Diffuse Field -10db tilt is a horrible curve

[alumnicesar]

(all screenshots are from autoeq.app)
Here is the Mark Levinson No 5909 as measured by Oratory with the Harman OE 2018 target (this headphone has a 99 Harman preference score):

Now here it is but with the Diffuse Field -10db tilt:

Bass is too light and 3khz is too boosted.

Now here it is with a -15db tilt (I used the -10db curve and then applied a -5db tilt to it. on autoeq it is -0.5 per octave):

Fits it much better. I'm unsure if -15 is exactly the best one (vs something like -14 or -16, for example) but it is already way better than -10. It could be found, I suppose, by getting the average of the absolute value of the eq gains but I'm too lazy for that right now. It would look like this for a 10-band eq:

Personally I wouldn't count the 16khz value. This is for the -15db tilt.

For bonus points, here is the akg n400 as measured by Oratory with a -19db tilt. The n400 follows the Harman In Ear curve 2019 practically perfectly which is almost like the OE Curve but with 3.5db more bass:

Doesn't fit as good but still better than what -10db would look like. The n400 has a 89 preference score.

 

[isostasy]

You're mixing up measurements devices. Choose "Diffuse Field GRAS KEMAR" target instead.

 

[alumnicesar]

Good looks. I'll check later

 

[alumnicesar]

You're mixing up measurements devices. Choose "Diffuse Field GRAS KEMAR" target instead.

I cant post pictures right now but -15 still looks far closer than -10

 

[nerdemoji]

I’m confused, you are criticizing am objectively neutral target because it doesn’t have compliance with a headphone. Shouldn’t that be the other way around, or am I missing something here.

 

[alumnicesar]

Well actually I just checked the sum of the absolute value of the eq on the 31 band eq from 20hz to 10,240hz (i didnt do the 12k to 20k) and -10db came out as closer.
Hmm.

I’m confused, you are criticizing am objectively neutral target because it doesn’t have compliance with a headphone

Im objecting to it being objectively neutral

-13 seems to be closest

 

[nerdemoji]

Well actually I just checked the sum of the absolute value of the eq on the 31 band eq from 20hz to 10,240hz (i didnt do the 12k to 20k) and -10db came out as closer.
Hmm.

Im objecting to it being objectively neutral

-13 seems to be closest

Ok how is it not objectively neutral?

 

[alumnicesar]

hmm, -13 is even closer than the harman curve though. perhaps there is a better way to look at it

 

[dfuller]

The Harman Curve is decidedly not neutral. It's a preference curve.

 

[nerdemoji]

The Harman Curve is decidedly not neutral. It's a preference curve.

yep. Diffuse field is the most objectively neutral target because it is based on a flat anechoic response. Tilt on the diffuse field is supposed to give the impression of a good in room response.
The Harman Curve is a preference curve based on double blind listening tests, and aims to create a “most universally appealing sound”. Also a subass boost in the harman curve is generally preferred for loudspeakers in trained listeners and untrained alike. So in conclusion, studio headphones should be tuned to diffuse field so that they sound like a flat anechoic response, whereas normal headphones should follow the harman curve to appeal to the most amount of listeners. Comparing these two targets against each other doesn’t make sense.

 

[Philbo King]

How do you get a diffuse field with headphones?

 

[markanini]

So in conclusion, studio headphones should be tuned to diffuse field so that they sound like a flat anechoic response, whereas normal headphones should follow the harman curve to appeal to the most amount of listeners.

Makes as much sense as 1+2 = Kangaroo.

 

[Soria Moria]

yep. Diffuse field is the most objectively neutral target because it is based on a flat anechoic response. Tilt on the diffuse field is supposed to give the impression of a good in room response.
The Harman Curve is a preference curve based on double blind listening tests, and aims to create a “most universally appealing sound”. Also a subass boost in the harman curve is generally preferred for loudspeakers in trained listeners and untrained alike. So in conclusion, studio headphones should be tuned to diffuse field so that they sound like a flat anechoic response, whereas normal headphones should follow the harman curve to appeal to the most amount of listeners. Comparing these two targets against each other doesn’t make sense.

If the headphone sounds bad when listening to most music, how could it be good for mixing?

 

[alumnicesar]

because it is based on a flat anechoic response

that's not an objectively correct standard. room response >>

 

[GaryH]

The Harman Curve is decidedly not neutral. It's a preference curve.

yep. Diffuse field is the most objectively neutral target because it is based on a flat anechoic response. Tilt on the diffuse field is supposed to give the impression of a good in room response.
The Harman Curve is a preference curve based on double blind listening tests, and aims to create a “most universally appealing sound”. Also a subass boost in the harman curve is generally preferred for loudspeakers in trained listeners and untrained alike. So in conclusion, studio headphones should be tuned to diffuse field so that they sound like a flat anechoic response, whereas normal headphones should follow the harman curve to appeal to the most amount of listeners. Comparing these two targets against each other doesn’t make sense.

Incorrect. Here's the reality:

DIffuse field sound curve dates back to research done in the 1980s in Germany. You realize it was based on mimicking the response of a loudspeaker measured in a diffuse field. That is how they measured it. Put a listener or a dummy head in a reverberation chamber and match the response at the ear either by using a probe microphone inside the ear, or a subjective loudness matching exercise where noise is played in 1/3-octave bands in both the loudspeaker and the headphone and listeners adjust level for equal loudness. The resulting curve represents the sound power of the loudspeaker measured at the ear drum.

Several studies done by Lorho (2009), Fraunhofer (2012) and Harman (2013-2019) have since shown there are more preferred targets than DF. Instead of measuring the loudspeaker in a DF they are measured in a semi-reflective listening room as a starting point. Why? Because most recordings are not optimized for playback in reverberation chambers because most listeners don't listen in them but rather semi-reflective rooms with an average RT60 of 0. 4 s. There is a strong frontal direct sound component and some strong early reflection contributions from lateral and other directions -- not at all like a DF field where the arrivals at the listener are random and uniformly distributed in direction. The rooms tend to reinforce the bass below 200 Hz so the in-room response is not flat.

Since recordings are optimized through loudspeakers in a semi-reflective room, they sound best over headphones that emulate that response. And there are lots of experimental data support it.

I think it is well established that flat bass in a headphone or in-room response of a loudspeaker is NOT neutral. We’ve had trained listeners draw the perceived spectral balance of these targets and they are perceived as not flat.
Toole spent 10 years having listeners rate loudspeaker based on perceived fidelity/neutrality. When we switched to preference, the loudspeakers ratings didn’t suddenly change. There is a high correlation between fidelity/neutrality/ preference.

Our headphone targets do not deviate significantly above 200 Hz from a anechoically flat speaker measured in our reference room at the DRP. For the AE/OE target it’s within 2 dB of the bass of the in-room speaker target. For the IE target it’s higher, but there are data to support it needs to be higher to be perceived as equivalent

 

[nerdemoji]

Incorrect. Here's the reality:

Thanks, apparently I have... quite a bit more to learn so thanks for clarifying. Anyway what the OP was doing was still silly

 

[GaryH]

Not quite as silly as it may seem, as it does at least highlight the huge differences (e.g. severely lacking bass, too much / 'shouty' ear gain peak) between DF w/ -10dB tilt (KEMAR below) and the target that has actually been shown to be perceived neutral / preferred by the majority in controlled, scientific blind tests i.e. the Harman target:

 

[alumnicesar]

Not quite as silly as it may seem, as it does at least highlight the huge differences (e.g. severely lacking bass, too much / 'shouty' ear gain peak) between DF w/ -10dB tilt (KEMAR below) and the target that has actually been shown to be perceived neutral / preferred by the majority in controlled, scientific blind tests i.e. the Harman target:
View attachment 311892

yeah that looks wildly different. Which tilt is closest?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

yeah that looks wildly different. Which tilt is closest?

closest to what?

 

[alumnicesar]

the harman curve