• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Resolve's B&K 5128 Headphone Target - you can try the EQ's.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

peniku8

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
383
Likes
771
I have stated what needs to happen: a proper research project as done by Harman. I have seen no receptivity to that. If they do want to do it, then the blueprint is there in Harman papers and if they have questions, they can ask Sean.
Even if it's only to validate the current DF+tilt approach, additional research would be greatly appreciated by everyone.
But setting up and conducting research like Harman has done is a massive task, both logistically and financially, since nobody would be happy with such a research conducted on say just 5 test subjects.
 

crinacle

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
60
Likes
795
Location
SG
Not sure why it's my turn to get crucified now (oh it's just the same guy trying to drag me through the mud again) but there are some things I need to clarify.

I watched that video and came away from it a bit perturbed that some genuine and well accepted research of Harman was being bashed as "preference" more so than being a standard.

But it is preference though. In the AE/OE research, respondents, within a controlled environment, were told to adjust bass and slope levels to their taste. The average of the adjustments then created the Harman AE/OE target. I have very little to criticise on the Harman AE/OE research and the resultant target and never bashed it.

What I did criticise, however, is the Harman In-Ear research, where the slope adjustment parameter was missing and respondents only adjusted for bass (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2016) or that a target was first created by Harman internally (by a team of 10-15 trained listeners) then subsequently validated by user testing (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2017).

The issues that I have with the latter relates more to the fact that it's not to the same rigour as the AE/OE research, where respondents validated the target by the fact that the target is the very result of their input. I would have far preferred a repeat of the AE/OE research instead of a validation of an internally-developed target curve against 30 other in-ear headphones, and I would assume anyone who finds the AE/OE research to be of a golden standard should also be able to acknowledge the limits of the IE research, even on relative terms.

Yeah, didn't like the Crinacle part of the interview (didn't see the beginning bit with Andrew apart from he was very personable with Sean in the short opening section I saw) - no way can that video be used as justification & "proof" of any 5128 target, it was only a conversation afterall without any provable preference data being involved, so shouldn't be used as means of justifying any sort of target on 5128 - as the content of the video simply doesn't prove or justify any target on 5128, that would actually require research/studies/preference studies. I'd agree that was a poor & somewhat manipulative vid. But still, they've not got to the end of their 5128 journey yet, so the way I see it they don't have a target yet.

I don't think I had endorsed or promoted any sort of specific 5128 target to Sean. The opposite really; I asked if it was a good idea to follow his example and allow for user-specified target curves just like how respondents had that choice in the Harman AE/OE research (and emphasis - not the IE research). Instead of promoting a "one true curve", simply acknowledge that user preference exists and have users specify their own parameters, and going even further allowing them to EQ their headphones/IEMs to their preference of slope and bass emphasis with the tool's built in AutoEQ function.

If anyone has issues with the way my tool is currently displaying measurements I'll be happy to discuss/debate it further, but clearly this is not the place for it. Start a new thread and we can have at it.

Sources:
Olive, S., Welti, T., & Khonsaripour, O. (2016, August). The preferred low frequency response of in-ear headphones. In Audio Engineering Society Conference: 2016 AES International Conference on Headphone Technology. Audio Engineering Society.

Olive, S., Welti, T., & Khonsaripour, O. (2017, October). A statistical model that predicts listeners’ preference ratings of in-ear headphones: Part 2—development and validation of the model. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 143. Audio Engineering Society.
 
Last edited:

_thelaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,370
Likes
2,064
Not sure why it's my turn to get crucified now (oh it's just the same guy trying to drag me through the mud again) but there are some things I need to clarify.



But it is preference though. In the AE/OE research, respondents, within a controlled environment, were told to adjust bass and slope levels to their taste. The average of the adjustments then created the Harman AE/OE target. I have very little to criticise on the Harman AE/OE research and the resultant target and never bashed it.

What I did criticise, however, is the Harman In-Ear research, where the slope adjustment parameter was missing and respondents only adjusted for bass (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2016) or that a target was first created by Harman internally (by a team of 10-15 trained listeners) then subsequently validated by user testing (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2017).

The issues that I have with the latter relates more to the fact that it's not to the same rigour as the AE/OE research, where respondents validated the target by the fact that the target is the very result of their input. I would have far preferred a repeat of the AE/OE research instead of a validation of an internally-developed target curve against 30 other in-ear headphones, and I would assume anyone who finds the AE/OE research to be of a golden standard should also be able to acknowledge the limits of the IE research, even on relative terms.



I don't think I had endorsed or promoted any sort of specific 5128 target to Sean. The opposite really; I asked if it was a good idea to follow his example and allow for user-specified target curves just like how respondents had that choice in the Harman AE/OE research (and emphasis - not the IE research). Instead of promoting a "one true curve", simply acknowledge that user preference exists and have users specify their own parameters, and going even further allowing them to EQ their headphones/IEMs to their preference of slope and bass emphasis with the tool's built in AutoEQ function.

If anyone has issues with the way my tool is currently displaying measurements I'll be happy to discuss/debate it further, but clearly this is not the place for it. Start a new thread and we can have at it.

Sources:
I am not going to crucify you for your opinions. I just didn’t find the video and the approach in good taste. I respect your work that you’ve done for the audio community. Certainly not my intention to discredit you or take pot shots at you. End of goal of this conversation related to 5128 is to prevent a circle of confusion as to what should be an acceptable standard vs a preference target.
 
Last edited:
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
@solderdude , thanks for making a post that you can't hit the reply button to, it just creates a blank:
either way this was a semantical play on the word "play" - in fact Amir is not fine about anything Resolve & Co are doing with 5128, which was my point - not like it's a hidden fact! But anyway, I did agree with your other points in your prior post, but I'm not particularly fond of nitpicking semantics.
 
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
Not sure why it's my turn to get crucified now (oh it's just the same guy trying to drag me through the mud again) but there are some things I need to clarify.



But it is preference though. In the AE/OE research, respondents, within a controlled environment, were told to adjust bass and slope levels to their taste. The average of the adjustments then created the Harman AE/OE target. I have very little to criticise on the Harman AE/OE research and the resultant target and never bashed it.

What I did criticise, however, is the Harman In-Ear research, where the slope adjustment parameter was missing and respondents only adjusted for bass (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2016) or that a target was first created by Harman internally (by a team of 10-15 trained listeners) then subsequently validated by user testing (Olive, Welti & Khonsaripour, 2017).

The issues that I have with the latter relates more to the fact that it's not to the same rigour as the AE/OE research, where respondents validated the target by the fact that the target is the very result of their input. I would have far preferred a repeat of the AE/OE research instead of a validation of an internally-developed target curve against 30 other in-ear headphones, and I would assume anyone who finds the AE/OE research to be of a golden standard should also be able to acknowledge the limits of the IE research, even on relative terms.



I don't think I had endorsed or promoted any sort of specific 5128 target to Sean. The opposite really; I asked if it was a good idea to follow his example and allow for user-specified target curves just like how respondents had that choice in the Harman AE/OE research (and emphasis - not the IE research). Instead of promoting a "one true curve", simply acknowledge that user preference exists and have users specify their own parameters, and going even further allowing them to EQ their headphones/IEMs to their preference of slope and bass emphasis with the tool's built in AutoEQ function.

If anyone has issues with the way my tool is currently displaying measurements I'll be happy to discuss/debate it further, but clearly this is not the place for it. Start a new thread and we can have at it.

Sources:
Your reply is worded very well, and it makes sense, but the tone of the interview along with the thumbs up at the end with your closing statement that Sean was apparently endorsing everything you were doing re 5128 seemed a bit railroaded & manipulative......I doubted he truly understood the point you were making right at the end of the interview and when he seeked clarification you quickly went "yeah yeah" (well you didn't say that, but that was the gist), because I don't think his clarification statement he asked you married with what you were doing, although I might be wrong in that; but he did seem a little rail roaded and uncomfortable and I felt you were using that to your advantage to promote your stance on your current thoughts & practices re IEM target. I just think you should have treated him with a little more respect and not placed him quite such a position. The tone/slant of the interview sat uncomfortably with me.
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,820
Likes
1,915
Location
Scania
It's easy to read too much into a short video segment, without context. There should be little reason to review someones tone, in an unrelated event to this thread. But it's usually people that project their own shortcomings of lost temper and name-calling that accuse others...
 
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
It's easy to read too much into a short video segment, without context. There should be little reason to review someones tone, in an unrelated event to this thread. But it's usually people that project their own shortcomings of lost temper and name-calling that accuse others...
(I disagree, in video pieces tone is everything because it's human interaction & it also influences the viewership.)
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,867
Likes
243,661
Location
Seattle Area
either way this was a semantical play on the word "play" - in fact Amir is not fine about anything Resolve & Co are doing with 5128, which was my point - not like it's a hidden fact!
No. @solderdude stated my position perfect in any interpretation of the word play. I "played" with my 5128 and shared the journey with you all as we went along. I post no formal reviews using it. It would have had no problem with hp.com folks playing with the new fixture and trying to tease out what it can do. Instead what we have is the thing presented as the future and folks are running with it at speed of light. Unlike what I did, formal reviews/testing is being offered to viewers/readers. This is what I disagree with. This differentiation is not hard to understand, is it?
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,820
Likes
1,915
Location
Scania
(I disagree, in video pieces tone is everything because it's human interaction & it also influences the viewership.)
Whether it it is in your estimation, it's super tangential to the thread, and reminds me of a politicians tactic where separate entities are lumped together arbitrarily to form some collective adversary. It's not rational either.
 
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
No. @solderdude stated my position perfect in any interpretation of the word play. I "played" with my 5128 and shared the journey with you all as we went along. I post no formal reviews using it. It would have had no problem with hp.com folks playing with the new fixture and trying to tease out what it can do. Instead what we have is the thing presented as the future and folks are running with it at speed of light. Unlike what I did, formal reviews/testing is being offered to viewers/readers. This is what I disagree with. This differentiation is not hard to understand, is it?
Fine, but I'm still not interested in semantics, which is what it comes down to in interpretation for that individual post unless the context is clearly explained (which wasn't the case for solderdudes post, can't believe we're nitpicking about this - "forum handbags"), (also I'm not interested in any cliques wherever they occur). I do actually agree with your points you make about 5128 there. However, I'm interested in what they can achieve in the future even though they've not approached it in an ideal manner.
 
Last edited:
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
Whether it it is in your estimation, it's super tangential to the thread, and reminds me of a politicians tactic where separate entities are lumped together arbitrarily to form some collective adversary. It's not rational either.
You can think & post what you like....
 

Guess it

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Messages
19
Likes
24
Not sure why it's my turn to get crucified now
As long as you're willing to clarify! It's a lot less bold to just have special editions or brick and mortar relations as a reviewer but disclosing is still important. I'd say you're far from the potential that a site like drop.com had for playing both sides of an equation etc. Even if you were trying to do more than honestly represent how things measure as best you can you're not so involved or weighing on any restocking process for the competition at retail and things like that. Changing lanes isn't illegal, but not signaling or sweeping multiple lanes is going to cause a crash.

Face to face stuff really can come across different than intended especially for people who weren't there holding a position!
 

crinacle

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
60
Likes
795
Location
SG
Your reply is worded very well, and it makes sense, but the tone of the interview along with the thumbs up at the end with your closing statement that Sean was apparently endorsing everything you were doing re 5128 seemed a bit railroaded & manipulative......I doubted he truly understood the point you were making right at the end of the interview and when he seeked clarification you quickly went "yeah yeah" (well you didn't say that, but that was the gist), because I don't think his clarification statement he asked you married with what you were doing, although I might be wrong in that; but he did seem a little rail roaded and uncomfortable and I felt you were using that to your advantage to promote your stance on your current thoughts & practices re IEM target. I just think you should have treated him with a little more respect and not placed him quite such a position. The tone/slant of the interview sat uncomfortably with me.

I think you assume too much malice and nefarious agendas from me. For the record, when I meet Sean again I'll be sure to ask if I did make him uncomfortable during our meeting and apologise if it were the case.
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,820
Likes
1,915
Location
Scania
You can think & post what you like....
Only within limits of forum rules, and I can post a supercut of interactions where you were downright uncivil to me. It would be as valuable a contribution as your questioning of Crinacles "tone", thankfully I know better.

What weirds me out is that you are doing this blame game on Crinacle after you've have been consistently appeasing Andrew and Blaine. The video in question clearly tells of Crinacle only being given a short time to talk to Sean Olive, and he had to work fast to get his points across. I'd like to see how you would handle being put in that situation.
 
Last edited:

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,362
Likes
1,895
Don't f***ing drag me into this.
You've dragged yourself into this metrological mess (well, with funding help from your sponsor headphones.com of course). As even you yourself admit in that video, the 5128 is "very, very inconsistent", and without this precision, (supposed) higher accuracy is practically moot.
But it is preference though. In the AE/OE research, respondents, within a controlled environment, were told to adjust bass and slope levels to their taste. The average of the adjustments then created the Harman AE/OE target.
I will remind people of my previous comment that you ignored. To make sure you actually read and understand it this time, I will here quote and explain Sean's comments I linked to there on Harman's use of preference as an accurate proxy for perceived neutrality:
Toole spent 10 years having listeners rate loudspeakers based on perceived fidelity/neutrality. When we switched to preference, the loudspeakers ratings didn’t suddenly change. There is a high correlation between fidelity/neutrality/ preference.

Our headphone targets do not deviate significantly above 200 Hz from a anechoically flat speaker measured in our reference room at the DRP. For the AE/OE target it’s within 2 dB of the bass of the in-room speaker target. For the IE target it’s higher, but there are data to support it needs to be higher to be perceived as equivalent.
The switch to preference was a matter of improving methodology, as 'neutral' has become distorted in the minds of some people (not least reviewers, you being one) from its original meaning (with its root in the Latin 'neuter', meaning neither), which is literally 'neither too much, nor too little (of anything)', which in turn logically entails most preferred when the question is posed and understood correctly as perceived neutral. Moving from a semantically loaded (for some) term like neutral, to preference which has a universal common unidimensional meaning that's impossible to misinterpret, just removes potential confounding of the results due to inconsistencies in interpretation of the former. It's exactly the same with Harman's blind MOA tests; when participants reach their preferred bass/treble levels, that is perceived neutral to them i.e. neither too much nor too little of either. And these average preferred (perceived neutral) levels were close to those of loudspeakers based on an 'objectively neutral' speaker's (i.e. anechoically flat) response in a good room, the difference (mostly in the bass) due to perceptual differences (among them the SLD effect, see Theile 1986) between hearing sound from speakers and headphones. This is the whole point of Harman's research, to arrive at standard targets for both speakers and headphones that share this perceived neutrality among the vast majority of listeners. And they achieved that. The segmentation paper often erroneously cited as evidence for a multiplicity of preference and targets is anything but.
What I did criticise, however, is the Harman In-Ear research
Oh it was far more than criticism. Again a reminder:
All I need to do is to cite is the title of research that went into developing IE 2017 2016...Respondents in this study (if you can even call it that)
Calling Harman IE "garbage"
I wonder if you'd dare say those things to Sean's face the next time you see him? Try asking if you made him uncomfortable after that. Then there's the blatant misinformation about the target, which you were made fully aware of but still chose to disseminate further without correction on your channel. None of this are the words and actions of someone just offering a fair criticism of Harman's research as you're now trying to rewrite history by claiming. Even once corrected your argument is moot, because we have independent corroboration of Harman IE target preference and the predictive preference algorithm based on it. And then there's the hypocrisy of vilifying this scientific research, yet making sweeping claims like 'a lot of people don't like Harman IE' that you back up with...anecdotal internet polls, and not a shred of valid controlled blind preference evidence as Harman have backing their target. It's ridiculous.
I don't think I had endorsed or promoted any sort of specific 5128 target to Sean. The opposite really; I asked if it was a good idea to follow his example and allow for user-specified target curves just like how respondents had that choice in the Harman AE/OE research (and emphasis - not the IE research). Instead of promoting a "one true curve", simply acknowledge that user preference exists and have users specify their own parameters, and going even further allowing them to EQ their headphones/IEMs to their preference of slope and bass emphasis with the tool's built in AutoEQ function.
This is absolutely not 'just like in Harman's research'. That was done via controlled, level-matched, double-blind listening. Few if any of your followers will be doing this while playing around on your graph tool with made-up target curves under heavy influence of innumerable cognitive biases (like 'Harman IE shouty!' propaganda being relentlessly shoved down their throats). It's just complete pseudoscience. And once again, you have entirely misinterpreted the segmentation paper and are fallaciously using that to support a pluralist choose-your-own-target nonsense narrative (in concert with headphones.com) that runs counter to the whole basis of Harman's research with its foundation of ending the circle of confusion with a (at least de facto) standardized target.
 
Last edited:
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
I think you assume too much malice and nefarious agendas from me. For the record, when I meet Sean again I'll be sure to ask if I did make him uncomfortable during our meeting and apologise if it were the case.
Well I don't think you did it with pre-planned malice or nefarious agenda, it was just the way it panned out. Yeah, fair enough.
 
Last edited:
OP
Robbo99999

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,081
Likes
6,962
Location
UK
What weirds me out is that you are doing this blame game on Crinacle after you've have been consistently appeasing Andrew and Blaine.
That's because I'm not really in any camp, I'm just taking each situation as I see it. (I'm not playing any "blame game").
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,362
Likes
1,895
Imagine, in audio **science** forums, framing the questioning of unproven claims and hypotheses, and requiring relevant valid evidence from those making them as taking sides.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom