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

[Sean Olive]

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.

We show evidence in our papers that the preferred bass /treble varies with music recordings and that until the recording industry adopts a meaningful monitoring standard there is no perfect curve to satisfy all recordings which are inconsistentThat is a fact of life. That is what tone controls are for.

The tracks we chose have been thoroughly tested over the years with hundreds of loudspeakers and headphones and we have evidence they produce discriminating and reliable ratings in the tests. They also tend to produce the highest ratings on products that technically measure well.

Some of the tracks (e.g. Jennifer Warnes, James Taylor) are recorded by people I personally know like George Massenburg & Frank Filipetti so there is some traceability and pedigree to their origins

 

[Sean Olive]

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.

The AKG K701 is a neutral headphone except it lacks low bass below 75- 100 Hz. It is like listening to an accurate bookshelf speaker which many people find satisfying. It would score ~70% based on the Harman Target Curve, not a bad score in the population of headphones out there.

 

[Robin L]

The AKG K701 is a neutral headphone except it lacks low bass below 75- 100 Hz. It is like listening to an accurate bookshelf speaker which many people find satisfying. It would score ~70% based on the Harman Target Curve, not a bad score in the population of headphones out there.

How would AKG K371 headphones score?

 

[Feelas]

@Sean Olive do You think that omitting the 12kHz+ range in FR emulation (as that is, if I remember correctly, what was done) mattered a lot to the score - essentialy the pre-12kHz FR was "glued" onto K712's upper treble range - or does that range in general contribute not enough to care about it, especially in light of problems with transferability of GRAS measurements onto test subjects?

I am wondering whether the tonal balance could be upset (or non-realistic) because the original FR is perceived differently with the original 12k+ range, rather than 0-12kHz from pairs + 12kHz from K712?

What is the target curve you use for the far-field listening and which was used as a reference for tonal balance during the headphone study?

 

[Sean Olive]

What is the difficulty in defining a flat response? I would say the ety er4s has a technically and objectively flat response.

"Flat" depends on what sort of sound field (free-field, diffuse field, semi-reflective listening room) you are measuring in and the directivity of the sound source. If you measure the sound source at the listeners' ear drum in each of those sound fields you will get a completely different response.

I decided that the current DF and FF standards are not representative of typical listening conditions used to listen to loudspeakers. So we measured a speaker in a semi-reflective room and decided that is "flat" We then validated it by comparing that "flat" to DF and FF and found people preferred the listening room "flat"

I've had many conversations over decades with the founder of Etymotic Dr. Mead Killion about the tuning of their headphones, which are closer to DF, particularly the bass which is flat. I think their headphones are excellent except they are thin in the bass.

 

[Matias]

I created a poll to have some quantitative opinions.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...get-curve-for-headphones-bass-response.19809/

 

[solderdude]

How would AKG K371 headphones score?

By crinacle: B rated
by Harman: 89
By Rtings: 74

 

[Sean Olive]

@Sean Olive do You think that omitting the 12kHz+ range in FR emulation (as that is, if I remember correctly, what was done) mattered a lot to the score - essentialy the pre-12kHz FR was "glued" onto K712's upper treble range - or does that range in general contribute not enough to care about it, especially in light of problems with transferability of GRAS measurements onto test subjects?

I am wondering whether the tonal balance could be upset (or non-realistic) because the original FR is perceived differently with the original 12k+ range, rather than 0-12kHz from pairs + 12kHz from K712?

What is the target curve you use for the far-field listening and which was used as a reference for tonal balance during the headphone study?

Our approach was to simulate the smoothed response of the headphone above 12kHz but not try to simulate or EQ high and medium Q resonances because there are HF errors from variations in the positioning of the headphone on the coupler and the listener's ears. Add to that the accuracy of all IEC couplers are questionable above 10kHz in terms of simulating human ear canals and the acoustic impedance.

We tried listening to headphones with different filtering above 12 kHz, and frankly we could not hear huge differences except slight ones with pink noise. Maybe we are too old but "we" included Omid who was in his late 30's.

So, I don't know the answer to your question except for many people these details above 12 kHz are probably not audible or as important as below.

For that reason our predictive model only considers deviations from the harman target up to 10kHz.

The Harman Target Curve was based on a measurement at the primary listening seat in our listening room using Revel F208 and a JBL M2 calibrated to the Harman Speaker Target. We measured it with our ear simulated mounted in a head/torso. We did a spatial average +- 30 degrees by rotating the head.

 

[Sean Olive]

By crinacle: B rated
by Harman: 89
By Rtings: 74

Where did Harman rate it 89? I just measured my personal pair the other day and it scored about 75%

 

[thewas]

The Harman Target Curve was based on a measurement at the primary listening seat in our listening room using Revel F208 and a JBL M2 calibrated to the Harman Speaker Target.

Hope both not to the same in-room speaker target due to their different directivities? And why correcting them above transition frequency and not rather leaving them as they are (linear direct sound) as also your colleague Dr. Toole recommends?

 

[Sean Olive]

How would AKG K371 headphones score?

 

[ZolaIII]

@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.

 

[Sean Olive]

Hope both not to the same in-room speaker target due to their different directivities? And why correcting them above transition frequency and not rather leaving them as they are (linear direct sound) as also your colleague Dr. Toole recommends?

There was little difference between the two speakers if I remember. We also did it with a 7.1 vs stereo setup and not much difference.

We didn't equalize above the room transition frequency. There is no need because those speakers produce flat direct sound.

 

[solderdude]

Where did Harman rate it 89? I just measured my personal pair the other day and it scored about 75%

Jaakko Paassanen rated it acc. to Oratory1990 measurements (also 89) referenced to Harman curve.
Looks like the Rtings measurement as well as Crinacle are closer to Harman's own rating.
I don't think it got a rating from ASR.

 

[Robin L]

Jaakko Paassanen rated it acc. to Oratory1990 measurements (also 89) referenced to Harman curve.
Looks like the Rtings measurement as well as Crinacle are closer to Harman's own rating.
I don't think it got a rating from ASR.

It got a golfing panther.

 

[Sean Olive]

@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.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion if you watched the presentation. 64% of the listeners we tested who preferred the Harman Target included both trained and untrained listeners from all ages and genders. It's not designed for any specific demographic and would only exclude people with significant hearing loss who might prefer a much brighter less bassy headphone for improved intelligibility of speech.

Your preference may be something with less or more bass, but the target is a good starting point. I agree that the less EQ it needs the better.

 

[solderdude]

It got a golfing panther.

 

[Sean Olive]

Jaakko Paassanen rated it acc. to Oratory1990 measurements (also 89) referenced to Harman curve.
Looks like the Rtings measurement as well as Crinacle are closer to Harman's own rating.
I don't think it got a rating from ASR.

Yeah I don't know how Oratory got such a high rating except maybe he got a better sample or something else is different. We use the same GRAS test equipment.

It would be cool if multiple reviewers got the same objective score based on measurements. Of course, that would NEVER happen in a million years based on subjective listening

Two years ago we compared correlation between our predicted headphone sound quality ratings based on deviation from Harman Target Curve and ratings given by review organizations & found CR had highest correlation (0.67-0.75). CNET and PC.mag were the lowest.
Rtings was surprising mid-way. It would be interesting to revisit this now that they have fully adopted the Harman Target Curve albeit using a different measurement rig (Heads Acoustics).

The lesson learned is that take what you read from reviews with a grain of salt, especially if they are based only on uncontrolled listening with a sample of 1. Measurements are my go-to lie detectors

 

[ZolaIII]

@Sean Olive by calculating hearing loss at lows based on the research data you pointed out. And only referd towards what Harman curve really is (in its current state).
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4894719

 

[thewas]

There was little difference between the two speakers if I remember. We also did it with a 7.1 vs stereo setup and not much difference.

We didn't equalize above the room transition frequency. There is no need because those speakers produce flat direct sound.

Thank you, could you maybe post or link to the used speaker target curve which you used below the transition frequency as someone can find several versions in the www.