Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?

[Robbo99999]

Check the 'Processes' tab. Peace.exe is running on my PC.
FWIW, you can also activate the tray icon by going to 'Settings' and tick the (you guessed it) 'Activate tray icon' box.

You don't need to even install Peace to run EQ Apo, Peace is just an interface for Equalizer APO.

Yep, and Peace.exe is not running automatically on reboot either, so it's like both me and @Fluffy is surmising...it's an installed driver or semi-permanent change to something that's already in the windows audio chain that's the active part in implementing the EQ...so you don't need to run Peace or Equaliser APO on reboot in order for the EQ changes to be realised. It seems those programs either inject something or edit something already in the windows audio chain that persists reboot, regardless of whether those programs are running or not.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't use peace so I'm not familiar with how it works. But the basic EQ APO doesn't really "runs" like a normal program, as much as I figured. it doesn't have a task manager process or service in msconfig. I think peace is just an easier graphic interface for the regular editor. And the editor is a graphic interface for the txt files that store the actual commands. You could program EQ changes straight into the txt files in the config folder if you knew exactly how to write them. And in turn, those files are probably automatically changing some hidden windows registry somewhere.

I found this developer documentation that may explain it's operations: https://sourceforge.net/p/equalizerapo/wiki/Developer documentation/

 

[Robbo99999]

I don't use peace so I'm not familiar with how it works. But the basic EQ APO doesn't really "runs" like a normal program, as much as I figured. it doesn't have a task manager process or service in msconfig. I think peace is just an easier graphic interface for the regular editor. And the editor is a graphic interface for the txt files that store the actual commands. You could program EQ changes straight into the txt files in the config folder if you knew exactly how to write them. And in turn, those files are probably automatically changing some hidden windows registry somewhere.

I found this developer documentation that may explain it's operations: https://sourceforge.net/p/equalizerapo/wiki/Developer documentation/

Yes, thanks, I read that link, and I think that's the ballpark area of what we're getting at in terms of how it works...I read it and I don't fully understand, but I think I get the gist of it....I think the main thing is that the audio EQ is maintained over reboot even without the programs Peace or Equaliser APO being run, but I just wanted to confirm here in this forum if that was actually the case that others had found too, and was also just curious how it worked...and we've gone some ways to answering that, thanks.

 

[Robbo99999]

The primary reason I bought/chose my sound hardware was virtual 7.1 surround sound gaming...and this EQ tweaking has really been for the benefit of music listening for a more accurate experience...however it seems that the EQ piggy backs really well on the Soundblaster 7.1 virtual surround sound - I've found that positional audio is clearer & more accurate with the EQ applied...I thought I'd mention that as a side benefit for applying an accurate EQ. I'm not sure why it's improved the virtual 7.1 positional audio, perhaps it's because the Harman curve EQ is simulating how it would sound coming out of a "calibrated 2 channel speaker system in a calibrated room" - so perhaps it's opened up the sound stage more accurately and is a more accurate base upon which the surround sound of Soundblaster can be built upon. This is fairly heavily subjective as it's very difficult to objectively say that there is an improvement in 3D sound positioning. I play a boat load of BF1, and in my mind competitively, so I look for advantages and feel that I'm sensitive to changes....yeah so I think this has been a side benefit of this EQ. Another win for EQ'ing your headphones then!

 

[Kouioui]

I'm not sure why it's improved the virtual 7.1 positional audio, perhaps it's because the Harman curve EQ is simulating how it would sound coming out of a "calibrated 2 channel speaker system in a calibrated room" - so perhaps it's opened up the sound stage more accurately and is a more accurate...Another win for EQ'ing your headphones then!

The benefits you speak of aren't limited to just headphones with Harman EQ as it extends to my nearfield monitors with Harman house curve room EQ. I can hear EFX in mixes that go way beyond the sides of the speakers and the whole room engulfs me like it did in overall ambience back when I used a 7.1 setup. It's a shame more people can't hear really well done stereo in their homes. Call it a soundstage if you will, I call it a headstage that I usually only get performing on stage.

 

[Robbo99999]

The benefits you speak of aren't limited to just headphones with Harman EQ as it extends to my nearfield monitors with Harman house curve room EQ. I can hear EFX in mixes that go way beyond the sides of the speakers and the whole room engulfs me like it did in overall ambience back when I used a 7.1 setup. It's a shame more people can't hear really well done stereo in their homes. Call it a soundstage if you will, I call it a headstage that I usually only get performing on stage.

I think that's why it suddenly and easily clicked for me when I first tried that Oratory EQ profile for my headphones...suddenly I was right there inside of the music...and tweaking his curve to match the slight measured differences of my standard K702 vs his Anniversary K702 accentuated that too. Yeah, so it wasn't just about the general tone of the headphones becoming more natural and balanced (as well as bringing out the bass line which is under represented in stock K702) - it's also about that effect of bringing you right into the middle of the music, it is a thing that just suddenly "clicks" like you said in an earlier post. Quite a revelation really, I'm sure people reading this thread are bit bored of me banging on about it over the last few days, ha!

 

[Robbo99999]

On the subject of EQ'ing headphones to the Harman target using Oratory1990 EQ settings, I've gone through his entire pdf listings of results for all his over ear headphones (https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets ), and the ones that fit the closest to Harman target after EQ'ing are the following 3 headphones (see the following links for the pdf's showing the result for that headphone):
-Monoprice M650 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1o72wn5d1pj2m2/Monoprice M650.pdf?dl=0 )
-Sennheiser HD569 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/63epzmjbuhm4tcm/Sennheiser HD569.pdf?dl=0 )
-Beats Pro Solo (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta7vs99495vsjus/Beats Solo Pro.pdf?dl=0 )

That Monoprice M650 is not particularly expensive, same is true for the Sennheiser HD569. Interestingly the Monoprice was way off the Harman target before EQ'ing. You can see how closely they fit the target by referring not only to the graph but also the "Preference Rating" at the bottom of the pdf. Now what do you guys think about these headphones that can basically hit the Harman target perfectly after EQ'ing, if you were going to consider buying one of these do you think they would all sound pretty much the same after EQ'ing considering that they were all very accurate to Harman target....and which of those 3 do you think would sound the best....what needs to be considered re sound quality apart from being able to be EQ'd closely to the Harman target when considering the 3 headphones I listed? And how much different or better would/could they be than my AKG K702 that has been EQ'd to Harman target?

 

[dense]

IMHO, balance in headphones is more important than distortions or phase changes. So do it if you can.
From my experience, loudness was a much bigger factor to average listeners than the distortions.
I think that's why KSC75 had gained some of the fame.

 

[Blujackaal]

IMHO, balance in headphones is more important than distortions or phase changes. So do it if you can.
From my experience, loudness was a much bigger factor to average listeners than the distortions.
I think that's why KSC75 had gained some of the fame.

The ER4XR is 1.1% that is a another very loved IEM, I still hold my unpopular view distortion is one of the last things to gauge sound from. Because if it was such a issue then anything by Grado or Speakers that reach 12% should be unlistable.

Because i find it odd how the XR's driver can be still seen as High def even to DD's or Planar/Estat that reach <0.1% at 95db?. Lossy codecs like AAC, Ogg, Opus can either add distortion that's inaudbile or remove it perceptualy to aid further compression.

 

[Erik]

You forgot to highlight other interesting parts

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.

I have no problems discussing anecdotal assumptions based on a biased experience as long as it is clear that it is just that.
Are you concluding that the participants in the test did things any different ?

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.

to get back on topic: Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?
My answer remains the same.. Yes in most cases but realise this may not be true for everyone due to differences in personal taste.
It is useful because in the study they too EQ'ed so the answer is yes acc. to the study as well.

Also products were made in accordance to these studies which shows the usefulness of measurements and research for preferences and a standard.
But these products too have shortcomings and do not follow the target exactly and need some EQ as well which indicates how difficult it is to make a good performing/sounding headphone. And those models also are not universally liked by all people.

So yes, EQ away if you want or need it and don't if you think it sounds fine.
Worth it to me ... hell yes... and based on my flawed (non compliant) measurements and subjective personal opinions as well.

What were you trying to say by highlighting the usage of the word "preference" in the publication? In your previous post you claimed they "tested a preference for a tonal balance", but in fact they did exactly the opposite by making all the headphones tonally matched.

"Since this paper is focused on only the nonlinear distortions, the frequency response of each headphone was equalized to a common target. In this way, we attempted to remove linear distortions so that any residual audible effects could be attributed to nonlinear distortions."

And yes, the participants in the test did things totally different from what you were doing. It was a blind listening test with the headphones being carefully matched to the same FR target, and in playback level. Your comparisons lack all of these factors which are absolutely needed to make your experience valuable.

 

[solderdude]

Yes, I know, what I do is pointless. As long as it works for me and some others I am O.K. with it. See my attempts as homeopathy.

I highlighted the words preference because of those words. I find these words intriguing. The whole research revolves around the word preference.

I know they tried to minimize linear distortion based on a measurement rig results.
When you believe this is all that is needed and ringing, directivity, wavefront shape, cone break-up, non linear distortions (in many percent), driver materials, membrane weight and shape as well as size have nothing to do with sound quality then so be it.
Feel free to think you can emulate a HD800 with a HD201.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yes, I know, what I do is pointless. As lomg as it works for me and some others I am O.K. with it. See my attempts as homeopathy.

I highlighted the words preference because of those words. I find these words intriguing. The whole research revolves around the word preference.

I know they tried to minimize linear distortion based on a measurement rig results.
When you believe this is all that is needed and ringing, directivity, wavefront shape, cone break-up, non linear distortions (in many percent), driver materials, membrane weight and shape as well as size have nothing to do with sound quality then so be it.
Feel free to think you can emulate a HD800 with a HD201.

I'm imagining theoretically that if you could measure received sound directly on the surface of the eardrum for a specific person, and if you then EQ'd all headphones to sound the same from that measured sound position then I think all headphones would sound exactly the same to that specific person as long as the hardware of the headphone being tested was capable of being EQ'd to that point without "artifacts & innaccuracies" - I'm thinking that some headphones would lack the ability to reproduce all frequencies/levels faithfully if their native sound curve was very choppy with big/many peaks and dips...you'd effectively be asking the headphone in question to produce levels at certain frequencies that the hardware of the headphone would be incapable of delivering due to materials & design of the headphone in question. So I'm thinking that it's not possible to EQ all headphones to sound identical even if everything could be measured completely accurately for that individual persons ears.

 

[Blujackaal]

I know they tried to minimize linear distortion based on a measurement rig results.
When you believe this is all that is needed and ringing, directivity, wavefront shape, cone break-up, non linear distortions (in many percent), driver materials, membrane weight and shape as well as size have nothing to do with sound quality then so be it.
Feel free to think you can emulate a HD800 with a HD201.

A lot seem to have this ignorant view that FR is the only thing that matters, It's even worse when the guy for harman target research. Said that headphones sounding differnt beyond it's FR like detail is audiophile woo. Which is cringy when they think they can mimic the very fast ADSR, transient responce of a BA driver or planar driver on some low end Senn headphone with a 40mm driver that has poor spec's.

Heck even the FR of the HD650 or HD600 would sound odd if mimicked on a LCD2C.

 

[solderdude]

There is tonal balance (arguably the most important aspect) and there are other aspects as well as ringing, cone break up, sharp nulls due to driver angling and driver-ear distance and diameter, pad bounce etc.
These all have an effect on the FR as well but cannot all be compensated for (certainly not easily) .

I bet you could all get them to measure exactly the same on 1 particular rig in one particular position with a particular seal and obtain a super-flat response with different headphones. Most likely most of them will sound tonally similar but can't be the same for more than one reason.

I take headphones for what they are (they have a 'character' one may like, tolerate or hate) and apply a general 'correction' if possible which works for me. Sharp dips I don't correct and sometimes the dip around 3kHz also does not need much or any correction (because of Pinna effects and driver angles)
Some I still don't like though they tonally improve, some improve a bit, others a lot. The ones I like I tend to use the most. This may not be what someone else prefers though.

Try to emulate the LCD-2 bass with something like the K501 or other bass shy headphone and then tell me they sound the same in the lows.
It's absolute bollocks to believe this is even possible. I tried, measured and can say with full confidence it can't.

You can EQ the HD650 and HD600 to sound the same though, but not the LCD-2 and LCD-4. The more refined treble can't be corrected/made the same with EQ it seems to be a membrane thing, though tonally you could get them very close (they differ slightly in tonality as well).
Close enough for quite a few people to say they sound exactly the same.

 

[Blujackaal]

There is tonal balance (arguably the most important aspect) and there are other aspects as well as ringing, cone break up, sharp nulls due to driver angling and driver-ear distance and diameter, pad bounce etc.
These all have an effect on the FR as well but cannot all be compensated for (certainly not easily) .

I bet you could all get them to measure exactly the same on 1 particular rig in one particular position with a particular seal and obtain a super-flat response with different headphones. Most likely most of them will sound tonally similar but can't be the same for more than one reason.

I take headphones for what they are (they have a 'character' one may like, tolerate or hate) and apply a general 'correction' if possible which works for me. Sharp dips I don't correct and sometimes the dip around 3kHz also does not need much or any correction (because of Pinna effects and driver angles)
Some I still don't like though they tonally improve, some improve a bit, others a lot. The ones I like I tend to use the most. This may not be what someone else prefers though.

Try to emulate the LCD-2 bass with something like the K501 or other bass shy headphone and then tell me they sound the same in the lows.
It's absolute bollocks to believe this is even possible. I tried, measured and can say with full confidence it can't.

You can EQ the HD650 and HD600 to sound the same though, but not the LCD-2 and LCD-4. The more refined treble can't be corrected/made the same with EQ it seems to be a membrane thing, though tonally you could get them very close (they differ slightly in tonality as well).
Close enough for quite a few people to say they sound exactly the same.

Yup, there way too many factors at play to say you could mimic a headphone's FR. That EQ'd HD201 to sound like a HD800 won't have the detail or the soundstage/imaging, Heck it might choke trying. I agree with the HD600 emulating a HD650. You can turn the ER4PT, ER3SE into a ER4SR/XR by EQ easily since the only differince is less treble by 5db and more bass/mids by 0.5 to 1db.

It's pretty much why Grado headphones would be a nightmare to mimc by EQ. Since the company never use charts to tune there headphones its done by ear. Not to mention its high THD and other factors.

 

[renoxd]

Is there anyone here who would have ready presets for HD660S?
I run them with DX7Pro and i feel that something is not right.

I tried to use presets created by metal571 for HD800 but they don't work for me.

 

[Jimbob54]

Is there anyone here who would have ready presets for HD660S?
I run them with DX7Pro and i feel that something is not right.

I tried to use presets created by metal571 for HD800 but they don't work for me.

Try the ones on this page (after the first list of links)- or back up and out of the Oratory ones and into a different set

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Sennheiser HD 660 S

 

[flipflop]

Is there anyone here who would have ready presets for HD660S?

You can start with the one by oratory: https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4isno09gt20ozf/Sennheiser HD660S.pdf?dl=0
If you're not happy with the result, I can make one for you based 3 other measurements.

 

[renoxd]

So far, https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4isno09gt20ozf/Sennheiser HD660S.pdf?dl=0 is best Thanks alot!
Jumbo, thank you too, as I also checked presets from you which helped me find a reference!

 

[Blujackaal]

Since were sharing EQ profiles, Here my Peace EQ for the ER3SE. Sounds like the ER4SR with 1db more bass, The 1.6K cut is because it too much there. The Etymotic ER3 is pretty much a new gen ER4PT, Same detail/res as the ER4SR/XR but with less treble but sold at $180 instead of $350.

Pre gain = -4

6KHz high self(0.7) = 4db

1.6KHz peak(2.5) = -3