Seems like everyone has a home brew for eq( enhancing ) headphones SQ on this forum. As a science based forum , the directive to just listen to changes does not get me very far. Once someone creates EQ adjustment list isn’t there an objective way to measure the suggested SQ improvements? The actions of amateurs and enthusiasts and electronics designers based on personal preferences does not instill a lot of confidence for me to try their various recipes. Why don’t headphone makers provide various EQ scenarios for their products? Just curious…
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Where is the science in EQ of headphones?
- Thread starter Yuhasz01
- Start date
- Joined
- May 8, 2020
- Messages
- 642
- Likes
- 658
Compliance with the target curve??? When you EQ a headphone to a target curve, the result must be the target curve after the frequency response sweep is done.
What do you mean by this?
Not a very-requested feature. If the market doesn't ask for it, why include it, unless you want to differentiate yourself. Also, some manufacturers (Audeze) include EQ for their headphones for free (Reveal I think is called).
Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
For me, one thing which would help take things to the next step, is Amir producing post-eq graphs showing frequency response and distortion.
Just an opinion.
DVDdoug
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 3,027
- Likes
- 3,987
The idea is to correct the frequency response to match the Harmon target frequency response. (You'll have to research to learn why the preferred frequency response curve isn't flat.) There are headphones that match that curve fairly-closely without EQ.
But realistically, most people just buy headphones they like and/or EQ to taste.
But realistically, most people just buy headphones they like and/or EQ to taste.
Aerith Gainsborough
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 853
- Likes
- 1,280
Scientific approach: correct to the Harman target.
Some like it, I don't. Too much bass for my ears. So I correct the highs of my DT880 but only beef the bass by half the amount required.
Ultimately, EQ/House curve is the part where we leave the realm of science and enter the realm of personal taste. I see nothing wrong with that. Harman target is a good starting point though. Makes the process easier.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,111
- Likes
- 14,774
To supply one or more EQ profiles with the product would be to admit the marketing copy that probably induced the purchase is just that.
Read some of the more ambitious fluff and you'll see.
I like to eq my $20 radio shack headphones to match my $4,000 Focal Utopia pair. Because science. Only fools spend $4,000 when you can spend $20 and have $3,800 to invest in a good DSP equalizer.
cany89
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2020
- Messages
- 251
- Likes
- 127
You can check some EQ profiles from Oratory, each graph shows both with/without EQ applied. Or Resolve in youtube also measures both, so you can see the changes. I don't like the EQ settings with too many points though. Less is more. You can check out Metal571 on youtube for a bit more subjective but really great EQ settings.
- Thread Starter
- #9
Harman curve is just one of many available these days… How to differentiate objectively? Personal preference again?The idea is to correct the frequency response to match the Harmon target frequency response. (You'll have to research to learn why the preferred frequency response curve isn't flat.) There are headphones that match that curve fairly-closely without EQ.
But realistically, most people just buy headphones they like and/or EQ to taste.
someguyontheinternet
Active Member
The harman target is based on statistical evaluation of listener preference. I don't know what other targets you are referring to so I can't comment on what they are based around.
If the PEQ software used is of a decent enough quality and your HPs don't suffer from compression issues (99% of headphones don't) you should be getting what you're entering unless you enter zany Q values at the extremes, so if it's based on decent measurements that's already a good start.
Since dummy head measurements may occasionally exhibit some differences from how HPs actually measure on you head you may want to go further with on-head measurements of your own HPs, which is fairly easy to do for relative comparisons between headphones (don't get any hope about getting decent absolute values) around 50-800Hz (these for example may do the trick : https://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-TFB-2), but quite difficult above that.
Maybe not science, but at least magic with my headphones with this
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
There’s nothing scientific about correcting to a preference curve which you don’t like.
The most scientific thing to do would be to correct to what the Harman research had before they asked people what they thought and gave them treble and bass controls to play with.
The closest you’ll get to that is pretty much Harman, but flat from 200 down to 20, instead of bass rising.
And that might not be your preference either, but it’s a reasonable starting point.
Uuh...the science says that people want to correct the low and high end of the target curve. So how is doing that "not scientific"? The curve is just a baseline for what the average person prefers.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,111
- Likes
- 14,774
Not sure why there has to be science behind everything. Buy your kit including headphones based on objective measurements that meet your needs, play with non destructive eq to your hearts content. Whether that's to an established target, or just a suggestion from some random guy on the Internet.
Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
I know it’s easy to take things out of context, but I thought you could at least try to consider the whole sentence.
Once more for clarity, with emphasis.
There’s nothing scientific about correcting to a preference curve WHICH YOU DON’T LIKE.
By the way, the Harman research doesn’t say that its curve is ‘what people like’. It says it’s an average of the people they measured. They also note that, when untrained listeners were removed, the average level of bass was lower.
That’s what the research says.
You misunderstand, its not some people prefer to boost 100hz, decrease 80hz, boost 50hz and then decrease 20h again. Its still a smooth curve, just the intensity changes. So if people talk about adjusting the curve they mean keeping the smooth curve but changing the flow of it.
Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
That’s neither what I think, nor what I said.
Yorkshire Mouth
Major Contributor
Going back to the question and Harman.
The simple version - Harman took a great speaker in a great room, measured that curve, presented it to listeners and gave them bass & treble controls. In general they liked what they heard, but wanted more bass.
The science in EQ-ing headphones is taking any model which deviates from that curve, then applying EQ to modify the headphone’s raw curve to sound closer to that target.
I don’t get what’s not to get.
The simple version - Harman took a great speaker in a great room, measured that curve, presented it to listeners and gave them bass & treble controls. In general they liked what they heard, but wanted more bass.
The science in EQ-ing headphones is taking any model which deviates from that curve, then applying EQ to modify the headphone’s raw curve to sound closer to that target.
I don’t get what’s not to get.
Last edited:
Similar threads
