Headphones and the Harman target curve

[Ilkless]

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


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.

A shame the very low-distortion Nighthawk driver was held back by the weird tuning based on a misunderstanding of calibration curves.

 

[thewas]

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.

Hope some resource will measure both but the hope is small as its discontinued.

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.

Interestingly I had bought 2 pairs of Meze 99 Classics at different times and while I liked the first ones, I didn't like the later ones which also later measured differently at my flat plate rig. Later I found out that Meze had changed the ear cups to larger ones at some time because some people complained they were too small for their ears. Of course almost all reviewers and fans hadn't noticed a thing and still were singing appraisals, so much about must subjective opinions and hundeds of pages of fanboy discussions in most other forums...

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.

Yes, according to Toole FR neutrality is the upmost dominant factor in the subjective evaluation of loudspeakers, like he says "if that is wrong nothing else matters".
On the other hand if some people like a specific tonality, that's what is the only important counts for them as most listen to music for recreation and joy, also it seems for headphones the individual HRTF can have a significant influence on that.

 

[thewas]

A shame the very low-distortion Nighthawk driver was held back by the weird tuning based on a misunderstanding of calibration curves.

That was also my opinion when I tested it 3 years ago, on the other side thanks to its great driver it responded great very well to equalisation so I even had shortly considered to buy one.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

A shame the very low-distortion Nighthawk driver was held back by the weird tuning based on a misunderstanding of calibration curves.

That, Sir, is a mean and unnecessary comment. You are free to express an opinion, but you can't just accuse a manufacturer of misunderstanding something. Have you any proof of such misunderstanding ? Because I don't see any misunderstanding here. These headphones sound exactly as they are meant to sound, as explained by Audioquest themselves.

" AudioQuest headphones do not boost high frequencies to create the false perception of greater detail. Instead, our headphones exhibit a much cleaner frequency response with much lower overall distortion, thereby delivering true detail matched by natural warmth, for a fatigue-free listening experience. "​

The Audioquest team in charge of the NHC knew perfectly what they were doing, and know probably more about calibration curves that you will ever know. They did NOT want to create what is considered today as a "neutral" headphone with boosted highs that quickly cause ear fatigue. They wanted to free their headphones from everything that could cause fatigue in the long run (too much highs... distortion... clamping... weight...). And they brilliantly succeeded at all that. That is the purpose of their headphones. If you don't like them that's OK... but that's a real pity for you, because I guarantee that you are missing on something. Maybe you should listen to them again, keeping in mind what I've just said.

You can also read this review (especially the middle section) and then dismiss it for whatever reason... or admit that maybe the reviewer was actually right.

Yes, according to Toole FR neutrality is the upmost dominant factor in the subjective evaluation of loudspeakers, like he says "if that is wrong nothing else matters".

Supposed neutrality being the upmost dominant factor in the SUBJECTIVE evaluation, doesn't mean that it SHOULD BE.
I'm starting to think that maybe we've been going down the wrong road here : boosting treble to give an artificial impression of definition can't be right, and yet that's what most headphones do nowadays (starting with Beyerdynamic, but even Sennheiser does it to some point). Add to that the fact that more and more people have damaged ears as a consequence of various factors (e.g. iPods, clubbing), so they SUBJECTIVELY claim more and more treble, and maybe today's neutrality isn't what it used to be.

 

[Dreyfus]

To my knowdlege both the Nighthawk Carbon and Liquid Wood are technically the same. Only the pads and cables differ. The old Liquid Wood has only pleather pads but two different cables included. The newer Carbon comes with both pleather and microsuede pads but only one thicker cable.

They measure quite similar:

The Liquid Wood models is already a few years old. The Carbon only a few weeks. I used the same pair of pads for both units, which is the Brainwavz Round Hybrid. The stock pads (both pleather and microsuede) are too dark for my taste.

Looks like the standard error from my point of view.

My broad compensation for this setup is the following:

Filter: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -6 dB Q 0.3001
Filter: ON HSC Fc 7000 Hz Gain -8 dB Q 0.6

If of any interest I can meausre the stock pads (plaether and microsuede) as well.

. . .

Imo the NH is a very comfortable and valuable headphone. The signature is a little odd, indeed. Pretty easy to fix with some equalization, though.
What I really appreciate is the well balanced acoustic design which is neither too closed nor too open. Very open cans like the R70X or the HD 600/650 are too open for my taste, adding to much interaural crossfeed which emphasizes the center imaging and can really mess up the out of my head localization. The natural imaging of the NH might also be supported by the angle of the driver and the flowing cup design. No matter how close I match the responses of the R70X and the Nighthawk. I still think the NH sounds more natural. I think that speaks for a well balanced design.

 

[thewas]

I'm starting to think that maybe we've been going down the wrong road here : boosting treble to give an artificial impression of definition can't be right, and yet that's what most headphones do nowadays (starting with Beyerdynamic, but even Sennheiser does it to some point). Add to that the fact that more and more people have damaged ears as a consequence of various factors (e.g. iPods, clubbing), so they SUBJECTIVELY claim more and more treble, and maybe today's neutrality isn't what it used to be.

How do come to the idea that the here discussed Harman target curve boosts treble to give an artificial impression of definition or to compensate damaged ears?
The Harman target was derived to sound similar to neutral loudspeakers in an acoustically good room, since usual music recordings are mixed for such.
Also headphones with extra treble like many Beyers clearly show such when compared to the Harman target, here is an example.
By the way, if you have seen my above posted EQ for the NH which you asked for, I don't find it treble shy and don't correct its treble significantly, just its bloated upper bass and lower mids.

 

[Ilkless]

That, Sir, is a mean and unnecessary comment. You are free to express an opinion, but you can't just accuse a manufacturer of misunderstanding something.

They actually did. They misunderstood ear canal gain at 3kHz as something that shouldn't be present. I refer you to this post by a professional engineer in the community that works extensively with headphones:

Now, the same question can be asked for headphones: "what should a headphone sound like?" (in terms of: What is the ideal frequency response of a headphone"), and the short answer is: "it's not that simple".
The answer is simple for speakers (not that simple really, but it has been answered), but for headphones it is much more difficult.
The first difficulty is "how do you measure it?". It's easy with speakers - put a calibrated microphone at a standardized distance. With headphones this isn't possible (much of the sound depends on the shape of the head). The general consensus is to measure headphones on artificial heads, with artificial ears and artificial ear canals. The problem with this is, that head shape, ear shape and ear canal have significant influence on the acoustics, most prominently a 10-20 dB boost at 3 kHz. The important thing is: We "hear" this boost even when listening to speakers - because our ears are always there. When the artificial head measurement shows a high boost at 3 kHz, this sounds "flat, linear" to us, because this is what our ears hear. But how should this boost look like exactly? What is the target frequency response?

The boost was not imagined arbitrarily by Harman. It's fundamental to human physiology. Our natural hearing has that 3kHz peak. Yes, the specifics of how high and wide the peak there is at 3kHz vary, but what matters is there is a peak that headphones have to measurably show to cohere with hearing. Adding a dip there is going wholly in the wrong direction.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

How do come to the idea that the here discussed Harman target curve boosts treble to give an artificial impression of definition or to compensate damaged ears?

AFAIK I never said that. I wasn't talking about the Harman target but about how most headphones sound out of the box nowadays. Hence the fact that I'm starting to think that we (well, not really "we" but "the manufacturers") have been going down the wrong road : providing headphones with excessive treble to artificially create detail, to the point where we need to EQ them (with Harman curves for instance) to actually reduce treble among other things.
Like I said earlier, the Harman target actually reduced treble on my HD600.

They actually did. They misunderstood ear canal gain at 3kHz as something that shouldn't be present. I refer you to this post by a professional engineer in the community that works extensively with headphones

You are doing it again. So I urge you again to STOP BEING DISRESPECTFUL to a manufacturer. ANY manufacturer.

So your only argument is a post by a Oratory (an audio engineer based in Austria) ? What is "professional engineer" supposed to mean ? Do you think that the people who designed the NH/NHC weren't "professional engineers" ? Heck, even I am a "professional engineer" (not in the audio field, lol). Does that post from a "professional engineer" say something objective (not subjective) about the NH/NHC ? Does he bring unquestionable data about the NH/NHC ? NO ! He only talks about the Harman curve, that's all.

You, Sir, do NOT have the right to say that a manufacturer misunderstood something, unless you bring SCIENTIFIC PROOF that they misunderstood it. This is ASR after all, not SuperAudiophileHeadphoneBuddies. A manufacturer has the right to make his headphones sound as he pleases, provided he clearly explains his intentions. Which Audioquest clearly did with the NH/NHC.

Audioquest never said "ear canal gain shouldn't be present". They said what I just quoted in my previous post, period.
Once again, you can dislike the sound as much as you want, according to your own personal subjective impression, and that is perfectly OK.
But you can NOT say that a manufacturer actually did "misunderstand" something, unless you have a quote from them that says otherwise.
For the last time hopefully : SHOW SOME RESPECT !

 

[Dreyfus]

Skylar Gray claimed that headphones are generally capable of producing the pinna and ear canal gain themselves which would not require the target curve to put additional energy on top. Instead he focussed on the components that headphone listening is definately not able to reproduce on its own: head, torso and room acoustics.

Given that info it is not very suprising that they came up with something like the Nighthawk. If you mix the slope of their in-room response curve together with the response of the human torso you pretty much get the basics of the NH.

While it is certainly true that headphones do need help simulating an average HRTF of whatever azimuth in general, I do also agree with Skylar Gray saying that a headphone can be designed to excite one's own PRTF, at least to a certain degree.

Once again, the crux is how to put all these pieces together and create a well-balanced system. The Nighthawk is just an overexpression of a certain philosophy which emphasises selected ingredients of the recipe. That said, this does not mean that the dish can not taste and that the designer has no expertise in his field.

If you ask me, I think that the management at AQ would not have been happy with just another average response that "just works" for everyone. If you know their history, you will know that they always try to push ideas that stand out of the market. It would not suprise me if they requested not just a different composition but a multiplication of that. Who knows by how much they rasied the faders. Maybe one of the reasons why Skylar left Audioquest after designing the Nighthawk.

 

[thewas]

AFAIK I never said that. I wasn't talking about the Harman target but about how most headphones sound out of the box nowadays. Hence the fact that I'm starting to think that we (well, not really "we" but "the manufacturers") have been going down the wrong road : providing headphones with excessive treble to artificially create detail, to the point where we need to EQ them (with Harman curves for instance) to actually reduce treble among other things.

Do most headphones nowadays sound so? I have rather have the impression that its the opposite, namely excessive bass boost is the current fashion in newer headphones but there are so many headphones around that such claims are very hard to be mae objectively.

Like I said earlier, the Harman target actually reduced treble on my HD600.

Does it? I don't see so here, rather a tad too low response between 4-10 kHz compared to the Harman target:

Source: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dm0m6u3s3b4zqzl/Sennheiser HD600.pdf?dl=0

The HD600 generally is rather known for its little upper mid boost than excessive treble like the other 2 of the "famous old trio" (AKG 701 and DT 880)

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

The more I read on here and generally about headphone measurement, EQ and quality, the more I am convinced that the key factors when shortlisting (or even buying "deaf") are:

1. Price- of course.
2.Fit/ comfort/ cup size/ pad style (these being the hardest factors to do much with aside from pads)
3. Ability to take EQ-
4. A stock FR that isnt too far (or at least effectively correctable, see above) from ones own preferred target

So would I have bought the LCD X had I known this at the time and having seen the review here? No- though i bought second hand. Although with some EQ I find it to be a "good" listen subjectively.

Whereas, I looked at the very affordable AKG K371 which I know ticks 1 , 3 and 4 but no way can my head/ lugs deal with that size oval cups/ pads.

So for me , hitting harman as stock is far less important than other factors.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Do most headphones nowadays sound so? I have rather have the impression that its the opposite, namely excessive bass boost is the current fashion in newer headphones but there are so many headphones around that such claims are very hard to be mae objectively.

Yes, I was talking about the kind of "serious" headphones that we discuss about on ASR : Sennheiser, Hifiman, Beyer, AKG...
I wasn't talking about "fashion" cans like Beats. To me that's another game.
The idea I expressed was that most of the "serious" headphones that are nowadays considered as "neutral" have a slight emphasis on treble.
That is what I think so far of the two headphones that I've recently bought : the HD600 and the Sundara. Both supposedly neutral, and both with a little too much treble for my taste before EQ.

Does it? I don't see so here, rather a tad too low response between 4-10 kHz compared to the Harman target [...] The HD600 generally is rather known for its little upper mid boost than excessive treble like the other 2 of the "famous old trio" (AKG 701 and DT 880)

Tell that to @Robbo99999 , that's what he wrote here (I thought it was on this topic but it was on the Oratory one). My ears tend to agree with it.

" Re the HD600, an EQ to the Headphone Harman Curve actually reduces the treble "​

​

The upper mid boost doesn't bother me, it's very flattering and correct me if I'm wrong, but it makes for such great guitars and vocals.
I've said treble because that's how I feel it : almost sibilant on some songs without EQ (both the HD600 and the Sundara). I've listened to the "almost sibilant" parts repeteadly yesterday, with and without EQ, and I may be completely wrong, but that's what my ears and brain feel. I'm not a measurement device.

1. Price- of course.
2.Fit/ comfort/ cup size/ pad style (these being the hardest factors to do much with aside from pads)
3. Ability to take EQ-
4. A stock FR that isnt too far (or at least effectively correctable, see above) from ones own preferred target

I absolutely agree !
I try my HD600 and I find them comfortable (no excessive clamping). I try my Sundara and I find them comfortable (although a little heavier - 372g vs. 260). And then I try my NHC and... gosh... it's something else entirely The comfort, the lightweight (they're 346g but you DON'T feel that weight at all, thanks to the suspension system) and the overall feel before playing music, it's really amazing. You can definitely wear them for a whole day and barely notice they're there !

----------

To lighten the mood, today I listened to my EQed HD600 (Harman) for one hour, and it was pretty good, nothing bothered me. Except the fact that it won't excel on all types of music :

• At some point I wanted to give a try to the good old Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You" : it sounded dull and boring for my taste, so I quickly stopped it, it was lacking body and soul. I'll try it again on my other cans.
• On the contrary, I listened to this great song (the original FLAC, not the YT), and it was amazing on the EQed HD600, maybe the best rendition that I've heard yet. For reasons that defy all logic I had an "out of my head" experience on the HD600, where despite the supposedly small soundstage, I clearly felt the left guitar far away from my left earpad, somewhere in my living room , while the right guitar was not only on the right, but also UP (not at the same height as the left one). I guess that's not supposed to happen, so it probably was my brain playing tricks with me (and I don't drink nor smoke).

@thewas , one last thing : what would be the global EQ gain for the NHC EQ you proposed on previous page ? Thanks.

 

[thewas]

I was talking about the kind of "serious" headphones that we discuss about on ASR : Sennheiser, Hifiman, Beyer, AKG...

Ok, although the general trend I would see it that Beyer and AKG used to be rather treble heavy while Hifiman and Sennheiser not, so I still don't see the trend you state.

That is what I think so far of the two headphones that I've recently bought : the HD600 and the Sundara. Both supposedly neutral, and both with a little too much treble for my taste before EQ.

We weren't talking about personal taste (de gustibus non est disputandum), but about you having written "Harman target actually reduced treble on my HD600" which apparently isnt so when we look at its Oratory measurement.

I've said treble because that's how I feel it : almost sibilant on some songs without EQ (both the HD600 and the Sundara). I've listened to the "almost sibilant" parts repeteadly yesterday, with and without EQ, and I may be completely wrong, but that's what my ears and brains feel. I'm not a measurement device.

Of course, as said individual perception and taste differs, same does the tonality of different recordings.

To lighten the mood, today I listened to my EQed HD600 (Harman) for one hour, and it was pretty good, nothing bothered me. Except the fact that it won't excel on all types of music :

• At some point I wanted to give a try to the good old Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You" : it sounded dull and boring for my taste, so I quickly stopped it, it was lacking body and soul. I'll try it again on my other cans.

Wish it was only one track/recording I don't enjoy with my neutralish loudspeakers and headphones, rather the opposite is the case, especially with older recordings.

@thewas , one last thing : what would be the global EQ gain for the NHC EQ you proposed on previous page ? Thanks.

0 as all PEQs I used are negative.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

We weren't talking about personal taste (de gustibus non est disputandum), but about you having written "Harman target actually reduced treble on my HD600" which apparently isnt so when we look at its Oratory measurement.

And I replied you what @Robbo99999 just said, with a link to the corresponding topic and even a quote. I don't see what more I can do.

0 as all PEQs I used are negative.

I was of course expecting a negative gain (or pre-gain if you prefer) value, like in all PEQ settings...

 

[thewas]

And I replied you what @Robbo99999 just said, with a link to the corresponding topic and even a quote. I don't see what more I can do.

He may write it, but the Oratory measurements tell a different thing.

I was of course expecting a negative gain (or pre-gain if you prefer) value, like in all PEQ settings...

??? A negative pre-gain is only needed when there are also positive PEQs to compensate for them so the total gain is not positive.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Jose Hidalgo , I'm quite sure the Harman Curve reduces the treble on the HD600, if you look at my latest EQ to the 2018 Harman Curve from Oratory's latest measurement he posted recently:

What we can see from this screenshot is that the treble peak at 3kHz is being reduced by about 2.5dB (3kHz is considered treble), and the rest of the response below that point is being reduced by a similar average down to the 100Hz, at which point we see a bass boost. It's true that north of 4kHz nothing is being reduced (and is bang on the Harman Curve), but the combined effect of reducing that treble peak and the portion also being reduced between 1kHz and 4kHz & also combining that with the bass boost sub 100Hz is that it's making the whole frequency response more downwards sloping, albeit leaving 4-20kHz unchanged....so in my book that's "reducing treble". For sure the Harman Curve EQ makes it a warmer headphone.

You mentioned reduced sibilance with the Harman EQ, I think the extra bass boost sub 100Hz offsets some of the sibilance even though north of 4kHz is unchanged.

HD600 is not as bright as K702 though which thewas pointed out, and I agree with that. HD600 is the best headphone I've listened to when listened at stock (no EQ), so the treble area is not miles out (in fact it's very accurate for a stock headphone).

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Thank you so much Robbo @thewas , there you have your explanation, better than I could have put it.
Like I said, I can be wrong, but I still trust my ears up to some point, and in this case they clearly tell me that there is less treble with the Harman EQ on my HD600. I have no desire of further discussing this matter, as it won't change what I hear anyway.

As for the pre-gain, I have just looked at your PEQ setting, and indeed it has only negative values. Honestly it's the first time I see a PEQ preset with only negative values. So of course the pre-gain would be 0. I was convinced that there would be also positive values, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. My bad.

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

I'm not really sure why there is a debate as to what oratory's eq does to the treble on the hd600 or any frequency on any of his eq. Its writ large on the second from top graph on the right hand side of all his pdf. Now, the cumulative impact of all the adjustments to a HP "Sound" I suspect depends on the individual listener. The bigger debate is where one thinks treble starts.

 

[preload]

You are doing it again. So I urge you again to STOP BEING DISRESPECTFUL to a manufacturer. ANY manufacturer.

I think you got that backwards. Manufacturers need to stop being disrespectful to US, particularly with their claims about how their magical cables and interconnects have astonishing audible properties. Gag me now.

You, Sir, do NOT have the right to say that a manufacturer misunderstood something, unless you bring SCIENTIFIC PROOF that they misunderstood it.

On the contrary, the manufacturer is the one that has the burden of proving their claims. That is actually how science works. Make a hypothesis, design an experiment, report results, open it to criticism.

 

[thewas]

What we can see from this screenshot is that the treble peak at 3kHz is being reduced by about 2.5dB (3kHz is considered treble)

Of course the 3 kHz is the region that gets corrected but isn't really what makes something sounding as treble-heavy but rather with extra presence (see BBC dip which is the same region) thats why I had called it upper mids above.

Like I said, I can be wrong, but I still trust my ears up to some point, and in this case they clearly tell me that there is less treble with the Harman EQ on my HD600.

Funnily few posts and hours ago you also called that 3 kHz also as upper mid peak and that is doesn't annoy you so you don't feel the need to correct it:

The upper mid boost doesn't bother me, it's very flattering and correct me if I'm wrong, but it makes for such great guitars and vocals.
I've said treble because that's how I feel it : almost sibilant on some songs without EQ (both the HD600 and the Sundara). I've listened to the "almost sibilant" parts repeteadly yesterday, with and without EQ, and I may be completely wrong, but that's what my ears and brain feel. I'm not a measurement device.

By the way, sibilance is also not there but where the main treble is, so above 5 kHz https://www.gearslutz.com/board/rap...n/469876-what-frequency-sibilance-around.html

I was convinced that there would be also positive values, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. My bad.

No problem, by the way it can be also seen also in the EQ plot I had posted where the corrected response is never above the uncorrected one.