7hz Salnotes Zero - the "other" Zero

[DavidMcRoy]

I think it's a win for the community that many get a chance to try a popular tuning and weigh in how much or little it matches their preference. Despite objective benchmarks (multiple ones) there's still a place for discussing subjective impressions, indeed amirm does give his at the end of every review.

I completely agree. The way we hear things is often at odds with how we "listen." I probably pay a lot more attention to noise, distortion and coloration than the average listener in preference tests because I'm a veteran audio engineer. I'm afraid for me, trial and error and either returning product or EQing it will suffice. So, if I find others who seem to have similar perceptions to my own, their individual advice is probably more useful to me than the results of man-on-the-street mass testing concensus. To reiterate, I don't personally care what the mass market preference tests show. If those curves sell more product, fine...but it's not for me. When advised that my preference is at odds with what most people prefer, I say "so what?"

"Stop trying to interior decorate me out of my music."
- Joni Mitchell to record label execs in the 1980s

 

[Dazerdoreal]

It makes sense to say 'it sounds good', and 'it's inexpensive', but not 'it sounds good for its price'.

I disagree, because price matters. The lack of correlation between price and sound quality only means that many people get fooled by their biases*. But most people at least try to pay less for the best possible sound quality. Especially people like us who inform ourselves in forums and watch frequency response graphs.

Would you also say that a statement such as "The 7hz Salnotes Zero is the best warm-neutral IEM under 50$" doesnt make sense? Independent if you agree with that particular statement or not.

That said, as I already said in the HE-1 topic, I agree insofar as I also dont like this thinking in terms of "upgrades". It is usually not possible to buy a straight up improvement in audio, like buying a faster video card for a computer.

(*By the way, how did they measure this?)

I've had my $5 Sony MH755's (and other cheap IEMs) for years and none of them have fallen apart.

My 7hz Zero also didnt fall apart yet.

Just because it happened to strangers on the internet it doesnt mean it occurs regularly (or will happen to me).
That said, your information was still helpful in a way. It is always good to know where potential weak points are.

 

[markanini]

I completely agree. The way we hear things is often at odds with how we "listen." I probably pay a lot more attention to noise, distortion and coloration than the average listener in preference tests because I'm a veteran audio engineer. I'm afraid for me, trial and error and either returning product or EQing it will suffice. So, if I find others who seem to have similar perceptions to my own, their individual advice is probably more useful to me than the results of man-on-the-street mass testing concensus. To reiterate, I don't personally care what the mass market preference tests show. If those curves sell more product, fine...but it's not for me. When advised that my preference is at odds with what most people prefer, I say "so what?"

"Stop trying to interior decorate me out of my music."
- Joni Mitchell to record label execs in the 1980s

I still think celebrity tie ins and branding sells more units than adherence to a particular target curve.

 

[Matias]

I still think celebrity tie ins and branding sells more units than adherence to a particular target curve.

Ironically the 7Hz Salnotes Zero was selling very well before Crinacle announced he was involved behind the scenes in tuning it.

Good tuning sells for itself.

 

[markanini]

Ironically the 7Hz Salnotes Zero was selling very well before Crinacle announced he was involved behind the scenes in tuning it.

Good tuning sells for itself.

Community hype increasing sales has a name: word of mouth advertising. In terms of total sales it's not worth as much, just enough for some company to cover their expenses. It's the Heinekens vs microbreweries of the world.

The average user of audio products is getting used to higher quality sound over time but it's not due to their purchasing power if they treat it as another fashion accessory, see Apple Earpods.

 

[GaryH]

Would you also say that a statement such as "The 7hz Salnotes Zero is the best warm-neutral IEM under 50$" doesnt make sense?

If that's what you believe. Although objectively our best headphone science says it has a neutral overall spectral balance (if anything slightly on the thinner side of neutral with a slope variable of 0.13), not warm-neutral. I think there's been some misunderstanding here somewhere. My point is 'sounds good for its price' is most often meant (and understood) as shorthand for 'sounds good for its price, but not at higher price points'. This is what is fallacious, due to the lack of correlation between sound quality and price.

I agree insofar as I also dont like this thinking in terms of "upgrades"

Yep, the illusory meme of stratifying headphones into 'entry level', 'mid-fi', 'TOTL' etc. has been invented by marketing / dealers in order to drive 'upgradits', sales and prices to ridiculous kilobuck levels that no-one would have accepted 10 years ago. Many reviewers are part of the problem, either intentionally perpetuating this myth due to sponsorship ties, 'collaborations', or often just unwittingly falling into the common trap of being biased by price.

(*By the way, how did they measure this?)

Through controlled double-blind listening tests of IEM frequency responses in which listeners rated sound quality based on preference.

My 7hz Zero also didnt fall apart yet.

Just because it happened to strangers on the internet it doesnt mean it occurs regularly (or will happen to me).

There are quite a few others in that Reddit thread who experienced the same thing. Here's another thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/x80nu2 Sounds like a design fault:
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/zbhomx/_/iyr7sru

 

[ApprehensiveFox]

Woosh. I find it quite comical how you completely missed the point of my post. I'm not praising the other set, quite the opposite. Just look at its frequency response. LOL.

My apologies... Guess I was tired because you're right, that frequency response is hard to miss lol...

 

[DanTheMan]

Another cheap option here. Graph also looks pretty good.

 

[GaryH]

I completely agree. The way we hear things is often at odds with how we "listen." I probably pay a lot more attention to noise, distortion and coloration than the average listener in preference tests because I'm a veteran audio engineer. I'm afraid for me, trial and error and either returning product or EQing it will suffice. So, if I find others who seem to have similar perceptions to my own, their individual advice is probably more useful to me than the results of man-on-the-street mass testing concensus. To reiterate, I don't personally care what the mass market preference tests show. If those curves sell more product, fine...but it's not for me. When advised that my preference is at odds with what most people prefer, I say "so what?"

I would have thought the preference of the majority would be of utmost importance to an audio engineer...Anyway, it's a common misconception that the Harman target was only the result of 'man-on-the-street' consensus. Harman's controlled, double-blind listening tests showed no significant difference between preferences stratified by listening experience, nor between untrained and trained listeners, the latter required to achieve level 8 or higher on Harman's 'How to Listen' program, which by the way includes tests for distinguishing "noise, distortion and coloration".

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I would have thought the preference of the majority would be of utmost importance to an audio engineer...Anyway, it's a common misconception that the Harman target was only the result of 'man-on-the-street' consensus. Harman's controlled, double-blind listening tests showed no significant difference between preferences stratified by listening experience, nor between untrained and trained listeners, the latter required to achieve level 8 or higher on Harman's 'How to Listen' program, which by the way includes tests for distinguishing "noise, distortion and coloration".

I get that, but in my opinion a neutral monitor is required for the engineer to understand what the hell is going on and make decisions from there. What the end-user does is up to them. We don't sep-up cameras with by looking at consumer TV sets. We don't even depend exclusively on professional, calibrated monitors. We use calibrated test instrumentation. If a project involves an artist to make judgement calls to alter the signal for effect, they, too need a calibrated reference to judge from. Circle of confusion and all that.

 

[markanini]

I would have thought the preference of the majority would be of utmost importance to an audio engineer...Anyway, it's a common misconception that the Harman target was only the result of 'man-on-the-street' consensus. Harman's controlled, double-blind listening tests showed no significant difference between preferences stratified by listening experience, nor between untrained and trained listeners, the latter required to achieve level 8 or higher on Harman's 'How to Listen' program, which by the way includes tests for distinguishing "noise, distortion and coloration".

IEMs tuned or EQ'd to to Harman IE don't sound like to speakers in a room to me, and many others. Harman OE target does sound as intended IMO.
The use of reference tracks and experience shapes audio work far more than ear training courses, it's unclear how you concluded that.

 

[GaryH]

I get that, but in my opinion a neutral monitor is required for the engineer to understand what the hell is going on and make decisions from there. What the end-user does is up to them. We don't sep-up cameras with by looking at consumer TV sets. We don't even depend exclusively on professional, calibrated monitors. We use calibrated test instrumentation. If a project involves an artist to make judgement calls to alter the signal for effect, they, too need a calibrated reference to judge from. Circle of confusion and all that.

Yes, and the point of the Harman target is to break the circle of confusion, which Dr Sean Olive and Harman are trying to do at the audio reproduction / consumer side due to the lack of action in proper standardisation by the music industry at the production side. The circle of confusion has to be broken somewhere at some time, and the Harman target is a standard that is least disruptive to the industry as it follows both the perceived tonality of good speakers in a good room (e.g. neutral speakers in a mastering room), and the preference of the majority of listeners. Anyone saying it doesn't do this for them is in the small minority as shown by Harman's research in the form of controlled double-blind listening studies.

 

[DanTheMan]

Yes, and the point of the Harman target is to break the circle of confusion, which Dr Sean Olive and Harman are trying to do at the audio reproduction / consumer side due to the lack of action in proper standardisation by the music industry at the production side. The circle of confusion has to be broken somewhere at some time, and the Harman target is a standard that is least disruptive to the industry as it follows both the perceived tonality of good speakers in a good room (e.g. neutral speakers in a mastering room), and the preference of the majority of listeners. Anyone saying it doesn't do this for them is in the small minority as shown by Harman's research in the form of controlled double-blind listening studies.

If that had been what they were after, why wouldn't they have made it sound more like what you hear in a calibrated to their standards home theater? Theater standards have been in place a long time. Starting a new one seems like a bad idea because then all the home stereos/theaters have to be recalibrated and then all the recordings that were made prior to the newest Harman headphone/IEM targets would have to be remastered. Seems like a lot of work to end something. It doesn't follow anything like what you are saying it does FWIW.

 

[GaryH]

If that had been what they were after, why wouldn't they have made it sound more like what you hear in a calibrated to their standards home theater? Theater standards have been in place a long time. Starting a new one seems like a bad idea because then all the home stereos/theaters have to be recalibrated and then all the recordings that were made prior to the newest Harman headphone/IEM targets would have to be remastered. Seems like a lot of work to end something. It doesn't follow anything like what you are saying it does FWIW.

the Academy X-curve has been shown to be seriously flawed in recent publications by Drs. Floyd Toole and Linda Gedemer whose PhD research focused on that topic. To even mention it here as support for accurate sound, indicates the person has not carefully read the literature.

- Dr Sean Olive

A fundamental problem has been the incorrect assumption, made long, long ago (in the age of RTAs), that the audio rule "flat is beautiful" should apply to steady-state room curves, not the direct sound. It corrupted the movie industry and its problematic "X-curve" (Chapter 11 in my book), and the rest of audio in its application to the ITU-R BS.1116-3 and EBU Tech 3276 standards, unfortunately still used by at least some. broadcasters and monitor manufacturers. Turning back the clock is difficult.

- Dr Floyd Toole

 

[DanTheMan]

- Dr Sean Olive


- Dr Floyd Toole

I'm well aware of all that and it's what I was specifically referring to. I'm not going to argue intensely against The Curve because I've done it before and there's a cult mentality around this thing (or these things that have changed several times) and it really circles (no "confusing" pun there) out of control fast. If you look at how anechoic flat speakers in a stereo triangle, that aren't EQed above the transition zone, measure in ear when played in stereo, it's clear that the Harman Curve isn't that. There's tons of data out there that agrees with mine. Just know that the Harman Curve(s) are preference curves based off of adjustments of 2 EQ sliders from an imperfect starting curve. It's not a way to break The Circle. In fact it could just as easily be thought of as contributing to it. When I was referring to their standards, I was specifically referring to Toole's and Olive's (mostly) experimental psychoacoustic results regarding how we hear in 'small' rooms. It's not a bad curve as a lot of people apparently like it and even I don't think it's horrible, but I understand what it is and why it's not called a Reference Curve.

 

[markanini]

I'm well aware of all that and it's what I was specifically referring to. I'm not going to argue intensely against The Curve because I've done it before and there's a cult mentality around this thing (or these things that have changed several times) and it really circles (no "confusing" pun there) out of control fast. If you look at how anechoic flat speakers in a stereo triangle, that aren't EQed above the transition zone, measure in ear when played in stereo, it's clear that the Harman Curve isn't that. There's tons of data out there that agrees with mine. Just know that the Harman Curve(s) are preference curves based off of adjustments of 2 EQ sliders from an imperfect starting curve. It's not a way to break The Circle. In fact it could just as easily be thought of as contributing to it. When I was referring to their standards, I was specifically referring to Toole's and Olive's (mostly) experimental psychoacoustic results regarding how we hear in 'small' rooms. It's not a bad curve as a lot of people apparently like it and even I don't think it's horrible, but I understand what it is and why it's not called a Reference Curve.

Harman tuned headphones sound like speakers in a room to me personally. The in-ear variant doesn't. Either way it's an average so it's possible it's not a good fit for you while sounding right to a majority of the population. I think that needs to be acknowledged before criticizing the work behind it because it's been validated by independent research, not just some reverence to authority. At the same time much of it reinforces what's been known before. For example rates of treble absorption, and shows an implied overlap with multiple manufacturers proprietary target curves by measurement.

Again for the in-ear side of things it might be less of a mature tech for the 2019 curve to satisfy a large enough majority, but that's my speculation.

 

[DanTheMan]

None of the Harman curves sound much like speakers in a room to me personally. The OE is better than the IE, but it lacks mid bass and air. The Expanse’s curve is closer than Harman graphically speaking. Most IEM manufacturers seem to agree unless they are tuning to something that they don’t think sounds very good... Amir liked the Expanse’s mid bass better than Harman’s as well. I’ll never know when it comes to the Expanse. It’s 4k and that’s just more money than I can justify for headphones.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

how do any of you even know for sure that "not liking X target = minority" anyway? I've seen this sort of sentiment more than a couple of times and I'm not sure how you guys base it. There are probably millions of people using headphones, speakers, iems every day no matter what their stance is (audiophile, music enthusiast or just don't care, etc...).

And the controlled experiments have how many participants? I'll assume and inflate a wild number like 30,000. Even if the preference score of that audience is 99%, there's still no grounded reason to say not liking it = minority because we don't know the actual pool of listeners out there. The 99% preference rating is indeed convincing but it's only proof for the 30,000 people attended.

 

[markanini]

how do any of you even know for sure that "not liking X target = minority" anyway? I've seen this sort of sentiment more than a couple of times and I'm not sure how you guys base it. There are probably millions of people using headphones, speakers, iems every day no matter what their stance is (audiophile, music enthusiast or just don't care, etc...).

And the controlled experiments have how many participants? I'll assume and inflate a wild number like 30,000. Even if the preference score of that audience is 99%, there's still no grounded reason to say not liking it = minority because we don't know the actual pool of listeners out there. The 99% preference rating is indeed convincing but it's only proof for the 30,000 people attended.

Statistics are not immune to the law of diminishing returns, 10000s participants wont be that different enough to 100s. Especially not when they tried to be smart about it and use a sampling from different countries and age groups. That's pretty basic knowledge to be blunt.

I'm more interested in the percentage of erroneous data due to participants that:
have hearing issues
feel no connection to the music, honestly Harmans selection was dry
participant and operator might be unaware of a fit issue
Song selection differing from current day mastering practices
Would not pass a simple 5 second test screening overly-exited or overly anxious participants, or participants experiencing ear fatigue(can happen quickly if the participant doesn't regularly use IEMs)

I predict it won't make a huge difference for the OE target though, no more than the like of a 2dB midbass bump of Dan Clarke. And I'm giving Dan the benefit of the doubt that he added the bump for all the right reasons even if we don't know all the details.

 

[GaryH]

If you look at how anechoic flat speakers in a stereo triangle, that aren't EQed above the transition zone, measure in ear when played in stereo, it's clear that the Harman Curve isn't that.

You wouldn't want it to be, due to the SLD effect: acoustic sources at different distances from the ear are perceived to sound differently even if the measured response is the same. See Theile's seminal paper. Then there's the lack of tactile bass from headphones (even less from IEMs) compared to speakers which needs to be compensated for. These are both reasons why preference adjustments are needed to arrive at the target, just as Harman did.