I can’t remember if I made a post like this but it’s not easily searchable due to EQ being to short.
But where do I start for EQ? How do I apply it to all audio? Not just downloaded files? I have at least one DAC capable of PEQ but was hoping to get an overall understanding of it. On PC, mobile, DAC etc how do I even set an EQ, and moreover how do I make profiles for different headphones? I have about 15 keeper headphones and want to be able to select profiles for each of them. Also are there EQ profiles I can get from others? I am affraid of EQ because 20-30 years ago I would dink with it on winamp and would always end up with something sounding crazy and ever since have gone for default. I get a kick out of the audio hobby but given that I have a project car which will be tying up my funds and an end game setup arriving this year… I want to keep going with the hobby and EQ on my old equipment sounds like the best way.
I have both a written down copy of my EQ profiles for all my (currently 9) headphones in a physical notebook, and a Parametric EQ gear (Samson DB3500*) with 99 unique profiles I could cycle through and save over.
*This is discontinued, but if you’re in the US, it’s often selling used for $100-$250, got mine for $120.
There are alot of different ways to go on something like this. Super* Review also has some pretty good videos on EQ using some of the features in Squiglink, for example.
I started out with hardware based solutions. But now use Equalizer APO (a software based solution) on my PC. I use a couple other tools though to design my EQ’s, including Squiglink. I still have not learned how to use all of Squiglink’s built-in EQ features though, which are covered to some extent in Super* Review’s videos.
EAPO will EQ any audio playing through your PC to a selected audio device, such as a DAC, or a TV in my case, connected via HDMI. And the EQ is applied to all audio content on the fly. So it will apply to games, CDs, videos, streamed audio content, MP3 files, or any other audio you play from your PC to your selected audio device.
It can also support as many different EQ profiles as you like. The included GUI (graphical user interface) is not especially intuitive or easy to use though. (There are third party GUI’s, like Peace that can potentially make it a little easier to use for a newbie.)
Since the EQ profiles are all saved in simple text files they can also potentially be imported to other applications as well. That’s not something I’ve done though.
The source devices you want to EQ will probably determine which method of EQ is best for you, either hardware or software-based. Or maybe some combination thereof. There are also some videos on the Headphone Show YouTube channel on EQ that may be worth a look, to help get started.
Oratory1990’s or Jaakko’s (AutoEQ) presets are certainly one option. But they are based on the Harman target on a GRAS/711 measurement system, which has some limitations imo. And if you are going to look at their GRAS data, then may as well also look at Amir’s at ASR too.
None of these utilize any of the most recent data that’s available from the HBK 5128 system though. Which is admittedly more of a muddled, confused mess when it comes to target curves. The Harman target on a GRAS is certainly simpler. But I think you pay a little price for that simplicity.
In some ways, I think you get out of EQ, what you put into it. If you have the time to invest in it, then I’d suggest looking at some other potential alternatives.
The title of this thread is “EQ DSP Equalizer for dummies”. It is not helpful to tell new EQ users what not to do because it doesn’t meet your personal standards in some way. There are already other threads for that anyway. If oratory1990 or AutoEQ presets are not a good starting point, then please suggest another.
The arguments made for EQ remind me of the old engineering joke: “Measure with a micrometer, draw with a piece of chalk, and cut with a chain saw”. Take a look at the Sonarworks website for supported headphones. There are some (too many) models that show a noticeable variance between their generic EQ and sending in a given headphone for a specific set of EQ curves. Eye opening to say the least.
I used to eschew EQ, but more recently have come to appreciate its benefits, provided it is done right. Definitely not as easy as it sounds. It drives me crazy that even many “reference” headphones seem to need EQ to sound right.
Even my Sennheiser HD 600 series seems to be improved when using AutoEQ settings with PGGB-RT. The Verum 2 is the only headphone I have that sounds “good enough” without EQ that I don’t bother with it.
Thank you all for the responses, I think I remember making this post before but didn’t get many responses.
The whole EQ thing got me wondering though, from anecdotal experience, if you have a source with DSP on speakers and EQ can do anything…. Why did my buddies upgraded Klipsch reference towers sound better than his old Klipsch towers? Everything else being the same. I will admit that I’m the kind of person that prefers mystery in audio and this comparison is only through a couple listening sessions on each end of the upgrade, not my music and in an unfamiliar location…. I guess I’m just trying to find a reason that frequency response isn’t everything. I got to thinking as well that I like hard to drive headphones, that’s why I’ve bought countless headphones, dac’s and amp’s to figure out what I like. I have the Tungsten on order to fulfill my holy trinity (centaraus IHA-1 and Tungsten) but to me the DT880-600 properly driven is by hearsay better than the DT-880-250 properly driven.
I find it very difficult to cut through the human subjectivity with all of the variables we have in life and the legit facts. For example: My experience with my friends Klipsch upgrade could have been due to being hyped up and excited for him.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding if I can make my Tungsten + A70 sound like my X3
I should make one correction. It looks like Jaakko is including 5128 data now in his AutoEQ presets. I do not know the source of his 5128 target though.
Fwiw, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that EQ can do everything. That is probably an overly simplistic way to look at it and think about it. I can’t speak directly to your experience with your friend’s Klipsch speakers. But, as has been discussed in other topics here, there are a wide variety of factors which can influence or effect a system’s sound quality, aside from FR. FR is really mostly about tonal/timbral balance and bandwidth. Some other important factors are dynamic range, distortion, phase, and symmetry. Speakers can also be effected by their placement, angle, and acoustic treatment of the room (though this changes their measured FR at the listening position).
EQ also interacts with some of the above in ways. Often negatively. If you try to boost the bass too much on some dynamic headphones, for example, it may produce unpleasant distortion. The dynamic range of your recordings can also be reduced with EQ. Though the audibility of this is debatable, especially when making smaller adjustments… And so forth.
Personally, I’d try targeting the average response of other good headphones in Squiglink. And using that as my starting point. I wouldn’t call it “easy”, or something for dummies. But it’s not that difficult. As with many things though, the results are likely to be as good as the amount of time and effort you’re willing to put into it.
This new 2025 study by Dr. Sean Olive, the former head of headphone research at Harman, and Dan Clark of DCA might be of some interest to those who wish to learn and understand a little more about some of the limitations inherent in the Harman target response curve (and potentially also some presets derived from it) on currently available measurement rigs, like the GRAS.
In a nutshell, the research found that DCA (and a few other) headphones measure differently with currently available measurement fixtures and pinnae than they do on the fixture and pinnae originally used by Harman to derive their target headphone response curve(s). This includes current GRAS fixtures used by reviewers and graphers with the Harman target, like the 45CA.
It also proposes some methods to try to compensate for some of the differences.
The final thought in the study’s conclusion is…
Future work will aim to develop more generalized calibrations and targets.
And I hope that work will also include some actual in-ear measurements of neutral speakers in semi-reflective rooms. Because that is still the only potential neutral reference point that’s of real interest to me for headphones.
In the meantime, I’ll probably continue to use approaches like the one described at the beginning of this post for EQ, which are based on averages of a number of well-reviewed, neutral-sounding headphones. This method also has some shortcomings. But it’s pretty flexible. And seems to be a better starting point than most other methods I’ve used so far.