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

[Fregly]

I understand Harman as sophisticated market preference research and not some finding of neutrality. As the post above, an orchestra sounds realistic with Etys and not with Harman curve phones. I notice with say raw amateur recordings of a stereo mic pair in any room for interviews (etc) with stray noises from people moving around or knocking objects, scraping a chair, hand brushing cross a table, and so on....playing acoustic instruments...The Etys sound natural to me as if I were there. I "recognize" the sounds. With Harman I hear it as something needs fixing. Some particular sound won't be natural/correct.

 

[TimF]

Not related at all but I imagine that shoe and bra makers have a frequency distribution of the foot and breast/chest/shoulder sizes of the general population, and also of a number of specific subpopulations that they specifically target for sales. Over sufficiently long periods of time the distribution(s) change, i.e., people have been getting taller throughout the twentieth century. Music is produced with standardized instruments and the recording industry helped establish international standards of tuning for orchestras and performances. Because of radio, TV, and recordings people have attuned themselves to expect a certain dynamic range in live performances, and with simulated performance via electronics. They also are used to and expect a certain "flatness, or curve" in the frequency range. Similarly, people are used to and expect a certain stiffness in the soles of their shoes. I don't know what women expect in the feel and fit of their bras. People have in the last 90 years gotten to expect and demand more dynamic range and greater frequency range in their recorded music and in the capability of their playback systems. Most certainly there are subpopulations of aficionado that prefer a product and a performance target that significantly differs from the norm (the larger target market). Some of these subpopulations of aficionados think they and their preferences should be the standard that the industry should meet. A Ducati motorcycle is far, far from being a good, decent, fitting or fine product for 98% of the motorcycle riders around the globe. A very fine shoe, and a very fine bra that well meets the needs of the greater part of the population distribution may likely be anathema to certain persnickety aficionado, snobs, antisocial persons, and perhaps even masochists. I know there are those who abhor the common and the 'just fine' product. The watch industry as well as the gun industry are fine examples of an industry that exists to meet quirky personal needs and fantasies. Ducati does not make or market bras I might add.

 

[Sharur]

Interesting how no one in this thread with the exception of Amir is calling the Harman Target neutral...

 

[MaxBuck]

When it comes to transducers, I don't think anyone should trust anyone else's judgment.

 

[Chromatischism]

Where in the Harman papers does it say that the bass boost happens naturally after putting a flat speaker in a normal room?

Is this "preferred listening curve" not real?
View attachment 151784

Are the low frequencies "stacking" on to each other?
View attachment 151785

I'm sure this was already answered in the last 6 pages, but yes. Bass sees "build-up" in a room due to the long wavelengths. In addition, higher frequencies don't spread as wide and start to beam, causing fewer reflections and the mic picks up less relatively speaking. Thus causing the "tilt" from a flat speaker.

Also, for your first graph, which is an in-room system target – I have been tweaking subwoofers for 6 years in my systems at 3 different houses. When I finally get it dialed in and all my music and movies light up with the perfect balance, my curve looks VERY close to that. What a coincidence

Some of the features I'll point out:

• Bass boost beginning from 100-125 Hz. It's important that it does not start higher than this or the upper bass will sound congested and lower mid details can be clouded.
• 6-10 dB boost from there on down to 40 Hz
• Flattening out from 40 Hz on down. It's important that this lowest region not continue to rise or else it will sound bottom-heavy and tubby. Bass tightness and impact comes from a mostly flat response here, extending as far as your system is capable.
• The slope of the high-end depends on your room dimensions, dispersion width of the speakers, and seating distance.

Note I am speaking from the experience of subwoofers. I don't know if it's the same for speakers in 2.0. Some of the considerations are the bass boost needs to slope down to match the speakers at 100-125 Hz at the latest otherwise you'll have localization issues and it won't sound as smooth. It's possible that speakers-only could look a little different, if you got really lucky and had the space to avoid room issues down there without subs. I would wager nearly no one is that lucky because our rooms aren't large enough unless your name is George Vanderbilt.

But with headphones, it is different. So now that this sidebar has concluded I will leave you with your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Thomas_A]

Interesting how no one in this thread with the exception of Amir is calling the Harman Target neutral...

That is because neutral is a misnomer when it comes to headphones. A natural source sounding in a ordinary living room, large hall or outside are all "neutral" yet very different sounding. When it comes to recreating an original event, you need to decide which model you want (you are there, they are here), none which is applicable to "normal" headphones. The choice you have is the tonality of the representation, whether it is a living room or an anechoic chamber. Most people prefer that of an ordinary room, but with deviations in the bass range (women preferring on the average less bass etc).

 

[Sharur]

That is because neutral is a misnomer when it comes to headphones.

If flat speakers in a well-treated room is neutral, the sound at the eardrum should be the same in neutral headphones. Harman's supposed purpose is to replicate the perception of flat speakers in a treated room even though this idea is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Thomas_A]

If flat speakers in a well-treated room is neutral, the sound at the eardrum should be the same in neutral headphones. Harman's supposed purpose is to replicate the perception of flat speakers in a treated room even though this idea is fundamentally flawed.

First, give me the reverberation times of a typical control room DC-20 kHz. Is it completely flat?

 

[solderdude]

I'll give you this to ponder:
For the lower frequencies the body itself also 'inputs' additional info into the brain.
We thus not only hear with the ears but also the body (lowest frequencies)
Remove that input (headphones) while keeping the pressure at ear drum level the same and the headphone will 'sound' more bass shy.
This isn't something registered by HATS but is by the human body.

The Etymotic target differs because it bypasses all outer ear effects and partly the ear canal effects.
Thus to arrive at 'audibly correct' sound the target of the HATS used (or other fixture) needs to be different from targets designed for on and over ear headphones (that also are not interacting similarly) and speakers which also interact differently.

That's why there are different 'targets' or as I like to call it different correction curves in order to arrive at a certain tonal balance.
On that 'corrected' data one can apply targets which are fuzzy because studio and home situations differ and personal tastes differs.
Then there are (proven) differences between casual listeners and trained listeners.

Harman tried to find a preferred response so they can increase sales (for headphones) and judging from the revised targets over the years are still trying to refine this.

'Average response' may not be what everyone wants/needs. Targets are targets and are there so everyone can compare response to those targets to show the same thing. This is is different from what everyone perceives but is a step in the right direction, more so than just 'doing something' that sounds right to a designer.

Thank God for tone controls and EQ so we can, aside from going for a 'target' also go for 'best sound'.
Given the huge differences in recordings (tonal balance can be way off between recordings (sorry produced music with tonal balance acc. to the sound engineer(s) on their monitors with their intended audience) so use tone controls and measure acc. to standard(s) so we can have a reference to look to and then create your own EQ compared to that standard for enjoyment.

 

[Thomas_A]

I'll give you this to ponder:
For the lower frequencies the body itself also 'inputs' additional info into the brain.
We thus not only hear with the ears but also the body (lowest frequencies)
Remove that input (headphones) while keeping the pressure at ear drum level the same and the headphone will 'sound' more bass shy.
This isn't something registered by HATS but is by the human body.

The Etymotic target differs because it bypasses all outer ear effects and partly the ear canal effects.
Thus to arrive at 'audibly correct' sound the target of the HATS used (or other fixture) needs to be different from targets designed for on and over ear headphones (that also are not interacting similarly) and speakers which also interact differently.

That's why there are different 'targets' or as I like to call it different correction curves in order to arrive at a certain tonal balance.
On that 'corrected' data one can apply targets which are fuzzy because studio and home situations differ and personal tastes differs.
Then there are (proven) differences between casual listeners and trained listeners.

Harman tried to find a preferred response so they can increase sales (for headphones) and judging from the revised targets over the years are still trying to refine this.

'Average response' may not be what everyone wants/needs. Targets are targets and are there so everyone can compare response to those targets to show the same thing. This is is different from what everyone perceives but is a step in the right direction, more so than just 'doing something' that sounds right to a designer.

Thank God for tone controls and EQ so we can, aside from going for a 'target' also go for 'best sound'.
Given the huge differences in recordings (tonal balance can be way off between recordings (sorry produced music with tonal balance acc. to the sound engineer(s) on their monitors with their intended audience) so use tone controls and measure acc. to standard(s) so we can have a reference to look to and then create your own EQ compared to that standard for enjoyment.

Agreed, tactile cues are missing in headphones. Although a few might prefer perfect free or diffuse field bass response, most people don't for most music styles. And in my experience, good quality control rooms or good live performing sounds are not anemic in bass. Even in large concert halls with wide frequency and long reverberation time, you will get a good sensation provided that the lateral reflections are preserved (probably due to binaural loudness summation).

 

[tecnogadget]

If flat speakers in a well-treated room is neutral, the sound at the eardrum should be the same in neutral headphones. Harman's supposed purpose is to replicate the perception of flat speakers in a treated room even though this idea is fundamentally flawed.

Finally, after 7 pages you are getting on track, except that part, where you state the idea is fundamentally flawed. If not, please then elaborate.

 

[Thomas_A]

What I could say is that recordings made of live events outside are a bit too bass-heavy to be natural sounding using the Harman curve. But that is a special case.

https://binauralenthusiast.com/examples/

 

[restorer-john]

For some reason, most people prefer boosted bass when it comes to headphones. If you're looking for a more neutral sounding headphone, I think the Etymotic curve is perfect for that.

All I know is "most people" are not representative of me, or my friends who are interested in HiFi, be it full range loudspeakers or headphones.

It seems the younger the demographic, the greater the "importance" of accentuated bass and excessive treble appears to be.

 

[Doodski]

All I know is "most people" are not representative of me, or my friends who are interested in HiFi, be it full range loudspeakers or headphones.

It seems the younger the demographic, the greater the "importance" of accentuated bass and excessive treble appears to be.

I am the same way and believe bass heads are fashionable now because of rap, hip hop and club music.

 

[Thomas_A]

All I know is "most people" are not representative of me, or my friends who are interested in HiFi, be it full range loudspeakers or headphones.

It seems the younger the demographic, the greater the "importance" of accentuated bass and excessive treble appears to be.

However; with respect to neutral sound, it can be related to either the original event OR the original event including my own listening environment. There is no fixed model.

 

[JJB70]

Some music is very bass heavy and live performances really crank up the bass. For such music I can see why boosted bass is popular as it sounds wrong without it. For orchestral and acoustic music boosted bass sounds unnatural and annoying to me. It's not that such music is lacking bass, quite the opposite, but it is not like the sound signature preferred by many, rock, rap etc performers and fans. I know people who love Beats tuning for the bass, if it works for them then great. I find the Etymotic studio tuning great for classical and acoustic music.

 

[solderdude]

However; with respect to neutral sound, it can be related to either the original event OR the original event including my own listening environment. There is no fixed model.

Herein lies a clue (that there is no fixed model).
We have a live event.
We attend the concert and on top of our heads we have a binaural microphone that records everything 'flat'.
The moment we attend the live event the music will be loud, we see the surroundings, we feel the bass (on top of what is heard) and the experience registered in our minds (incl. the emotions evoked at loud SPL)
Then we reproduce this at home with perfect speakers in a room with its own additions (which we can see or know by heart) at much lower level and the recording won't sound the same because of the level, room interactions, bass impact on the body, emotions.
Even with 'perfect' measuring headphones (at the ear drum) we are still missing tactile input and input by the eyes and maybe even the level.
The (official) live recording made at the same time will sound different yet again.
Our live experience may have been remembered incorrectly as well.

So no matter what we do and how we do it sound reproduction will always be a mere 'flawed copy' of the real event determined by factors we can't control (what happens in the studio, at which level with what gear and by who(m).

Long live tone control and personal taste !

But... the reproduction equipment should be technically proficient FIRST and we can add seasoning or 'correcting' later.

 

[Thomas_A]

Herein lies a clue (that there is no fixed model).
We have a live event.
We attend the concert and on top of our heads we have a binaural microphone that records everything 'flat'.
The moment we attend the live event the music will be loud, we see the surroundings, we feel the bass (on top of what is heard) and the experience registered in our minds (incl. the emotions evoked at loud SPL)
Then we reproduce this at home with perfect speakers in a room with its own additions (which we can see or know by heart) at much lower level and the recording won't sound the same because of the level, room interactions, bass impact on the body, emotions.
Even with 'perfect' measuring headphones (at the ear drum) we are still missing tactile input and input by the eyes and maybe even the level.
The (official) live recording made at the same time will sound different yet again.
Our live experience may have been remembered incorrectly as well.

So no matter what we do and how we do it sound reproduction will always be a mere 'flawed copy' of the real event determined by factors we can't control (what happens in the studio, at which level with what gear and by who(m).

Long live tone control and personal taste !

But... the reproduction equipment should be technically proficient FIRST and we can add seasoning or 'correcting' later.

Exactly. And I can also choose to imagine that the musicians are visiting me, standing in the next room behind the front wall playing. The "only" thing I need to do to hear the event is to break the wall. In any case it will be a neutral sound, regardless if it sounds bad or good.

 

[thewas]

Herein lies a clue (that there is no fixed model).
We have a live event.
We attend the concert and on top of our heads we have a binaural microphone that records everything 'flat'.
The moment we attend the live event the music will be loud, we see the surroundings, we feel the bass (on top of what is heard) and the experience registered in our minds (incl. the emotions evoked at loud SPL)
Then we reproduce this at home with perfect speakers in a room with its own additions (which we can see or know by heart) at much lower level and the recording won't sound the same because of the level, room interactions, bass impact on the body, emotions.
Even with 'perfect' measuring headphones (at the ear drum) we are still missing tactile input and input by the eyes and maybe even the level.
The (official) live recording made at the same time will sound different yet again.
Our live experience may have been remembered incorrectly as well.

So no matter what we do and how we do it sound reproduction will always be a mere 'flawed copy' of the real event determined by factors we can't control (what happens in the studio, at which level with what gear and by who(m).

Long live tone control and personal taste !

But... the reproduction equipment should be technically proficient FIRST and we can add seasoning or 'correcting' later.

Exactly, trying to perfectly reproduce a live music event is a illusion due to so many reasons, the most we can in the ideal case is to try to get close to what the guy at the mixing/mastering studio heard who tried to capture it and "pack" it into a recording, the recording is an art product at its own, same as a movie or painting vs the reality.

 

[PierreV]

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.

Indeed. When it comes to headphones reviews (and speakers to a lesser extent, because there are other parameters), the site feels like "tone matching review". It is a game of "how close can it be matched to the reference curve?" that always ends up in a self re-inforcing loop of confirmation bias at the subjective listening part. Given how randomly distributed the headphone behaviours are, that's a source of endless infotainment.
AFAIC, I can enjoy both Pablo Casals and Tiesto, in a different way, with wildly different EQs.