Can clinical/analytical headphones be made more exciting with EQ?

[Zapador]

Hi

I'm fairly new in the game and have been reading a lot of reviews lately in particular of the DCA Stealth that I'm interested in (for sound quality obviously, but just as much for the looks, build quality and portability). If I could just go listen to the cans that's what I would do but that isn't an option where I live.

One thing I've stumbled upon when people review the DCA Stealth is that they say it sounds clinical/analytical. I guess that can be both a good and a bad thing but overall not very exciting.
So my question is if that is something that can be improved with EQ? Is it fair to assume that people review headphones without EQ unless otherwise noted so they're essentially commenting on the "out of the box tuning"?

I have tried playing around with EQ on my HD660s and I feel like with EQ I can make them sound both more exciting and less exciting. So my assumption here would be that using EQ could give the Stealth a bit more "edge" and make them sound less clinical/analytical.

Thanks!

 

[staticV3]

Yes.

 

[Zapador]

Yes.

Thank you!

 

[Keith_W]

There is a limit to how far you can push headphones. You need to look for a headphone with low distortion in the regions you are planning to boost, otherwise you will get a LOT of distortion. The DCA Stealth is fairly low distortion so it can be pushed quite easily.

 

[Zensō]

The problem with subjective reviews is that there’s no way to really know what the reviewer means when they use descriptive terms like “exciting”, “boring”, “analytical”, etc. One person’s “piercing” is another person’s “detailed” is another person’s “lively“ and so on. It’s better to learn how to read frequency response graphs, which are much more meaningful than vague subjective terms.

To answer your question, yes, you can change the frequency response of any headphone with EQ.

 

[AdamG]

Yes.

Yes to his Yes. Eq opens the door to achieving near perfection to one’s preferred sound.

 

[Zensō]

Here’s the frequency response of the Stealth. Near perfect to the Harman target…

 

[staticV3]

Here’s the frequency response of the Stealth. Near perfect to the Harman target…

View attachment 278458

And here's the frequency response of the Stealth on 13 different humans:

Complete chaos.

 

[Geert]

And here's the frequency response of the Stealth on 13 different humans:
View attachment 278560
Complete chaos.

That graph can use some context I believe: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...state-of-the-art-headphone.25920/post-1506738

 

[AdamG]

And here's the frequency response of the Stealth on 13 different humans:
View attachment 278560
Complete chaos.

That pretty much cements the value and need for Eq/PEQ. One only needs to look for low distortion across the spectrum (20-14khz,or thereabouts). I would venture to say (based on my experience EQing dozens of Headphones/IEMs) that the most important FR area to look for low distortion is in the first two octaves (20-120hz). For me this represents the area I tend to boost the most with PEQ. EQ permits everyone to find their happy spot. Customized EQ is so important and understated.

I remember when EQ use was considered Sacrilege and you could have your Audiophile Card pulled for even suggesting it. Very happy we are leaving those days behind us.

 

[Zensō]

And here's the frequency response of the Stealth on 13 different humans:
View attachment 278560
Complete chaos.

So which of those responses is “clinical/analytical”?

 

[AdamG]

So which of those responses is “clinical/analytical”?

The one you like of course!