When I was 18, I had my first dental cavity. I hated it because otherwise, I had good teeth. I figured the cause was the sugar in my coffee. So I decided to quit the sugar and drink my coffee black. The first few days, I had to force myself to drink it raw. I couldn't stand the bitter taste. However, after a week, I started to actually appreciate the pure bean taste of excellent coffee and begin to enjoy it. Nowadays, if by accident anyone put any sweetener in my coffee, I cringe and can't stand the taste.
The point I try to make is, I do believe (without any scientistic proof other than experience) that our human brains adapt to a reference. With sound, that isn't any different.
We get accustomed to a sound reference we are familiar with, just as I was a customized with the way I reference coffee should taste.
I have worked exclusively in pro-audio environments for the first better half of my life (control rooms, broadcast van's, radio stations, etc.) And despite there is lack of a universal standard, generally, "flat" has always been the target. Those days, digital room eq wasn't an accepted tool yet and hardly available. In most of the environments where I worked, getting it "flat" was obtained by the following efforts.
- In most cases, the room has been designed by an acoustic engineer. That doesn't guarantees an acoustically flat room, but it brings you closer than most domestic environments.
- The big in-wall monitors were measured and tuned by their active crossovers with PEQ's (BSS and SPL were popular those days), time-align the drivers, and flatten the overall response at the sweet spot behind the desk.
- 90% of the mixing be done on smaller monitors, such as the Yamaha NS10M and (that time) popular Genelec 1031's. Those are around 60 to 70cm from the engineers' ears and don't portray a downfall slope at that distance. Combined with the dampened room, most you hear is direct sound, and flat on-axis response.
It is fair to say that a majority of mix engineers ARE accustomed to a flat sound. Whether this flat response is "right" or "wrong" is under debate by some. Still, there must be some standard, and without officially disclosed, flat is. When control rooms or mix facilities are consistently flat, it is easier for mix engineers to work in different mix environments.
The video world is ahead of the audio side by more consistent and clear standards. However, there isn't a standard for an audio curve in studios, as far as I am aware. One reviewer of a Trinnov Pro unit opted that now room EQ becomes more accepted, there should be a standard for every recording studio regarding a target curve.
Probable by these influences and the joy I had listening to my familiar music in control rooms and simply heard so much more details than on my home "high-end" system, I am also accustomed to this flat sound.
I don't dismiss the work Harman has done in any way, and as a matter of fact, I do believe the research outcome is accurate. Most consumers are accustomed to an expected downslope curve because this is how speakers sound under domestic circumstances. The same is true for modern TWS in-ear phones. Those who are measured flat(ter) are generally perceived as sounding worse (also by reviewers) than the ones having a Harman curve applied. This proves again, yes, this is what consumers expect and perceive as good sound.
That doesn't implicate that this IS (the only way of) good sound.
Referring back to myself. I am open-minded, and I am aware that what I believe in today can change tomorrow if it turns out I had it wrong all along.
Related to this topic, I programmed a downsloping curve in my system with the Genelecs. I listened to it for a prolonged time without switching back. I did so mildly at 3dB down at 20Khz. I didn't like it. Too much bass, which muffles the mix, reduces tiny details on attacks such as snares, etc. Especially with movies, this curve removes that "magic" bubble it portraits otherwise with a flat target curve. Please see attached the target curve and predicted corrected response.
The Genelecs (8351B) doesn't sound bright, harsh, or anything like that when giving it a flat target curve. (neither this curve gives me listening fatigue). They just sound clear and more upfront but not "in-your-face" without being aggressive. Neither does this flat curve change the excellent character (or lack off) of the speaker. It is unmistakable the 8351B but with a reduction of room influences with a more direct sound even at a 2-meter distance (my sweet spot)
Tonight, I go back to my flat curve again. I may be doing the "wrong" thing totally, but this is what I am accustomed to, and to me sounds like an uncolored window into the content you provide to them.
Note: The subwoofer and mains are not overlapping. Trinnov only shows the raw predicted correction without incorporating the crossover. Mains and subs are crossed at 85Hz, with an 8th order L/R filter. The predicted response isn't "ruler flat" because I have limited the EQ-ing of dips, because I believe that is a wrong thing to do if been done to extreme.
