Headphones and the Harman target curve

[Feelas]

while the AQ NH or your EQ sound unrealistically and coloured to me.

Keep in mind, that this should be evaluated after a month or two of constant listening w/ a specific tonality, best without messing with the EQ chain and other gear, just to get the head accustomed proprely. This sucks, but yeah, it's the relative hearing that borks everything up.

 

[preload]

Differences in FR curves across headphones can explain about 74% of the variation in over-ear HP preferences.

From Olive's AES convention paper, referenced by others in this thread:

What's interesting is that all 4 headphones with a predicted pref rating >80 also had actual preference ratings in the 90+ range. In other words, very high predicted scores seem to correlate well with actual "top" preferences. Whereas, for average predicted pref ratings, who the heck knows.

 

[preload]

Okay Amir, which headphone is the red-circle? I know you know!!!!
My guess is AKG K712. It could also be the Senn HD650, but there's no way that could be most preferred.

It looks like the #2 preferred HP was the Sony MDR-7506.

 

[Dreyfus]

@preload
There is an edit button.
Just saying ...

but your EQ drops all the mids from 300 to 3kHz to almost 4 dB compared to the bass and then has an almost 6 dB peak between 5-6 kHz, which makes me think it could be a personal HRTF thing.

The curves in the config were derived from the delta between my modified Nighthawk (Brainwavz Hybrid with some rough balance EQ) and the R70X which I eq'd to Harman based on Crinacle's data, both measured in-ear on my own head. I divided the delta by two to make sure the effects are not too pervasive.

The notches around 1 kHz and 2.5 kHz and the slope down starting at the upper bass are actually much deeper on the original NH. I just wanted to apply a portion of its tone to the Harman curve to see whether or not it improves the perceived width and depth of the soundstage. It sure does for me. But who am I to judge ... someone who is used to such an "off-standard" coloration.

The treble EQ is a bit critical because both the NH and R70X have their specific driver-, cup- and ear-related peaks and dips. What works as a compensation for the R70X on my head might not work for others. I could improve that by measuring a handful of cans eq'd to Harman to get kind of an average approximation of the actual Harman response on my head. With only one set of reference data (here: R70X) the potential error is probably quite high. As with all things in headphone theory, there is some trial and error involved.

Do you have and use also loudspeakers for listening and if yes, which and how do you find their tonality?

I have a pair of studio monitors by Monkey Banana calibrated to the Harman speaker target as my desktop system actually. I rarely use it though due to some annoying bass modes which I cannot get rid of without fundamentally rethinking the room layout or building some thick bass traps. That plus the fact that I am more of a late night listener which more or less forces me to use headphones.

That is why I do not have a long-term brain-in to an actual speaker system eq'd to Harman that I could rely on.
I could try to capture my HRTF, measuring in-ear in front of the calibrated speakers, though.

A guess why you prefer this sound could be possibly very different to the average HRTFs.

That could well be.

Keep in mind, that this should be evaluated after a month or two of constant listening w/ a specific tonality, best without messing with the EQ chain and other gear, just to get the head accustomed proprely.

This!

 

[preload]

@preload
There is an edit button.
Just saying ...

I have no idea what you are referring to or implying by that.

 

[Feelas]

What's interesting is that all 4 headphones with a predicted pref rating >80 also had actual preference ratings in the 90+ range. In other words, very high predicted scores seem to correlate well with actual "top" preferences. Whereas, for average predicted pref ratings, who the heck knows.

This would probably get eliminated by removing the low anchor, seeing how Toole wrote about speaker measurements, that if you eliminate the low anchor then the high scores stay but the rest is extended downwards).
Also, I'm not sure whether the "100% headphone" isn't merely the "high anchor", as in Harman-equalized K712.

@Dreyfus, it's absolutely a fun thing to watch how much the sparkle gives and takes away as it is turned on and off. Impressive idea to give us the preset.

EQ-ing K371s to "flat Harman" & using the preset is interesting.
Contrary to what I'd believe, I don't necessarily see it as "hyped" or anything - merely kind of distant and... very punchy, when the sparkle is put on top. Highlighted, I'd say. What is actually (every time!) the most surprising is how reducing volume makes the scene "larger". Especially seen with this NH-emulator. Seeing some speaker measurements recently, isn't actually the presence (5-7kHz) region a place where cone breakup often takes place?

Still, all I write is completely and utterly useless, since I don't really know how to properly level-match this... thing when testing. It'd not be far fetched to consider the difference exposed due to improper level matching. It isn't **that much** anyways.
Yet, the reverb components in the high midrange are absolutely missing on the NH-like curve (probably they're just being extensively masked), which is certainly not how I'd like it - you can always throw it at love for stuff entrenched in reverb, be it natural or artificially added. What's probably happening on NH (and not on real speakers) is that the "real" recording reverb in midrange is not merely "extended" with room reverb, but merely hidden.

 

[thewas]

Keep in mind, that this should be evaluated after a month or two of constant listening w/ a specific tonality, best without messing with the EQ chain and other gear, just to get the head accustomed proprely. This sucks, but yeah, it's the relative hearing that borks everything up.

I completely disagree there, as you can really get used to a weird tonality in time (had unfortunately happened to me in the past) but the reference should be always real music instruments and voices, so I can only recommend everyone to get out of their homes (ok, not now in Covid times) and listen as much as possible to different live music events and this will anchor a sensible reference.

Interestingly I had written in 2017 in a different forum about the Nighthawk about the same topic:

By the way, even with the original pads the ear gets used to their messed up tonality after some time and most of the time it is so that if you switch directly to something more neutral (which I can do without interruption at the push of a button) even the more correct one sounds "wrong" for a few seconds, but that was not so in this case, which shows how strong the deviation of the original tuning is.

 

[thewas]

The curves in the config were derived from the delta between my modified Nighthawk (Brainwavz Hybrid with some rough balance EQ) and the R70X which I eq'd to Harman based on Crinacle's data, both measured in-ear on my own head. I divided the delta by two to make sure the effects are not too pervasive.

In my experience that only partially works only if the 3rd listeners ear and pinna is very similar to the one generated the measurements and delta.
As I really like the Focal Clear I made such "delta EQs" based on different measurements rigs for my HD600 and they all were different (which also shows the problem) and none sounded even close to it. Also there is the problem that we cannot replicate a different soundfield and radiation pattern just by EQ like I write down below.

The notches around 1 kHz and 2.5 kHz and the slope down starting at the upper bass are actually much deeper on the original NH. I just wanted to apply a portion of its tone to the Harman curve to see whether or not it improves the perceived width and depth of the soundstage. It sure does for me. But who am I to judge ... someone who is used to such an "off-standard" coloration.

You can really alter by using EQ thanks to the Blauert bands the perceived localisation but the problem is you mess up the tonality as you do it for all directions as we can only apply one EQ per channel, but this is for example not the same thing as a real frontal sound source which has hunderds of HRTFs from different directions when entering your ear and activating differently your hearing cells, its the biggest problem of headphones, namely reducing a 3D sound field to a single dimension.

 

[Feelas]

I completely disagree there, as you can really get used to a weird tonality in time (had unfortunately happened to me in the past) but the reference should be always real music instruments and voices, so I can only recommend everyone to get out of their homes (ok, not now in Covid times) and listen as much as possible to different live music events and this will anchor a sensible reference.

You have to "get used to it" and afterwards reference something real, since you have to move past merely mentioning "how the tonality is weird" into "how that actually affects music". Details either get lost or somehow get found, the depth perception is also there or gone, yet all of that shouldn't get overshadowed by merely discussing "the FR being wrong", and accustoming helps in getting past this stage.

You must know what I mean, since there'e a difference between "why the $*-$ are these things so harsh" and "well, the piano sounds off". The latter presents the proper focus, the first - is the reflex when we consider stuff "wrong".

And despite that, what exact instruments in what exact venue at what exact chair setting in what exact sitting position at what exact temperature with what exact level of focus of the listener and what exact fullness of the venue at what exact time... would you consider neutral?

Even home playing is subject to bias. This had to be lived with and respected.

 

[amirm]

Okay Amir, which headphone is the red-circle? I know you know!!!!

I believe it is the AKG NC700NC. It costs $340.

 

[thewas]

Even home playing is subject to bias. This had to be lived with and respected.

Of course but this EQ as well as headphones sounds so heavily coloured to me that its obviously not just a matter of sitting in a different chair in a venue but "like listening underwater" (exaggerated) where you don't need to do long testing to sense if it is right or wrong.
In the end there is also a reason that all established headphone targets like DF or Harman are basically very similar and don't have such huge deviations especially in the mids, which is also something you can measure at the ear response if setting up good neutral loudspeakers in an acoustically good room.
Maybe its just my personal HRTF though and other people don't find it as coloured as I do, although the trend that I prefer something like DF or Harman target (maybe with a tad less low bass) shows that I cant be very off the average.
Would be still very interesting though if more people test it and write their opinion about it, for example @Robbo99999 who also likes EQing his headphones.

Edit: This plot seems to confirm that I am not very alone there https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easuring-headphones.18086/page-13#post-594143

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

I believe it is the AKG NC700NC. It costs $340.

Not on the list of headphones in the study though. Im eyeballing the red circle as more $200 than $340 too

 

[Feelas]

In the end there is also a reason that all established headphone targets like DF or Harman are basically very similar and don't have such huge deviations especially in the mids, which is also something you can measure at the ear response if setting up good neutral loudspeakers in an acoustically good room.

Well, yes, afair both DF and Harman are close to flat up to 1kHz. And the ideal response would lie somewhere between those two, since DF approximates the "absurdly reverberant" scenario. I wonder why I'm writing this again, lol.

How come I don't feel "underwater-like" on NH-similar curve? Fun stuff!

 

[thewas]

Well, yes, afair both DF and Harman are close to flat up to 1kHz. And the ideal response would lie somewhere between those two, since DF approximates the "absurdly reverberant" scenario.

Yes, but even all extremes like FF and DF and all in between like Harman are far from the proposed EQ.

How come I don't feel "underwater-like" on NH-similar curve? Fun stuff!

I gave "underwater" as an example of tonality which obviously sounds coloured, not that the proposed EQ sounds like "underwater".

As said will be interesting to hear more opinions of others about it.

 

[Dreyfus]

I just uploaded an update for the EQ Apo config:
Harman Modification by Dreyfus Ver. 2



What I did:
- renew the pads of the reference headphone (ATH-R70X)
- remeasure the delta between the reference and the modified Nighthawk
- reduce the peaks by 4 dB (resulting in a milder equalization curve)
- add compensation curves to remove the full or half bass boost from your generic Harman equalization

You can also use the latter as an inverse filter to add missing bass induced by a lacking seal. Personally, I addressed that issue by first applying a generic Harman equalization to my R70X, then measuring the average in-ear response, then matching the response to the Harman 2018 curve at 1 kHz, then calculating the difference between the two and adding the delta to the generic Harman equalization. You can use the arithmetic tool in REW (select A/B, then generate) to get the correction curve, then export it as text file and reformat it via batch to make it fit the GraphicEQ module in EQ Apo. You could also import the Harman curve as House Curve in REW instead and use the inbuild AutoEQ function to generate parametric settings for your headphone. However, make sure you are only applying corrections until about 1 kHz for in-ear measurements. Correcting the full bandwith would add a treble boost due to the missing ear canal resonances of your measurement. We have to rely on reference measurements (see AutoEQ database by Jaakko Pasanen) at that point.

After the procedure described above I do now have much more confidence that the sound I am hearing is actually near the reference.

Here you can see the R70X with the generic AutoEQ correction (based on Crinacle's data) applied. I measured it with the newer flat plate (FP) and my in-ear mic (IE). As already mentioned, the flat plate has a severe downward slope due to the lack of ear resonance and overestimated seal. This is why I cannot use this data for correction (which would result in the blue curve on the bottom) without further calibration. Instead I choose the in-ear data to correct the real-life performance of the headphone worn on my head. The brown curve is the neccessary correction I have to add to the generic Harman equalization preset for the R70X (until 1 kHz).

Just for the record, here are also the newer measurements for the R70X (Harman corrected, based on Crinacle data, w/o the personal bass correction) versus my modded Nighthawk. I choose the in-ear measurements again since the flat plate ones do not correlate well with what I am actually hearing. The delta curves between the R70X and the NH are not the same for both rigs. That is why I generally question the accuracy of flat plate measurements by the way. Its correlation with my hearing is just too weak and non-linear. But that's just my take ...

The yellow curve is the actual equalization curve you can find in the preset linked above. It is a soft Nighthawk simulation you can add on top of your Harman equalization. I hope you can find some time to try it out.

Switching back and forth I still prefer the signautre of the NH, as to be expected. The Harman curve tends to sound harsh and "in your face" overall. Especially on female voices. But we will see how I react after some longer brain in. Will report in January.

since I don't really know how to properly level-match this... thing when testing

You can easily adjust that to your liking. Just select all the data points of one specific element and shift them up and down with the arrow keys in EQ Apo until you think that it remains an average loudness when turning the module on and off.
I have tried to cover that in the second version.

In my experience that only partially works only if the 3rd listeners ear and pinna is very similar to the one generated the measurements and delta.
... its the biggest problem of headphones, namely reducing a 3D sound field to a single dimension.

Those are notable difficulties, indeed. There is obviously no easy let alone universal solution to the individuality of the HRTF topic. Also the practically mostly diffuse room acoustics with all the interferences on varying azimuths make things much more complicated.

One more reason why I like to experiment and modify standard equalization curves.

Regards
Dreyfus

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Am honestly sorry to disappoint you but it sounds to me similar and highly coloured (missing mids but bloated upper bass) like the Audioquest Nighthawk you mention inside it which for my taste is without EQ the worst sounding non-cheap headphone I have ever heard, but luckily can be transformed to something really nice thanks to its good drivers. The coloration can be especially heard when its switched off, but am curious who others will find it.
Tested with my HD600 without and with addition EQs like Oratory and Sonarworks.

I have a Nighthawk Carbon (plus a Sundara and a HD600, so I can easily compare the three of them). The NHC is definitely warm, but I think it sounds great overall. I think the three cans are quite complementary and none of them sounds clearly "worse" than the two others. The NHC even has something the other two don't have: not only a SPECTACULAR bass that goes easily down to 20 Hz (try playing pipe organ music on a HD600...), but also that peculiar "pressure wave", quite physical for a HP, and extremely pleasing on certain songs.

I know some people hate the NHC, and I also know that a lot of people love and cherish the NHC. It's a polarizing HP, so we must all deal with it. We don't all have the same ears and we are not all sensitive to the same stuff.

With that said, I would be curious to find a PEQ preset that could further improve the NHC, if that's possible. So far I only have found a couple of presets for the regular Nighthawk (by InnerFidelity and by Dale Thorn). Nothing for the NHC. I tried the InnerFidelity preset and I hated it : sure, I lost the bassy NHC signature, but I was hoping to get something in return. Alas, I also lost everything else : the soundscape shrunk dramatically, and it was like dipping the HP underwater. OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea.

Since you say "can be transformed to something really nice", I suppose you have already tried an EQed HNC, so maybe you know how to do it ?

 

[Haint]

Okay Amir, which headphone is the red-circle? I know you know!!!!
My guess is AKG K712. It could also be the Senn HD650, but there's no way that could be most preferred.
View attachment 98108
View attachment 98107
It looks like the #2 preferred HP was the Sony MDR-7506.

Not on the list of headphones in the study though. Im eyeballing the red circle as more $200 than $340 too

The notches between 100 and 1000 appear to denote $100 increments, so using the line tool in paint, the winner sits a hair above $300. I would guess it's the 712 cause there's another headphone slightly lower (presumed Meze) down in the high 50's preference range. There are 3 headphones sitting on exactly $300, one in the low 90's, one in the high 60's, and one in the high 50's. 3rd and 4th place appear to sit on exactly $400 and $500 respectively, so they're presumably the Oppo PM3 and Shure 1540. The HD650 is likely in what appears to be the 3-way cluster there in the mid-high 70's. Last place is the AQ Night Owl, but I'm unsure what the second to last is, it also appears to sit just over $300, so maybe that's the Meze. I'm not sure how exacting they were with these points, there are actually 3 that clearly sit a bit over $300 but well below $350, which doesn't jive with the price chart.

 

[thewas]

I know some people hate the NHC, and I also know that a lot of people love and cherish the NHC. It's a polarizing HP, so we must all deal with it. We don't all have the same ears and we are not all sensitive to the same stuff.

True, although in controlled listening tests the AQ Nightowl which is not as extreme as the Nighthawk got the lowest score.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easuring-headphones.18086/page-13#post-594143

With that said, I would be curious to find a PEQ preset that could further improve the NHC, if that's possible. So far I only have found a couple of presets for the regular Nighthawk (by InnerFidelity and by Dale Thorn). Nothing for the NHC. I tried the InnerFidelity preset and I hated it : sure, I lost the bassy NHC signature, but I was hoping to get something in return. Alas, I also lost everything else : the soundscape shrunk dramatically, and it was like dipping the HP underwater. OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea.

Since you say "can be transformed to something really nice", I suppose you have already tried an EQed HNC, so maybe you know how to do it ?

I had only the regular Nighthawk (does the Carbon one measure differently, I thought they had mainly an optical and material difference?) only for a week 3 years ago and this for was according to my measurements archive a simple "quick and dirty" EQ I had made based on my flat plate measurements that had improved its sound for me alot:

Here are its settings:

Filter  1: ON  PK       Fc   107.5 Hz  Gain  -4.70 dB  Q  2.000
Filter  2: ON  PK       Fc   165.0 Hz  Gain  -4.80 dB  Q  2.000
Filter  3: ON  PK       Fc   265.0 Hz  Gain  -9.70 dB  Q  1.000
Filter  4: ON  PK       Fc   495.0 Hz  Gain  -6.10 dB  Q  1.163
Filter  5: ON  PK       Fc    5224 Hz  Gain  -6.10 dB  Q  3.035
Filter  6: ON  PK       Fc    9203 Hz  Gain  -6.40 dB  Q  5.000
Filter  7: ON  PK       Fc   10914 Hz  Gain  -2.80 dB  Q  5.000

Unfortunately I cant test it nowadays though as I don't have them.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

True, although in controlled listening tests the AQ Nightowl which is not as extreme as the Nighthawk got the lowest score.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easuring-headphones.18086/page-13#post-594143

Honestly that graph doesn't make much sense to me preference-wise. As said by solderdude on the same topic :

from the preference plot... someone knows if these are REAL headphones or all simulated ones.

Given the fact that Nightowl (very similar to nighthawk) is at the very bottom. I would put it there too b.t.w. is somewhat strange given the many folks who swear the very dark NightOwl/Hawk (much darker than Meze 99) gets the most love from their owners. Supposedly because of low distortion but that doesn't make any sense. They prefer the dark sound which is not reflected in the plot.

The NHC is indeed dark sounding, that's one of the many features that we love about it. I don't think you can just simulate it with another headphone. It has many unique features (aside from its nice drivers) that can't be simulated. Plus it's semi-open, the Night Owl is completely closed.

The NH/NHC topic on Head-Fi has currently 635 pages. You don't get that just with any headphone, lol. It doesn't prove that those cans are good. It proves that there are lots of things to say about them, so they are all but uninteresting. Yes, lots of folks love them, and now I understand why (mine have barely 3 months now).

Audioquest says that the NHC is an improved NH, so I don't think the differences are only cosmetic. But I don't have more info on that matter.

​

" A more sophisticated, more mature version of the award-winning NightHawk, NightHawk Carbon boasts several acoustic, ergonomic, and cosmetic refinements, adds a second pair of earpads, and includes a more versatile, durable cable—all while retaining its predecessor’s exceedingly low distortion, unsurpassed comfort, and naturally beautiful sound. "​

Similar thing with the Meze 99 Classics, that appears at the bottom of that plot, but that gets a lot of love from its users, not as a neutral headphone but as a fun headphone.

In the end I think that plot rather reflects the "neutrality" of the headphones and not much more. And in that case it's perfectly normal to have the NHC and the 99 at the left end.

 

[Frank Dernie]

When I went out to buy headphones about 9 years or so ago I chose not to read reviews but to listen to what were available in the local dealer, and asked not to be told any prices beforehand.
On the sort of music I listen to and was familiar with the AKG Q701 had the most accurate instrumental timbre.
I bought them then looked at comments on the internet afterwards.
Most criticism centred on a lack of bass but it was the lack of an overblown bass which was most convincing to me on orchestral music.
Looking at the Harman curve and comparing it compared to my AKGs leads me to suspect i won't have "average" preference for headphones.
I do find the excess bass on my B&W wireless phones fun on bus journeys with popular music though. The AKGs are completely useless for travelling, of course, open backed I wasn't thinking.