The IEM Harman Target 2019 sounds "off" to me. Is it just me?

[GaryH]

Does this modified target also enter in the compliance score point calculation?

No, the calculated scores use the actual (unmodified) Harman target.

 

[jaakkopasanen]

I actually changed the bass boost for the precomputed results to comply with Harman targets recently. So unless I messed something up, the target should be more or less exactly Harman over-ear 2018.

Ecen before this, the preference score calculation used the original Harman target.

 

[MacClintock]

I actually changed the bass boost for the precomputed results to comply with Harman targets recently. So unless I messed something up, the target should be more or less exactly Harman over-ear 2018.

Ecen before this, the preference score calculation used the original Harman target.

This applies to in-ears as well?

 

[MacClintock]

The .csv in every AutoEQ preset contains the target in raw, numerical form: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/oratory1990/over-ear/AKG K371/AKG K371.csv

If you extract it and overlay it onto stock Harman, you get:
View attachment 287838

Same story for IEMs.


Jaakko's motivation was that most headphones have strong bass roll-off, and so to reduce the amount of gain and pre gain required to get them to the target, Jaakko modified it to be easier to meet.

While IEMs typically don't have that issue, it was done there as well. I'm guessing for consistency's sake.

The decision to modify Harman for this reason has been a controversial one from the beginning.


That I don't know. Perhaps @jaakkopasanen can give you an answer.

Thanks, very well observed! So it could possibly be for the cases where I used AutoEQ for my headphones that I was forgoing valueable 2dB of bass without even knowing? Shocking...

 

[MacClintock]

I do agree with the subject statement that In-Ear target sounds off. Over-ear target works fine for me - all my headphones sound as good as they can with a tuning EQ'ed to harman target. I can not say the same for IE target however. I pretty much bought all the "hyped" cheap IEMs in an effort to find one that I like and can wear for a relatively longer duration, and when EQed to IE targets they all sound off and tire me out after a short while. All of them. It could as easily be me, but I would like to blame the target.

I think it has nothing to do if you did this with cheap or overly expensive IEMs, it is simply the target itself. I stitched together my personal target, using Harman up to 1kHz and above USound/oratory1990. This gives a smooth transition and sounds pretty good to me.
For IEMs where there are already measurements with the 5128, one can use diffuse field with a certain bass boost and (negative) tilt, this gives also results that are less bright than Harman2019IEv2 at 2-6kHz.

 

[abm0]

This might sound elitist, but maybe the IEM Harman target is too "mainstream"?

That'sss one way of putting it. Basically, the universality of target curves and headphone-specific EQ profiles has been significantly exaggerated. Personal ear canal shapes and resonances make more of a difference than the industry seems ready to accept so far. You want "flat" response, you should always EQ to your own HRTF.

Here's the sort-of-101 on the matter from dr. David Griesinger: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-on-headphone-measurements.31997/post-1132847

 

[Chromatischism]

I do agree with the subject statement that In-Ear target sounds off. Over-ear target works fine for me - all my headphones sound as good as they can with a tuning EQ'ed to harman target. I can not say the same for IE target however. I pretty much bought all the "hyped" cheap IEMs in an effort to find one that I like and can wear for a relatively longer duration, and when EQed to IE targets they all sound off and tire me out after a short while. All of them. It could as easily be me, but I would like to blame the target.

@Chromatischism , have been using your Truthear Zero EQ for about an hour now with some added bass (70hz +4db Lowshelf) and so far so good.

I found that the bass was perfect with my phone (Pixel 4a 5G) because that's what I tuned it with.

However, there is less bass from my Topping EX5, down to the output impedance difference. I also add more bass there through PEACE/EAPO.

 

[jaakkopasanen]

This applies to in-ears as well?

In-ears were actually changed to use AutoEq in-ear target, which is basically Harman 2019 but with about 2 dB less at 3 kHz.

 

[fpitas]

This might sound elitist, but maybe the IEM Harman target is too "mainstream"?

As in, they like selling lots of headphones?

 

[Matias]

 

[GaryH]

Still rehashing the same nonsense uncorrected.

 

[fpitas]

What part of, "Most people will like this" is so hard to grasp? It implies that some may not.

 

[markanini]

Oratory1990 made some useful comments recently, with regard to liking Harman IE or not:

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/13zgffu/_/jmvpyp3

This should mean that many may like Harman IE, many may not.

 

[GaryH]

This should mean that many may like Harman IE, many may not.

Except there's valid evidence i.e. controlled blind listening tests for the former, but there isn't for the latter, as Oratory says.

 

[markanini]

Except there's valid evidence i.e. controlled blind listening tests for the former, but there isn't for the latter, as Oratory says.

Except for what?

Regarding controlled blind testing,

I assume you think this is one of the most important parts of developing a target that successfully represents a general preference response. I agree. In that case any sufficiently equipped internal research team could produce a target as good or better than Harmans. Again, assuming a good target follows blind controlled testing, which agree on.

It should follow logically that: Many may like Harman IE, many may not.

Your objection to many not liking Harman IE doesn't follow. The level of public documentation would, of itself, not guarantee the development of a good target. Posit that blind controlled testing was used, but the rest of the methodology was wrong, and the selection of subjects were biased, and too few for statistical certainty. Then a well documented effort would document a failed effort. And many individual listeners would express dislike of products tuned to it.

It then follows that to Moondrops target may be equally or more liked. Per Oratory1990's commentary on equivalence with Harman IE this can't be a big stretch, despite no publication of the research behind it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/12gbq4r/_/jfsu1jd
And, USound target may be be equally or more liked, despite only sparse information of the research:

How earphones should sound: Talking about target curves

When we discuss what makes a headphone or earphone sound “good” and “bad”, we inevitably need to ask the question, well how should a headphone sound?

usound.com

 

[GaryH]

Except for what?

What I'm taking exception to is the false equivalence and vacuous equivocation in your statement, implying comparable proportions may like and dislike Harman IE. There is valid evidence the majority like it (which logically entails the minority dislike it i.e. not many), whereas no-one has ever presented any evidence of the inverse (in non-noisy environments), or even that a significant proportion dislike it. Hypotheticals and make-believe research have no epistemic import whatsoever. Bertrand Russell's teapot comes to mind here. If someone said there's a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, but this claim was arrived at without presenting any scientific process or evidence, should we all remain agnostic over the existence of this teacup until this claim has been scientifically tested to be false? No, that would be absurd. Claims that have not been arrived through any kind of scientific method or basis as audiophiles' often are should be assumed false, until evidence in their favor is forthcoming.

 

[markanini]

What I'm taking exception to is the false equivalence and vacuous equivocation in your statement, implying comparable proportions may like and dislike Harman IE. There is valid evidence the majority like it (which logically entails the minority dislike it i.e. not many), whereas no-one has ever presented any evidence of the inverse (in non-noisy environments), or even that a significant proportion dislike it. Hypotheticals and make-believe research have no epistemic import whatsoever. Bertrand Russell's teapot comes to mind here. If someone said there's a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, but this claim was arrived at without presenting any scientific process or evidence, should we all remain agnostic over the existence of this teacup until this claim has been scientifically tested to be false? No, that would be absurd. Claims that have not been arrived through any kind of scientific method or basis as audiophiles' often are should be assumed false, until evidence in their favor is forthcoming.

Please slow down and read my comments in context, before making crazy assumptions, before mentioning epistemology.

To be extra clear, I'm not saying I like a lack of convergence. Or that I prefer to side with commercial actors personal dictates. Quite the opposite. It's the commercial actors that benefit from an established target that many dislike. I'm pointing out how things are, so that commercial actors don't get to own the discourse. Only if this doesn't bother you.

 

[GaryH]

I'm pointing out how things are

You're not though, you're talking about how things 'may' be with hypothetical research scenarios. It's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is valid presented evidence and the conclusions we can draw from this.

 

[markanini]

You're not though, you're talking about how things 'may' be with hypothetical research scenarios. It's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is valid presented evidence and the conclusions we can draw from this.

Then I'm not making a false equivalence as you incorrectly claimed. Because the quality of a study might warrant discussion about less documented efforts, It might not. Here I'm providing resources for other efforts, with full attribution to the lack of documentation. Instead of my own commentary I provide quotes from more knowledgeable people than either of us. However it turns out I'm the one that knows that 10-15 participants of a biased demographic can't produce statically significant results that will represent the general public.

 

[digitalfrost]

Crinacle luckily measured IEMs I own with the BK 5128. I've been experimenting a ton in the last few days. My desktop speakers are also measured and corrected via DRC. I might be a weird guy, but my preferred speaker curve is more or less flat with a bass boost less than 1dB. I will say that I use frequency dependend windowing so the corrections are less as frequency increases. That said. If I had to choose an IEM target now, it would be something like this.

-1.6dB tilt, 0 bass boost. It still sounds somewhat brighter than my speakers, but I think you have to account for having the drivers directly in front of your ears. Anyway this sounds closer to me (though not identical) to my speaker setup than say the standard targets and I'm really wondering why almost all IEMs are so bright.

This is warm and very beautiful and I'm not really missing any detail. It also has enough bass despite the lack of bass boost. I tried to find IEMs that are tuned like this out of the box, but it's impossible since they all lack energy in the 200-300hz region.