Diffuse Field -10db tilt is a horrible curve

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

the harman curve

in that image, the orange line IS the Harman Curve.

hmmm...I'm totally not getting what your doing actually. Not sure why the diffuse field stuff comes into it at all. The headphones are pretty great ootb so there isn't much needed in terms of EQ.

 

[alumnicesar]

in that image, the orange line IS the Harman Curve.

oh, you mean which of your 2 tilts is closest? Well, it looks to me like the 10db tilt is pretty good but turn up the bass. Could drop the 3khz area by a couple dbs too perhaps. A known quality of the HC is that there's wiggle room in terms of personal preference at the low end anyway - some people like more or less bass. I like slightly less bass than the HC so I drop the bass shelf by a couple dbs usually.

What i meant is this:

-10db isn't close at all to the Harman curve. Is there a tilt that is closer? Maybe -15? -13?

I know it wont be perfect because of the 3khz and that a bass shelf would be closer than increasing the negative tilt

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

What i meant is this:

-10db isn't close at all to the Harman curve. Is there a tilt that is closer? Maybe -15? -13?

I know it wont be perfect because of the 3khz and that a bass shelf would be closer than increasing the negative tilt

I edited my response above, but again...I don't know why you're worried about the diffuse field stuff. Or the tilts either. The levinsons are already close to the HC. All you might want to do is add a couple dbs to the 20-30hz range if you like the deep stuff...

 

[alumnicesar]

The levinsons aren't important, I just used those because i Had no way to overlay the harman curve on the diffuse field tilt. This thread is purely about how diffuse field tilt compares to Harman

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

The levinsons aren't important, I just used those because i Had no way to overlay the harman curve on the diffuse field tilt. This thread is purely about how diffuse field tilt compares to Harman

ok..well I'm not sure what your after then. Sorry...

 

[alumnicesar]

Actually a good question would be which diffuse field tilt would receive the highest Harman preference score

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

well...to my eyes the Levinson is close to HC. And the 15db tilt looks like it's closest to the Levinson curve...so I guess I'd say the 15db DF tilt looks closest to HC. I'm just not sure what it is we're trying to achieve...

 

[GaryH]

yeah that looks wildly different. Which tilt is closest?

No tilt will get close enough, as the Harman target uses shelf not tilt. This is one of the (many) reasons why DF + tilt is fundamentally flawed as a target.

 

[dfuller]

Incorrect. Here's the reality:

Nope. Harman bass is extremely overblown compared to a neutral curve. People like bass. That doesn't make it accurate to reality.

I'm not saying DF -10dB is better. It isn't! Diffuse field is insanely bright as a target. Harman matches closer to reality if that bass shelf is cut down by about half or so, then it's pretty close to a set of speakers.

The Etymotic curve is more or less Harman with flat bass, and sounds... right.

 

[GaryH]

Nope. Harman bass is extremely overblown compared to a neutral curve. People like bass. That doesn't make it accurate to reality.

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.

Harman matches closer to reality if that bass shelf is cut down by about half or so, then it's pretty close to a set of speakers.

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.

The Etymotic curve is more or less Harman with flat bass, and sounds... right.

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.

 

[dasdoing]

I use the ISO diffuse field target and love it. no tilt at all. It's in the AutoEQ folder at the webpage

 

[dasdoing]

Nope. Harman bass is extremely overblown compared to a neutral curve. People like bass. That doesn't make it accurate to reality.

I'm not saying DF -10dB is better. It isn't! Diffuse field is insanely bright as a target. Harman matches closer to reality if that bass shelf is cut down by about half or so, then it's pretty close to a set of speakers.

The Etymotic curve is more or less Harman with flat bass, and sounds... right.

I think the main confusion is the term "neutrality".
what does it actually mean?

old school audiophiles seem to have a broken definition for that, and I will explain why it is broken:
"a perfect speaker in a room is neutral because it will reproduce the music like it was being played live in my room".

as good as this sounds, it is a totally flawed concept since no music in history ever was recorded to use the ambience of your (very bad) room.
stereo recordings started with the idea of reproducing the recorded(!) ambience and reproduce it at home.
like what happened in several other art forms, reproducing reality made way for abstract creations and nowadays music is created with an artificially created ambience.

in that sense, neutrality can only be defined as: "distorting as little as possible what is in the recording".
so it is mathematically impossible for a speaker that is perfect in an anechoic chamber to be neutral in a room. for this to happen the room would have to be neutral.

the real question is: should we care for neutral? most probably shouldn't. what sounds good should be the goal. And if the majority of people like the bass boost, then this is the best target for the majority......people should just forget about "neutrality" when seeking preference.

 

[dfuller]

I think the main confusion is the term "neutrality".
what does it actually mean?

Fair question. My definition is that nothing is added or taken away from the recording.

old school audiophiles seem to have a broken definition for that, and I will explain why it is broken:
"a perfect speaker in a room is neutral because it will reproduce the music like it was being played live in my room".

Yeah, that is flawed with out a doubt.

so it is mathematically impossible for a speaker that is perfect in an anechoic chamber to be neutral in a room. for this to happen the room would have to be neutral.

Welcome to the struggle that recording studio designers go through every day of the week. Trying to get the room out of the equation while not being unpleasant to be in is a struggle and a half.

the real question is: should we care for neutral? most probably shouldn't. what sounds good should be the goal. And if the majority of people like the bass boost, then this is the best target for the majority......people should just forget about "neutrality" when seeking preference.

I agree! It's mostly difficult because Harman OE is just so bananas bass heavy. Like, it's fun, it's just nowhere near what I've heard of decent in room responses - it's way subbier.

 

[Soria Moria]

I agree! It's mostly difficult because Harman OE is just so bananas bass heavy. Like, it's fun, it's just nowhere near what I've heard of decent in room responses - it's way subbier

It’s funny how differently people feel about this. I find the target a bit bass shy and add a few extra dB usually. Also add a little bit more in the 150 Hz to the 200 Hz region.

 

[GaryH]

It’s funny how differently people feel about this. I find the target a bit bass shy and add a few extra dB usually. Also add a little bit more in the 150 Hz to the 200 Hz region.

Harman's research did indeed find preferred / perceived-neutral bass response in headphones may vary somewhat from person to person. One surprising reason for this could actually be the weight of the listener, resulting in differences between people in their whole-body vibration when listening to speakers (and so the amount of compensation for the lack of this vibration when listening to headphones via increasing bass response):

The Effect of Whole-body Vibrations on Preferred Bass Equalizations of Automotive Audio Systems

Binaural Room Scanning (BRS) is a technology that allows Harman scientists to binaurally capture, store, and later reproduce sound fields t...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Nevertheless, as per their research the Harman target's bass will still on average satisfy and be perceived neutral by the majority, which is what makes it a good target baseline, from which users who lie outside the norm can adjust the bass via EQ if needed.

 

[alumnicesar]

It’s funny how differently people feel about this. I find the target a bit bass shy and add a few extra dB usually. Also add a little bit more in the 150 Hz to the 200 Hz region.

yeah i also prefer even more bass than the harman curve lmao

 

[markanini]

yeah i also prefer even more bass than the harman curve lmao

Same here, a few dB extra upper bass.

 

[alumnicesar]

3db bass shelf with a -10 db tilt looks about as close as the diffuse field can get to harman oe

 

[GaryH]

At that point it's in no way diffuse field anymore, so you might as well abandon it all together.

 

[alumnicesar]

At that point it's in no way diffuse field anymore, so you might as well abandon it all together.

I agree, i'm just being curious. Though now i won't really consider any 5128 measurement as relevant until harman releases their curve for it