Harman curve for loudspeakers

[sigbergaudio]

I don't think you understand what I did there, maybe read it again? the direct sound IS (kind off-ish) the anechoic response in my LP

btw: my room has a lot of absorbtion, 6 corners, sidewalls, ceiling, 3/4 of backwall....Harman test subjects would create a totaly diferent curve in my room

I'm pretty sure your room isn't anechoic. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Have you completely covered all surfaces in the room? Can you post a waterfall of the direct response perhaps.

EDIT: Either way the point stands that a flat curve like this shouldn't be the target curve for 99% of home systems out there, they should aim for a 1dB/Octave drop.

 

[dasdoing]

I'm pretty sure your room isn't anechoic. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Have you completely covered all surfaces in the room? Can you post a waterfall of the direct response perhaps.

EDIT: Either way the point stands that a flat curve like this shouldn't be the target curve for 99% of home systems out there, they should aim for a 1dB/Octave drop.

I mentioned my absorbtion in the room so you understand that in my room the overall sound has much more direct sound then a tipical room which has much more reflected sound. I am pretty sure the direct sound in the Harman room is close to flat (ignoring the bass boost). what makes the overall sound have the extreme fall is the reflected sound component. not sure if I explained it better.
in other words: the more reflections you have, the more your curve should fall.

"your room isn't anechoic"
the direct sound windowing (tries to) filters the reflected sound, so it is basicly the anechoic response

 

[dasdoing]

in more other words:
if you use a speaker outside in a field, a Harman curve would be terrible dull. my room is closer to outside (since part of the reflective surfaces are acusticly hidden) then a normal reflective room

 

[JonK]

Hi All,

First time poster here, long time lurker..

I have a home studio/listening room which I've treated with heavy absorption in first reflections and light second reflection absorption. light rear wall scatter. 2x tuned bass traps @ 63hz. I don't know if this is considered well treated or not, but it works for me.

I'm chiming in to show 1/3 smoothed response and waterfall from my Focal SM9 monitors in my room for comparison to the Harman Curve. The Focal SM9 has a very flat anechoic response.

I personally love this response and my mixes translate well - when i get to them these days =) I do get to listen all day as this room doubles as my now work from home office.

EDIT: I forgot to mention is there is no EQ or DSP here and natural roll off after 1k (81.1DB) to 20khz (73.0) is 8.1DB. This was measured at a max SPL of 93.9 DB (@ 39.7hz). Also added 2nd and 3rd harmonic along with total harmonic for fun.

-Jon

 

[pozz]

Hi All,

First time poster here, long time lurker..

I have a home studio/listening room which I've treated with heavy absorption in first reflections and light second reflection absorption. light rear wall scatter. 2x tuned bass traps @ 63hz. I don't know if this is considered well treated or not, but it works for me.

I'm chiming in to show 1/3 smoothed response and waterfall from my Focal SM9 monitors in my room for comparison to the Harman Curve. The Focal SM9 has a very flat anechoic response.

I personally love this response and my mixes translate well - when i get to them these days =) I do get to listen all day as this room doubles as my now work from home office.

-Jon

Can you please post your mdat?

Your speaker measured anechoically, for reference: https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/der-studiomonitor-focal-sm9-im-test/

 

[JonK]

Can you please post your mdat?

Your speaker measured anechoically, for reference: https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/der-studiomonitor-focal-sm9-im-test/

of course. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y6PzyYsgL0vojN0sFpwkSFKpGERPXTU6/view?usp=sharing

chain: Lynx AES16E -> Topping D90 -> Schiit Freya + -> Focal SM9

measurement: miniDSP UMIK-1

 

[pozz]

of course. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y6PzyYsgL0vojN0sFpwkSFKpGERPXTU6/view?usp=sharing

chain: Lynx AES16E -> Topping D90 -> Schiit Freya + -> Focal SM9

measurement: miniDSP UMIK-1

Thanks. Here's a more realistic view with 1/12 and Psychoacoustic smoothing, 50dbB/decade scaling:

You can see similar trends in the S&R measurements.

I'd imagine you have pretty good sound apart from sensitivity to vertical position of your head (it shows up in the broadband dip around 2kHz in your measurements).

 

[JonK]

Thanks. Here's a more realistic view with 1/12 and Psychoacoustic smoothing, 50dbB/decade scaling:

You can see similar trends in the S&R measurements.

I'd imagine you have pretty good sound apart from sensitivity to vertical position of your head (it shows up in the broadband dip around 2kHz in your measurements).

nice! thank you.

As mentioned, I do like the response in my room right now. interesting to see the comparison to the S&R measurements.

I'm working on lowering my monitors about 6 inches. I'm going to do another set of measurements to see what difference it makes.

 

[pozz]

nice! thank you.

As mentioned, I do like the response in my room right now. interesting to see the comparison to the S&R measurements.

I'm working on lowering my monitors about 6 inches. I'm going to do another set of measurements to see what difference it makes.

The chief thing is that your monitors have their main response even within +/-10 degrees if I'm reading the measurements right. So that range should encompass your various head positions at the listening position. If not, you'll hear variations.

 

[JonK]

The chief thing is that your monitors have their main response even within +/-10 degrees if I'm reading the measurements right. So that range should encompass your various head positions at the listening position. If not, you'll hear variations.

My main problem is that I have them up above my desk aiming down. If I had to guess I'm right outside -10 degrees. The 6 inches should get me right in that sweet spot. I can verify with some sweeps.

 

[thewas]

You can see similar trends in the S&R measurements.

Even better compared to the spatial average of the S&R measurements around their listening position, both show the directivity problems making the region between 4-7 kHz elevated:

 

[JonK]

Even better compared to the spatial average of the S&R measurements around their listening position, both show the directivity problems making the region between 4-7 kHz elevated:

View attachment 164615

will do! Thank you

 

[audio2design]

I also thought and hoped so in the beginning, but it isn't, it was derived by EQing the Revels first to measure flat at the listeners position (mistake #1) and then by listeners adjusting bass and treble to their liking (mistake #2) by listening to some music (mistake #3 - audios circle of confusion).
In the end fortunately by the adjustments the average listeners chose it luckily doesn't measure measure very different than the Revels without any EQ except the lower bass.

Just same across this thread. Agree totally.

 

[audio2design]

the later will have no bass boom and treated first reflection points which will alter the percieved brightness

my reasoning is the following: we shouldn't recreate the average well set-up listening room, but the average mastering engenier's room; because this is what the music has been balanced to. the problem is that (HF) curves don't seam to translate between rooms

Now if you could only calibrate the person doing the mastering .....

 

[dasdoing]

Now if you could only calibrate the person doing the mastering .....

they "calibrate" using references.

 

[audio2design]

they "calibrate" using references.

Define how you calibrate a person to a reference.

 

[dasdoing]

Define how you calibrate a person to a reference.

note the ""
they compare the balance of their work to existing references.
it kind of works for a customor's pov if you stay in the same genre

 

[Deleted member 4708]

Read this thread and still not sure why Dirac targets flat frequency response on my speakers while my headphones are EQd according to Harman curve. They are both at the target (ear)... Anyone can clearly hear the timbral difference.
If you target flat EQ at the listener position and Harman 2017 for headphones how are the 2 expected to sound the same?

 

[Everett T]

Read this thread and still not sure why Dirac targets flat frequency response on my speakers while my headphones are EQd according to Harman curve. They are both at the target (ear)... Anyone can clearly hear the timbral difference.
If you target flat EQ at the listener position and Harman 2017 for headphones how are the 2 expected to sound the same?

Two different methods of arrival. There is a thread on hear about measuring headphones that might be a good read if you are familiar with room correction already.

Also, I really don't like EQing above the transition frequency unless something is terribly off. It tends to sound unnatural to me. Those things are completely different when we look at headphones and their perceptions as flat would sound disastrous on headphones.

 

[Deleted member 4708]

Two different methods of arrival. There is a thread on hear about measuring headphones that might be a good read if you are familiar with room correction already.

Also, I really don't like EQing above the transition frequency unless something is terribly off. It tends to sound unnatural to me. Those things are completely different when we look at headphones and their perceptions as flat would sound disastrous on headphones.

Hmm - some kind of summation of reflections + direct sound I will guess. I will try finding that thread.
The timbral difference I hear can be attributed to room interactions. One thing I am yet to try is EQ only under 1K for example