[Hiker816]

I also love the variety that different headphone styles and tunings bring and would hate having everything tuned to Harman. And I eschew EQ when I can. But designers are also working with physics. They may not always be able to tune a HP to sound exactly as they would prefer in an ideal world. I think it's a mistake to assume that how a HP sounds is always a reflection of what the designer intended as opposed to as close as reasonably possible to what they intended. Most don't want to acknowledge that, but Aleks is one of the few who expressly embrace Mitch's filters, I think for precisely that reason.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I have no problem with people using EQ and generally have no thoughts around the concept across the board. I don't hop in on the conversations at all. I totally see why people use it and some of the recommendations have been hard to avoid (Mitch and other pre-defined profiles/filters). For me it's just hard to reconcile how you can compare headphones when EQ'ing them. It feels like there's no precision to a baseline at all in that case, but I may be overthinking or overcomplicating it (please do correct me, I'd love to be more open to it lol).

Fully admit the ability to compare apples to apples shouldn't prevent the use of EQ, which can result in an even more satisfying experience, just a weird quirk with me lol

 

[gammi]

I also love the variety that different headphone styles and tunings bring and would hate having everything tuned to Harman. And I eschew EQ when I can. But designers are also working with physics. They may not always be able to tune a HP to sound exactly as they would prefer in an ideal world. I think it's a mistake to assume that how a HP sounds is always a reflection of what the designer intended as opposed to as close as reasonably possible to what they intended. Most don't want to acknowledge that, but Aleks is one of the few who expressly embrace Mitch's filters, I think for precisely that reason.

Yeah, I even recall him mentioning he designed the CA-1a to be technicals focused since frequency response can just be corrected later with EQ. I do not know if this philosophy carried over to Magna and Immanis too. From the sound of it, no, judging by how people have been perceiving the default sound.

 

[Hiker816]

I have no problem with people using EQ and generally have no thoughts around the concept across the board. I don't hop in on the conversations at all. I totally see why people use it and some of the recommendations have been hard to avoid (Mitch and other pre-defined profiles/filters). For me it's just hard to reconcile how you can compare headphones when EQ'ing them. It feels like there's no precision to a baseline at all in that case, but I may be overthinking or overcomplicating it (please do correct me, I'd love to be more open to it lol).

Fully admit the ability to compare apples to apples shouldn't prevent the use of EQ, which can result in an even more satisfying experience, just a weird quirk with me lol

Can't argue with that. Throw in EQ/convolution filters and comparing HPs gets paralyzingly more complicated.

 

[Hiker816]

Yeah, I even recall him mentioning he designed the CA-1a to be technicals focused since frequency response can just be corrected later with EQ. I do not know if this philosophy carried over to Magna and Immanis too. From the sound of it, no, judging by how people have been perceiving the default sound.

FWIW, I didn't hear anything with the Immanis or Magna that made me think they'd benefit from EQ. But who knows?

 

[MAISONOBE AALAIN]

Could you provide a link to find these “Mitch” filters? THANKS

 

[XVampireX]

Could you provide a link to find these “Mitch” filters? THANKS

https://accuratesound.ca

 

[nfandi]

Could you provide a link to find these “Mitch” filters? THANKS

Deleted

 

[MAISONOBE AALAIN]

Merci

 

[LucyWu]

I have zero interest in comparing this or that headphone. I have been down that road in the past and it's a waste of time. Most high end headphones are more similar in technical performance than my brain can accurately recall from one listen to the next. So I am lucky that I have the headphone that works best for me; I would have preferred if it delivered its best self without EQ, but I'm three plus years into owning the SR1a, have an amp and carefully honed EQ that significantly improves on the out of the box performance (especially with the TI-1b - Raal were still shipping with the original resistor interface when I bought mine) and am happy that I can listen to music that evokes many emotions without even the slightest desire to change.

Had I not resorted to EQ I'd have moved on to something that did get me what I wanted from my set up. Before the Raals I owned HE-6, HD800, Focal Utopia, Shure KSE1200 and others. None ultimately met my expectations, though the Utopia's were a high point. I bought Abyss 1266 TC last year, kept them a month.

I might seek out the new Raal 1995 headphones in time, when there are demo units in stock, but I am in no hurry.

 

[Fafner]

My Immanis is going to ship next. Friday

 

[adrianm]

My Immanis is going to ship next. Friday

Would you like a Rossini to go with that?

 

[ThanatosVI]

Would you like a Rossini to go with that?

What are you aiming at then?

 

[Fafner]

Would you like a Rossini to go with that?

This has been a demanding period money wise. The Bartok Apex, the Zähl HM1, I’m waiting for a BMW M4 as well, I think I’ll refrain from other stuff for a while.