I can visualise a "seesaw" effect when comparing between different headphones aligned at 500Hz - meaning I suppose it would make the average linear tilt of a headphone more apparent in it's comparisons. When I EQ a headphone I generally just line it up with whichever portion matches the curve the best, but for tonal comparison between headphones then there is a logic to aligning somewhere near the middle of the seesaw.
Again, ideally the anchor point (as even Olive himself points out) for tonal balances is the fundamental tone range, the 500 Hz is just a compromise due to the reasons he stated, even worse one of them being the tuning of some headphones. Simplistic thinking prefers binary black and white "truths" but science and engineering don't work like that, only 280 characters limited "Twitter style truths".
Thanks for doing this experiment. That explains why I like the stock Zero so much, as I listen at pretty low volumes compared to other people I know.
I think "shouty" comes from 4-6 kHz, which I heard (especially when developing EQ) and Crinacle has his graph labeled as such as well. But we could have different definitions of it.
As Gary has noted, it's likely that my bass EQ was influenced by the output impedance of my Pixel 4a 5G. On the PC I have to use an additional +1.5 to both of the low frequency filters to get close to what I hear with the smartphone.
I think it's worthwhile to consider the levels we listen at because indeed, a lower level will need more of a curve on both ends. With that said, I listen at moderate to lower levels. I would estimate, based on how my main system sounds, that I am between 60-80 dB. I doubt I'm higher than that but IEM loudness can be deceptive.
Except real life isn't a theoretical idealisation in which there's no leakage variability and all headphones/IEMs have the same bass shelves. It would of course be simplistic thinking to assume and base normalisation frequency on such an idealisation without taking into account these factors. Which is precisely part of the reason why Sean moved the anchor point up to 500 Hz for headphones, as he stated and further explained with some extra characters to the original 280 in his follow-up tweet. I'd suggest starting a new thread if you want to continue arguing that Sean Olive, his colleagues and the IEC are all wrong in using a normalisation frequency of 500 Hz to best depict tonal differences.
Yeah. Well, I checked the Cringraph and we're both right:
Interesting how this term is used so widely in audio these days, without definition. My initial though on when I read this is that it would be more around the 1-2k area. A quick rough search had some saying 1-2k, 2-4k, and even 4-8k (I think that last one is way too high—really hard to get anything resembling a shout out of 6-8k! Are they thinking "shrill"?).
So with this "logic" Harman should have also moved their anchor point for loudspeakers if more manufacturers had a similar upper bass shelving? Also what about headphones that have a bump or dip at 500 Hz? You realise it is just one choice which has also several disadvantages and there is not a unique optimal solution like also Oratory, who you like to quote, writes:
crinacle.com
Sean didn't even know the correct frequency and initially repeatedly wrote 800 Hz, so much about the choice being "his". Also in a quick search for IEC standards I didn't find a paragraph which says that for comparative plots only 500 Hz anchor should be used and a reasoning behind it, maybe you can shed some light there by posting it here?
The word "shouty" came to my mind as well, and in the Chroma's EQ it is cured by the notches at 5 and 7.5 kHz. For some music the first one is more important, for other - the second.
You can PM Sean with your grievances / to learn more.So with this "logic" Harman should have also moved their anchor point for loudspeakers if more manufacturers had a similar upper bass shelving? Also what about headphones that have a bump or dip at 500 Hz? You realise it is just one choice which has also several disadvantages and there is not a unique optimal solution like also Oratory, who you like to quote, writes:
Graphs 101: How to Read Headphone Measurements – In-Ear Fidelity
A guide to reading frequency response graphs of headphones and IEMs.
Sean didn't even know the correct frequency and initially repeatedly wrote 800 Hz, so much about the choice being "his". Also in a quick search for IEC standards I didn't find a paragraph which says that for comparative plots only 500 Hz anchor should be used and a reasoning behind it, maybe you can shed some light there by posting it here?
You are the one who just reposted his "Twitter science" and as expected there seems to be no real knowledge behind.
Yep PCs and laptops can have crazy high output impedances on their headphone jacks. And sometimes even hidden 'sound enhancements' that muck up everything further. They can't really be relied upon to judge a headphone's actual stock sound unless you know their measurements.
A large following is not a reliable indicator of how good a headphone/IEM sounds. Harman's research found IEM frequency responses lacking in 'concha gain' (as Etymotics do) did not receive high ratings from listeners in blind tests:Was the cocha component of the ear gain as labeled in this graph a variable that was tested in determining preferences? If not, seems like it was worth exploring.
As that seems to be the most contentious part of the Harman IEM target beside bass region, given that SO many IEMs that have gained large followings systematically undershoot the Harman target there to various degrees.
I've always thought of shouty as 1-3kHz, basically from the start of the pinna gain to the highest point of the pinna gain, following pic just to show Harman Curve for people to see where I'm talking about:Interesting how this term is used so widely in audio these days, without definition. My initial though on when I read this is that it would be more around the 1-2k area. A quick rough search had some saying 1-2k, 2-4k, and even 4-8k (I think that last one is way too high—really hard to get anything resembling a shout out of 6-8k! Are they thinking "shrill"?).
"Shout" is a vocal property, so I'll start there. I realize "shouty" might be defined more a property strong harmonics as opposed to the fundamental, but it might help to relate the fundamental to the piano, and then consider the first few harmonics as integer multiples of that frequency. Sting's "Rock-san" is 440 Hz, so the next harmonics are 880, 1320, 1760, 2160... Now, I think that note, yelled, is more screech than shout, but I'm start high on purpose. A high shout for me is closer to 300 Hz (600, 900, 1200, 1500, 1800...), so that 1-2k is not looking bad to me—for my idea of "shouty", at least. That would translate into a loud and wide-open-mouthed shout that boosts some of those mid-range harmonics, beyond what you'd get with a normal voice.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is such a subjective term. On the one hand, I would say that from my experience mixing vocals, up near 6k is where I might want to boost for articulation, and there doesn't seem to be much oomph there. On the other, if it's broad enough and strong enough boost 4-6k, I can understand why you might think of it as shouty—it would be like someone who is exceptionally close to your ear, and loud.
Obviously, stating frequency ranges is less ambiguous, but that's not such an easy call for people who don't spend a lot of time with audio signals and filters.
