• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Variations in PEQ filters based on measurements

keebz28

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
314
Likes
353
Location
Ohio
#1
I've been lately scouring through the repository of results that are hosted at AutoEQ on Github and have noticed that there are many variations of PEQ filters for a particular headphone measured by various individuals such as Oratory and etc. I also noticed in some instances the methodology and instrument being used for measurements such as GRAS or EARS has led to different PEQ settings.

What I am stumped about is are PEQ settings being setup according to the measurements or are they being setup as interpretation of the measurements by the person doing the measurements. I'll provide two different PEQ settings below for Grado SR80E that I found with different FR based on measurements. Should there be a PEQ file generated by software being used by measurements? Maybe @amirm can shed some light on this and enlighten me on the subject.

Crinacle Grado SR80E PEQ

Preamp: -6.9 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 28 Hz Gain 6.7 dB Q 0.85
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 1453 Hz Gain 1.7 dB Q 0.39
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2086 Hz Gain -9.6 dB Q 3.36
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 4620 Hz Gain -6.2 dB Q 3.37
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 15608 Hz Gain 1.2 dB Q 0.06
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 42 Hz Gain 0.8 dB Q 4.29
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2190 Hz Gain 0.5 dB Q 2.93
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 2421 Hz Gain -1.4 dB Q 3.97
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3232 Hz Gain 2.6 dB Q 5.09
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 7686 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 3.00

Rtings Grado SR80E PEQ
Preamp: -7.0 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 28 Hz Gain 6.6 dB Q 0.86
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 1482 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 0.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2177 Hz Gain -7.6 dB Q 2.03
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 6376 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 2.95
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8520 Hz Gain -1.8 dB Q 1.62
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 149 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 0.65
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 217 Hz Gain 0.8 dB Q 0.17
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 1055 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 3.02
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 4155 Hz Gain -2.6 dB Q 4.60
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 4541 Hz Gain 3.8 dB Q 7.07
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
29
Likes
28
Location
EU
#2
Hello, there is plenty of info on AutoEQ pages.

In a nutshell, AutoEQ is a program that uses a specific frequency response measurement data and gives you the PEQ settings to EQ that to a selected target curve (or different measurement).

Different measurements rigs yield different results (differences in hardware and compensation curves used), as do different target curves (e.g. Harman, Diffuse Field, custom curve etc.)

Hence the difference in PEQ settings when using different data sources (e.g. Crinacle, Rtings etc.). In this case both sets are for achieving a Harman target curve response with PEQ.

Also, but to a lesser extent (hopefully), unit to unit variations.
 
OP
keebz28

keebz28

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
314
Likes
353
Location
Ohio
Thread Starter #3
Hello, there is plenty of info on AutoEQ pages.

In a nutshell, AutoEQ is a program that uses a specific frequency response measurement data and gives you the PEQ settings to EQ that to a selected target curve (or different measurement).

Different measurements rigs yield different results (differences in hardware and compensation curves used), as do different target curves (e.g. Harman, Diffuse Field, custom curve etc.)

Hence the difference in PEQ settings when using different data sources (e.g. Crinacle, Rtings etc.). In this case both sets are for achieving a Harman target curve response with PEQ.

Also, but to a lesser extent (hopefully), unit to unit variations.
Thank you for that explanation. I did a bit of listening tests on some classical tracks and noticed slight FR variations between two PEQ filters and that sparked a curiosity in my mind.
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,407
Likes
1,042
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#4
Amir and Oratory’s settings are usually quite similar (sound profile wise).

While AutoEQ almost never sounds great (but still better than nothing).

I think the strategy is what matters, Oratory measures the headphones after they correct them. While Amir does low Q ‘soft’ but also effective changes.

Both of these strategies are great.
 
OP
keebz28

keebz28

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
314
Likes
353
Location
Ohio
Thread Starter #5
Amir and Oratory’s settings are usually quite similar (sound profile wise).
I agree with you on this, i prefer using Oratory and Amir's PEQ where it's applicable in my limited set of headphones. Oratory's latest measurement for Hifiman HE4xx completely changed how they sound in a better way.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
29
Likes
28
Location
EU
#6
I used AutoEQ oratory1990 Harman presets for HD800, Clear and LCD2C. HD800 turns out "meh", Clear get really bad, the LCD2C on the other hand gets its treble fixed and then some more. The best sound I've ever heard from any Audeze. Some headphones just don't benefit from being EQ-ed strictly to target I guess. As the saying goes, don't try to fix something that ain't broken. A simple bass boost shelf does the job with the HD800 and Clear, for my taste.
 

markanini

Active Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
166
Likes
136
#7
Keep in mind that AutoEQ uses a target with a lower bass output than Oratory1990 so they should sound different in the bass range.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
29
Likes
28
Location
EU
#8
Well, I feel better now for always bumping the bass more. Was afraid I was becoming one of those bass head folks. ;)

There is something about the Harman curve making it easier for the brain to process the sound stage, making each instrument more pin point in location. Interesting stuff.
 
Top Bottom