PEQdB Diamond Target Curve - New Stanford white paper

[thewas]

He is also uploaded few hours ago a video with the title "Responding to AudioScienceReview" where he responds to this thread, of course doesn't make sense to waste any second on it.

One of his problems is that like usually with people shouting loud he misses even the basics, for example 9 days ago he uploade a video with the title "Speaker Measurements Don't Matter". There he argues that stereo playback creates acoustic comb filtering (interference dips in frequency response) because sound from the right speaker hits the left ear slightly later than sound from the left speaker. He concludes that because of this interference, speaker measurements are pointless and mono listening is the only true "high-res" experience. This argument is fundamentally flawed for two primary reasons related to human hearing. The video treats human hearing like a single static measurement microphone. In reality, the human brain and auditory system utilize binaural hearing. Our brains are highly adapted to process acoustic differences between ears to localize sound in 3D space (known as Head-Related Transfer Functions, or HRTF). The human auditory system does not perceive acoustic comb filtering from stereo speakers as a distorted, low-fidelity mess. Instead, our brain "smooths" these comb-filtering notches out psychoacoustically because the two ears sample the sound field at two different points in space. This prevents us from hearing the interference as a tonal coloration, allowing us to instead perceive a spacious stereo image (the phantom center and lateral soundstage). Therefore, speaker measurements (like on-axis response and directivity) absolutely do matter because a speaker with smooth directivity ensures that the reflections bouncing around the room match the direct sound, allowing our binaural hearing system to accurately separate the speakers' true tonality from the room's acoustics.

This pattern unfortunately is been repeated on many of his bold claims which tend to impress people who are new in the topics.

 

[Somafunk]

He is also uploaded few hours ago a video with the title "Responding to AudioScienceReview" where he responds to this thread, of course doesn't make sense to waste any second on it.

Don't worry, he's rounded up his edge lords, told them his plan and sent them out to fly....fly my children....spread the word..

And it seems like we have ensnared some.....can we keep them as forum pets?

 

[Somafunk]

Listener and co also don't believe in reviewing or discussing the Verum 2 because the creator is an edgelord, something several users on this forum tried to persuade Amir to follow.

THS make great content, but I can't take you seriously as a "scientist" if you're letting stuff like that dissuade you from giving a genuine analysis on what is considered the lowest distortion planar in the game. Amir handled the topic with grace at the time.

I shudder thinking about what we'd be missing out on if Olive and co said mean words once on the internet based on the kvetching about several people in the space. Voting with your wallet is more than acceptable, but neglecting science isn't.

spouting off death threats and disgusting racist outbursts is rather more than mean words, and then to double down and laugh about says quite enough

 

[ruben1]

Since he is a troll and cannot be trusted all we have is you reporting that you like this target curve, i.e. n=1, and in sighted listening at that. Since we all have different HRTFs and tastes that is not really useful data.

To add my own anecdote, for me JM-1 sounds quite neutral up to 3 kHz, after which I like to add a little raise that extends to around 6 kHz. For me that improves instrument placement at the expense of everything becoming a bit hyper-detailed and "glassy".

I disagree. Do you really think we have different tastes in what sounds good? I would argue that there is a universal neutral. And for now peqdb diamond is the best of this neutral there is.

And if you dont want to rely only on the peqdb diamond curve for what sounds neutral below 3khz, look at Harman ie 2019, hifiendgame, Knowles. Even other Harman targets boost bass. This is what sounds neutral to us. Jm1 doesn't account for the equal loudness contour so how could it be possible that it is more accurate?
Imo Jm1 sounds extremely shouty

 

[ruben1]

He is also uploaded few hours ago a video with the title "Responding to AudioScienceReview" where he responds to this thread, of course doesn't make sense to waste any second on it.

One of his problems is that like usually with people shouting loud he misses even the basics, for example 9 days ago he uploade a video with the title "Speaker Measurements Don't Matter". There he argues that stereo playback creates acoustic comb filtering (interference dips in frequency response) because sound from the right speaker hits the left ear slightly later than sound from the left speaker. He concludes that because of this interference, speaker measurements are pointless and mono listening is the only true "high-res" experience. This argument is fundamentally flawed for two primary reasons related to human hearing. The video treats human hearing like a single static measurement microphone. In reality, the human brain and auditory system utilize binaural hearing. Our brains are highly adapted to process acoustic differences between ears to localize sound in 3D space (known as Head-Related Transfer Functions, or HRTF). The human auditory system does not perceive acoustic comb filtering from stereo speakers as a distorted, low-fidelity mess. Instead, our brain "smooths" these comb-filtering notches out psychoacoustically because the two ears sample the sound field at two different points in space. This prevents us from hearing the interference as a tonal coloration, allowing us to instead perceive a spacious stereo image (the phantom center and lateral soundstage). Therefore, speaker measurements (like on-axis response and directivity) absolutely do matter because a speaker with smooth directivity ensures that the reflections bouncing around the room match the direct sound, allowing our binaural hearing system to accurately separate the speakers' true tonality from the room's acoustics.

This pattern unfortunately is been repeated on many of his bold claims which tend to impress people who are new in the topics.

This isn't relevant. A persons opinion on speakers do not change their target curves sound.

Also yeah our brain tries to smooth it out. But it still obviously isn't optimal. Compare a true center channel with a phantom center in a well treated room. I guarantee the center channel will fix the comb filtering (as long as there isn't strong reflections).

If you have a true center channel with a left and right speaker aswell, you can also get wider imaging by being able to put the left and right speaker further apart, and still having the center playing without comb filtering.

 

[ruben1]

Don't worry, he's rounded up his edge lords, told them his plan and sent them out to fly....fly my children....spread the word..

And it seems like we have ensnared some.....can we keep them as forum pets?

I'm just trying to be unbiased and tell my experience with the peqdb diamond target curve.
I thought this forum was for audio science. Not talking shit about other people. But I guess I was wrong.
Some of you really don't seem to care much about sound quality.

 

[thewas]

This isn't relevant. A persons opinion on speakers do not change their target curves sound.

It is as it shows that his (often even very bold) claims cannot be trusted if he even gets basics wrong.

Also yeah our brain tries to smooth it out. But it still obviously isn't optimal. Compare a true center channel with a phantom center in a well treated room. I guarantee the center channel will fix the comb filtering (as long as there isn't strong reflections).

If you have a true center channel with a left and right speaker aswell, you can also get wider imaging by being able to put the left and right speaker further apart, and still having the center playing without comb filtering.

You are missing how binaural hearing works. A microphone sums signals acoustically at a single point, creating severe comb filtering. Human ears are separated by a head; they do not sum the acoustic signals the same way.

Dr. Floyd Toole's extensive research proves that the human brain actively separates the localized "phantom center" from the acoustic interference. The brain doesn't just "try" to smooth it out—it completely decouples the tonality from the spatial location. This is why a phantom center does not sound like a comb-filtered mess with massive high-frequency dips; it sounds tonally balanced.

While a physical center channel does provide a more stable acoustic anchor (especially for listeners sitting off-axis), using three channels still creates inter-channel interference between the Center-Left and Center-Right pairs.

Ultimately, speaker directivity and measurements matter because of how our brain processes these complex acoustic fields. If measurements didn't matter, good speakers wouldn't consistently win double-blind listening tests in stereo

 

[KariMcInen]

ruben1 sounds suspiciously like Sharur. it's not the first time he has used sockpuppet accounts here.
Also the user "Apples" sounds like Nouvraught/HifiASMR.

 

[ruben1]

ruben1 sounds suspiciously like Sharur. it's not the first time he has used sockpuppet accounts here.
Also the user "Apples" sounds like Nouvraught/HifiASMR.

Apples is hifiasmr. Im not Sharur but i do use his target curve for every headphone i listen to.

 

[Tell]

Try to listen to it without bias.
You can have the opinion that he is a troll but why would be listen to crap sound on purpose?

I've tried to listen to him in the past and seeing that he was wrong then and just trolled anyone trying to explain to him why I don't even want to waste my time trying to listen to him again. I know what the Harman curve sounds like and just looking at that graph I know it will sound bad.

 

[ruben1]

It is as it shows that his (often even very bold) claims cannot be trusted if he even gets basics wrong.


You are missing how binaural hearing works. A microphone sums signals acoustically at a single point, creating severe comb filtering. Human ears are separated by a head; they do not sum the acoustic signals the same way.

Dr. Floyd Toole's extensive research proves that the human brain actively separates the localized "phantom center" from the acoustic interference. The brain doesn't just "try" to smooth it out—it completely decouples the tonality from the spatial location. This is why a phantom center does not sound like a comb-filtered mess with massive high-frequency dips; it sounds tonally balanced.

While a physical center channel does provide a more stable acoustic anchor (especially for listeners sitting off-axis), using three channels still creates inter-channel interference between the Center-Left and Center-Right pairs.

Ultimately, speaker directivity and measurements matter because of how our brain processes these complex acoustic fields. If measurements didn't matter, good speakers wouldn't consistently win double-blind listening tests in stereo

Speaker measurements obviously matter. I never said they didnt.

Yes out brain doesn't sum the ears perfectly. But it's not like it completely smoothes it out either. It still gives a weird effect coming from the comb filtering. Take a song and invert one of the channels polarity. Now listen to it on headphones. Then you will experience the effect that the brain does for summing. It doesn't it mathematically perfect, but it also isn't normal sounding at all.

 

[ruben1]

I've tried to listen to him in the past and seeing that he was wrong then and just trolled anyone trying to explain to him why I don't even want to waste my time trying to listen to him again. I know what the Harman curve sounds like and just looking at that graph I know it will sound bad.

You can't see sound. Go listen to it. You are way too biased. This forum is literally audio science review not audio bias review

 

[zonk]

In my opinion Harman is the only one that is based on proper test methods.

 

[thewas]

Speaker measurements obviously matter. I never said they didnt.

Yes out brain doesn't sum the ears perfectly. But it's not like it completely smoothes it out either. It still gives a weird effect coming from the comb filtering. Take a song and invert one of the channels polarity. Now listen to it on headphones. Then you will experience the effect that the brain does for summing. It doesn't it mathematically perfect, but it also isn't normal sounding at all.

You are confusing out-of-phase panning (headphone matrixing) with free-field stereo crosstalk.

Inverting the polarity of one channel on headphones creates an unnatural, pressure-like sensation because it forces a 180° phase inversion directly at the eardrums, completely bypassing the natural acoustic shadow and delays of a real human head. That is a synthetic artificial artifact, not "what the brain does for summing."

In a real room with stereo speakers, your ears receive natural Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTF). The crosstalk from the opposite speaker is naturally delayed and acoustically attenuated by your head. Our brains evolved over millions of years precisely to decode these specific acoustic delays to map 3D space.

Furthermore, the original video was literally titled "Speaker Measurements Don't Matter" and concluded with "your speaker measurements really do not matter." Saying they "obviously matter" now completely contradicts the video. They matter because clean directivity allows the brain to easily separate the speaker's true voice from the room's acoustics.

 

[ruben1]

In a real room with stereo speakers, your ears receive natural Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTF).

Haha are you using AI to respond or something? You dont have to explain what hrtf means.

The crosstalk from the opposite speaker is naturally delayed and acoustically attenuated by your head.

Any study to show this? All we have thus far is saying comb filtering exists and you saying it doesn't.

Our brains evolved over millions of years precisely to decode these specific acoustic delays to map 3D space.

Yeah obviously, but our brains didn't evolve to sum two speakers into one while not creating any artifacts. It evolved to detect the direction of the sound, and with a stereo setup, we try to fool the brain into thinking there is a center channel. But there isn't. This leads to comb filtering.

Furthermore, the original video was literally titled "Speaker Measurements Don't Matter" and concluded with "your speaker measurements really do not matter." Saying they "obviously matter" now completely contradicts the video. They matter because clean directivity allows the brain to easily separate the speaker's true voice from the room's acoustics.

Yeah I never said anything about the title of the video. I don't know how this is relevant. I interpreted it more as "stereo speakers will always be limited because of comb filtering". Frequency, phase and polar response do matter but they are way easier to get right than to fix comb filtering itself. It would require crosstalk cancellation, not playing stereo music, or using headphones

 

[nereis]

I disagree. Do you really think we have different tastes in what sounds good? I would argue that there is a universal neutral. And for now peqdb diamond is the best of this neutral there is.

not claiming any kind of authority here but I think if I almost always listen at low volume, I like a giant L shaped universal sub bass shelf on just about everything I own, it's 5 low shelf filters and 1 peak filter at 60hz, all the rest are introduced by crossfeed(jan meier)/stereo widening(0.44ms)/stereo expander(0.35ms)

with current spatial effects setup in a way that forms a null at around 8k, I find treble sounds quite smooth and I don't really notice the comb filtering, but again I don't hear much above 15khz at nominal listening volume

think of it as I have way too much gain and I am throwing 30dB away to push more power into the lowest end, the point is to tune a PC headphone jack so that anything I plug in sounds better than without, so this is very much a personal target bias

without EQ typically it's treble that sounds too loud/harsh which reminds me to turn the volume down, but with a giant sub bass shelf I turn the volume down when bass reminds me music is too loud

 

[thewas]

Any study to show this? All we have thus far is saying comb filtering exists and you saying it doesn't.

Nobody is saying physical comb filtering doesn't exist. If you put a single omnidirectional microphone where your head is, you will absolutely measure a nasty comb-filtering notch around 2 kHz caused by the crosstalk. The point is that a microphone is not a human brain. If you want a specific study, look up Dr. Floyd Toole’s Sound Reproduction (specifically his chapters on the stereo illusion and the "phantom center"). He explains that while the physical 2 kHz acoustic crosstalk dip is real, human listening tests consistently show we don't perceive it as a massive tonal coloration. Why? Because your two ears are spatially separated and sample two completely different parts of the interference pattern. Your brain performs what psychoacousticians call binaural integration—it essentially combines the distinct inputs from both ears, masks the sharp notches, and extracts a tonally stable phantom image. So yes, stereo is a psychoacoustic illusion. But saying "measurements don't matter because of comb filtering" is like saying "high-resolution TV screens don't matter because the human eye has a blind spot." The brain effortlessly handles the limitation, which is exactly why a well-measuring speaker still sounds objectively better in stereo.

Yeah I never said anything about the title of the video. I don't know how this is relevant. I interpreted it more as "stereo speakers will always be limited because of comb filtering". Frequency, phase and polar response do matter but they are way easier to get right than to fix comb filtering itself. It would require crosstalk cancellation, not playing stereo music, or using headphones

It seems that again that you don't understand that the comb filtering is not a real issue for loudspeaker design and sound reproduction (psychoacoustics) while getting smooth FR and directivities matter upmost.

 

[Tell]

You can't see sound. Go listen to it. You are way too biased. This forum is literally audio science review not audio bias review

I've seen more than enough measurements and used eqalizers since I was kid, so yeah I do pretty much know how that will sound like just by looking at it.

 

[Alexander Gödde]

I disagree. Do you really think we have different tastes in what sounds good? I would argue that there is a universal neutral. And for now peqdb diamond is the best of this neutral there is.

The Harman research has indeed shown that people have different tastes (as does Sharur's whitepaper - there were significant numbers of participants who preferred other targets than his). Combine that with the fact that everybody's HRTF is different and you finding Sharur's newest hyped curve to sound neutral only tells us that ... you find it neutral. If this preference of yours holds up in a blind test it could be one data point in a study, but on its own, as is, it is merely anecdote. And again: I see no reason to trust the results Sharur publishes.

 

[RogerSmith]

As you can see here, peqdb diamond doesn't have a 6khz peak like Harman ie 2019 does.

Your method of listening to these targets is very important. If you use a headphone with strong peaks and dips in the treble it will be very difficult to EQ it to any of these targets.
Also if your measurements are too smoother out, and you boost treble to hit the target, then you will many times miss these strong peaks.
It also matters how you EQ them. If you just do squig.link autoeq, it will try to remove the peaks and dips in the treble even though those vary from user to user. Instead use peqdb autoeq which retains the treble quality.
I thought I was sensitive to the 6-8khz until I experimented with the peqdb diamond target curve and headphones that are even in the treble and have good extension.

What are you talking about? The PeqdB Diamond target ist just HarmanIE2019V2 with extended treble above 6kHz, below it, it is identical. First of all the difference from Harman is not really significant, just a little bit more in the high treble, and furthermore, for many listeners, including me, HarmanIE2019v2 is already too much from 4kHz onwards, and this will not be resolved by the target, it gets even worse and brighter still. I prefer Harman up to 1kHz and Usound/Oratory above. With every IEM or bud or TWE I have I do ABX testing and it always comes out like that for me. I also tried JM-1 and it is much too muffled to me.