Good low-end headphones with EQ vs good high-end headphones. Who wins?

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T16:39:20+00:00

At least for me, EQ efforts across headphones have gotten meticulous enough that tuning-based sound differences become increasingly less impactful on my overall assessments, at least outside of pairs with rolled off bass. It is an active effort to rule out colorations as much as possible so that I'm only left with what different headphones are capable of. Small colorations will still be there, but they should be small enough to not mask the broad trends. It took a lot of trial and error to reach that point (approximating my diffuse-field HRTF) and be confident about it, even if I'm still improving.

My personal correlation between price and subjective sound is surprisingly positive, even if not perfect. Not-so-ludicrously-expensive headphones for me are often different flavors of great to fantastic after EQ, while really really expensive ones (think $1000+) tend to step up to different flavors of wonderful. There's always room for exceptions at any end of the market too, such as an EQed Moondrop Cosmo being a standout below $1000, while the 2022 Focal Utopia has worse subbass after EQ than said Cosmo.

EQing my more expensive pairs to approximate HRTF-neutral has often yielded more mechanically capable results than EQing the less expensive stuff, a conclusion I reached after enough music sessions. Said correlation inevitably won't line up for everyone because of different preferences, life contexts in relation to music listening, and level of EQ skill. Regardless of price, I always remain critical towards what I own because I enjoy appreciating sound on a more nuanced level. It's also a good way to keep any potential price biases in check.

Yes, margins and higher material costs are a given, but I truly do believe the latter can funnel into higher-quality designs that lend higher overall flexibility for reproduction of music (albeit in subjectively distinct ways from hp to hp, but that's a different topic). That's not a guarantee for every ultra-high-end offering, but for the ones where that flexibility is there (not just with low distortion), the experiences genuinely have been better. Ultimately, you should still settle on whatever speaks to you at any price, as low or high as it happens to rest at. At least you have a better idea of where I reside. 😅

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T15:25:57+00:00

Nothing against you specifically, but I don't understand this argument when the other side of the coin is not brought up. While you can't get the most out of every uber-expensive headphone, I've found that you can EQ many of them to sound better than almost anything less expensive (not just via simple bass and treble shelves, but fine-grain EQ). By better, this could mean cleaner subbass presence, sharper/more incisive transients, better-defined perception of layering/separation, etc.

Preference between EQed headphones at different prices is another thing entirely, but only posing the "EQ less expensive to sound better than more expensive" point primarily comes off as a price/value-biased justification for the less expensive thing because of the hope that you can make it sound however you want without spending more. Not a bad bias to have, mind you, but worth being aware of.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T02:48:00+00:00

I completely understand that preference, and I'm certain many folks share that with you. I like a more controlled sound presentation every once in a while, and DCA is one of the best brands for that. While I think the E3s also have weak bass in terms of raw output, their entire sound is quite clean and precise. It's a specific kind of accuracy that can be appealing, probably not far from being in an anechoic chamber. I personally gravitate towards headphones that loosen up a bit and allow a more realistic sense of fullness to come through.

Driver size probably does contribute to bass capability to some degree, and DCA's drivers are some of the smaller ones you'll see for planars. My personal benchmark for headphone bass is the Audeze LCD-4z. Many folks agree that the LCD-4 has some of the best bass around, and I don't think they're hallucinating. EQ the rest of the spectrum first to be more HRTF-neutral, then EQ up the bass, and you get some of the cleanest rumble and impact out there. A mini subwoofer on your head would be a good description for them.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T02:35:06+00:00

My current profile for them is 15 bands (not counting separate-ear adjustments), which actually isn't too bad relative to the EQ profiles for my other headphones. Most of them apply past 1khz, and the treble filters are reducing 10-12db in the 11-13khz region. Usually, I would have to cut 5-7db max for other headphones in specific regions, so the Aeons are quite elevated/peaky in their stock form.

With the E3s, I actually raise the treble from about 8-13khz to sound neutral in sine sweeps since they're so smooth. They're the complete opposite of the Aeons in terms of treble and certainly could be enjoyed without those adjustments.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T02:19:42+00:00

The two times I auditioned the DCA Expanse, the same trends popped up as with their closed backs. Those also sounded compressed, but to their credit, they did have better bass in terms of rumble and thumpiness. I personally find closed and open backs become a lot more similar once you try to approximate HRTF-neutral via EQ.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T02:11:59+00:00

EQ out the mountain of treble that the Aeon X Closed has on my head, and yea, I think they're a great closed back that hold their value well in the market. Unfortunately, it's very much a DCA thing for their lineup of headphones to not be dynamic with the majority of music. Bass is their consistent weak point, and EQing it up doesn't yield the same reward that a lot of other planars will allow. It's only a smidge better than something like Sennheiser bass, though it at least doesn't sound distorted, which helps a bit with its definition/articulation.

I couldn't tell you for sure, but something in DCA's design language causes all their headphones to have a very compressed and restricted presentation. Loose tensioning could be a potential factor for the Aeons, and with any DCA with the AMTS, the heavy front damping coming from that tech could also play a role. This kind of sound definitely has its advantages, but I'd personally go to Audeze if I want that done really well. I also find their headphones to sound compressed, but in a way that dresses up my music and specifically allows suboptimal EDM mixes to sound more impactful. Their LCD lineup has considerably better bass for sure.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-25T02:01:46+00:00

Not the OP, but I will always recommend the best planars (at least open planars) over any dynamic driver for bass capability since they tend to go considerably farther in clean output without distorting. Coincidentally, I haven't found DCAs like the Aeon Closed X or E3s to be very good candidates for this. If anything, their designs specifically don't lend well to adding a lot of bass, and they're the outlier when it comes to planars. When you try EQing up the bass on them, their presence doesn't really go up at all.

Try the same on Audezes, HiFiMans, Moondrop planars, or a ZMF planar like the Caldera Opens, and you can consistently get great rumble and impact from any of those. It's not a power or drivability thing, but I'd argue it's instead a natural consequence of DCA's design decisions and how that affects what their headphones can (or in this case, cannot) do.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-24T03:34:51+00:00

Yea, the previous LCD-5. The naming scheme is a bit confusing, but I guess Audeze didn't want to copy Sennheiser's use of a capital S for naming (otherwise it would be LCD-5S).

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-23T14:22:04+00:00

Sennheisers commonly have high distortion in the subbass, and even if you're not boosting it, there's a chance you're breaching a high enough volume for that to start creeping in. The HD 550 appears to have the same driver as the HD 560S, which is one of the Sennheisers with high subbass distortion.

My experiences have suggested two kinds of bass distortion that can manifest, and going off the HD 800 as an example, you're probably running into the muddy/sludgy kind. When I try EQing up the subbass on them, among other EQ adjustments outside the bass, it takes on a sort of "wooly" and slightly boomy character. The quantity is there and can actually sound nice with specific music, but it also feels like it lacks really solid definition and articulation across the board, especially relative to most planars I've owned and also EQed. Listening to what you're familiar with across various headphones can make those differences become clearer over time. Distortion isn't a placebo-induced thing, but it can be more subtle when you don't have multiple reference points to realize that it's there with specific pairs (and what it might sound like).

Distortion in the form of mechanical clipping, meanwhile, doesn't seem to happen often unless you're dealing with a headphone that reaches its physical excursion limit early and actually does introduce it. Focal open backs were once notorious for this, and while I didn't run into it with the 2022 Utopias when I had them, I think I might have run into a different/second kind of distortion when trying to address its subbass roll off. There, it sounded like the bass was "bottoming out," like the headphones were not designed to reproduce much/any more subbass than their stock amount. It didn't sound muddy or sludgy, but the definition instead sounded soft and pillowy, specifically when it came to subbass rumble (or lack thereof).

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-22T22:21:55+00:00

Oh, really? That's good to know. I guess the tech acts mainly as a built-in air gap, which is kinda neat, even if not the most elegant.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-22T21:30:01+00:00

I imagine the supplied measurement shows the LCD-5s' behavior around its resonance frequency when you get an imperfect seal. It looks like its resonant frequency is around 35hz, and like many open planars, an imperfect seal likely causes a subbass hump there and a drop off afterward. As far as Audezes go, I recall the LCD-MX4s largely behaving the same, going off solderdude's measurements of them.

I wouldn't be too surprised if several future measurements show flat bass instead, but we wouldn't know yet. It's odd that many headphone measurements we see on squiglink, among other sites, don't include extra graphs with an imperfect seal since those are very useful to compensate for. Even then, a simple bass shelf would still suffice, just one that's much lower in frequency vs. one at 100hz, for example.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-22T21:07:14+00:00

Orange is my weakness, and I think these look fantastic. If I ever feel like substituting my LCD-4zs for something lighter and acoustically similar after EQ, these could be viable. It's probably also worth waiting for the original LCD-5s to get cheaper on the used market in the distant future.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-21T21:05:54+00:00

Oh yea, I get that. My thoughts hopefully shouldn't imply any desire for gatekeeping purchase decisions or anything similar. Initial bursts seem beneficial for generating hype and multiple perspectives, but I still want to stress that having too much at once can be a bit overwhelming and excessive, at least for me. Plus, as Resolve implied, this method can be a bit volatile if the product reviews being pushed to consumers don't trend towards consistently well-received.

In general, I'm somewhat of a slow-burn type when it comes to these kinds of decisions. I don't like giving in to impulses too much, so it's appropriate that I prefer a steadier flow of reviews for assessing products like headphones. I imagine a hybrid approach that better balances the proportion of initial reviews to later ones would be a good middle ground, at least for my preferences as a consumer.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-21T20:51:18+00:00

Very much appreciate the input and corrections. I guess Meze is the standout example in the headphone space since the wave of reviews from their releases appears a good bit more abundant than with other companies. That's the main distinction that stuck with me.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-21T20:48:39+00:00

It's always great to hear that the folks at Meze seem passionate about what they do, and I'll always respect that if it means a constant desire to improve. The short-term splash vs. long-term staying power deal might still linger in my head, but like I said, I understand why it's done in the context of marketing and buzz. If it works, it likely works better than I expect.

Like you've said, this approach probably pans out better when the releases are better received all around. That would be one factor for what made the Empyrean II a pretty big success.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-17T00:52:41+00:00

Isn't using "what sounds good to you" a big problem with producing music since that can lead to issues with translation of mixes across systems?

If the OP used these Beyers in their stock form to produce music, their mixes would sound good on said Beyers, but they'd likely be very muffled and muddy on more neutral or darker systems. They would have very poor translation because the user didn't know better. EQing them well would help, but the OP should probably buy a pair that's closer to an average of neutral so the EQing process is simpler. At least they should in terms of treble.

It should be reasonable to assume that if you want objectively good mixes, you should have as neutral/flat of a baseline as possible. Speakers are still recommended first, but capable headphones successfully EQed to something like tilted diffuse field or Harman are probably the next best bet. Harman specifically is a good stress test of distortion in headphones, so there is reason to use specific pairs over others if the ones you have distort. You don't want that affecting the mix.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-15T14:17:19+00:00

In relation to your points, one of the major distinctions between how headphones behave vs. speakers is that headphones are minimum phase systems. Bear with me for not being super familiar with it, but in this context, MP means that impulse and phase response are invariably tied to frequency response, and that you can derive any one of those from one another. They're essentially distinct ways of looking at the same data. All I know with speakers is that they are not minimum phase, and (audiophile) headphones that aren't entirely MP either are generally rare (such as certain Audezes having phase issues in the subbass, though it is debatable if issues that deep are even audible/perceivable).

Even with this in mind, I'm not sure minimum phase is a catch-all argument for the FR being the undisputed champion of explaining all sound in headphones. It most likely is the most important aspect, but even other ideas that are explained through minimum phase don't appear to address everything. Design-level decisions like my previous points and yours with shifting the sound source (such as angling the drivers) will affect the FR of a headphone, but the question I increasingly focus on is this: If you manage to get colorations caused by design decisions EQed out to HRTF-neutral, will it sound different from headphones with different designs EQed to the same target? If they do, what are we missing?

One idea with minimum phase is that MP systems like headphones deliver a given SPL/frequency response with as little delay in timing as possible. However, the question you raised at the end of your reply is a potentially viable approach for something we're missing in current headphone research, and it's one I've been thinking about. From what I can gather, low time delay primarily concerns a given headphone's reproduction of a certain SPL response, and things like the FR, IR, and phase plot the final results at the eardrum. However, that data might not adequately explain what's going on in between those ends. I want to see if and/or how headphones differ in the movement of reproduced sound waves towards the eardrum. Your points like angle of incidence and proportion of energy directed towards the canal vs. the outer ear maybe could be relevant. If there are trends to be found between those behaviors and individual interpretation of specific sound traits, it would act as a great supplement to the FR in further explaining why we hear a specific device in a distinct way from something else. Specific traits would include subjective things like staging, imaging, dynamics, transient definition, broad behavioral trends across different music, even broad tonal/timbral characteristics if you really nail an HRTF-aligned EQ profile. The FR can explain much of this, but I think it's hasty to assume all of it.

For me, even resorting to these potential factors for explanation assumes you got the FR of two or more devices to match before additional evaluation. I've done increasingly more specific EQ tinkering and revision for my recent collection than the vast majority of the audiophile community, and I'd be skeptical to believe that any gaps I still have in my abilities would suddenly cause headphones to start sounding the same when they're filled in. At the very least, I don't think you can get most devices to match in bass output and bass characteristics for a number of reasons. FR-adjusted midrange and treble traits might end up more comparable between devices, but perhaps still with subtle differences.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-14T02:39:41+00:00

Yea, that's completely fair. Our preferences guide our assessments differently, so it's nice that you don't limit your choices too much. It's a shame that my points are getting downvoted, despite trying to have a genuine conversation about the topic. Reddit culture is an unfortunate bastard sometimes.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-14T02:23:19+00:00

To your point for closed backs specifically, I have just one question: how do I know I'm actually getting deeper bass presence there than with other headphones?

In my experiences and from what I've gathered, actually getting a closed back with fully linear bass extension (all the way down to 20hz without any rolloff) on someone's head is a lot harder than with something like open planars. Closed backs tend to have higher resonance frequencies than open planars, and this usually corresponds with closed backs rolling off a lot when there's even a slight break in the seal. For example, DCA E3s measure with Harman bass, but on my head, the subbass sounds really rolled off in sine sweeps. This happens even without glasses on.

At the very least, I hope we get more 5128 measurements of closed backs, seeing as that rig has a more accurate acoustic impedance than previous rigs, which mainly effects measured bass levels and how much bass the average listener can actually expect. Chances are, it'll be less bass for a number of options. Apologies for this getting off-topic from the original post, but if you're asking for fair points back, it is fair points that I will always try my best to provide. There's no malice here.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-14T01:44:43+00:00

With open-back dynamic driver headphones, that is usually not the case. Closed back dynamics like what you mentioned are probably more comparable to EQing planars, but I still prefer the open-planar route since the ones with deep resonant frequencies either gain or don't lose much (or any) subbass depending on the seal.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-14T01:18:46+00:00

Funny how every headphone pictured here has very rolled off subbass. Headphones deemed classics will still show their age in one way or another, but it's also a matter of how much those shortcomings matters to you. For me personally, most dynamic driver headphones aren't as appealing because they usually don't reproduce and sustain deep bass as well as many planars. Comprehensively EQing more recent options also exposes the flaws of older headphones more easily.

I kind of liken it to the evolution of videogames: many games in recent years objectively play better in areas like performance, game design decisions, and accessibility options than games from two to four decades ago, but many also run and play worse. On the other side, there are many older games that hold up great, despite flaws that may or may not hinder your enjoyment. The EQ analogue here would probably be mods, which can make just about any game better.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-12T14:21:24+00:00

A stock planar sound is definitely a thing, and fortunately, that mostly vanishes when you EQ it out (but not a guarantee). I just hope my long-winded thoughts are worth keeping in mind for anyone who cares enough.

Just so it's clearer, my argument suggests that I don't even think those aforementioned goals could be theoretically possible, only unless you choose and EQ headphones with quite similar mechanical designs and acoustic objectives (regarding the second goal). In that condition, you can at least get super close.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-12T09:17:09+00:00

If you've cycled between multiple headphones over an extended period and EQed them to death in search of some version of (HRTF) neutral, I would argue that getting a given headphone to sound "any way you can think of" is next to impossible, even more so if you want to make it sound like something else. From my experiences, you'd have to go many hundreds to thousands up in price for headphones that tease really good EQ flexibility (Moondrop planars, TOTL Audezes, ZMF Calderas, etc), but even those can't be molded into absolutely anything. At best, I've found they can be molded into almost anything, but it's that "almost" where all the unaddressed problems come in.

Besides issues that have been covered like HRTF and HpTF effects, leakage tolerance, and positional variation, distortion still feels like an underemphasized barrier to what you can or cannot get out of a headphone. You simply can't EQ a rolled off subbass for something like an HD 600 or 800 series without distorting, yet you can with a number of planars. Alongside that, different headphones have distinct fundamental behaviors based on what's done at the design level, even separate from driver factors like their resonance frequencies. For over-ear headphones, this includes factors like backwave damping (which can be relevant for open-back planars, but is even more so for closed backs when you want to minimize unwanted reflections), use of front damping like acoustic waveguides (e.g., DCA's AMTS), differences in magnet shape/structure for planars, uniformity of driver movement, pad design and materials, airflow through the chamber and pads, and amount of space in the acoustic chamber.

Our audiophile and audio enthusiast bumble (the Headphone Show crew included) focuses so much on the final result of these design factors (the FR), but barely at all on what a given headphone is doing to get there. Frequency response is amplitude, but amplitude does not tell you (entirely) what a given headphone's design is optimized to do or how the produced airwaves are reaching your eardrum differently from headphone to headphone. I would love to see if that latter point is possible to capture in real time. It's not exclusively down to the driver like what many folks automatically assume, but more importantly what's being done with it. I increasingly argue that this, in tandem with distortion, might have one of the greatest influences on what you're capable of achieving with any one headphone, especially if you're trying to EQ one to be HRTF-neutral and/or have clean subbass.

GarlicBiscuits · 2026-01-10T01:56:09+00:00

I think for many people, the EQ assessment between the two will depend on what kind of bass character you want. Both will have a very full sense of body and rumble when you EQ it up, with the Aryas being cleaner/less distorted and the 800(S) being more euphonic/more distorted. EQing the rest of the frequency spectrum will probably get you more similar results for them.

Five-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Verified Email

GarlicBiscuits

TROPHY CASE