??? The fastest way to get "undynamic" is to have anemic bass because that is where most of the energy of music is. Of course, if by that you are using made up subjectivist term, then anything goes.
IMO it is completely fine to have opinions on the sound and then give explanations for that based on the frequency response—especially when those conclusions are the result of blind testing comparing the two (which mine is). But even when not doing this, I think people should be allowed to have opinions, especially when they back up those opinions with clear explanation of what part of the sound disagrees with them.
I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to oversimplify and handwave away what I think is a fairly uncontroversial—if yes, individual—judgement on the sound quality as I receive it. I’m not saying it needs to have no bass, or much less bass to sound good to
everyone, I’m just saying there are reasons that a relatively steep SPL change between bass and low midrange can have an effect that, for some (surely not all), will produce a less than satisfactory result re: bass reproduction or what many incorrectly call “dynamics” or “slam.” Personally I think a slight reduction of SPL under 100 Hz and a bit more around 200 Hz would do them some good, and potentially help the complaints Dan has gotten about his designs lacking punch/slam (even if they’re subjective terms, he’s selling these products to people having subjective experiences, so its justifiable to want to make them enjoy the products more if he can).
Dan himself has made similar claims but about a slightly different coloration (adding more mid-bass around 150 Hz on top of the Harman target) being responsible for “slam,” and… well for one I don’t think he would’ve received the same reaction for doing so because he’s Dan and he seems to get quite a lot of love here (reasonably so). But this “case study” of his was done because he was interested to know why kept getting the feedback from people that his headphones weren’t satisfying in the bass, and I don’t actually think his findings reflected what most peoples issue with the headphones were/are.
to those who think anaemic bass is preferable, no judgement, but I need to ask: what genres of music do you listen to?
In my experience people who find “anemic” bass preferable are those who simply prefer their music presented differently, rather than having a library that would make such a preference obvious (though in some cases surely people prefer less bass due to, for example, enjoying a lot of music with a warmer-on-average spectral tilt, like Orchestral music).
To me (personal) Harman bass levels are too 'fat' sounding unless one listens to older rock and pop recordings which can usually do with some low bass boost.
Well made recordings don't sound right to me…. I like low bass but I like (prefer) it slightly lower than what Harman came up with. Besides .... that is just an average most people seem to prefer and not a holy truth that shall not be deviated from.
As usual, multiple sensible takes here.
Also there is no shame in preferring less or more bass than what Harman research found to be the most preferred level at a certain listening SPL.
