Is it time for a new Harmon Curve survey?

[colonelkernel8]

Right, trying to get headphones to do bass like speakers. I go to a lot of jazz and what I'd call chamber rock and the bass matches and not over powers the music. Whats on the recording is what I want to hear, not some closed back bass cannon with Harman PEQ'd in and have the artists intent mangled. That's for me, you are welcome to your preferences.

 

[castleofargh]

Do you believe that if one transducer is EQ'd to within .1 db from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, it will sound the same? Certainly in some cases such as ZMF v ZMF or HFM v HFM it could be very close, perhaps not ID'd in double blind. However, a HFM HE-6 SE cannot be made to sound like a HD-600 or HD-800 for instance. So while the FR domain is quite important, there are factors that it does not address, that's my point.

The experience is never going to be the same, they could have the exact same sound at your eardrum(not just FR) and your brain would still be impacted by brand price, look, comfort/weight, amount of outside noise attenuation, and whatever it is you expect from each headphone. Same for concert VS headphone or speaker playback, BTW.
You're right, but with a false argument because you probably never heard 2 headphones with the same FR at your eardrum(which can be quite different from them matching fairly well on a FR graph using a dummy head).
The only portion of that argument that's entirely right, based on sound alone, is how the distortions usually remain high enough to be audible somewhere(not just THD). But I would bet those are peanuts compared to the perception of everything else I mentioned above.

 

[castleofargh]

MODO rant:
If the old kids could take the trolling down a notch

 

[bigshot]

You're right, but with a false argument because you probably never heard 2 headphones with the same FR at your eardrum(which can be quite different from them matching fairly well on a FR graph using a dummy head).

I would think one would match using an equalizer by ear, not depending on measurements. If you're doing it that way, I think you could get doggone close. It would just be tough to switch from one set of cans to another fast enough to not lose control of auditory memory.

 

[Killcomic]

The experience is never going to be the same, they could have the exact same sound at your eardrum(not just FR) and your brain would still be impacted by brand price, look, comfort/weight, amount of outside noise attenuation, and whatever it is you expect from each headphone. Same for concert VS headphone or speaker playback, BTW.

I wrote "Beats by Dre" on my Etymotics with a pen and now they are bass cannons!
This is absolutely true though, and it took me a decade to overcome the quality/price bias. It doesn't help that this gets reinforced by pretty much every audio reviewer that talks rubbish like technicalities as if it was a magical property outside the tuning.

 

[BS5711]

It isn’t just reviewers, it seems to me like about 90% of the folks that frequent the threads outside of Sound Science have a wildly distorted view of the (lack of) importance of just about every aspect of headphone and IEM audio outside of transducer tuning.

Apparently, based on swathes of comments by others, every aspect of everything used in the audio chain makes an audible difference to sound even down to a few micron thick layer of Rhodium on a plug.

I have come to the conclusion after hanging around HF for a couple of years and also doing my best to actually identify what matters (transducers) and what doesn’t (just about everything else) that either most “audiophiles” have next to no clue about what makes a genuine and worthwhile audible difference or my hearing is so poor that I am in the lowest 10 percentile in that respect and the other guys making the comments must be hearing their music in ultra vivid clarity and detail compared to me.

 

[Killcomic]

It isn’t just reviewers, it seems to me like about 90% of the folks that frequent the threads outside of Sound Science have a wildly distorted view of the (lack of) importance of just about every aspect of headphone and IEM audio outside of transducer tuning.

Apparently, based on swathes of comments by others, every aspect of everything used in the audio chain makes an audible difference to sound even down to a few micron thick layer of Rhodium on a plug.

I have come to the conclusion after hanging around HF for a couple of years and also doing my best to actually identify what matters (transducers) and what doesn’t (just about everything else) that either most “audiophiles” have next to no clue about what makes a genuine and worthwhile audible difference or my hearing is so poor that I am in the lowest 10 percentile in that respect and the other guys making the comments must be hearing their music in ultra vivid clarity and detail compared to me.

I know what you mean, I thought I must be deaf as I couldn't hear any of the rubbish they are talking about, but then I figured that I'm happy with my sub $100 IEMs and feel no need to "upgrade" to more expensive equipment, so I guess I'm winning XD

 

[bigshot]

I have come to the conclusion after hanging around HF for a couple of years and also doing my best to actually identify what matters (transducers) and what doesn’t (just about everything else) that either most “audiophiles” have next to no clue about what makes a genuine and worthwhile audible difference or my hearing is so poor that I am in the lowest 10 percentile in that respect and the other guys making the comments must be hearing their music in ultra vivid clarity and detail compared to me.

I vote for "no clue". I think most of the science in Head Fi involves the Dunning Kruger Theory rather than the Nyquist Theory.

 

[BS5711]

I know what you mean, I thought I must be deaf as I couldn't hear any of the rubbish they are talking about, but then I figured that I'm happy with my sub $100 IEMs and feel no need to "upgrade" to more expensive equipment, so I guess I'm winning XD

I have thousands of dollars worth of DACs and headphones amplifiers that I bought to identify what actually matters.

It was technically wasted money but on the other hand I learnt something and now better understand where to spend my money for best effect and don’t feel the need for the latest DAC, DAP or amp.

 

[2leftears]

If you aren't using EQ (especially a modern DSP-based PEQ), then I'd say you can barely call yourself an audiophile. People who just buy extremely expensive equipment (or god forbid, cables) hoping that it sounds like they want is a credit card enthusiast, not a sound enthusiast.

Not everyone wants to be an audiophile foremost.

I'm a music lover more than an audiophile; I never really understood the obsession with EQ. I spend my time seeking out more music I like.

I did roughly EQ to my preferred curve once, back in the late 80's/early 90's, simply by picking a pair of headphones I really liked the sound of across a wide range of genres and recordings. An open/closed complementary pair, (Sennheiser HD540 Reference I and Sennheiser HD250 Linear I & II). Ever since then they just get plugged straight into a CD player/DAC combo, no EQ.

I just accept the mix as it is given a pair of headphones that to my ears work universally well across all genres. I did listen to other headphones over the years and occasionally I find a particular headphone works well for a particular unsympathetically mixed album, but I keep coming back to that same HD540/250 pair; they simply work well for me across the vast majority of albums I have.

I know what would happen if I were to EQ using a modern DSP-based PEQ as you suggest. Some albums I would enjoy better. Others I would enjoy less. Then what? Tweak an EQ curve for every single album in my collection? Which I could repeat every month because what sounds great today feels like it needs some improvement a month later? No thanks; each to their own but that is not for me.

 

[bigshot]

EQ is more important for speaker setups than for headphones.

 

[2leftears]

EQ is more important for speaker setups than for headphones.

That makes sense to me, as long as one sits in the designated listening position.

 

[bigshot]

That makes sense to me, as long as one sits in the designated listening position.

The room acoustics can drastically change the response. Treatments can help, but a living room can only stand so much treatment before it cuts into the livability and aesthetics of the decor. EQ can help polish after you do as much as you can with the room.

If you’re single, you can focus the response on one perfect listening position. But if you have family and friends, you need to trade off accuracy in one position for a natural balance in several.

 

[gregorio]

You're the one who wants to argue, that's the best you'll get from me.

No, this forum and the name of this forum is the one that wants to argue, if you or anyone else is going to post BS contrary to the science then duh, it’s going to be argued/refuted with the facts and/or a demand for reliable evidence to support your (false) claims. You responding with “take a chill pill” and stating “that’s the best you’ll get from me”, therefore effectively admits it was BS. So, stop with the BS!

Some good ideas on method, but, I'd like a number of sub sets of listeners, with matching results:
Say:
* pro musicians acoustic
* audiophiles w/ lots of live acoustic music experience
would be the two I'd want to see/hear
Stuff like:
* bass head
* people with little/no acoustic music experience
are ones I would not be interested in, except academically.

Why are they “good” ideas, why would a pro acoustic musician or an audiophile with lots of acoustic experience make any difference? Speakers and HPs reproduce recordings, not acoustic experiences! And, many people are “bass heads” and/or have relatively little acoustic music experience, why should this significant demographic be excluded from an average human preference just because it’s not the same demographic as you? Are bass heads and those with little acoustic music experience not human or are you just effectively stating that you think organisations, researchers, etc., should produce target curves just for you and screw everyone else?

You mean someone who has never heard say the BSO or equiv can be trusted to know how that should sound like?

And how would someone who has “heard say the BSO be trusted to know how that should sound like” when they are listening to a recording where the “sound” is significantly different? How the BSO “should sound like”, depends on the piece they’re playing, the venue in which they’re playing it, the listener’s location in that venue, the musicians’ and conductor’s interpretation that day and in addition, a recording will also vary depending on how it was mic’ed and the other subjective choices of the engineers, producer and in some cases the conductor again. Experience of acoustic music will tell you nothing or next to nothing about any of these determining variables!

But if there exist other fairly stable preference groups, it could be cool to have 2 or 3 other curves for 2 or 3 other major minority group preferences beside the Harman group. I'm for that, actually.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen Sean Olive’s convention paper from just over a month ago (link here or see the edit below), where he did in fact identify two “stable preference groups”, which he calls “Class 1 and Class 2 listeners”, where the data indicates the differentiator to be age. This correlates well with his previous study in 2019 (ASA article linked here), which indicates 3 classes of listeners and therefore 3 curves, that are accommodated through a simple bass adjustment.

To add to this... anyone claiming this, or even suggesting that you should EQ exactly to this target is effectively doing it wrong. Yes, exactly those people who claim to care uniquely about objective information who hold this view are conveniently cherry picking small portions of the science while ignoring others because it fits their narrative and audio worldview. And, no matter how many times Dr. Olive himself needs to come out and tell them "it's just a guideline", they will still perpetuate that narrative.

And yet this thread demonstrates the exact opposite! Here, those who “care about objective information” are stating it’s a guideline/starting point, while others are mischaracterising it as wrong because it’s an exact target (that doesn’t match their preference).

Whats on the recording is what I want to hear, not some closed back bass cannon with Harman PEQ'd in and have the artists intent mangled. That's for me, you are welcome to your preferences.

Huh? “What’s on the recording is what I want to hear” too, which is precisely why I use PEQ! I do not want to hear the effects of my speakers with the room modes of my sitting room mangling the artists’ intent, nor the effects of headphone tuning, hence why I use PEQ. Your stated preference is apparently to hear the artists intent mangled by room acoustics or headphone interaction/tuning and then falsely claim you want to hear what’s on the recording?!

Some, even many people like bass with high Q, because it’s louder, and the sustain can be longer.

I’m not sure you know what “Q” means, a higher Q will be quieter than a lower Q (given the same amount of gain).

I prefer it to start and stop as it was recorded.

That’s a shame because it means you pretty much never get to experience what you prefer. I on the other hand prefer “it to start and stop as it was” mixed, mastered and intended. You seem to be contradicting yourself, above you stated you don’t want to “have the artists intent mangled” and now you’re stating you prefer “it to start and stop as recorded” and therefore do want the artists’ intent mangled?!

G

EDIT: Not sure if my link above to Olive’s most recent convention paper will work. If not, try this one https://aes2.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=22696 and scroll down to “Download Now”.

 

[Killcomic]

No, this forum and the name of this forum is the one that wants to argue, if you or anyone else is going to post BS contrary to the science then duh, it’s going to be argued/refuted with the facts and/or a demand for reliable evidence to support your (false) claims. You responding with “take a chill pill” and stating “that’s the best you’ll get from me”, therefore effectively admits it was BS. So, stop with the BS!

Why are they “good” ideas, why would a pro acoustic musician or an audiophile with lots of acoustic experience make any difference? Speakers and HPs reproduce recordings, not acoustic experiences! And, many people are “bass heads” and/or have relatively little acoustic music experience, why should this significant demographic be excluded from an average human preference just because it’s not the same demographic as you? Are bass heads and those with little acoustic music experience not human or are you just effectively stating that you think organisations, researchers, etc., should produce target curves just for you and screw everyone else?

And how would someone who has “heard say the BSO be trusted to know how that should sound like” when they are listening to a recording where the “sound” is significantly different? How the BSO “should sound like”, depends on the piece they’re playing, the venue in which they’re playing it, the listener’s location in that venue, the musicians’ and conductor’s interpretation that day and in addition, a recording will also vary depending on how it was mic’ed and the other subjective choices of the engineers, producer and in some cases the conductor again. Experience of acoustic music will tell you nothing or next to nothing about any of these determining variables!

I’m not sure if you’ve seen Sean Olive’s convention paper from just over a month ago (link here), where he did in fact identify two “stable preference groups”, which he calls “Class 1 and Class 2 listeners”, where the data indicates the differentiator to be age. This correlates well with his previous study in 2019 (ASA article linked here), which indicates 3 classes of listeners and therefore 3 curves, that are accommodated through a simple bass adjustment.

And yet this thread demonstrates the exact opposite! Here, those who “care about objective information” are stating it’s a guideline/starting point, while others are mischaracterising it as wrong because it’s an exact target.

Huh? “What’s on the recording is what I want to hear” too, which is precisely why I use PEQ! I do not want to hear the effects of my speakers with the room modes of my sitting room mangling the artists’ intent, nor the effects of headphone tuning, hence why I use PEQ. Your stated preference is apparently to hear the artists intent mangled by room acoustics or headphone interaction/tuning and then falsely claim you want to hear what’s on the recording?!

I’m not sure you know what “Q” means, a higher Q will be quieter than a lower Q (given the same amount of gain).

That’s a shame because it means you pretty much never get to experience what you prefer. I on the other hand prefer “it to start and stop as it was” mixed, mastered and intended. You seem to be contradicting yourself, above you stated you don’t want to “have the artists intent mangled” and now you’re stating you prefer “it to start and stop as recorded” and therefore do want the artists’ intent mangled?!

G

No