I’m new to Audirvana Studio and audiophile things in general.
I’m using a Windows PC, Topping DX3 Pro+, Sennheiser HD560S, Qobuz streaming. Before getting Audirvana I used Peace + Equalizer APO as my equalizer, and used an AutoHQ preset for these headphones.
In Audirvarna’s EQ I have replicated the settings for the EQ and it sounds good (to me, at least).
I wonder if using FabFilterPro Q4 would give me any benefits. I mainly listen to prog rock and ‘robust’ classical music, such as Beethoven’s symphonies.
I don’t do any mixing - just listening to music for pleasure, so I don’t know if I’d benefit from FabFilter Q4…
Why complicate the experience with FabFilter Q4…? If anything, I suggest using the 112dB “Redline Monitor” HRTF DSP plug-in… I use this in the audiophile mode with no Distance processing.
Specifications
Transparent sound with perfectly flat frequency response
Support for sample rates up to 384kHz.
True stereo soundstage with adjustable speaker position
Separately adjustable phantom center level for optimal speaker matching
Distance control to simulate placement of near-field monitors in room
Auxiliary left/right solo and phase invert controls for critical listening
Output switchable to mono for mono-compatibility checking
@AndyBell FabFilterPro Q4 is a very surgical EQ used mostly for tracking/recording and mixing… Sure FabFilterPro Q4 can be used to surgically fix issues in mastering… However, you may be looking for Mastering EQ that is used for broad strokes and/or to add saturation and color… Something like the GML 8200, Manly Massive Passive and many others that offer some of that Old Skool movement and mojo… There are literally hundreds of Mastering EQ software emulations available as plugins…
@Ddude003
Equalization of headphones is a specific target… no room involvement…
In this context, what will any other EQ plug-in bring to the table that cannot be achieved with the EQ Studio that is optimized for the Audirvāna audio-engine…? Second-guessing the mastering engineer, is a futile endeavor in my opinion and a waste of time… Any given recording is what it is… However, I understand there are folks that find reason to chase after some idea of perfection in some vicarious way regarding tonality. The creative work has already been done…I’m sure you disagree regarding coloration. … From my perspective, the rest is all about getting that snap-shot of the artistic endeavor translated with the least amount of superfluous coloration possible… We know that our playback systems are influencing the translation… this is a given…
The physical need for hearing acuity compensation is a good reason for transparency.
I just offered the OP an other direction to investigate… I don’t understand why a retarded AI like you would object to looking at other things that might bring the OP audio pleasure…
You suggested, Redline, a very dumbed down version of, a mastering EQ that manages mid/side and phase… Sound stage manipulation… Hey that is great… And included in most modern Mastering EQ emulations…
You are suggesting ways to mangle the codified artistic decisions of the encoded recording… I don’t think folks generally use Audirvāna as master-bus effects processor… I think folks get into Audirvāna to get the most out of the recordings they want to listen to, just as they have been produced and if EQ is applied, to get the most from their playback systems…
i tested several eqs and all of them did smth to the sound i did not like. i ended up buying fabfilter 4. (i upsample to device max for my aune s9c) with wich i was pretty happy. then a few days ago av implemented their own eq. i was like…ok, lets try it but ofc course the fab will still convince me since i just spent 150 bucks. iplayed around now 3 days in a row for several hours and for me and my setup the av tops the fab. crazy, right? ofc i optimized the fab in my comparison sessions i had before. but the av handels treble simply better that the fab. everything is spacier, the transiensts are more precise and the sound is all in all more nuanced. ofc this only happens when you like sit down and try a lot of ab comparisons. but i am ocd in all that i do as a hobby. so from my end:stick to the av eq, it is better! (i only listen to my zmf atrium open on the aune s9c with upsampling to max on audirvana). mainly jazz and classical.
Once again you misquote me… I said “mid/side and phase” and you came back with misquoting saying M/S processing…
Mid-side processing allows you to manipulate the soundstage by separating the mid (center) and side (left and right) signals, enhancing the stereo image. However, it can introduce phase issues, especially when blending these signals, so it’s important to monitor for phase coherence to maintain a clear mix.
I am glad the OP tried things for himself and found something that worked for his ears!!!
Does your headphones have head tracking? So when you tilt your head up and down or left and right does it sound any different? No… You would need a head mounded vr tracking system… And if not then its just some mombo jumbo about how much better your kit is than someone else…
BTY you have admitted to using some kludgy harmonic generator, EQ to compensate for your hearing loss and this RedLine Monitor to to manipulate the soundstage… Your a hypocrite for criticizing others in these forums for doing the very things you are apparently doing… Searching for Audio Nirvana…
I’m not using virtualization… just HRTF… I have yet to find a virtualization that does not muck with the source signal… NO head tracking for me… I’m not trying to recreate a speaker experience… You just flat don’t know what I’m doing here with Redline Monitor HRTF… your assumptions, presumptions are myopic and insipid.
This is what I am getting from Redline Monitor with the ‘Distance’ control disabled:
Oh, sorry… VR means Virtual Reality not “virtualization”… Your AI needs some adjustments… I understand what Head-Related Transfer Function is… It is not something that makes a lot of sense in a real acoustic environment… And if this is what you like that is fine… My point is that what you like may not be what other like or want… And that’s OK…
Why would somebody use HRTF in a playback over speakers in a room? It is all about headphone playback… Virtual Reality, Virtualization in this context are the same… you brought head tracking into the conversation, where HRTF is of some consequence, but not the primary goal in VR virtualizations where head-tracking is important… I suggested a means to improve the headphone experience from my personal experience using this particular HRTF DSP… you made a false equivalence to HRTF with the mastering EQ M/S ‘phase’ idea…
I’m doing nothing to second-guess the artistry in the production and mastering by anything that I employ in my playback system… to the contrary, I am doing everything to reproduce this artistry as transparently as possible… I have excellent hearing… I just need a little more top-end focus from my system… about 2dB from 4kHz out to the Nyquist Fs. Otherwise that is it…
So you add some sort of harmonic mojo, some sort of EQ to please your aging ears and some soundstage manipulation for your use of headphone and you want me to believe you are “doing nothing to second-guess the artistry in the production and mastering by anything that I employ in my playback system.” Please stop… You are beginning to sound like and AI that is hallucinating…
I’m revealing the soundstage and contextual L+R channel phase, harmonic and dynamic relationships that were imbued in the original mastering by virtue of HRTF… The EQ helps compensate for what I perceive are limitations in my playback system/headphones… Everything else in my system is focused on noise reduction across the spectrum of components and power/ground topologies.
Thanks to everyone for their input. As a newbie it’s a fascinating read and I clearly have entered a big world and have much to learn.
My purpose for using EQ is as @Agoldnear said - to normalise the output to the HD560s so that they deliver as closely as possible what the the artist recorded… I understand that they (or their sound engineer) will have influenced the recording to make it sound a certain way, and that’s what I want to hear when listening critically. Also, without any EQ the HD560s sound harsh at the treble range, and I wanted to eliminate that.
I have tried the redline monitor, but have not yet decided whether I’ll keep it after the trial expires. I can hear the difference it makes and will need to listen to my favourite tracks with and without it to see which I prefer.
I have found AV’s EQ to yield good results, but I had a number of profiles from PEACE to choose from: some worked better than others. But now I have a basic preset that counters the HD560s somewhat harsh (to my ear) trebles, and means I can enjoy extended listening sessions without the percussion, cymbals in particular, causing discomfort.
I may use this preset as a basis for generating others for specific music genres or even individual albums. I have a personal preference for bass-heavy music, probably due to me playing drums and needing to pay close attention to it.
I like to have different options. I will look at some of the alternatives mentioned by @Ddude003 .
I guess in the end this gets subjective. Music for me is art, and art is about enjoyment rather than absolute purity,
Yep… It is all subjective…
I’ll give you my perspective on presets which is based on my fundamental philosophy about listening to pre-recorded music products critically, and it is simple… “It is… What it is…” This means if the recording doesn’t have a lot of bass energy or the mix/tonal balance isn’t what I would do personally, I accept it as is… There are reasons some mixes seem bass shy, especially those digital masters created from a master source intended for vinyl… The 70’s and 80’s brought ‘aural excitement’ processing and ‘emphasis’ encoded in Compact Disc products and then there are ISPs (Inter-Sample Peaks) as a product of the loudness wars and bad mastering…
So, I personally see EQ presets as a means to save a preferred reference setting, or for folks that may swap components or headphones and/or playback scenarios, saving a preset is convenient. But not a way to customize each and every genre or album which I believe is pathological.
You may like to try up-sampling your PCM files as this will produce a more refined signal to the output circuitry of your DAC… What DAC are you using?
