Well it's certainly not neutral to me.
That's the point, the rest of your post is superfluous (the clue is that it is littered with 1st person singular pronouns).
Well it's certainly not neutral to me.
Your EQ might well work for you and be an improvement for you vs the Harman Curve, but that certainly doesn't mean it's likely to work better than the Harman Curve for everyone else.....if you don't know why that is then you don't understand the Harman Research & process through which they created the target and the "science" behind it. Probability would suggest that Harman Curve is the best target that has the highest chance of sounding good for the largest percentage of people. You can't be coming out with statements that your individualised EQ "should be a big improvement for most people" (to quote you) - that's why so many people are calling you out on this, so as to put things right for the various readers of this forum. It doesn't matter if you're wrong one time, people won't hate you.Well flat out, the frequency response is not neutral, for starters.
EQ to the Harman curve is an improvement over stock, but it still sounds pretty bad. That's a good enough reason for me.
The Harman curve is a starting point, and that's all it has ever meant to be, especially when it comes to iems. You then need to tune the EQ further to match your own particular hearing and preferences. Everyone's optimal EQ curve will be different (mine also departs from the Harman curve, but is wildly different to the curve you showed here). There's no simple 'one size fits all' solution, but there is a process that can help you find the right curve, and it involves starting with the Harman and then identifying the areas you need to change.Well it's certainly not neutral to me.
I'll just add that the Harman Curve can also be the end point, it doesn't have to be just the starting point.......it just depends how much it suits you. People shouldn't think they have to tune their headphones and IEM's away from it for the best experience.The Harman curve is a starting point, and that's all it has ever meant to be, especially when it comes to iems. You then need to tune the EQ further to match your own particular hearing and preferences. Everyone's optimal EQ curve will be different (mine also departs from the Harman curve, but is wildly different to the curve you showed here). There's no simple 'one size fits all' solution, but there is a process that can help you find the right curve, and it involves starting with the Harman and then identifying the areas you need to change.
Yeah. Statistically it's more likely that your personal preference will be close to the Harman curve rather than further away, which is why it's the best starting point we have. If you find it matches the curve precisely then this makes things a lot simpler. Personally, I want more bass than the 2019v2 curve provides, though this no doubt comes from listening to Thrash Metal artists like Mozart and Debussy.I'll just add that the Harman Curve can also be the end point, it doesn't have to be just the starting point.......it just depends how much it suits you. People shouldn't think they have to tune their headphones and IEM's away from it for the best experience.
Get the MMCX version and a small adapter. The 2pin version of the Fiio is flat and recessed 2pins like this tend to slip off.I am thinking about getting the Fiio bluetooth adapters for this IEM's. Will they handle them well?
See, I've been making this point. You have to benchmark against a lot of different material. The mistakes many make is to compare either with material that isn't very revealing of flaws, or, EQ to make certain material sound best.Yeah. Statistically it's more likely that your personal preference will be close to the Harman curve rather than further away, which is why it's the best starting point we have. If you find it matches the curve precisely then this makes things a lot simpler. Personally, I want more bass than the 2019v2 curve provides, though this no doubt comes from listening to Thrash Metal artists like Mozart and Debussy.
I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.Your EQ might well work for you and be an improvement for you vs the Harman Curve, but that certainly doesn't mean it's likely to work better than the Harman Curve for everyone else.....if you don't know why that is then you don't understand the Harman Research & process through which they created the target and the "science" behind it. Probability would suggest that Harman Curve is the best target that has the highest chance of sounding good for the largest percentage of people. You can't be coming out with statements that your individualised EQ "should be a big improvement for most people" (to quote you) - that's why so many people are calling you out on this, so as to put things right for the various readers of this forum. It doesn't matter if you're wrong one time, people won't hate you.
(But you can be pleased you've come up with an EQ that works very well for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.)
I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like.
There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.
Come on, don't be silly, don't try to qualify your earlier statement which you were called out on....just accept it, people don't mind, but they'll think less of you if you continue to defend it. There's no reason why you should expect your individualised EQ to be to superior to the Harman Curve for most people, you can't say stuff like that, which is what you're being called out on.....we don't have to continually repost the reasons for this, because it's already been shown......no amount of replies from you to try to change the goal posts or wriggle the angle of discussion in a tangential direction can hide that fact.I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.
I have a neutral reference system that tells me what neutral sounds like. Do you? What is your reference? Plus, lots of experience with the test material I use. I will repeat - the Harman IE 2019 curve does not sound close at all to neutral speakers in a room. There are a lot of others here who have said the same, and you have seen several people move the EQ in the same direction as I have. We just vary in how far we go. There is a trend in this thread showing that the stock tonality isn't right.
They did, but from what I remember of Harman's research in developing the headphone curves, they didn't actually try to match the sound of a neutral reference system. Rather, their empirical work was to determine what sounded best for headphone listeners. It's possible that this would coincide with the sound of a neutral in-room system, but there's no reason why it necessarily would. (Especially in the bass region.)Harman also had a neutral reference system to work with.
They did, but from what I remember of Harman's research in developing the headphone curves, they didn't actually try to match the sound of a neutral reference system. Rather, their empirical work was to determine what sounded best for headphone listeners. It's possible that this would coincide with the sound of a neutral in-room system, but there's no reason why it necessarily would. (Especially in the bass region.)
I'm sympathetic to Chromatischism's perspective for this reason, especially with respect to the bass region.
I think we're talking about different research. It sounds like you're talking about their work on loudspeakers. Their headphone target curve work is what I was referring to.Their hypothesis was that a set of good speakers (flat frequency response) in a normal listening room would produce
the most pleasant sound for most listeners compared to other targets such as free field and diffuse field.
Not, "let's see how listeners mess up with the EQ and then let's draw some target curve from that"
So it is not like "it is possible" that their curve coincides with a neutral in-room system.
That was their whole premise which they validated.
No, I am talking about their headphone/iem research because that's how they compared against other targets such as free field and diffuse field.I think we're talking about different research. It sounds like you're talking about their work on loudspeakers. Their headphone target curve work is what I was referring to.