500hz needs to go

[gabo4au]

After many years of audio, different rooms, recording studios, headphones, and countless different speakers...

I have come to the conclusion that I have no need for flat response in the 500hz range!! I like about a 2db dip there, centered at 500hz and extending about 200-250hz in each direction. No matter how good the system or room, it always seems to sound better to my ear to cut that region.

Furthermore, I have done a very unscientific experiment over the years. Cutting that frequency for other people and asking them in an A/B test to tell me if they like it. Very close to 100% say they do!

I can even recall as a young person, many years ago, people having graphic equalizers. In their car, home, wherever. Almost all of them have a visual cut in this range.

What does your "ear" tell you?

 

[kemmler3D]

I often find cutting 400-500hz removes a "boxy", "honky" sound. However, on actually good headphones or speakers I haven't really found a need to make such cuts.

But if you want to enhance the sound in a generic way that would be high on my list, right along with boosting from 90hz on down and boosting a bit in the 2-5Khz range.

 

[kharan]

Why don't sound engineers include such a dip in the track then. Should be easy to do if it truly applied to everyone.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

They don't do that because majority of listeners prefer flat frequency response there.

 

[kyuu]

Weird, I've never felt the need to implement a cut at 500Hz in any system ever. I've also never seen a graphic equalizer set that way by anyone ever.

 

[Cogito]

Weird, I've never felt the need to implement a cut at 500Hz in any system ever. I've also never seen a graphic equalizer set that way by anyone ever.

I haven't used a graphic equalizer since the late 70s...

 

[kemmler3D]

Why don't sound engineers include such a dip in the track then. Should be easy to do if it truly applied to everyone.

If the track needs it, I am sure they do. I find that if there's a lot of extra energy in the 400-500hz range, cutting it by 2-3dB can make the bass and lower midrange sound clearer. And again to be clear I don't do this on any systems I own today. I found it enhanced certain headphones in the past.

 

[kharan]

If the track needs it, I am sure they do. I find that if there's a lot of extra energy in the 400-500hz range, cutting it by 2-3dB can make the bass and lower midrange sound clearer. And again to be clear I don't do this on any systems I own today. I found it enhanced certain headphones in the past.

My point was that OP mentioned that a 500 Hz cut was beneficial to them and "other people" within the context of "different rooms, recording studios, headphones, and countless different speakers". They are essentially making the claim that it's an almost universal cut that should be applied in many instances.

If that was the case, and the benefits for such a cut was as universal as they claim to be, then it would have been pre-applied and music would be mastered with a 500 Hz de-emphasis as a standard and OP wouldn't need to apply that cut themselves. And speakers should continue to reproduce a flat frequency response since that cut is already in the recording.

 

[fpitas]

I have nothing against 500Hz. But if you like a dip there, by all means do that.

I suspect it's your particular ears, but those are the ears you have.

 

[dasherzx]

you have an ear mode at 500hz.

 

[Tell]

After many years of audio, different rooms, recording studios, headphones, and countless different speakers...

I have come to the conclusion that I have no need for flat response in the 500hz range!! I like about a 2db dip there, centered at 500hz and extending about 200-250hz in each direction. No matter how good the system or room, it always seems to sound better to my ear to cut that region.

Furthermore, I have done a very unscientific experiment over the years. Cutting that frequency for other people and asking them in an A/B test to tell me if they like it. Very close to 100% say they do!

I can even recall as a young person, many years ago, people having graphic equalizers. In their car, home, wherever. Almost all of them have a visual cut in this range.

What does your "ear" tell you?

I agree! I've tried doing that completely flat equalization over the years but cutting down that upper bass/lower midrange is always something that I end up doing to make everything sound clearer and leas muddy.

Though I start with a peaking filter at around 120-130Hz and dial it down around 4dB to make that bass sound less boomy/bloated/muddy, and then I go up to around 500Hz with another peaking filter and lower that by maybe 2dB.

The I also have to bring up the lower bass by a few dB to not make it sound so thin.

I've been thinking if this is because of me trying to uncontiously compensating for the equal-loudness contour, but seeing that I'm using a variable loudness compensation with DSPi now and I still need to do these curves I realise that it's just that this is what ears expect to ear for everything to sound right.

So this is where I'm at right now:

I often find cutting 400-500hz removes a "boxy", "honky" sound. However, on actually good headphones or speakers I haven't really found a need to make such cuts.

But if you want to enhance the sound in a generic way that would be high on my list, right along with boosting from 90hz on down and boosting a bit in the 2-5Khz range.

On actual good IEM such as the 7Hz Zero 2 when perfectly equalized (treble exluded) to whatever target curve they will sound more or less likemy curve above. Of course not exactly, but especially if the bass needs to match what I hear it defintiely needs to be boosted from a flat room curve by quite many decibels imo.
Also having that downward slope in the response that I see everywhere is something I will never understand, it will sound dull and boring imo.

 

[kemmler3D]

I agree! I've tried doing that completely flat equalization over the years but cutting down that upper bass/lower midrange is always something that I end up doing to make everything sound clearer and leas muddy.

Though I start with a peaking filter at around 120-130Hz and dial it down around 4dB to make that bass sound less boomy/bloated/muddy, and then I go up to around 500Hz with another peaking filter and lower that by maybe 2dB.

The I also have to bring up the lower bass by a few dB to not make it sound so thin.

I've been thinking if this is because of me trying to uncontiously compensating for the equal-loudness contour, but seeing that I'm using a variable loudness compensation with DSPi now and I still need to do these curves I realise that it's just that this is what ears expect to ear for everything to sound right.

So this is where I'm at right now:

View attachment 554501


On actual good IEM such as the 7Hz Zero 2 when perfectly equalized (treble exluded) to whatever target curve they will sound more or less likemy curve above. Of course not exactly, but especially if the bass needs to match what I hear it defintiely needs to be boosted from a flat room curve by quite many decibels imo.
Also having that downward slope in the response that I see everywhere is something I will never understand, it will sound dull and boring imo.

To me this looks like aversion to boominess and a personal preference... I wouldn't say I don't share, it but I'm trying to deal with it in other ways.

I think the an underlying cause of finding this frequency range unpleasant is decay times building up and becoming noticeably "boomy" or masking the mids. I think I'm just sensitized to this from so many years listening to subs mostly in small rooms. I am not sure how to explain it in terms of headphones.