Why do Harman and Sonarworks sound so different?

[GaryH]

Griesinger's method is flawed for several reasons, not least the SLD effect - apparent acoustic source distance influences perceived loudness / frequency response, see Theile's seminal paper.

 

[oluvsgadgets]

Griesinger's method is flawed for several reasons, not least the SLD effect - apparent acoustic source distance influences perceived loudness / frequency response, see Theile's seminal paper.

Thiele’s diffuse field is even more bullshit, and using purely measurements for defining a target is the most stupid approach IMO.
I sometimes wonder if those “scientists” even listen to their own “creations”.

 

[markanini]

One reason Sonarworks target has less bass quantity than Harman is the dated measurement rig they use, with rigid pinnas vs. anthropomorphic pinna's on the modified Gras Kemar.

 

[GaryH]

Thiele’s diffuse field is even more bullshit

What's that got to do with his description and cited evidence of the SLD effect in that paper? And it's Theile, not Thiele.

and using purely measurements for defining a target is the most stupid approach IMO

Lucky we have acoustic scientist Dr Sean Olive's extensive research involving controlled double blind MOA and preference listening tests to correlate with the measurements in creating the Harman target then.

 

[kemmler3D]

There will never be a single target for headphones. You can start with one of the targets and adjust, find a target you like and adjust to that, or just EQ by ear. Until we have tools to create HRTFs that are easy and widely available*, that's the deal.

Case in point: I spoke with an engineer at a very well-known IEM manufacturer. They had tried measuring the ear canals of different people so they could come up with groups of ear shapes, with the idea of having several standards that would work for groups of people, instead of one-size-fits-all. They gave up after measuring 50 people and finding no discernible pattern.

*Probably not that far off with Nvidia's and others' research into creating accurate 3D models from video / photos. Pretty soon you will be able to do a good 3D scan with your smartphone camera and pop that into an acoustic simulator that will pop out EQs or FIRs for your headphones.

 

[GaryH]

That might not be necessary.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1593724071992209409

 

[solderdude]

yep.. ears are not following standards.
Science desires standards so that's why there are standards.
As human hearing is not the same as a microphone's response science also needs targets.
Targets will not be the same for everyone.
Then there is something like seal which, in a lot of cases, can cause their own problems.
Science don't want no such variables.

So the science and humans don't mesh that well. The science, fortunately, is very clear about that and has always been clear about that.

In short: Heaphone measurements = science and ,unfortunately, is merely indicative for us humans.

The good news is that science did lead to the improvement of headphones and sound quality and there are plenty of good fitting headphones around for each and everyone.
They just might not adhere to known scientific standard measurements.