Try this
Preamp: -3.6 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 30 Hz Gain 2.8 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 330 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 1.600
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1400 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 2.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3800 Hz Gain 1.9 dB Q 0.500
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 6400 Hz Gain 3.2 dB Q 2.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 7900 Hz Gain -5.8 dB Q 2.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8100 Hz Gain 2.4 dB Q 1.200
You also used the Red with bass adapter whereas ASRuser asked for a preset without it
I just realised that myself- bloody Crinacle site seems to default to that one- Im deleting mine! 10 minutes of my life I wont get backYou also used the Red with bass adapter whereas ASRuser asked for a preset without it
In this case customs were handled by the importer, not me-the tax was included in the amazon price of €55. Earlier I had ordered from foreign (chinese) shops on ebay several times and twice I had to pickup the package at the local customs office and pay tax.
Huh?
Nope, sample 5 is the default when loading it, so I stuck with that, as I presume Crinacle thinks it's the most representative. (And I would expect him to have chosen the most representative Dusk sample for its 5128 measurement too.)
You're still making the common mistake of only looking at the amplitude of a deviation. You need to look rather at the area under the deviation, taking into account the frequency range it covers. A low amplitude deviation over a large frequency range will be audible, due to how the ear works. Please read this post I linked previously, as well as this post, which explain all this.
You're not aligning at the industry standard 500 Hz as I did, and you've kept the default squashed vertical scaling. Once those are remedied the differences are very similar to sample 5 as I posted previously:
Which measurements, using what coupler?
The rig matters, and the most accurate measurements show that they are not in fact 'very, very similar' as you riginally claimed (not just that they have 'similar tonality' as you're now saying). You also cannot use your personal impressions to debunk someone else's, as you did when you called that reviewer's impressions of the difference between the Red and Dusk 'bizarre', especially when one of the biggest differences between them is in the upper treble, and the reviewer is young enough to likely have a higher upper frequency hearing limit.
(That's still a measurement by Crinacle, just for those that's thinking it's an Oratory measurement).
Yes, it's in the fine print. Maybe @MayaTlab can say something to the significance of that, if he wants.
Line em up at 500 as good ol Gary keeps telling us.
The mean starts at 40 Hz, check line 1289 here: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/autoeq/frequency_response.py:
| score = 100.0795 - 8.5 * std - 6.796 * np.abs(slope) - 3.475 * mean |
Ok, but the Red WITH the adapter appears to be closer to Harman in bass and less so at ear gain, where it is good to have less energy.
Yes, but Grados sound like shit and the Red sounds to most people better than the Dusk.
Ok, but until we have measurements from Sr. Davy for the Red, we have to deal with what we have to compare these two, either clone coupler or 5128.
You can normalise as you like, this cannot invalidate any comparison. But if you want it at 500 Hz, here we go, the Dusk has less bass and too much energy between 4 and 8 kHz.
Yes, he tried to pull the rug, but for many people, me included, the Harmann IE2019v2 target has too much ear gain and thus sounds shouty, as do many IEMs adherering to it. The Red has less and thus does not sound shouty. I think that was the tuning goal and it is very well executed. What is missing is a bit smoother and pronunced treble and a bit less upper bass/lower midrange (80-800kHz), because of this I will keep my Variations.
Check line 1281. From Dr Olive himself:
Exactly, a majority of two out of the three parameters are based on data down to 20 Hz, so you were wrong to say it only uses data above 40 Hz.
That's...not how this works.
Here:
Says who?
In blind tests (as Harman found with their mediocre ratings), yes. In sighted listening however many rave about them, just have a look at head-fi. Are you seeing the problem here?
Says who?
The latter.
Says who? You're stating all this as if they're facts, but there isn't a single shred of valid evidence in the form of controlled blind listening tests to back any of this up.
Ok, but where is the JUSTIFICATION to start at 40Hz?Just because Sean Olive chose (at random?) to take that value does not give it any theoretical basis.
This is exactly how it works. Look, I am a physicist, if some variable is about an order of magnitude smaller than the others, you usually can safely neglect it to get an overall result, exactly like in this case.
Say quite lot of people in the community, here on ASR, and elsewhere. You are aware of the fact that the 2019IEv2 target (which is based on the 2017 one) was "validated" at Harman by less than 20 listeners (Sean Olive's own words)? So quantitatively there is not much to back it up.
No, no serious audiophile likes Grado headphones, just deluded people.
Just in this thread are already more people commenting on the advantage of lower ear gain than the total involved in generating the 2019IEv2 target, see also
www.audiosciencereview.com
In my opinion the Red really doesn't necessitate EQ. Why would anybody get it and then EQ it to Harman? Isn't the whole point the less bright and shouty tuning in the 2kH- 6kHz region?
