• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?

Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?


  • Total voters
    178

Kouioui

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 9, 2019
Messages
164
Likes
185
Location
Central FL
Where did you get your information from?
The link I posted is where the target curve came from. I've tried the other house curves you mentioned but prefer Harman's...in my room...to my ears. YMMV

As far as what other studios use, that's up to the them but most studios (and live sound) since the 80s do use room EQ with a house curve of some sort. The video did state there's controversy regarding their use.
 

Dreyfus

Active Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
247
Likes
296
Location
Germany
I prefer loudness matching (sweeping through pink noise with a narrow bandpass filter) to make my over ears sound subjectively flat neutral balanced. Worked pretty well for my HD 700. The sound is much smoother afterwards. No excessive sharpness, no lack of warmth, no fatigue. It also improves the performance of my HRIR simulations quite drastically.

If the pink noise sounds right (no obtrusive peaks and dips), music will sound right, as well.

I find it really hard to judge standardized curves (may it be FF or DF) for headphones because the perceived sound signature is highly depended on the acoustical transfer between the driver and the ear drum. The subjectivity and spontaneity of our minds don't make it easier.
There is no way I can confirm that I am actually perceiving and judging the sound as intended by someone else (may it be a researcher, a designer or a random guy from the internet, claiming to have found THE curve). So I see no reason why I should bother about it for too long.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
The link I posted is where the target curve came from. I've tried the other house curves you mentioned but prefer Harman's...in my room...to my ears. YMMV

As far as what other studios use, that's up to the them but most studios (and live sound) since the 80s do use room EQ with a house curve of some sort. The video did state there's controversy regarding their use.
It's cool that many people use eq for hifi use. But I don't see any sane studio boost their bass to such level which will drastically reduce headroom as well as getting bass out of control also adding too much stress on the room treatment condition.

And yes in the video there's the most common misconception between Harman's target and what will happen if you put a flat speaker in a room. Harman target does not represent that. It's subjectively preferred for enjoyment. And it's not a preferred response for everyone or every room rather it's a mean of the different preferences from Harman trained listeners. When you put a pair of flat speakers in a treated room it's not what it's going to look like.
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,424
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
... I've been reading about EQ'ing headphones to 'reach the ideal'. I found a website that seems to have the measurements and subsequent recommended EQ curves for over 700 headphones. I've played about using the Fixed Band Equaliser in iTunes to apply the recommended settings, and it certainly hasn't messed up the sound, but I think I prefer the natural sound of my AKG K702 without EQ curves.
...does the site I listed above strive to EQ out the anomalies to try to get as close to neutral "as the artist intended" as possible?
That site over-corrects the headphones with unnecessarily complex EQ. And it's based on Tyll Hersten's measurements, which overall are very good, but in frequency response they are questionable. And Tyll was the first to admit that. This can make the cure worse than the disease. It reminds me of the adage: "Design with a micrometer, measure with tape, cut with an axe".

For example, 2 headphones I have listened to daily are the Sennheiser HD-600 and Audeze LCD-2 Fazor. If I apply the EQ recommended at that site, they sound worse than without EQ at all! But both of these headphones has an EQ that makes it sound better, but it's much simpler and gentler.

The HD-600 is quite neutral above 100 Hz and doesn't really need any correction. But it gradually rolls off the bass below 100 Hz. But if you EQ the low bass back up to flat it overwhelms this headphone and sounds bloated. I find the ideal correction is simple: bass boost with slope +3 dB / octave starting at 100 Hz (+3 @ 50 Hz, +6 @ 25 Hz). This restores some of the attenuated low bass yet still sounds clean.

The HD-800 benefits from a similar gentle bass boost, but I add a cut to reduce its annoying resonance at 6k that make it sound artificially bright: -6 dB @ 6 kHz, Q=2.0.

The LCD-2 Fazor is quite neutral throughout the entire range except it dips a bit too much around 4000 Hz. This is about 3/4 to 1 octave wide on each side. As with the HD-600, a single simple gentle parametric EQ works best: +3.5 dB @ 3800 Hz, Q=0.8.

The above corrections don't make these headphones completely neutral, but they reduce their deviations in a gentle way that doesn't squash the sound, making them sound a bit better / more neutral yet preserving their overall character.

Overall, here's some advice when correcting headphones (or speakers!):
1. Correct only the biggest variations; don't chase down every little nitnoid ripple in the response.
2. Use the gentlest curves and amplitudes you can. Don't try to correct it fully back to neutral; correcting it only about half way to neutral usually provides an audible improvement without overwhelming the sound.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
I prefer loudness matching (sweeping through pink noise with a narrow bandpass filter) to make my over ears sound subjectively flat neutral balanced. Worked pretty well for my HD 700. The sound is much smoother afterwards. No excessive sharpness, no lack of wamrth, no fatigue. It also improves the performance of my HRIR simulations quite drastically.

If the pink noise sounds right (no obtrusive peaks and dips), music will sound right, as well.

I find it really hard to judge standardized curves (may it be FF or DF) for headphones because the perceived sound signature is highly depended on the acoustical transfer between the driver and the ear drum. The subjectivity and spontaneity of our minds don't make it easier.
There is no way I can confirm that I am actually perceiving and judging the sound as intended by someone else (may it be a researcher, a designer or a random guy from the internet, claiming to have found THE curve).

Just my 2 cents.
Your approach is good in some way. It's almost their but you should add more around 1-2khz to pink noise. A better approach is to use ear to flatten out 7khz-13khz. And use measurements to correct 20-7khz.

Then there's the difficulty you talking about DF etc. You might be true to some extent. But you should understand the validity in theory. The DRP which means drum reference point in a dummy head or human. The response at that point should always be the same regardless what source there is. The dummy head (head and torso) is designed to have the same acoustic impedance and geometry as human. What you hear should reflect what dummy head measures. The acoustical transfer between driver and ear drum is indeed included in the measurements. So that's not the issue. Practically the high frequency accuracy of the acoustic impedance is not that great. The best is using deep insertion earphones like er4 which is flat to 15khz. Then it's open headphones. The worst is sealed earphones. The coupler and the ear canal extension are not specifically designed to have the same acoustic impedance as human. The position it is designed for is hearing aids or custom iems or er4. These are very accurate. Open ear canal also is less affected because the peak that caused the issue is pushed to highest frequency and smoothen out so headphones are also pretty accurate.

That's why you feel the need to do sine sweep, which is good. But pink noise is not the correct source. It's close but not quite.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
That site over-corrects the headphones with unnecessarily complex EQ. And it's based on Tyll Hersten's measurements, which overall are very good, but in frequency response they are questionable. And Tyll was the first to admit that. This can make the cure worse than the disease. It reminds me of the adage: "Design with a micrometer, measure with tape, cut with an axe".

For example, 2 headphones I have listened to daily are the Sennheiser HD-600 and Audeze LCD-2 Fazor. If I apply the EQ recommended at that site, they sound worse than without EQ at all! But both of these headphones has an EQ that makes it sound better, but it's much simpler and gentler.

The HD-600 is quite neutral above 100 Hz and doesn't really need any correction. But it gradually rolls off the bass below 100 Hz. But if you EQ the low bass back up to flat it overwhelms this headphone and sounds bloated. I find the ideal correction is simple: bass boost with slope +3 dB / octave starting at 100 Hz (+3 @ 50 Hz, +6 @ 25 Hz). This restores some of the attenuated low bass yet still sounds clean.

The HD-800 benefits from a similar gentle bass boost, but I add a cut to reduce its annoying resonance at 6k that make it sound artificially bright: -6 dB @ 6 kHz, Q=2.0.

The LCD-2 Fazor is quite neutral throughout the entire range except it dips a bit too much around 4000 Hz. This is about 3/4 to 1 octave wide on each side. As with the HD-600, a single simple gentle parametric EQ works best: +3.5 dB @ 3800 Hz, Q=0.8.

The above corrections don't make these headphones completely neutral, but they reduce their deviations in a gentle way that doesn't squash the sound, making them sound a bit better / more neutral yet preserving their overall character.

Overall, here's some advice when correcting headphones (or speakers!):
1. Correct only the biggest variations; don't chase down every little nitnoid ripple in the response.
2. Use the gentlest curves and amplitudes you can. Don't try to correct it fully back to neutral; correcting it only about half way to neutral usually provides an audible improvement without overwhelming the sound.
It's not that tyll's measurements having issue but you need a different target curve.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
Perhaps you should check again. I'm certainly not do it for you... :cool:
That's funny. Because sonarworks doesn't even use the HATS complying to the iec standard. Hence there will be no compatible target curve. And there's no target curve published.
 

ZolaIII

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,070
Likes
2,409
That's funny. Because sonarworks doesn't even use the HATS complying to the iec standard. Hence there will be no compatible target curve. And there's no target curve published.
What ever Sonarworks is using it sounds catastrophic at least regarding cans I have they did it for.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
What ever Sonarworks is using it sounds catastrophic at least regarding cans I have they did it for.
Same impression here. I got a pair of Hd600 for that but the eq is almost the opposite of what it should be. I adore their speaker eq software. But asking for the headphone eq that doesn't do well is very catastrophic. Haha.
 

Dreyfus

Active Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
247
Likes
296
Location
Germany
@JohnYang1997:
It all depends on what you define as your aims and ambitions.

I don't care about things like the recreation of a "reference" (room) sound or the exact degree of frontal localization too much after all. Im fine with the signature as long as it sounds more or less balanced with my own ears and my specific hearing ability when listening to my personal set of music. I use the manual tweaking with pink noise - listening to filtered noise band per band (15 on the first run, then 31 for finer tuning) with a loudness reference somewhere around 500 Hz - to get a rough impression of tonal balance. From time to time I adjust that response when listening to varying sources. Different media and mixes may call for different targets. The trick is to find a setting that works well with the whole spectrum, of course.

That's my practical take on EQ'ing headphones.
That doesn't mean that there is no right of existance for a well-made in-situ measurement or a sophisticated dummy head with realistic (altough generic) anatomy. I just take the shorter and much simpler way by trusting my own ears. And I won't claim a reference.

It's all fine if it works well in practice and enriches the HiFi community on way or the other.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
@JohnYang1997:
It all depends on what you define as your aims and ambitions.

I don't care about things like the recreation of a "reference" (room) sound or the exact degree of frontal localization too much after all. Im fine with the signature as long as it sounds more or less balanced with my own ears and my specific hearing ability when listening to my personal set of music. I use the manual tweaking with pink noise - listening to filtered noise band per band (15 on the first run, then 31 for finer tuning) with a loudness reference somewhere around 500 Hz - to get a rough impression of tonal balance. From time to time I adjust that response when listening to varying sources. Different media and mixes may call for different targets. The trick is to find a setting that works well with the whole spectrum, of course.

That's my practical take on EQ'ing headphones.
That doesn't mean that there is no right of existance for a well-made in-situ measurement or a sophisticated dummy head with realistic (altough generic) anatomy. I just take the shorter and much simpler way by trusting my own ears. And I won't claim a reference.

It's all fine if it works well in practice and enriches the HiFi community on way or the other.
If you don't care, what am I gonna say about this?

Then why pink noise?
Pink noise is not the correct methodology. It's close but not quite.

Then how to trust your own ears?
What are you eqing to? Are you trained listener plus can remember the correct response in your head?

If it works for you and you like it then fine. And you said you don't care about reproduction then I'm not saying anything else.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
That site over-corrects the headphones with unnecessarily complex EQ. ...

Overall, here's some advice when correcting headphones (or speakers!):
1. Correct only the biggest variations; don't chase down every little nitnoid ripple in the response.
2. Use the gentlest curves and amplitudes you can. Don't try to correct it fully back to neutral; correcting it only about half way to neutral usually provides an audible improvement without overwhelming the sound.

Agree 100%.

I bought some ER3SEs recently. Here's the Oratory correction in MathAudio Headphone EQ in Foobar for the ER4SR:

Oratory ER4SR.JPG


And here's where I ended up:

ER3SE final.JPG



I'm 62 so I don't hear much difference in any corrections above 10-12k in any case.

The reason I got the ER3SE (other than someone accepted my offer of only $75 for a new but open box pair) was that their overall response is quite smooth, so EQ would more likely be a matter of adjusting the overall signature rather than messing with a number of sharp peaks and dips. IMHO, that has worked out well in this case.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Yes, one can hardly call the HD800 a sow's ear. :)

EQ works best with headphones that need very little EQ and respond good to it.
 

ZolaIII

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,070
Likes
2,409
@sejarzo interestingly where you ended up is the same where I did with Aurvanu Air, of course I don't try pumping up sub bass much on them as they can't do that thanks to their design. I do hear up to 17 KHz but above 12 KHz there is very little difference in anything real (music) so I don't even bother with that. Thing is those need very little EQ-ing to get there.
 

Dreyfus

Active Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
247
Likes
296
Location
Germany
Then why pink noise?
Pink noise is not the correct methodology. It's close but not quite.
I tend to like the downward slope.

What would be your suggestion? What is your prefered house curve for over-ear headphones?

Then how to trust your own ears?
What are you eqing to? Are you trained listener plus can remember the correct response in your head?
I just follow my instincts. There is a gradient (not to think of a single reference point) where I accept a headphone to sound balanced. Depending on the source I shift that gradient up and down in certain regions... until I finally end up with a response that works well on the median.

I know that there is a lot of theorey about how headphones should be equalized to sound right. And the more "standards" and "references" get involved in such discussions, I get the feeling that it is just a matter of perspective and taste in the end. And I would guess that as long as the production techniques in the industry do not follow a common standard, the equalisation will maintain to be highly depended on a specific room signature and the personal preference of an individual or a specific audience.

I could tune my response to mimic the frontal localisation in DF or FF, I could match it to the ACME studio response, I could match it to Harman, ...
All of that can be right or wrong, sound good or bad, depending on the source, your listening preferences and experiences, and also your subjective bias. Because of all that variances and divergences, I just try to follow my own route and skip all the hassle of matching my experience to a pre-defined concept. My experience and prefence may change with time. No man can ever step into the same river twice. And I'm totally ok with that. Because that's the essence of HiFi as a journey. ;)

If you ask me, people get just way too mad about how headphones should or should not sound like.
Just calm down and enjoy the colors of life.
 
Last edited:

Kouioui

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 9, 2019
Messages
164
Likes
185
Location
Central FL
I bought some ER3SEs recently. Here's the Oratory correction in MathAudio Headphone EQ in Foobar for the ER4SR
Oratory recently published new settings for the ER4XR that I really like with the 3SEs. I do reduce the low shelf and preamp gain from 9.3 to 6dB but otherwise an improvement for stage IEM use. Try both settings as presets with equal low shelf and gain and see what you think.

Of the two Etys I've tried, neither come as close as the EQ'd 6XXs to matching my monitors. I try to make recordings that sound good in a preferred listening environment (not a treated room) using acoustic devices tuned to preferred targets. That may not be the popular or correct way, but I'm only trying to please an audience of one...me!
 
Last edited:

asr6576

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
8
Likes
5
Yes, but you need to take care when EQing frequencies over 3khz. The frequency response varies substantially from people to people.
For myself, the famous 6khz peak of HD800S actually locates at 6.9khz. I think it's due to my ear, not my phones, because otherwise, Sennheiser's engineers will have trouble matching the channels.
 
Top Bottom