@Resolve might be able to provide that for you. You replied to my post & I'm not responsible for his work, I'm just highlighting what he's doing because I thought it was interesting & potentially useful. I could use Virtuix CAD to graphically trace Resolve's target from his graphs, but that wouldn't be as accurate as Resolve posting up the raw data of his target.....and besides I wouldn't be doing that for at least a few days, got some busy days coming up.
I think you identified correctly why it sounds darker. I noticed myself from comparing my Oratory based HD560s EQ with Resolve's EQ that there are some areas of the treble in the Resolve EQ that are not boosted as much as the Oratory EQ - I also went on to surmise that this was why it wasn't necessary to put in such a large bass shelf on the Resolve EQ vs Oratory EQ (because bass balances treble).
Did you try it on your HD560s yet, or have you sold that one?
The HD 560 S one is possibly the least indicative one on the list right now, given it has substantial positional variation (and likely across users as well). Edition XS should be good, HD 800 S as well.
Could you please share the txt files to import into EQ APO if you have them.
Interesting, do you mean that's a conclusion based on blocked ear canal measurements of different people wearing an HD560s vs some other known headphones? Or do you mean more that if you vary the position of the HD560s on your B&K then it will deliver some quite different frequency responses in comparison to the variation that would be seen by some other headphones when treated in the same way on your B&K? I have to admit that when I measured my 3 units of HD560s on my miniDSP EARS that I didn't get much variation at all between reseats (also when viewed in comparison to the variation I saw between my 4 other models of headphones in terms of reseat variation), but I was trying to place them roughly centrally without deforming the pinna of the measuring rig. To be honest, the inside cup dimensions of the HD560s don't really allow much movement front to back unless you're committed to deforming the pinna and placing them on the pinna in a way that no user would ever place the headphone (because they'd feel it was sitting on some parts of their ear rather than their ear being comfortably inside). The HD560s does have quite a bit more play in the vertical positioning though without distorting the pinna - so would you be referring to positional variation in the vertical, because I can't imagine anyone wearing the HD560s incorrectly or innacurately in the front to back manner as there is not enough room to allow much movement without obviously being placed wrongly on the pinna. (Have you got some info you can link me to on any measurements that support what you say there?)
It's less about folks wearing them 'inaccurately' and more about the conditions changing due to being worn by different heads. Basically, that changes the headphone's acoustic behavior. But yes, there was also quite a bit of positional change on the 5128, which is what I noticed when doing multiple seatings. Probably the most extreme examples of headphone variability I've found has been with the Focal closed-backs, while the least variability would be something like... the HD 800 S, the big HiFiMANs, or maybe the CA-1a.
I can understand what you mean about positional variation on your B&K that you've determined, but how did you determine the variation between different heads - where's the data & testing that was done using blocked ear canal mics on the HD560s across different individuals vs other models of headphone?
I sold my HD560s recently because they just weren’t my favourite.
I think you are right, it is not related to the target but something specific to the headphone probably because I am listening to LCD-X for a while now, and tonality seems to be close with this one. I like the 200hz tuck of the Harman curve, and was a bit worried that things will sound boxy with your EQ as that area seem to be higher compared to Oratory's EQ but it was fine. With voice, and male & female vocals so far it sounds good. I did not add a bass shelf this time and did not miss it either.
I think I've heard it surmised that often closed back headphones with good bass extension can often deliver more perceived bass slam than some other types of headphone even when EQ'd to the same curve in the bass. I think it was surmised that the closed front volume might be somehow coming into play to somehow deliver a more visceral bass impact than the measured frequency response suggests. I don't think it's ever been proven though, but I'm just trying to think why you were ok with less bass on your LCD-X, and I think the LCD-X is one of the headphones that have been involved in this positive discussion re enhanced bass slam perception. On the same token if you don't get a good seal on a closed back headphone then you won't get good bass, so I'd say you're obviously getting a good seal.......although I saw somewhere that if you have a seal breach on planar headphones then you can often end up with a bass hump higher up in the bass but with a greater roll off lower down (less bass extension), so that could maybe a possible explanation too. But it is interesting that your LCD-X is the outlier in contrast to your Edition XS and HD600, ie you're not having to add any bass to the LCD-X Resolve EQ.
I think it might partly be because Oratory's EQ does not have a very strong bass shelf with LCD-X either and most of the equalization is in the sub-bass (ca +5db at 20hz and +2db in 50hz) and Resolve's EQ also has +2db in 20hz. If I listen to a song with a lot of sub-bass energy, I can hear the difference but it does not affect tonality. Maybe another reason is that LCD-X is very good at reproducing bass - it is actually my favourite fun headphone.
That data is still to come
. Although again with the HD 560 S I was referring more to the positional differences on the B&K.
Ok, fair enough re data still to come. But in your second sentence there you're contradicting the emphasis of what you said a few moments ago in this post of yours:That data is still to come
www.audiosciencereview.com
Hmm, that doesn't add up what you say there.......I've just looked at the Oratory EQ for the LCD-X 2021 version, and Oratory uses a massive bass shelf on that:
Yes, version is fine, I have the 2021 version. I am using the Auto EQ from Peace and you are right, it is different than the one on dropbox.
Don't be confusing AutoEQ EQ's with Oratory EQ's as they're not the same thing - AutoEQ doesn't use the Harman Curve as the target, they use less bass than Harman. It is possible to find EQ's on AutoEQ to the Harman Curve I believe, but it's not the default option over there last time I looked. So definitely don't be using AutoEQ's and saying they're Harman when they're not - you have to be certain what you're using as you will confuse yourself & others.
Yes, indeed. I need to check what I have saved vs the PDFs on dropbox to make sure I was comparing vs Harman tuning. I have to say, I am a bit disappointed AutoEQ is not reliable as it was very convenient.
It's somewhat related, although I can see why you'd say that. A change in positioning showing a slightly different result isn't exhaustively indicative of the degree of variability on different heads (given the ears and coupling would be different too), however you can still get a sense of how that would change given the differences in default wearing positions across users. As an example, for some headphones, like the HD 560 S, or the Focal closed backs, extremely subtle seating changes can yield distinctly different results. I think we can expect those effects to vary across users as well. Of course, that doesn't include all variables, but it's at minimum an indication that we should probably be less confident about those fine-grained minutia on those headphones versus say... and HD 800 S where the same subtle change doesn't yield any meaningful difference, since they're less predictive as a result.
