB between about 300Hz and 4000Hz it is generally flat, therefore of course loudness matching has some limited accuracy & credibility when done at 80dB between those two ranges of 300Hz and 4000Hz, but from looking at that graph I don't see any use beyond those ranges, and also one pre-requisite is you have to make sure your speakers or headphones are outputting at least 80dB...so the negatives keep piling up.


And again, to be sure, I'm not talking about loudness matching one set of speakers to another or a set of headphones to another set of headphones.....I'm talking about having just one set of speakers or one set of headphones in front of you and using Loudness Matching to EQ across the frequency range, as per that video I linked to you - I'm only saying this because this is the only way I figure you're getting the wrong end of the stick. But I've tried confirming this with you beyond doubt in 2 or 3 posts already so I'm thinking you've not got that wrong end of the stick. (so we're talking about EQ'ing one item only and by itself, it's not being matched to another speaker or headphone)


(and for those of you late to the party this is an ongoing discussion today where I'm trying to show that using Loudness Matching as a means of EQ is flawed or of limited value....I do admit I started the day thinking it was fundamentally flawed, but I've progressed to seeing it's potential use when done at 80dB but only between the ranges of 300Hz and 4000Hz.....I still don't think it's the best method for a number of those reasons).

 

[ernestcarl]

@Robbo99999

Lordy! You are quite confused. Plus your mixed-up use of terminology is confusing the hell out of me.

I have tried to summarize your points so at least some semblance of coherence comes out of this.

But first, what is Loudness Matching? Well, as far as I can tell from this thread, full-range EQ (signal processing) correction to achieve tonal balance/neutrality across the frequency range at a given volume.

And here are your assertions:

*It's wrong to match 'loudness' in all frequencies within the hearing range.

*EQing frequencies to have the same perceptual loudness (at a given volume i.e. phons) does not come across naturally.

*Applying compensation/correction based on one's innate sensitivity, creates an unnatural condition.

*Due to our heads and ears, we don't hear all frequencies as equally loud at the exact same SPL.

*If you understand the Harman Curve you must conclude that 'Equal Loudness Matching' is flawed and at odds with the research.
[what research? elaborate]

*Correct way of applying EQ is by measuring and adjusting FR to target curves that have been created by research.

*Loudness matching will be compensating for an individuals personal hearing deficiencies.

 

[ernestcarl]

BTW, solderdude is right.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999

Lordy! You are quite confused. Plus your mixed-up use of terminology is confusing the hell out of me.

I have tried to summarize your points so at least some semblance of coherence comes out of this.

But first, what is Loudness Matching? Well, as far as I can tell from this thread, full-range EQ (signal processing) correction to achieve tonal balance/neutrality across the frequency range at a given volume.

And here are your assertions:

*It's wrong to match 'loudness' in all frequencies within the hearing range.

*EQing frequencies to have the same perceptual loudness (at a given volume i.e. phons) does not come across naturally.

*Applying compensation/correction based on one's innate sensitivity, creates an unnatural condition.

*Due to our heads and ears, we don't hear all frequencies as equally loud at the exact same SPL.

*If you understand the Harman Curve you must conclude that 'Equal Loudness Matching' is flawed and at odds with the research.
[what research? elaborate]

*Correct way of applying EQ is by measuring and adjusting FR to target curves that have been created by research.

*Loudness matching will be compensating for an individuals personal hearing deficiencies.

Wow man, I don't how to reply to that either, I think it's the opposite, I've been extremely logical and consistent with my posts. In contrast I've received very little cohesive arguments from other people who have responded that hang together with the specifics of what I posted, so it has been a largely non-constructive conversation. I've been frankly baffled by solderdude's lack of logic and lack of ability to discuss a topic, and your posts have been ok, but this last one from you is all over the place so I don't know how to answer it. Either I'm in some kind of parallel dimension and the rules of logic no longer apply, or I'm having some kind of brain seizure, or the people I'm talking to aren't having the analytical or logical chops to follow my conversations....but for the most part I think my posts have been quite logical & structured, as well as coherent.

So I'm kind of personally affronted when you ask me "what is Loudness Matching" when that is in fact what we've been trying to talk about for the past day. It all goes back to the video in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-eqing-headphones-worth-it.11523/post-456300. He is doing "Loudness Matching" between frequencies in that video....and I was arguing that this is not a valid approach for EQ purposes for the various reasons discussed ad nauseum. This is what we're talking about. (I also referred you to that video in prior post too to be sure you knew what I was talking about when it came to "Loudness Matching" because previously you thought we were talking about loudness matching 2 speakers together or something, yet you are asking me again now). To be honest I feel like I'm being colluded against because I'm baffled by the lack of logic and 'posting integrity' from Senior members here....I generally thought/think that people on this forum have a bit more of all of those good qualities here, so I'm a bit suspicious of it's sudden lack in this thread.

 

[xykreinov]

Wow man, I don't how to reply to that either, I think it's the opposite, I've been extremely logical and consistent with my posts. In contrast I've received very little cohesive arguments from other people who have responded that hang together with the specifics of what I posted, so it has been a largely non-constructive conversation. I've been frankly baffled by solderdude's lack of logic and lack of ability to discuss a topic, and your posts have been ok, but this last one from you is all over the place so I don't know how to answer it. Either I'm in some kind of parallel dimension and the rules of logic no longer apply, or I'm having some kind of brain seizure, or the people I'm talking to aren't having the analytical or logical chops to follow my conversations....but for the most part I think my posts have been quite logical & structured, as well as coherent.

So I'm kind of personally affronted when you ask me "what is Loudness Matching" when that is in fact what we've been trying to talk about for the past day. It all goes back to the video in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-eqing-headphones-worth-it.11523/post-456300. He is doing "Loudness Matching" between frequencies in that video....and I was arguing that this is not a valid approach for EQ purposes for the various reasons discussed ad nauseum. This is what we're talking about. (I also referred you to that video in prior post too to be sure you knew what I was talking about when it came to "Loudness Matching" because previously you thought we were talking about loudness matching 2 speakers together or something, yet you are asking me again now). To be honest I feel like I'm being colluded against because I'm baffled by the lack of logic and 'posting integrity' from Senior members here....I generally thought/think that people on this forum have a bit more of all of those good qualities here, so I'm a bit suspicious of it's sudden lack in this thread.

Cool that ego. It's definitely not helping your arguments.

 

[ernestcarl]

Wow man, I don't how to reply to that either, I think it's the opposite, I've been extremely logical and consistent with my posts. In contrast I've received very little cohesive arguments from other people who have responded that hang together with the specifics of what I posted, so it has been a largely non-constructive conversation. I've been frankly baffled by solderdude's lack of logic and lack of ability to discuss a topic, and your posts have been ok, but this last one from you is all over the place so I don't know how to answer it. Either I'm in some kind of parallel dimension and the rules of logic no longer apply, or I'm having some kind of brain seizure, or the people I'm talking to aren't having the analytical or logical chops to follow my conversations....but for the most part I think my posts have been quite logical & structured, as well as coherent.

So I'm kind of personally affronted when you ask me "what is Loudness Matching" when that is in fact what we've been trying to talk about for the past day. It all goes back to the video in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-eqing-headphones-worth-it.11523/post-456300. He is doing "Loudness Matching" between frequencies in that video....and I was arguing that this is not a valid approach for EQ purposes for the various reasons discussed ad nauseum. This is what we're talking about. To be honest I feel like I'm being colluded against because I'm baffled by the lack of logic and 'posting integrity' from Senior members here....I generally thought/think that people on this forum have a bit more of all of those good qualities here, so I'm a bit suspicious of it's sudden lack in this thread.

No, there is no collusion here.

The question was rhetorical, and so I provided an answer that makes sense, at least to me (but also one that is not at odds with Griesinger's EQ procedure), but still within the context of this thread.

Indeed, I don't think there is any need for you to repeat anything again as the points you wanted to make are all in there already -- I think.

 

[Robbo99999]

View attachment 73461
Cool that ego. It's definitely not helping your arguments.

Well if you have integrity in your logic and in your posting you try to seek enlightenment here and that is what I feel I do if I'm being flowery & dramatic about it, and looking at your curve I think I'm on the "Slope of Enlightenment" but after posting with a few Senior Members here today that I had previously thought were on "Plateau of Sustainability" I think part of them were at least temporarily on the "Peak of Mount Stupid" today.....you posted the graph man!

 

[Dreyfus]

Of course equal loudness equalization will result in unnatural colouration because our ears/brains do not perceive equal loudness across the frequency range

Can you explain that?

Please refer only to headphones being worn with noise as test signal. The headphone equalization procedure I was talking about has no loudspeakers involved. Only noise and subjective evaluation. No matching to external references.
The curves you posted cannot be directly applied here because they have been derived from frontally placed speakers.

Still not sure if we are talking about the same thing.

I see your point about just plain not liking the average HRTF that is created by the Harman Curve [...].
Having said that, I do find the HRTF built into the Harman Curve very appealing in headphones and the best headphone experience I've had so far.....so when it comes to headphones I am a proponent of the Harman Curve and Oratory1990's implementation of it.

The design process of headphones does not necessarily involve HRTF optimizations. A lot of headphones are voiced to generate sparkle, clarity, depth and intense bass because it sells good. You can compare it to mainstream smartphone cameras which tend to oversaturate, sharpen and denoise the image for maximum vividness. That's why I see the need for compensation.

Harman's approach is a different thing because it is derived from empirical studies and includes personal prefereneces of varying listening groups.
I have tried the K371. Sadfully it doesn't work that well for me and my rather thin head. Being a wearer of glasses doesn't make it easier. This is why I get a very bad sealing and the tonality just sounds like crap.
I tried Oratory's settings on my DT 880. But it feels way too peaky between 6 kHz and 13 kHz. Listening to noise shows that there is some nasty resonance going on. Otherwise the balance is pretty much okay. Maybe a bit too bass-heavy for my taste (within margin of personal preference).
Same for my HE-4XX by the way.

In my experience the Harman target doesn't sound completely balanced out of the box. There are still some resonances in the upper range I have to fix. That's probably because of my pinna and especially ear canal being not close enough to the average. Its a good starting point for my loudness matching procedure though.

maybe you're like Spocks & Elephant Man's love child or something!

No, I'm used to Abyss, Son.