Poll: Do you like Harman's target curve for headphones bass response?

[mkawa]

I am still on the fence here. My strongest preferences are regarding midrange and upper midrange with classical, even with lower range content. I only recently started Eqing the bass to Harman on my headphones (elex, Hd800s primarily) and during a long workday I actually find it a bit distracting, which is counterintuitive, but there you go. I think I prefer it when critically listening, but for all I know it could be because it’s new and my brain is going ooh aah hear that new thing? That’s keen.

I do know that I have a big preference for flat bass response on loudspeakers, but it’s different when the driver is that close to your head.

There is also the issue of my inner ears getting older. When I was a spring chicken my hearing was extremely sensitive to ultra high frequency to the point where random high frequency crap that no one else gave a second thought sounded like daggers piercing my skull. I am now free of that so lower midrange and bass response forms more of my opinion, but I am not so far from it that I have preferences as clear as some of you.

 

[Dealux]

I think I'd prefer a bit of bleed into 100-300 Hz and 1-2 dB less sub bass. Otherwise the target is good. I think a big part of bass impact is actually the seal that is achieved, not the bass amount.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Except that's not what the Harman curve is. It's not based on colorations from historical equipment. It's based on science and experimentation where they tried different target variations and the curve that we now think of as the Harman curve is the one that was preferred by the majority of listeners.

I see Amir does a great job explaining to his followers the way things are.

 

[devopsprodude]

I see Amir does a great job explaining to his followers the way things are.

Except I learned about it from the person who runs Harman's audio research.

 

[ZolaIII]

Except I learned about it from the person who runs Harman's audio research.

Did you? I didn't reply to you before so I will now. To call sometime scientific the research data needs to be transparent and publicly available so that it can be empirically experimental repeated and proven or dismissed. Harman curve is not scientific and doesn't meet any of those criteria! There is no such thing as averageness in scientific methodology.

 

[markanini]

You forgot to tell how the criteria are not fulfilled.

 

[ZolaIII]

You forgot to tell how the criteria are not fulfilled.

Starting hypothesis can only be confirmed or dismissed, nothing in between. This is how Physiology lost it's validity, most earlier clames ware dismissed after repeating experiments.

 

[markanini]

Starting hypothesis can only be confirmed or dismissed, nothing in between. This is how Physiology lost it's validity, most earlier clames ware dismissed after repeating experiments.

Sounds like you didn't read the papers. The target was tested to determin if it corresponded with listener preferences with any certainty in multiple trials, along with historical targets, coming out on top.

 

[ZolaIII]

Sounds like you didn't read the papers. The target was tested to determin if it corresponded with listener preferences with any certainty in multiple trials, along with historical targets, coming out on top.

And it didn't! Not then, not now and not ever. In the mean time they changed it twice so far. Calling that science is plain wrong! There whose no initial determination of test subject hearing abilities, not enough subjects, never whose done Scientifically and so on.

 

[markanini]

And it didn't!

Evidently false https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=19436

and not ever

That's just a biased statement.

 

[Maki]

I like a linear bass rise from 0dB at 180hz to 7-8dB at 200hz. 10dB for IEMs. 15dB shelf for electronic music.

 

[ZolaIII]

Evidently false https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=19436

That's just a biased statement.

That's not a scientific research, not even presentation paper (as presented) of one.
It's a minion of the month contest at best and black humour.
"The listening panel consisted of 130 Harman
employees located in Novi, Michigan and
Northridge, California."
Not conclusive small pattern of subjects. The neutrality rule stumbled in every step. Researcher needs to be third part in order to secure impartiality and objectivity, then he hierst third parti conducting staff again to ensure impartiality and objectivity and test subjects should not be in eny relation to one who is doing or ordered study, guess why. Made by Harman, directed by Harman on Harman own employees. That really made me laugh!
"The trained listeners were tested for normal audio metric hearing and had successfully completed level eight
for all tasks in the training software."
Trained by Harman this disqualified them further more. Not specified how they ware tested, standard test is for deviations between 250 to 8000 Hz which ain't satisfactory. The rest didn't been tested at all obviously.
Simulation of simulation on duble blind duble subjectiv test. AKG K712 used as virtualization end point analog listening hardware. They argument is because "it has relatively lo distortion". All do they don't have a lot of distortion on the given lv they have perception of headphone frequency response curves of equal loudness ISO 226-2009 at
From level 12 dB at 72 dB SPL in band 100 Hz to 10 kHz, dB Of -6,3, +4,7 dB.
Future more ear cups are from memory foam which adjust it self first 2~3 time's and after that it deviate more when you switch the user.
Back to simulation of simulation so on AKG K712 they added distortion simulating other hedaphones with EQ and then future on more distortion by EQ-ing them to Harman curve. At this point I cannot stop laughing out loud and can not continue writing this all do there's so much material in this highlited "scientific paper" to continue on & on (for years).
Please next time try at least to be little more serious as this is killing me.

 

[charleski]

That's not a scientific research, not even presentation paper (as presented) of one.
It's a minion of the month contest at best and black humour.
"The listening panel consisted of 130 Harman
employees located in Novi, Michigan and
Northridge, California."
Not conclusive small pattern of subjects. The neutrality rule stumbled in every step. Researcher needs to be third part in order to secure impartiality and objectivity, then he hierst third parti conducting staff again to ensure impartiality and objectivity and test subjects should not be in eny relation to one who is doing or ordered study, guess why. Mada by Harman, directed by Harman on Harman own employees. That really made me laugh!
"The trained listeners were tested for normal audio metric hearing and had successfully completed level eight
for all tasks in the training software."
Trained by Harman this disqualified them further more. Not specified how they ware tested, standard test is for deviations between 250 to 8000 Hz which ain't satisfactory. The rest didn't been tested at all obviously.
Simulation of simulation on duble blind duble subjectiv test. AKG K712 used as virtualization end point analog listening hardware. They argument is because "it has relatively lo distortion". All do they don't have a lot of distortion on the given lv they have perception of headphone frequency response curves of equal loudness ISO 226-2009 at
From level 12 dB at 72 dB SPL in band 100 Hz to 10 kHz, dB Of -6,3, +4,7 dB.
Future more ear cups are from memory foam which adjust it self first 2~3 time's and after that it deviate more when you switch the user.
Back to simulation of simulation so on AKG K712 they added distortion simulating other hedaphones with EQ and then future on more distortion by EQ-ing them to Harman curve. At this point I cannot stop laughing out loud and can not continue writing this all do there's so much material in this highlited "scientific paper" to continue on & on (for years).
Please next time try at least to be little more serious as this is killing me.

You're grasping at straws.

The whole point of using double-blind tests is to control for bias. Unless you want to claim that being employed by Harman causes significant changes in your hearing this is irrelevant. Training, on the other hand, does cause changes in auditory perception, and he reports that it led to significant variation in their ANOVA. The bulk of the subjects were not trained, and they were able to control for this. I have no idea what your objection to low distortion is, because you descend into gibberish at that point. Small changes in fit to the head are part-and-parcel of the way headphones work in daily use and need to be incorporated into any study aimed at guiding their manufacture. Sound at 10kHz has a wavelength of over 3cm, so variance in phase effects will be minor, and the only real issue is bass leakage. The rest just implies you don't really understand the maths.

 

[ZolaIII]

You're grasping at straws.

The whole point of using double-blind tests is to control for bias. Unless you want to claim that being employed by Harman causes significant changes in your hearing this is irrelevant. Training, on the other hand, does cause changes in auditory perception, and he reports that it led to significant variation in their ANOVA. The bulk of the subjects were not trained, and they were able to control for this. I have no idea what your objection to low distortion is, because you descend into gibberish at that point. Small changes in fit to the head are part-and-parcel of the way headphones work in daily use and need to be incorporated into any study aimed at guiding their manufacture. Sound at 10kHz has a wavelength of over 3cm, so variance in phase effects will be minor, and the only real issue is bass leakage. The rest just implies you don't really understand the maths.

No one would ever even consider admitting that as scientific work, not even if you paid them! You fail to understand what are requirements to nominate something as scientific work! Math won't save you either this is in domain of social sciences as long it involves duble blind duble subjectiv test. Future on even equivalent subjectiv part (for equipment) is totally mismatch in this.

Those are not straw's, those are fundamentals! Never got to straw's as this can not be qualified as scientific work in the first place.

 

[Robbo99999]

That's not a scientific research, not even presentation paper (as presented) of one.
It's a minion of the month contest at best and black humour.
"The listening panel consisted of 130 Harman
employees located in Novi, Michigan and
Northridge, California."
Not conclusive small pattern of subjects. The neutrality rule stumbled in every step. Researcher needs to be third part in order to secure impartiality and objectivity, then he hierst third parti conducting staff again to ensure impartiality and objectivity and test subjects should not be in eny relation to one who is doing or ordered study, guess why. Made by Harman, directed by Harman on Harman own employees. That really made me laugh!
"The trained listeners were tested for normal audio metric hearing and had successfully completed level eight
for all tasks in the training software."
Trained by Harman this disqualified them further more. Not specified how they ware tested, standard test is for deviations between 250 to 8000 Hz which ain't satisfactory. The rest didn't been tested at all obviously.
Simulation of simulation on duble blind duble subjectiv test. AKG K712 used as virtualization end point analog listening hardware. They argument is because "it has relatively lo distortion". All do they don't have a lot of distortion on the given lv they have perception of headphone frequency response curves of equal loudness ISO 226-2009 at
From level 12 dB at 72 dB SPL in band 100 Hz to 10 kHz, dB Of -6,3, +4,7 dB.
Future more ear cups are from memory foam which adjust it self first 2~3 time's and after that it deviate more when you switch the user.
Back to simulation of simulation so on AKG K712 they added distortion simulating other hedaphones with EQ and then future on more distortion by EQ-ing them to Harman curve. At this point I cannot stop laughing out loud and can not continue writing this all do there's so much material in this highlited "scientific paper" to continue on & on (for years).
Please next time try at least to be little more serious as this is killing me.

I don't think it's worth dismissing the Harman Research that developed the different Harman Target Curves for headphones. As far as I know it's the best research out there in terms of creating a Preference Target Curve that can be used, and a lot of people (most) prefer the sound of a Harman EQ'd headphone. When I read summaries of how the Harman Headphone Target Curve was created & tested I was quite happy with the methodology, seemed like good choices. I think it's a solid piece of work, it's the best we've got, and in the majority of cases "it works".

 

[ZolaIII]

@Robbo99999 acording to this pool most people don't and its far from perfect. In order for you to say how it's perfect and majority of people prefer it more than two thirds should have answered that it's perfect. I am not attacking it all that much, think it has to do with partial hearing loss compensation in lows but that's just my theory for now. It can stand as private or this or that (subjective) but as a scientific one it simply cannot.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999 acording to this pool most people don't and its far from perfect. In order for you to say how it's perfect and majority of people prefer it more than two thirds should have answered that it's perfect. I am not attacking it all that much, think it has to do with partial hearing loss compensation in lows but that's just my theory for now. It can stand as private or this or that (subjective) but as a scientific one it simply cannot.

Our poll in this thread here shows that 65% of people preferred a slightly different to significantly different amount of bass, that's all the poll asked for. I think the Harman researchers are open to the idea that people should tweak the bass levels to their own preference as that was "one of the dials" (bass level) that the test subjects could tweak in the determination of the target curve, so I don't think that really negates the whole Harman Curve. If for instance it sounds totally off in the mids & treble then that's a different matter and that person can be definitely said to not like the Harman Curve, but the poll wasn't asking that, just subtle to unsubtle changes in bass level was what the poll was asking. I definitely think people should tweak the bass level of the Harman Curve to their liking (below 100Hz), it should really be the first thing you do if the Harman Curve sounds wrong to you.......so I don't think all that invalidates the Harman Research......if you want to label the Harman Research as scientific or not then that's mostly a case of semantics, but it's undeniable that there are many elements of science / logic & testing that have been incorporated in the creation of the Harman Target Curve.

 

[ZolaIII]

@Robbo99999 no it does not! If we exclude bass preference Harman curve is almost the same to every other curve. So if we disregard bass levels then their is no Harman curve at all is it? It's not semantic that cannot qualify as scientific even with all poetic freedom you can imagine. It doesn't meat fundamental conditions to be one and don't tell me they made honest naive omission regarding that.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999 no it does not! If we exclude bass preference Harman curve is almost the same to every other curve. So if we disregard bass levels then their is no Harman curve at all is it? It's not semantic that cannot qualify as scientific even with all poetic freedom you can imagine. It doesn't meat fundamental conditions to be one and don't tell me they made honest naive omission regarding that.

I don't agree with that, but fine.

 

[brbsnacks]

I like the settings with my sundara and agk. With the 770 I don't. That headphone is kind of a love it or hate it can't really fix it. I just plug that in and enjoy.