First reason suggest a precision filter was because of the unique low AP benchmarked distortion for LCD-X verse HD650, next reason is in support files method can save Amir some research time well other for case than he had to send me the real files all he need to do now is a listening test and even if it fails or succeed its probably also interesting stuff for him in process can probably also hint a bit about his loaned lab gear and used methods, for example about dedicated correction myself had very positive experience order head phones with a dedicated correction from Sonarworks even those set of cans was low cost compared to for example HD650, that said i try hold bit back comment on your personal Q rules and to other user comments never boost only do cuts because there is so much into EQ in modern days where real many system chains has excess phase verse in the past using pure analog circuits plus its not always sure a digital equalizer claimed or suspected to be of minumum phase is performing 100% minimum phase, and yes acoustic EQ is hard to execute right because most often measurements are executed with less precision than in a electric domain but if we up that and magnitude deviations are linear then EQ in acoustic domain is as precise as in electric or digital domain. It was not my meaning get started on EQ subject but i did a bit long story there sorry and now cant stop hang on below dedicated corrections for those low cost cans below and notice there is didicated corrections L verse R channel in all audioband including above 10kHz area its the upper one that is the dedicated to my serial number and the lower one is their avarage profile, these cans for me are unlisteable raw and think most will agree, they okay listenable using avarage profile and they shine using the dedicated..Sure, there's no problem in trying them, but the research is there to show that there's no point (& detrimental by extension I suppose) making fine corrections above 10kHz, and also filling in all those sharp peaks in the treble I also don't agree with, but no harm in trying it of course.....
Most normal advantage is we can do whatever FIR filter there but for this case advantage is it takes less than five minuttes create precise inverse Harman target verse the raw LCD-X curve and doing same precision curve using PEQs would probably take hours and maybe use numbers of PEQs up in three digit area......What are the advantages of convolution vs regular parametric EQ filters?
Last edited: