# Tones test SonarWorks vs Morphit vs Waves Nx



## SergeD (Dec 19, 2020)

Recently I wished to understand how some popular Headphones equalizer apply their flattening on my DT990. So I downloaded the demo versions of Waves Nx, Sonarworks and TB Morphit. RTings has been used as reference to gather output values vs input amplitude of 90dB.

Each Eq plugin was dropped onto the Master track alongside with AC-R 128 and ReaEq. Then, each Eq plugin has been tested with successive tone files dropped onto the audio track. Clearly, All Eq plugins have been boosted between range 500Hz-3000Hz. Noise files also reveal their different coloration. This very instructive exercise helped me to configure my DT990. Whoever has some time to waste can now create his own lab and test the flattening of his headphone.

Links:
Reaper ReaEq : https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/
Waves Nx : https://www.waves.com/plugins/nx#introducing-nx-virtual-mix-room
Sonarworks : https://storeus.sonarworks.com/products/reference-4-headphone-edition
TB Morphit : https://www.toneboosters.com/tb_morphit_v1.html
AC-R 128 Loudness Meter : https://www.audiocation.de/en/plugin
Anspec spectrum analyzer : https://www.voxengo.com/product/anspec/
RTINGS DT990 : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#329/3992
About noise signals : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise

Tone Files : https://onlinetonegenerator.com/ 
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzFvCAfIq7a2SIBfDhpCytfJ4RHVb_KLY

Settings:
Waves Nx : Beyerdynamic DT-990 (250 ohm), no head tracker, no room ambiance, set to eq solo
Sonarworks : Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro 250 Ohm Average, Dry/Wet set to 100, output set to 0.0
TB Morphit : Beyerdynamic DT 990, 200% amount of correction, no limiter
AC-R 128 : Scale button set to "LU MOM" at "0.0" when playing the tone file.

My DT990 ReaEq config (All Types = Band):
01 (030Hz +3.3dB 1.50Bw) 02 (150Hz -3.5dB 2.50Bw) 03 (400Hz +0.9dB 0.50Bw) 04 (700Hz +1.0dB 0.60Bw) 05 (1500Hz 1.8dB 0.70Bw) 06 (4000Hz +1.5dB 0.20Bw) 07 (7000Hz -1.8dB 0.15Bw) 08(9000Hz -4.5dB 0.40Bw) 09 (12000Hz +1.5dB 0.35Bw) 10 (14000Hz -5.0dB 0.80Bw)

Test results:


ToneDT990 RTINGS OutputWaves Nx EqSonarworks EqTB Morphit EqReaEq Eq00020 Hz85+1.2+2.0-0.1+1.800035 Hz89+0.3+4.1-0.2+2.300050 Hz90-0.7-0.8-0.4+0.500075 Hz92-2.2-1.8-0.9-1.500100 Hz93-2.8-2.6-1.8-2.600150 Hz95-2.5-2.0-3.7-3.300200 Hz95-1.7-1.4-3.6-3.000300 Hz92-0.2-0.5-1.1-1.900400 Hz91+1.4+0.0+0.6-0.400500 Hz91+2.5-0.1+2.0-0.400600 Hz90+3.2+1.3+3.2+0.200700 Hz89+3.7+2.3+3.1+0.700800 Hz89+3.6+2.5+3.0+0.500900 Hz90+2.7+2.2+2.7+0.401000 Hz91+1.7+1.8+2.2+0.502000 Hz90+1.5+4.1+2.9+0.703000 Hz92+1.6+2.5+1.4+0.104000 Hz86+1.7-1.4+1.0+1.205000 Hz89+1.0-3.6-1.0-0.406000 Hz90+0.2-5.8-2.0-1.007000 Hz94-0.9-3.8-2.8-3.408000 Hz94-1.7-3.7-5.7-3.609000 Hz100-3.0-4.5-4.9-5.510000 Hz96-1.7-3.6-4.6-4.112000 Hz88+0.1-5.2-3.8-2.614000 Hz95+0.4-3.8-4.1-4.8


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Dec 19, 2020)

I don't know if it makes much sense to compare curves from different plug-ins that finally don't have the same task.
Sonarworks, for example, is supposed to linearize the frequency response of a particular headphone (which it doesn't do badly), while Waves NX is supposed to change the way you listen through headphones as if you were listening with speakers. Even if you have all the room stuff turned off on Waves Nx, we don't know how the EQ prepares the signal for the room things, whether the goal from the EQ is to trim the headphone frequency response to "linear" first. 

But of course, you may measure and make tables as much as you want. We have to do something during the 80 years we live. 

All the best
Beat


----------



## SergeD (Dec 19, 2020)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> I don't know if it makes much sense to compare curves from different plug-ins that finally don't have the same task.



On their Website:

ToneBoosters : ToneBoosters Morphit is the leading headphones correction.
Sonarworks : Sonarworks Reference 4 removes unwanted coloration from headphones.
Waves Nx : Nx Virtual Mix Room plugins also include headphone EQ calibration

My guess is that they know what they say and they know what they do


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Dec 19, 2020)

Once more: You may measure as many curves as you want. 

However, even without measuring, it can be assumed that the results will differ among each other. This is because the plug-in manufacturers A) hardly ever measured the headphone curves under the same conditions. B) because the products are slightly different in quality one way or the other (Sonar didn't have the same headphones as Waves) C)...there are more reasons.... 
That's why I simply asked the question about the meaning of the measurement. How should I apply your table? 

In my eyes a good test for this kind of plugims would be for example: 
Select all your software tools. Connect 3 different headphones that also sound quite different without tools (e.g. HD 650, AKG712, DT...).
Let all tools equalize the headphones with the corresponding preset. Do now all headphones sound the same afterwards? or at least similar? Which tool accomplishes this task best? Use pink noise for a rough impression. You will hear differences relatively quickly. So you would know in the end which company did a good job and which rather not.

Beat


----------



## SergeD (Dec 19, 2020)

I see, as example, according to RTINGS measurements, the 35Hz input (90dB) and output (89dB) amplitude are about even for the DT990. For that tone, the loudness measurement gives +4.1 when SW is enabled while -0.2 for Morphit. My ears don't lie, they clearly perceive that boost provided by SW while nothing appears different for Morphit. 

Another example, according to RTINGS measurements, the 150Hz output (95dB) is way louder than the input (90dB) amplitude for the DT990. For that tone, the loudness measurement gives -2.0 when SW is enabled while -3.7 for Morphit. Again, my ears don't lie, they clearly perceive that Morphit decreased the amplitude way more than SW.

I do not try to deny the viability of those products, my interest relies on how they managed things to equalize audio frequencies, no conspiracy in sight.


----------



## jcrosby (Dec 20, 2020)

SergeD said:


> I see, as example, according to RTINGS measurements, the 35Hz input (90dB) and output (89dB) amplitude are about even for the DT990. For that tone, the loudness measurement gives +4.1 when SW is enabled while -0.2 for Morphit. My ears don't lie, they clearly perceive that boost provided by SW while nothing appears different for Morphit.
> 
> Another example, according to RTINGS measurements, the 150Hz output (95dB) is way louder than the input (90dB) amplitude for the DT990. For that tone, the loudness measurement gives -2.0 when SW is enabled while -3.7 for Morphit. Again, my ears don't lie, they clearly perceive that Morphit decreased the amplitude way more than SW.
> 
> I do not try to deny the viability of those products, my interest relies on how they managed things to equalize audio frequencies, no conspiracy in sight.


Beat's point is that no two headphones are actually identical, even if by the same manufacturer. And it's unknown whether each company used the same method to measure the frequency response of each headphone model. (For example did they use of a dummy head, and Is it the same model? Did they sample more than one pair? etc)

Measurement method aside, headphones can have pretty wide inconsistencies which is why SW offers the service where they measure your actual headphones. The stock curves are simply an average of however many models of a given headphone they sampled to arrive at the average. Unless each company sampled the exact same set of headphones, and sampled the same number of averages they will all have slightly different curves.

NX is completely different in that it's intended to create a binaural illusion. Binaural audio by its very nature implies there will be phase manipulation in order to achieve part of the illusion that the audio exists in a virtual room. The end result will be an incredibly different sounding result, not only in 3d image, but in the frequency response, as this phase manipulation results in fairly extreme comb filtering (This can be seen using any binaural/immersive audio plugin or software and seeing how changing position changes the comb filtering).

So I find his question worth asking again, but perhaps in a different way. What's your conclusion based on these numbers?

If the goal is to determine which software sounds "best" the simplest test would be to compare pink noise test tons passed through each piece of software in order to determine which one you feel sounds the flattest. (Which again, technically isn't possible as your personal headphones will have their own anomalies that 'unflatten' any attempted flattening of them).


----------



## rudi (Dec 20, 2020)

Here is a possible reason why the results differ, at least between ToneBoosters and Sonarworks. The former uses a "perceptual" target, the latter a "flat" target.

There is a link on the ToneBoosters website, under headphone callibration, which cites the methodology on which their measurements are based:



https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4984044




If you scroll down to section 3.3, it mentions that their reference target is the "Olive and Welti (2015)" one. Here is a picture from the article:

https://imgbox.com/9aWaiKQV


I couldn't find much information about the researchers behind it, but one of the authors Sean Olive appears to do research at Harman Audio, including the Harman curve.

A couple of his research papers are available, but are behind paywalls, so I couldn't take a look at them. However, there is a short discussion thread on Reddit about the Harman Target curves, and Sean Olive:



Here is a quote by user audiosciencereview which throws some light on the subject:



> Mixing room? I have read all of Harman research, am professional colleague with Dr. Sean Olive who created them and there is nothing in there related to finding what mix engineers like.
> Harman has done two types of research: one was preference for loudspeakers which showed that listeners want a smooth, sloping down response. And another one in the recent few years for headphones which showed more appetite for bass than was there for loudspeakers.
> Expert/trained listeners were used in the study and if you take the same training as them (harman has made that available) you see that it is a test of coloration.



I couldn't find similar information for Sonarworks, but based on their software, it looks like they use a flat response curve as their target.


----------



## SergeD (Dec 20, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> Beat's point is that no two headphones are actually identical, even if by the same manufacturer.



Once for all, the experiment covers Eq plugins response to an input tone, not headphones themselves. Two headphones would be differents by kilometers, that would not change the Eq response from those plugins.

If you buy an apple, do you care about gravimetric technology coupled with isometric enhancement used to make this apple grow? No, you just want an apple that tastes apple. If your headphones make your ears bleed over 7000 Hz, do you care about linearization, dummy head device and others technological factors? No, you just want that your Eq plugin lowers the output in any way. 

That's all about this tones test, there is not good or bad guys. There is no opinion, only facts.


----------



## twincities (Dec 20, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> Beat's point is that no two headphones are actually identical, even if by the same manufacturer.


perhaps even more telling - look at rtings consistency measurements. over 2k they're not even similar _with_ the same headphones. this model in particular looks to preform pretty poorly in that regards actually, compared to some other models i peaked at.



SergeD said:


> the experiment covers Eq plugins response to an input tone


two questions - you keep using the word "tone". were you measuring with single sine waves, or pink noise? really the way to measure a "black box" processor like this (where you don't know what the plugin is doing, you just want to compare input to output) is with a transfer function, not a single channel measurement. as soon as any of them start playing with phase (which based on some of them having reported latency, they do) you're blind to it with a single channel RTA measurement.


----------



## SergeD (Dec 20, 2020)

twincities said:


> look at rtings consistency measurements. over 2k they're not even similar _with_ the same headphones.


as well as Sens HD650 



twincities said:


> were you measuring with single sine waves, or pink noise? As soon as any of them start playing with phase (which based on some of them having reported latency, they do) you're blind to it with a single channel RTA measurement.



Sine waves, and thanks, you made me realized that I forgot to give this link in my first post. Tones are tested one by one, no mixed bag.


----------

