Maybe you can help out a relative newbie when it comes to EQ…
I’m using a Mac with SoundSource, which has rudimentary non-parametric EQ capabilities. I’m working with 10 bands, at 32, 64, 128, 250, 500, 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K, and 16K Hz…
What would you suggest, given these limitations? (other than get some parametric EQ software! 
)
This app in the Pro version looks interesting and very powerful, what do you think @AudioTool?
SoundSource normally has a parametric EQ with up to 32 bands you can adjust individually:
Wow, I did not realize that! Thank you very much!
As you can tell, I am not experienced in custom EQ profiles. I will have to do some experimentation with their sample profile template, and look at their support page more closely. Rogue Amoeba has some great products. 
I guess I’m a bit of an EQ junkie, because I use EqMac, SoundSource, and Roon depending on the need.
EqMac is probably the closest to my needs as you can cut n paste the EQ preset into it and then switch between presets quickly to A/B. It even shows up as a Roon output/zone. The only issue I really have with it is that it is system wide and for my desktop, I prefer to only apply EQ to Apple Music.
Roon doesn’t support importing the preset and changing anything causes the audio to pause for a bit, making A/B or even adjusting a preset frustrating. Still, once I’m happy with a preset, I put it into Roon manually and use it for the majority of my focused listening.
SoundSource can import the preset, but only as a set preset using the procedure @Rael67 linked to. There’s no editing interface and it is system wide like EqMac. SoundSource also supports audio unit plugins so I bought the EQuick plugin from DMGAudio. Great! Now I have a wonderful UI and can apply to just Apple Music, but no preset import again.
Admittedly my use case is probably uncommon.
Actually, not really! I think it matches mine pretty much exactly, except for Roon in my case. I do use Qobuz too though, plus Apple Music with LosslessSwitcher.
Since I do have SoundSource as well, between EQMac and the EQuick plugin from DMGAudio, which do you prefer? I get that EqMac is global, vs using the plugin via SoundSource is app specific. (which is kind or preferable in some ways)
And EQuick is pretty easy to use? Works well with SoundSource? The only plugin I use at the moment is CanOpener Studio from Goodhertz (sometimes). It’s a pretty cool crossfeed plugin.
Both of you have been super helpful!
I prefer EqMac in general. I bought EQuick a long time ago before there was EqMac or even SoundSource EQ. EQuick is for music production work, so it’s not really a good fit for what we’re doing and it was $99. The UX was not that intuitive for me and continues to frustrate me sometimes.
EqMac also has some UX quirks IMHO. But overall it is designed for what we’re using it for so the UX is a better fit to our use case.
Oh I almost forgot. One other (free!) option is using the Apple AUNBandEQ audio unit with SoundSource. You can’t import presets or save an EQ to a file and I don’t think you can even switch EQ settings. But it gets the job done for one headphone. SoundSource also has some kind of Presets selection for a given Effect. It might work to switch headphone EQ settings with AUNBandEQ, but I haven’t played with it.
v0.2
Preamp: -3.22 dB
Filter 1: ON LS Fc 30 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 1
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 180 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 0.8
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 650 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3800 Hz Gain -4 dB Q 2
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5900 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 3.2
Filter 6: ON HS Fc 9900 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 2
I think this article deserves to be included here:
But I didn’t want to post it without including my thoughts on it and I was still formulating those thoughts. Then Head-fi blew up about it today, mainly over it being an overall negative review. So I decided to go ahead post my thoughts there and also quote myself here:
I too have struggled with @listener 's review. Not because it is negative, because I was already expecting that and I actually agree with all of his issues with the OAE1. Comfort is an problem. Timbre is off. Detail is not particularly good. And the marketing exaggerates the front localization effect (but honestly, isn’t that marketing’s job?). It took me a few days thinking about it and the reason this review bothers me is that he doesn’t just say that he didn’t like the OAE1, he basically says I shouldn’t either. It’s right there in the title “Why You Shouldn’t Care About Soundstage”.
Much of the review is an explanation of why these headphones do not and cannot have true front localization. You will never convincingly hear music coming from in front of you without implementing sophisticated DSP like EQ, crossfeed, and head tracking. But to me that is missing the point. The sensation of the music coming from a source outside of my head and in front of me is not an on/off switch. It is still worthwhile to design a headphone that increases this sensation without being 100% convincing. In fact I don’t think it will be 100% convincing without video to accompany the audio anyway.
Saying that soundstage doesn’t matter to music listening without DSP is like saying screen size doesn’t matter to the experience of movie watching without VR goggles. Yes, when you turn your head the illusion is broken. Yes, you can’t properly perceive depth without separate images being presented to each eye. But that doesn’t mean you might as well watch movies on your phone.
In the end Listener didn’t perceive any increased externalization with the OAE1, and that’s fine with me. I do. There are many people on this thread that do too, some of whom still returned their purchase. The problem I have with the way the review reads is that it comes across as “I didn’t perceive any externalization, and you won’t either. Here’s the science to prove that.” It kinda implies that Axel Grell is either unaware of or doesn’t agree with the science too. And before you point out that he never actually says those things or that in the conclusion he qualifies it by saying he can’t be certain how every listener will hear the OAE1, remember that I am just talking about expectations he is giving the reader who hasn’t heard the OAE1 (which is the point of a review). Sort of like what expectations marketing terms such as “speaker-like” and “natural” give.
TBH I think this whole thing could have been avoided if Grell marketing just put the word “more” in front of those terms.
To be clear, I don’t want this to be interpreted as blasting Listener through all social media outlets. I actually have a deep respect for him, his understanding, and his honesty.
Trust that it’s not taken as a blast, I appreciate your feedback homie.
Just gonna drop my reply from Head-Fi here as well for anyone curious.
Hey Audiotool, nice to see ya!
I think that’s a fair criticism, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it out thoughtfully. Given a huge part of my aim with this article was getting people to think more critically about what soundstage is and isn’t + how important it actually is to them, I think the title works well at getting readers to engage with the idea in a way they may not have previously. The only expectation I aimed to instill was “(Readers) should probably be doubting the very idea of headphone soundstage a little more than they are now, because it is both fairly complex in a way they might not be aware of, as well as a bit of a misnomer.” But titles can only be so long
Also just wanna say for the record: I certainly never intended to make it seem like Axel was unaware of the extant literature on headphones; he is likely much more familiar with the literature than I am, given he is a proper engineer who’s been working in the field (making the best headphones in the world) for longer than I have been alive, while I’m just some nerd who cares perhaps a little too deeply about any headphone he is involved with.
As it goes with any artform, it is advisable to know the “rules” or best practices very well before you decide to take liberties with them or break them, and I think OAE-1 is a very good example of this. It is, at its core, what happens when someone intimately familiar with how great-sounding headphones are made bravely tries their hand at a novel approach not explicitly supported by the literature to test how people perceive/enjoy it. Whether this attempt ended up working out well is, of course, down to the person listening.
Thanks so much for reading!
Just adding the graphs from both the official GRAS rig with KB5000 pinna and the B&K 5128:
So once again, these should be treated as different ‘heads’. What you’re seeing here is how the headphone’s behavior changes from head to head. When placed normally, it seems fairly consistent across the two systems. So when placed as identically as possible, it does seem like the benefits of ultra low acoustic impedance are there.
Sadly, there is likely to be stronger variation across heads in practice, across different individuals depending on where the driver sits relative to the ear.
Is it typical to see that much variation in the bass region between these two rigs?
Not uncommon. The GRAS is a flat plate, while the 5128 has actual contours to the side of the head. Some headphones have a challenge actually sealing on the 5128 (and potentially on human heads as well), but you get positional variation on the GRAS as well, sometimes even more so at high frequencies.
Additionally, it’s unclear the impact of acoustic z on OE headphones, but it should be noted that the 5128 has the more accurate acoustic impedance, and this could also have an impact at low and high frequencies, depending on the device being tested.
I’m just contemplating whether it’s the variation in the bass and lower mids that is causing so many different opinions on the timbre rather than any variation in treble. I know I am more sensitive to this region than treble in judging whether a headphone’s timbre is acceptable.
However I do remember that, as you say, the 5128 is considered more accurate in the lower frequencies and that is also the area where the OAE1 design purposefully has more acoustic impedance to increase bass response.
I honestly wouldn’t read too much into the bass response variation with these. I fully expect this to just be flat plate vs contoured head for the HpTF variation in that range. Really, it’s the information above like… 1khz where things are bound to vary more substantially from head to head, given the open nature and low acoustic Z of this design.
I also don’t know how much this is going to prompt differing opinions generally since the sound is not being controlled for in reports. But I do expect the folks aren’t as bothered by the flaws in the treble as a result of the low frequency masking.
Like… yes, there are bound to be situations where this kind of FR lines up better with an individual person’s HRTF than might be the norm, or positionally it fits in a way where the driver is in a more normal spot for the ear on a person. But a far more likely explanation for a positive report is that low frequency level is highly influential in general preference, and this might just line up well for people in that particular preference cluster.
I think the perspective on the tuning will vary much more between listeners than the actual in-situ FR will, and thus the difference in perspective is more likely to be what is behind the differences of reports we’re seeing.
Like, some people are able to enjoy a wider variety of different tunings than others. And it makes
a certain amount of sense: having different flavors of tuning available can be responsible for refreshing listens of records we’ve already heard a bunch, or extra-exciting listens of records we’re hearing for the first time.
Other people are like me, and just want something that provides as uncolored a presentation as possible in order to minimize potential distractions and just hear the music “as it is.”
In other words, I would say the philosophical differences between these two types of headphone listener/consumer are responsible for reports re: OAE-1 varying more than anything to do with the FR. Hopefully that makes sense, lol.
Thanks for posting this.
It’s interesting, and I get what he is saying, but it (the headphone) still doesn’t sound “right” to me. The bass is too boosted and lacking in clarity, and the peaks and dips higher up in the frequency range just sound weird without EQ. Looking at the plot of the FR confirms to me that the OAE-1 does sound simultaneously bright and dark, depending on where you are looking at the FR graph. EQ can help alleviate some of this, but Axel missed with the tuning somewhere along the way… (at least for me).
His creative peak was with the 600 and 800 series.
These days, neither Sennheiser nor he can manage to create a new WOW effect with their new creations after his departure there.
Among others, Meze, ZMF, and occasionally HiFiman are now the far more innovative and sonically advanced headphones on the market.
In my eyes, the desperate attempt to artificially enlarge the sound image by increasing the space was and is a complete failure.
Sometimes you should enjoy what you have achieved and retire as a legend……….
After reading the review and listening to your thoughts on the podcast, it seems more like you just have a problem with the use of the word soundstage. I would agree with you that it is not the same effect of speakers but it is quite clear, as you acknowledged, that there is a “spaciousness effect” that headphones do offer.
What I find off about the review is that it feels like because it is not something you index for and because you don’t like the verbiage, you are downplaying the effect and peoples enjoyment of it. I mean even the title “Why You Shouldn’t Care About Soundstage” is like saying if you do care about soundstage, then you are dumb/wrong. It feels like you should move that stuff out of the review and change it to something like, why we should use a different term other than soundstage or the difference between soundstage in speakers and the perception of spaciousness in headphones.
First off, thanks for reading!
People who have already heard and enjoyed “good soundstage” should, of course, feel free to let their experiences dictate what they care about. I’m not saying that people who love and index heavily for “soundstage” shouldn’t love it or index for it.
What I am saying is that a ton of newer enthusiasts that enter this space who haven’t had these experiences shouldn’t be buying into the hyperbolic descriptions of “soundstage” offered online. They should be extremely skeptical of these claims, because not only is “soundstage” incredibly subjective, but the limits of what it can do are rather rigidly defined, while a thorough accounting of said limits is almost entirely absent in our discourse (which again, is often dominated by hyperbole).
I myself started in this hobby chasing soundstage as the foremost thing I desired due to other people’s descriptions of it, and I deeply wish someone told me earlier how pointless it was to chase… Because once I was able to try the most “soundstagey” headphone out there, it only had a meager bit more of that quality compared to the least “soundstagey” headphone, and it came at the cost of natural tone.
I plan to have an article out this week that delves much deeper into this topic and reframes the discussion a bit to be less about “here’s why this specific headphone cannot possibly fulfill its marketing claims, and you as a buyer should probably beware” and more about “if you haven’t heard soundstage yet, and don’t understand the limits of such a phenomenon, you should heavily moderate your expectations.”
I’d actually say “soundstage” is fine as a term. It’s moreso that the conversation around “soundstage” in most spaces (and in most marketing) is bereft of
The word “soundstage” is itself a little tainted by the inertia of expectations placed onto it by hyperbolic reports, but I think the word itself could still prove useful provided we bring the discussion back to earth a bit. Hope that makes sense!
