D
Deleted member 22141
Guest
I generally don't like to EQ - anything in my arsenal. I prefer things to be good 'by design'. If you need to do EQ (what I personally believe, it may differ with others or may all others), there's clearly a fault there. I rather just find the gear that sounds best to me rather than get caught up in the EQverse.
If anything needs correction, and maybe so much of it, it's physically faulty. Also, EQing may suggest that the equipment is not built to deliver those parameters, so why try to force it to fake it?
Anyhow - that's my general opinion on EQ. Nothing's perfect - but things that matter to any individual specifically, must be as close as possible by being built that way in the first place.
I'd like to explain this via the following image:
View attachment 175126
I know I may be bashed for saying this - for some I may be a blasphemer - but I will have to take it then.
PS: Verily this one (the Liric), for the money, raises a lot of eyebrows with the questionable performance.
The Harman target is certainly the only one backed by research, but it's not "correct" in any serious sense.
Have you established beyond any question that your preference exactly matches the Harman curve? And if so, which one, as they have changed it a number of times? So which one is it that it has to match to be acceptable to you? Fully 1/3 of listeners don't exactly match the standard preference curves.
Simply judging a headphone as lacking because it doesn't exactly match the Harmon target is a little odd. If you can't find something that fits your own preference then EQ is great, and the ability to EQ without distortion is important.
I think it's great that we get FR maps, overlaid on the Harman curves, but to then say "and because the overlay isn't exact there is something wrong with these headphones" is a pretty large and unwarranted step.
I think I'd probably quite like this headphone without EQ and it seems to have a lot of other good features. I'm definitely going to find one to try out sometime.