Is Flat Bass or Harman Bass Better for Mixing on Headphones? (Professional Mixing Engineers Only)

[Robbo99999]

I'm not a mixing engineer (& haven't voted in the poll), but I am a headphone enthusiast (& speaker) with a knowledge of how Harman Curve for headphones was created, etc, and I reckon that the Harman 2013 curve would probably be the best one for mixing on headphones, it was created using trained listeners only IIRC during it's tweaking process, and it's of course also based on an initial dummy head measurement of good anechoically flat speakers in a good listening room, so I think that would be the universally most accurate curve "for everyone"(anatomical HRTF differences) who does mixing - if you had to pick any one target curve for everyone of course. Here's the different Harman Curves:

You can see the blue 2013 curve has less bass and less treble - I don't really want to say less V-shaped as I don't really think the Harman 2018 curve is V-shaped, but 2013 curve would indeed have less of those characteristics.

And for those that already are using a Harman 2018 EQ on their headphones (eg an Oratory EQ), then if you want to try out what the Harman 2013 Curve would sound like then just activate my EqualiserAPO config file attached to the end of this post - activate it whilst your other EQ is activated too of course, they work together. The config file describes the differences between the 2018 & the 2013 curve, so it will convert your EQ from 2018 to 2013.

Final Notes: in the graph "OE" stands for over ear headphone, and "IE" is related to IEM's rather than over ear headphones. The orange OE 2017 line in the graph is the Harman 2018 Curve that I've been talking about, 2017 & 2018 are the same thing, for some reason some places call it 2017 and some others call it 2018, but it's the same curve. Blue line is the Harman 2013 Curve I've been talking about.

 

[Bob-23]

Spacial distortion [1] is the result, if you listen on headphones to recordings that are mixed on speakers.

The mixing engineer does not only hear the sound of the right speaker with the right ear, but also with the left ear, and he does not only hear the sound of the left speaker with the left ear, but also with the right ear, with a slight timeshift, and a slight attenuation.

Ob'viously', you don't have that effect on headphones. The sound of the right speaker does only go to the right ear.

That's why we use crossfeed: blending a portion of the right channel into the left channel, with a slight timeshift - as the sound has to travel a slightly longer way, and a slight attenuation - in order to compensate for that deficiency. Far from being perfect, it's at least an approximation of listening on speakers.

When mixing on headphones and listening on speakers: In order to reproduce what the mixing engineer heard and intended, we'd have - on the hearing side - to make sure that the sound of the right speaker only reaches the right ear, and the sound of the left speaker only reaches the left ear.

[1] I think the term was coined by Jan Meier.

 

[ADU]

^ Yes. As a friend of mine on another forum frequently enjoys pointing out whenever I bring this topic up, the Harman curve (or any other response curve for that matter) can't replicate the sound of loudspeakers in a room. The best it can probably hope to do is get somewhat close to the steady-state in-room response at the listener's position.

 

[ADU]

I think it's better to define what small room acoustics are and what studio acoustics are. That's the issue i think this discussion is having.

If i'm sitting less than a meter away from my (anechoicly flat) speakers then i think the downward tilt would not be as significant since the ratio of direct to reflected sound is very high. specially if the boundaries of the room are also far enough that the amplitude of the reflections are even lower than what would be the case in a typical small room situation.

From my point a view a studio should have the phase cancelations and resonances of an anechoic chamber with the ambiance and 'busy-ness' of a typical small room. Mission impossible for sure but there are some state of the art studios that come close to that ideal.

As a listener, I prefer to focus instead on what I call the target listening space, rather than the engineering spaces. Because audio engineers have all sorts of different acoustic tricks that they like to use to get what they think is a better output. I'll also point out again that mixing and mastering are different jobs which may have different acoustic and frequency response demands/requirements. So I'm not sure you want to conflate the two (as some here seem to be doing).

The folks who try to get the conditions in their home, headphones, etc. to match the conditions in a studio have it the wrong way around though imho. Because it's really the audio mastering engineer's job to do the best that they can to match the typical conditions on the user's/listener's end, rather than vice-versa.

If a mixing or mastering suite accurately and faithfully replicates the typical listening conditions on the user's end, then it might possibly be worth paying some attention to that space as a listener. But I'm afraid this is often not the case.

This isn't the topic of this thread... But as a listener, what I personally would like audio engineers and music producers to do is master their content for what I'd describe as the ideal target listening space, rather than the average target listening space.

The ideal target listening space (imho) would be a mostly untreated, moderately-sized, semi-reflective room in a home, equipped with a pair of high-quality, neutral, well-extended in the sub-bass, anechoically flat speakers that can comfortably play at reference sound levels. The sub-bass on the speakers could be supplied either by built-in sub-woofers, or a pair of separate well-positioned subs. And some bass management is probably also ok to ensure the best consistency and linearity into the lower frequencies.

What I generally try to look for or acheive in a pair of passive headphones is something that might approximate the steady-state response of this type of ideal in-room listening space, as it would ideally be measured in the ears of an anatomically accurate measurement rig. With maybe a little Fletcher-Munson added for more comfortable and pleasant listening at lower levels.

Because alot of content is NOT mastered though with these kinds of ideal conditions in mind, I do not expect everything I listen to over a pair of headphones with this type of response to sound its best. These are the type of listening and mastering conditions that I want music authors and producers to be striving for though. I want them to be attempting to master for the best listening conditions or highest common denominator on the user's end, rather than what they feel is an average condition on the user's end.

I understand and accept that for practical/pragmatic reasons though, that this cannot always or can rarely ever be done. Because there are other important considerations that also have to come into play.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

With headphones, if you want bass, it's logical to go with the Harman target (here's the AE-OE 2018 version) :

If you want less bass to better reveal the midrange, simply go with the Optimum HiFi target :

Here's one vs. the other :

Optimum HiFi target was originally designed for loudspeakers by Brüel & Kjær in 1974.
Later it was adapted for headphones.
Optimum HiFi EQ presets are now easily available for every single headphone on the market.

 

[Kouioui]

These days, you mix to sound good on BOTH speakers and headphones. The closer you can get your monitors and headphones on the same level playing field as far as EQ'd response, measured at the ear, the easier that mixing task will be.

 

[richard12511]

this is the Yamaha NS10. one of the most used mixing monitors in the last century.
why? because the midrange is the most important range to get right.
the bass they would than check on other monitors

Isn’t that an argument for why the midrange should be flat(not boosted)?

Someone mixing on an NS10 primarily will end up with a mix that has too little mids. From my understanding, they are used to check what it sounds like on a low end system, and not for primary mix duties.

 

[dasdoing]

Someone mixing on an NS10 primarily will end up with a mix that has too little mids

not if they know how it is supoused to sound on them. that's what reference tracks are for, too.
the idea of using them to mix the midrange is the "isolation" of them. they used to say that mixes done with them translate very well.
that's just explainations I read over the years.
nowadays you obviously could "isolate" the midrange much better with DSP and perfectly flat monitors. once you have a perfect balance in the midrange, you remove the filters and blend the rest in

 

[dasdoing]

Auratones are another example.

 

[ADU]

not if they know how it is supoused to sound on them. that's what reference tracks are for, too.
the idea of using them to mix the midrange is the "isolation" of them. they used to say that mixes done with them translate very well.
that's just explainations I read over the years.
nowadays you obviously could "isolate" the midrange much better with DSP and perfectly flat monitors. once you have a perfect balance in the midrange, you remove the filters and blend the rest in

The reason they wanted to isolate the midrange is because that's all many speakers (esp. in cars, TVs, portable radios, malls, etc.) had back in the day.

This is still probably the case with alot of cheaper TVs, laptops, IEMs, desktop speakers, and what-not. And yes, I believe alot of studios still use crap monitors like the one above to get a feel for how their recordings will translate to such inferior audio gear. Because that is still (unfortunately) how a lot people listen, even now.

 

[dasdoing]

still use crap monitors like the one above

you mean Yamaha HS7? lol
they also have a pronounced midrange.

it doesn't make sense to build monitors to "to get a feel for how their recordings will translate to such inferior audio gear".
the idea realy is the focus; balancing the low end and top end is not that dificult after all. it's either too much, good, or too little. the magic happens in the midrange, for several reasons: our ears are build with that focus. many instruments fight for the frequencies in that range. and it's in the midrange where you create space and ambience

 

[abdo123]

Number of sales has very little to almost no correlation with mix quality.

'mixing' is a creative process, so your definition of 'quality' is irrelevant in this case.

if you were to say mastering then you might have a point.

it's like saying the popularity of a painting has nothing to do with the technical ability of the painter, now is that true? probably. is it important? not really.

we like our art the way we like our art.

 

[ADU]

you mean Yamaha HS7? lol
they also have a pronounced midrange.

it doesn't make sense to build monitors to "to get a feel for how their recordings will translate to such inferior audio gear".
the idea realy is the focus; balancing the low end and top end is not that dificult after all. it's either too much, good, or too little. the magic happens in the midrange, for several reasons: our ears are build with that focus. many instruments fight for the frequencies in that range. and it's in the midrange where you create space and ambience

Again, I don't pretend to understand all the little tricks that audio engineers employ to get better sound. But would hope that most people who use speakers like the one you mentioned above would at least try to EQ the direct/on-axis response so it's a bit more flat.

Yamaha HS7 Review (studio monitor)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Yamaha HS7 powered monitor. I purchased this last spring for testing and costs US $320 each including prime shipping on Amazon. The HS7 brings its trademark and in my opinion, attractive looks to HS7: It is a rather heavy speaker for its...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The HS7 doesn't have as terrible a response as some loudspeakers. So it might be usable with some EQ, and maybe a sub. I've never really liked the sound of these when listening to them in GC though. And I think it's probably because their direct response is so uneven and forward in that one particular spot in the mids.

Since I like to listen at lower levels, I'm not generally a fan of such mid-forward designs. And if anything, would probably prefer the midrange slightly depressed (though that may not be optimal for mixing/mastering). The off-axis performance also seems a little uneven. And directivity doesn't look very linear. If you EQ the direct response so it's flat, they might be ok for near-fields... If they don't have too much hiss/self-noise.

But yes, I suspect that some studios may use speakers like the one above without EQ to see how their content will sound on somewhat less then ideal gear. And I think they also like the white cones.

If you master your content on a pair of more mid-forward speakers like this, without doing any EQ, then the recording will probably come out more V-shaped and withdrawn in the mids, as richard12511 mentioned. With more emphasis in the bass and treble. That may be another reason people use them. There is a rather nasty bump in the higher frequencies though, that will also suck some of the air out of the recordings, if left as is. Perhaps that's also intentional.

There may be some other mixing uses for a response like this as well. But I wouldn't really know what those would be.

 

[aandres_gm]

"21 sold 18 million globally in 2011 and 8.3 million the following year"

Beats by Dre has sold a stupid amount of ****** headphones. Should we toss our gear away and get some Beats Pro?

 

[ADU]

These are the only two plots I could find of the Auratones btw, in case anyone's interested. Since the sources are unfamiliar, I don't know if they are accurate...

https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/1320797.png

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d49b3341a5d131d5d9202a38901fb3f8-c

These were obviously very mid forward designs that were undoubtedly intended to approximate the poorer FR performance of cheaper everday electronic devices at the time. An interesting article on same from Sound on Sound: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/auratone-5c-super-sound-cube

The tagline in the old ad reads: "Recording Monitors for the Real World". And they weren't wrong (unfortunately). I assume there is a reason that speakers like these were often referred to by engineers as "grot-boxes".

"Crap" was probably a poor choice of word btw for speakers of this type. Because, for all I know, these may have been very well designed and engineered for their intended use and purpose. So I apologize for making that comment, and would retract it if I could still edit my previous post. What I was referring to was just the speaker's lack of a smooth, flat frequency response over most the audible range, which would make it a poor choice imo for a neutral/linear response.

 

[807Recordings]

I think the biggest elephant in the room here missed is the human factor and expertise of someone having worked tens of thousands of hours on a system and practicing how it translates.

-In producing the most important aspect is capturing the best performance. So often this is why the audiophile type music is so boring.
-Gear, spaces, monitors do not mean much if the music itself is not interesting.
-Rarely is a great musical piece of music technically the best sounding. It is a very rare exception that the best sounding is the most moving music. Art is strange that way.
-Having great equipment and equipment that is accurate can help though if you are capturing a performance and it does get caught in that moment.
-Having accurate monitoring does not make for a great recording/mix but it can help to avoid errors you did not hear.
-Talent wins above all else
-Talent does not hide the mistakes that a poor monitoring setup does not reveal. Think of how many mixes lack the lower and upper octaves of music simply because they had been produced on some small and limited range speakers.
-Being famous does not mean it was correct and with out error. I think the modern world paints a pretty clear picture on this.

Personally I have seen a lot of good producers who worked on pretty crap setups starting out upgrade to very high end studios and setups. Only after the upgrade their music became incredibly good sounding but terribly artistically.

Translation is perhaps one of the largest parts of being a good mixing engineer/producer.

 

[TimVG]

this is the Yamaha NS10. one of the most used mixing monitors in the last century.
why? because the midrange is the most important range to get right.
the bass they would than check on other monitors

So if I'm making an outdoor video and I really want that grass and those trees to look natural, I'll oversaturate the colour green on my monitor screen and work from there? It doesn't work that way. If anything, it's the exact opposite - I want to work on a calibrated screen, a standard if you will. The only reason the NS10's response is what it is, is because the designer was (wrongfully - he later admitted as much himself) aiming for a flat sound power target. It was designed as a consumer loudspeaker. It's basically an auratone with extended bass and treble, and was meant to be a reference to simulate what the average consumer speaker did in those times. We're far past that, and there are well designed loudspeakers to be found and many a price point these days.

 

[thewas]

Here also what Toole writes about the NS-10 https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...m-speaker-s-to-test-review.23455/#post-783855

 

[dasdoing]

So if I'm making an outdoor video and I really want that grass and those trees to look natural, I'll oversaturate the colour green on my monitor screen and work from there?

that's not a good anology.
you could say that isolating the midrange is like zooming in into a photo in Photoshop so you can see the details better. afterwards you work on the "big picture".
again, I am not defending this working aprouch. I am just reproducing the explainations I have read over the years

 

[TimVG]

that's not a good anology.
you could say that isolating the midrange is like zooming in into a photo in Photoshop so you can see the details better. afterwards you work on the "big picture".
again, I am not defending this working aprouch. I am just reproducing the explainations I have read over the years

I would say it's the perfect analogy. Spectrum of sound and spectrum of image. Zooming in would mean isolating tracks.