Harman is working on a new IEM target curve

[solderdude]

No, simulating much of the body is outside the scope of ear simulators. They provide an acoustic load the the device-under-test that is similar to the acoustic load presented by the human ear.
There is no muscle in the human body that significantly affects the acoustic load provided by the ear.

Correct, that is outside the scope of ear simulators. Again, an ear simulator does not simulate your hearing, that is not the goal.
The goal is to present the sound source (the loudspeaker in the earphone) with an acoustic load similar to the acoustic load presented by the human ear.

Doing things for profit is not counter indicative to getting good results (nor is it indicative of it..)

Finally some sensible (technical) things coming back into the thread. This is purely a technical thing.

I would like to add that the acoustic load present by certain standards 'represents' (kind of close) some 'average' of human models that was found.
It does not have to be an actual representation of your, mine or someone else's actual acoustic load nor does it include variances in hearing after the ear drum nor the brain (perception). This is a confounding variable as soon as people's opinions on what they hear comes into the mix.
This is where the targets come in. Correlation with sound + correction of the fixtures 'modifications due to the, in the standard described, ear canal with correct inserting depth/seal for IEMs.
Standards are good to ensure repeatable results between fixtures adhering to the same standards under 'perfect' circumstances. There are quite a few 'aids' to ensure that in lab conditions with special fixtures.

The trick that is now onto Harman is to find out the correlation between individual hearing/perception and the relation between say a specific GRAS standard and the BK5128 or derivatives. Curious to learn what they learned at Harman and how their new target differs from the old one and if they manage to get consistent results with BK.

 

[IAtaman]

I would like to add that the acoustic load present by certain standards 'represents' (kind of close) some 'average' that was found.
It is not an actual representation of your, mine or someone else's actual acoustic load nor does it include variances in hearing after the ear drum nor the brain (perception)

Do you have any idea how much personal differences vary - is it a sharp and tight distribution curve, or a wide one? Does it effect all FR ranges equally or some frequencies are more affected than others?

 

[solderdude]

A lot of research has been done on the variances of acoustical loads of individual ears. Above a few kHz it becomes a crap shoot with (narrow band) variations of up to 20dB.
The thing is at these high frequencies narrow band differences that are measured may not be that audible due to the way the hearing works. Averaging does help here.

Harman has done research about preference, which is another aspect. The 'tolerance' band is known and often discussed here in 'Harman target discussions'.
Seal affects mostly the lows and above a few kHz things get hairy.

Dr. Olive has clearly stated the Harman target is merely a guideline that seems to fit the majority of people. So clearly not all.
For this very reason Oratory shows which bands should be adjusted to taste (and or fit).

From a science p.o.v. it is a very good thing to have standards. Standards, however, are just that and as soon as humans are involved with their sensory input and brain things get a bit sketchy but... the science part is (should be) comparable and clear.
It would appear as if the Harman IEM target that currently exists for one particular test fixture does not seem to satisfy the majority of people. That's what they are looking into now. Possibly changing the target a little so it will fit the majority of people better. For OE headphones and speakers that seems to have crystallized nicely and I think the intend is to do the same for IEM.

The 5128 is another thing which has its own challenges.

Note this is all just how I see it. I am not a scientist, just an (electronics) engineer.

 

[alumnicesar]

science is king

 

[markanini]

I am not shaming anyone. Arguing the person instead of the argument is called ad hominem and, according to Wikipedia, the distinction was created by (funnily enough) ancient Greeks. Blame them.

The difference is that I am:
1. Not arguing. I'm giving commentary about activity bearing a likeness to influence techniques, that are well researched, and frequently used in commercial enterprise. It's up to you to decide if it's more than a coincidence. I trust that smart people don't criticize such commentary, lest they are commited to making a mountain of logical fallacies, thus not smart.

2. Commenting outside of a the personal realm, because a) The people are connected with a commercial organisation b) Any other person acting the same would make me give the same commentary.

 

[amirm]

Standards here don't need to be precise. We have wide variance in what we like. On top of that, we adapt to tonality.

 

[IAtaman]

What do you gentlemen think about the new visualization method headphones.com started using to present headphone measurement data? If I understood it correctly, they are showing the FR graph compensated to flat DF, taking the measurement rig TF out of the equation, and with preference boundaries marked on the graph instead of a target line. It takes some getting used to but I personally like that the measurement rig TF is not part of the representation, making it a bit more ‘universal’ if you will, and the fact that the preference is given as a range instead of a line to Amir’a point. Do you think maybe the new Harman target will follow a similar approach as well?

 

[solderdude]

Do you think maybe the new Harman target will follow a similar approach as well?

The Harman target will remain the same. This is about preference of the majority of listeners. In other words where the biggest sales are. This is what set out the research. Based on perception.

Standards exists so measurements can be repeatable and comparable so need to be precise, otherwise it isn't a standard.
The problem is that multiple standards exist and different viewpoints exist on what targets should be.

A problem here is that unlike measurements of and calibration of measurement systems, which there is for DF for instance there is no actual reference for lets say an IEM, an on-ear or an over-ear headphone. There simply is not a standard headphone produced with extremely tight tolerances.
Instead, as a starting point, a fixture's DF (which is a standard) is used and a target is put on top of that. Unfortunately DF differs from sounds coming from the sides in a small closed spaced.
It is a bit like calibrating a voltmeter with a random 9V battery which is only checked that it can produce a 'salty' taste when applied to a tongue.
A reference is needed and that should conform tightly within specs (standard).

Harman target includes preference and room simulation.
Other targets may exist alongside Harman to either satisfy people that prefer a different tonality or listen at different SPL or for whatever reason.

Personally I think one should measure and only compensate the changes made by the fixture opposite equal loudness of all frequencies and possibly plot deviations (targets) in the same plot. This could be Harman or whatever personal favorite of measurebators could be.
Think 'optimum hifi' or 'room curves' or whatever other 'tilt' people may come up with for their own reasons (personal perception of tonality).

Not going to happen though. It will always remain a not standardized thing I am afraid confusing 'ordinary people' that happen to see a plot.

 

[alumnicesar]

What do you gentlemen think about the new visualization method headphones.com is started using to present headphone measurement data? If I understood it correctly, they are showing the FR graph compensated to flat DF, taking the measurement rig TF out of the equation, and with preference boundaries marked on the graph instead of a target line. It takes some getting used to but I personally like that the measurement rig TF is not part of the representation, making it a bit more ‘universal’ if you will, and the fact that the preference is given as a range instead of a line to Amir’a point. Do you think maybe the new Harman target will follow a similar approach as well?

It looks good, especially since df -10db tilt is on the lower half of the bass preference.

Oratory posted that df -14db is the best fit (gets a 100% preference score!): https://x.com/oratory1990/status/1716023189103370371?s=46&t=tkkcgPO032AXpvNA6m_m5Q

 

[solderdude]

So another 'target' will be born that is supposed to be close to an already existing 'standard' ,namely Harman OE, but differs a few dB here and there.

 

[restorer-john]

So another 'target' will be born that is supposed to be close to an existing 'standard' ,namely Harman OE, but differs a few dB here and there.

Targets are only there for people to shoot at. Like all targets, they always end up full of holes...

 

[solderdude]

Targets are only there for people to shoot at. Like all targets, they always end up full of holes...

yet... so true.

 

[IAtaman]

The Harman target will remain the same. This is about preference of the majority of listeners. In other words where the biggest sales are. This is what set out the research. Based on perception.

Maybe I was not clear about the question. What I was trying to say is do you think maybe the new Harman IE target will be provided as a range instead of a single line as it is the case with hp.com representation.

Standards exists so measurements can be repeatable and comparable so need to be precise, otherwise it isn't a standard.

That is one use of standards, what you are describing can be more precisely referred to as a standard protocol, or standard procure maybe, but it is not a good generalization of what is the use of a standards. More generally standards exists so that different components from different manufactures and industries and countries can work together seamlessly, to allow for better and more accurate integration; so that you don't have to take your light bulb socket with you to the supermarket to make sure the bulb you are buying fits into your socket.

In the case of a tuning standard, the objective is the latter - not to make everyone like the Harman target, but to make systems of production and reproduction better integrated by sticking to a single standard. So to Amir's point, a standard just needs to be good enough and agreed upon for it to be able to serve its purpose, it does not need to be God's given truth. E.g. there is nothing specially great about 29.97 frames per second, other than the fact that it makes TVs work in the US.

But then again, it is quite unlikely you would not be aware of all that, so why this "selective perception"?

The problem is that multiple standards exist and different viewpoints exist on what targets should be.

I have only read one tweet from Oratory on this topic and I did not read anything that gave me the impression that he is trying to work out an alternative target for OE headphones.

 

[Jeromeof]

What do you gentlemen think about the new visualization method headphones.com is started using to present headphone measurement data? If

I like it but I was wondering a few things about where the boundaries around the Harman target came from e.g.

This picture below from the HP.com discord channel:

I would have thought the Harman target should be the centre of the range of values but especially in the bass region its the upper end of the range. This sort of indicates to me that there is a stronger preference for less bass then more bass than the harman 2018 "average".

 

[solderdude]

Maybe I was not clear about the question. What I was trying to say is do you think maybe the new Harman IE target will be provided as a range instead of a single line as it is the case with hp.com representation.

Unlikely. Tolerance bands are usually described in the standards so is already included but usually not made visible. The graph above is an example of this (target + tolerance band).

I really liked the ones Oratory made for headphones with various seatings with a greyed band around the average.
Tyll also did something similar but just showed a lot of traces overlaying each other.

 

[solderdude]

More generally standards exists so that different components from different manufactures and industries and countries can work together seamlessly, to allow for better and more accurate integration; so that you don't have to take your light bulb socket with you to the supermarket to make sure the bulb you are buying fits into your socket.

Headphones and ear phones do not adhere to such standards. All of them have different fits, adjustment capabilities. There is no 'standard' to which headphones need to be build.
Of course for the production of each device there are dimensions and tolerances. This is not a standard. The standards used in metrology also is what is under debate here. That is determined by the fixture manufacturer.

What is being debated and looked into is the target response. A single one that is supposed to kind of be near an average preferred sound.
This is not a standard nor described in standards of measurement fixtures.

 

[IAtaman]

I really liked the ones Oratory made for headphones with various seatings with a greyed band around the average.

Yes, me too. Variability of the headphone FR based on seating is an important parameter to understand I believe, both pragmatically ie. if you have long hair, or glasses or a beard, and also from a theoretical/engineering point of view. A product less prone to variations in real life is a better product everything else being equal in my opinion.

Headphones and ear phones do not adhere to such standards. All of them have different fits, adjustment capabilities. There is no 'standard' to which headphones need to be build.
Of course for the production of each device there are dimensions and tolerances. This is not a standard. The standards used in metrology also is what is under debate here. That is determined by the fixture manufacturer.

What is being debated and looked into is the target response. A single one that is supposed to kind of be near an average preferred sound.
This is not a standard nor described in standards of measurement fixtures.

I have a different understanding. The standard Amir is referring to is a "tuning standard". It has nothing to do with materials, designs, technologies used etc. If I understand correctly, he is saying that if we had one standard tuning that can be used across the industry, we would be able to minimize the problems created by the Circle of Confusion, so that the tonality of the headphone a sound engineer is using to mix the master, and the tonality of the headphone a consumer is using to enjoy it is at least somewhat comparable, as opposed to the case today with each manufacturer having their own "house sound" contributing to the Circle of Confusion. And I gather there is evidence, albeit anecdotal, to support this claim as well. I read online people say mixes made by Manny Marroquin sounded much much better on MM-500 for example, apparently because he used that headphone to create the said mixes. For a tuning standard to work, you don't need a better target response and you don't need precision. You just need one standard, ideally close to good but not necessarily perfect. Coincidentally I think this is one of the reasons why the discussion between Amir and hp.com people fell apart so badly in my view - they were simply talking about different objectives.

 

[solderdude]

Amir is using an industry standard fixture that is very similar (but not exactly the same) as the one used in Harman research.
Amir chose to use the Harman target as compensation + target ffrom a certain date and OE headphones (which to me are different things but can't be seen separate).
For IEMs Amir uses the IEM target as given by Harman (also from a certain date).
That IEM target is currently being 'updated' (possibly depending on the research done currently).

The circle of confusion will only get bigger when new 'standards' are created and new 'targets' are created. That's the sad truth.

The circle of confusion could be smaller if ALL studios EQ'ed their monitors to the exact same 'standard'.
Not ever going to happen so the circle will exist.

 

[Da cynics]

NFS for speakers is also including a calculated target (an imaginary room).

I may be completely off...
From what I've read in this thread, I think you're wrong.

Understanding How the Klippel NFS Works

Questions regarding how the Klippel NFS works are raised in many of Amir's speaker reviews. Thomas has suggested starting a thread on this topics and here I am. I am starting this thread with a brief description of the basic principles behind the NFS. You can find much further details on the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The problem is that it really does not say anything at all other than comparative.

The very reason why I support the idea of ["raw" performance]
Covering the ear, with the sound source in its immediate vicinity, or in the ear canal...
In such a highly unnatural and highly individualistic situation, we should stop at "its own measurement".・・・

 

[solderdude]

From what I've read in this thread, I think you're wrong.

Consider what the 'estimated in-room response' plot and 'early reflections' plots from the Klippel are based on.