Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

milotrain t1_j8m8s7d wrote

Reply to comment by Clemon86 in If we can use a decent EQ device such as the Qudelix to tune a headphone to the Harman target curve why can’t we use the same eq device to move a crappy headphone to sound like a great headphone? by SpecialistHoneydew51

>But the question of OP was if you can tune suboptimal frequency curves to match a "known good" curve.

That's not how I read it. "If we can tune a headphone to a harmon target, why can't we use the same device to make a crappy headphone sound like a great one." is (to me) a statement not about making a crappy headphone match the harmon target but to make a crappy headphone sound like a good headphone. Subtle but different.

I was using the tweeter/sub comparison as an extreme example. The fact is that EQ isn't free, there are phase shifts at EQ points, and extreme EQ moves (especially bell curves with tight Qs) produce artifacts at their limits. This is common knowledge when talking to people who EQ rooms for a living, one of the reasons we are going to woven projection screens is that there is less EQ that needs to be applied to a speaker array to make up for the transmission through the screen than needs to be applied for acoustic perf.

This is also why even with great examples like the UA Audio Sphere you can't exactly match all microphones. And to be clear, in that comparison you are using a great headphone to match all other headphones including crappy ones, not a crappy headphone to match a great one.

So yes, the analogy was limited but it still suggests what's going on: Firstly that there are things not in a FR plot that are acoustically important, and Secondly that it's not as simple as using an EQ to make one curve match another, because in some cases the sonic information isn't there to be boosted, and in some cases doing so to the degree needed creates other problems that can not be ignored (or fixed).

Technically this statement is no different than "can I EQ a crappy microphone to sound like a great microphone?" and everyone has already tried this. It's constantly being tested and attempted because it represents such a potential change in the recording industry. No one has got there, and there is a huge economic incentive to get there, much more than EQing headphones.

4

Clemon86 t1_j8nk9ur wrote

I understand it a little bit different obviously.

Imo applying the Harman Curve to a headphone is no different than running Audyssey or Dirac on your Stereo (or surround) setup.

Of course it is a little bit different because for a stereo setup the Speakers sound different depending on the placement. A speaker in a corner will be louder than a speaker placed against only one wall. Moreso the lower frequencies are amplified more than the higher frequencies. Straightening this change in FR is a good thing and i think most people would agree that hearing the "correct" frequencies (aka "as the artist intended") is better than hearing the unadulterated "original" speaker sound.

However the part of straightening the FR is the same for headphones. ...To an extent at least.

Because then there is a reason why all the Sennheisers and Hifimans do not play back a perfectly flat curve when measured off the factory. (And neither do any Speakers that are high rated and desired by enthusiasts.)

Recording and/or mixing equipment is inherently different in itself. This is why you are wrong with the microphone analogy. Yes, you can plug a headphone into a microphone port and even record something. But a headphone is designed to to play back what a microphone is designed for- recording this playback. This means that the merits and effects of changing a recording versus changing a playback curve are not really comparable.

Let me introduce an analogy about a different kind of reproduction. I work with printers, but also when "base lining" other devices, like TVs or Projectors, that reproduce color (in contrast to sound) you are limited by the weakest link. When you want a couple of devices to produce the same colors you test which device has the smallest color range and then tune down the other devices to this base line. You can only go "so" black for example and you can not make the brighter TV go darker, you have to brighten up the darker screen.

When comparing two speakers or headphones against a "known good" and/or desired FR and sample A has a dip at let's say 4k and the desired curve has no dip there this frequency IS THERE, its just "less loud". It is played back and you CAN add it, contrary to the color analogy. I agree that, applying an EQ has some effects on the signal and there are of course physical limits with the actual driver and at some point the driver can not "go higher" and will distort the signal there is a beautyful thing in it. Because you can just stop applying the EQ at a point before distortion and effects start occuring. And at normal listening levels you can do a lot of EQ or DSPing before a human ear will be able to make out differences that are actually caused by "physical distortion of the driver"... Unless we are talking about 1$ airplane earbuds. Then maybe... ;)

You may not be able to match 100% of any given target curve every time, but you can try to get as close as possible. So why not do it?

0

milotrain t1_j8noplw wrote

You should be EQing things, I'm not saying you shouldn't. We can disagree about the details, that's ok but microphones and speakers are the same devices with the same limitations.

Is the CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram the entirety of a projected image?

−1

Clemon86 t1_j8wzl94 wrote

Yeah, sure we can. :)

I have no idea what you are talking about with the CIE question.

1