to that end, it was always a scramble - taking mixes from room to room across town to listen - and checking to hear that we hadn't screwed up before being politely lectured by a great mastering engineer... ) ... too much bass or top end where you mixed had the inverse effect on the mix... tough lessons sometimes...
With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.
github.com
To me, it defeat the purpose because if its PC or Mac based, how am I suposed to do when I have 4 different output and I need to cross reference.With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.
Here is one of the biggest databases for EQ/PEQ implementation:
AutoEq/results at master · jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
It holds 20 eq sets for different IEMs. Plenty of storage and you can have multiples at $100 bucks each. I run two of them myself. Just giving you options to consider.
that's true - tweaked for a purpose, whether for listening or monitoring - both with eq as well as the 'fit' itself if you are a vocalist... never had to buy a pair personally but had to be fitted four times since they became a 'thing' years ago... and I was always asked if I was an instrumentalist, a singer, or both - as they get tweaked a bit differently for vocalists for live monitoring, so I was told... still have the last two pairs somewhere in a drawer around here...With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.
Here is one of the biggest databases for EQ/PEQ implementation:
AutoEq/results at master · jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq
Wait a minute, is it a software or a hardware ?
I think most of us don't. Speaking for myself, I am only an audio enthusiast and not a mixing engineer. Now that you have pointed it out, along with your earlier posts about the importance of portability, I am beginning to see how difficult it would be for you. Applying EQ before the DAC is no problem for most of us because we only have 2 channels and we listen at home. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it would be to have to handle 16 channels and sitting in a hotel room.
The reason I posted the article written by Mitch is to provide you with reassurance that there are some other mixing engineers who feel the same way that you do. If you are used to mixing with a ruler flat frequency response, and if that is a requirement for a headphone for your profession, then any headphone tuned for mass market preference will have too much bass for you. So perhaps the problem with the U12t is that it is a product aimed for the mass market, and tuned to the Harman curve which is the preference of the mass market, and does not have tuning which is applicable for you as a mixing engineer.
As for your other question, whether they are tuned to the Harman frequency response, the answer is contained within the article:
The answer is a no. This kind of FR would earn it a headless panther on ASR and there would be the usual ASR pile-on about expensive and inferior products, which is quite unfair in my opinion. You saw a bit of that in this thread. Amir hasn't reviewed it, but there is a separate discussion on ASR here. I have heard the Audeze LCD-4 but not the LCD-5, and again it is not to my preference. To me they sound too thin. But then I am a mass market consumer who likes the Harman curve.
I am not suggesting you buy an Audeze LCD-4/5, or a HD800S, because there may be other considerations besides frequency response (e.g. portability, sensitivity, etc). I am suggesting that your preference might be different to the rest of us given your profession. Maybe you should seek out headphones with a similar ruler flat frequency response and see what you think.
Now buy the Moondrop Variations.
No, it's really not.Way to go, recommending another IEM tuned to the Harman curve when he has just gotten rid of an IEM tuned to the Harman curve!
I finally got a measurement on my 64 Audio custom 12T's. This measurement was done in an extremely noisy environment (a band was playing on stage). So, the low stuff that is different is because of that. The couple of spots that look different (250Hz-1.5K) are due to the angle of how they were measured in the miemi and when I angled it differently, they would come in line but the top end would go out. This is mitigated when they are in the ear canal since they aren't bouncing off of a wall and being changed on the way to the ear. This is why it's so important to have custom in ears made since they aim at the ear drum properly. It's similar to the difference of sitting on-axis to a speaker and sitting way below the speaker. Also, please excuse the bad quality picture. I didn't have time to download the frequency response to a USB stick so I just took a picture. Please note that it's incredibly zoomed in and the horizontal lines are 6db apart so any separation in them is probably around 1db and as I mentioned is a result of the angle that the in ears are being measured at.
You said:
You've posted a measurement of one. With significant channel mismatch. (Which, despite your best attempts to excuse it, is not inevitable with customs.) Where's this 'perfect matching' you claimed?
