[Strangelove424]

   
Same for me. I used to get fatigued quite easily with the HD600 and could never really explain to myself why. I eventually sold it, got the DT880 and after a while I finally figured it out. I certainly understand why many people enjoy the boost in the midbass, but after getting used to a headphone that doesn't have it, it sounds bloated and exaggerated to me, and with lots of deep electronic music, it really wears your ears out. It's also a much more difficult thing to get rid of than the 880's heightened treble.
 
I see no problem with EQ either, by the way, except for maybe the fact that it may be unpractical in certain situations. Other than that, all headphones are merely interpretations of how things are supposed to sound. With EQ all you do is slightly alter that interpretation. It has very little to do with distortion, since all headphones have distortion and coloration of the sound in their own way.

Yep, fully agree. To me, it was kind of like being tapped on the head constantly. I also felt it to be bloated, and that is was swallowing up the nuances of other frequencies. I didn't mess with EQ when I was comparing the two, but I just felt like the 880s were already closer to what I wanted and would be easier to tune.
 
Yeah, it can definitely be impractical, I can't EQ my streaming music on the go for instance. There's no system wide EQ for Android (unless perhaps I root it, and I don't wanna go there). So sometimes it's just not possible. 

 

[pp312]

 
Strange obsession, if you consider how many other interesting things there are to abscess about in this world.

 
You'll find if you abscess too much you'll end up with a boil.

 

 
Unwind, maybe have a drink, and enjoy the process.

 
And if you have enough drinks you won't care where the EQ sliders are, and that'll solve the problem.

 
Seriously though, I have doubts about EQing per se. Tone controls I don't mind as they're extremely limited in their action. EQing is one of those  things that can bring out the obsession in all of us. I mean where do you stop? Once you've observed the changes, can you ever really be sure you've got the right settings? Go from recording to recording and each one is a little (or a lot) different; thus no setting is going to be right for every one. Without EQ we just accept that. With it we're inclined to get dissatisfied and fiddle. I've found tone controls, particularly those that affect only the frequency extremes, highly useful; but I'd have grave doubts about letting an equaliser anywhere near myself for the same reason as I try to stay away from jelly beans and licorice allsorts--I'm a sugar addict. And since we're all admitted audioholics, you see the point.  

 

[Strangelove424]

 
And if you have enough drinks you won't care where the EQ sliders are, and that'll solve the problem.

 
LOL, that just might explain why my best music memories are from concerts, but anyhow...  
 

Seriously though, I have doubts about EQing per se. Tone controls I don't mind as they're extremely limited in their action. EQing is one of those  things that can bring out the obsession in all of us. I mean where do you stop? Once you've observed the changes, can you ever really be sure you've got the right settings? Go from recording to recording and each one is a little (or a lot) different; thus no setting is going to be right for every one. Without EQ we just accept that. With it we're inclined to get dissatisfied and fiddle. I've found tone controls, particularly those that affect only the frequency extremes, highly useful; but I'd have grave doubts about letting an equaliser anywhere near myself for the same reason as I try to stay away from jelly beans and licorice allsorts--I'm a sugar addict. And since we're all admitted audioholics, you see the point.  

 
There's always a chance for obsession making any change whatsoever. While I'd say that there are unhealthier ways to obsess, especially if you are applying changes that are not easily metered or measured, no form of obsession is good for music. I sat down a while ago and made myself a few EQ presets. Picking which one to use now is pretty simple, I just pick from a drop down menu. But you speak the truth about not letting obsession creep in, it can be poison to enjoyment. 

 

[MorrisL]

 
You'll find if you abscess too much you'll end up with a boil.

 

 Not the first time spellcheck has made an ass out of me.

 

[MorrisL]

   
Well, if you were going to EQ two headphones to sound alike, ones with the exact driver and very similar housing design are an ideal way to start. The frequency graph pp312 put in post #5 will be our reference. I’m going to also assume you have atleast 10 band EQ with adjustments at 30-60-120-250-500-1k-2k-4k-8k-16k Hz. To start out, keep adjustments limited to subtractive amounts. After each EQ change, adjust the overall volume again to feel comfortable. It’s not always the quantity of a certain frequency that we may find distracting or annoying, just the way it is balanced with everything else. Which brings up a major point… Only adjust one part of the band at a time. You can adjust bands that are close together but don’t bounce around the spectrum. If you adjust mid bass, listen carefully to the effect of the adjustment before tackling low bass, mids, or highs. Play with the sound, and spend a lot of time exploring the spectrum to see what instrument fall where. Where does a cello reside? How about a violin? Or organ? You’ll see it’s nuanced, and instruments can fall on a variety of different frequencies, each highlighting a different aspect of their sound. 

Ok, so let’s get specific about the DT990. You can see looking at post #5’s graph that the 60 Hz/120hz range is boosted about 4.5db over the DT880s, and that extends a bit over the neighboring frequencies. What’s also interesting is that you actually have more sub-bass than the dt880s, it’s just that the mid-bass dominates it. Once the mid bass is reduced there’s plenty of sub bass quantity there to enjoy, it’s just been masked by the mid bass. I would start by going -3db or -4db@60 Hz, -3db or -4db@120Hz, adjustment overall volume, then listen extremely carefully. Find a classical piece with lots of complexity, and perhaps an organ or cello and see if there is more texture there now. Also listen to the mids carefully, because they will pop out more, and on the highs to see if they are de-emphasized at all. Next up tackle the highs. The 990s have an 8khz peak like the 880s, but it’s even higher. As a first shot, try -4db or -5db @ 8kHz, and -2db @ 4k. Listen again, adjust the volume, and keep exploring the changes you are making from one musical piece to another. Don’t worry about finding an ideal setting for now, just try to explore the frequencies and listen to the changes each adjustment makes, what things begin to pop out or fall to the background. And last, don’t forget to have fun doing this. Unwind, maybe have a drink, and enjoy the process. We should never feel guilty for exploring music and sound, even if that means altering it a little bit. 

 
Thank you so much for this patient walk-through! I spent some time experimenting with it and I've gotten unexpectedly great results. The harsh treble is a thing of the past now with virtually no compromise on quality. I felt like I was able to preview the DT880 on a eq-ed 990 (following your instructions) and after some serious consideration I found that, for my ideal set-up, I pretty much wanted to leave the bass alone. For nearly all of the music I listened to, all it really takes is a nice -5db on the 8kHz and -3 or -4db on 16kHz. Occasionally, especially with vocal music, a gentle boost of the mid-range sounded nice. And this was really all I needed to start enjoying a great headphone, deserving its previous flagship status.
 
I'm trying to narrow down to 3 headphones only. The other one I plan to buy is DT 660 (just for its classical music fame and because it's closed back) and perhaps a step up into the HD800 and T1 world. I will then gracefully quit this obsessive-compulsive hobby.

 

[Strangelove424]

   
Thank you so much for this patient walk-through! I spent some time experimenting with it and I've gotten unexpectedly great results. The harsh treble is a thing of the past now with virtually no compromise on quality. I felt like I was able to preview the DT880 on a eq-ed 990 (following your instructions) and after some serious consideration I found that, for my ideal set-up, I pretty much wanted to leave the bass alone. For nearly all of the music I listened to, all it really takes is a nice -5db on the 8kHz and -3 or -4db on 16kHz. Occasionally, especially with vocal music, a gentle boost of the mid-range sounded nice. And this was really all I needed to start enjoying a great headphone, deserving its previous flagship status.
 
I'm trying to narrow down to 3 headphones only. The other one I plan to buy is DT 660 (just for its classical music fame and because it's closed back) and perhaps a step up into the HD800 and T1 world. I will then gracefully quit this obsessive-compulsive hobby.

No problem, glad I could help you figure out a way to enjoy the headphones more. Now you have a better idea of the spectrum, the precise tuning differences between the two Beyer models, and are reassured that you chose the one with your style of bass response.
 
I won't try to extinguish your burning wallet, but in regards to the obsessive-compulsive factor, keep in mind that there's a law of diminishing returns in audio, especially when it comes to the emotional state. My best experience listening to rock'n'roll was hearing The Eagles for the first time on cruddy headphones and a walkman. No other headphone in the world, no matter how good it is, will ever change that. So enjoy the journey, I don't think it really gets better as it progresses, it just gets more precise.

 

[Tempo]

I don't believe in eqs. If you don't like the sound perfomance at a certain frequency of your headphones, you should not bought it at the first place.

 

[MorrisL]

 
I won't try to extinguish your burning wallet, but in regards to the obsessive-compulsive factor, keep in mind that there's a law of diminishing returns in audio, especially when it comes to the emotional state. My best experience listening to rock'n'roll was hearing The Eagles for the first time on cruddy headphones and a walkman. No other headphone in the world, no matter how good it is, will ever change that. So enjoy the journey, I don't think it really gets better as it progresses, it just gets more precise.

 
I believe that. I spent many years clueless about quality headphones but enjoyed countless hours of musical bliss on a 10 dollar headphone. I would have killed to have had the whole experience again with a 990!  
 
From what I read, the diminishing returns are pretty sharp after say HD600 (HD800, at over three times the price, being only a half step ahead, some say).

 

[MorrisL]

I don't believe in eqs. If you don't like the sound perfomance at a certain frequency of your headphones, you should not bought it at the first place.

 
If only you presented some small evidence to support that belief (or lack of thereof), that would be great. 

 

[Gagarin]

If only you presented some small evidence to support that belief (or lack of thereof), that would be great. 

Well, I have no evidence but I can tell you that the EQ on my Astell and Kern player makes the sound grainier and pop sometimes. It does EQ using resistors I believe. I guess the resistor quality must be sub par. I never have the EQ on.

 

[MorrisL]

Well, I have no evidence but I can tell you that the EQ on my Astell and Kern player makes the sound grainier and pop sometimes. It does EQ using resistors I believe. I guess the resistor quality must be sub par. I never have the EQ on.

I think that's enough evidence to at least begin talking about it, but it hasn't been my experience, and many others here, too, claim it doesn't reduce the quality of the recording in any meaningful way, especially when applied conservatively. However what I do know is that certain poor recordings don't take eq very well, either because the microphones used weren't of high quality or the mastering itself had already been heavily equalized. But even with that, a little -4db change on the highs to tame 990's harsh treble hasn't distorted any of my tracks, both good quality and poor.

 

[Strangelove424]

Well, I have no evidence but I can tell you that the EQ on my Astell and Kern player makes the sound grainier and pop sometimes. It does EQ using resistors I believe. I guess the resistor quality must be sub par. I never have the EQ on.

This is exactly the kind of issue you can get with analog EQ if you overboost the analog signal or are dealing with badly designed electronics. I mentioned this somewhere before, and think it's part of the reason certain people have a bad taste of EQ. For some reason, a free app with EQing capability like Foobar comes off to some as a less worthy way to EQ than using a piece of costly audiophile equipment, but the truth is that in 99% of circumstances for a home listener, the free digital EQ is the way to go. 
 

 
I would just like to remind everyone this is what a mixing engineer sits in front of, it is a professional mixing/EQ board. This is where your music comes from. In addition, the speakers at this studio were probably tested for frequency response and EQed to compensate for specific acoustics of the room. Audiophiles are willing to accept and even treasure the work that comes out of these studios, yet they look down at the techniques used by professionals to attain them.

 

[Tempo]

  I would just like to remind everyone this is what a mixing engineer sits in front of, it is a professional mixing/EQ board. This is where your music comes from. In addition, the speakers at this studio were probably tested for frequency response and EQed to compensate for specific acoustics of the room. Audiophiles are willing to accept and even treasure the work that comes out of these studios, yet they look down at the techniques used by professionals to attain them.

EQ is definitely what professional musicians use when mixing. But I should remain you that the EQs are set separately for different sound tracks, and EQ affercts not only tone, but also the position of the sounds, ie. in front or behind of  your head; close or far to/from your ears. 
However, if you apply it on an mixed song, you are actually breaking the the elaborately designed inner relation between differnt instruments.
Let's say we have a song with vocal in the face and all other instruments behind you. Now, you thing the midwhat of your headphones is too strong, so you drag the EQ down in the mid. You will probably end up with both vocal and instruments all behind you. Then, wheter it sounds better is really due to your oppinion, but the issue is it is not how the song was organized to be heard.
Therefore, I am not saying you cannot find your favourite sound by EQing. The reason I don't like it is EQ is hard to control, since you are not only changing the bass,mid, or tribe, but also sometimes the structure of a song and other factores. 
 
These are all based on my own experience of mixing songs. PLZ point out if there is any mistake!

 

[Gagarin]

  I think that's enough evidence to at least begin talking about it, but it hasn't been my experience, and many others here, too, claim it doesn't reduce the quality of the recording in any meaningful way, especially when applied conservatively. However what I do know is that certain poor recordings don't take eq very well, either because the microphones used weren't of high quality or the mastering itself had already been heavily equalized. But even with that, a little -4db change on the highs to tame 990's harsh treble hasn't distorted any of my tracks, both good quality and poor.

I will be purchasing the AK100II soon, and hopefully the EQ is better than the 100 original.
 
I am totally for EQing, but I just can't deal with the popping and other shenanigans. 

 

[Strangelove424]

  EQ is definitely what professional musicians use when mixing. But I should remain you that the EQs are set separately for different sound tracks, and EQ affercts not only tone, but also the position of the sounds, ie. in front or behind of  your head; close or far to/from your ears. 
However, if you apply it on an mixed song, you are actually breaking the the elaborately designed inner relation between differnt instruments.
Let's say we have a song with vocal in the face and all other instruments behind you. Now, you thing the midwhat of your headphones is too strong, so you drag the EQ down in the mid. You will probably end up with both vocal and instruments all behind you. Then, wheter it sounds better is really due to your oppinion, but the issue is it is not how the song was organized to be heard.
Therefore, I am not saying you cannot find your favourite sound by EQing. The reason I don't like it is EQ is hard to control, since you are not only changing the bass,mid, or tribe, but also sometimes the structure of a song and other factores. 
 
These are all based on my own experience of mixing songs. PLZ point out if there is any mistake!

Nothing wrong, you make good points. I dislike drive-by comments, but you made an intelligent statement and that's what we're here for... thoughtful discussion!

I have never noticed the vocals or instrumentals change position in a headphone after EQing. Downmixing channels will do that, crossover will do it to a degree, but not EQ in my experience. There's also the issue that studios don't typically use headphones, so our image of soundstage is a little off anyway when we have cans on. But the question at the heart of the matter is... what does the mix really sound like? While the mixer has the ability to EQ individual tracks on a record, and has a major benefit with that, our aim is not to re-master the track or do his job again, it's just to reach a point of neutrality with the headphone. Most studios have EQed the speakers from the get-go for a neutral response before ever touching any tracks. No room responds the same way, and a precision setup requires room correction. That trend has even hit the consumer market with room EQ systems such as Audyssey which measure frequency response for different acoustic environments using a microphone, and correct the frequency output for a balanced response between speakers and room. So by attempting to gain the same flat balance in frequency response on our heapdphones we should be hearing a reproduction closer to the mixing/mastering engineer's intents, not further.