Headphones on the marktet matched to the Harman Target Curve

[Mile]

Are there headphones on the market, that are matched to the Harman Target Curve? Or do people mostly use an equalizer to adjust their headphones? May bee it sounds a little bit naive, but I'm completely new to this Harman Target Curve thing.

 

[Joachim Herbert]

AKG K371, K361

 

[Rayman30]

Sure but that's not exactly a way to tell how good a headphone is, best to get what you can afford then mess around with EQ imo.

 

[Dreyfus]

See the headphone ranking table by Pasanen:
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

 

[Mile]

See the headphone ranking table by Pasanen:
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

Ah, that was exacly what I was looking for.

 

[Koeitje]

I just use Wavelet on Android, its uses the data from the AutoEQ project. My Sony wireless headphones are awful without equalizing them. My Oppo PM3 and Sennheiser HD25 are actually not bad. The list linked above also confirms it.

 

[Mile]

I have tried Wavelet. Very well. But I did not quite understand that completely.When I select the preset for my model, the headphone sounds like a Harman Target? Or comes at least close to a Harman Target? I want to get an impression of what a Harman Target sounds like.

 

[Mile]

Sure but that's not exactly a way to tell how good a headphone is, best to get what you can afford then mess around with EQ imo.

Of course not. I don't think so either. But it makes your own selection much easier. You can't try out all headphones.

 

[YSC]

See the headphone ranking table by Pasanen:
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

This actually looks a bit weird to me as the lower end spectrum usually gets top scores,
Things like UERR or Sennheiser HD800S where even sound engineers use as reference (especialy UERR supposed to be mimic the PSB speakers in capitol studio?) have quite a poor score.

 

[solderdude]

The ranking makes no sense to me at all but that's probably just me.
Just as I don't agree with Rtings rankings although their usecase ranking makes a lot more sense it is only ranked on numbers.
Also Crinacle's rankings are different yet again. But at least that is based on his preference.
It's fine if computers tell us these rankings based on one specific HATS with one specific target.
For that it probably is somewhat useful.
That's why I don't rank things. It is pointless. A bit like making rankings of cars on top speed, acceleration or engine power for instance.
Sure it is a ranking, you generate numbers but in the end the vast majority of folks don't drive at max. speeds or always aim to be the fastest one at traffic lights.

Listen to headphones and decide for yourself. When it isn't possible... read both positive and negative reviews and make up your mind. Rankings can help a little for certain aspects. Headphones need EQ, some more, some less, some like a standard, others to preference or a bit of both.

 

[Feelas]

The ranking makes no sense to me at all but that's probably just me.

Unless one is interested in assessing how Harman curve sounds on different gear - for e.g. a thesis - it is absolutely useless.

 

[YSC]

To me the harman curve looked too bassy. For one I would say the UERR shouldn’t be too far from capitol studio sound. But in FR curve they are way low in bass and that looks problematic

 

[Propheticus]

Had a look at the AutoEQ PEQ filter instructions for the Fidelio X2(HR). It states these are calculated based on the Oratory1990 measurements.
The Oratory wiki also has its own set of advised PEQ filters. Both aim for a Harman target curve.
I wonder how these filters can differ so much between sources that use the same measurements and aim for the same target?
I tried both the AutoEQ and Oratory1990 filter instructions in MathAudio Headphone EQ (Foobar2000 DSP) and they also sound very different. I prefer the latter.

AutoEQ filters:

Oratory filters:

 

[Mile]

@Propheticus

How do you load the presets into Headphone EQ? I couldn't find presets that are loadable.

 

[Propheticus]

@Propheticus

How do you load the presets into Headphone EQ? I couldn't find presets that are loadable.

Me neither, so I entered them by hand. 9 filters with freq/gain/Q is not too bad

I can zip and attach my preset file if you're interested in the Fidelio X2's correction curve.

 

[Blujackaal]

This actually looks a bit weird to me as the lower end spectrum usually gets top scores,
Things like UERR or Sennheiser HD800S where even sound engineers use as reference (especialy UERR supposed to be mimic the PSB speakers in capitol studio?) have quite a poor score.

I, too notice more neutral/studio headphones get low scores. Despite sean olive said there nothing wrong liking DF flat bass like the HD600/ER4SR or EQ'ing your headphones to that target. When i do EQ my SR's 3db shelf at 100Hz is enough.

 

[Mile]

Me neither, so I entered them by hand. 9 filters with freq/gain/Q is not too bad

I can zip and attach my preset file if you're interested in the Fidelio X2's correction curve.

Very kind of you. But perhaps you could explain to me where I get the numbers from for my DT 880 250 Ohms and where I have to enter them.

 

[Robin L]

It's good to have a headphone that doesn't need much eq. The Philips X2HR is like that. Doesn't need much power, either.

 

[ZolaIII]

The Sony HF755 which you probably could find for 5$ come very close to Harman target. Harman target ain't my thing. To much bass bost which smears low midrange and male vocals. Initially it does sound more plesent thanks to warmer signature but that's just deception. Then again that something is close to the Harman curve absolutely doesn't mean it will sound good.
You already played with Wavelet which is probably the easiest way to find it out for yourself.

 

[Mile]

Maybe I should explain that I don't believe that only headphones with the Harman Target are good headphones. I'm playing with the whole issue and just trying to find out what my preferences are. Rankings are only for orientation and are not to be understood as final truths.