Forcing AutoEQ to 100% follow the compensation curve?

[Volutrik]

Hello! I recently tried to EQ my IEMs to Crinacle/Headphones.com's 5128 Diffuse Field target using AutoEQ, but the treble region doesn't 100% match and I want it to be 100% matched because that's the point of the 5128 rig. What command line can I use to make Auto EQ 100% follow the compensation curve? I already tried messing around with --treble-f-upper, --treble-f-lower, --thread-count, --treble-gain-k. It gets close, but not 100%. Thanks in advance!

 

[Dazerdoreal]

I hope that you are aware that every ear and every interaction between ear and IEM is slightly different. Besides, there are always slight channel imbalances and differences in production. These differences are often audible.

However, you wont be able to hear the difference between an EQ which hits 99,9% and 100% of the target in a blind test.

Out of curiosity, what IEM do you use and how close are you already?

 

[Resolve]

Hello! I recently tried to EQ my IEMs to Crinacle/Headphones.com's 5128 Diffuse Field target using AutoEQ, but the treble region doesn't 100% match and I want it to be 100% matched because that's the point of the 5128 rig. What command line can I use to make Auto EQ 100% follow the compensation curve? I already tried messing around with --treble-f-upper, --treble-f-lower, --thread-count, --treble-gain-k. It gets close, but not 100%. Thanks in advance!

I think this is a misunderstanding of what's going on with the 5128. You probably don't want it to match 100%, given HRTF and HpTF effects being unique to every head/ear (and that's effectively what the 5128 is). However one thing you likely do want is for the general shape to be similar. I would focus on achieving key features of the FR, and then adjusting wide-band elements to your own preference - since there is no one singular curve that's going to suit everyone, which is also demonstrated by the Harman segmentation paper.

 

[Volutrik]

I hope that you are aware that every ear and every interaction between ear and IEM is slightly different. Besides, there are always slight channel imbalances and differences in production. These differences are often audible.

However, you wont be able to hear the difference between an EQ which hits 99,9% and 100% of the target in a blind test.

Out of curiosity, what IEM do you use and how close are you already?

Hi, Dazerdoreal! I use the Salnotes Zero and got pretty close results. From the replies here, I can tell it's good enough. The high end sounds way better than before! I'll attach the PNG for you to take a look:

 

[Dazerdoreal]

I actually also own a 7hz Zero, and I must say, to my ears, the old couplers measurements still sound more correct. According to the 5128 measurements there is supposed to be a huge 11,8k peak. I just do not hear at all. My peak is at about 13k just like in Oratory1990s and Crinacles 711 measurements.

I would like you to try this EQ. It is based on DF 1,3db tilt + bass shelf with the old coupler. I found this target on https://suporsalad.squig.link/?share=DF_Tilt_711_Ref_Target.
But while I did use Side Salads target, I uploaded Oratory1990s 7hz Zero measurement. It is the best target I have heard yet . But your ear and taste might differ, of course.

Preamp: -4.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain 1.0 dB Q 2.000
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 38 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 0.500
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 200 Hz Gain -1.0 dB Q 1.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 740 Hz Gain 1.3 dB Q 1.400
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1400 Hz Gain -2.2 dB Q 2.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2400 Hz Gain 2.1 dB Q 2.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5400 Hz Gain -1.8 dB Q 1.500
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8100 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1.800
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10000 Hz Gain 6.8 dB Q 2.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 14000 Hz Gain -3.6 dB Q 2.000