• 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!

Headphones and the Harman target curve

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
Sean, thanks for the reply. That does make sense. I did car audio for many years, and there the bass reaches extremes as we all know. This was doubly-so when sitting in a car with a competition system. I stopped before I destroyed my hearing, but it would explain my knee-jerk reaction of the headphones having too much bass without the tactile feedback at higher volumes. At lower volumes this effect is no longer really present, but the ears response also changes.
What Sean is saying is the opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that when you don't have the tactile feedback then you need more bass (not less) to make up for it. This was what his research showed that he linked to you. (which is the same point that you were "brought up on" earlier in the thread).
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
What Sean is saying is the opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that when you don't have the tactile feedback then you need more bass (not less) to make up for it. This was what his research showed that he linked to you. (which is the same point that you were "brought up on" earlier in the thread).
I think in your desire to "appeal to the research" you are missing the point of my original inquiry which was to try and square the circle of why the Harman target is so controversial with respect to bass, and some potential reasons for why it is perceived as being "boosted." On my end the only real true obvious difference was the tactile bass. This is further complicated by my experiences in car audio of being subjected to bass in excess of 140 dB or more. That will tend to bias perception a bit towards it not having as much sway as it would with general listeners, but per Sean's comments, my initial gut reaction of there potentially being too much bass was indeed correct. This is additionally corroborated by the cited paper.

Taking a look at the summary of the cited paper (emphasis mine): "A set of experiments studied the effect of whole-body vibration on preferred low frequency equalization of an automotive audio system. Listeners’ bass equalization preferences were measured for four different music programs reproduced through a high quality automotive audio system auditioned in situ (in the car) and through a headphone-based binaural room scanning (BRS) system. The task was repeated while the listener experienced different levels of simulated and real whole-body vibrations associated with the automotive audio system itself. The results reveal that the presence of whole-body vibration can reduce the preferred level of bass equalization by as much as 3 dB depending on the program, the level of vibration, and the individual listener. Evaluations of a virtualized automotive audio system were judged to sound closer to the actual system when the simulated vibrations were included."

Clearly there are a lot of variables, there. Listener experience and preferences being one of them. Given that a neutral speaker in a semi-reflective room was used as one of the basis for the Harman headphone target, we can at least have a reasonable level of confidence that this is implicitly built in. The upshot of this is that we have to be much more circumspect in dismissing claims of the Harman target being boosted. To some listeners it certainly will be, and older listeners who's hearing may be declining (see Harman research, again) this effect can be potentially exacerbated quite a bit. This just further solidifies my own feeling that wholesale accepting targets across the industry without a firm understanding of where all those features come from is a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
I think in your desire to "appeal to the research" you are missing the point of my original inquiry which was to try and square the circle of why the Harman target is so controversial with respect to bass, and some potential reasons for why it is perceived as being "boosted." On my end the only real true obvious difference was the tactile bass. This is further complicated by my experiences in car audio of being subjected to bass in excess of 140 dB or more. That will tend to bias perception a bit towards it not having as much sway as it would with general listeners, but per Sean's comments, my initial gut reaction of there potentially being too much bass was indeed correct. This is additionally corroborated by the cited paper.

Taking a look at the summary of the cited paper (emphasis mine): "A set of experiments studied the effect of whole-body vibration on preferred low frequency equalization of an automotive audio system. Listeners’ bass equalization preferences were measured for four different music programs reproduced through a high quality automotive audio system auditioned in situ (in the car) and through a headphone-based binaural room scanning (BRS) system. The task was repeated while the listener experienced different levels of simulated and real whole-body vibrations associated with the automotive audio system itself. The results reveal that the presence of whole-body vibration can reduce the preferred level of bass equalization by as much as 3 dB depending on the program, the level of vibration, and the individual listener. Evaluations of a virtualized automotive audio system were judged to sound closer to the actual system when the simulated vibrations were included."

Clearly there are a lot of variables, there. Listener experience and preferences being one of them. Given that a neutral speaker in a semi-reflective room was used as one of the basis for the Harman headphone target, we can at least have a reasonable level of confidence that this is implicitly built in. The upshot of this is that we have to be much more circumspect in dismissing claims of the Harman target being boosted. To some listeners it certainly will be, and older listeners who's hearing may be declining (see Harman research, again) this effect can be potentially exacerbated quite a bit. This just further solidifies my own feeling that wholesale accepting targets across the industry without a firm understanding of where all those features come from is a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding.
You wriggle so hard. Many words, but still it doesn't change the fact that in one of your original posts you stated that you perceived bass to be too much because it didn't have the tactile aspect, which is the opposite of the research, yet in this post of yours you just regurgitate some parts of the research (which actually does the opposite of support your argument) whilst ignoring the points made to you. You're just trying to avoid your earlier points you made by using smoke & mirrors, it's not a conversation.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
You wriggle so hard. Many words, but still it doesn't change the fact that in one of your original posts you stated that you perceived bass to be too much because it didn't have the tactile aspect, which is the opposite of the research, yet in this post of yours you just regurgitate some parts of the research (which actually does the opposite of support your argument) whilst ignoring the points made to you. You're just trying to avoid your earlier points you made by using smoke & mirrors, it's not a conversation.
Is posting on this site for you all about getting "one-ups" on people? Come on. This isn't an "argument" to be won. It really is a conversation as you say, but are too disingenuous to admit, which is a shame. There is no conversation to be had. I'm guessing this is a trend with you as I have seen this done in other posts. You strawman people, misquote them, misread their posts, etc. simply to argue. And I say that not because I have bothered to research prior posts, but because it was something that was quite conspicuous. At least it was to me. If you want to keep going down that road then fine, do so on your own. Its not about winning wars, we are here to have a simple roundtable discussion.

For me I want to know as this can be useful as there may be a reason to EQ out the intrinsic boost in bass. Getting back to my point is that some people find the Harman curve has too much bass, and, I wanted to know if there was merit to that argument, and there is. That's how science works. We repeat the experiment to the best of our abilities to see if the result is repeatable. My perception was to actually perceive that bass boost initially in the headphone as potentially excessive. Many others have had this comment as well. I repeated this experiment at levels low enough for the tactile bass to not be as much of a factor, and they seemed quite close, but the ears response also changes at lower levels, complicating things. It would be nice to repeat this experiment, but these are not as useful since I have grown accustomed to the sound by now. But, it seemed logical that perhaps the lack of context in the form of tactile bass was the issue. By actually ignoring people like you, and putting out some anecdotal observations, I got the answer I wanted, from Sean who was kind enough to reply. Can't know if you don't ask. There is indeed likely some boost built into the headphone if its on the Harman target. And remember, my comparisons were done with a headphone that was already on the Harman target. Its hard to segregate these things out, and listener preferences and experience play into it. Harman research says it, my own experiences are the same, and quantifying something subjective is damn near impossible. Saying I'm wrong is as wrong as dismissing those who say the Harman target is excessive in the bass region. No two people will experience things the same. But the point remains in that the Harman curve has been widely adopted across the industry, but not everyone accepts it. This is, of course, to be expected since its based on double-blind testing. There will be a distribution with some users falling outside of the norm. Doesn't mean the Harman research is wrong, but there will be places where it may not apply or there will be deviations, and as with anything, this information is good to know rather than just adopting something as orthodoxy. In science we need to maintain lines of inquiry for the process to work as intended.
 
Last edited:

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
Is posting on this site for you all about getting "one-ups" on people? Come on. This isn't an "argument" to be won. It really is a conversation as you say, but are too disingenuous to admit, which is a shame. There is no conversation to be had. I'm guessing this is a trend with you as I have seen this done in other posts. You strawman people, misquote them, misread their posts, etc. simply to argue. And I say that not because I have bothered to research prior posts, but because it was something that was quite conspicuous. At least it was to me. If you want to keep going down that road then fine, do so on your own. Its not about winning wars, we are here to have a simple roundtable discussion.

For me I want to know as this can be useful as there may be a reason to EQ out the intrinsic boost in bass. Getting back to my point is that some people find the Harman curve has too much bass, and, I wanted to know if there was merit to that argument, and there is. That's how science works. We repeat the experiment to the best of our abilities to see if the result is repeatable. My perception was to actually perceive that bass boost initially in the headphone as potentially excessive. Many others have had this comment as well. By actually ignoring people like you, and putting out some anecdotal observations, I got the answer I wanted, from Sean who was kind enough to reply. There is indeed likely some boost built into the headphone if its on the Harman target. And remember, my comparisons were done with a headphone that was already on the Harman target. Its hard to segregate these things out, and listener preferences and experience play into it. Harman research says it, my own experiences are the same, and quantifying something subjective is damn near impossible. Saying I'm wrong is as wrong as dismissing those who say the Harman target is excessive in the bass region. No two people will experience things the same. But the point remains in that the Harman curve has been widely adopted across the industry, but not everyone accepts it. This is, of course, to be expected since its based on double-blind testing. There will be a distribution with some users falling outside of the norm. Doesn't mean the Harman research is wrong, but there will be places where it may not apply or there will be deviations, and as with anything, this information is good to know rather than just adopting something as orthodoxy. In science we need to maintain lines of inquiry for the process to work as intended.
Conversations are actually about adhering to the integrity of conversation - ie listening/logic/responding - not wriggling your way through a conversation by changing goal posts & smoke & mirror tactics, which is what you're doing.

In your second paragraph you continue to say that the research supports your findings, when it's actually the opposite, along with incorrectly referencing Sean's reply to apparently fit your needs. To go back to the basics, you said you needed less bass because there was no tactile aspect, yet this is proven to be the opposite by the research - so please stop quoting the research & Sean in some kind of illogical smoke & mirrors bid to support your point, when in actual fact it's doing the opposite of supporting your point - it's disproving it. There's probably not much point in continuing a back & forth with you, as it's obvious you're just trying to wriggle free on some earlier points you were brought up on - when you could instead just admit that your reported experience of needing less bass because there was no tactile aspect actually goes against the research.
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Conversations are actually about adhering the integrity of conversation - ie listening/logic/responding - not wriggling your way through a conversation by changing goal posts & smoke & mirror tactics, which is what you're doing.

In your second paragraph you continue to say that the research supports your findings, when it's actually the opposite, along with incorrectly referencing Sean's reply to apparently fit your needs. To go back to the basics, you said you needed less bass because there was no tactile aspect, yet this is proven to be the opposite by the research - so please stop quoting the research & Sean in some kind of illogical smoke & mirrors bid to support your point, when in actual fact it's doing the opposite of supporting your point - it's disproving it. There's probably not much point in continuing a back & forth with you, as it's obvious you're just trying to wriggle free on some earlier points you were brought up on - when you could just admit that your experience of needing less bass because there was no tactile aspect actually goes against the research.
As I'm sure you have heard before many, many times, I'm not going to have this argument with you. I did not say it supports my "findings", but corroborates the fact that there is some intrinsic boost built-in to the Harman curve and the tactile aspect of bass factors into it. My initial reaction was that the curve was correct, but that the mismatch in bass response could be down to the lack of tactile bass with headphones. This is true, but its obscured by the fact that there is already a bias the curve to begin with. On my end its not about "propping" up some argument in your eyes. I am trying to pinpoint why I had the perception that I did. It was what it was. As one does, I did some informal testing first without any regard to research because that introduces bias. The tactile bass was indeed part of it. But unknown to me there is also implicit boost in the Harman curve given the context surrounding it. Putting you aside, I now have the satisfaction of knowing why its there, and to what extent the boost may be. Maybe Sean can provide some more context, but please stop treating this as a debate. There are too many subjective aspects involved to treat this as a simple yes or no answer. I had the reaction I did, even though it contradicted the research. My only thoughts is so many years of having my teeth rattled out by my own and others car audio systems. Some being actual competition systems that have so much bass its physically overwhelming. I stopped in fears of going deaf, and being middle-aged, my hearing thankfully extends up to and a bit beyond 16 kHz which is normal for my age, indicating I stopped when I needed to.

Edit: Spelling...
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
As I'm sure you have heard before many, many times, I'm not going to have this argument with you. I did not say it supports my "findings", but corroborates the fact that there is some intrinsic boost built-in to the Harman curve and the tactile aspect of bass factors into it. My initial reaction was that the curve was correct, but that the mismatch in bass response could be down to the lack of tactile bass with headphones. This is true, but its obscured by the fact that there is already a bias the curve to begin with. On my end its not about "propping" up some argument in your eyes. I am trying to pinpoint why I had the perception that I did. It was what it was. As one does, I did some informal testing first without any regard to research because that introduces bias. The tactile bass was indeed part of it. But unknown to me there is also implicit boost in the Harman curve given the context surrounding it. Putting you aside, I now have the satisfaction of knowing why its there, and to what extent the boost may be. Maybe Sean can provide some more context, but please stop treating this as a debate. There are too many subjective aspects involved to treat this as a simple yes or no answer. I had the reaction I did, even though it contradicted the research. My only thoughts is so many years of having my teeth rattled out by my own and others car audio systems. Some being actual competition systems that have so much bass its physically overwhelming. I stopped in fears of going deaf, and being middle-aged, my hearing thankfully extends up to and a bit beyond 16 kHz which is normal for my age, indicating I stopped when I needed to.

Edit: Spelling...
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes to just that first bit I bolded in your post - that's correct. The second bit I bolded in your post, thankyou for admitting that, this is all I was after, because your subsequent posts had previously been to somehow use the research to support your experience, when in actual fact it negated it. Thankyou. There's nothing wrong with having your own opinions on the Harman Curve and your own experience of what you think is the best bass level for yourself.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes to just that first bit I bolded in your post - that's correct. The second bit I bolded in your post, thankyou for admitting that, this is all I was after, because your subsequent posts had previously been to somehow use the research to support your experience, when in actual fact it negated it. Thankyou. There's nothing wrong with having your own opinions on the Harman Curve and your own experience of what you think is the best bass level for yourself.
I think this conversation has run its course.
 

david moran

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
41
Likes
69
AES- member card as a criteria? Have you not seen the audiometry data collected by the House Ear Institute at AES convention over-the-past few years? Attendees have more hearing loss than the general population Hearing loss is an occupational hazard in the audio industry and on average AES members wouldn't qualify as trained listeners in the Harman panels b/c they would fail our audiometey screening process. We don't make hearing aids yet.
Har and yes.

A long time ago I quickly tired of the thin (hotly imbalanced) sound of my nifty new 'flat w a 4k peak' Etymotic in-ear phones, and so I turned up my broad bass tone control and turned down my broad treble tone control --- and ... eureka.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,181
Top Bottom