The Etymotic Target (R.I.P. Harman)

[Sharur]

The discrepancy of the speaker target aside, the Harman Target for headphones does not reproduce the sound of anechoically flat speakers placed in a room accurately at the eardrum. Therefore, it is dangerously misleading to claim that it is neutral by saying it is the most preferred.

 

[Thomas_A]

Just for the clarity. What is a "well-treated room"?

 

[storing]

it is dangerously misleading to claim that it is neutral by saying it is the most preferred.

By now this seems to have turned into a semantic discussion, but it's indeed a good point: 'neutral' is not by everyone perceived to have the same meaning as 'preferred' nor 'sounds right' or similar. But that has been mentioned quite a few time in this thread already, no?

 

[MikeJ]

I am bailing out guys. I have other things to do. If you think Harman curve is dead, you best setup shop to do your own measurements, controlled listening tests, and reviews of headphones. Nothing remotely stated in that video gets me to consider using something else.

I don't think somebody ever said that Harman curve is dead - it probably works for "ordinary" listeners. But I still wonder how the "preferred" curve would look like if such research is to be performed within studio world, amongst top mixing and mastering engineers.

For example, my Neumann NDH 20 has out of the box boosted bass response and approximates the Harman 2018 curve in this regard. Is it okay for studio work (i.e. results translate to most consumer systems)? Nope, doesn't work here. But EQ it and you've got some very powerful headphone.

Then I've recently discovered the AA Hi-X65. Compared to the Harman 2018 curve, its frequency response in bass region is almost ruler flat (no elevated bass according to this curve). Does this work in our studio? Yes, zero guesswork and results translate perfectly to every kind of speaker I have tested so far (be it monitors, cars, TV, club speakers, cellphones, cheap radios, etc.)

So I seem to be in agreement with @JohnYang1997 's recent comments that say this: preferred curve (e.g. Harman 2018) doesn't neccessarily mean neutral one. It just doesn't work for a studio guy like me (who "fixes" raw, unbalanced mixdowns to be as enjoyable on most playback systems out there as possible).

I'm not saying warm bass boost is a bad thing, but in studio you want to stay as neutral as possible. And warm bass boost curve, no matter if on headphones / monitor speakers, often leads to thin sounding, unbalanced mixes everywhere.

Just my two cents and experience

 

[Newman]

I don't think somebody ever said that Harman curve is dead

Perhaps read the title of the thread and post #1

 

[MikeJ]

Just for the clarity. What is a "well-treated room"?

For a studio guy like me, a well treated room with, let's say, solid infrastructure (speakers, converters, etc.), it means for me the ability to hear deeply into the music so that I am able to fix mistakes which I am 100% sure if left there, then they would otherwise pop up on other playback systems. Also, it's the trust I have in that particular room and its sound so that what I simply do there (either mix / master) is presented very realistically to the outside world without any guesswork. For example, if I intentionally decide to remove some mud from a bad mix I can be 100% sure that the final master will be cleaner sounding just everywhere. Of course you need to know your stuff very well.

 

[Thomas_A]

For a studio guy like me, a well treated room with, let's say, solid infrastructure (speakers, converters, etc.), it means for me the ability to hear deeply into the music so that I am able to fix mistakes which I am 100% sure if left there, then they would otherwise pop up on other playback systems. Also, it's the trust I have in that particular room and its sound so that what I simply do there (either mix / master) is presented very realistically to the outside world without any guesswork. For example, if I intentionally decide to remove some mud from a bad mix I can be 100% sure that the final master will be cleaner sounding just everywhere. Of course you need to know your stuff very well.

Is that the definition recognised by all through-out this thread? The difference that is discussed seems mostly be related to the bass region, so do these "well-treated rooms" agree with the reverberation characteristics in the bass region in ordinary rooms?

 

[Sharur]

Perhaps read the title of the thread and post #1

Well, I'm not claiming the Harman Target can't be enjoyed

 

[Sharur]

Would Etymotic target be the same for over-ears and in-ears?

 

[Sharur]

Does Harman have any proof that the average ear canal gain frequency is after 3 kHz? (No)

Diffuse field and Etymotic are the only two targets that care about accuracy.

 

[Sharur]

@amirm could you please do a comparison between your Revel Salon system, AKG K371, and Etymotic ER4SR and tell us what the difference is at the eardrum? I don't care about bass in the chest or skull.

 

[Sharur]

How did they manage to make the Harman target worse?

 

[jae]

@Sharur According to the resonance graph you posted and many others I have seen, there is already ~+2 dB at 200hz you lose going from speakers to any sort of headphone by excluding head/neck gain, so can you appreciate that a non-zero amount of bass boost may in fact may be more closely associated with "neutral" in an IEM/headphone than the complete absence of said boost? And this isn't even accounting for the number of purported room and anatomical characteristics to do with bass gain.

 

[Sharur]

@Sharurthere is already ~+2 dB at 200hz you lose going from speakers to any sort of headphone by excluding head/neck gain, so can you appreciate that a non-zero amount of bass boost may in fact may be more closely associated with "neutral" in an IEM/headphone than the complete absence of said boost? .

That boost begins at 1 kHz and is about as high as it will go in amplitude at 700 Hz. A perfect reproduction of flat speakers in an anechoic chamber reproduced at the eardrum is the diffuse field.

 

[jae]

That boost begins at 1 kHz and is about as high as it will go in amplitude at 700 Hz. A perfect reproduction of flat speakers in an anechoic chamber reproduced at the eardrum is the diffuse field.

Did you look at your own graph? Orange line clearly shows +2 dB contribution from torso and neck.

 

[Sharur]

Did you look at your own graph? Orange line clearly shows +2 dB contribution from torso and neck.

 

[Sharur]

Did you look at your own graph? Orange line clearly shows +2 dB contribution from torso and neck.

The observation I wanted to point out was the ear canal gain frequency, but @JohnYang1997 is probably capable of answering your question.
This graph doesn't even go below 200 Hz which is where the bass shelf on the Harman target begins. You also need to take into account the reduced high frequencies making the lower frequencies appear louder.

 

[Sharur]

Follow the strict protocol of the research and then show me precisely what response you land on. If it is flat in bass, then you are an outlier and is not what we should chase.

Why should we "hunt in the dark" for preferred subjective response and pretend that it's God's message afterwards?

 

[JJB70]

The thing that annoys me in the whole Harman curve discussion is that I don't think anyone has ever tried to suggest that if people like the Harman headphone curve then they are wrong or denied their preference, just enjoy it. It seems to be Harman advocates that insist anything else is wrong despite the fact that the boosted bass is just derived from statistical preference. And when it comes to preference there is no right or wrong.
I think the bass issue is sensitive to music genre. When I listen to rock and such like a bass boost is very enjoyable and great, when listening to classical and non-amplified music I find the Harman bass overdone and unnatural. And most of my listening is classical. Many criticise Etymotic for being bass lite, I really don't think they are, the problem is that because many are so accustomed to boosted bass they interpret an absence of boosted bass as lacking bass. My preferred listening companion is ER4SR, I would never presume to tell anyone my preference is right and theirs is wrong but personally I find the ER4SR preferable for classical and non-electronic/amplified music.
If a manufacturer decides to design for a niche audience then why is that a problem? If you don't like it then don't buy it. Etymotic aren't clueless charlatans and have been true to their tuning ideas for many years and I find it hard to believe that the ER4 tuning just appeared out of the ether by accident. Or in other words it's not only Harman who apply a scientific methodology.

 

[Sharur]

Many criticise Etymotic for being bass lite, I really don't think they are, the problem is that because many are so accustomed to boosted bass they interpret an absence of boosted bass as lacking bass. My preferred listening companion is ER4SR

ER2SE is very similar to ER4SR bass so I'll share my experience. I was listening to ER4XR for a few hours before getting ER2SE and it took me a few hours or so to fully adjust to flat bass having never experienced it and there was no going back to ER4XR. It sounds so incredibly deep and lifelike. ER4SR nor ER2SE lack bass.