Resolve's B&K 5128 Headphone Target - you can try the EQ's.....

[MrBrainwash]

You're a good guy @MrBrainwash but I don't think this is particularly relevant to the thread. What's the relevance to B&K5128?

Resolve's B&K 5128 Headphone Target - you can try the EQ's

This is my try of this target by create eq in indirect way. I have comparision to other models eq'ed in direrect way. Therefore I have subjective confirmation that I am more or less close to what was proposed.

 

[markanini]

It can't be that much better, or worse, than hps.com effort, for this rig.

 

[Robbo99999]

Resolve's B&K 5128 Headphone Target - you can try the EQ's

This is my try of this target by create eq in indirect way. I have comparision to other models eq'ed in direrect way. Therefore I have subjective confirmation that I am more or less close to what was proposed.

Ah, ok, I understand now what you did! Ok, as you kind of pointed out in your post it was a bit of a rough approach given that you used another headphone measured on another measurement rig (GRAS) as an intermediary point to convert it to allow you to "try" the B&K 5128 target on a headphone that hasn't been measured on the B&K yet. You're factoring in numerous innaccuracies with that method though as you go through each of the steps, so the chances of it being true to the B&K 5128 target decreases with each additional step. It's interesting to hear about your approach, but it's probably too inaccurate to glean anything from it.

EDIT: and besides, you've got the Sundara (I can see it in your sig) which has been measured by Resolve on the B&K, so you don't need to go to the lengths of trying the target by doing all these conversions that you did. Just try the target on your Sundara.

EDIT: and you've also got the HD650 that he measured!

 

[MrBrainwash]

It's interesting to hear about your approach, but it's probably too inaccurate to glean anything from it.

you've got the Sundara and you've also got the HD650 that he measured!

I understand your concerns but I see it in a different way. What I wanted glean from it I already gleaned. I used what was avaible to me to improve sound and that worked. At the end of the day you get deviation from your own HRFT, measument errors, sample variations, hearing deficits and so on - what accuracy? I didn't aimed for accuracy but for something that would sound close to Sundara&HD650 equalized to target in terms of tonal balans, in my direct comparision and evaluation. I think that until you have own equipment, skills, knowledge you wont have guarantee that you listen to target itself. All the info from the net that we rely on is just a play in making small improvements supported by what we are able to hear from our headphones. Science here is only the means not ends. It would be interesting to measure effects and verify the scale of error, though. I needed EQ now for DT990. I am looking forward to Resolve's preset to appear (for other headphones I have too).

 

[Robbo99999]

I understand your concerns but I see it in a different way. What I wanted glean from it I already gleaned. I used what was avaible to me to improve sound and that worked. At the end of the day you get deviation from your own HRFT, measument errors, sample variations, hearing deficits and so on - what accuracy? I didn't aimed for accuracy but for something that would sound close to Sundara&HD650 equalized to target in terms of tonal balans, in my direct comparision and evaluation. I think that until you have own equipment, skills, knowledge you wont have guarantee that you listen to target itself. All the info from the net that we rely on is just a play in making small improvements supported by what we are able to hear from our headphones. Science here is only the means not ends. It would be interesting to measure effects and verify the scale of error, though. I needed EQ now for DT990. I am looking forward to Resolve's preset to appear (for other headphones I have too).

Oh, ok, you just wanted a Resolve style B&K EQ for your DT990, and that was how you approximated it, ok. And it was probably an interesting little project. You could maybe request Resolve to measure the DT990 over in his thread:

B&K 5128 Target - Community Input Thread

Listener age: 25 Headphones: Sennheiser HD 600 Source: Lyr+ (in ss mode) Pad age: 1yr Score before 3khz adjustment (1 is low, 5 is high): 3 3khz Filter: -1db Score after 3khz adjustment: 3 Notes: There is a definite peakiness in the treble that’s causing some very noticeable sibilance. I...

forum.headphones.com

 

[Robbo99999]

New news, lol! Aeon 2 Noire has been measured on B&K 5128, but no associated EQ for it, so you'll have to do your own EQ to their target using REW or something if you want, but they've measured it on their B&K:

Dan Clark Audio AEON 2 - Open & Closed - Official Discussion

Nope. Nothing for me to remove. ☹

forum.headphones.com

Not sure why they didn't bother to do an EQ for it to their new target curve.....might be because they've got all the information they need from earlier tests of the target curve and they're at a new stage in the process.....albeit I know they've sort of put this project on temporary hold which is inferred from what they've said in this thread, so praps that's why they've not created an EQ for this new measurement. But either way, that's the new measurement, and you can create your own EQ from it if you want.

 

[Resolve]

New news, lol! Aeon 2 Noire has been measured on B&K 5128, but no associated EQ for it, so you'll have to do your own EQ to their target using REW or something if you want, but they've measured it on their B&K:

Dan Clark Audio AEON 2 - Open & Closed - Official Discussion

Nope. Nothing for me to remove. ☹

forum.headphones.com

Not sure why they didn't bother to do an EQ for it to their new target curve.....might be because they've got all the information they need from earlier tests of the target curve and they're at a new stage in the process.....albeit I know they've sort of put this project on temporary hold which is inferred from what they've said in this thread, so praps that's why they've not created an EQ for this new measurement. But either way, that's the new measurement, and you can create your own EQ from it if you want.

This was measured a while ago. I haven't made an EQ profile for them yet because I want to get a second unit in. These have a tendency to have some substantial variation in the ear gain (big pads do be like that), so before giving folks the option I want to base it a bit more on averages (4 or 6 channels instead of 2 for example).

 

[markanini]

@Resolve One of your associates @_listener_ has banned me on all Discord servers that he mods, including servers where I've not been active, on the charge of "arguing in bad faith"(sic).

To prove I have no bad faith I will provide some suggestions for your DF-based target development. After applying the tilt and shelf, subtract approximately 3.5dB at 2.5kHz with a peak filter of Q1.8. This final filter represents the physical midrange cancellation of a 60 degree stereo speaker setup.

Anyone else that's interested can experiement in https://autoeq.app/ by adding the following lines in sound signature box:

frequency,raw
20,0
1600,0
2500,-3.5
4500,0
20000,0

This works even better for creating a 711 based target, but BK5128 benefits too.

 

[roladyzator]

@markanini How did you come up with the filter Q and gain?

There is a dip in the 2 kHz range that is affecting the phantom center image (created by the signal that is the same in both stereo speakers), but it does not apply to sounds that are mixed more to the sides. The dip is more pronounced the less reverbant the room is. This is why most crossfeed plugins (Goohertz CanOpener in my experience) for headphones sound somewhat dark and distant - they replicate the "dip" but not how it is partially filled by reflections.

See example measurements of this effect in Toole's book.

 

[markanini]

@markanini How did you come up with the filter Q and gain?

There is a dip in the 2 kHz range that is affecting the phantom center image (created by the signal that is the same in both stereo speakers), but it does not apply to sounds that are mixed more to the sides. The dip is more pronounced the less reverbant the room is. This is why most crossfeed plugins (Goohertz CanOpener in my experience) for headphones sound somewhat dark and distant - they replicate the "dip" but not how it is partially filled by reflections.

See example measurements of this effect in Toole's book.
View attachment 292184

Just observing common features of existing targets, referenced against DF, that's all.

 

[roladyzator]

Just observing common features of existing targets, referenced against DF, that's all.

Thanks, I think it makes sense.

 

[markanini]

Thanks, I think it makes sense.

Also consider the difference between Harman linear in-room vs DF:

Harman 2018 increased the upper mid dip 2dB further:

 

[isostasy]

'you can see there's an 8khz peak ... I expect is just a similar kind of feature to what you get with the canal entrance resonance that you see on the GRAS system, so a dip at around 9kHz on the GRAS'

This is the first I've heard this discussed. The HD600 doesn't actually have an audible ~6dB peak there, does it? This suggests to me the compensation curve for the 5128 needs to reflect this?

 

[digitalfrost]

@markanini How did you come up with the filter Q and gain?

There is a dip in the 2 kHz range that is affecting the phantom center image (created by the signal that is the same in both stereo speakers), but it does not apply to sounds that are mixed more to the sides. The dip is more pronounced the less reverbant the room is. This is why most crossfeed plugins (Goohertz CanOpener in my experience) for headphones sound somewhat dark and distant - they replicate the "dip" but not how it is partially filled by reflections.

I have compensated this error in my stereo speakers via mid/side EQ before I discovered the pano phase shuffler. Mid/side EQ might also be the way to go with IEMs/headphones instead of baking it into the target curve.

 

[roladyzator]

I have compensated this error in my stereo speakers via mid/side EQ before I discovered the pano phase shuffler. Mid/side EQ might also be the way to go with IEMs/headphones instead of baking it into the target curve.

Interesting!
Do you boost the upper mids for the mid signal and leave the side unchanged?

 

[GaryH]

This suggests to me the compensation curve for the 5128 needs to reflect this?

Yep, even Sean Olive's quick fix for a 5128 target that they derided manages to get this right:

As I've said previously, headphones.com's target is clearly off, and not just at 8 kHz either.

 

[digitalfrost]

Interesting!
Do you boost the upper mids for the mid signal and leave the side unchanged?

Yes.

# Mid-Side EQ
Copy: MID=R+L SIDE=R+-1.0*L
Channel: MID
#... filters on mid
# https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/monophonic-vs-stereophonic-timbre-change.15829/post-508549
# Stereo Center Image fix
Filter: ON PK Fc 1850 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 2.87
Filter: ON PK Fc 2800 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 2.87
Filter: ON PK Fc 7200 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 4.32
Channel: SIDE
#... filters on side
Copy: R=0.5*MID+0.5*SIDE L=0.5*MID+-0.5*SIDE

This is my code that used. But I moved to pano phase shuffler since.

 

[Resolve]

'you can see there's an 8khz peak ... I expect is just a similar kind of feature to what you get with the canal entrance resonance that you see on the GRAS system, so a dip at around 9kHz on the GRAS'

This is the first I've heard this discussed. The HD600 doesn't actually have an audible ~6dB peak there, does it? This suggests to me the compensation curve for the 5128 needs to reflect this?

By all means it could! At the same time, if people want this feature to be reflected on the B&K target, then they should also want it to be reflected on GRAS targets for the 9khz dip, including Harman (which it never has been... in part because Harman is heavily smoothed). The deeper question here is whether or not targets should reflect constructive interference like that. I don't really have strong opinions there. Also, this really isn't "our target" in the sense of reviewer targets. When it comes to its fine-grained features, this is literally just the Diffuse Field HRTF. If people take issue with that, it entails taking issue with the Diffuse Field HRTF, and if people believe they have a better calculation for that than the one Oratory did then I welcome the suggestion.

One thing I will add, we've moved to using a 10dB slope - at least until we get preference boundaries ironed out for our new way of representing the data since it's a reasonable middle ground. Crin is also using a 10dB slope for default I believe.

 

[Matias]

What do you mean with a "10 dB slope"? Linear descending slope, ok, but 10 dB between which frequencies? I usually see this referred like -0.8 dB/octave, so the octave (double of frequency) specified the interval, but yours does not. Thanks in advance.

 

[Robbo99999]

'you can see there's an 8khz peak ... I expect is just a similar kind of feature to what you get with the canal entrance resonance that you see on the GRAS system, so a dip at around 9kHz on the GRAS'

This is the first I've heard this discussed. The HD600 doesn't actually have an audible ~6dB peak there, does it? This suggests to me the compensation curve for the 5128 needs to reflect this?

Yep, even Sean Olive's quick fix for a 5128 target that they derided manages to get this right:

As I've said previously, headphones.com's target is clearly off, and not just at 8 kHz either.

By all means it could! At the same time, if people want this feature to be reflected on the B&K target, then they should also want it to be reflected on GRAS targets for the 9khz dip, including Harman (which it never has been... in part because Harman is heavily smoothed). The deeper question here is whether or not targets should reflect constructive interference like that. I don't really have strong opinions there. Also, this really isn't "our target" in the sense of reviewer targets. When it comes to its fine-grained features, this is literally just the Diffuse Field HRTF. If people take issue with that, it entails taking issue with the Diffuse Field HRTF, and if people believe they have a better calculation for that than the one Oratory did then I welcome the suggestion.

One thing I will add, we've moved to using a 10dB slope - at least until we get preference boundaries ironed out for our new way of representing the data since it's a reasonable middle ground. Crin is also using a 10dB slope for default I believe.

To me it seems the 8kHz peak isn't of the same "ilk" as the 9kHz cancellation dip that naturally occurs in GRAS. That 9kHz cancellation dip in GRAS is large sharp and unpredictable in nature (in terms of it being wildly different for each model of headphone and just looks very unpredictable & non-sensible in that area), whereas looking at the HD600 in the following graph the peak at 8kHz looks more like a more stable & predictable measurement feature rather than an unpredictable sharp cancellation, which makes me think it's more likely to be valid to include the peak at 8kHz into any Target Curve for the 5128 (following the HD600 on B&K128):

That's the way I feel about it at the moment, but I'd probably have to see a lot of other headphones measured on B&K5128, albeit that was already covered off a bit in GaryH's previous post where he showed Harman having included that 8kHz peak in their quick & dirty Target Curve they created. Maybe one way of testing the validity of having a peak at 8kHz in the Target Curve would be to create your Target Curve which included the 8kHz peak element and then seeing if different models of headphone when EQ'd to that 8kHz peak exhibited a smooth frequency response (audibly) in that area when worn on your own head - maybe listening to sine sweeps through that area, and for greatest accuracy that would be using the actual units you've measured on B&K and then the same unit you're wearing on your head (rather than an open internet poll for example).