fpitas
Master Contributor
OK. I guess I'm lost here. I was sort of replying to the OP's question.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What is the flattest target curve?
- Thread starter Volutrik
- Start date
Yes they are. Dr Sean Olive's research is most definitely concerned with perceptual flatness / neutrality, for which they use preference as an accurate proxy.
Flat/neutral/Harman should ideally be functionally the same in this context. Setting the Harman debate aside, some argue that there's a bass lean version that's somehow more correct. Besides lacking any concrete proof it could be one of two things:
Cope by manufacturers and duped consumers of numerous bass deficient products.
A crude trick to make a set give an impression of more resolving playback by neutering the bass.
Cope by manufacturers and duped consumers of numerous bass deficient products.
A crude trick to make a set give an impression of more resolving playback by neutering the bass.
dasdoing
Major Contributor
the "perceptual flatness / neutrality" is the problem. If you have 30 years of experience with anechoicly flat speakers in a room you don't have 30 years of experience with neutral sound. their "neutrality" is basically "neutral speaker in an average room". since the average room is not neutral this is not neutral in a strict sense.
fpitas
Master Contributor
Agreed. I appreciate the intent, but the execution might be difficult.
dasdoing
Major Contributor
What I don't get is Harman lovers insisting on that part. It is a great curve anyway; it's high adoption rate proves this.
Room experience is irrelevant to this particular discussion, but actually yes you do, if your room has comparable acoustics to a mastering studio.
No, it's (perceived) 'neutral in a good room'. As mastering studios are good rooms, this conserves the neutrality of anechoically flat speakers in such rooms, translated to headphones, thereby preserving the artist's intent.
Last edited:
dasdoing
Major Contributor
ok, this is correct, and is actually what I meant
those rooms are very different from the Harman rooms.
I get your point though. Still real neutrality will translate the best on average, cause on average the real response of an event will still be it's spectral balance; on average
No they're not. They have comparable reverberation times.
alumnicesar
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2023
- Messages
- 138
- Likes
- 76
it has to be this
dasdoing
Major Contributor
ok, this totally doesn't seam to make sense,
but your target gets my KZ IEM closest to what my Superlux overear sounds like with the iso diffuse field target.
I just spent ours testing targets and will stick with this one for now. thanks a lot
You are welcome.
Could you kindly share a link to the csv or txt file(s) of such composite target(s), for IE's, which you have created? I'm new to this, but have been impressed with the clarity of the current AutoEQ target, using the autoeq.app web site, for my IEM's.
I am open to checking out the alternative targets.
We are in such a blessed time in history, I've only tried two targets. and my thoughts are.
1. AutoEQ target (the current one, cos who knows , it may change in the future) is great for very critical listening, and it show up the most significant differences, between different tracks, even on the same album, e.g Michael Jacksons Thriller, like never before, each song feels so different in the frequency response. Some are bright and others are not so. And I have never heard such a difference ever before. By and large, to me, this is indicative of accuracy. Can't think of any other reason why all of a sudden, I can hear so easily the differences between tracks. It's awesome, like suddenly being granted super hearing powers.
But the downside is fatigue - after a few hours, my ears were hurting a bit, cos the slap of the high frequency elements, on guitar strums, snares, became a bit too much.
2. The Harman IE 2019 (I assume this is the one with bass, cos of the value of the bass boost in the AutoEQ configuration settings), this is still just as revealing, on well produced music like Thriller, but it takes the foot a little bit of the pedal, on the harshness of higher frequencies, for a more comfortable long term listening experience.
I look forward to discovering a few more targets which I like, and can imagine switching between them, not per song, but more per purpose of my listening. Some for casual listening, others for critical listening, and some simply as part of a pool, that I randomly rotate through, every few days, to spice things up.
Discovering AutoEQ, has been an ear opener. Pun intended. Phenomenal listening experience.
I'll share a target I like which is fairly middle of the road and can be adjusted to taste: https://listener800.github.io/eqplayground.html?share=Custom_Tilt&bass=6.6&tilt=0&treble=-1&ear=-1.5 In the Equalizer tab you can upload a familiar song to monitor the effects of the filters generated, by pressing "AutoEQ". First you need to provide the FR if your IEM using "Upload FR". I recommend keeping the frequency range max below 6000Hz, if you don't stick to the default 3000Hz.
Last edited:
Thanks. Your moniker - Markanini, rings a bell, cos I recall from something I found on the web, and I think I've actually downloaded a set of targets from somewhere on the web, which has to be one of yours - can't be a coincidence - same name on the target file.
Of course, I'll be trying out the Markanini target I downloaded, as well as your "middle of the road" option. It is such an exciting time for me. I believe we only make progress by challenging norms. Just finished the best mix of a song (I'm a mixing engineer) using the AutoEQ default target for my headphones. , and it's sounding superb, balanced, and the client will be very happy. A better mix than anything I have ever done on real speakers. It should not be possible, that my headphone mix is better than the ones I do on real speakers. Am a delighted human being.
Now that I think I've sorted out the most important issue that had been challenging me on headphones especially IEM type things that we can stick in our ears - (their frequency response), I can move on to the next frontiers.
1. Some extra eartips cos I'm tired of adjusting the earphones I'm using now, in the effort to get them to fit. Where do I reliably and efficiently search for these? and are there any kind of review sites for these.
2. Playing around with targets. In my referencing and critical listening, I'd like to target a few of the more expensive headphones, which I'm not encouraged to buy, until I'm sure I want them. Being able to simulate a desired headphone, I know is possible.
My challenge thus far has been, what's the best source for finding good headphone measurements, in csv or txt format, which I can download and upload into AutoEQ, as a target.? How does Auto EQ obtain the headphone measurements from reviewers who make available such measurements?
Hitherto, I've had to download entire git repositories in order to get at the headphone measurements. which is a bit inefficient. Come to think of it git has an app which I should be able to use to view git repositories, hopefully without having to download the entire repository, to a local data store, on my computer.. Targetting other headphones - will like a virtual evaluation, of those headphones, at least of their measured frequency responses.
The other reason to emulate other headphones, is so I can simulate the headphones used by my clients, and hear some of what they hear. Possibilities.
3. Checking out APO Equalizer - especially if it had options to import impulse responses (IR) files.
4. Getting better IEM's and headphones
5. Venturing further into the dark world of dongle DAC's and Desktop DAC's for both headphone use, as well as able to feed a pair of active studio monitors with balanced outs. I was disappointed by the two dongle DACS I have bought - from Apple and Samsung. Both sounded like they had uneven frequencies, compared to the onboard Realtek DAC on my laptop.
If anyone has suggestions, on these I'd gladly follow up on them.
You probably found an old target of mine from Kurins target set.
I do some mixing as a hobby for a decades. I find headphones and IEM useful for choosing sounds and use my monitor speakers to veto my choices as it usually translates better that way. Otherwise IEMs act as a microscope to the low end and I prefer making fine grained EQ decisions on the low end on based on what I hear in IEMs. My Truthear Red are out of the box very close to the target I shared, I add a +1.5dB shelf above 4kHz and that's all I need to make it sound balanced. I'm not saying it's the best IEM for the job, just what I like to use, and If you like a non-fatiguing sound I can recommend it.
For suitable measurement sources it depends. The target I shared is suitable for an average 711 clone coupler. Sources that match that criteria are https://vsg.squig.link/ or https://timmyv.squig.link/
There's nothing wrong with using the stock eartips unless you have have a fit issue with them. Othewise the usual places like Linsoul, Shenzenaudio and Hifigo have a good selection.
Keep in mind that emulating other headphones with EQ is not a reliable process because individual FR varies and the chance that the artificial ear closely matches your anatomy is small, especially in the treble.
Hi there ASR! Been loving the objective testing and reviews for a few months! It's so much more relevant for me than subjective, "audiophile" reviews, which are so idiosyncratic they amount to pure hype and placebo to drive sales of overpriced gear. This is a weird thread for my first comment but I have some thoughts to share.
Tl;Dr - equal loudness = perceived neutral sound sig ≠ neutral contour of speaker device' frequency response. No truly neutral target exists because no one precisely matches any averaged target derived from observation, and the curve changes shape with volume/gain.
en.m.wikipedia.org
To me it appears that the most neutral target(s) for speaker devices (headphones, loud speakers and iems) are perceived equal loudness contours, which are never used as reference tuning contours, because the bass and sub-bass increases in volume required for tuning to perceived equal loudness contours still exceeds the technical capabilities of speaker devices in terms of ability to produce undistorted bass and sub-bass. Basically, I define "neutral" as: the various tones from the whole audible frequency spectrum have equal loudness.
Look at the graphs for what this really means though ... in these equal loudness contours the sub-bass and bass has to be through the roof to be perceived as equal volume to mids at the threshold of hearing/audibility and throughout the gain/volume level all the way to the threshold of pain. Much, much more elevated bass and sub-bass response than any target contour actually being used! Past basshead territory it looks like to me.
I hypothesize that the Harman and other reference contours used to tune speaker devices today end up deviating from equal loudness contours, because they use end-user preferences, in addition to perceived equal loudness data and either humans don't prefer audible distortion, which likely exists at when actually tuning for equal loudness in bass and sub-bass, or we don't actually enjoy equal volume across the frequency spectrum ... I generally do myself, but I have observed that my preferences don't match most other people.
Furthermore, if you look at the graphs I've linked, equal loudness contours actually change shape as gain/total volume increases or decreases. The lower the volume, the greater the rise in treble, bass and sub-bass are required to achieve perceived equal volume. By contrast, the contour flattens as volume/gain increases. I experience this myself when reducing volume. I find that I need to boost treble, bass and sub-bass for them to be audibly equal volume to mids at lower gain/volume.
These contours are obviously extremely different for neutral or flat *source* contours. We want sources to have flat, extended frequency responses, generally, (aside from EQ) but due to many factors of human physiology, speaker devices tuned to that frequency contour do not come close to achieving perceived equal volume across the frequency spectrum, though they perform better at higher volumes because the perceived equal volume contours flatten with greater volume.
Personally, I'm also aware that sound of *only 80dB* causes permanent hearing loss after 8 hours of continuous exposure, and anything above that volume produces permanent hearing loss in less time. Therefore I listen to music as low-volume as I can make it, shooting for roughly average human speech volume of 65 dB or sometimes lower, while still getting perceived equal volume across the freq spectrum, so I require much more bass and sub-bass response than the Harman target, which already falls well short of equal perceived volume contours at higher volumes. Otherwise, I hear all or nearly all mids and treble. The only saving grace is that there's very little content/information in the bass, sub-bass and treble of virtually all music, so actual music doesn't strongly require equal loudness, though obviously some music really stretches that generality.
Personally, I've owned many iems objectively verified to be tuned to flat and neutral frequency contours on the advice of audiophiles and they do not produce anything close to perceived equal volume across the frequency spectrum. Sure, very little distortion, but that's because they are all mids and treble and avoid bass and sub-bass, where speaker devices are most challenged to be undistorted, and generally still fall very short.
Plus the shape of the contour depends on listening volumes, so an equal loudness contour at 65db, sounds too bassy at 80 dB, in my experience.
Finally, each person actually has different equal loudness contours due to real physiological and psychological differences, so even the best averaged and experimentally tested contours only represent a starting place and the only option for a person to achieve a personal equal volume (ie, "neutral") response from a sound system is to test the system, including speaker devices, at a desired listening volume and develop an EQ for that particular volume with that particular speaker device. The speaker device with the lowest bass distortion as shown through objective testing is probably the best place to start, especially if it's at Harman target or higher for bass and sub-bass without EQ.
Anyway, I appreciate that this community doesn't waste much time with the subjective lingo of most audiophile forums, because it's all nonsense to me.
I just want to know if the equipment in question produces intelligible, realistic, accurate sound reproduction at sufficiently close to equal loudness across the frequency spectrum *while operating at safe real-world volumes*, which I can derive with y'alls' objective testing, so thank you!
Btw, if you are listening to above 80db for long periods of time, you will find your own equal loudness contour changes as you develop increasing amounts of permanent hearing loss. Another hypothesis of mine related to this, is that since high frequency sound sensing is most easily damaged by loud sounds, this is why, as audiophiles age, they seem to universally prefer much higher treble response than other users and so their preferences are not similar to my own, nor younger people and others with less hearing damage. Just a hypothesis, but seems to be generally true.
Have a great day!!
Tl;Dr - equal loudness = perceived neutral sound sig ≠ neutral contour of speaker device' frequency response. No truly neutral target exists because no one precisely matches any averaged target derived from observation, and the curve changes shape with volume/gain.
Equal-loudness contour - Wikipedia
Look at the graphs for what this really means though ... in these equal loudness contours the sub-bass and bass has to be through the roof to be perceived as equal volume to mids at the threshold of hearing/audibility and throughout the gain/volume level all the way to the threshold of pain. Much, much more elevated bass and sub-bass response than any target contour actually being used! Past basshead territory it looks like to me.
I hypothesize that the Harman and other reference contours used to tune speaker devices today end up deviating from equal loudness contours, because they use end-user preferences, in addition to perceived equal loudness data and either humans don't prefer audible distortion, which likely exists at when actually tuning for equal loudness in bass and sub-bass, or we don't actually enjoy equal volume across the frequency spectrum ... I generally do myself, but I have observed that my preferences don't match most other people.
Furthermore, if you look at the graphs I've linked, equal loudness contours actually change shape as gain/total volume increases or decreases. The lower the volume, the greater the rise in treble, bass and sub-bass are required to achieve perceived equal volume. By contrast, the contour flattens as volume/gain increases. I experience this myself when reducing volume. I find that I need to boost treble, bass and sub-bass for them to be audibly equal volume to mids at lower gain/volume.
These contours are obviously extremely different for neutral or flat *source* contours. We want sources to have flat, extended frequency responses, generally, (aside from EQ) but due to many factors of human physiology, speaker devices tuned to that frequency contour do not come close to achieving perceived equal volume across the frequency spectrum, though they perform better at higher volumes because the perceived equal volume contours flatten with greater volume.
Personally, I'm also aware that sound of *only 80dB* causes permanent hearing loss after 8 hours of continuous exposure, and anything above that volume produces permanent hearing loss in less time. Therefore I listen to music as low-volume as I can make it, shooting for roughly average human speech volume of 65 dB or sometimes lower, while still getting perceived equal volume across the freq spectrum, so I require much more bass and sub-bass response than the Harman target, which already falls well short of equal perceived volume contours at higher volumes. Otherwise, I hear all or nearly all mids and treble. The only saving grace is that there's very little content/information in the bass, sub-bass and treble of virtually all music, so actual music doesn't strongly require equal loudness, though obviously some music really stretches that generality.
Personally, I've owned many iems objectively verified to be tuned to flat and neutral frequency contours on the advice of audiophiles and they do not produce anything close to perceived equal volume across the frequency spectrum. Sure, very little distortion, but that's because they are all mids and treble and avoid bass and sub-bass, where speaker devices are most challenged to be undistorted, and generally still fall very short.
Plus the shape of the contour depends on listening volumes, so an equal loudness contour at 65db, sounds too bassy at 80 dB, in my experience.
Finally, each person actually has different equal loudness contours due to real physiological and psychological differences, so even the best averaged and experimentally tested contours only represent a starting place and the only option for a person to achieve a personal equal volume (ie, "neutral") response from a sound system is to test the system, including speaker devices, at a desired listening volume and develop an EQ for that particular volume with that particular speaker device. The speaker device with the lowest bass distortion as shown through objective testing is probably the best place to start, especially if it's at Harman target or higher for bass and sub-bass without EQ.
Anyway, I appreciate that this community doesn't waste much time with the subjective lingo of most audiophile forums, because it's all nonsense to me.
I just want to know if the equipment in question produces intelligible, realistic, accurate sound reproduction at sufficiently close to equal loudness across the frequency spectrum *while operating at safe real-world volumes*, which I can derive with y'alls' objective testing, so thank you!
Btw, if you are listening to above 80db for long periods of time, you will find your own equal loudness contour changes as you develop increasing amounts of permanent hearing loss. Another hypothesis of mine related to this, is that since high frequency sound sensing is most easily damaged by loud sounds, this is why, as audiophiles age, they seem to universally prefer much higher treble response than other users and so their preferences are not similar to my own, nor younger people and others with less hearing damage. Just a hypothesis, but seems to be generally true.
Have a great day!!
Last edited:
For me, the answer is pretty simple.
Music is mixed/mastered on as flat as possible measuring Studio Monitors like the Neumann KH 120 II.
So something that sounds like these monitors, sounds flat because the music was made to sound neutral/flat on these.
According to Neumann, the NDH-30 and according to Sennheiser the HD 490 Pro do exactly that. They sound like these above mentioned speakers.
With In-Ear its more complicated but in my personal experience, something like the Westone Mach 60 gets very close. So those are probably the closest to "Neutral/Flat".
Etymotic are very famous in the audiophile community for sounding flat/neutral and are an studio reference, but if i look at their measurement, i can not imagine that they sound anywhere close to an Studio Monitor. Never heard one though.
Music is mixed/mastered on as flat as possible measuring Studio Monitors like the Neumann KH 120 II.
So something that sounds like these monitors, sounds flat because the music was made to sound neutral/flat on these.
According to Neumann, the NDH-30 and according to Sennheiser the HD 490 Pro do exactly that. They sound like these above mentioned speakers.
With In-Ear its more complicated but in my personal experience, something like the Westone Mach 60 gets very close. So those are probably the closest to "Neutral/Flat".
Etymotic are very famous in the audiophile community for sounding flat/neutral and are an studio reference, but if i look at their measurement, i can not imagine that they sound anywhere close to an Studio Monitor. Never heard one though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
