Beginner Questions Thread

[SuperWookie]

Hey everyone. Im new here. Just recently purchased my first “high” end headphones and DAC/Amp, the DCA Aeon X Closed and SMSL DL200. And I have a bunch of beginner questions. So I thought I'd ask them one at a time in this thread and hopefully more experienced users can chime in and help me understand things. And also hoping it will lead to more discussions about things a lot of us beginners don't understand but want to. So my format will be asking one question at a time, discussing until I feel comfortable with the answer and then posting a new question in the same thread. That way it leaves a trail of questions and answers for other people for posterity.

First off, I do have some experience with headphones, EQ’ng and general knowledge of speakers and headphones, so I’m not a complete newb. But I’m definitely not an expert or even knowledgeable to the degree most of you guys are. But obviously I want to learn and become more proficient in learning about EQ and how to use it and understand it. As well as learn and understand about all the different types of graphs and charts I see in relation to the EQ of headphones and their measured responses. My only previous experience with headphones and IEM’s prior to this new setup was "better" general consumer grade products and then a few years ago picked up the obligatory ATH-M50x. And then a few months after that picked up the Hidiz MP145 planer IEMs along with the powerful dongle Dac/Amp, the FiiO K5. Both were a fairly large difference from whatever crap I had used over the years. Especially the Hidiz MP145 IEMs. It introduced me to more of that “hifi” sound that brings a more balanced sound with excellent detail and clarity.

So I decided to start messing around with the EQ with these DCA Aeon X's and trying to see how EQ works and what I like. And in doing so, have a bunch of new questions while doing research and trying to become knowledgeable about the subject.

So my first question is related to the EQ tilt of headphones/speaker’s vs what I see in all the graphs and charts. So I have read that most humans enjoy the sound of a frequency response that tilts ever so slightly downward. This website article HERE discusses and shows the downward tilt I'm referring too. While still having slighty elevated highs over mids. But the bass and low mids are the highest gain and then it just keeps tilting slightly down to the right. They usually refer to it as the DF +10db slope. And yet, 99% of the EQ graphs or measure FR I see for headphones and what is objectively the “best” sound that most people enjoy is not tilted at all. It’s actually very different. It looks more like a snake. It’s somewhere between +3-6 db in the sub bass, bass and low mids, then the mids come down to either flat or just below or just above 0db. Then the upper mids and treble goes up very high. Like +7-10db! It looks like a massive roller coaster. So that is my first question. Why do certain websites talk about this tilted FR, show it and discuss how it’s the preferred sound for speakers and headphones, yet all the graphs show something completely different?

Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The DCA E3 from 2 different websites shows the EQ curve being different on each one. One of them shows it tilting down. While the other more closely follows the Harman Curve. What gives?!

And another example of the Denon AH-D5200.

Same thing HERE. I read this article real early on when doing my initial search for the best closed back headphones under $500. And ALL the EQ charts show a downward tilt. They even say the downward tilt range is the preferred sound of most humans. And yet I've never seen a FR of headphones or IEMs like this before. This is news to me. Almost all FR charts show something that looks more like the Harman curve.

I’m not understanding this and hoping someone can explain all of this in easy to understand layman’s terms. When I read about the different types of EQ or FR charts HERE or anywhere else for that matter, I really don't understand almost any of what they're trying to say. It's so confusing and makes no sense right now. I see raw measurements, compensated, calibrated, error, target, etc etc. ALL sorts of confusing charts and graphs that I really don't understand right now. And hoping you guys can help. Thanks

 

[somebodyelse]

There's a 3-part series that should cover most/all of that, starting here:
https://www.****************/2020/04/harman-target-curves-part-1/

 

[solderdude]

Hey everyone. Im new here. Just recently purchased my first “high” end headphones and DAC/Amp, the DCA Aeon X Closed and SMSL DL200. And I have a bunch of beginner questions. So I thought I'd ask them one at a time in this thread and hopefully more experienced users can chime in and help me understand things. And also hoping it will lead to more discussions about things a lot of us beginners don't understand but want to. So my format will be asking one question at a time, discussing until I feel comfortable with the answer and then posting a new question in the same thread. That way it leaves a trail of questions and answers for other people for posterity.

First off, I do have some experience with headphones, EQ’ng and general knowledge of speakers and headphones, so I’m not a complete newb. But I’m definitely not an expert or even knowledgeable to the degree most of you guys are. But obviously I want to learn and become more proficient in learning about EQ and how to use it and understand it. As well as learn and understand about all the different types of graphs and charts I see in relation to the EQ of headphones and their measured responses. My only previous experience with headphones and IEM’s prior to this new setup was "better" general consumer grade products and then a few years ago picked up the obligatory ATH-M50x. And then a few months after that picked up the Hidiz MP145 planer IEMs along with the powerful dongle Dac/Amp, the FiiO K5. Both were a fairly large difference from whatever crap I had used over the years. Especially the Hidiz MP145 IEMs. It introduced me to more of that “hifi” sound that brings a more balanced sound with excellent detail and clarity.

So I decided to start messing around with the EQ with these DCA Aeon X's and trying to see how EQ works and what I like. And in doing so, have a bunch of new questions while doing research and trying to become knowledgeable about the subject.

So my first question is related to the EQ tilt of headphones/speaker’s vs what I see in all the graphs and charts. So I have read that most humans enjoy the sound of a frequency response that tilts ever so slightly downward. This website article HERE discusses and shows the downward tilt I'm referring too. While still having slighty elevated highs over mids. But the bass and low mids are the highest gain and then it just keeps tilting slightly down to the right. They usually refer to it as the DF +10db slope. And yet, 99% of the EQ graphs or measure FR I see for headphones and what is objectively the “best” sound that most people enjoy is not tilted at all. It’s actually very different. It looks more like a snake. It’s somewhere between +3-6 db in the sub bass, bass and low mids, then the mids come down to either flat or just below or just above 0db. Then the upper mids and treble goes up very high. Like +7-10db! It looks like a massive roller coaster. So that is my first question. Why do certain websites talk about this tilted FR, show it and discuss how it’s the preferred sound for speakers and headphones, yet all the graphs show something completely different?

Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The DCA E3 from 2 different websites shows the EQ curve being different on each one. One of them shows it tilting down. While the other more closely follows the Harman Curve. What gives?!
View attachment 495948
View attachment 495949


And another example of the Denon AH-D5200.
View attachment 495952
View attachment 495953

Same thing HERE. I read this article real early on when doing my initial search for the best closed back headphones under $500. And ALL the EQ charts show a downward tilt. They even say the downward tilt range is the preferred sound of most humans. And yet I've never seen a FR of headphones or IEMs like this before. This is news to me. Almost all FR charts show something that looks more like the Harman curve.
View attachment 495959

I’m not understanding this and hoping someone can explain all of this in easy to understand layman’s terms. When I read about the different types of EQ or FR charts HERE or anywhere else for that matter, I really don't understand almost any of what they're trying to say. It's so confusing and makes no sense right now. I see raw measurements, compensated, calibrated, error, target, etc etc. ALL sorts of confusing charts and graphs that I really don't understand right now. And hoping you guys can help. Thanks

• When you measure a headphone on different test fixtures you get different results.
• When one uses different 'targets' you get different plots and different EQ suggestions.
• Your ears will differ from the fake ears on test fixtures
• You may have a different seal from the ideal (hairs, glasses)
• You may be wearing it in a different position than it was on the test fixture
• You may have different copy from the ones that were measured (production tolerance)
• You may have different tonal preference from any of the targets

Headphone measurements are NOT an exact science.
Headphone measurements are indicative at best and, as can be seen on the plots you showed, there is a rather broad 'tolerance band'.
Consider that a few dB difference in a rather wide bandwidth are very audible.
a few dB difference in a narrow frequency band is not nearly as audible.

 

[SuperWookie]

There's a 3-part series that should cover most/all of that, starting here:

• When you measure a headphone on different test fixtures you get different results.
• When one uses different 'targets' you get different plots and different EQ suggestions.
• Your ears will differ from the fake ears on test fixtures
• You may have a different seal from the ideal (hairs, glasses)
• You may be wearing it in a different position than it was on the test fixture
• You may have different copy from the ones that were measured (production tolerance)
• You may have different tonal preference from any of the targets

Headphone measurements are NOT an exact science.
Headphone measurements are indicative at best and, as can be seen on the plots you showed, there is a rather broad 'tolerance band'.
Consider that a few dB difference in a rather wide bandwidth are very audible.
a few dB difference in a narrow frequency band is not nearly as audible.

So I'll respond to both of your replies at once to make this easier.

To the first response:
I have read most of those 3 articles prior to you suggesting them. I read them a few weeks ago. And I don’t remember anything in them talking about this downward slope frequency response that I'm seeing and asking about. So I just re-read them all to make sure, and sure enough, there's nothing in there that explains what my original question asks or talks about in regards to downward tilted slopes in FR charts at all.

I'm asking specifically about this downward tilted chart I see being used to show headphones frequency responses. There's also information in audio articles all over the internet saying: "most humans prefer a slightly downward sloping EQ frequency response. Where the bass has the most + db's and then steadily heading down to the treble that has the least." That it sounds the most pleasing to most humans. And yet... 99.9% of the charts I see for headphone frequency response look much more like the last photo/chart I'm posting here. It looks like a roller coaster. Starts at med height (the bass is boosted +2-6db, then a DIP down into the mids (either flat or slightly recessed), then UP again at the end (into the treble). While the charts I'm showing you and asking you about show an almost completely consistent dip down from left to right. Why? What are these charts? How should I read them compared to the old or "normal" charts I see everywhere. Which is the one you should use to base your EQ changes on (cuts or boosts)?

See these charts right here from a fairly new Headphones.com "Best Closed Back Headphones" article (May, 2025). See how it slopes down from around +9db in the bass to it's lowest pt at -5.5db at 5k. And overall it has a downward tilt towards the right. This is NOT what 99.9% of all other frequency response charts I've seen in the past and up to seeing this kind of chart look like. So it's confusing me. And those 3 articles don't discuss this at all. There's nothing in there about this. And, I've also read multiple articles on the internet saying THIS frequency response shown below is what most human ears prefer. A slightly downward tilting response. And yet 99.9% of headphones and IEMs do NOT have this type of frequency response. So what's the deal? That's what I'm asking specifically.

Here's more of the same of other headphones. ALSO showing this downward tilt from bass to treble:

But here is what a "typical" frequency response chart looks like for the exact same headphone from the first photo (Focal Azurys just as a random ex). Not at all the same for the majority of the graph. They're both the same for a tiny bit from 20 to around 200, but that is where the similarities stop. From then on, the first graph shows the headphone continually going down (even though it has a few upwards peaks around 3500, 6500, 9000 and 15000, they're still lower than the bass region), while the second graph shows the entire FR going UP from 200. Which will make a MASSIVE difference in how the headphone sounds. If I were to look at these, I'd think the first headphone would be VERY bass heavy, very muffled and very warm. While the last one right here below would sound the most normal. But I'm almost 100% sure that isn't the case. So I'm just trying to figure out what the exact difference between these types of charts are? Why the difference? What is the point of one or the other? Which one is more accurate as to what we really hear? Which is the one I should use to EQ my headphones to cut or boost certain frequencies? Why show this new one and confuse millions of people?

The first graph says it's a "COMPENSATED" FR, while the second graph says it's a "RAW" FR (no idea what that means). So when I google what that even means, the general idea is that the RAW measurement is what ACTUALLY comes out of the headphone. While the compensated "is the 'as perceived' experience, adjusted for how our ears and brain interpret sound. Most users find compensated graphs more helpful for judging sound quality, while raw graphs are better for deep technical comparisons."

Which I mostly understand. I understand that our ears and shapes or our pinna and ear canal and how the headphone sits on our head all contribute to how the headphone sounds. But what I don't understand is which graph I should be looking at to know HOW to cut or boost with EQ to make the headphone sound closer to the "preferred Harman Curve range or within the preference bounds"? Or just to my own preference. Do I use the RAW graph or the COMPENSATED graph to boost or cut?




Response to the second reply:
Thank you for this. I know most of this. I understand all of what you posted. I understand that there are no stds "per say". I understand that if you use two different devices to measure, you'll get two different FR charts. And that depending on this, that and the other, the measurements can all be slightly different. But then, why even measure at all? Why even use FR charts at all? If they mean nothing, or are very inconclusive, then why use them? Why are there millions of people who do this for living? Why are there hundreds of millions of dollars spent by companies that use these FR charts to create headphones and speakers? Why do millions of people reference these graphs and charts to get an idea of what a speaker or headphone sounds like? To EQ it a certain way. Etc, etc, etc. Do you see what I'm getting at? They obviously DO have a purpose and ARE helpful. And all I'm looking for is some easy to understand answers to some easy to answer questions because I'm new to this. I don't fully understand everything, but would like to know more. And specifically more about this downward tilting FR chart I am seeing on Headphones.com and a few other places. If I had to make my best educated guess, it "seems" as if it's a new way to measure headphones? Or something new. Because I only see it mostly on headphones.com articles that are newer or their YT website. But that's just a guess. I don't really know and would like to know. So can you answer my question/s?



Thank you both

 

[Randolf]

I think differences come from a) different test rigs GRAS vs. B&K and b) compensated versus raw data graphs. https://headphones.com/blogs/features/a-reviewers-guide-to-understanding-graphs-the-b-k-5128-edition provides more details.

 

[solderdude]

But then, why even measure at all?

Because results on the same type of fixture with the same target are comparable. That's what standards are for.

Why even use FR charts at all? If they mean nothing, or are very inconclusive, then why use them?

They do not mean nothing. From 100Hz to 6kHz is where most of the tonality in a headphone comes from and accuracy to the standard (when using the right target) is still a good measurement.

Why are there millions of people who do this for living?

Because they need to eat and most are really interested in what they are working with.

Why are there hundreds of millions of dollars spent by companies that use these FR charts to create headphones and speakers?

The amount seems a bit high. Measurements are very valuable, especially during the design and production process.

They obviously DO have a purpose and ARE helpful

Sure they are... headphone measurements above 6kHz are just not reliable. There is tons of research about this that literally shows this.

And specifically more about this downward tilting FR chart I am seeing on Headphones.com and a few other places.

It is called tilted DF and there are some people that think this is a better target than Harman.
The idea is that speakers in a room also have a tonal downward tilt and headphones should mimic that.

Measurement data is the same, used fixtures are the same... the compensation differs and is basically the Diffuse Field compensation for that fixture with a 'tilt' added and yields another plot. They believe that plot has a better relation with how they perceive it.
It is NOT a target that is widely adopted by science.

 

[pablolie]

When someone initially claims to be a newbie, yet within 3 posts asks "why measure at all?" you know you are being somewhat trolled.

 

[DVDdoug]

So my first question is related to the EQ tilt of headphones/speaker’s vs what I see in all the graphs and charts. So I have read that most humans enjoy the sound of a frequency response that tilts ever so slightly downward.

Speakers are different from headphones - If you take a good speaker/monitor with flat on-axis frequency response and smooth off-axis response and stick it in a good room, the combined direct and reflected sound creates a downward slope. The producer and mixing & mastering engineers try to make the recording "sound perfect" under those conditions so that's how we'd like to reproduce the music at home... We want speakers that are flat on-axis. smooth off-axis, and we want good room acoustics.

Since I assume we have the same preferences with headphones, I assume the Harmon headphone preference approximates the same frequency response perception as good speakers in a good room, but not the same measurements. I tend to trust the Harman experiments but if you repeat the experiments with different listeners and different program material, you're going to get somewhat different results.

Why even use FR charts at all?

Frequency response is the most important aspect of headphone "sound quality". The measurements here on ASR are comparable since they are made with the same fixture and the same overall setup (within the tolerances/limitations/variations in the setup).

So... If you have comparable measurements for your headphones you have a reference and you can get a good idea of YOUR preferences and you can compare the curves of various headphones. Maybe you like what you have, or maybe you like some EQ and as long as you know what EQ settings you are using you can understand your own preferences.

Understanding Headphone Measurements (Video by our host, Amir). He does discuss the uncertainties in the measurements and the fact that you can't EQ one measurement setup to measure exactly like another.

Headphone Measurements (Dan Clark video with ironically bad audio). Interestingly, he mentions that more distortion is sometimes described as "more detail".

...I also found this Headphone soundstage survey interesting. Everybody seems to talk about headphone soundstage but I don't get anything like a realistic soundstage illusion and it turns out that most other people don't either.

 

[SuperWookie]

When someone initially claims to be a newbie, yet within 3 posts asks "why measure at all?" you know you are being somewhat trolled.

What the heck are you two talking about?! A troll?! I'm new to this forum and "hifi" audio. I'm trying to learn, trying to get a simple answer to a simple question and instead I get A hole responses like this?!?! Are you kidding me?! I thought this place was supposed to be more high level, less arguing and pissing contests than Headfi or other typical places on the internet?!

I responded to solderdude with all those "why even measure at all" questions because I was being nice. What I wanted to say, was that his answer seemed like a complete cop out and avoided answering my simple question. Which made me wonder, does he even know the answer to my question? But again, since I'm new here and try to be polite to people online, since so many people are nasty, rude, short and unhelpful (as evident by you, solderdude and Ingmishael's responses), I didn't say that. And since I'm not trying to start anything here and just want to learn, I instead posited my questions of WHY even do any of this if it's so wildly inaccurate because it seemed like avoidance or ignorance. It seemed like he didn't know the answer and I wanted to politely ask him why even do any of this then?! And instead he totally back tracks with his follow up response and now two of you are claiming I'm a troll!?

He literally just railed off all sorts of extremely vague responses like: everything is different, nothing is the same, all rigs measure differently, all FR are different depending on the rig, everyone's head and ear is different. WOW! Thanks Mister Wizard. Please tell me more about why the sky is blue? Why water is wet? Instead of just answering my question he then goes on to state:
Headphone measurements are NOT an exact science.
Headphone measurements are indicative at best

His entire response indicates that none of this is really worth any of our time. That it's a futile waste of time and resources, since it's not an exact science and "indicative" AT BEST. That FR graphs and all of this measuring is just hocus pocus and we'd be better off spending our time doing something else. And instead of just simply answering the question like a normal human being would do, he then back tracks on everything in his follow up response.

The stuff he mentions in his first post is stuff I already know and once again DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. I'm not a total beginner and I specifically stated that in my first post. Meaning I've read up on stuff, I'm learning, I know more than a complete newb, but I'm nowhere near the level of most of you. And I came to this specific forum because it "seemed" like this was the place for more serious discussions and help. And instead of helping me out and answering my question like DVDdoug eventually did, he trolls me! And you two have the nerve to call me a troll. REAL nice! I'm just trying to learn, become better educated on all of this, am not quite understanding something, ask a question and instead of a simple easy to understand answer in layman's terms like I politely asked for, I get an extremely vague completely unhelpful response and two people calling me a troll?! Hahaha. Do you see the irony here?! Who's the troll here?! The new guy trying to learn and ask questions politely? Or the 3 guys being snickering little A holes, being rude, being unhelpful and then trying to gaslight me! The internet NEVER ceases to amaze me with the amount of trash it contains. Thanks for the great intro to the forum guys! I'll make sure to steer clear of you 3 from now on.

 

[pablolie]

.... Who's the troll here?!

Current vote count is 2:1 against you.

... politely? ...

Your concept of politeness is others' definition of utter rudeness. Your tirade shows where you really come from. Welcome to the "ignore" list & have a great rest of your life.

 

[SuperWookie]

Speakers are different from headphones - If you take a good speaker/monitor with flat on-axis frequency response and smooth off-axis response and stick it in a good room, the combined direct and reflected sound creates a downward slope. The producer and mixing & mastering engineers try to make the recording "sound perfect" under those conditions so that's how we'd like to reproduce the music at home... We want speakers that are flat on-axis. smooth off-axis, and we want good room acoustics.

Since I assume we have the same preferences with headphones, I assume the Harmon headphone preference approximates the same frequency response perception as good speakers in a good room, but not the same measurements. I tend to trust the Harman experiments but if you repeat the experiments with different listeners and different program material, you're going to get somewhat different results.


Frequency response is the most important aspect of headphone "sound quality". The measurements here on ASR are comparable since they are made with the same fixture and the same overall setup (within the tolerances/limitations/variations in the setup).

So... If you have comparable measurements for your headphones you have a reference and you can get a good idea of YOUR preferences and you can compare the curves of various headphones. Maybe you like what you have, or maybe you like some EQ and as long as you know what EQ settings you are using you can understand your own preferences.

Understanding Headphone Measurements (Video by our host, Amir). He does discuss the uncertainties in the measurements and the fact that you can't EQ one measurement setup to measure exactly like another.

Headphone Measurements (Dan Clark video with ironically bad audio). Interestingly, he mentions that more distortion is sometimes described as "more detail".

...I also found this Headphone soundstage survey interesting. Everybody seems to talk about headphone soundstage but I don't get anything like a realistic soundstage illusion and it turns out that most other people don't either.

Speakers are different from headphones - If you take a good speaker/monitor with flat on-axis frequency response and smooth off-axis response and stick it in a good room, the combined direct and reflected sound creates a downward slope. The producer and mixing & mastering engineers try to make the recording "sound perfect" under those conditions so that's how we'd like to reproduce the music at home... We want speakers that are flat on-axis. smooth off-axis, and we want good room acoustics.

See, THIS is exactly what I was looking for! An easy to understand explanation for someone that is not an audio engineer. Thank you DVDdoug! VERY helpful explanation and now those Headphone.com FR graphs I've been seeing lately make TOTAL sense. It also helps that I just read this article that goes into the topic in more detail. Your answer is MUCH easier to understand though. I swear, these articles and videos that are supposedly made for beginners or intermediates on these topics are anything but easy to understand. After reading most of them, I still only have a vague understanding of what they are trying to convey and your response right here just cut to the chase and explained it all in a very easy to understand way and now I get it. Mostly, haha.

Since I assume we have the same preferences with headphones, I assume the Harmon headphone preference approximates the same frequency response perception as good speakers in a good room, but not the same measurements. I tend to trust the Harman experiments but if you repeat the experiments with different listeners and different program material, you're going to get somewhat different results.


Frequency response is the most important aspect of headphone "sound quality". The measurements here on ASR are comparable since they are made with the same fixture and the same overall setup (within the tolerances/limitations/variations in the setup).

Understood

So... If you have comparable measurements for your headphones you have a reference and you can get a good idea of YOUR preferences and you can compare the curves of various headphones. Maybe you like what you have, or maybe you like some EQ and as long as you know what EQ settings you are using you can understand your own preferences.

Yes, totally. I understand now from your explanation. Thank you!

Understanding Headphone Measurements (Video by our host, Amir). He does discuss the uncertainties in the measurements and the fact that you can't EQ one measurement setup to measure exactly like another.

Headphone Measurements (Dan Clark video with ironically bad audio). Interestingly, he mentions that more distortion is sometimes described as "more detail".

...I also found this Headphone soundstage survey interesting. Everybody seems to talk about headphone soundstage but I don't get anything like a realistic soundstage illusion and it turns out that most other people don't either.

I'll watch those 2 videos you linked and read that survey as well. Thank you for that.

The one question I still have that remains unanswered is: of the two types of FR charts, which one should I use to make my own EQ settings for my headphones? The regular "harman curve" looking charts that are 99.9% prevalent everywhere, or these new DF downward tilted ones that headphones.com is using? Or does it not even matter? As long as I use one them and always stick with it, then that is how I would compare headphones to each other or to other graphs? It "seems" like from that article I linked above that the guys at headphones.com are trying to implement this new way of showing FR's for headphones. That for these reasons below, it's a "better" way to look at Headphone FR charts. Is that correct? Which would mean, both older FR charts and this newer type are both technically correct, it's only a matter of always using one or the other to compare headphones to other headphones or EQ to other EQ. Is that correct?

When we calibrate our measurements with a DF HRTF, it becomes both easier to digest and more useful for a few reasons (aside from obvious things like reducing clutter):
-The Sine Illusion
-Comparability to speakers
-Isolation and characterization of measured variables
-Comparability to headphones measured on other heads
-EQ

Again, thank you so much for the easy to understand answer to my question Doug! Very helpful and it instantly helped me understand.

 

[Philbo King]

DVDdoug always has good info & responses.