Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_D0lph1n t1_itr2ph4 wrote

Oh look, it's this question again.

Now in theory, for a headphone that acts like a minimum-phase device (and most headphones do), everything is encapsulated in (note the wording here) in frequency response and distortion. All of the technicalities and transient-response-related phenomena are reflected somewhere in the FR. In other words, you cannot change the technicalities of a headphone without also changing some aspect of the FR. The problem right now is we don't have a way to directly link technicalities to any parts of the FR with accuracy. Detail isn't just treble, but it's more like the balance of specific frequency ranges in the FR. Over-boosting the treble can actually hurt detail, as you're then masking other frequency ranges.

BUT, and this is a pretty significant but, don't trust graphs to tell you everything about a headphone's FR. Graphs don't take into account everyone's individual HRTF, so what you actually hear will deviate from what's shown on the graph. Secondly, FR in reality is a very fine-grained metric, which graphs (and especially target curves) do not represent well. So no, you cannot EQ any headphone to sound like any other headphone. That's just not possible, especially just by going off of a graph. I've had some success with EQing one headphone to sound like another when I had them side by side so I could EQ the treble by ear, but it's very complicated and time-consuming to do so.

There's another metric, distortion, that can sometimes play a role, but it's not always clear what that role is, or if it's really noticeable. Distortion basically sets the upper bounds of what a headphone can produce, because you can't EQ out distortion characteristics. Same goes for things like group delay, which is a metric that can be measured, but there's no consensus on what those metrics mean or how they relate to headphone performance.

Now, technicalities are definitely a part of the subjective experience of listening to a headphone. Imaging, resolution, dynamics, that's all part of what we experience. So I think it's fine to rate headphones by those metrics, because the experience is what matters. But I have yet to see any conclusive proof that those things are not influenced by FR in some way.

18

Then-Effective5434 OP t1_itr4dua wrote

One more sincere question. What do you mean by saying that you can't EQ one headphone to sound like any other. I'm asking because I'm not an engineer and also not good at physics, but how do manufacturers make so many headphones(of one model) to sound the same or 99.9% the same? It because of what? Can we call this 'hardware' EQ and not digital, because digital EQ have it's limitations, while 'hardware' EQ doesn't?

2

The_D0lph1n t1_itr54l2 wrote

So, unit variation is a thing, and it's unlikely that any 2 headphones of a given model will sound exactly the same. Tight manufacturing tolerances and mechanical testing is generally how good consistency is achieved.

But I was talking about EQing one model of headphone to sound like a different model of headphone, like EQing a Hifiman to sound exactly like a Focal or Sennheiser. That's not possible.

Also, you can physically modify headphones by changing their earpads and other parts of their construction (hardware EQ as you put it) to change their sound, but that is actually less precise than digital EQ.

7

Then-Effective5434 OP t1_itr8ew1 wrote

Understood, thank you for extensive response, what about EQ not HiFiman to Focal, but Focal to Focal, especially interested in Clear/Elex, because their similarities is already very large, Utopia do have a bit more physical differences, but still looks like they are times more insignificant that for example Sundara/Ananda. They definitely have different pads, and voice coil in Clear are copper, while Elex is copper/aluminum, so can pad swapping and digital EQ make both headphones close to the 'same' sound, that most people will not even recognize the tiny differences?

1

The_D0lph1n t1_itrcl5x wrote

I've heard that the Elex is very close, like 90-95% of the OG Clear. I've also read that the Elex and Clear use the same earpads too; the Elex is an Elear with Clear pads based on what I've read.

So assuming you are listening at volumes that don't encounter the driver clipping issues that all Focals have (and the different driver on the Elex might make it more susceptible to clipping than the Clear), you are more likely to be able to EQ an Elex to sound just like a Clear, but again, you can't accurately do that with just a graph. The only way to you can accurately EQ the Elex to sound like a Clear is to have both headphones side by side, and EQ one to sound like the other by ear.

I've used and experimented with EQ a lot, and it's easy to destroy technicalities via EQ, but it's hard to improve technicalities with EQ. My experience is that technicalities are linked to relative levels of very narrow bands of frequencies throughout the audible range. "Correcting" small tonal problems via EQ also affects technicalities that are linked to those frequency ranges. EQ, even digital EQ, is not precise enough to accurately shape the needed frequencies without also messing up nearby frequencies. If you're really focused on technicalities, then I would suggest going for the Clear, as then you don't have to worry about EQ.

I'm not sure why you asked about whether "most people" could tell a difference. In audio, what "most people" think is irrelevant. Your ears are not anybody else's ears. Your preferences are not exactly the same as anybody else's preferences. Things that bother some people don't bother others. Will there be differences after EQing the Elex to sound like the Clear? Almost certainly, they won't sound exactly the same. Whether that matters is something that only you can answer for yourself.

3

Then-Effective5434 OP t1_itrmluh wrote

Understood, actually it's a pity, that you need still eq by your ears, having 2 headphones, I never have used any good EQ software, but I do want to try it(Qudelix 5K parametric EQ), I was thinking you just need to download some preset or press one button and get close to Clear sound with Elex, but now I understand the problem, because everyone's eardrum is different, so there will not be any universal preset that you can download for over-ear headphone and call it a day?

At least as I understand, after asking other people under this post, EQ with IEMs can be more effective to recreate close sound of another IEM

1

testurshit t1_ity2u1u wrote

That statement about the balance of frequency ranges vs simply boosting treble for detail is very interesting.

Using my Takstar Pro 82 as an example, these have an elevated and very peaky treble, they have a very zingy and sparkly treble that I perceived as very detailed back a few years ago when I was pretty new to the hobby, but it's so all over the place in the balance that it's the perfect example of "fake" detail in my collection nowadays.

Compared to my LCD-X and 400SE for example, which have a much lower overall level but smoother treble, the detail is not even close even though the Pro 82 has that zingy quality to it, it just sounds "wrong" and that fr range balance sounds like it could be a big contributor.

2

The_D0lph1n t1_ity6f8b wrote

There's a term that one reviewer (Marcus at Headfonics) uses that I like very much, and that's "tonal contrast". In the reviews I was reading from him, he doesn't even use the term "detail". Elevated treble produces more tonal contrast, which the brain will easily pick up on (our vision is also highly dependent on visual contrast for object identification), and think it's detailed, because the contrast between tones is greater via the boosting of the harmonics. But more contrast doesn't really improve true detail retrieval, just like maxing out the contrast slider on your TV or monitor won't improve the detail that you get from that screen. Proper balance between colors is what produces good visual detail, and avoids colors being crushed.

The treble peaks on the Takstar (I had a HyperX Cloud which is based on that headphone) make certain types of sounds, like the trailing tones of cymbals and snare drums stand out with greater contrast (that sparkly sound), but when those tones are overemphasized, it starts to affect our ability to perceive other similar tones at the same time, so overall perceived detail suffers. I had an Audio Technica headphone that I modded with different earpads, and those headphones brought out cymbals like nothing else. Cymbals would cut through the mix, and if a song had cymbals or hi-hats, you would know that they were there. They were subjectively pleasing to me, but that emphasis on the air region in the upper treble would obscure details elsewhere in the treble.

2

testurshit t1_ity87zu wrote

Another great analogy with the visual one! That does make a lot of sense and I 100% agree with the assessment. Yeah the trailing tones getting overpowered seems to be my experience with peaky FRs as well.

I do also enjoy an airy treble subjectively and it is so incredibly hard to find a treble that sounds just right to me. Using the Dioko for example, very airy extended treble and it is detailed, but at certain points I do hear some obscuring of other treble details.

Thanks lots for the info!

2

YalamMagic t1_itzlmz1 wrote

> Imaging, resolution, dynamics, that's all part of what we experience. So I think it's fine to rate headphones by those metrics, because the experience is what matters. But I have yet to see any conclusive proof that those things are not influenced by FR in some way.

Are there any measurements at all for those properties? I haven't seen anything that does a reasonable job of quantifying them.

1