Headphone EQ Suggestions

[flipflop]

That is exactly what I am asking to forum members. Not what a specific measurement equipment tells us (after correction they are all 'flat' but ONLY on the rig where it is measured on, not on other rigs and not to people.
Also I am not judging OW research, not bashing on Oratory or others. I am asking members what their experiences are. Not what 'science' tells us.

I doubt anyone here is in possession of any of the units measured by oratory.

I am asking how different the end result EQ from Sonarworks (which is software) for instance is compared to EQ settings by Oratory or Jaakko or someone who tinkered with R'tings, or Griessinger, EARS or , heaven forbid, my own EQ.
What I am asking is how 'equal' a few headphones sound AFTER EQ is applied from different EQ suggesting (or delivering) settings or programs.

How different a headphone with oratory EQ and Sonarworks EQ would sound comes down to how different the compensation curves are. Take MDR-7506 for example:

Here oratory cuts the upper bass while Sonarworks boost it. Another major difference is the treble cut around 10 kHz: oratory's is high-Q and only cuts 3 dB, Sonarworks' is mid-Q and cuts 10 dB.
The difference between these two presets would be immediately obvious to anyone switching between them while listening to music.

What I am asking is whether or not members with 3 or 4 different headphones and the 'settings' set to 'flat' perceive the compensated headphones to have the same tonal balance.
And what I asked is whether or not the spread in tonal balance is bigger than for instance Oratory.

If you take 4 headphones apply oratory EQ to them, listen to them, then apply Sonarworks EQ to them, and listen to them again, they would be more likely to sound similar with Sonarworks because a single out of spec unit wouldn't completely skew their equalization profile.

 

[solderdude]

I doubt anyone here is in possession of any of the units measured by oratory.

I know for a fact that there is at least one member here that had a headphone measured by oratory. But that is besides the point.
Unit to unit variances aren't nearly as big as some corrections between Sonarworks and Oratory yet both use measurements, compensations, target curves and sound evaluation.

How different a headphone with oratory EQ and Sonarworks EQ would sound comes down to how different the compensation curves are. Take MDR-7506 for example:

Here oratory cuts the upper bass while Sonarworks boost it. Another major difference is the treble cut around 10 kHz: oratory's is high-Q and only cuts 3 dB, Sonarworks' is mid-Q and cuts 10 dB.
The difference between these two presets would be immediately obvious to anyone switching between them while listening to music.

Exactly my point and I'll repeat:
Unit to unit variances aren't nearly as big as some corrections between Sonarworks and Oratory yet both use measurements, compensations, target curves and sound evaluation.

If you take 4 headphones apply oratory EQ to them, listen to them, then apply Sonarworks EQ to them, and listen to them again, they would be more likely to sound similar with Sonarworks because a single out of spec unit wouldn't completely skew their equalization profile.

I'll repeat: Unit to unit variances aren't nearly as big as some corrections between Sonarworks and Oratory yet both use measurements, compensations, target curves and sound evaluation.
The differences are waaaayyyyy too big to be caused by unit to unit variances. The differences are in the measurement method (couplers) and compensation used.

So for me the question arose: When EQing different headphones with each type of EQ (be it merely settings or software) how similar do different headphones sound compared to each other.
Different target curves will yield different tonal balances but that is logical and very defend-able.
To me the question is which 'method' has the smallest Delta in sound tonality after EQ has been applied.
This would say something about which method would be most reliable.

I already got an answer from a member (actually 2 answers from 2 members) which could save me a lot of time having to find out for myself.
It is merely for gaining knowledge. I will continue to use my own method anyway but am just curious.

 

[thewas]

To me the question is which 'method' has the smallest Delta in sound tonality after EQ has been applied.
This would say something about which method would be most reliable.

And I will repeat that there won't be one single measurement rig/ear that will give you the most reliable result for every listener as the way how each headphone interacts with each ear is different.
Please watch this video and see and listen how differently the tonality of the same headphone is perceived by different humans:

That's also one of the reasons why preference ratings on between very good headphones differ between different listeners more than between good loudspeakers.

Thus the only way to get a neutral timbre from a headphone is with listening tests like these:

 

[solderdude]

Yes, I know this already.

All what I am looking for is which method used has the smallest Delta between (equalized) tonal balance for members that have experimented.
I know all individuals hear differently.

For my question this doesn't matter that much because each HRTF, how different they may be from each other and how different they perceive sounds coming from the side (headphone) and the front (speakers) their brains already take this into account.

I am familiar with the Griesinger method and what he says. I don't disagree with him either. I think, however, not many people will actually use his methods because they don't want to go through the hassle or do it incorrectly because they misunderstood the concept.
People want 'ready-made' solutions like Sonarworks (just select on a PC, plug in a headphone and done) or use Oratory's or other settings for EQ that already exist and call it a day.

What I am looking for is people (on this forum, not asking anywhere else) that own several headphones and used multiple EQ settings or software to EQ them towards 'flat' or towards a certain target.
I am quite certain there are people who done that and have experience in the matter.

The aspect I am interested in his how those members that DID try out various methods (the most popular being Oratory, Sonarworks, Jaakko or (P)EQ based on plots. Some even used Innerfidelity plots I am sure.

Those that did (I heard from 2 of them but there has got to be more) will know from first hand experience ,and not from research done by others with people I don't know anything about, which method gave THEM the best result.
In this particular case I am not even asking for which one they liked best (which is a target curve thing) but which method made their different headphones sound closest to each other. So tonally mostly the same.

For instance using Griesingers method, Sonarworks or Oratory recommended settings.
Which method made the headphones they own sound the most similar to each other with that method when having tested the different methods.
Not what method sounded the best to them which is what the reply above is all about.

So I am interested in the Delta in tonal balance between various EQ'ed headphones when different methods are used.
Not the reason why headphones sound different or what preferences of people are nor target curves.

Aswers like post #29 is what I am looking for. And not what people preferred (again that's personal, HRTF and target curve) but what method gave them the most similar sound when EQ'ing various headphones.

After all, the intention of each EQ is to make them sound like a target (based on a specific measurement device and specific compensation) tonally the same (Which is FR related mostly).

 

[thewas]

For my question this doesn't matter that much because each HRTF, how different they may be from each other and how different they perceive sounds coming from the side (headphone) and the front (speakers) their brains already take this into account.

It matters as it shows how different the ear geometry and ear canal resonances are and these cannot be described by some generic testing rig.
As I wrote before, if you calculate the difference of 2 headphones in different measurement rigs the results will be different and the rig which is most similar to the individual person A ear will give to him the best result when equalizing one headphone to sound like the other. But on person B it is not guaranteed that the same measurement rig will give the best result to him, so asking here many members will give you many different answers and in the end won't help a individual case.
The only methods that always will work are the ones that consider the individual ear geometry, thus listening methods like from Griesinger or measurements with little mic capsules in the individual ear.
I also hoped

 

[solderdude]

It matters as it shows how different the ear geometry and ear canal resonances are and these cannot be described by some generic testing rig.

That is exactly my point. The second point is what test fixture is closest to reality. That along with the compensation/target applied could sent tonal balance issues further apart. Hence my inquiry.

In the end each person, regardless of their HRTF will accept music as real and dislike peaks that may have been added bu narrow and targetted EQ that is a measurement error or reality.

 

[thewas]

The second point is what test fixture is closest to reality.

And because there is not one human ear geometry but millions there is not a unambiguous answer to that question.
If there would be many who have systematically tried all those and have done such experiments (which unfortunately isn't the case though) the most you could do is a statistic of how many % come closer to the measurement ear type XYZ but again it wouldn't help you for any individual case.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

for the question Solderdude is asking, individual ear canals don't come into play. He isn't looking for the best method for reaching a specific end point. He's looking for the method that does the best job of making two things sound the same. The method that does that will work regardless of ear canals.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

And because there is not one human ear geometry but millions there is not a unambiguous answer to that question.
If there would be many who have systematically tried all those and have done such experiments (which unfortunately isn't the case though) the most you could do is a statistic of how many % come closer to the measurement ear type XYZ but again it wouldn't help you for any individual case.

you are mis-understanding the issue. If I have two sets of headphones that sound the same, they sound the same. my ear canal doesn't change when I change headphones.

 

[thewas]

you are mis-understanding the issue. If I have two sets of headphones that sound the same, they sound the same. my ear canal doesn't change when I change headphones.

You misunderstood something there. There is not just one single frequency response of a headphone so if that is the same it sounds the same but there are endless many due to position of the driver and local geometry. We talking here about equalizing headphone A to sound like headphone B by doing measurements at a specific point and geometry C which will lead to different results though at a different point and geometry D. Only headphones with the same geometry and pads (thus actually the same model) could be equalised so that they will sound the same to any different ear.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

even the same identical model of headphones might sound slightly different just based on how they are actually positioned on one's head. You will never EQ two different models to sound exactly the same. But you can certainly reach a general consensus regarding what gets you closest, without worrying about individual ear canal differences. It's reasonable to say that two sets of headphones that sound the same as each other on your head will sound the same as each other on my head too...in relative terms.

 

[Berwhale]

People want 'ready-made' solutions like Sonarworks (just select on a PC, plug in a headphone and done) or use Oratory's or other settings for EQ that already exist and call it a day.

Exactly. At some point the amount of improvement to the sound is outweighed by the amount of effort required to attain it.

 

[Berwhale]

We talking here about equalizing headphone A to sound like headphone B by doing measurements at a specific point and geometry C which will lead to different results though at a different point and geometry D.

Actually, I think @solderdude asked for subjective opinions on the ability of available EQ algorithms to converge a range of different headphones to a single perceived tonality. He didn't ask anyone to measure or prove anything.

 

[thewas]

It's reasonable to say that two sets of headphones that sound the same as each other on your head will sound the same as each other on my head too...in relative terms.

Not necessarily due to the reasons I wrote above. Its not different to loudspeakers, when measuring the frequency response at just one point you can easily equalise loudspeaker A to the same FR as loudspeaker B, but its not guaranteed that they will have then the same FR to each other at a different point, if they have a different geometry its actually quite definite that it won't be same.

 

[thewas]

Actually, I think @solderdude asked for subjective opinions on the ability of available EQ algorithms to converge a range of different headphones to a single perceived tonality. He didn't ask anyone to measure or prove anything.

My explanations are why such a simple and generic approach doesn't work well. Its the easiest thing to create an EQ based on the measured difference of the frequency responses of 2 headphones (I have done that several times) but due to the reasons I explain above if this EQ is enabled to headphone A rarely it sounds to us exactly as headphone B. Of course a mediocre headphone equalised to a flatter target usually will sound better but when we are at high levels of fidelity/neutrality the bespoken error tolerances don't necessarily lead to a closer/better sound.,

 

[Berwhale]

My explanations are why such an approach won't work. Its the easiest thing to create an EQ based on the measured difference of the frequency responses of 2 headphones (I have done that several times) but due to the reasons I explain above if this EQ is enabled to headphone A rarely it sounds to us as headphone B.

@solderdude asked for subjective views, there was no 'approach' involved. You are trying to answer an openly subjective question with objective reasons and justifications (which are interesting in themselves, but not what was asked for).

 

[thewas]

And I explained why such subjective experiences won't automatically help for his or any other individual case, that's all.

 

[solderdude]

It's not about my case nor my preference.

What I want to know is first hand experiences of members that have experimented with EQíng headphones using different 'techniques', PEQ settings or programs.
Not with just one headphone but preferably 3 or 4 different headphones (say closed or open, on or over ear).

With the above 'variables' and usage of EQ/software/whatever method were there members that used 1 or more different, above mentioned, methods and found that for instance when Sonarworks (or name your poison) method resulted in the headphones they owned to sound the most similar in tonal balance (so not impulse, stereo width, detail) just tonal balance.

Did 3 headphones after EQ with say Oratory, or Sonarworks have the smallest delta in tonal balance using oratory, Sonarworks or another method/EQ/whatever.
Just their personal experiences not the underlying theory or method needs discussing.

I know fully well what aspects are involved and what seal, shifting headphones on the head, angled pads, driver ear distance, clamping force, pad type and different measurement gear does and why and how.

Just looking for a personal 'report' of a members method where they found their EQ'ed headphones to sound most similar tonally (not the same).
Also not which method (or should I say target curve that they EQ'ed to) has their preference.

 

[Berwhale]

The result of my initial foray into headphone EQ is that I've fallen back in love with my AKG 712 Pro's which are currently EQ'd to the RTings target here: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/rtings/avg/AKG K712 PRO

I've also tried the Oratory1990/Harman EQ for the K712 non-Pro here: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/AKG K712

I can't find Oratory1990 or Harman PEQ for the K712 Pro.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

This whole topic of ear canals is interesting. Fundamentally, I don't think our individual ear canals matter. They definitely impact the sound that gets to our ear drums. But, since our hearing (just like all of our senses) is wired into our brains and the whole system is adaptable, we all end up at the same place really. In spite of individual physiological differences between us, our hearing is tuned to the same "neutral source" - aka the world. We spend our entire lives listening to the same stuff around us...the sounds of cars, the wind, dogs barking, leaves rustling, musical instruments, etc etc. Our brains adapt to and interpret that source. We all recognize and identify sounds essentially the same. Just like with vision and colors (assuming no issues like color-blindness of course). If you took my physical hearing apparatus - my ear drums and ear canals and all that - and wired it all into your brain, the result would probably be some pretty messed up hearing. At least for a good while. But as it is, with our systems in place for our entire lives, things like that cease to be a meaningful difference between us. A headphone that measures neutral is neutral - on my ears, on your ears, on everyone's ears assuming a relatively normal physiology.