Is it easier to make a flat headphone or one that follows Harman target? If flat, can the industry do EQ electronically like with RIAA?

[wwenze]

Perhaps we just need someone to push the industry in that direction? The industry has already adopted Harman target but that's being done acoustically, which may not be the best method.

Maybe with active headphones / earphones being a thing nowadays it can sidestep this issue...

 

[astr0b0y]

Don’t most mastering headphones adhere to a flatish curve? Bit also, doesn’t the shape of your ear affect this too?

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Perhaps we just need someone to push the industry in that direction? The industry has already adopted Harman target but that's being done acoustically, which may not be the best method.

Maybe with active headphones / earphones being a thing nowadays it can sidestep this issue...

Well use the measurements from this site and add eq. Problem solved, no nanny state!

 

[Pretorious]

The issue, as I understand it, and as astr0b0y point out, is that your ear shape will affect the frequency response. This means any applied EQ will get close to making a headphone sound like a target, but your ear will cause deviations that you would need to measure for and correct on an individual basis.

With ANC headphones it should be more possible to accurately tune the emanating sound to a target response. They tend to have mics that capture the sound inside the cups to measure the perceived frequency and then adjust accordingly. Someone with more technical knowledge will be able to explain better, but this is just my laymen's response.

 

[garbulky]

So what does a flat headphone sound like? I am confused why headphones need to have non-flat frequency response to sound "right".

 

[LightninBoy]

So what does a flat headphone sound like? I am confused why headphones need to have non-flat frequency response to sound "right".

1. Because in real life, sound doesn't emanate 1/2 inch away from your ear - unless its a mosquito. So its easier to approximate live instruments using speakers in a room.
2. Because music is mixed and produced using speakers in a room as a reference. That is a radically different listening environment than headphones. You might as well ask, if I listen to music underwater, why does it need a special EQ curve to sound right? Because you are frickin underwater! The music was produced to sound good in air not water. Likewise, the music was produced to sound good with flat(ish) speakers in a room. Not flat headphones with the music blasting straight into your ear canal.

The radical headphone curves exist to compensate for this radical difference. The intent is to, as much as possible, mimic a good speaker in a good room, when in fact the sound is blasting straight into your ear.

The OP's suggestion would be a legit solution though if you could work through all the legacy issues.

 

[DVDdoug]

It wouldn't surprise me if some wireless or noise-canceling headphones have some EQ built-in but every manufacturer may not be shooting for the Harmon curve.

Don’t most mastering headphones adhere to a flatish curve? Bit also, doesn’t the shape of your ear affect this too?

Mixing & mastering engineers don't generally use headphones except maybe when they are listening for little defects or little details. And as far as I know, "pro" headphones are no more consistent than "hi-fi" or "audiophile" headphones.

 

[garbulky]

1. Because in real life, sound doesn't emanate 1/2 inch away from your ear - unless its a mosquito. So its easier to approximate live instruments using speakers in a room.
2. Because music is mixed and produced using speakers in a room as a reference. That is a radically different listening environment than headphones. You might as well ask, if I listen to music underwater, why does it need a special EQ curve to sound right? Because you are frickin underwater! The music was produced to sound good in air not water. Likewise, the music was produced to sound good with flat(ish) speakers in a room. Not flat headphones with the music blasting straight into your ear canal.

The radical headphone curves exist to compensate for this radical difference. The intent is to, as much as possible, mimic a good speaker in a good room, when in fact the sound is blasting straight into your ear.

The OP's suggestion would be a legit solution though if you could work through all the legacy issues.

So what would it sound like flat? Are you saying the compensation eq is to make it sound flat?

 

[LightninBoy]

So what would it sound like flat? Are you saying the compensation eq is to make it sound flat?

The goal of the harman target is to make the sound coming from the headphones sound similar to good (flat-ish) speakers in a good room.

 

[garbulky]

The goal of the harman target is to make the sound coming from the headphones sound similar to good (flat-ish) speakers in a good room.

No forget speakers. Would it sound accurate to the recording? Like I understand RIAA equalization. But does the harman curve simply sound "good" or does it actually compensate for the way headphones act to provide a perceived flat response?

 

[dfuller]

The Harman target is quite bass heavy. It certainly sounds impressive, but accurate... not so much. Diffuse Field is closer to speakers IMO.

 

[LightninBoy]

No forget speakers. Would it sound accurate to the recording? Like I understand RIAA equalization. But does the harman curve simply sound "good" or does it actually compensate for the way headphones act to provide a perceived flat response?

You can't really take the speakers out of it as those are the reference. We are entering the circle of confusion here, but the theory goes like this:

1. music is produced using good speakers in a good room as a reference
2. therefore playback on good speakers in a good room is accurate to the recording
3. the headphone harmon curve compensates for the unnatural mechanism of blasting sound directly into your ear canal and attempts to sound like good speakers in a good room
4. therefore headphones with the harmon curve produce sound that is accurate to the recording

The efficacy of all this can (and will) be argued to death, but that is theory.

 

[abdo123]

The Harman target is quite bass heavy. It certainly sounds impressive, but accurate... not so much. Diffuse Field is closer to speakers IMO.

you know that they tackled this in their study right?

Some people prefer less sub-bass than the Harman target, they acknowledged that and they do not try to be a fit all model.

 

[dfuller]

you know that they tackled this in their study right?

Some people prefer less sub-bass than the Harman target, they acknowledged that and they do not try to be a fit all model.

I'm aware. But there's a lot of misinterpretation of the target as being the be-all-end-all of accuracy.

 

[wwenze]

I'm not sure where "FR of the headphone and the fit" comes in

The result of RIAA equalization is still affected by the FR of the speakers and the room too.

But we still do RIAA equalization because there is a good reason for it.

Hence the question of this thread: Is there a potential good reason for doing the Harman curve electronically instead of acoustically, like is it hard to implement it acoustically hence resulting in all the funky responses we've seen so far?

Then there is the issue of which response is the "correct" one, if you already have a flat headphone with a electronic EQ, then that EQ can be changed relatively easily (or even just swap out some passive EQ components).

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

In my experience the people from headphones and in ear the last thing they want is a '' flat '' response or something like that.... in speakers that FR sounds right, but in headphones nope, because the drivers doesn't move the air as the real instruments., the drivers are too small...

 

[Bob-23]

It should not be forgotten that the Harman-Target-Curve cannot compensate for the major deficiency of headphone-listening to recordings which are mixed on speakers for listening on speakers: When listening on speakers you get the sound of the right speaker not only to the right ear, but also to the left ear [with a tiny time delay of ~300ms, and a bit weakend]. It's crossfeed that tries to compensate for that, albeit imperfectly - but that's all we have, and it works satisfyingly.