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

[Jimbob54]

I think this is worth repeating, as there sometimes seems to be an attitude that something's wrong with the listener if the various PEQ filters that move things closer to the Harman curve aren't liked.

To quote from the public preso:

”Harman curve Lovers”: This group, which constitutes 64% of listeners, includes mostly a broad spectrum of people, although they’re generally under age 50. They prefer headphones tuned close to the Harman curve.

“More Bass Is Better”: This next group, which makes up 15% of listeners, prefers headphones with 3 to 6dB more bass than Harman curve below 300Hz, and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is predominantly male and younger — the listeners JBL is targeting with its headphones.

“Less Bass Is Better”: This group, 21% of listeners, prefers 2 to 3dB less bass than the Harman curve and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is disproportionately female and older than 50.”


So in a nutshell, 36% of the listeners, overall, don't prefer the Harman curve, which is a sizable chunk.

Weirdly, (or perhaps because of) given I play bass, I fall in the "Less Bass is Better" camp.


So the question then becomes:

If you're in one of the outlier groups, what EQ target should you normalize to?

I agree on the first point and there are very clear examples throughout the various threads of exactly that articulation.

On the point around alternative targets- I rather like Oratory1990's approach on some but not all of his EQ papers where he indicates which of the filters can be varied and what attribute they aim at. This presumably is in line with how the Harman HP curve was created by allowing the listeners a degree of tweaking on, eg , the levels of bass.

 

[nhatlam96]

I always find the harman mids perfect. The only thing I adjust a little is bass and treble. I prefer 1-2db less bass and 1-2db more treble.

 

[Feelas]

What do you mean by an ultimate curve?

One fit all, obviously. I guess we should drop the lexical challenges now, since it's just me thinking that some want to fight Harman because of being afraid of there being an universal approximation, where there cannot be one and they just don't understand what "averaging" means.

 

[watchnerd]

One fit all, obviously. I guess we should drop the lexical challenges now, since it's just me thinking that some want to fight Harman because of being afraid of there being an universal approximation, where there cannot be one and they just don't understand what "averaging" means.

Well, they're not just lexical challenges. They're important concepts.

IMHO, an improved version of the techniques used by audiologists to make custom IEMs is a more likely path to a true innovation breakthrough that leads to some kind of universal methodology, even if the specific curves would be tailored individually via software.

Apple would probably have to be the one that does it, as they have enough scale to fund an R&D effort like that, have an earbud business, have a big software ecosystem, and can afford to invest in the new technologies needed and charge enough, with enough sales volume, to offset the cost.

 

[preload]

Apple would probably have to be the one that does it, as they have enough scale to fund an R&D effort like that, have an earbud business, have a big software ecosystem, and can afford to invest in the new technologies needed and charge enough, with enough sales volume, to offset the cost.

Then they can give away free earbuds with every purchase of their self-driving car.

 

[bluefuzz]

Perhaps I'm being naïve here, but surely the point of the Harman curve is to produce a subjectively even frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz without any lumps and bumps? Just as the commonly accepted response for loudspeakers in room is a gently (~10 dB)downward sloping response from 20 Hz - 20 kHz. To my thinking this is what we should be aiming for in a headphones response n'est pas?

It's not really hard to test whether the Harman curve produces such a response. REW (or similar) is able save a set of 1/3 octave sine tones and/or band limited pink noise bursts (can be easier to judge relative loudness levels) which can be played through ones player of choice with or without calibration. If they sound even – no obvious jumps between adjacent tones - and roughly equal in loudness then the calibration is 'accurate'.

So over the weekend I have been doing just that. I had originally calibrated my headphones with the MiniDSP EARS 'HEQ' profile which I have been quite happy with. I have since remeasured my 'phones with the 'RAW' calibration wich only corrects for the mic capsule differences. I then loaded the Harman 2018 curve as 'house curve' in REW and did a new set of curves for my various cans.

The Harman curve differs from the HEQ curve in having a bit more energy at ~20Hz but rather less in the upper bass at ~200Hz. Harman has a good bit more energy between 1200 and 3500 Hz than HEQ, but HEQ has quite a steep rise around 5 kHz which Harman doesn't have. Above about 7 kHz they are roughly the same. My initial impressions is that I prefer Harman - its a bit less tubby in the upper bass, but after further listening I felt it lacked a bit of 'air'.

To cut a long story short, after repeatedly going though the series of sweeps, 1/3 octave pink noise and sines I've ended up with a new 'house curve' that is essentially indentical to Harman but with a bit deeper cut at 200 - 1400 Hz and about 3-5 dB more energy above 3300 Hz. This sounds very pleasing to my ear with the phones I have tried with this curve. Obviously not all phones can handle the deep bass which is even more 'extreme' than stock Harman, but it sure sounds good on the ones that can.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Harman curve is simply trying to achieve an even, slightly downward sloping, frequency response throughout the full spectrum. And as far as I can tell, with my admittedly somewhat rudimentary empirical testing, it achieves that quite well - with some minor tweaking to taste.

 

[Thomas savage]

No bollocks -- I like Budweiser just fine.

Although in that macro-lager genre I prefer Miller.

Beers of their style are my preference to go with pizza and taqueria food.

Miller is less gassy or was 20 years ago when I was bumming around the states drinking 24 a day lol

 

[Robin L]

Miller is less gassy or was 20 years ago when I was bumming around the states drinking 24 a day lol

Wouldn't 6 really stiff IPAs be more cost effective?

 

[watchnerd]

Miller is less gassy or was 20 years ago when I was bumming around the states drinking 24 a day lol

Yeah, less "Bud Mud".

 

[Robbo99999]

One fit all, obviously. I guess we should drop the lexical challenges now, since it's just me thinking that some want to fight Harman because of being afraid of there being an universal approximation, where there cannot be one and they just don't understand what "averaging" means.

Good point, some people get a little out of hand with their Harman Hate. If you don't like the curve just tweak the bass & treble in a Low Shelf / High Shelf fashion, then if you still don't like it maybe change the amplitude of the 3kHz hump, and then if you still don't like it then it's definitely not suited to you (probably due to physiological reasons) and then you EQ your headphones in a completely different way.....there's nothing really to hate or be hard-line against Harman. No one said everyone's gonna like it, but for most people it will be an improvement over a stock unEQ'd headphone.

 

[Sean Olive]

Hi all

With some incredible help from fellow forum members here (@pkane , @Robbo99999 , @dasdoing ) I've been able EQ my headphones to the Harman preference curve.

I started with my own favourite Focal Elegia and just today I've EQ'd my friends Aeon 2 Closed and HD800-S , all using oratory1990 EQ parameters to achieve Harman curve.

With all these headphones I really hate the Harman curve (please don't delete my account @amirm )

It sounds nothing like my nearfield desktop Genelec monitors (1m from my head).

I thought maybe it was my Focal Elegia but I have the same tonality when I eq Aeon 2 closed and HD800-S

A flat headphones curve sounds closer to the nearfield speakers to me.

It's possible that as I continue to tweak target curves and listen, that I end up preferring something between these 2 extremes of flat vs Harman curve - the journey continues, so please don't shoot.

Am I alone here in really not liking Harman preference curve? Like really not liking it

 

[Sean Olive]

You may well fall into the Segment of listeners who like the Harman Target Curve but with less bass. They constitute about 21% of the listeners we tested. The majority (64%) of listeners we tested preferred it, and 15% preferred it with more bass, believe it or not. Which segment you fall into depends on training, gender and age (hearing loss is a factor). We didn't find many people who "hated" it but it is completely possible you may.

One thing I noticed is you are comparing near-field monitors @ 1m with the headphone. Our target curve began by measuring neutral speakers in our reference listening room at 10 feet which is much further away. That could explain why the Target does not match your monitors. It was not based on near-field listening

I've just posted a YouTube video of a presentation we gave at the AES 146th Dublin Convention, "Segmentation of Listeners Based on Their Preferred Headphone Sound Quality Profiles" It explains the research behind the Harman AE/OE Headphone Target .
https://youtu.be/1nRYyd23Czk

 

[ZolaIII]

Serious question. Why do you think (human) female (as they prefer more 0 dB bass which translates to a good hearing ability in my book) here better?
Disregarding of demographic or age. I think probably because they do less to degrade it.

 

[Sean Olive]

I find the excess bass unpleasant and false on the sort of music I listen to, mainly classical, but I understand most people listen to pop music and like extra bass. I was like that for at least the first 10 years of my listening life.

I'm a classical and jazz music lover (I was trained in classical piano) and don't mind it. With 31 headphones evaluated in the listening test unfortunately we were limited to 3 piece of music but one was classical.

The bass of the AE/OE target is within 2 dB of the in-room target of a calibrated loudspeaker system in our reference listening room. The extra bass could be attributed to lack of tactile or whole body vibration you sometimes experience from loudspeakers in rooms.

 

[Sean Olive]

Serious question. Why do you think (human) female (as they prefer more 0 dB bass which translates to a good hearing ability in my book) here better?
Disregarding of demographic or age. I think probably because they do less to degrade it.

Unfortunately we only tested the hearing of the trained listeners, and not the untrained. So we can't really separate out hearing loss with the other variables Females did on average headphones with less bass but the sample size I feel is too small to make any generalized conclusions.


I recently saw a large study of hearing loss/sensitivity up to 18 kHz and females have less loss with age than males.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1351689659600969728

 

[Sean Olive]

Ditto.

I don't like the Harman curve on classical or acoustic jazz.

It's mediocre on fusion and classic rock.

It shines on synthetic pop and techno.

It was tested using classical, pop and rock. And we use jazz sometimes as well. We didn't test it on synthetic pop and techno which you say the Target Curve shines.

I don't believe in the common notion that audio equipment excels in one music genre but not the other. If we assume that most music regardless of genre is recorded and mastered on flattish speakers (anechoic flat but not in-room flat), which is a pretty assumption, then consumers should choose speakers and headphones with a similar response

That is an absolute prerequisite for solving Audio's Circle of Confusion.

 

[thewas]

If we assume that most music regardless of genre is recorded and mastered on flattish speakers (anechoic flat but not in-room flat), which is a pretty assumption, then consumers should choose speakers and headphones with a similar response

True, on the other hand from my understanding you mainly used 3 music tracks for setting the target curve for which you don't really know how they were mastered, right? If true, this would be rather a step towards continuing Audio's circle of confusion.

 

[Sean Olive]

That's perfectly valid with respect to electronics and (to a limited extent) loudspeakers, but headphones present special difficulties that make defining a "flat" response highly contentious in the first place.

@Ilkless summarised some of the difficulties and attempted resolutions in this article.

Most people loudspeakers that measure anechoically flat (around the design axis) but when we put them in semi-reflective rooms and measure the steady-state response they are no longer flat.

The measurement includes a combination of the direct sound (flat) but many reflected sounds that originate from off-axis (not flat) and are further attenutated/diffraced by the room surfaces. Add to that influence of LF room modes and boundary gain you no longer have a flat in-room measurement but something that is smooth but tilted down about 6-10 dB from 50 Hz- 15kHz. We've done studies where we equalized the loudspeaker in the room to be flat and people did not like it. It sounded too bright and thin.

If you measure the same speaker at the ear drum of a listener it is not flat either, but rather approximates the Harman Target Curve. We've tested it against the Diffuse Sound Field Target (which is flat in the bass) and listeners said it sounded flat and thin also.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I'm a classical and jazz music lover (I was trained in classical piano) and don't mind it. With 31 headphones evaluated in the listening test unfortunately we were limited to 3 piece of music but one was classical.

The bass of the AE/OE target is within 2 dB of the in-room target of a calibrated loudspeaker system in our reference listening room. The extra bass could be attributed to lack of tactile or whole body vibration you sometimes experience from loudspeakers in rooms.

I think coming up with a preference which could be universal is a thankless task, however much data you accumulate. Bravo for taking it on.
FWIW first time I bought headphones by auditioning several I did not look at the internet for opinion and asked the dealer not to tell me the price of any of the units I auditioned. I chose the AKG Q701 as having the most neutral bass on the music I listened to, only to find when I got home it was criticised in internet forums for lacking bass and, worse, available for much less if not bought from a dealer
It shows my taste is clearly not average though.

I mainly listen on speakers, daily and mainly classical. I have made music recordings for almost 60 years now. My wife is a professional musician and has more hearing loss than I do, which is a travesty.

 

[Fregly]

I find the Ety graph accurate when using classical/acoustic music and raw tracks. I understand Harman as a preference, I just do not ear it as true to source. I was on an iem kick a while back and bought a few that tracked the Harman and thought all were pretty off.