That's not a like-for-like comparison. When comparing Oratory's and
your EQ profiles both for
his data, his preamp is -5.4 dB and yours is -8.2 dB. I was thinking about problems arising when using devices that lack a dedicated preamp setting e.g. the miniDSP IL-DSP, which only has a physical digital main volume control. Your EQ would reach digital clipping at a lower volume on such a device, therefore Oratory's EQ would provide more clean volume headroom.
I beg to differ, what you hear is SPL. We can compare since the target curves are identical and assuming we are EQing the same sample.
It all depends on the normalization frequency.
I normalize in the low midrange Oratory at HF which set the sensitivity of the system lower if we normalize at "my" frequency.
Oratory's EQ magnitude is on average 2.6dB lower than mine at same voltage input.
Preamp gain for Oratory is -5.4, -5.4-2.6 = -8dB, it really should be 8.2dB+ as it is when similarly normalized to my frequency the max EQ is 8.2dB+.
My EQ will clip at -8.2dB so the same SPL
You just cant look at the preamp gain and say that the only important parameters, SPLs at max output, will be different in this case they won't.
Just repeating myself:
This 100% determined by the max boost of the EQ nothing else for any consistent EQ. It is a zero sum game.
If you expect to be able to boost any frequency by 10dB as an example and have no impact on the dynamic range of the system (i.e. Max SPL) you are wrong.
EQing is trading dynamic range for accuracy. No free lunch I am afraid, unless the system has a large headroom built in as in: it will handle/produce much more power than required to achieve desired max SPL.
Again, a misleading comparison - similar scores are not necessarily indicative of similar frequency response. Of course an EQ profile developed for one specific unit will likely be better
for that unit than one developed for an average of several units (especially as this average doesn't include the unit in question). But that's not very useful for the reader, as their unit may differ from this specific one. What is more useful
for the average user is, naturally, an EQ based on averaged data, and the more units included in that average the better (i.e. his
latest pdf, not the earlier one with fewer units you're referring to here).
Misleading? Again? Don't you think your are exaggerating a bit there?
We start with similar scores 68.6/66.9 (single sample no averaging), different sample but
identical product, similar measurement apparatus etc.
I can't see why this comparison is not valid. End users will not get any of the measured units so we are in the exact boat as anyone buying a DT880.
You brought the magic 106 score to the table naively yourself, when one digs a bit, it just does not make much sense to compare as demonstrated.
You said it yourself one should not compare two different units data/EQ as you did more so if one is averaged.
To illustrate:
- Oratory average based EQ on ASR sample: 66.8 from 68.6
- Oratory average based EQ on Oratory first sample : 80.1 from 66.9
- Oratory average based EQ on Oratory averaged data: 106 from 88
Honestly, the average user should be totally lost there and the EQ does not look useful under this light: the same EQ yield totally different results on two different samples and an averaged data especially since most people think the average data should yield better results across the whole production. For this particular product tolerance seems awful.
Designing EQ based on average or averaged EQ is actually really difficult. One should take into account the standard deviation of the population. amongst other things....
Fine-tuning this band (and the others Oratory highlighted) allows the listener to adjust for these variables.
My comment still stands, I see no compelling argument in what you wrote.
Olive study showed that the default Harman curve bass (-3/+6dB) and HF (+/-1.5dB) works for the vast majority of people including their taste, their age/gender group training level etc. There is no "tonal accuracy band" that was revealed, even less so one that will set accuracy by itself and solve your three, correctly stated, points in particular the circle of confusion that we cannot escape...
In addition I noticed that Oratory states that the scores are normalized to 100, still the averaged EQ yields 106.
a. The normalized preference ratings are used, where zero deviation from target equals a preference rating of 100
b. 106
The perfect score
, where zero deviation from target, is around 114. so one of these two statements is necessarily wrong.