[NA Blur]

If anyone wants more about the target curves try:

 

[Edric Li]

Charts don't mean anything without context to how human ears hear.

Normalize whatever you think is neutral to a flat line, can a brother make a point now?

A few questions:

Isn't the Harmon Curve referred to a "curve" in order to emphasize the gradual change in in amplitude over frequency? I mean, no where do I see a shelf technique used in the curve literature. To me it's basic correction for where the average ear is most sensitive. You dip that down, elevate the bass due to what has been found in listening trials as to what sounds better to most people. Some treble has been attenuated to prevent issues with where the ear is most sensitive such as the 1.5kHz, 3.5kHz, and 7kHz regions.

Now if you don't like the sound after mimicking the target curve so be it, but to generalize the the entire target curve process as a simple shelf in the frequency response is just plain uneducated.

Where did you get those images? Did you make them yourself?

I personally is very on board with the pinna gain and head gain in the upper mids. You can think of my first plot as such a neutral target curve, normalized. Can a brother make a point now?

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Therefore, unless you hate midrange, especially lower-mids, where all the important stuff is happening in music of all kind, you should stay away from the Harman curve. QED.

Way to start a thread that we have to look at 100 times a day that is completely false.

You should change the thread title to "how to kill your credibility in 10 words or less."

 

[Edric Li]

It's just funny to me that yall think with a flat line I am referring to a raw FR curve. C'mon guys yall better than this.

 

[castleofargh]

It's just funny to me that yall think with a flat line I am referring to a raw FR curve. C'mon guys yall better than this.

There is no flat target for headphones that I know of. Or do you mean diffuse field target? Because we have been stuck with diffuse field for decades as a FR standard, and what we know for sure is that a majority of listeners do not prefer it.

There is one flat for DACs and amplifiers, and it simply is electrical flat.
There is one well accepted for speakers in a room. Ironically we owe it mainly to Harman’s people.

 

[Edric Li]

There is no flat target for headphones that I know of. Or do you mean diffuse field target? Because we have been stuck with diffuse field for decades as a FR standard, and what we know for sure is that a majority of listeners do not prefer it.

There is one flat for DACs and amplifiers, and it simply is electrical flat.
There is one well accepted for speakers in a room. Ironically we owe it mainly to Harman’s people.

I think my reasoning is valid if we agree on the premises:
- That there is a subjectively flat sound by headphones in your opinion. Not a agreed-upon flat target, but *your* flat target.
- That the Harman IEM/HP target curve increases the bass of, and is otherwise similar to, your subjectively flat target.

Is this too much to ask for?

 

[sander99]

If you are suggesting that will have no effect on the frequency response of the setup, then you'll have to explain to me in a bit more detail why. Because the info above seems fairly unequivocal on these points.

I also don't know everything about this subject. But I think you should be carefull not to confuse frequency response with the actual frequency spectrum of the content that is being played, or with the maximum sound pressure level curve of the playback system. Movie sound tracks can contain very strong low frequency effects. If you play that over a "flat" system you will get those same strong low frequency effects just like intended, and at the intended levels if your system can handle the SPLs required - per frequency band - for it. Also keep in mind that there is only one LFE channel (or maybe a few in pro cinema, that I don't know but still not as many as the other channels, also note that I am not talking about the number of subwoofers: that can be larger than the number of LFE channels) that has to keep up with the total SPL of all other channels together.
Here we also get to the reason why the LFE channel is attenuated on the medium. If all channels would be put on the medium suitable for equal gain at playback, then the LFE channel would hit the maximum signal level far earlier than the other channels. That would mean that a large part of the level range of the other channels would be wasted. The other channels probably would never go higher than -10 dB. If you attenuate the LFE channel 10 dB relative to the other channels, then you can push the other channels close to 0 dB as well.

 

[bigshot]

I think my reasoning is valid if we agree on the premises:
- That there is a subjectively flat sound by headphones in your opinion. Not a agreed-upon flat target, but *your* flat target.
- That the Harman IEM/HP target curve increases the bass of, and is otherwise similar to, your subjectively flat target.

My personal response curve follows Harman pretty closely, except I prefer a little less upper mid/lower treble. So 1) yes, 2) no. Bass presentation in speakers is totally different than headphones, and I'm a speaker guy primarily, so headphones usually feel like they come up short to me, not like they have too much bass.

 

[Edric Li]

My personal response curve follows Harman pretty closely, except I prefer a little less upper mid/lower treble. So 1) yes, 2) no. Bass presentation in speakers is totally different than headphones, and I'm a speaker guy primarily, so headphones usually feel like they come up short to me, not like they have too much bass.

Ah, so your personal definition of flat/neutral has a bass shelf of similar volume as the Harman curve? That's interesting. I do hear more subbass from speakers than from headphones, but that's different from the Harman curve bass shelf, elevating the entire bass frequencies.

 

[bigshot]

The way bass sounds in a room is nothing like with headphones. Speakers tend to present bass in a kinesthetic way. You can feel it in the air around you, and even inside your body. Bass in a good system is clearly defined and even from the low octave all the way up. It flows like water and fills the whole room. I don't think headphones can do any of that. That may be just one of the compromises you make with headphones.

What people generally refer to as sub bass with headphones isn't sub bass at all. It's middle bass. Sub bass is felt more than it's heard. So when you boost the sub bass on cans using EQ, what you are actually hearing is most likely spill into the mid bass range. Boosting mid bass can fool you into thinking you are hearing sub bass.

 

[Edric Li]

The way bass sounds in a room is nothing like with headphones. Speakers tend to present bass in a kinesthetic way. You can feel it in the air around you, and even inside your body. Bass in a good system is clearly defined and even from the low octave all the way up. It flows like water and fills the whole room. I don't think headphones can do any of that. That may be just one of the compromises you make with headphones.

What people generally refer to as sub bass with headphones isn't sub bass at all. It's middle bass. Sub bass is felt more than it's heard. So when you boost the sub bass on cans using EQ, what you are actually hearing is most likely spill into the mid bass range. Boosting mid bass can fool you into thinking you are hearing sub bass.

Totally agree with you, but how do you justify the Harman curve, lifting both midbass and subbass, being perceived as neutral/flat? By your reasoning, it will only lift the midbass in headphones anyway, so how does that simulate the "room bass" effect at all?

 

[bigshot]

Bass in a room tends to "bloom". I think the Harman Curve is intended to simulate the way speakers sound (as much as they can with the limitations of headphones). Most people prefer the sound of good speakers in a sympathetic room, so that is probably what the people who were polled for the Harman Curve were thinking. Remember the Harman Curve isn't a "flat" curve. You can EQ to flat with speakers in a room, but it is almost impossible to achieve that in headphones. One person's flat wouldn't be flat for another person with a different shaped ear canal. The Harman Curve is an averaged response that people polled said that they preferred. It isn't a target, it's a starting point. Everyone needs to make adjustments beyond the Harman Curve for their own physiognomy. It's a very good place to start though, because it works well for most people.

 

[Davesrose]

The way bass sounds in a room is nothing like with headphones. Speakers tend to present bass in a kinesthetic way. You can feel it in the air around you, and even inside your body. Bass in a good system is clearly defined and even from the low octave all the way up. It flows like water and fills the whole room. I don't think headphones can do any of that. That may be just one of the compromises you make with headphones.

What people generally refer to as sub bass with headphones isn't sub bass at all. It's middle bass. Sub bass is felt more than it's heard. So when you boost the sub bass on cans using EQ, what you are actually hearing is most likely spill into the mid bass range. Boosting mid bass can fool you into thinking you are hearing sub bass.

Correct me if I'm wrong about loudspeakers through the years.....but I do think that current home systems have more sub bass than what was present for stereo systems of yesteryear. I feel my current system has a lot of extension going to treble and sub bass due to me having a 7.1.4 system. My mains are full range in them selves at being towers rated at 20KHZ-30HZ. The rest of my surrounds/center are cabinets that don't dip as much with bass. But overall tonality seems well controlled for sub bass with my *large for my room* subwoofer. I made it with DIY parts, and while calculating tuning accounted for it going below 14HZ. 20HZ is the conventional standard for human hearing....but there are studies going below that (probably special conditions and bone conduction). For movie watching, I do like the subwoofer being around that I can feel the effects. But it can also extend into music. Not just new synthesized music, but also arcane pipe organ music that can have the lowest registers getting some frequencies below 20HZ.

I think for folks wanting to invest in good speaker systems, home systems now have great dynamics (well for cabinets....though many now like tiny smart speakers or one soundbar and small subwoofer). Very different than the systems of the 70s/80s. When I was born, my dad got Bose 901 speakers as they were the rage. Maybe then they had extra character as they were omnidirectional.....but even when I got my first real bookshelf speakers, I found they had a better frequency range than the 901s (which my dad tends to only use to play music during the holidays, and most times act as planters for my mom).

When it comes to the Harman curve: there are different curves for speaker vs headphone. It is designed by engineers who have done a lot of study. It seems to me that speakers are easier to design for as they are out in the environment and produce a diffuse sound field. Headphones are much more subjective as they are very close to the pinnae (and manufacturers found out long ago that these differences are why a headphone cannot have a flat response for natural reproduction).

 

[bigshot]

A lot of modern speaker systems have overblown sub bass, but that's because most people don't bother to manage the crossover between their mains and their sub. I've heard friends' systems that follow the "more is better" mantra, and the air in the room vibrates from A/C noise at the recording venue boosted to crazy levels. If you balance it properly, sub bass isn't prominent, in fact, you only hear it when it's present and not when it shouldn't be. Movies sometimes use sub audible frequencies as an effect. They make the air around you vibrate with no audible sound. It is an effect that induces fear, so you find it in horror movies and suspense action films.

In my system, I have early 70s JBL 15 inch woofers with cloth surrounds. That is the speaker that bass players in rock bands used on stage. If you put a few of those in a well designed cabinet, you can push out any sub bass frequency you might want. Big fat sound. That kind of woofer wasn't common in a lot of box speakers back in the 70s, except for studio monitors. Most home speakers only had an 8 inch or 10 inch woofer. They didn't have as much bass extension, but they were cheaper and more compact.

They also had high frequency extension in the 70s. JBL's piezo electric slot tweeter was the standard with rock bands too, and they made a luxury model with an exponential horn. I have those in my mains too, and they're a chrome plated beauty. They look like the nose of an Edsel and they shoot out high frequencies like a laser beam.

There are three factors to speakers that you have to trade off... frequency extension, efficiency and compact size. It's possible to design a speaker with two of those aspects, but it's hard to get all three. In the 70s, speakers were designed for frequency extension and efficiency, but they were big giant wooden boxes. Today, they are designed with frequency extension and compact size, but you can't get away with a 50 watt amp like you could back in the 70s.

My dad grew up in the 1940s when sound was thick and had very little treble. They did that because 78s had great bass response, but limited high frequency extension. And when they mastered for radio play, they rolled off even more of the top end. I remember his speakers... He had giant wooden boxes the size of a small dining table. My brother designed and built them for him. They had Leslie "all in one" speakers in them. The kind used in organs with speakers nested inside of speakers. They could kick out bass like nobody's business but the high end couldn't keep up. They had a warm comfortable sound that wasn't at all neutral, but sounded great with a tube amp and the right kind of recording.

 

[Davesrose]

A lot of modern speaker systems have overblown sub bass, but that's because most people don't bother to manage the crossover between their mains and their sub. I've heard friends' systems that follow the "more is better" mantra, and the air in the room vibrates from A/C noise at the recording venue boosted to crazy levels. If you balance it properly, sub bass isn't prominent, in fact, you only hear it when it's present and not when it shouldn't be. Movies sometimes use sub audible frequencies as an effect. They make the air around you vibrate with no audible sound. It is an effect that induces fear, so you find it in horror movies and suspense action films.

In my system, I have early 70s JBL 15 inch woofers with cloth surrounds. That is the speaker that bass players in rock bands used on stage. If you put a few of those in a well designed cabinet, you can push out any sub bass frequency you might want. Big fat sound. That kind of woofer wasn't common in a lot of box speakers back in the 70s, except for studio monitors. Most home speakers only had an 8 inch or 10 inch woofer. They didn't have as much bass extension, but they were cheaper and more compact.

They also had high frequency extension in the 70s. JBL's piezo electric slot tweeter was the standard with rock bands too, and they made a luxury model with an exponential horn. I have those in my mains too, and they're a chrome plated beauty. They look like the nose of an Edsel and they shoot out high frequencies like a laser beam.

There are three factors to speakers that you have to trade off... frequency extension, efficiency and compact size. It's possible to design a speaker with two of those aspects, but it's hard to get all three. In the 70s, speakers were designed for frequency extension and efficiency, but they were big giant wooden boxes. Today, they are designed with frequency extension and compact size, but you can't get away with a 50 watt amp like you could back in the 70s.

That's what I like about my system: my subwoofer is a ported 12" 500W placed near my recliner....but it's still well controlled. I'm not feeling bass until it's moments that deserve it. It also doesn't seem distorted when it's really kicking (movies and rock/ R&B). Though it will also kick in with ambience with given classical music. My subwoofer is extremely large for a 12" design....as well as my stereo main towers (others would say my center and surround/height speakers are large as well considering *what is norm*).

My dad also gave me an old set of Boston Acoustic bookshelf speakers he then had as surround with a 5.1 system. Their surrounds had completely disintegrated. I ordered cloth replacements, repaired them, and now they are speakers for my bedroom TV. I also think many would be amazed in how they're sealed yet still have good range considering (certainly, most fundamentals don't need deep bass.....but a good bookshelf cabinet system is going to easily outdo what many are now considering great sound from a Sonos or Homepod).

Thank you for another impression of audio of the 70s. That's what I'm dumbfounded about with Bose: they made a name for themselves then.....they got rave reviews because of the sound: but with conditions. I think it was about speciality before home surround sound. Folks who liked it, raved about it....and could overlook the shortcomings (of the speakers using an array of 4" drivers) by saying just supply it with high watts and use the included equalizer.