Harman preference curve for headphones - am I the only one that doesn't like this curve?

[Feelas]

You misunderstood the question.

You have explained why you want to equate need and preference. But you haven't explained why you need to. Just stick to using the term preference since there is no disagreement that's what HTR describes. There is no need to use the term neutral when there is obvious dissension with your attempt to do so.

I did not, but well - you need to because if you do establish a common reference, there will at least might be some semblance of neutral. Right now, if nobody knows what to target, neutral is impossible. Why wouldn't targetting the preference as a neutral reference make sense?

Neutrality doesn't exist, common reference makes it possible. There's a good reason to consider going from wanting a reference to trying to lobby for it.

 

[raistlin65]

I did not, but well - you need to because if you do establish a common reference, there will at least might be some semblance of neutral. Right now, if nobody knows what to target, neutral is impossible. Why wouldn't targetting the preference as a neutral reference make sense?

Neutrality doesn't exist, common reference makes it possible. There's a good reason to consider going from wanting a reference to trying to lobby for it.

You still haven't explained why we need it. HTR is a reference for listener preference. It's already a standard. We don't need to call it neutral, too.

And since neutral doesn't have a standard, maybe we need to stop talking about it as if there should be. Like many of the other descriptors that audiophiles use. Do we need a standard for "fluid mids?" lol

Sometimes it's enough to admit that there is no standard.

 

[wolf_walker]

I thought "neutral" was flat?

 

[raistlin65]

I thought "neutral" was flat?

Perceived or measured?

Perception of flat will differ depending on the individual.

Flat measuring will differ depending on the measurement apparatus.

 

[HereYaGo]

I have never seen a headphone that actually measures flat by any reasonable standard. audio equipment needs to be voiced if you want it to sound flattering or good. flat usually sounds dead and lifeless and not very pleasant. Shaping the sound goes a long way if done right.

 

[dasdoing]

If I was into headphones, I would do/try those two:

1) extremly nearfield speaker setup (distance closer then the nearest wall) EQed to flat > compare a pink noise on that and the various targets for the heahphones
2) try this method https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-headphone-response.18620/page-4#post-617057

 

[Robbo99999]

If I was into headphones, I would do/try those two:

1) extremly nearfield speaker setup (distance closer then the nearest wall) EQed to flat > compare a pink noise on that and the various targets for the heahphones
2) try this method https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-headphone-response.18620/page-4#post-617057

I think that's flawed, we're not supposed to hear all frequencies to the same perceived level, so I think your process is assuming that. This is not the same as a flat speaker, nor is it "natural" sound as you shouldn't artificially boost all frequencies to the same perceived level of hearing.....one of the problems with that is that you end up with a V-shaped curve where the lows and highs (our hearing is least sensitive) are artificially boosted above "flat"/"artist intended". This is not any kind of natural sound.

EDIT: which is what I said here already: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...that-doesnt-like-this-curve.19668/post-662455

 

[dasdoing]

we're not supposed to hear all frequencies to the same perceived level, so I think your process is assuming that

it is not.
but are you catualy replying to 1) or 2)?
whatever, both sugestions are not about same percieved level, but how flat level sounds

 

[Robbo99999]

it is not.
but are you catualy replying to 1) or 2)?
whatever, both sugestions are not about same percieved level, but how flat level sounds

Which do you think I'm replying to, of course #2! How does your proposal not EQ all frequency bands to the same perceived loudness? That's the essence of your process isn't it?

 

[dasdoing]

Which do you think I'm replying to, of course #2! How does your proposal not EQ all frequency bands to the same perceived loudness? That's the essence of your process isn't it?

ok, it is a little confusing, I agree.
I didn't say the process is finished once you EQ the threshold into flat percieved > the crucial part is that you then interpolate into the flat percieved curve at 83dB by aplying the diference of both as gain.
in other words: since we know the diference between the threshold and the curve a flat signal generates (ignoring here that thoses curves are generelized), we can recreate the later once we created the first

 

[dasdoing]

ignoring here that thoses curves are generelized

that's why I put it second, method 1) is probably way more acurate, but requires good hearing (compraring the noises), while 2) doesn't

 

[Robbo99999]

ok, it is a little confusing, I agree.
I didn't say the process is finished once you EQ the threshold into flat percieved > the crucial part is that you then interpolate into the flat percieved curve at 83dB by aplying the diference of both as gain.
in other words: since we know the diference between the threshold and the curve a flat signal generates (ignoring here that thoses curves are generelized), we can recreate the later once we created the first

Ah, ok, I'm a bit closer to understanding what you mean, I think I'm part visualising the relevance/mechanism. Have you tried it, show some practical illustrations and steps and the resultant EQ curve of a headphone that you own that is also measured by Oratory (if you have one), then we can compare the EQ Curves between the two, and maybe judge how reasonable a difference there is.

 

[dasdoing]

Ah, ok, I'm a bit closer to understanding what you mean. Have you tried it, show some practical illustrations and steps and the resultant EQ curve of a headphone that you own that is also measured by Oratory (if you have one), then we can compare the EQ differences, and maybe judge how reasonable a difference there is.

I rarely use headphones, so I can't justify the work atm,
but I think I will do it so that I can from there determine how a real neutral curve in my room should look like (by again comparing the hopefuly neutral headphone to the spearker response at my listening position)

 

[Robbo99999]

I rarely use headphones, so I can't justify the work atm,
but I think I will do it so that I can from there determine how a real neutral curve in my room should look like (by again comparing the hopefuly neutral headphone to the spearker response at my listening position)

Yeah, cool, I'm talking about #2 though, not #1. #2 seems less open to subjectivity than #1.

 

[Robbo99999]

Although @dasdoing, what you're proposing would make your headphones sound like flat speakers in an anechoic room (hopefully), and that's not a particularly good sound, you'd probably want to apply some downwards tilt to that too.

EDIT: and a lot of the validity of what you're doing would come down to how the equal loudness curves have been created, the environment, maybe even speaker location they used (if the speakers were even flat themselves), or did they use headphones.....there's variables of innacuracy and unknowns associated with using those equal loudness curves I think. It also assumes that your hearing tracks the equal loudness curves accurately, where in effect there's obviously wide variations in the population. Hmmm....I think there's a few too many flaws in the process still, although of course the Harman Headphone Curve is also an average associated with it's innaccuracies......it's weighing up the innacuracies!

 

[dasdoing]

Yeah, cool, I'm talking about #2 though, not #1. #2 seems less open to subjectivity than #1.

#2 has been on my to-do list for some time now, once there is nothing more to do with my main system I'll get into that.

Although @dasdoing, what you're proposing would make your headphones sound like flat speakers in an anechoic room (hopefully), and that's not a particularly good sound, you'd probably want to apply some downwards tilt to that too.

well, this is the defenition of neutral.....if this sounds good is another question. however true neutrality is arguably the best starting point to determine a preference curve......this is what Harman tried to do, not realizing you have to remove the reflections out of the equation. their test should have been made with flat meassuring speakers in an anechoic chamber as a starting point, not a arbituary reflective room equalized to flat that we know is not neutral

 

[Robbo99999]

#2 has been on my to-do list for some time now, once there is nothing more to do with my main system I'll get into that.



well, this is the defenition of neutral.....if this sounds good is another question. however true neutrality is arguably the best starting point to determine a preference curve......this is what Harman tried to do, not realizing you have to remove the reflections out of the equation. their test should have been made with flat meassuring speakers in an anechoic chamber as a starting point, not a arbituary reflective room equalized to flat that we know is not neutral

It's not really the definition of neutral. Neutral is an anechoically flat speaker in a room.....what you're effectively proposing is listening to an anechoically flat speaker in an anechoic chamber (no downwards tilt at listening position) (probably not that pleasant).

I also added some EDITS to the post you replied to.

 

[dasdoing]

It also assumes that your hearing tracks the equal loudness curves accurately, where in effect there's obviously wide variations in the population

I adressed that

Neutral is an anechoically flat speaker in a room

how is that the definition if "a room" is not defined at all? you put a variable into a definition

 

[odyo]

1- More air and excitement up top
2- Less upper mids 3-5k
3- Less sub bass

Harman curve is good starting point.

Sub bass or BASS is complicated though. It depends on headphone, it's interaction with my ear and loudness. I don't like harman bass with my Ananda but according to measurements DT 770 have more bass than Harman yet it's not bad to my ears.

 

[Robbo99999]

I adressed that



how is that the definition if "a room" is not defined at all? you put a variable into a definition

The definition of a flat speaker (in terms of translating it into a headphone experience) implies that you'd be listening to the speaker in a room rather than an anechoic chamber, or do you do most of your speaker listening in an anechoic chamber!?

With regards to variation in population in hearing in terms of how they track the equal loudness curve....I don't see how you can address that variable. Well you might correct for your own hearing differences in as much as you're testing the threshold of your hearing during the process, but really all you're doing there is correcting for your own hearing deficiencies/(or efficiencies) rather than getting to a representation (in your headphones) of a flat sound signal that has been reproduced in the environment. It's really veering off from a neutral response when you consider all the flaws in the process.