If you EQ your headphones and you own more than one, do you EQ them to the same target?

[JanL]

I think that if you are going to own more than one headphone or IEM, you should probably let them be themselves and just appreciate the differences.
If you use EQ, at the very least don't force them all to be as close to the same target FR as possible. Maybe fix an obvious flaw or two, but let them be distinct.
I use EQ, but for my IEMs it's mostly just the one bass shelf to taste.
My full size headphones right now are getting the Oratory1999 treatment, but I'm ready to mostly revert to stock tuning and limit myself to two shelves per headphone . There is no point of keeping them, if they are forced to all sound as uniform as possible.

 

[Weeb Labs]

I suspect that my reasons for owning more than one headphone might be different from yours.

These are the headphones that I own.

• HIFIMAN Sundara
• Sennheiser RS185
• Razer Opus
• KOSS KSC-75
• Shokz OpenFit

Just as all of my displays are calibrated to sRGB (Rec.709 for TVs), I have the equivalent expectation of my audio equipment. All of these headphones are corrected to the same target and sound very similar. I own them because they serve very different practical purposes.

When sitting idle at my desk in the evening, I reach for the Sundaras due to their abundant low frequency headroom. If I'm browsing or watching content on YouTube or Plex, I'll clip a KSC-75 onto one ear. While out and about, the OpenFit remains simultaneously secure and unobtrusive. When I'm working in the lab and don't want to deal with the hassle of a cable, the RS185 is my headphone of choice. At night in bed with a fan roaring, the Opus' ANC is what I need the most.

 

[JanL]

Yes, if you use one headphone per location/situation then making them consistent makes sense.
I on the other hand use my headphones and IEMs strictly for music enjoyment, with one or two exceptions. I have one IEM headset for use with Zoom calls and one ANC headphone for flying.
But when I'm working on my computer and need isolation from the rest of the office I listen to music and have pick of four headphones and at least three IEMs. I use them all, some more than others, but there is rotation.
My background is music production and AV systems integration so I'm not a stranger to various flavors of audio playback systems. I actually enjoy the variety.

 

[Earfonia]

Few reasons why I have more than one IEMs or Headphones:
1. Found model that sounds 'better'.
2. Appreciation of certain tuning / sound signature.
3. Learning to relate of what I hear and what is shown on my measurement.
4. Searching of IEM that sounds closest to my balanced target curve.

I mostly collect IEMs as headphones don't last in the country where I live due to high temperature and humidity.
For the last few years, my reasons of buying IEMs mostly reasons 3 and 4. My objective is to develop my own balanced target curve. Also to find commonality of my HRTF and others.

Yes I EQ my IEMs. I use Moondrop MAY and Moondrop FreeDSP cable to tune my IEMs to my target curve. I also use Equalizer APO. My objective with EQ is to test my target curve if it is really sounds balanced for most recordings and if I subjectively will keep enjoying the target curve after I use it for a long period of time. The target curve that is ideal for me is the one that technically sounds balanced and musically engaging, not dull or boring. Some neutral target curves I tried sounds kinda boring. The proof is in the pudding, so I have to keep testing and listen to the target curve.

This is my latest target curve for IEM, final draft just a few days ago, almost final. I think I'm good with this one, but still in the listening test. I call it 'Earfonia IEM Target Curve - 2025' or EITC-25 in short. Comparison of the EITC-25 (Red curve) with Harman Target (Green curve):

That target is for IEC 60318-4 compliance coupler, not to be compared with the new B&K 5128 measurements.

Moondrop MAY EQ-ed to match EITC-25 (Red graph), EITC-25 (Light blue curve):

Anyone has Moondrop MAY may try this EQ to try the EITC-25 target curve:

Moondrop MAY Custom EQ for EITC-25:

60Hz -4.0 dB Q: 0.2 - Peaking EQ
125Hz +2.0 dB Q: 0.4 - Peaking EQ
200Hz -1.0 dB Q: 0.4 - Peaking EQ
1400Hz -3.0 dB Q: 0.9 - Peaking EQ
3000Hz -2.0 dB Q: 1.4 - Peaking EQ
4000Hz -3.0 dB Q: 2.5 - Peaking EQ
5150Hz +2.0 dB Q: 4.0 - Peaking EQ
7000Hz +0.0 dB Q: 3.0 - Peaking EQ
11500Hz +3.0 dB Q: 1.0 - High Shelving

 

[markanini]

No, I EQ manually to my preference, and the science doesn't support in-situ FR matching currently without anthropometric modeling, seating variation, and unit variation factored in. Only placebo does.

 

[digitalfrost]

My experience is that you cannot EQ exactly the same. There will be differences, either because the measurements have been imperfect or because the device takes differently to EQ. Even when EQed to the same target it will not sound the same. You need to adjust for preference.

 

[oleg87]

I EQ to my taste, not targets. This ultimately leaves most of my headphones sounding rather similar, but that's OK for me, I use different headphones for practical reasons rather than to have different "flavors", I prefer my transducers just sound unobtrusive and not interfere with my perception of music.

 

[JanL]

No, I EQ manually to my preference, and the science doesn't support in-situ FR matching currently without anthropometric modeling, seating variation, and unit variation factored in. Only placebo does.

I'm kind of surprised that no one came up with a device and/or a method for matching the headphones and IEMs to individual anatomy. Maybe some tried but failed to make a convincing product?

 

[Brian Hall]

If that even worked, what would be the point of owning multiple headphones?

 

[JanL]

If that even worked, what would be the point of owning multiple headphones?

Task specific headphones would be one. Like some posters suggested above.

 

[CptKlotz]

I'm kind of surprised that no one came up with a device and/or a method for matching the headphones and IEMs to individual anatomy. Maybe some tried but failed to make a convincing product?

AKG did this with the K1000 and the BAP1000 audio processor you could use with it. I believe they could measure your HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) with in-ear microphones and write it on a memory card to program it into the processor. You had to go to Vienna, though.

Interesting choice as the K1000 isn't much of a headphone at all but rather an "ear speaker" that should make good use of your ear anatomy at least.

This *is* probably the way to go and should be feasible at reasonable cost (offer HRTF measurements at audiologists or HiFi stores and have some DSP apply it to the signal).

I guess the wider public neither understands the issue nor cares...

 

[Robbo99999]

I think that if you are going to own more than one headphone or IEM, you should probably let them be themselves and just appreciate the differences.
If you use EQ, at the very least don't force them all to be as close to the same target FR as possible. Maybe fix an obvious flaw or two, but let them be distinct.
I use EQ, but for my IEMs it's mostly just the one bass shelf to taste.
My full size headphones right now are getting the Oratory1999 treatment, but I'm ready to mostly revert to stock tuning and limit myself to two shelves per headphone . There is no point of keeping them, if they are forced to all sound as uniform as possible.

For me it was very interesting to EQ all my headphones to one target, with the Harman 2018 over ear target being the one I ultimately prefer & use for myself. As other people have said, not all your headphones will sound exactly the same after EQ'ing to the same target, but it does give you a better feel for what the target is supposed to sound like as theoretically your headphones should kind of average around whatever target you're EQ'ing to, so it can be a learning exercise re "what target or somewhat ammended target do I prefer". Some headphones are just better than others at handling bass & delivering it without distortion and clarity within that bass, so that's one reason to choose one headphone over another even if EQ'd to same target. Also the very high frequencies above 8kHz are not really reliable to measure and nor to EQ with accuracy, so this is an area where you can end up with a preference for one headphone over another when EQ'd to the same target. So for me it's been an exercise in finding my best headphone and best target curve, so I think it's a very worthwhile thing to have different headphones and to EQ them to the same target curve - it helps you find your best headphone & also to realise what your own favourite target curve is (or amendment to target curve).

Additionally, as people have said, it's worth having different headphones for different usage scenarios based on practicality, so in those cases there'd not really be much of a reason to not EQ them to the same curve whilst also enjoying each of them to suit the best practical needs: eg mobility/working out headphones, vs listening at home in a chair headphones for example.

I think most of the time most people would benefit by EQ'ing to same target for all their headphones.

 

[Sjkrabbe]

Working as a sound-engineer I have had a few different HPs as working tools over the years - for many many years it was Sennheiser HD25 II, a short transistion through Senneheiser HD280 and Beyer DT770 but lately the new ADAM Audio H200 became my main tool - and I really love them. But I have always never EQed them because it never was an option when working in the field with hardware mixing equipment mixing classiscal music radio broadcasts. I have always worked my way into their distinct sound and beeing able to use them as a trusted tool. And it is paramount the HPs being in the cheaper range because my company would never let me buy a new very expensive HP from time to time when one HP is going defect some way or another, which they do, beeing a lot on the road.
On the homefront my approach is the same - no EQ - I kind of enjoy the diffences in their distinct sound characters
My current collection in my home is AKG K1000, ADAM Audio H200, Sennheiser HD25 and Sennheiser HD414 - My brain embraces them all within minuttes :-D

 

[JanL]

Working as a sound-engineer I have had a few different HPs as working tools over the years - for many many years it was Sennheiser HD25 II, a short transistion through Senneheiser HD280 and Beyer DT770 but lately the new ADAM Audio H200 became my main tool - and I really love them. But I have always never EQed them because it never was an option when working in the field with hardware mixing equipment mixing classiscal music radio broadcasts. I have always worked my way into their distinct sound and beeing able to use them as a trusted tool. And it is paramount the HPs being in the cheaper range because my company would never let me buy a new very expensive HP from time to time when one HP is going defect some way or another, which they do, beeing a lot on the road.
On the homefront my approach is the same - no EQ - I kind of enjoy the diffences in their distinct sound characters
My current collection in my home is AKG K1000, ADAM Audio H200, Sennheiser HD25 and Sennheiser HD414 - My brain embraces them all within minuttes :-D

I have the K1000 as well. It's a classic and nothing in the headphone world got the same visceral impact as these.