Doesn't matter to me. So for example, when I used LCD2C's, and use Oratory's EQ, they're like completely new headphones. Like not even remotely close to stock, and are so much better.
I use his HD58X or 6XX EQ, and it's alright (I'm not saying it's bad, but the change isn't as big, nor is the sound much at all as pleasing compared to the LCD, but still very pleasing nonetheless).
Now obviously this virtually worthless anecdote means nothing since you can't really compare headphones in this manner from my perspective (pads, drivers, dimensions, everything is completely different, and who knows what's going on to the sound before it reaches my mind for processing). But these days I generally prefer to EQ on my own (I start with a FR sweep, and try to smooth out any stark peeks by doing multiple passes until things sound okay, and then I come back another day and do the same just to be sure my mind isn't adapting or tuning things out after multiple passes).
As an on-looker to this whole recent headphone measurements ordeal, I'm just somewhat shocked (and somewhat not consider its audio, and the amount of half-assed nonsense that passes through this industry), that there isn't a far more strict validation means of objective data gathering and processing. I again stick to the idea in my head, that most headphones are slapped together with all these unknowns, and they're simply measuring with whatever they've got using basically just FR, and a few subjective listens just to make sure nothing is insanely bad (who knows, since everything in this industry is so hush, no one has a clue on what anyone's doing unless you're an insider I suppose).
With all the basic glance-level reading I've been doing, I still need someone to convince me there's some actual science going on behind the scenes of successful headphone production other than this somewhat-fudging and proceeding to release simply due to the industry and consumers knowing no better anyway..
I still take it to be the case, that even basic approximations of frequency response are good enough, and paired with THD metrics, that's all you really need to tailor your phones to your preference. It's seemingly the case that manufacturers aren't moving much in this realm, so might as well do it yourself in the same way you would tailor your room treatment for speakers or something. Provided again, that THD isn't too high where EQ would just ruin it. You can see active speakers somewhat realizing this, and going this route, trying to fix issues with DSP, because seemingly native transducer characteristics can't be dialed in by whoever is producing them for the majority of audio device makers.
One area that leaves me speechless is Custom-IEMs. If all this mucking around with headphones, speakers, and universal IEM's is bad due to whole sorts of pinna and canal aspects. I cannot imagine A SINGLE manufacturer somehow being able to produce 2 custom IEM's for two different customers, and holding to the idea they're actually producing the same sound as one another. I would LOVE to see how custom IEM's are treated in the development phase (I imagine just getting manufacturing of shells down, and just basic FR sweeps to make sure nothing deviates from the "house sound" is good enough). Can one even produce proper customer IEM's faithfully without being provided HRTF data from a customer (as inaccessible as that is?)
Reasons why - really appreciated!
