It is not the first time you point out that I don’t make it clear that the target is changed and this time I am not the one that point out that it is clearly stated… BTW it is also clearly indicated in the name of the EQ config file that people who actually try these EQ will download. If that's not enough i don't know what is.
So, you say:
“misleading, inconsistent, “unfounded"
"inconsistent/misleading/and poor as a whole,"
"I just wanted to make clear the illogical & misleading nature of his two EQ's he posted”
Here is the rational behind the “taste” curve that I sometimes use when the the HP has a lot of boost to be added (12dB+ and the corollary loss of dynamic range) in this case I feel that it is a lot already, plus Amirm who listen to the headphone did not fully compensate the HF so I did take that on board when I design the EQ.
Anyhow let me try to be clearer:
“Factors that Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Balance in Headphones“ https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17940
View attachment 168278
Note that the HF modification starts @800Hz with significant change @3000 - 6000Hz and up.
I think you are familiar with high-shelf biquads from what we have done on the JBL 308…
" Segmentation of Listeners Based on Their Preferred Headphone Sound Quality Profiles” https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20289
View attachment 168279
This study, demonstrated according to S. Olive that:
•A 64% (the majority) of listeners prefers headphones with a frequency response that adheres to the Harman Target Curve.
•A 15% portion of listeners prefers 3 to 6dB more bass, usually younger males and less experienced listeners.
•A 22% portion of listeners prefers 2 to 4dB less bass usually older population, and biased towards females.
Based on this data one can roughly derive preference range, neutral being the default Harman curve:
•-3dB/Neutral/+3dB/+6dB as EQ for bass preference;
•-1.5dB/Neutral/+1.5dB for as EQ for treble preference;
That mean that you can still be within the “taste zone” of the Harman target while not being completely on the “majority” curve. You just change the likelihood of the EQ to be optimal for the user, but still rather close to it...
A number of people will actually prefer that, it's also a major piece of knowledge that is often ignored.
A marketing department might even tailor the default curve to cater best for a certain audience…
is probably [email protected] [email protected]
as I have already casually observed, but the listening material also have an influence…
Again these EQ are starting point as clearly stated, for about a third of the population it is not the ideal curve...
What I propose is not random. You can question it in the details but it is perfectly honest, logic, consistent, clear and founded as a whole.
“Bad choice of aligning the target too high”
That has to do with the number of biquad.
If I did not restrict myself to the lower number possible, you are right I could have chosen a different normalization frequency.
I did not also to keep consistence with Amirm EQ but you are not wrong here. see the new EQ hereafter. initial is 6, the new one is 7 Biquads and it could probably do with one more if I really targeted the full range like I did with the [email protected]
View attachment 168277
"I will say that I realise he's doing it for free and the goodness of his heart, so I have been hard on him, and I've been dramatic in my posts, but I wanted to make the points clear & to emphasise the importance."
I did not realize that my EQs are so important and I honestly added a lot of provisions as preamble of the EQ. Like with all remedies you need to be fully aware of them before using them... I'll be adding one after that.
I’ll take that as “spare the rod and spoil the child” unless you clearly tell me otherwise.
( I hope it is the correct expression)