Good somewhat neutral mixing headphones with good bass extension for max. 350€?

[solderdude]

I want them to be as flat as possible, so I'd just even out everything that the measurements show above or below midline, right?

If the headphone has measured +5dB from 100-200Hz then I'll do -5dB in that region?

You will need to know the target curve from that measurement and then you want to decide which compensation you need to get 'perceived' flat response.
And you need to decide whether you want them to sound like near-field monitors or speakers in a room.

in other words... 'flat' as in equal SPL at every frequency or 'flat' as in tonally balanced speakers in a room (Harman) or near-field (DF)

 

[FireEmblem]

You will need to know the target curve from that measurement and then you want to decide which compensation you need to get 'perceived' flat response.
And you need to decide whether you want them to sound like near-field monitors or speakers in a room.

in other words... 'flat' as in equal SPL at every frequency or 'flat' as in tonally balanced speakers in a room (Harman) or near-field (DF)

Huh, I thought target response is ruler flat?

I believed the horizontal line is as if there is 0 alteration through the device.

So for instance, if I see the dip at around 4k, I'd set up a similar band and boost that region by +6dB to get rid off what the pair of headphones is adding / taking away from an otherwise neutral frequency.

Is that the wrong approach?

Is the midline just a flat visualisation of a target curve that is not flat?

 

[solderdude]

Huh, I thought target response is ruler flat?

View attachment 498892

I believed the horizontal line is as if there is 0 alteration through the device.

So for instance, if I see the dip at around 4k, I'd set up a similar band and boost that region by +6dB.

Is that the wrong approach?

Is the midline just a flat visualisation of a target curve that is not flat?

The horizontal line represents the compensated response + target (which is taste dominated).
That line does not represent equal amplitude per frequency but perceived equal amplitude per frequency at a reference level.
Basically that line is what they consider 'perceived flat' on that fixture. AFAIK Rtings now uses Harman target.
So perceived neutral to the majority of people compared to speakers in a room.

There are different 'neutral' responses in the world of headphones unlike that in the world of speakers and audio equipment.
That's what makes all the plots and numbers so confusing and all over the place.

 

[FireEmblem]

The horizontal line represents the compensated response + target (which is taste dominated).
That line does not represent equal amplitude per frequency but perceived equal amplitude per frequency at a reference level.
Basically that line is what they consider 'perceived flat' on that fixture. AFAIK Rtings now uses Harman target.
So perceived neutral to the majority of people compared to speakers in a room.

There are different 'neutral' responses in the world of headphones unlike that in the world of speakers and audio equipment.
That's what makes all the plots and numbers so confusing and all over the place.

I see! So when they use Harman target and that's considered "flat", does the idea of my approach

So for instance, if I see the dip at around 4k, I'd set up a similar band and boost that region by +6dB to get rid off what the pair of headphones is adding / taking away from an otherwise neutral frequency.

work? Can I do it like that, if my goal is to get a close-to-flat response?

Edit: And do I understand this right, the whole "flat" subject is about finding a response curve where most people agree on that nothing sticks out or is underrepresented, so that we can assume that working from this as starting positions will get the best results?

 

[solderdude]

I see! So when they use Harman target and that's considered "flat", Can I do it like that, if my goal is to get a close-to-flat response?

Many people call this 'audibly flat' or 'preferred tonal balance by the majority of people (about 64% of them).

Edit: And do I understand this right, the whole "flat" subject is about finding a response curve where most people agree on that nothing sticks out or is underrepresented, so that we can assume that working from this as starting positions will get the best results?

For instance Harman target which is preferred by the majority of people (thus not all people) and is close to 'flat measuring speakers in a decent listening room'.
It is not 'equal loudness per frequency like speakers in anechoic conditions on axis'.
It also assumes you hearing is the same as a test fixture which it isn't. It is a fairly accurate approximation between roughly 100Hz and 6kHz.

 

[FTB]

[...]
AFAIK Rtings now uses Harman target.
[...]

They don't alas.

 

[FireEmblem]

Many people call this 'audibly flat' or 'preferred tonal balance by the majority of people (about 60% of them).

For instance Harman target which is preferred by the majority of people (thus not all people) and is close to 'flat measuring speakers in a decent listening room'.

So if maximal translatability is the goal, it would be better to work with these exact curves instead of making adjustments from there by ear after everything's been aligned?

Or is it okay because tastes differ and it will probably not make much of a difference if the changes aren't too wild?

It is not 'equal loudness per frequency like speakers in anechoic conditions on axis'.

So does that mean a speaker can be 'objectively' flat? Why would we not work with the same approach for headphones?

They don't alas.

Are the other options showed there good too, or is Harman the best one? If yes, is there another place that measures so thoroughly that uses harman as target?

 

[solderdude]

The information I got was that initially they used their own target (the Rtings.com) that was close to Harman but not the same. They have/had a different fixture where there is no Harman target for and later decides to use the Harman target and got their 'Rtings target' closer to Harman (Over-ear).
Now they switched to BK5128 and, of course, there is no Harman target for that either
In fact only the GRAS with the modified pinna is the only Harman compliant one. The 45CA with the pinna Amir uses comes close enough to what was used as Harman.

Its complex.

 

[solderdude]

So if maximal translatability is the goal, it would be better to work with these exact curves instead of making adjustments from there by ear after everything's been aligned?

It is a choice one has to make. If all people were to EQ their speakers in a room to Harman target (at the listening position) and had the same taste and the recording studios would do the same (and the mixing engineer has the same taste) all would be fine.

Alas the world is not ideal and opinions differ. This is called the circle of confusion.

IF the Harman target corrected headphone sounds good to you on music that is well recorded you should use this 'target'.

Or is it okay because tastes differ and it will probably not make much of a difference if the changes aren't too wild?

Yes, there is a 'tolerance band'.

So does that mean a speaker can be 'objectively' flat? Why would we not work with the same approach for headphones?

Because on axis flat measuring speakers in a room will change the tonal balance (in the lows mainly) and the listening distance determines how the highs are perceived.
You hear each speaker with both ears.

With headphones there is no room, you don't hear both channels with both ears, the speaker is cm away from the ear in a totally different angle.
There is a different interaction with the outer ear than with speakers and it is hard to make a driver + acoustic system to be tuned.
With speakers this is relatively easy to get right.

Are the other options showed there good too, or is Harman the best one? If yes, is there another place that measures so thoroughly that uses harman as target?

Some are of the opinion the Harman target is 'the best' others disagree. We are dealing with people...

For you the choice is simple. If you like Sonarworks (= not Harman) on good recordings then your mixes using that target should be O.K. too IF you get the same (by you preferred) sound.
If you prefer Harman or other targets (there are a few) than that is fine too.

As long as the HD650 sounds good to you with the EQ you applied on known good recordings you are good to go.

 

[FireEmblem]

Thanks for all the great info!

It is a choice one has to make. If all people were to EQ their speakers in a room to Harman target (at the listening position) and had the same taste and the recording studios would do the same (and the mixing engineer has the same taste) all would be fine.

Alas the world is not ideal and opinions differ. This is called the circle of confusion.

IF the Harman target corrected headphone sounds good to you on music that is well recorded you should use this 'target'.

If after all, the only goal is to create a pre-EQ that sounds balanced as default, wouldn't it be possible to just create my own EQ and dial in everything by ear until I have the feeling that everything sounds balanced? In theory wouldn't that lead to a better result than a one-size-fits-almost-all curve, even tweaked?

Because on axis flat measuring speakers in a room will change the tonal balance (in the lows mainly) and the listening distance determines how the highs are perceived.
You hear each speaker with both ears.

With headphones there is no room, you don't hear both channels with both ears, the speaker is cm away from the ear in a totally different angle.
There is a different interaction with the outer ear than with speakers and it is hard to make a driver + acoustic system to be tuned.
With speakers this is relatively easy to get right.

I thought these things mainly influence spatial information.. this is confusing. So basically headphones just alter a signal differently than speakers in a room? And because rooms can easier be made objectively flat than ears, they came up with the target curve idea, to find a common dominator amongst all ear shapes?

But even from a perfectly flat room the sound has to go through the same ears.. why would it suddenly not matter anymore, if it's such a big deal with headphones?

Some are of the opinion the Harman target is 'the best' others disagree. We are dealing with people...

For you the choice is simple. If you like Sonarworks (= not Harman) on good recordings then your mixes using that target should be O.K. too IF you get the same (by you preferred) sound.
If you prefer Harman or other targets (there are a few) than that is fine too.

As long as the HD650 sounds good to you with the EQ you applied on known good recordings you are good to go.

I just found out about raw measurements. That's exactly what I meant earlier when I asked if they don't measure just the actual headphone's output:

This seems not to be compensated for any target curve. Do I understand that the grey line in raw measurements is just how much dB a given frequency needs to be perceived as loud as others, e.g. mathematical objectivity, regardless of an individuums specific hearing or preference?

Can I not just take this, EQ my headphone until it's aligned with this 'target' curve to get rid off all colourations that come from my headphones?

 

[Jiraya369]

I used to use Crinacle graphs in the past, before he made his targets.
It is said here, his targets like IEF blabla are based on his only perception, not research and saying B&k 5128 is best is not proven : https://crinacle.com/2025/02/05/the-new-2025-ief-target/

One people benchmark versus several people benchmark, I know what is scientific or not.

Curves made by reviewers are totally subjective and based on one people opinion.

well you do you bud

 

[FTB]

well you do you bud

If you have research papers about 5128 or crinacle target, don't hesitate to share...
You should read the 10 pages thread about AES paper.

 

[Jiraya369]

If you have research papers about 5128 or crinacle target, don't hesitate to share...
You should read the 10 pages thread about AES paper.

sure lil bro

 

[kemmler3D]

Do I understand that the grey line in raw measurements is just how much dB a given frequency needs to be perceived as loud as others, e.g. mathematical objectivity, regardless of an individuums specific hearing or preference?

Can I not just take this, EQ my headphone until it's aligned with this 'target' curve to get rid off all colourations that come from my headphones?

Targets are only semi-objective. Everyone has a different HRTF that affects whether they hear a given target as flat. There are many attempts from Harman and others to develop a target that most people will hear as flat OR that most people will prefer over similar targets, or a combination.

This is further complicated by the fact that test fixtures only somewhat correspond to what people hear. So targets are defined based on what head / ears / mics you're using to measure the headphones with.

If you EQ your headphones to a target, that's not the same as EQing speakers flat.

• Your personal HRTF might deviate from the target and/or test fixture
• Your pair of headphones might deviate from the pair they measured
• The target might not be ideal in the first place

This whole set of unknowns is part of why people say not to mix on headphones. If mixing on flat headphones is important to you, bridging the gap between "I've EQ'd to this target, they sound good" and "these headphones are actually, truly flat" is far from trivial. You pretty much need to get in-ear mics near your eardrums to be sure.

Based on your other posts I assume you're OK with this level of uncertainty, but it's something to know.

 

[FireEmblem]

If you EQ your headphones to a target, that's not the same as EQing speakers flat.

• Your personal HRTF might deviate from the target and/or test fixture
• Your pair of headphones might deviate from the pair they measured
• The target might not be ideal in the first place

This whole set of unknowns is part of why people say not to mix on headphones.

But why would HRTF or the fact that you could as well have a pair of monitors that deviate from someone's measurements be something headphone exclusive?

Even if you tune your studio monitors the sound should come in different for you based on your ear shape, shouldn't it?

Or is the whole thing mainly about that you do room measurements when calibrating monitors but not in ear measurements when adjusting headphones?

 

[FireEmblem]

I'm testing a lot between HD681 (calibrated with Sonarworks) and HD650. It's sooooo crazy how much Sonarworks brings the HD681 close to what the HD650 sounds. The difference is absolutely minor when it comes to the frequency response. HD681 still sounds a little bit brighter, but not to an extend where it would lead to significant different mixing choices.

HD650 has a wider stage and more depth, but that sometimes comes at the cost of clarity. HD650 feels more close to you and thus, I believe, might help with making precise detailed mixing decisions.

I enjoy the wide stage the HD650 offers though, but since everything that has to do with spatial information should be mixed on monitors in the room, that's neglectable I think.

Hmmm... decisions, decisions! Haven't tried out the RTINGs EQs for Superlux yet. If they work just as good, it would me even save the 99€ for Sonarworks.

It's not that I have to save, I could just get the HD 650. Orrrr I could roll with the callibrated Superlux and put these 300€ into whatever else.

I feel the differences are very minor between both options. Superlux is even slightly better in low end which is one of the more important things I want to review in headphones. I can feel the body of instruments vibrating in the Superlux, for instance Timpani hits do give me the sensation of some physical pressure, as if the earcups would shake a bit. Not as in "cheap headphone that rattles" but actually physically in my ear.

Superlux (right side, in all graphs) have a little mismatch in phase response, but only really high up. And that's part of what the EQ will tone down anyways (will this reduce phasing issues?):

Passive soundstage is rated higher on the Superlux as well:

Not 100% sure what this concludes, but I guess it's what I said with the sound being more close to me and more present, not as much in the back, wide and sometimes a bit washed out like in the HD650.

Is the distortion on Superlux problematic or still great? (Superlux on the right side):

I guess 7.6 is a good value, as the green color indicates.

 

[FTB]

You should note rely on the Rtings notes.
According to these notes the Fiio FT1 would have better "audio reproduction accuracy" than the AKG k371. I quoted these two headphones as I have/had both and compared them.
I and other people who did the comparison don't consider the Fiio as better... you can take a look at the measurements Amir made of these two and understand what I'm talking about, or better, compare them yourself to know if the notes from Rtings fit what you hear.

 

[FireEmblem]

You should note rely on the Rtings notes.
According to these notes the Fiio FT1 would have better "audio reproduction accuracy" than the AKG k371. I quoted these two headphones as I have/had both and compared them.
I and other people who did the comparison don't consider the Fiio as better... you can take a look at the measurements Amir made of these two and understand what I'm talking about, or better, compare them yourself to know if the notes from Rtings fit what you hear.

I don't know what audio reproduction accuracy is supposed to be, because this doesn't seem to be something they review on the regular. Regarding your findings, I wouldn't dismiss rtings just because of that.. could be that you had a faulty unit, or they had one, or their measurements are correct while you just subjectively disagree, which can of course happen.

But I don't know of any other source that seems to test so thoroughly and with such a long history of experience in doing this, where I can compare two entire tests side by side.

So far what I've seen in their tests seem to align with my personal findings, see the sound stage thing for instance. Superlux callibrated is super close to Sennheiser, almost no difference in terms of frequency response. But even if I spend 10 hours testing both side by side, I might not catch every single detail. That's why I am asking here how people would interpret these measurements for distortion and phasing mismatch. Not everything that is noticeable during measurements is a real life problem, so I'd need someone to confirm or correct whether or not these two particular things look problematic on the Superlux.

 

[FTB]

I don't know what audio reproduction accuracy is supposed to be, because this doesn't seem to be something they review on the regular. Regarding your findings, I wouldn't dismiss rtings just because of that.. could be that you had a faulty unit, or they had one, or their measurements are correct while you just subjectively disagree, which can of course happen.

But I don't know of any other source that seems to test so thoroughly and with such a long history of experience in doing this, where I can compare two entire tests side by side.

So far what I've seen in their tests seem to align with my personal findings, see the sound stage thing for instance. Superlux callibrated is super close to Sennheiser, almost no difference in terms of frequency response. But even if I spend 10 hours testing both side by side, I might not catch every single detail. That's why I am asking here how people would interpret these measurements for distortion and phasing mismatch. Not everything that is noticeable during measurements is a real life problem, so I'd need someone to confirm or correct whether or not these two particular things look problematic on the Superlux.

"audio reproduction accuracy" is the average note they give on the top of the test page.
Not a problem of unit.
Amir's and Oratory measurements show how the FT1 perform compare to the K371... You can see here on the thread of the FT1 measurements what people can think about these headphones...
RTings measurements are not based on the Harman research.

 

[kemmler3D]

But why would HRTF or the fact that you could as well have a pair of monitors that deviate from someone's measurements be something headphone exclusive?

Even if you tune your studio monitors the sound should come in different for you based on your ear shape, shouldn't it?

The sound does come in different for everyone. HRTF is different for everyone. It's due to the shape of your head / body.

However, your brain expects sound that is filtered by your personal HRTF, and effectively removes it from what you hear.

When the sound bypasses your body and thereby your HTRF via headphones, your brain still expects to hear it WITH the HRTF. So the headphone must compensate for that.

Since everyone's HRTF is different, coming up with a target curve that works for everyone is hard. It's doubly hard because measuring headphones accurately compared to what people hear is very hard at high frequencies.

Speakers don't have this problem, which is why a flat speaker is flat for everybody, but a flat headphone isn't flat for everybody.

...

It's sort of like RIAA equalization. The studio adds RIAA EQ to a record. Your phono stage takes it back out again when you play the record. But if you plug a CD player into a phono stage, it won't sound right because the CD doesn't have RIAA EQ. That's sort of like what happens for speakers vs. headphones, except everyone has a different "EQ".