Abrise
Member
I recently purchased the new Sony WH-1000XM6 as a replacement for my aging WH-1000XM3, which I bought in 2018. The older unit is still working well after seven years and only required a battery and ear pad replacement once. I mainly use headphones on planes and in cars, and rarely at home, so my total usage has been around 900 hours. I’ve stuck with Sony after disappointing experiences with both Sennheiser and Bose in terms of sound quality.
Out of the box, the XM6 already sounds less muddy than its predecessor, with a more refined presentation. However, I feel that some improvements are still needed, especially in the bass region.
Since direct measurements require specialized equipment, I turned to several professional reviews that have published response curves:
As of today, the WH-1000XM6 is not yet listed in the AutoEQ database.
Among these sources, only SquigLink conveniently provides the raw frequency response data in .txt format. For the others, I used WebPlotDigitizer to extract the data manually from the graphs.
Response Curve Comparison
Here is a comparison of all five measurements, normalized at 1 kHz:
As you can see, while the general shape is fairly consistent, there is significant variation—especially above 3 kHz. In the bass, the SuperReview curve is clearly an outlier, showing much higher energy than the others. I decided to discard the two most extreme profiles (SuperReview and LTT) and average the remaining three: RTINGS, Kuulokenurkka, and SoundGuys.
Averaging and EQ Strategy
In front of quite a lot of variations between the professional measurements, one must EQ with modesty. The average will serve as a basis for EQ toward the Harman 2018 target. However, due to the higher variability in the treble region, I have chosen not to apply any correction above 1.91 kHz. This frequency was selected because it’s a crossover point between the averaged response and the target, making it a logical zero-correction point going forward.
Filters
In this final graph, you can see:
I’ve attached both filters .
Out of the box, the XM6 already sounds less muddy than its predecessor, with a more refined presentation. However, I feel that some improvements are still needed, especially in the bass region.
Since direct measurements require specialized equipment, I turned to several professional reviews that have published response curves:
As of today, the WH-1000XM6 is not yet listed in the AutoEQ database.
Among these sources, only SquigLink conveniently provides the raw frequency response data in .txt format. For the others, I used WebPlotDigitizer to extract the data manually from the graphs.
Response Curve Comparison
Here is a comparison of all five measurements, normalized at 1 kHz:
As you can see, while the general shape is fairly consistent, there is significant variation—especially above 3 kHz. In the bass, the SuperReview curve is clearly an outlier, showing much higher energy than the others. I decided to discard the two most extreme profiles (SuperReview and LTT) and average the remaining three: RTINGS, Kuulokenurkka, and SoundGuys.
Averaging and EQ Strategy
In front of quite a lot of variations between the professional measurements, one must EQ with modesty. The average will serve as a basis for EQ toward the Harman 2018 target. However, due to the higher variability in the treble region, I have chosen not to apply any correction above 1.91 kHz. This frequency was selected because it’s a crossover point between the averaged response and the target, making it a logical zero-correction point going forward.
Filters
In this final graph, you can see:
- The average measured response
- The target (based 0n Harmann up to 1.91 kHz, the response itself after)
- The generated convolution filter
- The PEQ filter response
- The convolution filter can be used with JRiver, HLConvolver, or Equalizer APO (Windows).
- The PEQ filter is compatible with Poweramp Equalizer on Android and many softwares on windows
I’ve attached both filters .
