Is Flat Bass or Harman Bass Better for Mixing on Headphones? (Professional Mixing Engineers Only)

[Thomas_A]

Again I think this is related to the model of listening. At the recording venue, the mix/mastering room, the listening room. Going for a binaural recording you have everything since you can skip all rooms and speakers except for the recording venue. What is missing is tactile response which would need some bass boost in the psychoacoustic domain.

Going through a mastering room, you add the room on top of the recording venue, as if it was a theatre box/lounge at the event. Same goes for you own room. Just remove the front wall and imagine the musicians playing in the next room where the scene is. Headphone response is then adapted to that venue.

 

[solderdude]

When measuring sounds in a reverberant room or making recordings in a reverberant room using a HATS.
The moment you put a headphone on the same HATS conditions have changed.
It requires a different compensation.
I would even go as far as wanting a different compensation for IEM, for earbuds. for on-ears, for over ears as well.
on-ears and over-ears maybe not if one wants to keep things simple.

Studio differs from home. For studio I would use sometthing close to Harman (up to 8kHz) and simply remove the bass boost (so flat in the bass) otherwise one would undo the needed bass boost on reproduction as the inverse of the headphone response will be imparted on the recording assuming the mixing engineer knows how reality sounds.

So up to 1kHz or so the DF, from 1kHz to 8kHz the Harman and above 8kHz I would not rely on HATS measurements.

 

[ADU]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that the bass boost on the Harman curve really has anything to do with compensating for the lack of visceral bass impact in a pair of headphones. Because I have seen no scientific evidence to support that idea. Only some loose conjecture.

As I mentioned here, the rise in the bass and sub-bass on the Harman headphone target appears to be fairly consistent with the normal estimated in-room responses of neutral loudspeakers that are either very well-extended into the sub-bass frequencies, or accompanied by a nice linear sub-woofer that accomplishes the same thing.

If that is the type of response you are trying to approximate, then the elevated bass on the Harman curve is probably not that far off the mark. I prefer to use the estimated sound power responses of some well-extended loudspeakers as a general guide for this on a diffuse field headphone graph, rather than the Harman curve. But either one should deliver a somewhat similar result.

 

[ADU]

In what situations is the Diffuse Field target relevant in your opinion?

If you understand what the DF curve represents, and the DF curve is a reasonably accurate respresentation of a measurement rig's actual diffuse field response (which isn't always the case), then it can be a very useful and handy reference point for a neutral response.

You would not generally want to buy or EQ a headphone to precisely match the DF curve though, because it would lack the darker overall tilt that you'd expect from a pair of neutral loudspeakers in a typical semi-reflective room. And the headphones would be too bright.

DF compensation also potentially makes it easier to see and compare the responses of different headphones in the treble and upper mids, because it removes most of the ear gain at around 3 kHz.

 

[ADU]

So what are the static and dynamic signal room responses 5-20000 Hz of an average control room? Main monitor speakers.

Again I think this is related to the model of listening. At the recording venue, the mix/mastering room, the listening room. Going for a binaural recording you have everything since you can skip all rooms and speakers except for the recording venue. What is missing is tactile response which would need some bass boost in the psychoacoustic domain.

Going through a mastering room, you add the room on top of the recording venue, as if it was a theatre box/lounge at the event. Same goes for you own room. Just remove the front wall and imagine the musicians playing in the next room where the scene is. Headphone response is then adapted to that venue.

I'm a little confused by some of what you're saying above, Thomas_A.

However, if you are mastering (which is different than mixing btw) content for use on a home stereo system, then I think you'd want the conditions in the mastering environment to match those in the home setup as closely as possible... Whatever that setup happens to be.

 

[807Recordings]

Hi All,
This is my first post here but I been observing for a while now as an Electronic Music Producer of over 20 years. I have worked in Pro Studios, DJ'd even longer, and currently been in the search for headphone or IEMs that are more accurate.

Over the years one thing I have found great about headphones is they are ok to check things like timing, and clashing of bass notes. Other more important aspects like dynamics and how the track modulates (grooves) simply get missed. On nearfields with subs this can also be a problem compared to very large floor standing speakers. Over the years after setting up and working as a sound tech with very high end PA systems, and also DJ'ing in many of the larger Techno Clubs these details often matter more to how things move on a dance floor. With exception I do find the "feeling" is often a part of music that gets missed more today than every before and to this day an area the IEM and headphones need to improve on (if possible).

If I start a track on headphones often by the time I take it to the speakers it just is lifeless and lacking emotion. With compensations (headphone EQ) the frequencies may be technically balanced but the music is just crap. Starting with large monitors I can often go back to the headphones and do some slight adjustments (kick drum bass line millisecond timing) and everything is perfect. Usually this translates well but I also do not compromise to make music sound good on small devices as there is a trade off.

I will add though with other music I have worked on these issues do not seem as pronounced and especially on acoustic material.

Anyways glad this forum is here as I am currently looking for new IEM/Phones and Studio Monitors (near fields) and so sick of subjective misleading reviews/opinions in the pro audio world.

 

[solderdude]

However, if you are mastering (which is different than mixing btw) content for use on a home stereo system, then I think you'd want the conditions in mastering environment to match those in the home setup as closely as possible... Whatever that setup happens to be.

Let's do a thought experiment here.

We use a headphone and a speaker to master a recording we made ourselves.
Flat microphones only and no EQ is used. Just a pure recording in 'dry' studio conditions.
We use speakers and headphones that are 'flat'.
We know it is flat because when the original is heard during recording it sound tonally the same as the playback in the same room (equally dry room).
The recording is truthful and sounds truthful in the studio. No boost of any kind, same SPL as during the recording.

Play that back on any decent system in a room and the girl/guy and guitar are reproduced as in the studio but in your home the tonal balanced is changed a bit.
Let's exaggerate a bit... Room boosts lows + 10dB and treble is lowered by 5dB. Home setup thus sounds bassier and less bright.

Now... lets master in this room.
We know how the original sounds in a studio.
We master in the playback room (which has elevated bass and subdued treble).
Mastering engineer makes the playback sound 'correct' in that room as it sounded in the recording studio.
This means: He reduces the bass by 10dB and elevates the treble by 5dB.
So the final master has too little bass and too much treble so it sounds 'correct' in that room.

Play that master back in your room and it sounds great.
Play that back anywhere else and it sounds bright and bass shy.

So no... one we definitely do NOT want the mastering to be done in the same conditions as playback unless that playback system is audibly 'neutral'.

When there is any coloration (Harman curve headphone) you end up with recordings with too little bass.
Master with a K701 for instance and you end up with the inverse recording, too much bass and reduced forwardness and subdued treble.

So mastering should be done with neutral tonality monitors (be it speakers or headphones) at the listening position of the mastering engineer at realistic levels.
Only this way we get a truthful sounding 'product'.

Played back at a lower listening level (at home) there will be audibly not enough bass (Equal loudness contours) but at recording levels it will sound great. But flat speakers in a room boost lows so part of what's lost due to SPL is kind of 'compensated' in the room. At 'live levels' it may be too bassy. No one cares.

With headphones you do not have that room boost in the lows. You need to add it (Harman bass boost) to get the same sensation at sensible levels.
At live levels we get some extra bass which again no one dislikes.
That said... it should not be a boost too high up in the bass range.. makes it muddy.

So home situation and studio situation requires different speakers and SPL.
And one should not master in home situations but in studio conditions. At least when we want to end up with a product that is recorded truthfully.

How one plays that back and at which

 

[Thomas_A]

I'm a little confused by som of what you're saying above, Thomas_A.

However, if you are mastering (which is different than mixing btw) content for use on a home stereo system, then I think you'd want the conditions in mastering environment to match those in the home setup as closely as possible... Whatever that setup happens to be.

If the response in your room and the mastering room is the same you have all opportunity to have the same listening experience in those rooms, no matter if bass is elevated or not. Most people but not all prefer a sloping room response for static signals. Is that true for both home and mastering rooms? In those few studios I have visited, including a high end one, the sound is far from bright or shrill.
So a relevant question is how the static signal response looks like in those rooms 5-20000 Hz.

 

[MikeJ]

When there is any coloration (Harman curve headphone) you end up with recordings with too little bass.
Master with a K701 for instance and you end up with the inverse recording, too much bass and reduced forwardness and subdued treble.

So mastering should be done with neutral tonality monitors (be it speakers or headphones) at the listening position of the mastering engineer at realistic levels.
Only this way we get a truthful sounding 'product'.

This.

 

[adude995]

I always assumed the rise of bass in the harman response is due to the signal crossover in Bass when listening on speakers compared to headphones.
(and therefore can be assumed to be "flat")

Bass, when listening with speakers, alwas plays to both ears due to diffraction.

 

[Sombreuil]

When there is any coloration (Harman curve headphone) you end up with recordings with too little bass.
Master with a K701 for instance and you end up with the inverse recording, too much bass and reduced forwardness and subdued treble.

So mastering should be done with neutral tonality monitors (be it speakers or headphones) at the listening position of the mastering engineer at realistic levels.

Are you sure you're not misunderstanding with a mixing engineer? A mastering engineer is not supposed to colour the sound because it's already be done during the mix. A very subtle EQ is added during the mastering, but it's just there to "glue" the tracks together.
And as Andrex Scheps said (whether one likes him or not), he never had that kind of problem when comparing a mix done with headphones but listened via monitors.

 

[dasdoing]

the FR doesn't realy matter as long as you are familiar with it.
with that being said, even than you might be exagerating the gain of some low mid elements since you are simply not hearing them enough.
at the end you have to try stuff out an see what translates well when you hear the results on other systems

 

[Chyżwar]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. You can use any headphones you want in the studio, it's just a tool and you learn how to use it.

The problem starts in an amateur home studio, when you don't have a good room, you don't have good monitors to check your mix.

 

[dasdoing]

here is an exercise.
two files:
frame.flac is a pink noise with a brickwall cutout between 200 and 400Hz
piece.flac is the missing piece, but I lowered the gain.
put both in Audacity and without any analyser try to aply the right gain to piece.flac so that you get a pink noise again.
check the result with a spectrum analyser. if piece is too loud, you better remove the bass boost

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hw74ox3MwFa0hgJ6oSskkIeh2cJ6O3Vg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIohx9UczeRDq9G3DUtEVI20Z_nMh9pE/view?usp=sharing

 

[keenly]

Did you watch the Andrew Scheps video? Have you mixed for Adele?

Adele's music sounds like crap.

 

[807Recordings]

Adele's music sounds like crap.

I will only add to that all the RHCP albums he did are so mid forward that is hard to listen to on pretty much anything but a very scooped out mid section.

An interesting point though on Producing versus Mastering that I often see sort of overlooked here.
With the exception of the User Bias from the various forms it could also be possible some producers prefer to work on monitors not exactly flat. Maybe this is headphone related also?
Sometimes I go to my HD800s when working on the high frequency content or noises, reverb tails, etc. The hyper focused area (frequency boost) pushes forward areas that I would normally want to reduce or d-ess. As much of my music went to vinyl this was an area that may get exaggerated and missed. So a flawed tool to help a final mix if you will.

Of course there is just lots of not ideal recordings and pushing a famous name does not make that any less so.

 

[dasdoing]

this is the Yamaha NS10. one of the most used mixing monitors in the last century.
why? because the midrange is the most important range to get right.
the bass they would than check on other monitors

 

[807Recordings]

this is the Yamaha NS10. one of the most used mixing monitors in the last century.
why? because the midrange is the most important range to get right.
the bass they would than check on other monitors

Only will argue midrange is the most important in (most) popular music. Techno for example, drum and Bass, and various electronic music it is not as important. But then again if you go that route better understand your audience and playback system (Large PA).

 

[richard12511]

Did you watch the Andrew Scheps video? Have you mixed for Adele?

Adele mixes are notorious for being kinda terrible . I personally think they sound great(because of her voice, not the mix), but Adele mixes are probably the most often cited "bad example" I see on forums.

That said, I do think headphones have gotten way better in the last 10 years. Headphones have gotten good enough now that I think one can probably make a mix that's almost as good as what can be made with good monitors. There still aren't any headphones we've seen that are as accurate as KH80 or 8030 + subs, or even a JBL 308p(*$300), but they're much closer than they used to be, and should continue to close the gap, especially since headphones are where most of the money is now.

 

[richard12511]

"21 sold 18 million globally in 2011 and 8.3 million the following year"

Number of sales has very little to almost no correlation with mix quality.