• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Beyerdynamic Amiron Home Review (headphone)

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 77 47.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 67 40.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 17 10.4%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 3 1.8%

  • Total voters
    164

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,235
Likes
2,767
Location
UK
Could this be one of those cases where its better to pull down the highs rather than push up the lows ? Or would it actually work well at all ?
When you EQ to a curve, then it's all relative, how you decide to line the Target up on the measurement doesn't make a difference as you end up "at the same place". So as long as you're EQ'ing to the same curve then the distortion problems would be just the same.
 

bidn

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
151
Likes
526
Location
Kingdom of the Netherlands
I auditioned those at my dealer several years ago. Subjectively they did sound wrong to me, muffled, V-shaped FR, ( and also no sub-bass). I think that they were quite demanding in power for portable headphones. A bigger issue was that they were heavy with too little pressure, i.e. would fall off easily from my head when bowing down. A definite no-go for me.
 

tomtrp

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
60
Likes
32
I'm afraid you're right. I don't have the Amiron, but I have the T1 Mk2. Well, what measures bad can still sound pleasant :facepalm:
Of course, if your tracks don't have enough energy on the frequency band that T1 mk2 has big problems, they will sound ok. But for tracks with some higher energy in the 8k region, the problem is very obvious. And to me ,T1 mk2 out of box sounded coloured and unnatrual. And the high Q peaks and dips in the 5-10k region makes it very hard to fix via PEQ. And they don't have particular good spatial qualities either(good not but great like HD800 series and HD800 5800hz peak can be easily fixed with one filter.) In conclusion, most of Beyer headphones are not a good choice by ASR standard.
 
Last edited:

3125b

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
886
Likes
1,325
Location
Germany
I hate this thing with a passion, sounds way worse than it measures.
 

rtos

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
20
I auditioned those at my dealer several years ago. Subjectively they did sound wrong to me, muffled, V-shaped FR, ( and also no sub-bass). I think that they were quite demanding in power for portable headphones. A bigger issue was that they were heavy with too little pressure, i.e. would fall off easily from my head when bowing down. A definite no-go for me.
I picked up a pair of these on sale figuring they used the same/similar driver to the DT1990 (which I like with the Analytical earpads) and hated the sound out of the box - one of the worst I've heard. Bassy, muffled WTF?
 
Last edited:

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
317
Likes
2,335
Location
French, leaving in China
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Beyerdynamic Amiron Home open back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by a member. Looks like the wired version is discontinued but cost roughly US $400.

This is an attractive headphone:
View attachment 162503

Overall fit was fine other than slightly pinching my earlobes. Weight is about average at 345 grams without the cord:

View attachment 162505

Cups are round and have a circumference of 62 mm and depth of 20 mm.

Note: The measurements you are about to see are made using a standardized Gras 45C. Headphone measurements by definition are approximate and variable so don't be surprised if other measurements even if performed with the same fixtures as mine, differ in end results. Protocols vary such as headband pressure and averaging (which I don't do). As you will see, I confirm the approximate accuracy of the measurements using Equalization and listening tests. Ultimately headphone measurements are less exact than speakers mostly in bass and above a few kilohertz so keep that in mind as you read these tests. If you think you have an exact idea of a headphone performance, you are likely wrong!

Fitment on the fixture was good.

Beyerdynamic Amiron Home Measurements
Let's start with our usual frequency response:

View attachment 162506

There is decent amount of bass but could use more subbass and less upper bass. The main issue however is the recession between 500 Hz and 3 kHz. It has an odd shape so hard to fix with a filter or two. Here is a the relative response for purposes of developing said EQ:

View attachment 162507

I was disappointed with how fast bass distortion escalated up with level:

View attachment 162508

View attachment 162509

The rising distortions are unfortunately where we need frequency boosts with EQ so they are going to be more audible.

Group delay just confirms the dip on bass and not revealing of much else:

View attachment 162510

Impedance is high and varies by a ratio of two:

View attachment 162511

Sensitivity is below average but not too bad:

View attachment 162512

Headphone Listening and Equalization
Out of box experience is decent due to adequate amount of bass. But it is unexciting and closed due to droop in energy between 500 and 3 kHz. So I brought out the EQ tool:

View attachment 162513

Alas, On the first track I listened to, I got screeching highs and crackling. I decided to add the two high frequency filters but that was not it. The problem was as I mentioned, the boost in the 500 Hz to 2 kHz. It is a much needed correction but with the right track, it can sound terrible especially at higher levels.

I originally had the bass boost higher to match the measurements. While again that sounded good on some music, on others, it caused terrible distortion with drivers almost modulating the sound. At the levels I have it, it seemed to work across most music.

At first I was going to ditch the EQ due to distortion but it really lifts the performance of this headphone. Spatial effects come to their own and overall fidelity is quite nice.

Conclusions
If there is a norm in my headphone reviews, it is the sound being near terrible without EQ, and being good to great with. Here, that is not the case. Without EQ the sound is tolerable. With EQ it gets much better but then distortion comes to haunt you and haunt you big time depending on your music spectrum and how loud you listen.

I can't recommend the Beyerdynamic Amiron Home with or without EQ for reasons mentioned.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.


Notes about the EQ design:
  • The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
  • The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
  • A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
  • The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve with a fixed complexity.
    This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
    It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be more neutral.
  • The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF).
  • The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
  • I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
  • With some HP/amp combo the boosts and preamp gain need to be carefully considered to avoid issues
  • Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit.
  • YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.

Awesome L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 55.3
Score Armirm: 61.6
Score with EQ: 86.3

Code:
Beyerdynami APO EQ [email protected] 96000Hz
November022021-103957

Preamp: -5 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 22.00 Hz Gain 5.11 dB Q 0.50
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 194.49 Hz Gain -4.51 dB Q 0.63
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1014.91 Hz Gain 4.00 dB Q 1.29
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1907.71 Hz Gain 3.80 dB Q 1.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3000.50 Hz Gain -2.75 dB Q 3.24
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3968.63 Hz Gain 5.08 dB Q 2.12
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8294.82 Hz Gain -2.82 dB Q 6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14054.83 Hz Gain -9.10 dB Q 5.48

Beyerdynami APO EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz Dasboard.png

EDIT
A completely different EQ strategy that seems to be more suited for lower Biquad counts (RME friendly):
Score no EQ: 55.3
Score Armirm: 61.6
Score with EQ: 86.3
Score with EQ RME: 90.2 -> higher score but at the cost of a lot of dynamic range (7- 8dB)

Code:
Beyerdynamic Amiron  RME EQ [email protected] 96000Hz
November022021-142959

Preamp: +0.0 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 201.36 Hz Gain -10.19 dB Q 0.35
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 2899.62 Hz Gain -5.27 dB Q 2.86
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 5681.79 Hz Gain -5 dB Q 4.04
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 8187.57 Hz Gain -9.53 dB Q 5.87
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 14058.84 Hz Gain -15 dB Q 3.05

Beyerdynamic Amiron  RME EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,235
Likes
2,767
Location
UK
Here are some thoughts about the EQ.


Notes about the EQ design:
  • The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
  • The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
  • A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
  • The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve with a fixed complexity.
    This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
    It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be more neutral.
  • The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF).
  • The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
  • I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
  • With some HP/amp combo the boosts and preamp gain need to be carefully considered to avoid issues
  • Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit.
  • YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.

Awesome L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 55.3
Score Armirm: 61.6
Score with EQ: 86.3

Code:
Beyerdynami APO EQ [email protected] 96000Hz
November022021-103957

Preamp: -5 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 22.00 Hz Gain 5.11 dB Q 0.50
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 194.49 Hz Gain -4.51 dB Q 0.63
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1014.91 Hz Gain 4.00 dB Q 1.29
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1907.71 Hz Gain 3.80 dB Q 1.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3000.50 Hz Gain -2.75 dB Q 3.24
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3968.63 Hz Gain 5.08 dB Q 2.12
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8294.82 Hz Gain -2.82 dB Q 6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14054.83 Hz Gain -9.10 dB Q 5.48

View attachment 162688
EDIT
A completely different EQ strategy that seems to be more suited for lower Biquad counts (RME friendly):
Score no EQ: 55.3
Score Armirm: 61.6
Score with EQ: 86.3
Score with EQ RME: 90.2 -> higher score but at the cost of a lot of dynamic range (7- 8dB)

Code:
Beyerdynamic Amiron  RME EQ [email protected] 96000Hz
November022021-142959

Preamp: +0.0 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 201.36 Hz Gain -10.19 dB Q 0.35
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 2899.62 Hz Gain -5.27 dB Q 2.86
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 5681.79 Hz Gain -5 dB Q 4.04
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 8187.57 Hz Gain -9.53 dB Q 5.87
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 14058.84 Hz Gain -15 dB Q 3.05

View attachment 162711
The main problem with the RME EQ (where you position the target very low in order to use less filters) is that you are applying "more significant EQ" at 8000Hz and 14000Hz which is where the peaks are shown - the problem is that the exact location of these peaks is different due to seating variation and individual anatomy certainly for the 14000Hz peak and to a lesser extent the 8000Hz peak - this means that there's is increased liklihood that your EQ filters will miss the actual peaks when people where these headphones, which means they won't get EQ'd down, which in turn means that your RME EQ is quite likely to result in some extremely exaggerated piercing peaks in the treble for potentially a lot of people that try that one. Your other EQ won't suffer as much from that point of view because you're not having to apply such extreme EQ to the treble area. To get around the problem with the RME EQ you'd be better off using either very wide low Q peak filters on the treble to make sure you catch the peaks when people wear the headphone, or instead use a High Shelf Filter.
 

GaryH

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
465
Likes
497
When you EQ to a curve, then it's all relative, how you decide to line the Target up on the measurement doesn't make a difference as you end up "at the same place". So as long as you're EQ'ing to the same curve then the distortion problems would be just the same.
While true, as I'm sure you're aware, if a headphone has sharp dips in its frequency response, it's best to bring down the response around the dip (combined with a shelf filter broadly lifting the response up), otherwise you can end up with ridiculously high-Q, positive-gain filters that could induce audible ringing:

index.php


Another example:

index.php


And how it should be done (Audeze Sine EQ by Oratory):

Screenshot_20211102-131952_Acrobat for Samsung.png
 

bravomail

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
810
Likes
431
I'm wondering whether this is a kind of "house sound" or they just don't care?

I mean, releasing a headphone with 250 Ohm impedance (and not 32 Ohm) in the era of weak headphone outputs of mobile devices - is a bold move! :D
Add a typical Byerdynamic brightness - and u have a winner!
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,235
Likes
2,767
Location
UK
While true, as I'm sure you're aware, if a headphone has sharp dips in its frequency response, it's best to bring down the response around the dip (combined with a shelf filter broadly lifting the response up), otherwise you can end up with ridiculously high-Q, positive-gain filters that could induce audible ringing:

index.php


Another example:

index.php


And how it should be done (Audeze Sine EQ by Oratory):

View attachment 162766
The points I brought up to Maiky are not really directly related to what you're saying.

But to discuss with you re your points you bring up, the reason Oratory uses that f4 Shelf filter is for potential user customisation and also to reduce total number of filters required in some situations, it's not related to "ringing". In terms of ringing I think the the only important variable is the overall shape of the Total EQ Curve in terms of not having some crazy sharp changes - it's not like using a Shelf Filter boost in combination with sharp cuts is any better or worse from that point of view rather than just boosting the dips (as you can arrive at an identical Total EQ Curve using both approaches), so I'm not really on board with your point you bring up there.
 

GaryH

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
465
Likes
497
But to discuss with you re your points you bring up, the reason Oratory uses that f4 Shelf filter is for potential user customisation and also to reduce total number of filters required in some situations, it's not related to "ringing". In terms of ringing I think the the only important variable is the overall shape of the Total EQ Curve in terms of not having some crazy sharp changes - it's not like using a Shelf Filter boost in combination with sharp cuts is any better or worse from that point of view rather than just boosting the dips (as you can arrive at an identical Total EQ Curve using both approaches), so I'm not really on board with your point you bring up there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/lqm8im/_/gopef01
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,235
Likes
2,767
Location
UK
Yeah, that's cool, I agree that you shouldn't apply large very sharp boosts, but that doesn't mean you have to use a High Shelf boost combined with cuts to achieve that, instead you just use a less sharp boost filter to fill the gap to an extent that you'd deem to be reasonable. It would be silly to say that you have to fill all dips by using a High Shelf Filter - that would be nonsense. What ultimately matters is the shape of the Total EQ Curve, not whether or not Shelf Filters are used during the dip filling process.

EDIT: edited post, removed incorrect supposition of mine.

EDIT#2: after doing some quick experimentation in REW it does seem that if you go down the route of using High Shelf Filters to fill dips, along with cuts to bring things back in line that you're generally not gonna be filling dips sharply, because you're limited in how much Shelf you can apply with regards to what is happening elsewhere in the frequency response (so you don't stray from the target response you're aiming for), so it's always gonna be quite gentle. It's not convenient or possible to always use a Shelf Filter in this way though, what matters is the Total EQ Curve. I don't really see your idea of "it's best to bring down the response around the dip (combined with a shelf filter broadly lifting the response up)" as the main mechanism of boosting dips in a frequency response (it's too restrictive and doesn't fit each case), but it's one way you could do it in some instances (if the stock frequency response and target you were aiming for allowed it)......you wouldn't have to do it that way to avoid ringing. I think you've misinterpreted why Oratory uses Shelf Filters in his EQ's, he uses them for user customisation reasons and to save on total number of filters required in some cases, but I'm fairly sure his main reason for using them is not to avoid ringing like you seem to be alluding to.
 
Last edited:

tungt88

New Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
4
Likes
7
Location
Rego Park, NY
They are discontinued, maybe someone can correct me, I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I remember it being much more than 400$, the prices Amir found may an effort to liquidating. This was in their High end line up with all the Tesla drivers. That would I guess still make the "at a far lower cost" relevant if we cam find them at this price, but circumstantial.

No idea on their current production status, but when I bought mine in Jan.2017 (bought into the hype and did a pre-order, before they were released), I got a discount price of $399 USD, which was a good-sized discount off the then MSRP of $599 USD. The rest of Amir's review more or less confirmed my (subjective) take on the Amiron Home: loved the comfort, sound was less "treble-harsh" than much of Beyer's DT lineup, but had "oddities" that prevented it from being a favorite (it was a favorite for the first few months I was using it, though: simply because I had much, much worse headphones at the time -- think bad "gimmicky gamer headsets").

Edit: voted "not terrible", based on past experience & current retrospective.
 

2M2B

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
118
Likes
70
Don't think this is THD or EQ artifact, Could very well be the driver is pushing past It's excursion limit or Can't rest quick enough to reproduce another bass note?. Cause It odd how DD IEM's don't have this issue the $12 IEM was <0.3% despite having a 8db bass boost.
 

GaryH

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
465
Likes
497
EDIT#2: after doing some quick experimentation in REW it does seem that if you go down the route of using High Shelf Filters to fill dips, along with cuts to bring things back in line that you're generally not gonna be filling dips sharply
Yes, this is what I was alluding to. This method tends to result in dips filled in with less sharp peaks (and I'm not only talking about Q here) than directly filling them with positive-gain peak filters. As demonstrated by the below graphs from Oratory, you can have two EQ curves with a peak of similar bandwidth (here equivalent to Q~6), yet different shapes, notably at the peak:

Dq1vxPr.png


hHko7rE.png


The top graph is just a single standard peak filter with Q=6, resulting in a relatively narrow 'tip' to the peak. The bottom EQ curve has a more rounded peak tip, more like what you get when using a broad positive-gain shelf filter plus negative-gain peak filters either side of the positive peak. Ringing is not only dependent on Q, but on the narrowness of the peak tip, so the top EQ curve will be more likely to cause audible ringing than the bottom curve. Now, you might say, just use a positive-gain peak with lower Q. The problem with this is, although it would round out the tip, it would also broaden the skirt, and so affect a wider range of frequencies than you want. With the shelf + surrounding negative-gain peaks method, you don't have this trade-off - you can have both a relatively moderate skirt to contain the influence to the frequencies you want, and a relatively rounded peak tip to ameliorate ringing. So given the choice between an EQ profile made with this method and one with just positive-gain peak filters, I would choose the former to minimise the chance of audible ringing. Plus as you say, this method has the dual purpose of easy customization with the high-shelf filter (which can act as a 'treble tone control' that could be adjusted say per album to ameliorate circle of confusion issues).

By the way, one of the reasons I mentioned ringing in the first place is because I was actually one of the participants in Jaakko Pasanen's (of AutoEQ) listening tests related to its influence on the preference of EQ peak steepness. Although the number of participants was small so no firm conclusions can be drawn, the results below seem to suggest that less steep filters are generally preferred, with a limit on filter steepness of 12 or 18 dB / octave being either one or both of the top two preferred for all tracks. Personally, I can say I heard a difference, and my preference when I took the test was limiting to 12 or max 18 dB / octave (the latter equivalent to a 10 dB, Q=2 filter).

index.php
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,235
Likes
2,767
Location
UK
Yes, this is what I was alluding to. This method tends to result in dips filled in with less sharp peaks (and I'm not only talking about Q here) than directly filling them with positive-gain peak filters. As demonstrated by the below graphs from Oratory, you can have two EQ curves with a peak of similar bandwidth (here equivalent to Q~6), yet different shapes, notably at the peak:

Dq1vxPr.png


hHko7rE.png


The top graph is just a single standard peak filter with Q=6, resulting in a relatively narrow 'tip' to the peak. The bottom EQ curve has a more rounded peak tip, more like what you get when using a broad positive-gain shelf filter plus negative-gain peak filters either side of the positive peak. Ringing is not only dependent on Q, but on the narrowness of the peak tip, so the top EQ curve will be more likely to cause audible ringing than the bottom curve. Now, you might say, just use a positive-gain peak with lower Q. The problem with this is, although it would round out the tip, it would also broaden the skirt, and so affect a wider range of frequencies than you want. With the shelf + surrounding negative-gain peaks method, you don't have this trade-off - you can have both a relatively moderate skirt to contain the influence to the frequencies you want, and a relatively rounded peak tip to ameliorate ringing. So given the choice between an EQ profile made with this method and one with just positive-gain peak filters, I would choose the former to minimise the chance of audible ringing. Plus as you say, this method has the dual purpose of easy customization with the high-shelf filter (which can act as a 'treble tone control' that could be adjusted say per album to ameliorate circle of confusion issues).

By the way, one of the reasons I mentioned ringing in the first place is because I was actually one of the participants in Jaakko Pasanen's (of AutoEQ) listening tests related to its influence on the preference of EQ peak steepness. Although the number of participants was small so no firm conclusions can be drawn, the results below seem to suggest that less steep filters are generally preferred, with a limit on filter steepness of 12 or 18 dB / octave being either one or both of the top two preferred for all tracks. Personally, I can say I heard a difference, and my preference when I took the test was limiting to 12 or max 18 dB / octave (the latter equivalent to a 10 dB, Q=2 filter).

index.php
Yeah, I noticed the same that the tips were more rounded & less sharp when cutting around a High Shelf Filter. That's good to know re the tip sharpness being influential in the ringing. It's definitely something I'll keep in mind when I'm creating my EQ's.

You can still use lower Q Peak Filters to fill a gap and then cut around that - so you don't have to worry about the "skirt" being wide (that you mentioned as a drawback) because you can cut that away with cut peak filters. I've done that kind of thing with my own EQ's (without thinking about it) in terms of having sets of low Q Peak Filters overlapping & counteracting each other to shape the frequency response - so it's quite a normal process.

But I will certainly bear it in mind, I think the technique of using a Low Q Peak Filter of say Q1 to boost an area and then you cut into it would be more widely useable (and have the same effect) than having to apply a Shelf Filter instead, as Shelf Filter can often effect too large an area. I might try it as an EQ experiment on one of my K702's or the HE4XX as they both require some significant taming via EQ - I might create one EQ on the theory of boost & cut, and then for the other one I'll use my existing EQ where I've not actively considered this, I'd make sure the frequency response in REW would match eachother exactly (I'd be able to overlap them and see the difference to make sure they're the same). I could then see if I could notice a difference. (I did do this loosely yesterday with my K702 but the there was a small difference in the end frequency response, albeit a small difference at about 5kHz, the wide boost & cut method had slightly less 5kHz.......I actually preferred the EQ that didn't use the wide boost & cut, but might be due to the slight 5kHz difference, they were the same everywhere else - I might need to redo that.). I still think though that if you have identical Total EQ Curves then it makes no difference what filters you've used to get there, but I could probably accept that creating a more relaxed Total EQ Curve (less sharp changes) could sound better, which is more likely to happen if you use the EQ theory that you mention, but if Total EQ Curves are identical I'm thinking it makes zero difference. What do you think about that last point about identical Total EQ Curves?
 

AdamG247

Tyrant of Evil Men, see also SPECTRE etc…
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
1,923
Likes
4,221
Guy’s this is a product review thread not an EQ thread. Go create a thread to discuss EQ thoughts and applications. Not here please. Further off topic posts will be deleted.

Please and thank you.
 
Top Bottom