• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Headphones and the Harman target curve

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
One slight problem with that, in case you haven't figured them out already:
How would you determine which Great Speakers to use to generate your curve? Also, did it occur to you that "great speakers" are generally regarded as "great" due to the listener preferences?

I think that's a rather artificial barrier.

Especially as you're using to support Harman...who based their initial curve on those same great speakers.

Look, I see it like this. At some point the music, whether held digitally, or on a tape, or a record, or whatever, has to enter the real world, and that's through speakers.

Yes, you won't get everyone to agree on what a great pair of speakers is. But if you get some which are as flat as possible, and place them in a 'real' room (not an anechoic chamber), you're surely 95% of the way there. I suspect that, if you got the 'ten best' full range speakers in the world, level matched, in the same great room, whilst they wouldn't sound identical, I suspect they'd sound broadly similar.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
I think that's a rather artificial barrier.

Especially as you're using to support Harman...who based their initial curve on those same great speakers.

From an experimental design standpoint, it's a major barrier. If the premise of your experiment is to derive an "accurate" headphone curve from a pair of reference loudspeakers ("great speakers"), but people are going to argue whether your loudspeakers are, themselves, accurate, that's a problem. So your study design wouldn't be a good one if your goal is to test "accuracy."

Look, I see it like this. At some point the music, whether held digitally, or on a tape, or a record, or whatever, has to enter the real world, and that's through speakers.

Yes, you won't get everyone to agree on what a great pair of speakers is. But if you get some which are as flat as possible, and place them in a 'real' room (not an anechoic chamber), you're surely 95% of the way there.

When you say flat, are you referring to flat, on-axis anechoic response? Because flat on-axis in-room-response is definitely NOT accurate. BTW, the B&W 800D3 speakers you mentioned earlier - those are definitely NOT flat. So, which speakers exactly?

I suspect that, if you got the 'ten best' full range speakers in the world, level matched, in the same great room, whilst they wouldn't sound identical, I suspect they'd sound broadly similar.

And how would you define the "ten best" speakers in the world? Based on people's opinions of which ones they prefer?

Are you starting to see why Harman may have designed the experiment the way they did?
 

ReaderZ

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
618
Likes
414
A partial manuscript of the 2018 convention paper was peer reviewed. If you're really hell-bent on it, you can always stick with the 2015 curve. Or you can compare the methodologies yourself.

The truth is that there doesn't really seem to be a credible alternative target anyways.

That is not true, absence of better alternative doesn't mean I have to use it or making it a scientific consensus. ASR may use it as there is no better option, and you need one for reviews. I can just go with my personal preference.
 

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
That is not true, absence of better alternative doesn't mean I have to use it or making it a scientific consensus. ASR may use it as there is no better option, and you need one for reviews. I can just go with my personal preference.
I obviously don't care what you use personally, nor do I have any control over that.
 

ReaderZ

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
618
Likes
414
AFAIK the Harman research was done to educate the folks at Harman and to determine what 'tuning' customers prefer.
This was to increase sales no doubt.

This is something different than trying to come up with a new 'standard' which I would agree is the case. The problem is diffuse field and other current standards are even worse so in that light using Harman target (elevated bass and gently rolled off treble in practice) makes sense by lack of anything more suited not being available.

Totally agreed, it's not a bad thing and I can understand you need to use a target for review, but call it what it is.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Abbey Road mixes using B&W 800Ds, which are quite excellent.

They may be excellent in terms of preference, or perceived sound quality, but they're far from neutral or accurate, which kinda goes against your point that we should be aiming for accuracy. If accuracy is what is desired, Abbey Road is a below average studio room. For preference, though, it might be quite good(depending on the person).
 

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
They may be excellent in terms of preference, or perceived sound quality, but they're far from neutral or accurate, which kinda goes against your point that we should be aiming for accuracy. If accuracy is what is desired, Abbey Road is a below average studio room. For preference, though, it might be quite good(depending on the person).

‘Far from neutral or accurate’?

Hmm.
 

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
Erm...

“Overall, the B&W 800 Diamond's measured performance suggests that its balance has been optimized by listening; the various SMALL departures from neutrality tend to balance one another.” (Emphasis mine)

Shall we discuss the difference between ‘small’ differences and being ‘far from neutral’?

I’ll just put it down to typical internet hyperbole.
Read the anechoic FR graph - total variation from flat is approx. 8 dB. That's a decent bit - not exactly a benchmark neutral system when digital room correction exists.

I also am not the person you responded to originally, so I never even said that.
 

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
Read the anechoic FR graph - total variation from flat is approx. 8 dB. That's a decent bit - not exactly a benchmark neutral system when digital room correction exists.

I also am not the person you responded to originally, so I never even said that.

No worries.

I would imagine they’re close enough to be EQd to within an inch, and that they are indeed EQd at Abbey Road.
 

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
No worries.

I would imagine they’re close enough to be EQd to within an inch, and that they are indeed EQd at Abbey Road.
I'm not familiar with studio engineer common practices, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. I definitely agree with you that there's nothing there majorly wrong with them.
 

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
I'm not familiar with studio engineer common practices, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. I definitely agree with you that there's nothing there majorly wrong with them.

Agreed. I’m sure you could get ‘better’.

For me, if I’m getting the sound that the best mixing engineers in the world use to mix and master so much of the great music in the world, in one of the greatest mixing studios in the world, and I’m not happy, then I probably need to have to have a word with myself.

There’s nothing wrong with striving for perfection. But equally there’s nothing wrong with just a little perspective.
 
Last edited:

phoenixsong

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
874
Likes
685
Question: Should monitoring and mixing headphones follow a different target curve? Would it be unnatural to listen to music produced using Harman-Target headphones with Harman-Target headphones?
 

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
Question: Should monitoring and mixing headphones follow a different target curve? Would it be unnatural to listen to music produced using Harman-Target headphones with Harman-Target headphones?
If you want to be listening to the same thing the mixing/mastering engineer did, then ideally you'd want headphones/speakers tuned to the same target curve. However, there tend to be variations across different studios, etc. The Harman target is intended to help with this, I believe.

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
 

Earfonia

Active Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
398
Location
Singapore
In comparison to picture, mixed and mastered audio recording is more like a painting instead of a photograph. The only way of audio recording could be similar to a photograph is when it is recorded using proper Binaural microphone (and head) then listened using a good pair of In-Ear Monitor. Other than that audio recordings is more like paintings. Multiple microphones in close proximity to the sound sources and then mixed into 2 channels. Just the recording and mixing process alone is in no way we can call it natural or close to the way our ears listen to the musical life performance. So, just enjoy the 'audio paintings' :)
 

BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp

Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
201
Likes
245
In comparison to picture, mixed and mastered audio recording is more like a painting instead of a photograph. The only way of audio recording could be similar to a photograph is when it is recorded using proper Binaural microphone (and head) then listened using a good pair of In-Ear Monitor. Other than that audio recordings is more like paintings. Multiple microphones in close proximity to the sound sources and then mixed into 2 channels. Just the recording and mixing process alone is in no way we can call it natural or close to the way our ears listen to the musical life performance. So, just enjoy the 'audio paintings' :)
I think the point is more that the final product was deemed "correct" by the engineers and artists using a certain pair/pairs of speakers/headphones. Ideally, for reproduction purposes, we'd all be using speakers/headphones with similar tuning, regardless of the subjective choices they made in recording/mixing/mastering.

But yeah, you're right that there's so much artistic license in so many places there that it probably only really matters to a point. I think overall I'd rather just avoid tuning that's majorly different from conventional.

Edit: sorry, thought you were responding to the circle of confusion post.
 
Last edited:

Earfonia

Active Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
398
Location
Singapore
If you want to be listening to the same thing the mixing/mastering engineer did, then ideally you'd want headphones/speakers tuned to the same target curve. However, there tend to be variations across different studios, etc. The Harman target is intended to help with this, I believe.

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

Exactly! This Audio's Circle of Confusion will probably only gets worst these days when good mics and audio interfaces are getting more and more affordable and many recordings are done in home studios. Room acoustic alone is a never ending battle for speaker monitors to sound right.

I do recordings and mix my own recordings, best approach is approximation for the mix to sound 'OK' on different speakers, headphones, and IEMs. That's what mixing engineer do, we don't use only a pair of speaker or headphone, but try to get the best of our mix throughout multiple speakers and headphones. That's including testing our mix on mobile phone tiny speakers, and small bluetooth speakers. Because that's how music is heard these days.

But I think it is encouraging that more studies and researches have been done to deal with it. I think if we don't mind to start with our own measurement and research, we too, to some extent, may contribute to this standardization. I really encourage all audio enthusiasts to start getting into audio measurement. This way we learn to relate what we hear to the measurement.
 
Last edited:

Blank Verse

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Messages
178
Likes
161
Yes. And that's for two reasons:
a) it tries to mimic an in-room speaker response of a controlled listening room
I'm not going to claim the Harman Curve is not the result of a lot of deep thought and scientific experimentation, but in my experience I far prefer to listen to music through a headphone designed with the Diffuse Field target. Music sounds more natural to me this way. I am not alone, either, and many people feel, like me, that the Harman Curve has done a disservice to the headphone industry.

b) it's based on science
So is the atomic bomb.
 

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Likes
1,151
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
I think we can put to bed the ‘science’ bit.

Preference isn’t science.

Measurements are science.

You can measure preference scientifically.

That doesn’t make the preferences scientific.
 
Top Bottom