- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 1,324
- Likes
- 1,943
Crinacle' EQ actually corrects the dip around 3k to 4.8k.
Does he provide EQ's now? Last time I looked I just thought he provided measurements, where does he publish the EQ's?
Might as well be both due to unit variation and slight placement differences; see on RTINGS how much fit variability they arrived at for 371s - that's quite a big one.Does he provide EQ's now? Last time I looked I just thought he provided measurements, where does he publish the EQ's?
EDIT: and that looks a lot easier to correct than the Oratory measurement - so that's unit to unit variation or his measurement protocol.
When you go to his webpage he provides free graphs, but on the right side there is an option to create autoeq file based off the measurements. I think his measurements are a tad bit different than oratory. He also predominantly measures his own target, he calls “IEF Neutral”Does he provide EQ's now? Last time I looked I just thought he provided measurements, where does he publish the EQ's?
EDIT: and that looks a lot easier to correct than the Oratory measurement - so that's unit to unit variation or his measurement protocol.
Amazing? What does that even mean?Oratory EQ doesn't fully correct that dip though, still looks pretty significant even after EQ:
I think that's enough that it wouldn't "sound amazing" - as you say you didn't think they sounded amazing. The soundstage variable and also how well they seal on your head is another variable that could throw a spanner in the works.....also unit to unit variation, I don't know how much the K371 varies between units. I mean I still think that the K371 can be a solid headphone if it fits you properly, just I wouldn't expect it to sound amazing.
In terms of "amazing", I'm just talking about my own experience with headphones and headphone EQ and judging how they'd sound from the fact that there's a massive and quite wide dip there in the treble - hence me saying that I think they wouldn't sound amazing. If you can think of a perfect reason why there should be large dip there in the treble, in terms of it being an advantage that you've experienced, then perhaps they would sound amazing to you. In my experience that kind of frequency response deficiency would not be optimal.Amazing? What does that even mean?
One man's "amazing" is another man's "gawd awful." Beats generally tend to sound "amazing." Tweens love 'em: bash, crash, zing, scream, thud, cheer.
-Just one man's view
In terms of "amazing", I'm just talking about my own experience with headphones and headphone EQ and judging how they'd sound from the fact that there's a massive and quite wide dip there in the treble - hence me saying that I think they wouldn't sound amazing. If you can think of a perfect reason why there should be large dip there in the treble, in terms of it being an advantage that you've experienced, then perhaps they would sound amazing to you. In my experience that kind of frequency response deficiency would not be optimal.
If we are to add "amazing" to the lexicon of definitive audio terminology, where would it stand, comparatively? Somewhere between "awesome" and "totally rad"?In terms of "amazing", I'm just talking about my own experience with headphones and headphone EQ and judging how they'd sound from the fact that there's a massive and quite wide dip there in the treble - hence me saying that I think they wouldn't sound amazing. If you can think of a perfect reason why there should be large dip there in the treble, in terms of it being an advantage that you've experienced, then perhaps they would sound amazing to you. In my experience that kind of frequency response deficiency would not be optimal.
Do we also need to add "totally amazing" as a full term?If we are to add "amazing" to the lexicon of definitive audio terminology, where would it stand, comparatively? Somewhere between "awesome" and "totally rad"?
We need to add "amazing" to our defined glossary of terms including clarity, brilliance, shouty, forward, dry, boomy, one-note, and gritty.
Given these, an optimally trained macaw could be a YT audio reviewer: followed, subscribed, and highly regarded. Amir, take note.
And thus, the seven dwarfs of audio terminology become a frenzied, flag-waving mob, probably not bent on construction.Do we also need to add "totally amazing" as a full term?
We all knew it had to happen.And thus, the seven dwarfs of audio terminology become a frenzied, flag-waving mob, probably not bent on construction.
Yes, I agree that the coupling issues (if you have them) are going to be more significant than the dip in the treble.I think that this dip is sufficiently narrow that it's a lesser problem for the K371 compared to more prominent ones. The coupling issues at high and low frequencies and their influence on the overall balance are in my opinion far more problematic with that design.
I think you just need to chill and stop nitpicking on unimportant points. There's nothing wrong with using the word "amazing" to describe how much you like a headphone or not, of course it's not a word to describe the intricacies of what you hear so it's not useful from that point of view. To be honest I used the word because I was responding to someone else who had used the word...but anyway you're certainly grasping at red herrings and making mountains out of mole hills, taking things out of context.If we are to add "amazing" to the lexicon of definitive audio terminology, where would it stand, comparatively? Somewhere between "awesome" and "totally rad"?
We need to add "amazing" to our defined glossary of terms including clarity, brilliance, shouty, forward, dry, boomy, one-note, and gritty.
Given these, an optimally trained macaw could be a YT audio reviewer: followed, subscribed, and highly regarded. Amir, take note.
Used correctly, I am properly amazed at your response. You are amazing. Perhaps hoping to be awesome. <chuckle> Probably not totally rad...Language should be a tool. The communicator shouldn't be.I think you just need to chill and stop nitpicking on unimportant points. There's nothing wrong with using the word "amazing" to describe how much you like a headphone or not, of course it's not a word to describe the intricacies of what you hear so it's not useful from that point of view. To be honest I used the word because I was responding to someone else who had used the word...but anyway you're certainly grasping at red herrings and making mountains out of mole hills, taking things out of context.
Wow, you really do need to be left alone. I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but I'm not going to be part of it.Used correctly, I am properly amazed at your response. You are amazing. Perhaps hoping to be awesome. <chuckle> Probably not totally rad...Language should be a tool. The communicator shouldn't be.
Don't worry, he's just trying to be amazing.Wow, you really do need to be left alone. I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but I'm not going to be part of it.
I don't remember exactly I think it was around 100-250 range, the correct use of Q-factor in this case will indeed yield very effective results. I agree with the hypothesis that a somewhat extended treble paired with modest amount of bass tend to make me feel like the soundstage is less "full" and stuffy. It's hard to say whether this is perception bias or actual improvement just like how we can't take one or two measured units of a model as gospel due to unit variations, how it fits on dummy head vs on our actual head, etc....I think that cutting upper bass (what freq exactly?) like this might as well cause the music's dynamics to expand, since mid/treble/bass difference goes up. Did you compensate for the missing loudness from the cut range when checking this? In any case, there is this widely known connection between brightness and spaciousness and since there is no way to measure objectively, it cannot really be discussed whether it really yields a better soundstage or just a perception bias. K6xx and K7xx have also done some shenaningans in the general treble range (apart from lack of bass), which might've also contributed.
I agree, the k371 isn't a wow headphone, but it is pleasant enough not to be offensive.If I have to be precise with how I feel about those headphones: 371 definitely are not what I imagine "High-Fidelity" is and not what deeply impressed me unlike some headphones. It did not make me feel "wow" or make me want to sell any of my other headphones, it also did not cement my belief that a well-studied FR target (Harman in this case) is the most important factor in sound quality.
However, 371 sounds nice enough for me to use it often, sound-wise there is nothing offensive or annoying with 371. I hope 371 is the beginning of the upcoming improvements we might see from AKG and other Harman-target followers.