nyxnyxnyx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 506
- Likes
- 475
I've read and joined discussions now and then about what is considered as an ideal FR target. Obviously, Harman target is there in all discussions I've read, oftentimes people would bring up both pros and cons (i.e: it's how music is supposed to be performed, or how it's *just* a preference from a certain part of consumers). There are indeed more popular target like our own version at ASR, for IEMs there's the widely featured IEF target from Crinacle. There are probably more but I just can't remember them all at the moment
And in many topics, I can see many people complaining about the sound is not reaching a certain target, or that it doesn't have the peaks and dips those people perceive as desirable. But to me I've always thought that, if one can accept EQ for the literal meaning of it (equalization), we can always make adjustment to fit that target better, provided that there are folks who can guide the community to do it.
I wonder that if the entire industry decided to tune every pair of headphones or IEMs to a famed "ideal" FR, what cemented benefits would we have? Some people said that having to EQ something so much to make it sound better to them is a bad thing, as manufacturers should have ensured that they will sound great straight out of box already. But I think that if everything was to be tuned so similarly, wouldn't we lose the "fun" factor as a consumer or enthusiast?
We would know that all the upcoming products will be more or less scarily identical to older products (backed by the idea that FR is the main reason why they sound good or bad), so there will be less diversified and unique experiences for us all.
I used to have a pair of hd650 and dt990, while the dt990 is indeed very fiery in upper octaves, it was a night-and-day difference in comparison with the hd650, and that satisfied me as someone who wanted to try different "flavors" of sound. I know the driver types, shell materials and so on will likely to contribute to the finalized sound, but I'm not sure if they can sound so different if the FR is exactly the same.
And in many topics, I can see many people complaining about the sound is not reaching a certain target, or that it doesn't have the peaks and dips those people perceive as desirable. But to me I've always thought that, if one can accept EQ for the literal meaning of it (equalization), we can always make adjustment to fit that target better, provided that there are folks who can guide the community to do it.
I wonder that if the entire industry decided to tune every pair of headphones or IEMs to a famed "ideal" FR, what cemented benefits would we have? Some people said that having to EQ something so much to make it sound better to them is a bad thing, as manufacturers should have ensured that they will sound great straight out of box already. But I think that if everything was to be tuned so similarly, wouldn't we lose the "fun" factor as a consumer or enthusiast?
We would know that all the upcoming products will be more or less scarily identical to older products (backed by the idea that FR is the main reason why they sound good or bad), so there will be less diversified and unique experiences for us all.
I used to have a pair of hd650 and dt990, while the dt990 is indeed very fiery in upper octaves, it was a night-and-day difference in comparison with the hd650, and that satisfied me as someone who wanted to try different "flavors" of sound. I know the driver types, shell materials and so on will likely to contribute to the finalized sound, but I'm not sure if they can sound so different if the FR is exactly the same.