Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?

[Robbo99999]

Thanks for all the interest, useful postings, and discussions back & forth amoungst you all in this thread I started. I'm short for time this week so won't be able to respond or read everyone's replies until next week, but keep it going. I'll be reading it all, and I've got enough time next week to explore some EQ'ing on my headphones. I appreciate everyone's input, it's true I'll be learning a lot!

 

[xykreinov]

It is very much worth it in most cases. Invaluable if you need an accurate response.
I have a pair of Sony WH-1000xM3. While they are probably objectively the best headphones at noise cancelling currently, their stock sound quality leaves something to be desired. Luckily, they're mostly only impaired by an erroneously bass heavy frequency response. The stereo separation and low frequency range, for example, are right on if not above the money for its price range. So, once I tuned them to the Harman Target Curve via my MiniDSP IL-DSP and oratory1990's presets, they become a fantastic pair of headphones with the tonal accuracy I need for my media work on the go and/or in loud environments. If I fell for purist bologna saying that you shouldn't EQ headphones for whatever silly reason, I probably would have ended up with a pair of Sennheiser's new ANC cans. While the latter has a more comfortable stock frequency response, the ANC is very noticeably worse and so is the stereo separation. With the power of EQ, I was able to focus on the more objective feature of an ANC headphone, the ANC performance, and stop worrying about the rest. The unexpectedly excellent sonic performance beyond tonal accuracy that was previously just a bonus also is easier to focus on, things that, again, the Sony's do well in.

 

[bobbooo]

Etymotic has done something similar to Harman but instead of finding what's subjectively preferred, etymotic found the more accurate speakers in room response.

What Etymotic (and you) are failing to account for is the difference in tactile bass percieved via speakers and headphones. The reason Harman's research found people preferred a bass boost when listening to music via headphones compared to speakers is because the former, even if they have very good bass extension, produce no (or at least very little) tactile bass, whereas the latter do produce full-body tactile bass (if they have adequate bass extension), which is closer to what you would feel at a live concert / club.

The bass boost people prefer in headphones acts as a perceptual substitute for this missing tactile bass, so subjectively speaking, the Harman headphone target is perceptually a more accurate simulation of what you would experience when listening to speakers, and so in turn gets you closer to a real live music experience. See this study which showed the less tactile bass people experienced while listening to music, the more bass boost they preferred to EQ their headphones with.

I highly suspect that the reason Harman found people preferred an even higher bass boost for in-ear compared to over/on-ear headphones is because the latter can provide slight tactile bass cues on the outer ear / skull, whereas the former can't at all, so an even greater bass boost is required to compensate for even less tactile bass in the case of IEMs, in order to give a better illusion of a realistic full-body bass experience.

 

[JohnYang1997]

What Etymotic (and you) are failing to account for is the difference in tactile bass percieved via speakers and headphones. The reason Harman's research found people preferred a bass boost when listening to music via headphones compared to speakers is because the former, even if they have very good bass extension, produce no (or at least very little) tactile bass, whereas the latter do produce full-body tactile bass (if they have adequate bass extension), which is closer to what you would feel at a live concert / club.

The bass boost people prefer in headphones acts as a perceptual substitute for this missing tactile bass, so subjectively speaking, the Harman headphone target is a perceptually more accurate simulation of what you would experience when listening to speakers, and so in turn gets you closer to a real live music experience. See this study which showed the less tactile bass people experienced while listening to music, the more bass boost they preferred to EQ their headphones with.

I highly suspect that the reason Harman found people preferred an even higher bass boost for in-ear compared to over/on-ear headphones is because the latter can provide slight tactile bass cues on the outer ear / skull, whereas the former can't at all, so an even greater bass boost is required to compensate for even less tactile bass in the case of IEMs, in order to give a better illusion of a realistic full-body bass experience.

There is some more information.
1, Their preferred target curve for speaker's in room response also have boosted bass. So this is not just headphones or in ears.
2, The measured response is DRP response (drum reference point). This means that whatever in front of the ear drum don't matter. And that is what you hear.
3, If you repeat the experiment yourself you will find that boosted bass for IE is stupid. The OE is coherent to their speaker eq preference so not a big issue there. There might be some leakage using shallow insertion IEMs where if you get a fit on the coupler you do otherwise there will be no bass. But if you use deep insertion type like er4, er2 and CIEMs you will find those have the deepest flattest bass ever more so than the speakers. It's just impossible to have speakers with bass flat to 20hz tho you will get the feel of bass better. However that's not what you hear and boosted bass can never compensate for it, it only makes the bass boomy and hurt your eardrum. (Again talking about IE target, OE target's bass is personal preference)

 

[Blujackaal]

What Etymotic (and you) are failing to account for is the difference in tactile bass percieved via speakers and headphones. The reason Harman's research found people preferred a bass boost when listening to music via headphones compared to speakers is because the former, even if they have very good bass extension, produce no (or at least very little) tactile bass, whereas the latter do produce full-body tactile bass (if they have adequate bass extension), which is closer to what you would feel at a live concert / club.

The bass boost people prefer in headphones acts as a perceptual substitute for this missing tactile bass, so subjectively speaking, the Harman headphone target is perceptually a more accurate simulation of what you would experience when listening to speakers, and so in turn gets you closer to a real live music experience. See this study which showed the less tactile bass people experienced while listening to music, the more bass boost they preferred to EQ their headphones with.

I highly suspect that the reason Harman found people preferred an even higher bass boost for in-ear compared to over/on-ear headphones is because the latter can provide slight tactile bass cues on the outer ear / skull, whereas the former can't at all, so an even greater bass boost is required to compensate for even less tactile bass in the case of IEMs, in order to give a better illusion of a realistic full-body bass experience.

And why are you ignoring that method is very flawed, All i see is unfair hate to a user who dosen't like the HRT. I like ER*SE versions with no bass boost since when i tried every shelf it add colouring to the lower mids and treble. With things like the subpac being a thing to help sub bass on headphones i find it super cringy this even a issue.

I don't like the HRT either, It very funny how all i see here is "My view is the only one that valid". Because i hope your bating hard that Etymotic too old to have a opinion about there house sound?. Have you guy's even tried a Etymotic ER4B before scoffing the S versions?. Because i guess i must be invaild to since i sold my ER4XR to the S versions because they sound cleaner.

Not to mention the OE version of harman is the only version i regard as netural since the bass boost is only 5 db. Really love how many here are plainly ignoring how the current IE version clearly looks like they used people who never tried a proper netural set up in there life hence why they just let them EQ to taste, Because i clearly remember when a A/B was done those same ones chose the flat speakers over there own EQ profiles. Again i see that chart showing the IE bass boost avg's, oddly i notice quite a few who enjoy stuff under 6db were the Etymotic target lives???.

Really nice to see 5 people admit they like boosted mid bass with no care that can hurt the mids. Try to argue what is and isn't neutral because someone said something they don't wanna hear or even read the harman link there dumping?.

Imagine being this sore that people don't also like there bass being boosted or the ER4XR is enough for quite a few.

 

[JohnYang1997]

And why are you ignoring that method is very flawed, All i see is unfair hate to a user who dosen't like the HRT. I like ER*SE versions with no bass boost since when i tried every shelf it add colouring to the lower mids and treble. With things like the subpac being a thing to help sub bass on headphones i find it super cringy this even a issue.

I don't like the HRT either, It very funny how all i see here is "My view is the only one that valid". Because i hope your bating hard that Etymotic too old to have a opinion about the house sound?. Have you guy's even tried a Etymotic ER4B before scoffing the S versions?. Because i guess i must be invaild to since i sold my ER4XR to the S versions because they sound clean.

Not to mention the OE version of harman is the only version i regard as netural since the bass boost is only 5 db. Really love how many here are plainly ignoring how the current IE version clearly looks like they used people who never tried a proper netural set up in there life hence why they just let them EQ to taste, Because i clearly remember when a A/B was done those same ones chose the flat speakers over there own EQ profiles. Again i see that chart showing the IE bass boost avg's, oddly i notice quite a few who enjoy stuff under 6db were the Etymotic target lives???.

Really nice to see 5 people admit they like boosted mid bass with no care that can hurt the mids. Try to argue what is and isn't neutral because someone said something they don't wanna hear or even read the harman link there dumping?.

Imagine being this sore that people don't also like there bass being boosted or the ER4XR is enough for quite a few.

I prefer er4xr + PtoS adapter. The stock sound is a bit dark.

A little bit reasoning:
The BA driver is basically a very straightforward technology. How xr improved the bass was to add a port. However when they do it, it will affect the acoustic impedance of the housing and damping of the driver. As a result, the high frequency resonances(desired) are reduced, the frequency response is closer to er4p with extra 10khz+. The 1-6khz became a little but recessed. When you add the PtoS adapter you get a small boost in the mid to highest frequency making it actually closer to what they claimed er4sr+bass. The reason they didn't do that is because this increases the impedance and reduces the sensitivity. But as a reversible mod. You may give it a try.

 

[Blujackaal]

I prefer er4xr + PtoS adapter. The stock sound is a bit dark.

A little bit reasoning:
The BA driver is basically a very straightforward technology. How xr improved the bass was to add a port. However when they do it, it will affect the acoustic impedance of the housing and damping of the driver. As a result, the high frequency resonances(desired) are reduced, the frequency response is closer to er4p with extra 10khz+. The 1-6khz became a little but recessed. When you add the PtoS adapter you get a small boost in the mid to highest frequency making it actually closer to what they claimed er4sr+bass. The reason they didn't do that is because this increases the impedance and reduces the sensitivity. But as a reversible mod. You may give it a try.

I use a ER3SE with 6k high self of 5db, Since i don't have a adaptor and sounds just as good. Sounds like the 4SR i sold back up PC stuff.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I use a ER3SE with 6k high self of 5db, Since i don't have a adaptor and sounds just as good. Sounds like the 4SR i sold back up PC stuff.

Oh right. We have eq!

 

[asr6576]

I prefer er4xr + PtoS adapter. The stock sound is a bit dark.

A little bit reasoning:
The BA driver is basically a very straightforward technology. How xr improved the bass was to add a port. However when they do it, it will affect the acoustic impedance of the housing and damping of the driver. As a result, the high frequency resonances(desired) are reduced, the frequency response is closer to er4p with extra 10khz+. The 1-6khz became a little but recessed. When you add the PtoS adapter you get a small boost in the mid to highest frequency making it actually closer to what they claimed er4sr+bass. The reason they didn't do that is because this increases the impedance and reduces the sensitivity. But as a reversible mod. You may give it a try.

This is my EQ for ER4SR. In my language, the stock sound is too BRIGHT!

 

[flipflop]

This is my EQ for ER4SR. In my language, the stock sound is too BRIGHT!
View attachment 50939

Overall, it looks good. You might want to shift down your 3 kHz cut more towards 1.5-2 kHz and reduce it by 1 dB.

 

[asr6576]

Overall, it looks good. You might want to shift down your 3 kHz cut more towards 1.5-2 kHz and reduce it by 1 dB.

Nice

 

[pwjazz]

My 2 cents on the Harman targets ...

Harman is a company that makes money by selling audio playback gear to consumers (among other things). As such, they're interested in creating products that appeal to the widest possible range of consumers. The Harman targets are based on listener preference ratings and are designed to appeal to a broad range of consumers. That means it's good for business. It doesn't mean that it will appeal best to every single individual, nor does it mean that it's somehow more "correct" than some other target. It does however mean that's it's more likely to appeal to a given individual than most tunings out there and as such represents a good starting point for anyone wanting to EQ. I personally don't love the Harman target, but I'd rather EQ a Harman-tuned ear/headphone to my taste than start with something that has some random tuning with no science behind it.

 

[Dreyfus]

Just for the giggles:



$$$

Source: https://www.listeninc.com/wp/media/Perception_and_-Measurement_of_Headphones_Sean_Olive.pdf, p. 7.

 

[JohnYang1997]

https://clarityfidelity.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard
Holy shit. He's back!!

 

[MRC01]

... The reason Harman's research found people preferred a bass boost when listening to music via headphones compared to speakers is because the former, even if they have very good bass extension, produce no (or at least very little) tactile bass, whereas the latter do produce full-body tactile bass (if they have adequate bass extension), which is closer to what you would feel at a live concert / club.

The bass boost people prefer in headphones acts as a perceptual substitute for this missing tactile bass, so subjectively speaking, the Harman headphone target is perceptually a more accurate simulation of what you would experience when listening to speakers, and so in turn gets you closer to a real live music experience. ...

Listener training & experience is a big factor here. When people first start listening to headphones they prefer boosted bass for the reasons you mention. As they gain more experience listening on headphones they hone their perception, learn to hear/listen differently ("I realized the bass was there all along, but sounds different on headphones") and the preference for boosted bass diminishes.

 

[flipflop]

Listener training & experience is a big factor here. When people first start listening to headphones they prefer boosted bass for the reasons you mention. As they gain more experience listening on headphones they hone their perception, learn to hear/listen differently ("I realized the bass was there all along, but sounds different on headphones") and the preference for boosted bass diminishes.

This is wrong.
From the conclusion of 'Segmentation of Listeners Based on Their Preferred Headphone Sound Quality Profiles' (Olive et. al, 2019):

In this paper we conducted cluster analysis to identify different segments or classes of listeners based on their headphone sound preferences. The analysis included preference ratings of 130 listeners for 31 different models of AE/OE headphones reported in [1]. The demographics of the listener (age, gender and prior listener training) in each class were examined, as well as the acoustic features of the headphones preferred in each class. A summary of the three classes of listeners is given as follows:

Class 1: “Harman Target Lovers”
They make up the majority of listeners (64%) tested, and prefer neutral sounding headphones equalized to the Harman Target response curve. Membership includes an approximately equal balance of members across gender, age groups, and trained/untrained listeners. The exception is listeners over the age 50 who are more likely to be members of Class 3.

Class 2: “More Bass is Better”
This is the smallest class (15%) of listeners who prefer headphones with 3-6 dB more bass than the Target curve below 300 Hz. Members in this group are predominantly male, and include 30% of the trained listeners in our sample.

Class 3: “ Less Bass is Better”
The second largest class (21%) prefers headphones with 2-4 dB less bass than the Harman Target curve below 100 Hz. Membership is comprised entirely of untrained listeners, and predominantly female and older listeners (50+ years).

 

[MRC01]

This is wrong.
From the conclusion of 'Segmentation of Listeners Based on Their Preferred Headphone Sound Quality Profiles' (Olive et. al, 2019):

I get it. My own personal experience, and that of my audiophile friends who concur, is "wrong". Gotcha.
When discussing population studies of preferences, the terms "right" and "wrong" don't really apply. I know we don't fit neatly into the Harman population study. That's a different conclusion.

 

[flipflop]

My own personal experience, and that of my audiophile friends who concur, is "wrong".

Your own sighted, anecdotal experience is definitely not applicable to anyone else than you and your friends.

 

[JeffS7444]

https://clarityfidelity.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard
Holy shit. He's back!!

The frustration I feel with sites like that is that they're full of pretty response graphs, but not the data used to generate them! Data that could be used with Room EQ Wizard to generate parametric correction values for the target response of your choosing. That's assuming that their particular headphones measure similarly to ours. How much easier life would be if this data were provided by the headphone manufacturers, similarly to how you can download calibration files for inexpensive measurement devices.

 

[Erik]

EQ can be more than just beneficial but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Sound quality isn't only FR related (which is what EQ addresses)

Actually, you can.

Non-linear distortion is not a significant factor in subjective sound quality evaluations as long as there is nothing abnormal with it.
https://www.listeninc.com/the-corre...bility-and-listener-preference-in-headphones/

A cheap generic headphone can never be made to sound like a high-end headphone. You could very well improve tonality though (up to a certain point)

Depends on what you mean by "cheap generic headphone". In the study I linked above, five headphones were equalized to the same target. The headphones were AKG K701, Beats by Dre, Bose QC15, Sony MDR-V600 and Stax SR-009. Conclusions of the study:
• Headphone had a significant effect on preference ratings; this effect was largely isolated to one (Headphone D), which was less preferred to the other four headphones. There were no significant preferences among the other four headphones.
• Listener comments indicated Headphone D had audible distortion. For the other headphones, listeners’ comments were often inconsistent across repeated observations, and expressed how difficult it was to hear audible distortion in the headphones.
As you can see, only one pair of headphones out of five sounded noticably worse than the others. That means that either Beats or Bose headphones sounded as good as the highest end Stax when they were equalized to the same target.