Basic Harman over-ear 2018 profile for my AKG K240 Studio headphones
Yes, I know there is Sonarworks Sound ID and similar ways to go, but I’m a bit tight on budget right now.
I’ve seen a couple of videos including Chris Selim’s on calibrating cans with AutoEQ. But he’s on a Mac and he mentions having to go in and hack a text file for – too complicated for me.
There is a how-to-video on AutoEQ specifically but using a DAW I’m not familiar with. It seems that one somehow uses the downloaded .wav file as reference to somehow create a profile from that .wav in some EQ plugin.
I have no idea how to do that or if it’s even possible in Cubase – whether using native EQs or what I tend to use quite a bit – Ozone 11 Equalizer.
Or if one does this on one’s OS, and if so, how.
I need to be able to toggle this off/on because I use headphones for detail tweaking, otherwise I use my 5.5." Presonus near-fields.
Here is a reasonable approach for the AKG 240 Studio suggested by AutoEQ:
You can round the numbers up or down:
Lowshelf Fc 105.0 Hz Gain 13.4 dB Q 0.70
Peak Fc 136.6 Hz Gain -4.6 dB Q 0.36
Peak Fc 1593.7 Hz Gain 5.4 dB Q 3.56
Peak PK Fc 4256.4 Hz Gain 5.5 dB Q 3.01
Highshelf Fc 10.000 Hz Gain -4.1 dB Q 0.70
You have to set the first and the last band of Frequency to a Low- and Highshelf. The rest as is.
You could try to work with linear phase if you are not tracking (latency).
Hope that helps
If you got any questions adjusting Frequency, please let me know.
Hey, thanks, Gotta do other stuff right now, but just briefly clicked on your suggested video. I dig that freakin’ Scottish accent .
Must be my 3rd generation Gordon Clan genes tunin’ in.
@Reco29 - OK, so did my first attempt as suggested. The detailed adjustments suggested in the video overwhelmed me, so I just used the basic data.
Started at #2 band but the sequence is close to the data you listed from AutoEQ.
I don’t see the point of the 137 Hz (# 3 in screenshot) it being so close the the preceding 105 Hz (# 2). Toggling it off makes no difference to the overall frequency curve.
But – and this is my newness to the whole calibration thing – applying this in CR, the mix is obviously brighter in mids and high mids - I already have problems with “shrilling” mid highs and high ends (almost all such tracks have high shelves to tame this.).
So what I hear through the CR with this adjustment is the nature of the Harmon curve’s purpose, but kind of shock to the ears.
Meaning that when using the cans, I should get used to hearing this way, right?
Also, now how do I export my test mix-downs I do several times a day to listen to on my smartphone now?
Can one or should one export using the CR as master bus instead of what I’ve been doing so far - using the Master bus?
Last, my big concern is that I’ll be boosting the low end too much to compensate - an area I already struggle with - having to amateurishly add Group tracks for my bass and such just to boost the low ends.
And/or what or where am I getting this all wrong, or right?
@Grim - So if I understand it, this is what it should be. If so, definitely not as radical a change, it’s far more subtle in terms of what I am hearing between toggling this off/on.
That said, AKG K240 Studio cans are stated as tending to add (?) low end a bit, so a bit puzzled here. I get easily confused with stuff like this: the Net is very useful in terms of finding info and stats, but often contradictory.
Kind of like the tons of videos on how to or not to mix and master…
I haven’t seen where this calibration came from…just going with Reco’s numbers above…14db of low shelf on headphones that are supposed to be bassy does seem odd.
Also you still didn’t make the cut at 137Hz.
EDIT…I took a look at a chart…the low end on these rolls off sharply at 100 so high shelfing under that makes some sense. I would still probably dial it back a bit as it’s asking a lot of the drivers.. The missing 137 dip needs to be there as that’s going to be the “added low end” you are hearing in the uncalibrated cans
@Newsoniclight Grim is referring to the gain on your third band - it reads -0.4 dB when it should be -4.6dB to make the cut.
As I wrote: I would probably run Frequency in linear mode to avoid artefacts if possible. You should definetly A/B it.
If I were you I would go with whatever sounds best to your ears if you listen to reference mixes. “Best” as in what gives you both enough definition and sounds good with regard to your reference mixes. Whatever that may be. E.g. I prefer to use my workhorse cans without Sonarworks or a Harman approximation because they are at their best without any calibration. I have other headphones that sound way better with calibration. No general rule.
Trust your ears and don’t overthink it…
@Grim The numbers are AutoEQ’s approximation of the Harman curve with 5 bands which seem to be in the ball park. I also had a look at the AKG 240 Studio’s frequency curve provided by Sonarworks - it’s similar compared to the raw curve at AutoEQ. Hopefully, they match the real frequency curve of the AKGs more or less.
No, the calibration refers exclusively to your AKGs. That is why it must reside in the Control Room and not on your master bus in case you forget to turn it off during mixdown,
If you are afraid to boost the low end too much this will help to prevent you from doing so. With a boosted low end on your headphones you will most likely not feel the need to boost it any further.
Or are you afraid that you don’t have enough low end? I am not sure how to read these lines I’m afraid.
The best thing you can do: Go for a calibration (if needed) which translate your reference mixes the way you are used to hear them and try to find out which way you get as much details as possible.
Another thing: If you listen to references keep in mind that there are HUGE differences. Each time/genre has their own sound aesthetics and it doesn’t make sense to compare a modern production with a production from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. These are all completly different shoes.
The reason they made that statement in the first place was because they had incorrectly boosted 100Hz up by 14db…I’m just explaining how those lines should be read.
@Reco29 & @Grim - My apologies for not responding. I get a bit scattered and have to take things one issue at a time (got more than one thread going here at Cubase as well as obsessing about my new project - actually a re-do of it).
Point: I have read all of your posts and am grateful for them, so while I’m a bit dense, I’ll eventually integrate the knowledge.
Since I use my A15 Samsung Galaxy smartphone for testing the Audio Mixdown Exports as I work on a project, I should set up the PowerAmp app I use for music that I use with Bluetooth in-ear buds.
They are fine, but not high end, and I do know that one loses some frequencies with Bluetooth, but this is essentially a “real world” device. (I don’t own a car or have a dedicated hi-fi stereo for testing, so my phone is it.)
These buds tend to be a bit bass heavy and smartphones also tend to make high ends a bit shrilly, so I have a gentle bell curve cutting the bass and the high end for now. But it’s still probably not adequate.
So…
There are so many variables of how such devices and earbuds/headphones translate music. Therefore I’m not expecting a perfect Harman or other calibration suggestion here, just a decent ballpark to approximate what I hear in my Presonus Eris 5 near-fields.
The app’s equalizer allows for 5 to 32 bands, but I use the default 10 so far. I am assuming the slider increments are in dBs.
To hopefully make this easier, just copy paste the below and add what dB level for each you feel would work.
Unlike Cubase, I can’t type in the dB values, only use the slider so I probably won’t match your suggestion perfectly.
I wouldn’t do that. And I don’t have a clue how to get there without further muddying the phone as a translation device as is.
Instead, I would buy a pair of cheap active boxes between a tenner and 50 bucks and play the mixes through them. These computer speakers you see on many desktops. The more translation references the better. Just use the headphone output of your Audiointerface and plug them in via a simple adapter (2$ ?). Play the mix and leave the room to see how it sounds from another room. Anything that’s too much or absent?
As I said, you wanna go with the cheap ones on purpose. It’s an integral part of my Translation Routine
Shoot, I wanted to keep it short.
Maybe someone else can chime in with the Harmann Curve for your mobile!
OK, started looking for some cheapy desktop speakers.
You reminded me of a guy at YT that I enjoy (Venus Theory) who has this video called “This $8 Speaker Will Make You A Better Producer” making the same point. He actually suggests a mono/1-speaker version, not even stereo.
But from what I see, most if not all of such mono or stereo cheapies are “USB powered.” Though most do come with an alternate 3.5 mm male jack and I have plenty of F>M adapters to go to 1/4" to plug into my I/O headphone jack.
My guess is that I would use that instead of the USB. Haven’t used 3.5 mm for my computer in 20 years.
So it’s matter of how cheap to go - and not get tempted to go for, uh, quality.
