autoeq.app Is a Web Application for Equalizing Headphones the Easy Way

[alumnicesar]

1. Is it still true that the eq is different than harman because of gain reasons?

2. is the preference score purely harman?

3. when can we see the zero:red and blessing 3, etc. on there?

4. from what basis is -1.0 db the best tilt for 5128 measurements? Wouldn't that be too bass light? I'm assuming the treble is most accurate to harman with -1.0 vs other tilts like crinacle's default -0.8?

 

[staticV3]

3. when can we see the zero:red and blessing 3, etc. on there?

The Red and Blessing 3 can already be selected:
View attachment 299670
Though keep in mind that they're both B&K 5128 measurements, so fundamentally incompatible with IEC 60318-4 targets like Harman IE, IEF Neutral, etc.

If you want to EQ the Red or B3 to an IEC 60318-4 target using autoeq.app, then you can always download the appropriate frequency response measurement from Amir's review, or from one of the numerous squig.link databases, then import it into squig.link with this button:

 

[alumnicesar]

The Red and Blessing 3 can already be selected:
View attachment 299663 View attachment 299670
Though keep in mind that they're both B&K 5128 measurements, so fundamentally incompatible with IEC 60318-4 targets like Harman IE, IEF Neutral, etc.

If you want to EQ the Red or B3 to an IEC 60318-4 target using autoeq.app, then you can always download the appropriate frequency response measurement from Amir's review, or from one of the numerous squig.link databases, then import it into squig.link with this button:

Weird, they're not on the ranking list

 

[staticV3]

Weird, they're not on the ranking list

Not weird, because B&K 5128 measurements are incompatible with the algorithm that's used to calculate the ranking.

 

[alumnicesar]

Not weird, because B&K 5128 measurements are incompatible with the algorithm that's used to calculate the ranking.

Aren't they also measured on crinacle's other system?

 

[staticV3]

Aren't they also measured on crinacle's other system?

They are, but @jaakkopasanen hasn't found the time to import them into the AutoEQ database yet.

 

[Muflatschki Gurkovski]

I also prefer the "flat" target with the shuoer s12, before AND after accomodation!
All the other targets (harman) sound worse than un-eqed to me.

 

[reficver]

Can add messurement MV1 from Rtings to AutoEQapp?

Sony MDR-MV1 Review

The Sony MDR-MV1 are reference-grade open-backs with dynamic drivers. Designed for mixing and mastering audio, these cans stand out from Sony's closed-back audio...

www.rtings.com

 

[jaakkopasanen]

Can add messurement MV1 from Rtings to AutoEQapp?

Sony MDR-MV1 Review

The Sony MDR-MV1 are reference-grade open-backs with dynamic drivers. Designed for mixing and mastering audio, these cans stand out from Sony's closed-back audio...

www.rtings.com

I'll update the databases when I have time. I'm traveling at the moment so it'll take a bit.

 

[jb90]

Hi! I tried all targets in autoeq and many others from .csv files from this forum and still I think that I haven't found optimal. It wouldn't be a problem if I would use headphones mainly for listening but I use them for mixing and critical listening. Which target would be as close as possible to "flat/neutral" in that case? Many sources said Harman but Harman is just an average target based of bunch listeners preferences not actually what is close to flat/neutral response. And definitely I hear too much bass and not enough openess of treble region with Harman OE 2018. What should I do? Maybe you have your custom targets in .csv files to share? I would love to check some more and maybe find one as close "perfection" as it would be possible. I know that at least one person here use headphones to professional work with sound What is your approach? Thanks!

 

[Zensō]

Hi! I tried all targets in autoeq and many others from .csv files from this forum and still I think that I haven't found optimal. It wouldn't be a problem if I would use headphones mainly for listening but I use them for mixing and critical listening. Which target would be as close as possible to "flat/neutral" in that case? Many sources said Harman but Harman is just an average target based of bunch listeners preferences not actually what is close to flat/neutral response. And definitely I hear too much bass and not enough openess of treble region with Harman OE 2018. What should I do? Maybe you have your custom targets in .csv files to share? I would love to check some more and maybe find one as close "perfection" as it would be possible. I know that at least one person here use headphones to professional work with sound What is your approach? Thanks!

Actually, the Harman curve was tested for preference, but it is modeled after the frequency response of a good speaker in a well treated room, so similar to flat studio monitors in recording studio control rooms. The Sonarworks “flat” SR curve is very similar to Harman, but with a bass shelf that starts approximately one octave lower.

This article may be helpful: Oratory1990 Harman

 

[Volutrik]

Hi! I tried all targets in autoeq and many others from .csv files from this forum and still I think that I haven't found optimal. It wouldn't be a problem if I would use headphones mainly for listening but I use them for mixing and critical listening. Which target would be as close as possible to "flat/neutral" in that case? Many sources said Harman but Harman is just an average target based of bunch listeners preferences not actually what is close to flat/neutral response. And definitely I hear too much bass and not enough openess of treble region with Harman OE 2018. What should I do? Maybe you have your custom targets in .csv files to share? I would love to check some more and maybe find one as close "perfection" as it would be possible. I know that at least one person here use headphones to professional work with sound What is your approach? Thanks!

Hello, jb!

Actually, the Harman target is supposed to "mimic" the frequency response of flat speakers in a well treated room. It doesn't include the crossfeed aspect of speakers nor any of this, just the frequency response aspect. The preference part is kind of the icing on the cake, where listeners further "sculpt" the sound of the target curve. The treble preference didn't vary much from the original target, the main differences were in the bass region (105Hz and below, a low shelf).

Now, don't get me wrong, the Harman target isn't the definitive target curve, mainly because the GRAS rig doesn't include the ear cannal's impact on frequency response.
For contextualization on the above mentioned, every measuring rig have their own impact on the final measured frequency response. The GRAS rig was the one used to make the original Harman target, therefore you want to use measurements done with that rig to get results that properly translate with the target. The Oratory1990 measurements are the most well known and are mainly the ones available in Autoeq.

Currently, there is a new rig available made by Bruel & Kjaer called "5128" that includes the ear cannal's influence in sound. There isn't a equivalent to the Harman target for that rig yet, but there is an attempt that tries to mimic the sound of it. If you have headphones that were measured with that rig, I'd suggest you to try the EQ profiles. It's probably the best approximation to a flat sound nowadays, at least that I know of.
Here's a video that explains that attempt:

 

[Zensō]

Hello, jb!

Actually, the Harman target is supposed to "mimic" the frequency response of flat speakers in a well treated room. It doesn't include the crossfeed aspect of speakers nor any of this, just the frequency response aspect. The preference part is kind of the icing on the cake, where listeners further "sculpt" the sound of the target curve. The treble preference didn't vary much from the original target, the main differences were in the bass region (105Hz and below, a low shelf).

Now, don't get me wrong, the Harman target isn't the definitive target curve, mainly because the GRAS rig doesn't include the ear cannal's impact on frequency response.
For contextualization on the above mentioned, every measuring rig have their own impact on the final measured frequency response. The GRAS rig was the one used to make the original Harman target, therefore you want to use measurements done with that rig to get results that properly translate with the target. The Oratory1990 measurements are the most well known and are mainly the ones available in Autoeq.

Currently, there is a new rig available made by Bruel & Kjaer called "5128". There isn't a equivalent to the Harman target for that rig yet, but there is an attempt that tries to mimic the sound of it. If you have headphones that were measured with that rig, I'd suggest you to try the EQ profiles. It's probably the best approximation to a flat sound nowadays, at least that I know of.
Here's a video that explains that attempt:

In my opinion, the target for the 5128 Is still very much a work in progress and most would be better off to use Harman or Sonarworks for the time being. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to try out the available EQ profiles, but my experience so far has been mixed at best.

 

[jb90]

Hello, jb!

Actually, the Harman target is supposed to "mimic" the frequency response of flat speakers in a well treated room. It doesn't include the crossfeed aspect of speakers nor any of this, just the frequency response aspect. The preference part is kind of the icing on the cake, where listeners further "sculpt" the sound of the target curve. The treble preference didn't vary much from the original target, the main differences were in the bass region (105Hz and below, a low shelf).

Now, don't get me wrong, the Harman target isn't the definitive target curve, mainly because the GRAS rig doesn't include the ear cannal's impact on frequency response.
For contextualization on the above mentioned, every measuring rig have their own impact on the final measured frequency response. The GRAS rig was the one used to make the original Harman target, therefore you want to use measurements done with that rig to get results that properly translate with the target. The Oratory1990 measurements are the most well known and are mainly the ones available in Autoeq.

Currently, there is a new rig available made by Bruel & Kjaer called "5128". There isn't a equivalent to the Harman target for that rig yet, but there is an attempt that tries to mimic the sound of it. If you have headphones that were measured with that rig, I'd suggest you to try the EQ profiles. It's probably the best approximation to a flat sound nowadays, at least that I know of.
Here's a video that explains that attempt:

Actually most of my headphones have been measured by oratory1990 and use his measurements in autoeq. I noticed that "diffuse field 5128 -1db" with tilt 0.2 and "harman bass shelf" (105hz Q=0.7 +5 db) is very close what I like. But still I'm not certain about amount of bass I should use and not so sure about treble too. Sounds very natural to me but depends of calibration (how exact treble region is calibrated) could sound harsh, muffled or not so open and clean so there are probably some discrepancies from, i would say, 6k and higher. And, again, what I like it's still not the "as close to neutral/flat as possible".

 

[Volutrik]

In my opinion, the target for the 5128 Is still very much a work in progress and most would be better off to use Harman or Sonarworks for the time being.

Yeah! I agree. But the Sonarworks target always sounded grainy/rispid to me, like you can clearly hear the equalization impact in frequencies above 3kHz. It's like there's a veil between you and the sound, if that even makes sense. I wonder if you all feel the same!

 

[Zensō]

Actually most of my headphones have been measured by oratory1990 and use his measurements in autoeq. I noticed that "diffuse field 5128 -1db" with tilt 0.2 and "harman bass shelf" (105hz Q=0.7 +5 db) is very close what I like. But still I'm not certain about amount of bass I should use and not so sure about treble too. Sounds very natural to me but depends of calibration (how exact treble region is calibrated) could sound harsh, muffled or not so open and clean so there are probably some discrepancies from, i would say, 6k and higher.

The problem, of course, is that “what we like” is unlikely to be what is best for mixing and mastering.

 

[Zensō]

Yeah! I agree. But the Sonarworks target always sounded grainy/rispid to me, like you can clearly hear the equalization impact in frequencies above 3kHz. It's like there's a veil between you and the sound, if that even makes sense. I wonder if you all feel the same!

It varies. Depending upon the headphone I move back and forth between Harman and Sonarworks, using my Genelec monitors as a reference.

 

[jb90]

The problem, of course, is that “what we like” is unlikely what is best for mixing and mastering.

Yes. That's what I edited It's still what I like not what it should be flat. So should I just leave it as it is and don't care about my preferences in that case? I mean use ex. factory Harman OE 2018 in autoeq and don't tweak it? Btw. do you have Sonarworks target in .csv? I asked Sonarworks guys many times about their target but they just said "flat" (in short).

 

[Volutrik]

Would be cool if it was possible to simulate how those measurements would be if your own ears were used, instead of the dummy head's ones. I think this is possible by gathering the dummy's Ear Related Transfer Function and "merging" with your own ERTF. Then, doing this with the 5128 rig would give even better results, because of the ear cannal averaging that it has.

 

[Volutrik]

Yes. That's what I edited It's still what I like not what it should be flat. So should I just leave it as it is and don't care about my preferences in that case? I mean use ex. factory Harman OE 2018 in autoeq and don't tweak it? Btw. do you have Sonarworks target in .csv? I asked Sonarworks guys many times about their target but they just said "flat" (in short).

I guess acbarn's take is the best solution for now. Listen to Harman and Sonarworks and pick the one that you feel most comfortable with/think that gives you the best analytic feel. But first adjust Harman so that it has a good amount of bass.