• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Harman preference curve for headphones - am I the only one that doesn't like this curve?

You're talking nonsense, there's no point having a conversation with someone who is ignoring the facts being shown. Your additional points re DF curve and it needing to be a specific DF tailored to your own physiology is also a nonsense as of course it's different for everyone.....so of course a headphone manufacturer doesn't have visibility of that (as they're not designing a headphone just for your own particular little ears with nothing inbetween:D) so has to target something so your argument is null & void and an unrelated tangent.....same would apply for Harman Curve. Fact is the HD600 fits the Harman Curve more than the Diffuse Curve. I'm done talking with you as you're not adhering the to "integrity of posting/discussion/logic". Night night.

Some nonsense from Sennheiser. I'm sure they don't know how their headphones are designed and you know better. But there's good news, Axel Grell has left Sennheiser, you can become their chief engineer!

"Explanations on the diffuse-field frequency response curve
In an anechoic chamber, 8 highly linear loudspeakers emit noise signals inde-
pendently of each other. In the central area of the chamber, the various sound
data meet and are superimposed on each other to form a diffuse field, in which
it is no longer possible to determine from which direction the sound is coming.
This noise is then varied in distances of a third and reproduced alternately
over the speakers and the headphones to be measured. A large number of test
persons then evaluate the difference in volume between the room noise and
the noise in the headphones.
The ideal state is when the volume impression between the diffuse field and
the headphones is the same. Diffuse-field equalized headphones provide
a clearly more spatial impression and make it easier to determine whether
sounds are coming from the front or rear. Put simply: The sound events take
place outside the head and are not confined to the space between the ears."
 
Some nonsense from Sennheiser. I'm sure they don't know how their headphones are designed and you know better. But there's good news, Axel Grell has left Sennheiser, you can become their chief engineer!

"Explanations on the diffuse-field frequency response curve
In an anechoic chamber, 8 highly linear loudspeakers emit noise signals inde-
pendently of each other. In the central area of the chamber, the various sound
data meet and are superimposed on each other to form a diffuse field, in which
it is no longer possible to determine from which direction the sound is coming.
This noise is then varied in distances of a third and reproduced alternately
over the speakers and the headphones to be measured. A large number of test
persons then evaluate the difference in volume between the room noise and
the noise in the headphones.
The ideal state is when the volume impression between the diffuse field and
the headphones is the same. Diffuse-field equalized headphones provide
a clearly more spatial impression and make it easier to determine whether
sounds are coming from the front or rear. Put simply: The sound events take
place outside the head and are not confined to the space between the ears."
istockphoto-531120325-612x612.jpg
 
I hope you are 12 years old. If so, no problem, good night :)
No, I'm just graphically illustrating the content/integrity/logic of your posting in way you might understand. As in that's where you're talking from. I decided to post something you might understand. Unfortunately, I've sunk to your real level, but it's clear that you're more interested in having an argument rather than a discussion.....by the nature of your posts & arguments not hanging together in logical threads from one post to the next (twisting the goal posts of our initial discussion)....you're just looking for an opportunity in each post & each reply to pick an argument. You're a troll. People who understand the subject and have somekind of an attention span will be able to see through you. I'm sorry, mods should probably delete our conversation as you succeeded in your task.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm just graphically illustrating the content/integrity/logic of your posting in way you might understand. As in that's where you're talking from. I decided to post something you might understand. Unfortunately, I've sunk to your real level, but it's clear that you're more interested in having an argument rather than a discussion.....by the nature of your posts & arguments not hanging together in logical threads from one post to the next....you're just looking for an opportunity in each post & each reply to pick an argument. You're a troll. People who understand the subject and have somekind of an attention span will be able to see through you. I'm sorry, mods should probably delete our conversation as you succeeded in your task.

Man, you started insulting me and you think I'm the troll? :) I was based on what Sennheiser wrote about diffuse field equalization. Even if I'm wrong, there is no reason to offend me. And you've had no arguments for a long time, apart from these "ad personam". Very scientific attitude...
 
Man, you started insulting me and you think I'm the troll? :) I was based on what Sennheiser wrote about diffuse field equalization. Even if I'm wrong, there is no reason to offend me. And you've had no arguments for a long time, apart from these "ad personam". Very scientific attitude...
No, that's not how I see it. I can't be bothered to trawl up the flow of postings & arguments......but you have no interest in a logical discussion.
 
No, that's not how I see it. I can't be bothered to trawl up the flow of postings & arguments......but you have no interest in a logical discussion.

Of course I'm interested. But your only logical argument was to show two charts (on a different scale). You are ignoring the fact that there are different versions of DF, the fact that many companies have been making diffuse field equalized headphones for years, Beyerdynamic, AKG, Etymotic, Sennheiser, and have achieved completely different results. And the measurement results are always averaged, no matter if you use the dummy head or real people's ears, in the end the result has to be averaged, so it doesn't fully match my or your ears when the ideal DF curve should be.
Sennheiser made the HD600 based on their diffuse field measurements, this is their version of the DF curve from that time. And they claim to have obtained results similar to Harman Target back in the 90's, but were not fully satisfied.

I think ultimately that well-designed headphones that have consistent frequency responses close to Harman will end up being solid favourites over time. Take the HD600 for instance, manufactured way back in the 1990's I believe, yet they are still being made today with a respected following - happens to track Harman Curve really well. Yes, a lot of headphones are sold on marketing and visual aesthetics as well as maybe silly things like quoted frequency response (silly stuff like specs saying 10Hz-48000Hz).....also a lot of headphones sold on the brand name alone......but my point is those are all short-lived headphone sales and are unlikely to become iconic headphones as years go by - it's not coincidence that the HD600 was so successful and continues to be so. So subjectivity does not trump objectivity, not in the long game........short term sales sure, you can get any fool to buy something, but I don't think they're likely to become long term icon headphones with ongoing manufacture & sale.

DT990, T1, K240, a lot of Grado and a lot of other headphones have been on the market for many years and have nothing to do with Harman Target. I know people who say that the GS1000i are much better, sound more realistic than any Harmna Target headphones, who gave you the right to call these people fools just because they have a different opinion, hear differently than you do?
Again, I don't mind if you like Harmna Target so much, but stop insulting people who have different views! Maybe we'd better stop talking about other people and focus on talking about headphones?
 
All Robbo was initially saying was that yes, the HD600 is tuned to a DF curve, but that is just so happens, by sheer coincidence, to also track closely to the Harman Target created years after those headphones were designed and built. This means Sennheiser had done excellent engineering before most other manufacturers when it comes to creating an accurate headphone. That’s it. Nothing more.
 
Of course I'm interested. But your only logical argument was to show two charts (on a different scale). You are ignoring the fact that there are different versions of DF, the fact that many companies have been making diffuse field equalized headphones for years, Beyerdynamic, AKG, Etymotic, Sennheiser, and have achieved completely different results. And the measurement results are always averaged, no matter if you use the dummy head or real people's ears, in the end the result has to be averaged, so it doesn't fully match my or your ears when the ideal DF curve should be.
Sennheiser made the HD600 based on their diffuse field measurements, this is their version of the DF curve from that time. And they claim to have obtained results similar to Harman Target back in the 90's, but were not fully satisfied.
I think you're arguing a different point to me.

DT990, T1, K240, a lot of Grado and a lot of other headphones have been on the market for many years and have nothing to do with Harman Target. I know people who say that the GS1000i are much better, sound more realistic than any Harmna Target headphones, who gave you the right to call these people fools just because they have a different opinion, hear differently than you do?
Again, I don't mind if you like Harmna Target so much, but stop insulting people who have different views! Maybe we'd better stop talking about other people and focus on talking about headphones?
That might be true re the other headphones you list (I'm not gonna take the time to do detailed comparisons against Harman to see how close or far they are from it). I was using the HD600 as an example, and is what we've been talking about.
All Robbo was initially saying was that yes, the HD600 is tuned to a DF curve, but that is just so happens, by sheer coincidence, to also track closely to the Harman Target created years after those headphones were designed and built. This means Sennheiser had done excellent engineering before most other manufacturers when it comes to creating an accurate headphone. That’s it. Nothing more.
Yes, exactly.
 
I was very excited when I first read about Harman Target. I bought a K371 and Buds+ because they are so close to Harman Target. And I was disappointed, especially the Buds+ sound bad in my opinion. I prefer the ER4XR much more.
Have you heard the ER4SRs? You mentioned finding the Harman target bass-heavy, just curious why the XR.

I've heard and enjoyed the HD600s and I've been considering the AKG K371 and Samsung Galaxy Buds+ to gain impressions about Harman target headphones. Still might try the K371s, though I suspect the Buds+ like many IEMs are going to be fit-dependent.

Super curious about the HD560S. It could be the sweet spot between HD600 DF and Harman.
 
Have you heard the ER4SRs? You mentioned finding the Harman target bass-heavy, just curious why the XR.

I've heard and enjoyed the HD600s and I've been considering the AKG K371 and Samsung Galaxy Buds+ to gain impressions about Harman target headphones. Still might try the K371s, though I suspect the Buds+ like many IEMs are going to be fit-dependent.

Super curious about the HD560S. It could be the sweet spot between HD600 DF and Harman.

Sorry, I don't have ER4SR, I'm sure they're great but I prefer a little more bass. I also like the ER3XR which are a little darker than the ER4XR.

Buds+ has significantly more sub-bass than the ER4XR or ER3XR. I also have problems with highs in Buds+, sounds a bit strange and unnatural. Have you considered Moondrop Starfield? The sound signature is very close to the Harman Target, but they sound nicer than the Buds+ in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Why should headphones be excused from accurate reproduction? In an ideal world all headphones would sound the same as there can only be one 'correct' frequency response. Whether we can actually achieve that response in practise, or even measure it accurately, is another matter ...
Maybe turning inaccuracy of sound (distorted reproduction of sound that somebody meticulously engineered other ways) into a hobby is a mistake in itself? Coming for a pragmatist, maybe attaching emotion to reproduction in itself is a terrible effort on it's own and it surely steals the time and minds from analysing the music underneath, as seemingly smooth jazz is what audiophiles love to by into and I believe they wouldn't if not the endorsement and seemingly "pristine" production. Whole lifetime spent watching technology demoes instead of real movies?

Own two cents: let's be honest here - striving to sound "different" is oftentimes just to be noticed at conventions and trade shows and is mostly a type of bullcrap-selling trade practice, abusing short-term preferences which doesn't necessarily translate into long-term enjoyment of actual music and not producer's vision of distorting the crap out of the records... I cannot tell anyone not to enjoy that; but perhaps we should try to enjoy the records?

And perhaps we, as the customers, should strive to better the neutral-reference point, as that'd let us better assess what type of distortion we like, instead of wondering whether a currently-used customer-preference scoring system is correct.

As K371s show, it is possible to do something controversial which is very plastic - after all, having bass shelved upwards w/ low THD always allows for EQ correction downwards, so I guess nobody loses anything?
 
Last edited:
@Sean Olive so what does that mean? How Harman current curve is only good for average Joe who is male between 50 and 60 with average hearing loss? At least acording to that research data.
In the real world one size fit them all never worked.
Not interested in Harman curve per see but direct response from hedaphones (no EQ-ing). In that regard it's better to have it as close as possible to Harman or even above it because lowering it down (with EQ) wont introduced additional distortion in fact it will lower it down contrary to pushing it up.
Not sure where you got this idea that the Harman Target Curve is only for males between 50 and 60 with average hearing loss. The target curve satisfies 64% of the listeners we tested and this includes members from all ages, listening experiences, and gender. What research data are you referring to?
 
Not sure where you got this idea that the Harman Target Curve is only for males between 50 and 60 with average hearing loss. The target curve satisfies 64% of the listeners we tested and this includes members from all ages, listening experiences, and gender. What research data are you referring to?
I don't have any valid research data. Its not my preference, for me bass boosted under 1 KHz over the midrange destroy part of information in mids and I definitely don't use it. If you have more valid research data (proper done with at least intermediate number of samples) I would like to see it. Please don't bring one done on employees (no one saine will approve that). I am not claiming that people don't like it like that just want to try and found out why. I agree it's a convenient mid ground (Harman preference hedaphone curve) for those who do and those who don't but personally I don't like to EQ it (hedaphones) when I am doing any serious work (mixing - mastering) so it doesn't work for that regarding me.
 
I don't have any valid research data. Its not my preference, for me bass boosted under 1 KHz over the midrange destroy part of information in mids and I definitely don't use it. If you have more valid research data (proper done with at least intermediate number of samples) I would like to see it. Please don't bring one done on employees (no one saine will approve that). I am not claiming that people don't like it like that just want to try and found out why. I agree it's a convenient mid ground (Harman preference hedaphone curve) for those who do and those who don't but personally I don't like to EQ it (hedaphones) when I am doing any serious work (mixing - mastering) so it doesn't work for that regarding me.
Try the 2013 Harman Curve, the blue one in the first pic of this post - in fact this is the curve that most accurately mimics an anechoic flat speaker in a listening room as it is a direct translation of the Harman Curve for speakers into what would be measured at the eardrum of a dummy head within that room, there is no extra bass added onto the 2013 Curve. I know this because in REW software I applied the downwards tilt of the Harman Speaker Curve to the baseline dummy head measurement of in-room flat EQ'd speakers (tracing the graphs of the Harman research), and this directly equalled the 2013 Headphone Harman Curve - so the 2013 Headphone Harman Curve is the most neutral headphone curve you could use if you agree with the downwards tilt & shape of the Harman Curve for speakers which is very similar to how an anechoic flat speaker would behave in a room.

Overlay-of-Harman-over-ear-headphone-and-in-ear-monitor-curves.-1100x589.jpg


Basically, the blue line in the above graph is the same thing as the black line in the following graph (which is the Harman speaker curve, black line in following graph):
Harman Speaker in room response.jpg


EDIT: if you've already got a Harman Curve EQ'd headphone, eg you're using an Oratory EQ, then you can use the EqualiserAPO config file attached to the end of this post to convert your Oratory EQ (2018 Harman Curve) to the 2013 Harman Curve, obviously you'd still keep your Oratory EQ activated, but you'd activate the attached config file too, which does the conversion process:
 

Attachments

  • Harman 2018 to 2013.txt
    224 bytes · Views: 118
Last edited:
So it's a preference of a preference which tries to mimic something which it isn't and changed true time. Not very convincing, I hope you would agree. Only thing I agree is that I would try to boost speakers a bit at 30 Hz up to 60~70 in falling down manner and only if driver can take it. Wouldn't tame it down before 8 KHz and only a little if they feel bright. I even prefer slight boots in mids. Now the hedaphones are entirely different thing superior when it comes to lows reproduction (because energy there fades fast and distance makes a big difference). So why would I want them to mimic speakers (especially if they can get all the way down to 20 Hz)? This is a big question for both parties (Harman and Fostex - Foster alike) all do they "prefer" very different "preferred" curve they try to do the sama with hedaphones. For me old raw diffuse field (study dating back to 80's) have much more sense preference aside and letting drivers do what they can.
diffuse.JPG
 
Last edited:
the strangest thing with the bass boost are (spoken) male voices. I once tested a boost and male voices sounded like they where in a tiny bath room, while on screen they were in big spaces
 
the strangest thing with the bass boost are (spoken) male voices. I once tested a boost and male voices sounded like they where in a tiny bath room, while on screen they were in big spaces
Yes that's where its easiest to hear how they overlap mids which is exactly why the male vocals (500 to 1500 Hz) sound pushed back.
 
Last edited:
Yes that's where its easiest to hear how they overlap mids which is exactly why the male vocals (750 to 1500 Hz) sound pushed back.

I am actualy taking about below 200Hz content in the male voice. it just sounds so unatural. and spoken human is the best test you can have, since it is the sound we most know how it should sound.
 
I am actualy taking about below 200Hz content in the male voice. it just sounds so unatural. and spoken human is the best test you can have, since it is the sound we most know how it should sound.
In that region to me it's more about response time resonance. Harman actually have a drop there and boost is up to 150 (where specter is always hottest). But a drop of 2 dB + bost of 3 below is 5 dB which is more than enough to mask anything in the area from 200 all the way up to 1 KHz where its 0+3.
 
Back
Top Bottom