OLLO S5X Headphone Review

[Robbo99999]

I went back to the review to figure out why I thought they would be non-linear. I think it is THD vs Frequency graph that show levels as dB and THD as % is the culprit. If you convert THD% to dB, looks like they would align linearly indeed.

This is the graph I am talking about. Level is logarithmic, and so is the x-axis, not sure why the y-axis is linear.

Good observations for why you (mistakenly) thought what you did! (yes, good thought process, I hadn't made some of those links in my mind before re that graph.)

 

[bodhi]

We're not gonna go through all that again, we've debated the pros & cons of EQ vs insert, so I don't have anymore to say on that.

So don't.

I also pointed out earlier that you were getting confused by bringing in the whole topic of "EQ'ing a headphone from a measurement you find on the internet"

So you did.

So it's not relevant to be going on about the pros & cons of "EQ'ing a headphone from a measurement you find on the internet" here in this thread

So don't.

 

[GaryH]

Yes, that graph is pretty conclusive, headphone resonances are mostly linear it looks like. Where is it from?

Oratory's measurements, originally shared by @Robbo99999 in this post.

That may be true if the FR and distortion you are referring to is the FR and distortion we perceive. Surely it is NOT true for the 1/12 octave smoothed, rig specific, unreliable measurement data we have though. Let's not pretend they are the same.

Yet reliable enough to get a high correlation of 0.85 between listeners' preference ratings given to real and virtualized headphones using digital EQ based on said rig measurements as found by Harman. And that's only using FR measurements, without replicating distortion, and limiting aggressive virtualization EQ to <8-10kHz. And all this despite nuisance variables such as leakage and tactile cues present in the real tests but not virtual tests, as well as being based on measurements using the old, long since superceded artificial pinnae before Harman started using more anthropomorphic pinnae used in their later preference studies, which better simulate leakage on real human heads. Considering this substantial improvement in accuracy (plus potential other methodological improvements, see below), the virtualization correlation is likely to have increased significantly higher than the 0.85 found with the original pinnae. Dr Sean Olive:

we've improved the accuracy of the virtualization in part by developing a custom pinnae for our GRAS 45 CA that better simulates the leakage effects of headphones measured on real human subjects

 

[markanini]

Here's some data of a toilet paper mod apperaing effetive at selectively targeting FR deviations vs. common target:

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/vu1aq7

While pertaining to a different model headphone I'd consider it sufficient to invalidate some of the negative emotionality toward the mod.

 

[Alchemist_]

The manufacturer has a good idea...
But why not make the size of the ear pads inside 65*45 with a depth of 22 millimeters or angular.
And weighing up to 300 grams.

 

[Smaestro]

Hey everyone. Long time lurker, first post here. Thanks for all the measurements and information that you Amirm, and others (Solderdude among others) share freely. I always use this website before buying anything.

I figured I’d post my review on these headphones, from the pov of an audio engineer. I do mostly acoustic folk indie to hard rock to electronic downtempo.

I apologise, this review turned out into a massive wall of text. I am writing this while having the flu, and I don’t have the energy to summarize further. Maybe later, but for now it’s just my blurted out thoughts.

TLDR Summary: I think these headphones are great for mixing engineers, the best I’ve come across the DT’s, MDR’s and HD’s. But I haven’t had them all and I claim no authority. I also think they are good value for money too if you like the looks, and the build quality seems excellent. I agree with the general assessment that they are deficient in bass for enjoyment for rock, EDM, RnB and DnB type genres, but I find that they are great for folk, classic, anything where midrange timbre is of higher importance. I’d recommend these for mixing engineers who use headphones predominantly, and not only to zoom in on certain area’s (while you of course could).

About my usecase:
I mix on headphones. I’ve done so all my life and it comes a lot easier to me than for engineers who “make the switch” from speakers. But I’ve noticed two consistent issues with my mixes over the years: bass and width.

1. Bass comes across in that mixes just don’t translate in the area below 100Hz. Sometimes too loud, sometimes not enough.
2. The same goes for width, and the perceived loudness between sources in the middle (lead vocal, snare for example) and things panned to the sides (pads, backing vocals etc).

So I specifically want headphones that are stronger than that than my current faves, the closed back Sony MDR-1A (with custom EQ profile).

A short bit about Harman targets in mixing:
So from an mixing standpoint, I’ve often tried mixing with a Harman (2019, over ear) target, following the logic of “mix towards what your listeners hear”, but the issue is that I just can’t get bass accurately translate. With a straight bass response, I find it much easier to simply hear if the balance is right and it’s also easier to compare to reference tracks. Rather than rely on the ‘visceralness’ of the bass. There are more issues I have with the extra bass, it also mask issues in the lower mids, or the mids in general. And finally it is more tiring, for me more than for example the higher region usually associated with ear fatigue.

I do like Harman tuning in general for enjoyment and I am happy there is a standard. Personally I have been weening off the bass over the past few years, because I do love hearing more of the mids, but it’s difficult to miss the power and enjoyment of bass. But it’s slowly getting there, my personal preference is nowsomewhere halfway between Harman Over 2019 and flat.


Sound
I don’t have the best ears unfortunately (left goes to 10kHz, with a massive 6kHz gap, the right goes to 13kHz with a smaller 7 kHz gap), so I utilise a lot of EQ techniques to make up for these shortcomings, and help me focus on problem areas. This has worked for everything, except for bass and width. That’s why I’ve looked for headphones that specifically have superstraight subbass response, a design focus to help with sound localisation (however achieved) and elevated highs to find accentuate sharpness is also a plus. The S5X tick the boxes.

(The dips in the S5X 5-8kHz frequency response might exactly correspond with my hearing loss, so I might not hear the deficiencies that others might).

Bass is clear all the way down, instruments are nice and wide, and I feel I can hear more than I did previously, no matter the EQ. I will have to work with them a lot more, but impressions after 20 hrs are great. It is also a big plus to not have to have EQ compensations, so I can take these to other studio’s and instantly be ready.

Friends told me these headphones sound like listening to speakers rather than headphones. While I think that’s very exaggerated, it illustrates the point that they feel nicely spacious. IMO having open backed headphones with this bass response is just great.

They seem not so sensitive to placement on the head. Distortion is also not noticeable. Compared to my peers I am a bit better in hearing saturation, but I can’t say I’ve noticed anything. But I also don’t listen loud at all.

I also think that it isn’t so much an issue that the higher mids don’t follow Harman, as the bass also doesn’t. That makes more sense in the overal balance than to have one or the other.

I have not yet tried the supplied (for extra cost) compensation curve.

They are properly loud. On my LG G7 Quad DAC phone I’ve not turned the volume above 30 out of 75.

And importantly, I can hear on these exactly the issues in my mixes that I've so far only heard on monitors with regards to the bass and width.


Comfort
The large and deep cups fit comfortably over my ears, keeping them cool, and also adding to the sense of wide soundstage. The pads are nice and plush and the suede covering feels like I should wear these as earmuffs in the winter. I do agree with that the clamping force is a tad too high. The headphone are nicely snug, but after 3/4 hours I can feel my jaw muscles becoming a bit squished. I’ll bend the metal headstrap a little bit soon.

Looks and build
Really nice. Honestly best looking gear I’ve seen for this price. Not a single bit of plastic, everything fits snug, really good stuff. The hard case (not included) is about the same quality as you can expect from for example the Sony MDR 1000XM’s.

Contact
I had originally messed up my order (ordered too much), and contact with the company was very quick and simple, and quickly refunded me. So far so good.

Comparison to HD650
If you want the upsides of an open back, combined with deep bass extension without distortion, then this might suit you more than HD650. This is also miles better IMO than a DT990.

I see it as better in some areas than a HD650 (better subbass extension and distortion), and worse in others (less target adherence in upper mids). And the lack of this target adherence is for me a plus, not a minus, to keep in balance with the bass.
I’d judge them as equal, depending on what you need. And I am also honest about what I can and cannot hear, so that may play a part as well.

Conclusion
These are really good headphones and I’d absolutely recommend them to any pro looking for headphones, and possibly any consumer who isn’t super into bass. If you disagree with my points, that is fine, the above is all subjective opinion. I just wanted to give a different point of view.

 

[markanini]

Hey everyone. Long time lurker, first post here. Thanks for all the measurements and information that you Amirm, and others (Solderdude among others) share freely. I always use this website before buying anything.

I figured I’d post my review on these headphones, from the pov of an audio engineer. I do mostly acoustic folk indie to hard rock to electronic downtempo.

I apologise, this review turned out into a massive wall of text. I am writing this while having the flu, and I don’t have the energy to summarize further. Maybe later, but for now it’s just my blurted out thoughts.

TLDR Summary: I think these headphones are great for mixing engineers, the best I’ve come across the DT’s, MDR’s and HD’s. But I haven’t had them all and I claim no authority. I also think they are good value for money too if you like the looks, and the build quality seems excellent. I agree with the general assessment that they are deficient in bass for enjoyment for rock, EDM, RnB and DnB type genres, but I find that they are great for folk, classic, anything where midrange timbre is of higher importance. I’d recommend these for mixing engineers who use headphones predominantly, and not only to zoom in on certain area’s (while you of course could).

About my usecase:
I mix on headphones. I’ve done so all my life and it comes a lot easier to me than for engineers who “make the switch” from speakers. But I’ve noticed two consistent issues with my mixes over the years: bass and width.

1. Bass comes across in that mixes just don’t translate in the area below 100Hz. Sometimes too loud, sometimes not enough.
2. The same goes for width, and the perceived loudness between sources in the middle (lead vocal, snare for example) and things panned to the sides (pads, backing vocals etc).

So I specifically want headphones that are stronger than that than my current faves, the closed back Sony MDR-1A (with custom EQ profile).

A short bit about Harman targets in mixing:
So from an mixing standpoint, I’ve often tried mixing with a Harman (2019, over ear) target, following the logic of “mix towards what your listeners hear”, but the issue is that I just can’t get bass accurately translate. With a straight bass response, I find it much easier to simply hear if the balance is right and it’s also easier to compare to reference tracks. Rather than rely on the ‘visceralness’ of the bass. There are more issues I have with the extra bass, it also mask issues in the lower mids, or the mids in general. And finally it is more tiring, for me more than for example the higher region usually associated with ear fatigue.

I do like Harman tuning in general for enjoyment and I am happy there is a standard. Personally I have been weening off the bass over the past few years, because I do love hearing more of the mids, but it’s difficult to miss the power and enjoyment of bass. But it’s slowly getting there, my personal preference is nowsomewhere halfway between Harman Over 2019 and flat.


Sound
I don’t have the best ears unfortunately (left goes to 10kHz, with a massive 6kHz gap, the right goes to 13kHz with a smaller 7 kHz gap), so I utilise a lot of EQ techniques to make up for these shortcomings, and help me focus on problem areas. This has worked for everything, except for bass and width. That’s why I’ve looked for headphones that specifically have superstraight subbass response, a design focus to help with sound localisation (however achieved) and elevated highs to find accentuate sharpness is also a plus. The S5X tick the boxes.

(The dips in the S5X 5-8kHz frequency response might exactly correspond with my hearing loss, so I might not hear the deficiencies that others might).

Bass is clear all the way down, instruments are nice and wide, and I feel I can hear more than I did previously, no matter the EQ. I will have to work with them a lot more, but impressions after 20 hrs are great. It is also a big plus to not have to have EQ compensations, so I can take these to other studio’s and instantly be ready.

Friends told me these headphones sound like listening to speakers rather than headphones. While I think that’s very exaggerated, it illustrates the point that they feel nicely spacious. IMO having open backed headphones with this bass response is just great.

They seem not so sensitive to placement on the head. Distortion is also not noticeable. Compared to my peers I am a bit better in hearing saturation, but I can’t say I’ve noticed anything. But I also don’t listen loud at all.

I also think that it isn’t so much an issue that the higher mids don’t follow Harman, as the bass also doesn’t. That makes more sense in the overal balance than to have one or the other.

I have not yet tried the supplied (for extra cost) compensation curve.

They are properly loud. On my LG G7 Quad DAC phone I’ve not turned the volume above 30 out of 75.

And importantly, I can hear on these exactly the issues in my mixes that I've so far only heard on monitors with regards to the bass and width.


Comfort
The large and deep cups fit comfortably over my ears, keeping them cool, and also adding to the sense of wide soundstage. The pads are nice and plush and the suede covering feels like I should wear these as earmuffs in the winter. I do agree with that the clamping force is a tad too high. The headphone are nicely snug, but after 3/4 hours I can feel my jaw muscles becoming a bit squished. I’ll bend the metal headstrap a little bit soon.

Looks and build
Really nice. Honestly best looking gear I’ve seen for this price. Not a single bit of plastic, everything fits snug, really good stuff. The hard case (not included) is about the same quality as you can expect from for example the Sony MDR 1000XM’s.

Contact
I had originally messed up my order (ordered too much), and contact with the company was very quick and simple, and quickly refunded me. So far so good.

Comparison to HD650
If you want the upsides of an open back, combined with deep bass extension without distortion, then this might suit you more than HD650. This is also miles better IMO than a BT990.

I see it as better in some areas than a HD650 (better subbass extension and distortion), and worse in others (less target adherence in upper mids). And the lack of this target adherence is for me a plus, not a minus, to keep in balance with the bass.
I’d judge them as equal, depending on what you need. And I am also honest about what I can and cannot hear, so that may play a part as well.

Conclusion
These are really good headphones and I’d absolutely recommend them to any pro looking for headphones, and possibly any consumer who isn’t super into bass. If you disagree with my points, that is fine, the above is all subjective opinion. I just wanted to give a different point of view.

I have difficulty relating a flat bass response to that of a real monitor speaker setup. If I did anything outside of editing/comping it would not translate at all. Thankfully there's always EQ if you require a bass shelf like I do.

Either way thanks for your hands on impression.

 

[solderdude]

Yep, don't produce/mix music with Harman curved headphones.
One can check final mixes with Harman headphones to hear what the consumer wants (moar deep bass)

When one would be mixing on Harman bass headphones one ends up with bass shy recordings and in that case, when listening to Harman bass headphones one would end up with 'mixer' amounts of bass at somewhat loud levels and not with the 'moar bass' consumers want.

I have been more used to nearfield monitors than speakers in a room (which Harman curve is all about) that I prefer my headphones to not be Harman bass but 'flat' in the lows.
In fact... my S5X (with felt mod and lower/mids filtered a bit) is still my fav. open headphone along with an EQ'ed (but not Harman target) HD800 which is EQ'ed to the same sound sig as my (EQ'ed flat) nearfield monitors.

 

[markanini]

It's a bit of a moot point either way for audio work. Because most use reference tracks, not reference transducers to compare their work against. And if the transducer matters it's at best a monitor speaker setup.

I love a good headphone for enjoyment though, and I will use headphones at least half of the time when sketching out song ideas, translatability isn't critical at that stage.

 

[Smaestro]

It's interesting to hear other viewpoints. It's no surprise that people can mix with higher bass levels, it's all what you're used to. I'd be hesitant to call it moot though because of auditory masking. It probably matters less for pop and EDM, where the whole of the bass and lower mids are generally part of one big bass sound, and the 250Hz region receives a scoop usually anyways. But if you go into choir music, where the bass voice is also in the 80-300Hz region, then it's important you really hear its unmasked texture in the mix.

Btw, what do you mean by "if the transducer matters it's a monitor speaker setup"?

In any case, IMO no matter how elevated or shelved etc the bass response, it must be smooth, so no small notches or bumps. If you can mix on a stock AKG K371 for example (very elevated bass), that's off course fine. But it does has a little notch at 70Hz and a little bump at 90Hz. If your reference track has a kick fundamental at 90, and yours is at 70, then going by reference you will be 2dB above your reference. No problem if you have a mastering engineer lined up, but half of my clients want me to do the mastering (despite me strongly advising them to take it to someone else btw).

Schepps seems to make his MDR7506 work, which has the similar notch/bump pattern at 70/90Hz (though notablywithout any elevated bass and even a lack of subbass). Then again, everything he mixes will be mastered by the worlds best.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yep, don't produce/mix music with Harman curved headphones.
One can check final mixes with Harman headphones to hear what the consumer wants (moar deep bass)

When one would be mixing on Harman bass headphones one ends up with bass shy recordings and in that case, when listening to Harman bass headphones one would end up with 'mixer' amounts of bass at somewhat loud levels and not with the 'moar bass' consumers want.

I have been more used to nearfield monitors than speakers in a room (which Harman curve is all about) that I prefer my headphones to not be Harman bass but 'flat' in the lows.
In fact... my S5X (with felt mod and lower/mids filtered a bit) is still my fav. open headphone along with an EQ'ed (but not Harman target) HD800 which is EQ'ed to the same sound sig as my (EQ'ed flat) nearfield monitors.

Have you ever tried Impulcifier by Jaakopasenen? You know in terms of measuring your in ear response of your speaker setup (with in-ear mics) and then matching that once you've got your headphones on by measuring again with the in-ear mics? Theoretically that should give the most accurate sound over headphones, same deal with the Smyth Realiser. I think it's real hard otherwise to subjectively EQ your headphones to your speakers, probably not possible. (I've not tried Impulcifier nor Smyth Realiser yet.)

 

[solderdude]

I have not nor do I see any real value in it for myself.

EERP measurements can be useful in some cases.
I do not need it to get enjoyment with listening.
Resetting my ears with calibrated near-fields works great for me and the switch to headphones is almost instantaneously.
It would be a real bummer for me (with over 40 years of experience in music and audio) if I could not hear if a headphone is tuned correctly or to my liking.

Besides Harman research has repeatedly shown that the vast majority of listeners (both trained and not trained) can hear if a recording sounds tonally correct or not.

It's just a hobby and my headphones are mainly used for enjoying music. Not for scientific experiments.
When sound is tonally good (for me) and the sound quality is good that's all I need.

For me the S5X has great sound quality out of the box (despite being a studio headphone) and with some small changes (felt) and a bit of 'warmth reduction' it sounds very good/realistic to me.
Probably using more trickery and science it could be even better (technically) but the S5X is totally satisfactory to me. In the end... that's all that matters and not what science says I should like.

 

[Robbo99999]

I have not nor do I see any real value in it for myself.

EERP measurements can be useful in some cases.
I do not need it to get enjoyment with listening.
Resetting my ears with calibrated near-fields works great for me and the switch to headphones is almost instantaneously.
It would be a real bummer for me (with over 40 years of experience in music and audio) if I could not hear if a headphone is tuned correctly or to my liking.

Besides Harman research has repeatedly shown that the vast majority of listeners (both trained and not trained) can hear if a recording sounds tonally correct or not.

It's just a hobby and my headphones are mainly used for enjoying music. Not for scientific experiments.
When sound is tonally good (for me) and the sound quality is good that's all I need.

For me the S5X has great sound quality out of the box (despite being a studio headphone) and with some small changes (felt) and a bit of 'warmth reduction' it sounds very good/realistic to me.
Probably using more trickery and science it could be even better (technically) but the S5X is totally satisfactory to me. In the end... that's all that matters and not what science says I should like.

I mean, that's fine for you that headphones sound good to you after you've tuned it by ear, but it's a hard task to do when you have headphones with random frequency responses as a starting point. I can understand taking a good starting point as Harman Curve and then tweaking parts of the frequency response (especially bass) until it balances out, which is how I approach it, but I can't imagine how it would be easy to do if you don't have a good starting point. But you know me better now, you know I'm not going to go over the top about it, because I respect you have a different approach.

What I am quite surprised about is how there's probably not many audio professionals who have gone down the route of Impulcifier or Smyth Realiser with their headphones, I'm assuming there's not many! To me it sounds like a really valid use case. I suppose it's kinda on topic for this headphone, because the Ollo is marketed as a bit of a professional headphone if I remember rightly.

 

[Smaestro]

I mean, that's fine for you that headphones sound good to you after you've tuned it by ear, but it's a hard task to do when you have headphones with random frequency responses as a starting point. I can understand taking a good starting point as Harman Curve and then tweaking parts of the frequency response (especially bass) until it balances out, which is how I approach it, but I can't imagine how it would be easy to do if you don't have a good starting point. But you know me better now, you know I'm not going to go over the top about it, because I respect you have a different approach.

What I am quite surprised about is how there's probably not many audio professionals who have gone down the route of Impulcifier or Smyth Realiser with their headphones, I'm assuming there's not many! To me it sounds like a really valid use case. I suppose it's kinda on topic for this headphone, because the Ollo is marketed as a bit of a professional headphone if I remember rightly.

Three reasons I can think of:
1. Unknown. I know of Jaako Pasanens popular AutoEQ work, but if I had to guess, I think only 10% of producers and mixers I know have heard of that. Let alone this even more obscure project.
2. A lot of pro's spend a lot of time building their studio, but for most, done is done, and then nothing changes for 20 years. There are some who are always tweaking of course.
3. It requires comparison to a well treated room. If you rely on headphones to mix, you probably don't have a well treated room.
3b. And on the flipside: If they had a well treated room, then they must have spent a lot of time and money on it, so it's unlikely they'd spend extra effort to not use that room.

 

[markanini]

It's interesting to hear other viewpoints. It's no surprise that people can mix with higher bass levels, it's all what you're used to. I'd be hesitant to call it moot though because of auditory masking. It probably matters less for pop and EDM, where the whole of the bass and lower mids are generally part of one big bass sound, and the 250Hz region receives a scoop usually anyways. But if you go into choir music, where the bass voice is also in the 80-300Hz region, then it's important you really hear its unmasked texture in the mix.

Btw, what do you mean by "if the transducer matters it's a monitor speaker setup"?

In any case, IMO no matter how elevated or shelved etc the bass response, it must be smooth, so no small notches or bumps. If you can mix on a stock AKG K371 for example (very elevated bass), that's off course fine. But it does has a little notch at 70Hz and a little bump at 90Hz. If your reference track has a kick fundamental at 90, and yours is at 70, then going by reference you will be 2dB above your reference. No problem if you have a mastering engineer lined up, but half of my clients want me to do the mastering (despite me strongly advising them to take it to someone else btw).

Schepps seems to make his MDR7506 work, which has the similar notch/bump pattern at 70/90Hz (though notablywithout any elevated bass and even a lack of subbass). Then again, everything he mixes will be mastered by the worlds best.

If there is auditory masking due to a bass rise, then it's happening in a live room too. So how can representating a realistic sound field be problematic for a headphones?
I tried Etymotics ER4S a decade ago. Before abandoning them I powered through at least a year with their stock response, that has flat bass.

 

[solderdude]

it's a hard task to do when you have headphones with random frequency responses as a starting point.

The S5X does not have a random response though and is already a good starting point by itself.
It's target does not follow Harman though.

Audio professionals use headphones as tools and usually know how their headphone sounds and how that translates to good recordings.
Different jobs, different tools.

 

[Robbo99999]

Three reasons I can think of:
1. Unknown. I know of Jaako Pasanens popular AutoEQ work, but if I had to guess, I think only 10% of producers and mixers I know have heard of that. Let alone this even more obscure project.
2. A lot of pro's spend a lot of time building their studio, but for most, done is done, and then nothing changes for 20 years. There are some who are always tweaking of course.
3. It requires comparison to a well treated room. If you rely on headphones to mix, you probably don't have a well treated room.
3b. And on the flipside: If they had a well treated room, then they must have spent a lot of time and money on it, so it's unlikely they'd spend extra effort to not use that room.

Yes, good point on if you've got a good treated room & good speakers then why bother with headphones! It's difficult if you want to skip straight to the step of wanting & having to use headphones as the only tool for creating music, I think there's too much uncertainty surrounding headphones and how they will sound to a given person to skip straight to that step.

 

[Robbo99999]

The S5X does not have a random response though and is already a good starting point by itself.
It's target does not follow Harman though.

Audio professionals use headphones as tools and usually know how their headphone sounds and how that translates to good recordings.
Different jobs, different tools.

It's possible it might be somewhat tonally balance overall. I mean I accept that I like the way the New Version HD560s sounds, and think that one is spot on with overall tonality in terms of balance and that doesn't hug the Harman Curve (albeit I like it better with EQ to Harman). So headphones can sound balanced as long as the tradeoff's in frequency response are in the right places to balance out, but it's possible you can miss out on some details if there are holes or sections within the overall tonality that are not filled in. Perhaps the S5X would be a good starting point like I think the New Version HD560s is even if they both don't follow Harman, at least not religiously following Harman......but I would still deem New Version HD560s to be closer to Harman than Ollo and frequency response of that HD560s makes more sense to me in my experience. Maybe the Ollo frequency responses could be a good starting point, but I don't like the looks of it for a starting point from my point of view.

 

[solderdude]

I have both the HD560S and S5X (and many other headphones). The S5X simply is the better headphone. I can't make any more or less of it.

For studios there is the possibility to fine-tune the headphone sound which makes use of individual measurements of that particular headphone (S5X v1.2) in the DAW where simulations exist for certain studios.

 

[Smaestro]

If there is auditory masking due to a bass rise, then it's happening in a live room too. So how can representating a realistic sound field be problematic for a headphones?

I don't know enough of the research to claim the following, so this may be completely wrong. But here's why I think the Harman curve masks more than the equivalent live room situation:

First the research:
1. It was determined that most listeners prefer a flat speaker response in a good room with smooth selectivity.
2. It was deterimined that most listeners find the Harman target curve most neutral or equivalent to this flat room response.

But at no point is tested wether individual parts of the music were equally intelligible.

Given that:
- a possible explanation for the curves existance exists (compensation for the lack of bodily bass sensation),
- and that listeners were not instructed to pay attention to masking,
- and it was done with untrained listeners who could not do that even if instructed

I conclude that the headphone curves can not be used to assume anything about equal masking, and therefore the general theory about masking still stands.

As an extra, Harman target also has elevated highs. Research shows that loud tones over 1kHz mask more towards lower freqencies than higher. So the mids get masked from both sides.

I end this again with: I am still beginning on reading up on all the research and it's quite possible that any or all of the above is wrong.