Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF? (Read 21325 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #25 –
I would say that's precisely another reason to not consider equal loudness contours at all. You don't need to correct something which is relative to your listening level. And for sure you can not know the level of the original recording, whatever that is.

The point is to consider the listener a microphone and not enter into the subjective part of everyone's listening. Subjective here means relative to the subject's characteristics, but it's measurable.

You reproduce white noise, you put a microphone with known freq. response in a point, you correct the speakers FR response according to the room and point and then the original source and the new recording should match (accounting the microphone response). There is nothing left to debate there. You don't need to care about equal loudness contours at all; independently of the volume level (not considering deviations in FR at different volume levels) you will always get the same response at that point and the new recording and the original source will match.

Translate that to headphones. That's what's HRTF is for. A microphone has not a flat FR but you know it and therefore you correct the recording with that.

Then another thing is how you hear that sound at different levels or with different ears. But that's another matter. As long as you can say you can fully replace the original source (the band playing) with those speakers in that room at your desired listening point without any audible or measurable difference then that's the correction you aim for. If the band plays louder you can turn up the volume level, the effect will be the same. If you put equal loudness contours corrections in the equation you can not match that behavior.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #26 –
People are too obsessed with FR, period.  Obsession with matching the original mastering level on playback is even more comical, though it would at least lend credibility to the former.

The point in using equal loudness contours with knowledge of the mastering level is so that you can reproduce the same sound at any level, which is far more attractive; but, since one can't know the original mastering level, this is all moot.  Well, not exactly.  The point is that you EQ to your taste.  Maybe it gets you closer to what was heard during mastering; maybe it doesn't.  Why should that be sacrosanct anyway?

Anyway, since no one else said it, you can't aggressively EQ to match HRTF.  EQ is solely concerned with frequency response while the HRTF is not.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #27 –
I am confused about the relationship of equal loudness contours and HRTF. Are the countours just a specific instance of HRTF for the given point in space?

And generally equalizing to "match HRTF" doesn't make sense because it's specific to a given recording and locations of microphones in relation to instruments? And what about artificial sounds like in electronic music?

Anyway after equalizing to match the contours I don't like the sound and I don't think it is realistic - the 2-5kHz range is far too harsh.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: artur on
I am confused about the relationship of equal loudness contours and HRTF. Are the countours just a specific instance of HRTF for the given point in space?
No.  There is no relationship.

Quote from: artur on
And generally equalizing to "match HRTF" doesn't make sense because it's specific to a given recording and locations of microphones in relation to instruments? And what about artificial sounds like in electronic music?
Please google what an HRTF is.

Quote from: artur on
Anyway after equalizing to match the contours I don't like the sound and I don't think it is realistic - the 2-5kHz range is far too harsh.
Have you even read/understood the replies in this discussion?  If so, why did you even bother attempting to match a contour?

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #29 –
According to what I read I should get a ISO226 curve from a tool like http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

And for HRTF - this yields FR of ears like

- isn't it the same as countours?

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: greynol on
People are too obsessed with FR, period.
I have to strongly disagree. Most people completely underestimate the importance of FR.

Even some "professional" studio have FRs that are all over the place in the engineer's position, which I think is one reason why the music produced is also a mess FR-wise and will sound even shittier on consumer systems (with worse FR still).


Quote from: greynol on
Maybe it gets you closer to what was heard during mastering; maybe it doesn't.  Why should that be sacrosanct anyway?
Paintings in an art gallery are not randomly lit either except if that is desired.


Quote from: artur on
I am confused about the relationship of equal loudness contours and HRTF.
One is a head-related transfer function (influenced by torso, head, pinna, ... ) and the other a subjective measure of perceived loudness (and an average one if you use the equal loudness contours). This has been explained before.



"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: xnor on
Most people completely underestimate the importance of FR.
I was talking about those in this community who are afflicted with perfectionist dysfunction, who all too often fail to see the forest from the trees.  "Most people" couldn't care less about "calibrated" equalization.

Quote from: xnor on
Even some "professional" studio have FRs that are all over the place in the engineer's position, which I think is one reason why the music produced is also a mess FR-wise and will sound even shittier on consumer systems (with worse FR still).
Especially when people painstakingly EQ blindly by the numbers rather than with their sensibilities.

Quote from: xnor on
will
?!?

Quote from: xnor on
Paintings in an art gallery are not randomly lit either.
They're hopefully not subject to a one-size-fits-all approach, either.

Are you going to speak for the lighting conditions when the paintings were made?

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: greynol on
Especially when people painstakingly EQ blindly by the numbers rather than with their sensibilities.
Like... perceived equal loudness? :D
But yeah, if you don't know what you're doing then you also cannot expect a great result. As I've said, the greatest problem is dismissal of EQ/DSP in general and ignorance about it and FR. So people should spend more time with it, not less.

Sure, there are a few that are obsessed with it..


Quote from: greynol on
They're hopefully not subject to a one-size-fits-all approach, either.

Are you going to speak for the lighting conditions when the paintings were made?
Missing the point.
If one light fits them all then even better. If a special painting or piece of art looks shitty with that (or not perfect if dealing with "obsessed" people) then it usually is also lit specially.
Under what conditions some brush stroke was made is as irrelevant as in how the vocal cabin looked like in which the singer was recorded.

But we digress..


"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #34 –
I didn't miss your point; rather, I was afraid you weren't getting mine.

The only FR that is important is the one that sounds best to me, which can an will* depend on the recording, not just the transducers, listening level, and listening environment.  EQ, OTOH, must then be very important.

(*) term was intentionally chosen.

Quote from: xnor on
But we digress..
Now that someone has finally made the OP aware of the problem with his topic title, I no longer see this digression as a problem.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: greynol on
The only FR that is important is the one that sounds best to me, which can an will* depend on the recording, not just the transducers, listening level, and listening environment.
I can accept that mindset even though I don't share it.
Anyway, why do you think that is? Why do a lot of CDs require further equalization to not sound all over the place or at least sound more consistent?
See the point I was trying to make earlier. It's a major contributor imo.

I'm certain that you've also heard of "Audio's Circle of Confusion", but I'm not sure if there is any discussion about it here on HA.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #36 –
If it is truly "all over the place" then the issue isn't with the flatness of the delivery channel.

I forgot to mention that I may also try to compensate for my own (age-related) tonal imperfections.

That you would prefer an EQ setting that matches some clinical target, rather than your personal preferences is definitely something that I don't share.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: greynol on
If it is truly "all over the place" then the issue isn't with the flatness of the delivery channel.
I will just quote-paste:
Quote from: xnor on
Even some "professional" studio have FRs that are all over the place in the engineer's position

Quote from: greynol on
I forgot to mention that I may also try to compensate for my own (age-related) tonal imperfections.
Oh, that is a different point again because it's not per record.

Quote from: greynol on
That you would prefer an EQ setting that matches some clinical target, rather than your personal preferences is definitely something that I don't share.
That's a straw man and not what I said.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: xnor on
That's a straw man and not what I said.
What, like this?
Quote from: xnor on
I have to strongly disagree. Most people completely underestimate the importance of FR.
I will end by quoting JJ:
"Preference is inviolate."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: greynol on
What, like this?
Quote from: xnor on
I have to strongly disagree. Most people completely underestimate the importance of FR.
So taking something out of context that is irrelevant anyway helps you how exactly?

Quote from: greynol on
I will end by quoting JJ:
"Preference is inviolate."
And you are free to have yours, but me not sharing your preference, opinions or mindset is no reason to put words in my mouth.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: xnor on
I have to strongly disagree.

I guess I don't know what it is that I said exactly that warranted the reply I quoted above, especially WRT "strongly".

I'm sorry, but if you had not decided to object to a little snippet of a larger conversation* I wouldn't have to point out how silly it is to accuse me of taking something out of context.

(*) larger conversation:
I believe too many people are obsessed with trying to recreate the FR of what was heard in the studio without paying much attention to getting a result that is pleasant.  This, in my mind (and perhaps erroneously), was the basis of your strong disagreement.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: greynol on
I guess I don't know what it is that I said exactly that warranted the reply I quoted above, especially WRT "strongly".
That was in response to you saying people focus too much on FR, and "strongly" because I believe the opposite is true.
I can just repeat myself. People don't focus too much on FR. On the one hand audiophiles ironically seem to focus on everything but important stuff like FR and the rest of the consumers are even more clueless. Even "professionals" and manufacturers fail here imo.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #42 –
I figured we agreed.

Now on to something I was hoping to address, regarding this BS about "putting words into others' mouths" and being short on context...
Quote from: xnor on
Quote from: greynol on
That you would prefer an EQ setting that matches some clinical target, rather than your personal preferences is definitely something that I don't share.
That's a straw man and not what I said.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding and I'm glad what I said above is untrue?

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #43 –
Back to artur:

Quote from: artur on
Anyway after equalizing to match the contours I don't like the sound and I don't think it is realistic - the 2-5kHz range is far too harsh.
As I said, even if you did this correctly (measured the SPL to get the right equal loudness curve, possibly cross checked several frequency points with other curves ...), it will sound too bright similar to like a speaker in a room equalized completely flat will sound too bright.

edit:
Quote from: greynol on
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding and I'm glad what I said above is untrue?
If one agreed with your "the only FR that is important is the one that sounds best to me" then that would mean messing with an artist's piece to suit one's preference regardless of the artist's intentions. An "obsessed" person would say that you're destroying the artist's work.
I'm quite sure a lot of people would also prefer a modified Mona Lisa with equalized, vibrant, more balanced colors etc. ... and they are free to do so (as long as it's not the original ;) ) but I'm not interested in that.

Similarly, there are entire genres in music that are supposed to sound like shit imo. I could make them sound a lot better according to my preferences ... but I don't because I'm not interested. Neither in these artists' works nor in messing around to make them fit my preferences.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: xnor on
If one agreed with your "the only FR that is important is the one that sounds best to me" then that would mean messing with an artist's piece to suit one's preference regardless of the artist's intentions.
I did mention something to you about context earlier.  Perhaps a suggestion that one take the time to understand before being understood could help.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111845.msg921858.html#msg921858

Quote from: xnor on
An "obsessed" person would say that you're destroying the artist's work.
Barry Diament (and the like) and/or his employers have now become an artists?  ;)

Again, some needed context...
Quote from: greynol on
The point in using equal loudness contours with knowledge of the mastering level is so that you can reproduce the same sound at any level, which is far more attractive; but, since one can't know the original mastering level, this is all moot.  Well, not exactly.  The point is that you EQ to your taste.  Maybe it gets you closer to what was heard during mastering; maybe it doesn't.  Why should that be sacrosanct anyway?

Quote from: xnor on
Similarly, there are entire genres in music that are supposed to sound like shit imo. I could make them sound a lot better according to my preferences ... but I don't because I'm not interested. Neither in these artists' works nor in messing around to make them fit my preferences.
I feel the same way but that wasn't what I was talking about.
 

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #45 –
There was a good overview of the Harman target on Innerfidelity recently.
Also see the "History of Harman Headphone Target Curve" PDF that Sean Olive posted.

It sounds pretty convincing to me, if you accept that Harman's "reference listening room" is an ideal setup.
Even if you don't assume that, they have blind tests showing the Harman curve was preferred over DF and FF equalizations.

I need to try EQing my headphones to that curve some time, am mostly using OS X/iTunes and I don't have a proper equalizer set up right now.

Btw, Greynol, I don't think EQ'ing to a target curve like the Harman one precludes making personal adjustments afterwards.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: eric.w on
Btw, Greynol, I don't think EQ'ing to a target curve like the Harman one precludes making personal adjustments afterwards.
I think you're right and I don't really have a problem with that.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: greynol on
I did mention something to you about context earlier.  Perhaps a suggestion that one take the time to understand before being understood could help.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111845.msg921858.html#msg921858
If you didn't edit your post and added several sentences like half an hour (?) after making the post and after I had already replied you wouldn't need to link me to it.
I do understand what you were trying to say. I still disagree as I've explained. I'm not even against to what these people are trying to do in principle, but in practice it's just an exercise in futility and not worth it. Also, I'd much rather see audiophiles obsessing over mimicking mastering conditions than obsessing over e.g. cables. Even if it worked, it wouldn't attack the actual underlying problem.

Quote from: greynol on
I feel the same way.
So the FR that sounds best to you is not the only important one, or necessarily important at all. You're coming around. ;)
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #48 –
I added some bread crumbs to some posts to help point out your own straw man.  Go back and revisit my original discussion.  It has remained unchanged.

Again, had you taken the time to inquire about my meaning before launching in to "I strongly disagree" this may have been avoided.

Quote from: xnor on
So the FR that sounds best to you is not the only important one, or necessarily important at all. You're coming around. ;)
Preference in inviolate, so of course it is important...necessarily.

It isn't I who needs to "come around" on the matter.

Re: Shouldn't all headphones be aggressively EQed to match HRTF?

Reply #49 –
Fuck me, another post-reply edit. I give up.
Also, if you cannot even take a "I strongly disagree", by which I stand completely, then I really don't know why you're posting in a public forum.

edit: more edits, yay!
"I hear it when I see it."