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

[Sean Olive]

Oh come on.
Large studios have dedicated room for mastering. Those are with large most of the time in the wall real deal monitors. Those are seriously no joke. The use of NS10 or auratone is to pick out nasty things to eq out. And ns10 translates well to bigger systems. And the key is that there really were bigger systems to make final decisions.
When we are splitting these small variance in targets. 7506 is closer to raw not modified DF target than anything else. And the bass was said to be muddy all the time. This is not a good candidate to represent Harman target in any way. Apart from that any remotely ok actual studio monitors from focal, genelec, adam, yamaha(not ns10) are miles better than 7506. So this argument really is pretty bad imo.

You only have to look at the large control room study by Genelec published in the JAES where they measured their own monitors in 100+ studios to quickly understand that quality control in studios is out of whack. There is nothing consistently flat even when good monitors are installed. So it doesn't matter whether we are talking good loudspeakers or Yamaha NS10's, the installation and calibration of monitors is nothing close to standard or consistent.

Here is a measurement of a Sony 7506 compared to the Harman Target. Put your best scientific and objective hat on on and tell me again that this headphone is closer to the diffuse field than the Harman Target.

And yes they have more bass than the Yamaha NS10. Have you actually measured one?

 

[Sean Olive]

The NS-10M doesn't remotely translate to bigger systems. It never did. I sold them all including the NS-1000M, the NS-2000, the later X series (up to the NS-1000X) and even the rare NS-10000 centennary series). None of them were remotely comparable on the salesfloor to much of the bass-reflex two and three way designs coming out of the US and Europe at the time. Yes, they were brutally incisive, but lacked everything that made you want to listen to, and move with the music. They simply didn't sell well and were killed by Yamaha by the early 90s.

I have several "classic" Yamaha loudspeaker products, and my father still has a 10 year (badged) anniversary pair of NS-1000M Japanese home market speakers on ultra rare SPS-500 stands at his place which get sporadic use. Their midrange is absolutely flawless. Everything else is a compromise.

The NS-10M was an aberration. A cute little Yamaha, back when the NS-1000 was causing waves in the studio space. they were the equivalent of the JBL powered 305 series when powered/active speakers were non-existant.

Anyway, the brochure for the NS-1000X is uploaded here, by me, to HiFi Engine if you want to see it:

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/yamaha/ns-1000x.shtml

From one of my brochures:
View attachment 153504

Thank you. "Translates to a bigger monitor is a phrase" I often hear from people who have no data or science to back it up. Often used to justify SMPTE-x curves and the THX variants for example.

 

[Sharur]

Is there an ideal ratio of reflection vs absorption for a well treated room?

 

[KeithPhantom]

Not that I know, but what we know is that realistic listening rooms where music is produced are neither fully anechoic (Free-Field) or fully reverberant (Diffuse-Field). This is an aspect where the Harman Target is ahead of the others.

 

[Sharur]

Not that I know, but what we know is that realistic listening rooms where music is produced are neither fully anechoic (Free-Field) or fully reverberant (Diffuse-Field). This is an aspect where the Harman Target is ahead of the others.

This is what I'm getting at. I just want a ballpark estimate. 50/50?

 

[KeithPhantom]

This is what I'm getting at. I just want a ballpark estimate. 50/50?

I think @Sean Olive can help you with that since I think this is one of the control variables they considered when developing the flat in-room loudspeaker frequency response target. Toole also explored this topic in his papers, so that may be another reference to guide you to answer your question.

 

[Sharur]

If the thick dashed line is what happens when you place anechoically flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz speakers in a room, isn't that a "neutral target"?

 

[TimVG]

fs the thick dashed line what happens when you place anechoically flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz speakers in a room, isn't that the neutral target?

Some of the times yes, but sometimes no, because the predicted in-room response is dictated not only by flatness of the direct anechoic sound but also by the directivity characteristics of the DUT. A single target curve cannot work for all the loudspeakers out there as there are many different types of loudspeakers.

edit: .. and many different types of room (sizes)

 

[Sharur]

I took the average of DF and FF at 35 different points to compare to the different target curves. I hand plotted the averaged points then drew a line connecting the dots, so it's not the most precise thing in the world. I'd say it's accurate to +- 0.2 dB. The issues with Harman Flat In-Room before 10 kHz is the ear canal gain shift and too much 6-8 kHz.

 

[solderdude]

What is the goal ?
For which particular measurement fixture is the target/correction plot meant ?
What can it be used for ?
What's the reason to average DF an FF targets ?
Is it to emulate a speaker in front of a binaural fixture (FF) in a dead room combined with a DF of multiple speakers in a dead room ?
Is it your line of thinking that this would represent a speaker in a well treated living room measured with a specific test fixture/HATS/binaural mic ?

 

[Sharur]

What is the goal ?
For which particular measurement fixture is the target/correction plot meant ?
What can it be used for ?
What's the reason to average DF an FF targets ?
Is it to emulate a speaker in front of a binaural fixture (FF) in a dead room combined with a DF of multiple speakers in a dead room ?
Is it your line of thinking that this would represent a speaker in a well treated living room measured with a specific test fixture/HATS/binaural mic ?

I still don't know what a well-treated room specifically means, but my train of thought was that something between diffuse field and free field would be anechoically flat speakers in a room with equal reflection and absorption.

 

[Sharur]

One thing that's interesting is that the ER4S exhibits the same dip the DF/FF Hybrid curve has.

 

[solderdude]

One thing that's interesting is that the ER4S exhibits the same dip the DF/FF Hybrid curve has.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about that. The dip may not be there by design but just happens to be there.
Also, as IEM's bypass the entire head and also partly the ear canal it should have a different target that only consists of (part of) an ear canal only.

 

[ObjectAudio]

I will appreciate any insight why at least to my ears over the ear headphones equalized to Harman OE target sound total different from IEM equalized to Harman IE target.

 

[richard12511]

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

So sorry for the late responses, I had a death in the family last week and forgot to respond to this thread.

The Harman loudspeaker target is neutral, but only because that's what most people prefer under blind conditions. Just to clear some confusion, the curves you and @JohnYang1997 posted are not Harman targets, but rather steady state room curves, which only apply to that specific room that they tested with. I'm in agreement with you for the headphone target(at least in regards to neutrality), but I just wanted to clear up y'alls mistake(it's a very common misunderstanding) with regards to loudspeakers.

I'm much less knowledgeable of the headphone science, as listen to loudspeakers almost exclusively, but my understanding is that the Harman headphone target is not neutral, and doesn't claim to be. They started with copying the sound of neutral loudspeakers in a room, but have since added more and more bass over the years, veering further and further from neutral.

 

[richard12511]

How did they manage to make the Harman target worse?
View attachment 151958
View attachment 151959

Depends what you mean by "worse" . They are further from neutral, but sound better to most people. So I guess it depends what the goal is.

If the goal is neutrality, the older Harman targets are better.
If the goal is pleasure, the newer Harman targets are better, as they sound "better" to most people under blind conditions.

 

[richard12511]

@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.

This would be a good test. I'll have to try it. I own both the ER4SR and K371, and I could could do this with my Genelec 8351b(even more neutral than the Salon2).

One tricky thing might be in ear vs over ear. For over ear, I could try with my HD800s(diffuse field) and K371(Harman). Actually, I'm surprised I haven't tried this before.

 

[richard12511]

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

I've seen this trend as well, and from what I understand, the "average" data does actually back this up to some degree. Similarly, old folks tend to on "average" prefer a little extra treble.

Of course, with anything like this, individual differences will supersede the average trends.

 

[richard12511]

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.

The reviews(speakers and headphones) would be so much more valuable if Amir listened first, before measuring. As it is, if there is another curve out there that is slightly more preferable, we'll never find it.

I understand the advantages of measuring first(much more precise EQ, and knowing where to listen for flaws), but the huge bias it introduces hurts the usefulness more than those advantages help it. Best of both worlds would be to listen before and after, separate impressions given.

 

[JJB70]

Nothing in this thread changes my opinion that I prefer the Etymotic SR tuning to Harman and find it to be more neutral and accurate for my preferred music than Harman. The issue is clearly bass, as just about the whole thread recognizes. And that is just a preference, as I understand it about two thirds of the Harman sample preferred the Harman response, meaning a third of that sample didn't. Some want more bass and others less, and when it comes to preference none is right or wrong.

I think even many critics of the Harman curve recognize the value of a reference curve which would better allow people to understand tuning relative to a common base. I have no objection to such a concept. The problem is that many seem to want all headphones to be tuned to that curve and condemn any not following that curve to be wrong, badly designed, uses phrases such as circle of confusion to deride anything not confirming with Harman etc. If we don't like Harman we can EQ, putting aside the point that EQ is not a panacea why should anyone have to EQ if companies see a market for a tuning they like? Turning it around if it is just about EQ then Harman fans are quite at liberty to EQ to the Harman curve.

Bass is a preference, like salt or sugar in food. If you like it then fine (and adding salt or sugar is generally a great way for food manufacturers to broaden appeal of a product) but the idea of claiming that because more people like something in a study is an argument for everything to be made that way is not a direction I would like any industry serving a subjective passion (love of music, food etc) to take

This is more striking given that it is not even claimed to be neutral and has been adding more bass over the years. If amplifier, DAC manufacturers colour sound most here criticise them and demand neutrality. Yet some of the same people defend a coloured headphone tuning and want it to be the standard. I have no objection to coloured audio products if people like them and they are honestly sold, but I think we need consistency here.