does anyone enjoy flat sound from audio speakers?

[restorer-john]

Great post @tmtomh .

 

[terryforsythe]

There's a fundamental issue here, which is addressed in the "Flat does not equal flat" video that @staticV3 linked to on page 1, but which has not been clearly stated here in the thread:

That issue is that there are two different kinds of "flat" response from a speaker: anechoic flat response, and in-room flat response.

A speaker that is designed for maximum fidelity will have flat anechoic response: that is, in a room specially treated to have virtually no reflections - or these days using special computerized test equipment that can simulate such a room - the speaker's frequency response will be very close to flat from the lowest bass frequency it can manage, up to 20kHz.

The important thing to understand is that in any real-world room, an anechoically flat speaker is going to produce a somewhat downward sloping frequency response: higher in the bass, and then sloping down somewhat through the midrange and the treble. This is the in-room response.

So no, pretty much no one likes flat in-room response because it sounds too bright. And it sounds too bright because, as noted by others already, higher frequencies naturally get absorbed by the walls, furniture and other stuff in your room than do lower frequencies. So what we hear is always "tilted down" relative to what comes out of the speaker.

But many people do like flat anechoic response. In fact, the existing research, which you can find cited here in many threads, suggests that in blind testing most people seem to prefer speakers that have fairly flat anechoic response.

Finally, all of the above is also impacted by a speaker's dispersion pattern. Some speakers produce most of their volume (energy) in a more narrow area radiating out at angles to the left and right of the speaker drivers, while others produce most of their energy in a wider area - a broader angle. This can impact the perceived soundstage, but also the perceived frequency response at a given listening position. My understanding of the research is that a majority of people prefer wider dispersion, although this preference is not as strong as the preference for flat/neutral frequency response, and while linear anechoic frequency response is considered a sign of high fidelity and good design, wide vs narrow dispersion is generally considered more of a preference thing than a better vs worse thing (as long as the dispersion is relatively constant and even throughout the frequency range from about 200-300Hz upwards).

Good post.

I use a miniDSP to tune my system to the Harman curve at the listening position, though with a little less bass bump. Since the miniDSP has four presets, I used one preset to tune the system flat at the listening position. Most music to which I listen sounds better using the Harman curve preset. Once in a while, though, I have come across a track that is lacking in the high frequencies and sounds better, at least to me, with the flat, at listening position, preset. However, I switched to Tidal some time back and don't recall coming across any such tracks since then.

 

[Beave]

pet peeve alert: Harman, not Harmon.

 

[terryforsythe]

pet peeve alert: Harman, not Harmon.

Fixed

 

[waynel]

Good post.

I use a miniDSP to tune my system to the Harman curve at the listening position, though with a little less bass bump. Since the miniDSP has four presets, I used one preset to tune the system flat at the listening position. Most music to which I listen sounds better using the Harman curve preset. Once in a while, though, I have come across a track that is lacking in the high frequencies and sounds better, at least to me, with the flat, at listening position, preset. However, I switched to Tidal some time back and don't recall coming across any such tracks since then.

Is there a good link to “the Harman curve”, when I google it all the results are about headphones.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I am sympathetic to the OP's angst.
It is a sad state of affairs (and always has been) that the $%^& speakers you just bought (price independent), is gonna need a prerequisite EQ to make it sound "flat".
Why do they not come from the speaker factory that way and BEFORE having to start globbing in the obligatory corrections to their #$%^ woeful performance?

Sorry for the rant!

This isn't really true, is it?

Due to room modes you will likely need some EQ to tame the bass (impossible for the speaker manufacturer to fix that because every room is different), but beyond that, EQ is not needed for a well designed speaker to sound natural and neutral (deliberately not saying "flat" because it's hard to know what you mean by that).

 

[sigbergaudio]

Is there a good link to “the Harman curve”, when I google it all the results are about headphones.

I wrote a post about the curve a while back here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...he-harman-loudspeaker-preference-curve.50602/


Here is the diagram for reference, but I recommend you read the thread too.

 

[waynel]

I wrote a post about the curve a while back here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...he-harman-loudspeaker-preference-curve.50602/


Here is the diagram for reference, but I recommend you read the thread too.

Thanks! I saw that curve before but didn't know it was the Harman curve. I tried to implement the trained listener curve below 500hz but found I preferred a flat response below 500hz.

 

[Descartes]

Ok everyone speaks about the Harman curve! What is that and how do do get it?

 

[StigErik]

Ok everyone speaks about the Harman curve! What is that and how do do get it?

a) It's a target frequency response curve that most listeners find "best".
b) Good room and speakers, plus measurement and EQ.

 

[dominikz]

When discussing the "Harman curve" it is always good to remind ourselves that it was not intended to be a room EQ target curve - it is instead a result of using well-measuring loudspeakers in typical domestic rooms.

I suggest to read the first few posts in this thread (link) by @thewas who kindly collected various quotes from dr. @Floyd Toole on the subject.

 

[dominikz]

I prefer a richer, more dynamic sound from the speakers.

Luckily 'flat' loudspeakers can reproduce 'rich and dynamic' sound without issue, as I wrote here:

That being said, it is not clear what the OP means by "flat". They might also mean 'flat' in the colloquial and usually negative sense (e.g. opposite of 'exciting' or 'fun'). Of course loudspeakers with flat on-axis anechoic response (good) and even directivity (good) don't sound 'flat' in this colloquial sense (bad) - they sound about as exciting / fun as the music you listen through them.

 

[StigErik]

And how does that rich, dynamic sound measure?

 

[IndieSynth]

I like to get as close as I can to hearing the recording as the artist intended, within the limitations of my listening space.

 

[Exaybachay]

I absolutely prefer a linear/flat constant frequency response. I think the liking for a bassboost and downwards sloped treble is trained and origins in bad listening habits. For me it never feels that it's lacking bass or that it is too bright. It just sounds right and there is absolutely no need to even think about applying a house-curve or so.

So yes, some people actually enjoy flat sound from speakers.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Thanks! I saw that curve before but didn't know it was the Harman curve. I tried to implement the trained listener curve below 500hz but found I preferred a flat response below 500hz.

So if you read the thread I linked to, you're not supposed to implement it.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Ok everyone speaks about the Harman curve! What is that and how do do get it?

It's what you will likely end up with in a normal room if you have speakers with reasonably behaved on-axis and off-axis behaviour. See also the thread a linked to above and / or the one @dominikz linked to.

 

[sigbergaudio]

a) It's a target frequency response curve that most listeners find "best".
b) Good room and speakers, plus measurement and EQ.

It is not a target to be implemented, it is a preference curve indicating what people is likely to prefer based on a study where 11 people participated.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I absolutely prefer a linear/flat constant frequency response. I think the liking for a bassboost and downwards sloped treble is trained and origins in bad listening habits. For me it never feels that it's lacking bass or that it is too bright. It just sounds right and there is absolutely no need to even think about applying a house-curve or so.

So yes, some people actually enjoy flat sound from speakers.

What do you mean by constant? Do you have a measurement from your main listening position?

 

[sigbergaudio]

I like to get as close as I can to hearing the recording as the artist intended, within the limitations of my listening space.

How do you determine "as the artist intended"?