IEMs Harmon Target Curve vs speaker flat target

[Jazigo]

Hi everyone!

I have been listening to new set of 7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 for about two days now. I am super impressed and all that.

However, there is so much bass being delivered that I believe something must be not correct.

I usually listen to a KEF Q1 Meta in a semi-treated room. I have measured the room to have +5db in bass to -5db in brilliance in a linear fashion. This sounds excellent and comes across as very balanced. I also use a Beyerdynamic DT 770 and I am also happy with that sound. Not perfect, but happy with it.

When I listen to the Zero:2, the bass really takes over the soundstage and simply does not sound balanced. I have applied the EQ that was posted early in the review of Zero:2, and it helps a bit, but no way near what I have grown to be accustom to.

My question is: The target curve the amirm measure against, is that a target curve that tries to be as flat as possible, or is it Target Curve with emphasis on bass? (like a Harmon curve for speakers)

 

[Jazigo]

I am answering myself on this one.

I made a 0db delta EQ of the JM-1 baseline. Basically, this means that a sinesweep will sound flat to our ears. Now music sounds like it should again.

 

[DVDdoug]

or is it Target Curve with emphasis on bass?

Yes, the preference curve has a bass boost and another boost in the mid-high range. The 7Hz Review shows the target as a dashed line. The (non-flat) Harmon curve is supposed to sound more-like what a speaker with flat on-axis response sounds like in a real room than a headphone with true-flat response. But it's also an "average" preference. You may have different preferences.

The actual response of the 7Hz shows a boost in the deep bass above the target.
On the other hand... Most speakers are limited in the bass range and here's a quote from Amir from a good headphone review.

Most of you have not heard what's in your music... You have not heard proper sub-bass until you hear it on a headphone that's low distortion and is able to go this deep.

 

[Jazigo]

Yes, the preference curve has a bass boost and another boost in the mid-high range. The 7Hz Review shows the target as a dashed line. The (non-flat) Harmon curve is supposed to sound more-like what a speaker with flat on-axis response sounds like in a real room than a headphone with true-flat response. But it's also an "average" preference. You may have different preferences.

The actual response of the 7Hz shows a boost in the deep bass above the target.
On the other hand... Most speakers are limited in the bass range and here's a quote from Amir from a good headphone review.

Don't you find a bit strange that the IEM reviews are with a preference curve? Like, that is not how it is done with speaker. Think if we measured a speakers based on the Harmon curve....

On the topic of the Harmon curve for IEMs. Those actually has bass boost in the curve. (https://headphones.com/blogs/features/the-shape-of-iems-to-come)
The JM-1 curve is the one to follow if you actually want a flat response like a speaker. You can choose to tilt this, so that you get an "in-room" like response, but that will look a bit different than the Harmon curve. (See the link where he compare measurements for IEM and Headphones and why they haven't matched).

Don't get me wrong sub-bass is cool and all, but it has its place among the other frequencies. I guess I don't like any of the frequencies to stand out from the rest. I guess 'balance' is the name of the game for me.

 

[AyeYoYoYO]

However, there is so much bass being delivered that I believe something must be not correct.

When I listen to the Zero:2, the bass really takes over the soundstage and simply does not sound balanced.

Welcome to the modern “consumer trend” ruining many otherwise excellent wireless in-ears.

 

[Bernard23]

Fwiw I've retuned all of my headphone EQ profiles to the PopAvg-DF (JM-1 Delta) target curve. It's worth watching Joel's clip on YT as to how it was derived.

 

[DSJR]

I prefer the deep bass. I seem to feel and remember, that proper big speakers in a suitable room, have this kind of balance, so I'm happy. Maybe with the Zero 2, changing tips might alter perceived bass to mid balance a bit (I need the extra 'hf presence' so that's no big deal for me). The Truthear Gate iems re more comfortable for me longer term and these also have the bass extension I like if seated properly.

Having nailed my colours to the Harman mast above, I still keep a set of original Sennheiser HD414s (creamy-grey colour plastics) which have a response I liken to NS10s on steroids. VERY clean and clear on diction, which helps mumbly actors in recent TV dramas, but never for proper music reproduction

 

[gabo4au]

Don't you find a bit strange that the IEM reviews are with a preference curve? Like, that is not how it is done with speaker. Think if we measured a speakers based on the Harmon curve....

On the topic of the Harmon curve for IEMs. Those actually has bass boost in the curve. (https://headphones.com/blogs/features/the-shape-of-iems-to-come)
The JM-1 curve is the one to follow if you actually want a flat response like a speaker. You can choose to tilt this, so that you get an "in-room" like response, but that will look a bit different than the Harmon curve. (See the link where he compare measurements for IEM and Headphones and why they haven't matched).

Don't get me wrong sub-bass is cool and all, but it has its place among the other frequencies. I guess I don't like any of the frequencies to stand out from the rest. I guess 'balance' is the name of the game for me.

Well, it's really an apples to oranges comparison. We also don't shove our speakers shoved down in our ears nor do we shove instruments down in our ears during a live performance.

As has been said many times in these debates. The sound is actually different for everyone due to ear geometry, how the buds fit in there, the type of tips you're using, etc. etc. So one persons "Perfect" is not the same for the next person that plugs in their ear buds. This is why it's so hard to achieve an actual EQ that works correctly for everyone. Actually it's impossible to achieve an EQ that works correctly for everyone.

For speakers, we listen in a natural way with our ears positioned at a distance just like we do when we hear real musicians playing instruments. So this can be tweaked to sound the same or as close to the same as is technically possible to real musicians playing instruments. Everyone is hearing it from the same position and perspective.

I'm really glad you found something that works for YOU! I'm also glad that others who also find that particular EQ good for them have found what works for them. But this cannot be extrapolated to everyone and therefore is not universally the "correct" EQ and everyone else who is using the Harman curve or some other curve is "wrong."

I have a studio control room that is set up about as good as you can get with a flat response and a room that measures about 0.2ms reverb time. I can push one button to switch from flat speakers to ear buds and go back and forth. I can tell you that a flat curve is absolutely NOT the same balance as flat speakers for my ears. For my ears the Harman curve with well sealed earbuds is close. Not perfect, but close and with a bit of tweaking I can get the sound almost the same as my speakers. But that EQ setting is also not correct for anyone else who plugs in their ear buds. It's a tricky thing and requires some work.

 

[usern]

@Jazigo do you percieve the letter O and A as the same letter?

Harman International - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[goryu]

Everyone is hearing it from the same position and perspective.

But in different rooms. One could look at the room as just an extension of our ears- an outer, outer ear...

 

[Jazigo]

@Jazigo do you percieve the letter O and A as the same letter?

Harman International - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hahah, Potatoes - Patotaes. I'll make sure to write it as Harman in the future.

 

[Jazigo]

Well, it's really an apples to oranges comparison. We also don't shove our speakers shoved down in our ears nor do we shove instruments down in our ears during a live performance.

As has been said many times in these debates. The sound is actually different for everyone due to ear geometry, how the buds fit in there, the type of tips you're using, etc. etc. So one persons "Perfect" is not the same for the next person that plugs in their ear buds. This is why it's so hard to achieve an actual EQ that works correctly for everyone. Actually it's impossible to achieve an EQ that works correctly for everyone.

For speakers, we listen in a natural way with our ears positioned at a distance just like we do when we hear real musicians playing instruments. So this can be tweaked to sound the same or as close to the same as is technically possible to real musicians playing instruments. Everyone is hearing it from the same position and perspective.

I'm really glad you found something that works for YOU! I'm also glad that others who also find that particular EQ good for them have found what works for them. But this cannot be extrapolated to everyone and therefore is not universally the "correct" EQ and everyone else who is using the Harman curve or some other curve is "wrong."

I have a studio control room that is set up about as good as you can get with a flat response and a room that measures about 0.2ms reverb time. I can push one button to switch from flat speakers to ear buds and go back and forth. I can tell you that a flat curve is absolutely NOT the same balance as flat speakers for my ears. For my ears the Harman curve with well sealed earbuds is close. Not perfect, but close and with a bit of tweaking I can get the sound almost the same as my speakers. But that EQ setting is also not correct for anyone else who plugs in their ear buds. It's a tricky thing and requires some work.

I concur on the point that it is impossible to achieve an EQ that is perfect for everyone. However, the JM-1 Delta is as close as we can reasonable get.

I don't concur on the point of it being an apple and orange comparison. Tonal balance can (and should in my opinion) be sounding equal across speakers, headphones and iems.

On the point of your studio control room: What kind of flat curve where you testing with? I can easily hear that a Beyerdynamic 770 Pro is correct and is very familiar sounding to my KEF speakers. The Zero:2 is way off when it comes to bass. Daft Punks Discovery sounds boomy, Donald Fagen's Morph the Cat is unlistenable.
However, if I apply the JM-1 Delta in Crinacles web-tool, then the iems falls in place with the KEFs and the Beyerdynamic.

I can of course hear differences between all three of them, but they are all tonally balanced which creates a common ground/sound.

 

[gabo4au]

I concur on the point that it is impossible to achieve an EQ that is perfect for everyone. However, the JM-1 Delta is as close as we can reasonable get.

I don't concur on the point of it being an apple and orange comparison. Tonal balance can (and should in my opinion) be sounding equal across speakers, headphones and iems.

Yes they should sound equal across speakers, headphones, and IEMs. My point was that EQ curve 1 on the IEMs might sound equal to one person, while EQ curve 2 might sound equal to another person. Due to their differing ear geometry. Speakers fortunately do no suffer from this issue so speaker measurements are pretty well defined.

JM-1 Delta is indeed a good approach and actually is not just one curve like the Harman curve is, but offers a tunable range. Which mostly makes my point that the EQ curve for IEMs is a case by case individual thing, not something you can say "this is the definitive curve."

 

[Jazigo]

If @amirm has a B&K 5128 to do the measurement of IEMs, I would expect it to follow one of these graphs:

[5128’s DF HRTF (green) vs. the average human DF HRTF (black) from ISO 11904]

Maybe it is good enough that an IEM can track correctly any target, but at least I was very surprised that Zero:2 came highly recommend, and when I listed to it out of the box, it sounded no way near what is recommend for a speaker.

 

[Bernard23]

The sole purpose of target curves is surely just a reference point for comparing devices. I know I like this target because it suits my personal HRTF therefore I should like other headphones that measure similarly, with the caveat of choosing the measurement method appropriately, so for example the 5128 vs 711 and the associated uncertainties with each measurement system.

 

[Jazigo]

I see the argument of just picking one target and stick with it across all tests. However, when someone measures a Klipsh speaker, it is bright. Lot of top end. "Showroom" sound. I agree to this and makes complete sense.

For IEMs, lot of bottom end is not pointed out and is considered good. It would be better to measure against neutrality and say that these IEMs have a bass boost.

 

[Bernard23]

Except headphones especially IEMs are missing all of the effects of the pinna so a Harman curve is a flat or neutral target. If you were to listen to a truly flat device it would sound terrible for that reason.

 

[Jazigo]

Effects of the pinna? Not following you on that one.

Many don't like the sound of KEF, Genelec and Neumann, because they are very neutral. Many does like them for that exact reason. By creating a baseline of neutrality, one can speak about bright or dark in a conform way, which make it easier to understand what one is buying.

If you read this article (https://headphones.com/blogs/features/the-shape-of-iems-to-come) you will se that a Harman curve is not flat/neutral. Even less so on IEMs.

 

[markanini]

If you read this article (https://headphones.com/blogs/features/the-shape-of-iems-to-come) you will se that a Harman curve is not flat/neutral. Even less so on IEMs.

1. To be prudent this hasn't been validated the extent of Harmans research. If it's more correct than Harman remains to be seen.
2. JM-1 needs to establish a firm default tilt/adjustment, otherwise what are we comparing Harman to? There can exist endless versions of JM-1.
3. This doesn't challenge the Harman over-ear target, which is has been well received as a neutral baseline.

 

[Jazigo]

1. To be prudent this hasn't been validated the extent of Harmans research. If it's more correct than Harman remains to be seen.
2. JM-1 needs to establish a firm default tilt/adjustment, otherwise what are we comparing Harman to? There can exist endless versions of JM-1.
3. This doesn't challenge the Harman over-ear target, which is has been well received as a neutral baseline.

1. Being more correct than Harman is easy. A common flat balance is exactly that. Harman is a preference from the very get go.
2. The JM-1 does not have a tilt. It simply is the best representation of how we need to compensate for our ears to hear linearly. (if you want a JM-1 with tilt, check out the IEF Neutral 2023 target)
3. The 'Harman 2013 OE headphone target' is the closest to a neutral baseline they have presented, the newer ones stray further off, but even that is not neutral. You can read the hole story behind the first Harman target here: https://acousticstoday.org/he-perce...uality-what-do-listeners-prefer-sean-e-olive/