Pink Noise sounds boomy with Harman tuned headphones.

[abdo123]

I was wondering whether it was normal to hear boomy-ness when listening to pink noise with Harman tuned headphones?

Are they supposed to sound boomy because they’re compensating for lack of physical impact?

 

[solderdude]

That's what I think. For that reason I use less bass boost and a different one.
Harman is a preference thing that the majority of people seem to like.
It is impressive to listen to and sounds great with a lot of pop recordings but too 'fat' for me with well made recordings.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I was wondering whether it was normal to hear boomy-ness when listening to pink noise with Harman tuned headphones?

Are they supposed to sound boomy because they’re compensating for lack of physical impact?

Harman sounds to me like a good room with good speakers and a good subwoofer tuned to be flat in-room. Also, it depends on what 'preset' you are using, both AutoEQ and Oratory do not follow the strict Harman curve by default, the only way to do it right is to generate your own curve using the Harman curve without any changes to the other parameters (make sure to produce an EQ for the same sample rate as your music).

 

[abdo123]

Harman sounds to me like a good room with good speakers and a good subwoofer tuned to be flat in-room. Also, it depends on what 'preset' you are using, both AutoEQ and Oratory do not follow the strict Harman curve by default, the only way to do it right is to generate your own curve using the Harman curve without any changes to the other parameters (make sure to produce an EQ for the same sample rate as your music).

Not really, for me a harman tuned headphone sounds like a speaker tuned in-room to 1.2db/oct slope from 20Hz downwards. I don't hear the boominess with pink noise in-room though.

 

[thewas]

Harman is a preference thing that the majority of people seem to like.

Listening mainly to "Cousin Dupree" and "Bird on a Wire" , for other recordings (usually newer and better quality) I also find the bass often too much, Harmans little contribution to the continuation of audio's circle of confusion, how ironic.

It is impressive to listen to and sounds great with a lot of pop recordings but too 'fat' for me with well made recordings.

Fully agree!

 

[digitalfrost]

Harman sounds to me like a good room with good speakers and a good subwoofer tuned to be flat in-room. Also, it depends on what 'preset' you are using, both AutoEQ and Oratory do not follow the strict Harman curve by default, the only way to do it right is to generate your own curve using the Harman curve without any changes to the other parameters (make sure to produce an EQ for the same sample rate as your music).

As far as I know Harman did never give out their values in normal text form, as hard data, but only published graphs. So I wonder what the correct Harman curve is, both for speakers and headphones.

Can we even say when multiple people about the "harman curve" that they're talking about the same thing?

 

[thewas]

As far as I know Harman did never give out their values in normal text form, as hard data, but only published graphs. So I wonder what the correct Harman curve is, both for speakers and headphones.

Can we even say when multiple people about the "harman curve" that they're talking about the same thing?

For loudspeakers there isn't and can never be a single target as the response at the LP depends on the directivity of the loudspeakers, the reflectivity of the room and listening distance, the only reasonable target for loudspeakers above transition frequency is linear direct sound and smooth directivity, more about the topic here.

 

[Fregly]

More or less for me, the Senn 6 series made flat to 20hz with less treble squigle is correct. Harman sounds basshead to me. As above, good for some pop, and not much else.

 

[KeithPhantom]

As far as I know Harman did never give out their values in normal text form, as hard data, but only published graphs. So I wonder what the correct Harman curve is, both for speakers and headphones.

Technically I agree, but practically I do not. You can always interpolate the data with a great degree of accuracy from the provided graphs (which have been multiple from multiple official sources). There's no need for dB SPL-exact data to get a highly accurate interpolation. Add that the curve itself is a confidence interval of dB SPL vs. frequency containing the true mean, we can't quite certainly say which value is mathematically and physiologically correct, not even Harman/Samsung.

 

[Merkurio]

I'm in the camp of those who find the Harman bass-shelf spot on.

Satisfying rumble and slam when the track calls for it, but not intrusive on those with low energy in the bass region (most of classic music, for example).

Of course, this varies from person to person.

 

[ADU]

The Harman target is intended to approximate the raw in-ear response of some neutral loudspeakers in a typical semi-reflective room, that extend well into the sub-bass. That's why it has an elevated response in the lower frequencies vs. the treble, once you've factored out the resonant effects of the ear through compensation. Whether that is the ideal response, and how well or precisely it achieves this goal are questions that are certainly worthy of some debate though, for a variety of reasons.

Approximating the in-ear response of neutral loudspeakers in a room is the correct goal or target imo. But I think it can be achieved with greater accuracy and precision by simply doing some in-ear measurements of actual speakers with a mannikin. Most headphone review sites, including ASR, don't currently use mannikins for their measurements though. And they also don't do their own in-ear measurements of loudspeakers. I think that will probably change though. It is more of an expense, esp. for new graphers/reviewers just starting out. But there are just too many advantages to using a system that can do both.

The Harman curve is, imho, just a very rough and temporary stop-gap for achieving something similar to this. And should really only be viewed/considered in that context imo.

 

[solderdude]

Amir would have to buy a mannekin (with its own issues/compensation challenges) and would have to build a 'reference reflective' room to do such measurements.
Klippel exists for a good reason. In ear measurements with a really small diameter mic that actually is truly reference is a problem just as it is to use real ears as all ears have differences in length, diameter, pinna and headsize as well. Who will be the standard .. the 'average joe', Amir's ears ?

Nah... speakers in Klippel or anechoic measured all the way around (not only on axis) can give more valuable insight in a speakers performance.

 

[thewas]

The Harman target is intended to approximate the in-ear response of some neutral loudspeakers in a typical semi-reflective room that extend well into the sub-bass.

Unfortunately it wasn't done like that though but by listeners adjusting bass and treble by taste listening to some defined recordings like "Bird on a Wire", this way especially the the bass region is different to neutral loudspeakers in a decent room.

Approximating the in-ear response of neutral loudspeakers in a room is the correct goal or target imo. But I think it can be achieved with greater accuracy and precision by simply doing some in-ear measurements of actual speakers with a mannikin.

Fully agree and wished it was done like that and not how they did it which continues audio's circle of confusion:

Source of image: https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

 

[ADU]

Amir would have to buy a mannekin (with its own issues/compensation challenges) and would have to build a 'reference reflective' room to do such measurements.

Imo, it would be a worthwhile endeavor for someone with the interest and resources to do something like this. And would also provide a method of verifying the precision of the Klippel in-room data.

In ear measurements with a really small diameter mic that actually is truly reference is a problem just as it is to use real ears as all ears have differences in length, diameter, pinna and headsize as well. Who will be the standard .. the 'average joe', Amir's ears ?

It's a problem, as you say. But one that mfrs of the HATS in-ear measurement systems have been working on for quite some time.

Klippel exists for a good reason.

speakers in Klippel or anechoic measured all the way around (not only on axis) can give more valuable insight in a speakers performance.

Agree.

 

[solderdude]

Imo, it would be a worthwhile endeavor for someone with the interest and resources to do something like this. And would also provide a method of verifying the precision of the Klippel in-room data.

What would be the reason to doubt the validity of the Klippel measurement and calculations based on those measurements.
What are the indicators Klippel is that flawed in that it requires peer review (same goes for Harman) or validation by someone else when it is already clearly described how results are obtained.

 

[KMO]

There's scope for some conflict here in the circle of confusion, in that whose job would it be to EQ headphones to "sound like a speaker tuned in-room to 1.2db/oct slope from 20Hz downwards".

Sure, the curve might achieve that effect when playing raw speaker-intended recordings, but what about new technologies to do binaural head-transfer-function stuff?

When performing their EQ, will they be taking care to assume the headphones already have the Harman "optimised for raw speaker recordings" EQ?

I hope so - it seems as good a target as any. (In its absence, what would they be assuming?)

 

[ADU]

What would be the reason to doubt the validity of the Klippel measurement and calculations based on those measurements.
What are the indicators Klippel is that flawed in that it requires peer review (same goes for Harman) or validation by someone else when it is already clearly described how results are obtained.

No particular reason. It would just be interesting to see how well actual in-room measurements might compare with those derived from the anechoic measurements.

 

[Thomas_A]

Binaural recordings need other transfer functions. Also, speakers that are truly flat on-axis will "recreate" (crosstalk effects excluded) what is on the recording as long as there are no reflexes adding to the power response. As soon you enter a room using the same speakers, you will deviate from what is on the recording. Also, you will have variations due to the amount of dispersion (from omni to directed speakers). To that add the enormous variations in bass response due to the recordings themselves. You may end up with a preferred average which may or may not follow the Harman curve.

 

[ADU]

Unfortunately it wasn't done like that though but by listeners adjusting bass and treble by taste listening to some defined recordings like "Bird on a Wire", this way especially the the bass region is different to neutral loudspeakers in a decent room.

Fully agree and wished it was done like that and not how they did it which continues audio's circle of confusion:

Fwiw, I thought Dr. Olive had some interesting thoughts on these subjects in the following live stream...

 

[fpitas]

Of course, this varies from person to person.

Of course. The curve is not a "one size fits all" situation. That's what EQ is for.