• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Poll: Do you like Harman In-Ear target curve?

Do you like the Harman In-Ear target curve?

  • Yes, it is perfect.

    Votes: 44 50.6%
  • No, I like a little less mids.

    Votes: 22 25.3%
  • No, I like a lot less mids.

    Votes: 8 9.2%
  • No, I like more mids!

    Votes: 13 14.9%

  • Total voters
    87

stevenswall

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
1,245
Likes
974
Location
Orem, UT
"Is this Truthear product perfect, and thus the Harman curve justified?"

Perfect is too high a standard. Delete the poll and thread and reconsider what you're asking and what you're insinuating.

You're only giving the option of perfection or modifying the mids... Doesn't answer the question about whether someone likes the Harman curve.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
970
Location
Dirty Jerzey
I have done the comparisons, and they are very close. Exact comparisons can’t be done due to differences in imaging which do interact with tonality (e.g. more contrast than speakers in the far-field). This is exactly what my IEMs sound like:
1671573033936.png

The bass is where any grievances lie. While the small bump does give the impression of some extension, it also can impart a tinge of tubbiness to the IEM. Also per Sean the Harman target seeks to replicate the sound of a neutral speaker in a semi-reflective room with respect to tonality.

And truth be told this whole thing is a bit fatuous to begin with. No matter how close they are to the target, subjective opinions based on one sample using uncontrolled listening won’t tell you much. I doubt many here bothered to waste time A/Bing them with something else using a broad range of content. And yet we are worried about 1.5 dB of aparent treble.
 
OP
M

markanini

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
808
Likes
664
He's a professional acoustic engineer with a master's in metrology who literally measures and helps design headphones/IEMs for a living. He certainly knows what he's talking about and how to judge the accuracy of acoustic couplers.
Exactly, so why would his specialty be the challenges of low budget couplers? He has acess to the real GRAS stuff and more important matters to tend to. So ridiculous.
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
Exactly, so why would his specialty be the challenges of low budget couplers? He has acess to the real GRAS stuff and more important matters to tend to. So ridiculous.
You're right, this is ridiculous, because you're refusing to put any effort into learning. For the third and final time, just read the link I provided, then you'll see Oratory's conclusion that you can't properly compensate a rig with different acoustic impedance to a genuine industry standard is confirmed precisely by his own practical hands-on measurements comparing the latter with budget rigs/couplers.
 
Last edited:

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
"Is this Truthear product perfect, and thus the Harman curve justified?"

Perfect is too high a standard. Delete the poll and thread and reconsider what you're asking and what you're insinuating.

You're only giving the option of perfection or modifying the mids... Doesn't answer the question about whether someone likes the Harman curve.
Exactly. The poll's obvious bias due to the choice of options can be somewhat negated though by combining the results from the first two options into one, to be what it should have been in the first place: 'Yes, it's about right', instead of using the ridiculously absolute term 'perfect' intended to put people off choosing it and skew the results. Once these are combined we can see that an overwhelming majority (~75%) think the Harman in-ear target is about right, in agreement with the actual science in the form of controlled blind listening tests.
 
Last edited:

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
My hearing still goes to 16 kHz and just beyond, which should be acceptable to judge the tonality.
I'm not talking about high-frequency loss, I'm talking about reduced hearing sensitivity with increasing age around the upper midrange to lower treble frequencies, where the Truthear Zero is elevated above the Harman target. Look again at the links I provided, in particular the top graph here.
Further the deviation I pointed to in the Stealth at around 2-3 kHz is around 2 dB and unlike the Truthear is an actual tonality defect and not some part of the response lifted.
'Part of the response lifted' relative to the Harman target is a 'tonality defect'.
Also “better than the majority of headphones” doesn’t say much given how often they exhibit shortfalls in bass, and are likely capable of more bass that IEMs.
In terms of bass extension and SPL at the ear drum, this is false, as I said, due to IEMs operating in pressure-chamber conditions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/73xq24/_/dnu7j45
The problem here is that there are few IEMs that do conform more closely, and applying PEQ will never be perfect since the parameters will not fully track the deviations, and they are often based on one sample. You are treating these measurements and the Target like a precision micrometer and confidently ruling they do not conform closely enough without ever considering all the other factors involved.
No I'm not. I'm well aware that this is all a probabilistic exercise. But a predicted preference rating of 81% is not adequately close enough to the Harman target to judge the latter. At least 90% ('excellent' compliance as defined by Sean Olive himself) is needed. As I said before we know the Truthear Zero has low unit variance from Crinacle's measurements of 9 samples, so taking them likely close enough to Harman (rating >90%) can be achieved fairly reliably with PEQ.
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
970
Location
Dirty Jerzey
I'm not talking about high-frequency loss, I'm talking about reduced hearing sensitivity with increasing age around the upper midrange to lower treble frequencies, where the Truthear Zero is elevated above the Harman target. Look again at the links I provided, in particular the top graph here.

Part of the response lifted relative to the Harman target is a tonality defect.
From audiometric testing it still appears to be within normal limits (i.e. there's no substantial loss up to the 8 kHz limit). Also, we are not talking air here, the problem area is at 1-3 kHz. On top of this, comparisons with other devices that are neutral is what was done, not my subjective opinion. As long as I haven't gone stone-deaf, if they have the same tonality through that region, then some degree of confidence can be drawn. As I said, it has a touch of brightness. Maybe a dB or so, just detectable. You know, what Amir's measurements say it would, ignoring tolerances. Further, since its a simple offset, the bass hump can be easily removed, replaced with extension, and the small bit of lift removed and brought down to the target. I suspect this would not make it sound less bright, but substantially more balanced since it would have sub-bass. But EQing like this to extend the response to the lower part of the target can be detrimental to the transducers as I have found out.

I'm going to bypass the entire "argument on the internet" thing and simply say peoples auditory centers don't know the Harman curve exists. Its all relative. Not everyone may automatically perceive it as an automatic abundance of treble. If you want to legitimately make this argument, then the error margins from Harman's data, if they can be easily used, need to be translated into terms of the statistical spread that can be expected around the actual target curve. Up until this point, you haven't made much of an argument as to why this cant give the general audience some idea of how the Harman curve sounds. If the expected spread is +/-5 dB around that region, then we can have some confidence that this will be within the main portion of the gaussian distribution and thus be good for most users. On the other hand if the spread is small then you are correct. Such comparisons should not be made of how the Harman target sounds using this IEM. I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is the wrong way to prove it.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
970
Location
Dirty Jerzey
As I have the IEM, I actually tried EQ, namely taking OUT the hump in the bass, extending the response, and dropping the treble, which had to be continued to beyond 8 kHz as lowering only the portion that shows in the measurements leaves it with a harsh edge out top if those regions are not dropped as well. As expected, it sounds subjectively better and more balanced with some content like classical. However, the bass response seems to suffer with anything else that has low frequency content. Granted these are quick tests on a mobile device, but without the EQ it seems to do much better overall which is to be expected given that there was likely careful consideration given to the tuning of the IEM. With the extra ~2 dB of sub-bass and ditching the hump it has a distorted character to it, which is probably less likely due to it being overdriven but more likely unmasking all the low frequency distortion, as shown below:

index.php


Since I actually have a set of these, this is not much of a surprise. The measurements combined with subjective listening shows that the treble deviation is NOT an error, but likely an attempt to optimize a cheap mass-produced IEM to sound good subjectively. This is because the boost in the upper bass is also likely there to help cover for the fact that it drops off the map at low frequencies, and has distortion there. This should not be a surprise if you are not needlessly focusing on only one part of the measurement, or some numerical score, which is why I brought up the fact that its a cheap Chinese IEM. I'm going to make an informed assumption and say the deviations there are deliberate and done to optimize around the fact that its inexpensive and does not have the capabilities of more expensive devices. This is also why Amir has the subjective part of the review. If you can't see the big picture, then you will not properly interpret the measurement. I could sit here and listen to them some more on different devices to confirm without any doubt, but I am already not liking anything that has any substantial bass content. However, I think that if we look at the big picture and not one part of the measurement, we can draw a more reasonable conclusion, which is that the IEM is OK for general audiences, but not ideal for judging the Harman target when its the sole device being used. The intentional deviations may not suit every listener, which is why the Target response exists to begin with. Psychoacoustics says you can get away with some things, but its not as good as adhering to best practices and complying with the preferred overall Harman target.
 
OP
M

markanini

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
808
Likes
664
You're right, this is ridiculous, because you're refusing to put any effort into learning. For the third and final time, just read the link I provided, then you'll see Oratory's conclusion that you can't properly compensate a rig with different acoustic impedance to a genuine industry standard is confirmed precisely by his own practical hands-on measurements comparing the latter with budget rigs/couplers.
This means you cant provide evidence that the couplers were compromised. You offer one experts analysis of an undisclosed coupler and assume his findings must to be true for all non GRAS couplers.

It's quite remarkable to not be cognizant about the fact that the internet exists and discussions takes place about selecting budget couplers based on empirical data sourced by the community (not the manufacturer as you only want to talk about), and important steps such as carrying out individual calibration and using your own mic and amplifier.
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
This means you cant provide evidence that the couplers were compromised.
As I said, the onus is on the person presenting random 'data' they've found to provide evidence of specifically its accuracy before it's accepted as valid, not the other way round. These are basic scientific principles.
You offer one experts analysis of an undisclosed coupler and assume his findings must to be true for all non GRAS couplers.
Either you didn't read the link or you didn't understand it. His analysis applies to all couplers, because it's based on the physics of acoustic impedance. Knock-off couplers don't obey different laws of physics to genuine GRAS ones.
It's quite remarkable to not be cognizant about the fact that the internet exists and discussions takes place
I'm well aware of the internet and the discussions of amateur hobbyists who don't actually know the science behind what they're doing, leading them to wrongly believe they're producing accurate data and coming to all kinds of false conclusions. It's quite remarkable that you're blindly believing these hobbyists over professional experts in the field. I'm obviously wasting my time trying to get you to learn the actual science, so I'm done.
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
From audiometric testing it still appears to be within normal limits (i.e. there's no substantial loss up to the 8 kHz limit). Also, we are not talking air here, the problem area is at 1-3 kHz.
It could well be 'within normal limits' for your age, but chances are the sensitivity is lower than 20 or even 10 years ago. Again, please look at the top graph I linked, showing Toole's decrease in sensitivity (including in the 1-3 kHz range) even from age 30 to 40.
On top of this, comparisons with other devices that are neutral is what was done, not my subjective opinion. As long as I haven't gone stone-deaf, if they have the same tonality through that region, then some degree of confidence can be drawn.
What devices? How did you determine their 'neutrality'? If you're talking about speakers, the SLD effect confounds such direct comparisons. Not to mention sighted cognitive bias.
Further, since its a simple offset, the bass hump can be easily removed, replaced with extension, and the small bit of lift removed and brought down to the target.
Exactly, it's so easy to EQ the Truthear to get likely closer to the Harman target, why not use that post-EQ response to judge the target rather than its stock response?
I'm going to bypass the entire "argument on the internet" thing and simply say peoples auditory centers don't know the Harman curve exists. Its all relative. Not everyone may automatically perceive it as an automatic abundance of treble.
We're talking about the difference between the Harman target and the Truthear Zero's response. If they switched between the two at will (which you can do reasonably accurately with EQ), it's likely they will find the Truthear brighter. And please stop trying to set up straw men with hyperbolic phrases like 'abundance of treble'.
If you want to legitimately make this argument, then the error margins from Harman's data, if they can be easily used, need to be translated into terms of the statistical spread that can be expected around the actual target curve. Up until this point, you haven't made much of an argument as to why this cant give the general audience some idea of how the Harman curve sounds.
Of course it gives 'some' idea how it sounds, but it will be skewed to the brighter side of the target, so why not get a better approximation by judging it with EQ?
If the expected spread is +/-5 dB around that region, then we can have some confidence that this will be within the main portion of the gaussian distribution and thus be good for most users.
With EQ the Truthear is more likely to be at the centre of the Gaussian.
 
Last edited:

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
Granted these are quick tests on a mobile device
What mobile device? You are aware that the Truthear Zero has a ridiculously low nominal impedance with a large rise in the (sub)bass, which will cause audible changes due to voltage division and a low electrical damping factor if not used with a source with very low output impedance (which many mobile devices don't have)?
but not ideal for judging the Harman target
Looks like we agree then.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
970
Location
Dirty Jerzey
What mobile device? You are aware that the Truthear Zero has a ridiculously low nominal impedance with a large rise in the (sub)bass, which will cause audible changes due to voltage division and a low electrical damping factor if not used with a source with very low output impedance (which many mobile devices don't have)?

Looks like we agree then.
Do you not know how electronics work??? It gets easier to drive at low frequencies, up to 30 ohms. It’s 10 ohms everywhere else, and all of that is absolutely fine with no audible distortion. It WILL be there, but at low frequencies the rising impedance doesn’t load the device down as much. I can run it on my headphone amp, but I know the results will be the same. More goal-post moving. Edit: Tried it on the amp. Still the same issues...
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
970
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Exactly, it's so easy to EQ the Truthear to get likely closer to the Harman target, why not use that post-EQ response to judge the target rather than its stock response?
Its not that easy, and this is the issue you are ignoring. There is a strong possibility all you can do is take treble out, and this will leave it potentially dark, and lowering the rest of the spectrum takes you back to where you started. Comparisons with that alone are quite subtle tonality-wise, but here you will likely revert to firing up the afterburners on the goalposts and say my hearing is poor without knowing anything about me, or have ever provided a shred of evidence you have actually heard this IEM and tried what you proposed to correct it. The IEM does not seem too inclined to provide any deep extension due to the relatively diminutive drivers in it. Another thing being ignored here by you in your references to a pressure chamber is the fact that the IEM doesn't go into a GRAS fixture, which is a true pressure chamber as far as I know with the coupler at the end. Instead it goes into an ear canal with an eardrum at the end of it that is a flexible membrane. This will likely pose a complex and varying acoustical impedance to the IEM at low frequencies. As a potential exacerbating factor, the IEM, at very low frequencies, likely does not look like a low-Z source anymore if it has to do much beyond just pressurizing a fixed volume. If you have a moderate Z source driving a complex impedance, you have the issue that any variations in the load will be impressed on the overall response. To further complicate this, the actual motions of the eardrum and ossicular chain may not be that linear. As such, the actual resulting pressure at low frequencies can conceivably vary substantially based on the physiology of the listener, and I suspect this is a potential hypothesis also for why it doesn't do much in terms of sub-bass. If there is a crummy impedance match down there, then not all of the motion of the transducers will actually translate into perceived sound. This is vastly different to circumaural headphones where the internal cup volume, pads, and resulting seal pretty much act as the acoustic load for the transducer, and not the volume of the ear canal and the ear drum, and any tiny variations in the ear canal get swamped out in regards to the acoustic performance of the headphone. Again, this is just a hypothesis, but its something I have not seen discussed much in regards to IEMs and how they interact with the ear itself. Many just treat it as an ideal volume of air in a stiff cavity, and ignore the trampoline at the other end. One would also assume that any sort of occlusion effects are already taken into account in the target. Maybe our more seasoned IEM aficionados can provide more insight as I would genuinely like to know. You like flexin' the citations. Got anything? Its a good place to start.

But, you can't just say "it has too much treble" without talking about the bass response. We have to be able to conclude that without it the IEM can still sound reasonably balanced with the boost there in the bass region. Again from some listening the results are subtle, but the sub-bass with EQ does not sound right. It has a sort of mushy character when EQed up, sort of like the sound a cheap sub when it starts to unload. This may even not be the IEM, for that matter. As I stated in my hypothesis, the mismatch with the ear down there can be the sole source of it. But given that it does this at even fairly modest volumes I'm not inclined to push them. I use them fairly regularly when I'm out so I don't want to pop them for the sake of some damn argument. However, any discussions of the treble response will need to at least take into account the overall IEM tuning and not "but bruh... There's liek a gap there in the treble." Again, this IEM sounds pretty darn good, and should be a good introduction to the Harman target, but not as nice as a full-size headphone since it can't dig as deep. I don't see any major issues other than you voicing objections without ever having listened to it. Headphone measurements are not like speaker measurements. Speaker measurements only have to contend with the speakers, and they are quite precise and can fully characterize how the speaker will sound if they are comprehensive. Headphones and IEMs are not because there is a big chunk of aluminum with silicone ears stuck to it to replicate the measurement conditions at Harman, which in turn were to try and get some meaningful analog of a bionic "listener" that can be used to correlate to data from blind testing. There will be error involved, and this should be taken into account and put in the context of the actual curve and what distribution can be expected.

All of this is nit-picking, namely because you are obsessing over one thing and ignoring all the other uncertainties in the target and the IEM in question. Again, I am not saying you are automatically wrong, but you only ever use the paper cites and the measurements as a cudgel to try and win arguments rather than try and have meaningful discussions and the whole thing devolves into retreaded argument using the same talking points.

Do you? I suggest reading this to educate yourself:
The only real concern would be phase since if its too extreme, the amp could oscillate or have other issues. The device is a smartphone if you want to go on for some more, but I have tested it with resistive loads and its "ok" in terms of distortion, but it will get unhappy if the load is too reactive. However, in the sub-bass region its not 10 ohms its substantially higher at nearly 30 ohms or more, which is the area that I was EQing. The odd tonality persists on the amp, so you can cross that off your list. Edit: This is in regards to the distortion, remember. Not the IEM's impedance influencing the frequency response. That is a possibility, but it didn't sound dramatically different. I do remember looking into this at some point, but don't remember what the actual output impedance is.

Edit: Some more insight to be had from Amir's commentary:

Impedance shows evidence of some tuning in bass frequencies:
index.php


Be interesting to see what happens when it is EQed up there. I know I have seen other people try. For me it sounds off-putting, maybe due to rising distortion from the IEM or some other phenomenon. At any rate unless there is any new information outside the current scope of the treble response this horse has been thoroughly beaten as far as I'm concerned. Nobody disagrees there is some small treble lift, but I have not seen anything to indicate thus far that it subjectively impacts the IEM enough to disqualify it in terms of getting some overall sense of the Harman target.
 
Last edited:

stevenswall

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
1,245
Likes
974
Location
Orem, UT
In a different context it might be. In a poll with multiple answers it absolutely has it's place.

If it has a place then the people at Harman are gods and understand the universe deterministically... Wouldn't that be perfection? The Harman curve is perfect and perfectly satisfies 100% of everyone totally and absolutely.

Seems unreasonable to insist that the "perfect" answer has a place.
 

SuicideSquid

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2022
Messages
369
Likes
725
I find the Harman curve pretty good, prefer a bit of tweaking to ease up on the highs a bit. I have no problem with midrange on the Harman pref curve though so did not answer the poll.

A better poll might have been "Harman curve is perfect / Tweak with a small amount of EQ / Tweak with a lot of EQ / throw the curve in the garbage". Since I have no issue with mids but also do not find the Harman curve perfectly matches my own preferences, I can't really answer.
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,011
Likes
1,191
Oh dear. So many misconceptions, misunderstandings and mistruths in one post I really don't know where to begin...How's about here:
say my hearing is poor
Straw man. I said your (and everyone's) hearing is likely less sensitive than 10 or 20 years ago. This is just a fact of biology. Don't let your ego take it personally.
or have ever provided a shred of evidence you have actually heard this IEM
You sure about that?
and tried what you proposed to correct it
And that?
The IEM does not seem too inclined to provide any deep extension due to the relatively diminutive drivers in it.
False:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/zmyw4r/_/j0g524s
Another thing being ignored here by you in your references to a pressure chamber is the fact that the IEM doesn't go into a GRAS fixture, which is a true pressure chamber as far as I know with the coupler at the end. Instead it goes into an ear canal with an eardrum at the end of it that is a flexible membrane. This will likely pose a complex and varying acoustical impedance to the IEM at low frequencies. As a potential exacerbating factor, the IEM, at very low frequencies, likely does not look like a low-Z source anymore if it has to do much beyond just pressurizing a fixed volume. If you have a moderate Z source driving a complex impedance, you have the issue that any variations in the load will be impressed on the overall response. To further complicate this, the actual motions of the eardrum and ossicular chain may not be that linear. As such, the actual resulting pressure at low frequencies can conceivably vary substantially based on the physiology of the listener, and I suspect this is a potential hypothesis also for why it doesn't do much in terms of sub-bass. If there is a crummy impedance match down there, then not all of the motion of the transducers will actually translate into perceived sound. This is vastly different to circumaural headphones where the internal cup volume, pads, and resulting seal pretty much act as the acoustic load for the transducer, and not the volume of the ear canal and the ear drum, and any tiny variations in the ear canal get swamped out in regards to the acoustic performance of the headphone. Again, this is just a hypothesis, but its something I have not seen discussed much in regards to IEMs and how they interact with the ear itself. Many just treat it as an ideal volume of air in a stiff cavity, and ignore the trampoline at the other end. One would also assume that any sort of occlusion effects are already taken into account in the target. Maybe our more seasoned IEM aficionados can provide more insight as I would genuinely like to know. You like flexin' the citations. Got anything? Its a good place to start.
Your understanding of couplers and acoustic impedance is confused. Read this.
But, you can't just say "it has too much treble" without talking about the bass response. We have to be able to conclude that without it the IEM can still sound reasonably balanced with the boost there in the bass region.
Whether the Truthear Zero sounds 'reasonably balanced' is not what we're talking about. We're discussing whether its response can be used to judge the Harman target.
any discussions of the treble response will need to at least take into account the overall IEM tuning and not "but bruh... There's liek a gap there in the treble."
Yet another straw man. You'll have built a while army of them for you to attack soon enough. I've pointed out all the significant deviations of the Truthear's response from the Harman target and how they likely affect eachother perceptually from the beginning, including in the (sub)bass, not just the upper midrange / treble. I've focused mainly on the Truthear's and Harman's upper mids / lower treble and differences between them in this thread because, you know, that's what this poll is about.
but not as nice as a full-size headphone since it can't dig as deep
Once again, this has nothing to do with it being an IEM and not 'full-suze', it's because of the front volume venting. Closed front volume IEMs dig incredibly deep in the sub-bass, more than pretty much any over-ear headphone.
you voicing objections without ever having listened to it
Still sure about that?
The only real concern would be phase since if its too extreme, the amp could oscillate or have other issues. The device is a smartphone if you want to go on for some more, but I have tested it with resistive loads and its "ok" in terms of distortion, but it will get unhappy if the load is too reactive. However, in the sub-bass region its not 10 ohms its substantially higher at nearly 30 ohms or more, which is the area that I was EQing. The odd tonality persists on the amp, so you can cross that off your list. Edit: This is in regards to the distortion, remember. Not the IEM's impedance influencing the frequency response. That is a possibility, but it didn't sound dramatically different. I do remember looking into this at some point, but don't remember what the actual output impedance is.
And what do you think that influence on (increase in) the sub-bass due to impedance would do to distortion, especially seeing as you're further increasing it with EQ? I'll ask once again, what specific devices are you using (smartphone and amp)?
Nobody disagrees there is some small treble lift, but I have not seen anything to indicate thus far that it subjectively impacts the IEM enough to disqualify it in terms of getting some overall sense of the Harman target.
Then you haven't been paying attention to my references to Dr Floyd Toole's research that showed low-Q deviations are more audible than higher Q ones, even at low amplitude, because the former have a greater chance of exciting a wider range of frequencies in the music you're listening to. And you can't get much lower-Q than a spectral tilt. Toole again:
The simplest deviation from flat is probably a spectral tilt. There is some evidence that we can detect slopes of about 0.1 dB/octave, which translates into a 1 dB tilt from 20 Hz to 20 kHz — not much.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom