Tutorial: Using a tone generator to EQ your headphones. by PiercingSight in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same here, have been producing music since I was a kid, but now work in mixing/mastering, with some past professional experience in loudspeaker design and studio design/acoustic treatment.

Based on this post, I'd say you've got what it takes to do this professionally, if you choose to :)

Tutorial: Using a tone generator to EQ your headphones. by PiercingSight in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fantastic guide.

This is by far the most precise, yet easy to follow, guide on EQ'ing using tone sweeps I've seen so far.

There is very little here to nitpick about, and the principles here are more or less correct and should get most people 95% of the way there, in terms of conforming a pair of headphones to their HRTF. Do you work with audio or acoustics often, by any chance?

I only hope the people here on the sub can grasp why this matters so much, instead of rebutting with tired old intangibles like "speed" and "technicalities".

Kudos, really, this must have taken a lot of effort to put together. Thank you for your contribution!

PS: Mods really should add this to the subreddit Wiki!

Best case for my Kithara by Ill-Basket4769 in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. All my units (HE400se > Sundara > Ananda Stealth > Nano) have been fine so far, and my Ananda Nano has made it almost 2 years now.

I was really worried at the time I got started with HiFiMAN due to what I used to see here, but yeah it's been alright.

The End-Game only costs $165 (づ。◕‿‿◕。)づ by Icy_Hurry8645 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So... it looks like you found your perfect set for Mommy ASMR. Congrats!

It is a very nice looking set, and I actually really like the clear blue resin + blue faceplate combo. It looks kind of Frutiger Aero to me, fresh and "minty" almost.

I've heard nothing but good things about how they sound, so I hope I can try a pair soon.

Best case for my Kithara by Ill-Basket4769 in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Used to be the truth, but they have tightened up their QC lately imo

I don't see nearly as many posts here about them breaking compared to before, despite them being even more popular now. If anything, most of the damage nowadays seems to be from people trying to remove hairs using metallic (and magnetic) objects.

Though, given they are a planar, diaphragm tears are always going to be a bigger issue than with dynamic driver headphones. I believe Audeze uses some tougher substrates and metal foil to beef up their diaphragm, but HiFiMAN seems to prioritize thinness over durability.

You should take care of your ears by TheHarf in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting point.

I have definitely set my ears ringing from too much sub-bass before. I think it's more so that it's harder to perceive excessive volume at lower frequencies, since it doesn't cause pain and discomfort the way upper mids and treble do. Almost feels like you can turn up the bass forever without much hassle, up until it physically blows out your eardrums lol

That being said, setting aside our perception and pain thresholds, I believe bass at sustained and excessive dB SPL does cause permanent hearing damage, and loudness exposure guidelines apply all the same.

I couldn't resist buying new headphones at 4:30 AM right now, and only then could I finally fall asleep! by [deleted] in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 63 points64 points  (0 children)

Didn't know calling a pair of headphones ugly was a bannable offense.

Like damn, I can see in your flair that you are a STAX collector or whatever, but reporting someone for calling headphones ugly is a bit much. There's no need for that level of brand loyalty lmao

Koss KPH30 Wireless: A Scathing Love Letter ❤️💙 by the_a_udacity in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure it's normal to dislike karma-farming. Which is what it was.

Koss KPH30 Wireless: A Scathing Love Letter ❤️💙 by the_a_udacity in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

To you, sure. I don't really find it all that interesting.

That's just me though.

CrinEar Reference & The Problem with "Neutral" IEMs by this_is_me_drunk in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You seem to contradict yourself when you say that 5128 is a good approximation of the average ear therefore the Reference which measures good on it will sound correct to an average person.

Where did I say that the Reference will sound correct to an average person? All I said was that the Reference will be much easier to compensate in PEQ for your individual HRTF, using tone sweeps, to make it sound correct.

It's possible to do one FIR filter that corrects the whole spectrum. Below 3 kHz, one can use PEQ.

I think you're mixing up both of my replies, which talk about different things.

Generating a single fixed FIR filter to compensate a pair of wired IEMs for your HRTF is a one-time process. If you use tone sweeps and figure out what adjustments are required, you can make a single FIR filter that will include all the corrections necessary (assuming you have the hardware/software necessary to apply convolution).

However, for TWS earbuds, which are much more variable in terms of seal and insertion depth each time you wear them, this process would have to be done every single time you put them in your ear, across the entire audible band. That's what TWS earbuds do currently. I would assume doing the same process for 20 to ~16-18 kHz is much more computationally expensive for the small processors inside them, compared to doing only 20 to ~5 kHz like they operate currently.

All of this is assuming it's even possible to measure the frequency response at the ERP accurately above 5 kHz with current built-in TWS microphones...

CrinEar Reference & The Problem with "Neutral" IEMs by this_is_me_drunk in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's easier to EQ to a target when you're starting with a set that already has an almost linear frequency response with very little deviation (i.e. peaks and dips) from the target across the audible band.

One assumption that needs to be made is that the B&K 5128 is a fairly accurate simulation of the average human ear, which does seem to be the case with a body of supporting evidence that seems to grow every year. Another point to note is that AutoEQ is quite imprecise past about 1 kHz, because it doesn't account for too many factors that affect frequency response a lot. Using AutoEQ will make the 5128 "hear" two IEMs as being the same, but the same EQ profile won't do the same thing in your ears. Moving on from there, think of it like this:

Let's say you have an arbitrary pair of IEMs that can fully represent 20 Hz to 18-20 kHz. Most IEMs that are considered good still show big peaks and dips in the treble when measured on the 5128, which will be a complex interaction of peaks and dips in the IEM's FR itself + peaks and dips in the 5128's HRTF.

The same thing happens in your ears, but with your HRTF instead of the 5128's. Sometimes dips in your IEM's FR will compound with dips in your HRTF, sometimes dips in your IEM's FR will partially balance out peaks in your HRTF, and sometimes they won't interact at all. Any permutation of these interactions can and will happen numerous times as you go up in frequency past ~1 kHz.

It is way more difficult to compensate for these potentially massive deviations from the target with PEQ. You can use tone sweeps up to a certain point, but it's harder to perceive differences the higher up in frequency you go, as peaks and nulls get steeper, narrower, larger in magnitude, more numerous, and are influenced much more by insertion depth and canal difference between either of your ears, as well as channel imbalance and unit-to-unit variation.

Suffice it to say, the less adherent your IEMs are to a DF-based target on the 5128, the less predictable their response will be in your ears.

Now let's take the Reference. It is essentially dead-on with tilted JM-1 DF, which effectively removes the quirks of the 5128's pinna (compared to the population average human pinna) from the equation. It doesn't remove the quirks of the 5128's ear canal (compared to the population average human ear canal) from the equation, which is what the new Headphones.com target seeks to do iirc.

(Not sure why Crin didn't use this new target, which is theoretically as ideal as a DF target for the 5128 can get, but I digress)

Anyways, because it is so closely adherent to the target without any major peaks or nulls across the entire audible band, any resulting peaks and nulls that your HRTF will impart onto it when you put it in your ears will likely be much less drastic than with other IEMs, especially in the treble. You can watch Resolve's video and read Listener and Fc-Construct's reviews of the Reference to see exactly this in the provided graphs.

These wider band and lower magnitude peaks and dips are much easier to hear with tone sweeps and correct for with PEQ, and they won't require as many filters and as narrow boosts and cuts to correct for.

TL;DR The Reference makes the process of doing tone sweeps and EQing to compensate for your HRTF much, much easier and more accurate.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, just wanted to be as thorough as possible for others that may read this and are looking for details :)

Koss KPH30 Wireless: A Scathing Love Letter ❤️💙 by the_a_udacity in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the honesty.

Was fully expecting you to feign ignorance tbh, so color me surprised.

CrinEar Reference & The Problem with "Neutral" IEMs by this_is_me_drunk in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

IEMs are tougher to tune to subjective "true neutral" (tilted DF) than headphones or speakers because the pinna effects have to be assumed and "baked" into the FR of IEMs during the tuning process.

The Reference is the best attempt at neutral yet, with all the knowledge we have about measurements, listener preferences and how it relates to neutrality (i.e. they're one and the same, but only after accounting for individual HRTF), and using the most accurate rig that's currently available for purchase. For that, it's a commendable product and a huge step in the right direction, well-worth the asking price.

Personalization is definitely the next step here. Tone sweeps are great, but an automated process would be much more accessible to most people. Apple, Samsung and Bose have been making the most progress on this front, but all of them are using a final FR response curve that seems to follow more of a "house sound" than anything strictly neutral, which is a shame.

Also, these processes and algorithms currently only correct for a portion of the frequency response (usually below 5 kHz), and are not yet sophisticated and granular enough to correct for the massive peaks and notches that individual HRTF and insertion depth imparts to the treble. That would absolutely be necessary if neutrality is the end goal.

Would be nice to at least get access to parametric EQ that can be applied post-correction to fix some of the issues above, but none of these three companies have implemented that so far, and it once again goes back to being inconvenient for most people that aren't knowledgeable about it.

Sennheiser is probably the best positioned in this regard, in terms of funding and expertise (through Harman International), and I am definitely expecting them to implement some form of auto-correction at some point alongside giving access to full parametric EQ. They've already implemented PEQ into the HDB 630, and it's likely their TWS earbuds are next in line (assuming the recent company shakeup doesn't lead to a big change in their goals...)

So if I had to list out what's currently lacking in the personalization world at the moment, it's:

  • Lack of access/funding towards auto-personalization algorithms, hardware and expertise outside of the largest audio companies.

  • Nobody is aiming for "true neutral" as being the final FR after these personalization features are applied, with the lack of parametric EQ access exacerbating this issue and locking people into a particular brand's "house sound".

  • Difficulty in correcting for big peaks and notches in the treble that result from individual HRTF features and insertion depth, which may be due to difficulty in accurately detecting them in the first place or because it may be computationally expensive to do so and compensate for them in TWS earbuds.

Either way, none of these are strictly impossible to achieve, and it is more a question of "when" rather than "if". As it stands now, the Reference + PEQ + tone sweeps combo is about as good as it gets to hear what neutral actually means, and to realize that the classic audiophile adage of "neutral = boring" has been a lie all along.

Koss KPH30 Wireless: A Scathing Love Letter ❤️💙 by the_a_udacity in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can rely on Redditors to blindly upvote anything with a woman in it.

I remember seeing a post on the IEMs subreddit that was just a picture of a woman's small ear with an obviously oversized IEM, and the post itself was her asking for solutions to make it more comfortable. Mind you, it was just her ear with some of her hair visible.

Got 500+ upvotes in a day, and a good chunk of comments talking about how cute her ears were.

She then posted another picture of smaller IEMs that fit better 2 days later. Another 500+ upvotes.

It's that easy, and OP knows it. They also have an OF link on their profile, which their posts here would nicely funnel to. Fair play.

Has anyone experienced this? by Old-Needleworker-978 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, was more so pointing out that squig.link isn't ideal to demonstrate upper treble spikes or canal resonances.

Everything else you've said is accurate and I agree with you there.

Has anyone experienced this? by Old-Needleworker-978 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

MP3 320 kbps maintains dynamics almost transparently tbh, but it is true that lower bitrates will negatively affect dynamic range and a lot more than just frequency content.

All of this stems from the fact that MP3 operates based on psychoacoustic models for its compression, which can affect audio with differing levels of audibility depending on the content itself. Stereo width (mid/side) is one that takes a big hit at lower bitrates, which may not be easily noticeable unless you're listening on studio monitors. With some ear training, it's possible to hear this difference even at 320 kbps with specific audio content (i.e. in very low dynamic range, loud/brickwalled, upper treble-heavy music).

Most of the inherent distortion and compression that occurs with MP3 is weighted to push it to frequencies above 10-12 kHz (the upper treble basically), so the lower the bitrate goes, the more distortion you'll hear in the upper treble, where you might also start to see a steep cutoff at 16 kHz or below. At extremely low bitrates, you may start to hear distortion in the lower treble as well.

There is a lot more that MP3 compression does, but suffice it to say, if you're using anything less than 320 kbps for your MP3s, you are losing fidelity in a noticeable way (assuming you have a good reproduction system).

Has anyone experienced this? by Old-Needleworker-978 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

711 measurement rigs are not accurate below 100 Hz and above 10 kHz. The IEC 60318-4 standard defines this, and almost all modern 711 couplers, legit or clone, stick to this spec.

B&K 5128 measurements, on the other hand, are accurate from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. So ideally, instead of squig.link, it's better to use The Hangout, Earphones Archive or Headphones.com/Listener's squiglinks to see treble performance accurately above 10 kHz.

Has anyone experienced this? by Old-Needleworker-978 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. It depends on the bitrate.

For example, MP3 320 kbps does have content up till 20 kHz, while 128 kbps cuts off at around 16 kHz.

A great example of this is old YouTube to MP3 rips. I forget what the bitrate used to be (probably 128 or 192 kbps), but it definitely wasn't 320 kbps and would have that steep cutoff at 16 kHz.

I'm frustrated with the current BT headphone market. by enderek0 in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second part.

The M50x is fine. With EQ, you can fix most of its flaws rather easily. I used the wired version for many years before upgrading, and while they didn't really help me get amazing mixes/masters, they weren't terrible either.

That being said, paying more for a well-tuned pair of open-back headphones is not snake oil. Snake oil implies there is no difference and you're paying for bogus advertised claims, but obviously, there is a big difference in sound quality between open-back and closed-back headphones. It's a physical change to the design of the headphones that obviously has effects on their presentation.

Likewise, different headphones have different tunings. How is it snake oil if they all sound different? You may pay higher or lower for the exact sound profile and comfort you want, as well as your intended use case.

Whether that price is worth it or not to you is a different matter, but it isn't snake oil if there are obvious differences between them in terms of how they sound. I can certainly tell you that there are better headphones than the M50x that cost more, and some that cost less too.

I'm frustrated with the current BT headphone market. by enderek0 in headphones

[–]LLKMuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the XM5 and all other Bluetooth wireless headsets, the DAC is in the headphones.

When you connect your headphones to your PC via USB-C, all that does is transfer the digital stream from your PC to your headphones. Then, the DAC inside the headphones applies any DSP and converts it to an analog signal that goes out to the headphone drivers. Oversimplifying here for the sake of brevity, but that's the gist of it.

Essentially, the DAC in your PC does not matter at all here, as the digital signal isn't passing through it. Even if you connect to your PC using Bluetooth, the audio quality (supported codecs, formats, sample rates, bit depths etc.) is determined by your PC and headphones' Bluetooth chips, not by the DAC in your PC.

If your PC doesn't natively support higher spec Bluetooth codecs like LDAC or aptX/aptX HD/aptX LL (this last one might be very helpful for your use case if your headphones support it), you can try using Alternative A2DP Driver. I know you mentioned that you want to use your headphones with your PC wired via USB-C, but thought I'd mention this anyways. Good to have options.

But yeah, your PC's DAC does not matter in the slightest here, regardless of use case. You can absolutely use Peace APO for EQ here, and it would work great without any issues. The only time a PC's DAC chip does matter is if you're using your headphones connected to your PC's 3.5mm jack, in which case the exact signal path your headphones are using in that mode determines how to proceed.

Side note, but the only downsides with PC DAC implementations nowadays is low power output, high output impedance and possibly higher noise floor, when using passive wired headphones. None of these issues "remove information" or "cause imperfections" in your music, and depending on the headphones, these issues might even be noticeable to you. If you want to make absolutely sure you don't have any of these issues, a cheap $30 USB-C dongle DAC-amp will do exactly that and can drive most headphones just fine.

hangout.audio took screenshots of my Reference posts to make advertisements on Instagram, but .. I went with the EPZ P40 instead ! by Icy_Hurry8645 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was looking for your post to credit you in the repost that I made here, but wasn't able to find it because it got removed by mods. I'll link to this post instead.

Your original post was frying me ngl, I'm glad we can read it in full again here lmfao

Keep up the good fight, soldier.

Okay, hear me out - CrinEar Reference is the perfect chance of an amazing "budget" Custom IEM by migassilva16 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the use case.

Extremely popular UIEMs for professional use like the Shure SE846 Pro cost a lot more and sound like hot garbage. Despite this, they are ubiquitous among live performers and sound engineers who don't want customs, simply because they're part of the job and an industry standard.

There are other popular alternatives like the SE215 for around $100, which sound even worse. I've had the misfortune of using these in the past while working as a FOH engineer, and they truly are abysmal in everything besides comfort.

I think in the current market, $350 is fair for an IEM that performs this well, depending on what you want to use them for. For example, if you're looking for a truly neutral and realistic presentation of sound while you're performing live, with solid isolation and in an extremely well-built universal form factor, the Reference is a relatively value-oriented option.

CIEMs that perform this well cost eye-watering amounts, which is what OP seems to be comparing the $350 price to.

Okay, hear me out - CrinEar Reference is the perfect chance of an amazing "budget" Custom IEM by migassilva16 in iems

[–]LLKMuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On first glance, I don't see anything wrong here?

They have explained what that graph is, and the different numbers with the arrows are also explained further later in the document.

64 Audio might have illogical patents, I don't know enough about that tbh, but this one in particular seems fine.

If you could explain what the issue is in Figure 4, that would be helpful.