The Headphone Show's EQ Tier List

Official Content
1

One of the most common requests we see is for an “EQ tier list” for headphones—a ranking of which models respond best to equalization. While the impulse behind this question is understandable, we think the premise itself is flawed. Not because EQ isn’t powerful—it absolutely is—but because the idea of ranking headphones by “EQ potential” misunderstands what EQ actually changes and what it can’t.

The Core Misconception: Treating “Technicalities” as Fixed

A recurring issue in these discussions is how loosely the term technical performance is used. Qualities like detail, clarity, and separation are often treated as inherent, immutable traits of a headphone. In truth though, these perceptions are overwhelmingly driven by frequency response.

Simple tonal changes can dramatically alter how resolving or “technical” a headphone sounds, and this is why the idea of evaluating EQ performance separately from tuning quickly falls apart: EQ is tuning, and tuning shapes most of what people hear as technical performance.

At the same time, it’s not always obvious which specific frequency changes produce particular perceptual effects. This uncertainty makes any attempt at a universal EQ ranking inherently unreliable.

Listener Variability

Even if EQ effects were perfectly predictable, listeners are not. Ear geometry, head shape, seal, and personal preference all play a massive role in how EQ is perceived. An adjustment that improves clarity or realism for one listener may do the opposite for another.

Some listeners also prefer using multiple headphones with distinct tonal characters rather than equalizing everything toward a single target. That approach is just as valid—and it further undermines the usefulness of a single ranked lists of options for EQ.

What Actually Makes a Headphone Easy to EQ

While we reject the idea of an EQ tier list, we do think some headphones are easier to work with than others. In general, the best EQ candidates are those that need less correction to begin with.

A headphone that only needs a bass shelf is usually a far better starting point than one requiring extensive, narrow-band treble surgery. Comfort matters just as much: no amount of EQ can fix bad comfort.

Additionally, because treble perception varies so much between listeners, a headphone whose treble already works reasonably well for you is often a better EQ platform than one with obvious peaks or deep nulls. It’s also worth noting that it’s generally easier to cut excess treble energy than to fill in missing energy.

Why We’re Skeptical of AutoEQ

We’re broadly critical of AutoEQ solutions, especially when they rely on aggressive treble corrections derived from measurement rigs. These corrections almost never line up cleanly with an individual listener’s ear geometry and can introduce more problems than they solve.

AutoEQ can sometimes make a badly tuned headphone more tolerable, but it’s not a reliable path to excellent sound if the starting point is already decent. We strongly recommend learning to EQ manually, using measurements as loose guidance at most.

Design Factors That Matter More Than Rankings

When EQ works well, it’s usually because of the headphone’s physical design rather than any abstract “EQ tier”:

Positional consistency: Headphones that sound similar despite small placement changes are much easier to EQ when using measurements as a loose guide like we mention.

Open-back designs: These tend to have more predictable bass behavior due to reduced leak intolerance—they care less about exactly how well-sealed the headphone is on the head.

Pads and clamp force: Variations here can dramatically change frequency response balance between bass and treble.

Bass headroom: While distortion is very rarely a truly limiting factor, headphones that require massive low-frequency boosts are simply poor EQ candidates compared to those already close to a listener’s target because they take more work to get right

Examples of Strong EQ Platforms

Although we avoid rankings, certain headphones consistently stand out as good EQ platforms because of their comfort, consistency, and baseline tuning:

Sony MDR-MV1: Excellent bass out of the box, predictable, comfortable, and largely cooperative in the treble.

HIFIMAN Arya (or egg-shaped) lineup: Open, low-distortion designs with manageable quirks and strong positional tolerance.

Audio-Technica R-series: A very open, budget-friendly option with a solid starting point.

Sennheiser HD490 Pro: Another strong platform, albeit slightly more complex to dial in.

Across all of these, the common thread isn’t “EQ friendliness” as a ranking—it’s good mechanical design and a sensible starting frequency response.

The Real Variable Isn’t the Headphone

With enough time and skill, almost any headphone can be improved with EQ. The limiting factor isn’t the model—it’s the listener’s experience and intent.

Learning to EQ by ear, experimenting carefully, and understanding your own preferences will do far more for your sound than chasing an imagined EQ tier list. The most meaningful upgrade isn’t a different headphone—it’s knowing how to use the tools you already have.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://headphones.com/blogs/features/the-headphone-shows-eq-tier-list
2

I’m surprised that the HEDDphone D1 was not also mentioned as a strong EQ platform. Is the reason that it is more expensive than many of the other strong EQ platforms, lack of bass, or maybe something else?

4

There are some things I agree with here and some I do not.

I think FR is one of the most important factors in a headphone’s sound quality, for example. But I don’t think it’s the only factor. And I don’t think you can really turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse just by applying some EQ to it.

You can improve its tonal/timbral balance. And maybe its bandwidth a little. And perhaps also its symmetry if you have good measurements for both the left and right channels, and can equalize them separately (which is too involved for most users). But you can’t take a headphone that is a weak performer in terms of clarity, distortion, dynamic range, modal breakup, excess group delay, openness, pinna interaction, symmetry, stereo imaging, and some of these other areas, and turn it into something it is not just by adding some PEQ to it… Even Dr. Olive has acknowledged this.

I also think that personalization can be potentially useful with IEMs. But I think it is far less important or even unnecessary with lower acoustic impedance circumaural headphones that have good pinna interaction. So my opinion on that has not really changed. And I’m not compelled by the (speculative imo) evidence that has been put forward so far to suggest otherwise.

Others’ mileage may vary on this though.

5

Yeah some of these are relevant things independent of frequency response, and we’d all generally agree with the importance of other perceptual effects like openness. And certainly there are edge cases where a headphone is excursion limited (showing excessive harmonic distortion), or EGD issues. But for the most part, with most normal behaving systems you can in fact turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. So the argument would be something along the lines of those factors being rather niche, but also that even if there are other perceptual factors to do with things like the occlusion effect, it’s not a reason not to do it, or that the sound gets somehow worse by doing so.

And the differences in the experiences a person can get between a headphone with a bad frequency response in a perceptually / acoustically hellish closed off condition and that same headphone adjusted to have an exceptional frequency response in a perceptually / acoustically hellish closed off condition is dramatic, such that if done correctly it would amount to turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

We actually have some content coming out that demonstrates it, and in fact it’s actually fascinating what happens when you do perfectly match the in-situ FR behavior of two headphones. In short… the sound ends up being basically the same!

1 Like
6

The only reasons might be A) price, and B) the in-situ variation to do with bass to treble delta depending on clamp pressure. So for a small head you may want to suggest a meaningful bass boost, but for a big head you might not need that at all. To be clear, this would be common for other headphones too, but I suspect you’d get more variation for D1. Still a great platform though.

1 Like
7

Take the following with a grain of salt:

I asked AI if applying EQ to a digital audio stream can adversely impact the sound. Here’s what it came back with:

“ Yes, applying EQ to a digital audio stream can adversely impact the timing of the sound, depending on the type of EQ used.

Standard (Minimum Phase) EQ

  • Most common digital EQs are minimum phase EQs, which introduce phase shifts that vary with frequency.

  • These phase shifts result in group delay, meaning different frequencies arrive at different times relative to each other.

  • This timing distortion can affect the clarity and imaging of the sound, especially for transients like drums or percussive elements.

  • The effect is generally subtle but can be audible in high-fidelity systems or critical listening environments.

Linear Phase EQ

  • Linear phase EQs are designed to avoid phase shifts by introducing constant delay across all frequencies.

  • While they preserve timing relationships, they introduce latency and can cause pre-ringing—an echo that precedes a transient.

  • Pre-ringing is more noticeable with sharp transients and can be perceived as unnatural, especially in music with dynamic peaks.

Key Takeaway

  • Phase and timing are inherently linked: Any EQ that alters frequency response will affect phase, and thus timing, unless specifically designed to maintain linear phase.

  • For critical applications (e.g., mastering, studio monitoring), linear phase EQs are preferred to preserve timing integrity, despite their trade-offs.

  • In practical use, moderate EQ adjustments rarely cause noticeable timing issues, but aggressive or multiple EQ stages can degrade sound quality through phase distortion.

Bottom line: EQ does impact timing via phase shifts. Use linear phase EQ when timing accuracy is critical, and avoid excessive boosting/cutting to minimize artifacts.

I think there’s truth in this. I keep trying to apply EQ in various forms, and whilst sometimes the result is pleasant, more often than not, I wind up NOT using EQ, because the overall sound seems disjointed. It seems easier (for me) to adjust to the frequency deviations from a given headphone than to adjust to the issues generated from applying EQ to the digital stream.

8

The resource on this should be that headphones are predominantly minimum phase, which means we don’t need to worry about time domain issues most of the time, if that’s what you’re concerned about. Really what’s most likely going on is that you’ve made some adjustments that don’t work well for the in-situ behavior of the headphone. Or perhaps it’s an issue of how you’re doing the EQ. We actually have another thread on this topic.

2 Likes
9

OK. So, I read up on the topic. Went a different direction with EQ settings. Using Foobar2000, found some parametric EQ settings for the Sony MDR Z1R and the Sennheiser HD-820. I need to use closed back headphones for a good part of the day, so looking to get them as close tonally to open back as possible.

Found some detailed settings for setting the Z1R. To my surprise, they seem to work quite well. The tonal balance is much improved, and the sound remains coherent. Need to spend time evaluating with the Z1R with the parametric EQ settings, but initial impressions are very positive. The Z1R with proper EQ is a MUCH better sounding headphone, among the best I’ve heard.

Here’s what I found and currently using:

  • Filter: ON LS Fc 80 Hz Gain -1 dB

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 100 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON HSC 20 dB Fc 100 Hz Gain -2 dB

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 130 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 4

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 2700 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 3

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 3250 Hz Gain -8 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 3400 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 20

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 4100 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 4900 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 5

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 5800 Hz Gain 3 dB Q 5

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 6600 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 9200 Hz Gain -3 dB Q 5

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 10000 Hz Gain -6 dB Q 15

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 15000 Hz Gain -6 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON PK Fc 19000 Hz Gain -4 dB Q 10

  • Filter: ON HSC 20 dB Fc 11000 Hz Gain -2 dB
    Save as mdr.txt in the Equalizer APO config folder and include it in config.txt.

For the HD-820, using the parametric EQ settings from the Headphones.com review. Only gave it a quick listen, but definitely seems better. The midrange is somewhat more balanced.

More to follow.

1 Like
10

I look forward to your demonstration. But think we’ll have to disagree on this.

Imho, a poorly designed headphone cannot compete with a well-designed headphone, even if they measure similarly at the DRP. EQ just can’t fix all the things that can be wrong or detrimental or limiting to good sound in a poorly designed headphone.

Your argument seems to be that most of that other stuff is just inaudible. And FR is always the dominating factor. That hasn’t been my experience with the various headphones I’ve used. And I’m also leaving out things like positional consistency, microphonic effects, and probably a number of other factors that are unlikely to show up on a single FR plot.

If you’re comparing two similarly designed and performing headphones though, then they may sound alot alike with some EQ applied. I don’t think I’d argue with that.

I also think that some sow’s ears can be improved with EQ. But at the end of the day they will still be sow’s ears, and not silk purses… regrettably.

11

Not necessarily inaudible just comparatively inconsequential, or where it is consequential we’re generally talking about edge cases.

Most of the time, when people think they’re hearing differences outside of the frequency domain, it really is in the frequency domain just not identified as such.

Yes, at the moment we’ve been doing this with two generally competent headphones (even if some of us really didn’t like one of them), and we have yet to do the convolution filter application for truly cursed / broken products. Headphones can be ‘objectively bad’ for different reasons, and when those reasons are its frequency response and not stuff like excursion limits, massive harmonic distortion or whatever, it genuinely can be EQ’d to sound great.

A common one folks ask me about is a headphone like the DT1990 Pro, and whether or not it can be EQ’d to sound smooth - obviously it has meaningful resonances in the treble. And the answer is 100% yes, because it’s not bad due to anything other than those specific frequency response related problems. What we’re saying is that when you look at in-situ DRP data, most headphones that have audible problems fall into this kind of category.

The other thing we’re noticing is that when doing this kind of in-situ FR matching, we’re finding it much easier to isolate the non sound aspects that are relevant to psychoacoustics. So like the overall perceptual experience is still different between two headphones, since there are going to be differences in terms of occlusion, clamp pressure, weight, all of that stuff. ‘Headphone feel’ when worn, seems to be a noticeable contributor to the perceptual experience of listening to music as well. It’s super interesting to do this exercise because you realize the extent of that contribution when in-situ FR is identical.