It was very nice of you to give me such a detailed response to the email I sent you. But to do an entire episode on this topic is mind-blowing! Thanks for all that you do, Justin.
The AutoEQ community is amazing. I'd been using a curve for my headphones for a while, and loved it, and then the glue began to fail on my headphone pads. I got some replacements from Dekoni, and it turns out there's a Harman curve for my headphones with those exact pads too! It's not about how pleasant it is for me, but how accurately I can work: how well the work translates to a range of speakers. It gets me a response I can trust.
@@SonicScoop [Leaving this here not as a reply to you, but to anyone curious about how I use it...] Since I felt unsure if the parametric settings would transfer to any EQ plugin in the DAW, given that Q figures are abstract from EQ to EQ, I went with AutoEQ's curve for EqualizerAPO (a free app) so that I'd be using a known measurement. EqualizerAPO gets the downloaded curve ("+" > "Control" > "Include") and EqualizerAPO's Device field is then routed to the Output of Voicemeeter Banana (another free app). Voicemeeter Banana's "Hardware Out" and my DAW's audio settings are both pointed to the audio interface, and Windows' Sound settings connect the "Choose where to play sound" output to "Voicemeeter AUX Input". EqualizerAPO and Voicemeeter Banana are added to my Start-Up Apps so they load up automatically on each Windows session. This gives me a set-it-and-forget-it arrangement where the AutoEQ correction curve only affects my headphone monitoring, with no risk of this weird eq ever getting baked into the audio by accident. The only thing I have to remember is to turn off the correction when I switch to monitors. I spend 99% of my time on the headphones, so the final advantage here is that I'm always listening to everything (music, movies, this TH-cam video) through this same correction. There's no warm-up required to acclimate myself to the correction, since my brain knows only this sound now.
It's, as said community, bunch of volunteer enthusiasts making measurements with quality equipment of whatever phones they're getting their hands on. Oratory's impulse response for DT 700 Pro X works great for tracking and even for some mixing. I've also entered his equivalent graphic EQ curve into soundcraft UI24R's aux for for band practice sessions, and another curve for KZ AS16 IEM's for live, makes them better for sure.
With regards to EQing to 'flat', you'd also have to measure your specific set of headphones at your own eardrum to factor out non-HRTF related HpTF variation that may exist between you and a HATS... for your headphones. And then also know your own HRTF. The other issue is that no free field or front-biased sound field is going to make sense for headphones given the use condition of it being worn on the head, and not at a distance and from a specific direction/location like speakers. So even if you can emulate the speakers in the room, that'll still sound wrong without the same direction-based psychoacoustic priming that you get with those speakers in your room. This is why you we use the DF condition, it better emulates the 'sound helmet' situation you're in with headphones. Connecting it to speakers in a room is really to get a sense of the bass to treble delta that people prefer, and Harman showed you get similar results for both.
that makes another question for to me , if you don't trust your speakers and your room , then why we trying to emulate that to our headphones ? or the aim is to emulate a professional studio ? in this case how guaranteed is even 100% accurate emulation , sound even good to you ? because of different preference 🤔
thank you, Justin this is very interesting to see by chance, my set-up is basically the same HS8 in an untreated room so Audeze LCDX with Topping pre amp and sonor work EQ correction with wet and dry mix of around 40 to 50 per cent for mixing still very much learning what I am hearing and building my audio chain that pleases my ears
GREAT video 🙏🏼💯 Thanks for telling it like it is: headphones with a flat response are a myth, and compromises will have to made with any set of cans; even with the ones costing $Ks!!
That's why the NS-10's were so 'effective' The response rises in the top-end around 2k. My old Sony MDR-V700 headphones , sort of ,do the same, for dj-ing purposes.
After I measure a room with sonarworks and REW. I use my console to apply correction. Set it up around 80db and then apply what I can without much boasting. Then run a slow frequency sweep and make things flat to my perception as much as I can. I do the same sweep technique with headphones at a set comfortable mixing volume with as little bands as possible. That’s what I like that works for me .
I found out after installing a nice stereo in my car, that there are target curves to compensate for how small of a space a car is. Most of the curves involve a rise in the low end from around 250hz and down, and a gentle downward shelf in the rest of the frequencies as the frequencies get higher. That was a fun learning experience!
I prefer my Sony wh1000 xm2’s over the xm3’s, xm4’s and xm5’s. Also over my nuemann closed headphones. However the xm2’s are pretty close to the nuemanns. I go back and forth between those two while mixing and mastering. If it works on both of those with the same bass boast curve I like and also on my studio monitors ( hs8’s on a very treated room ) it tends to translate decently. Best results I’ve gotten in 25 years as a hobbyist and an occasional mixer and mastering guy for hire.
TB Morphit is another headphone correction software. It runs as a plugin in your DAW. They even have it for iOS/iPadOS (as an auv3 plugin). An old school method was to play songs that you love the mix of and use a 15 to 30 band EQ to make the tracks sound their best (to you). Use that EQ curve for monitoring while mixing. If a bass heavy track ended up sounding TOO bassy, you would back off the bass, as appropriate.
When it comes to loudspeakers, there's "flat," and "flat." A good loudspeaker should measure flat in "free-space" or an anechoic room. When you bring this loudspeaker into a room, it will measure like a variation of the Harman (preference) Curve in the listening position. This is important. There will be bass boost in your room, and it will tilt down slightly towards the top frequencies. If you use some sort of auto-correction software and leave the target curve flat, you are doing it wrong. (There's no "yeah, but..." - it's wrong)
Thanks for amazing episode justin , can you please explain these to me , if i'm not mistaken the Harman curve aim is to emulate good sounding speakers in a good treated room , right ? (please correct me if i'm wrong) so if that's the case , what's the definition a "Good" sound ? cause beside physical influences on hearing everyone's preferences is different , maybe a young male prefer more bass music not because of torso and neck but also due to needing for more energy or feelings that a person can have in a day ? so my main question is how to find a target EQ for mixing ? a target that sound flat to most people or finding a target that sound pleasant to people listening the same genre you are listening ? is having a reference better idea of using EQ to make flat headphones or speakers ?
My 2 cents: IF you don't like the sound of your headphones or can't get mixes to work, start with a harmon correction, adjust to taste. Listening to a lot of your favorite music along the way.
thats cool this topic i just work since a couple months with this harman curve, and i'm wondering why it works so well for me and mixes sounds like i hear it on the headphone. Beyerdynamic 1990 Pro
We measure headphones using a dummy head but we don't measure speakers the same way. I mean that my guess is that the strange shape of Harman curve comes from the shape of ear canal that is introduced by the dummy head. I have measured headphones with just a flat surface (with a hole for the mic) in front of the headphone and the result is pretty flat with a steady roll of in highs. So why we still use a dummy head ?
But what about Steven Slate? My expectation is that it will allow me to emulate speakers while mixing on headphones. Is that a mistake to upgrade from my Senheiser HD 600? Also, not addresses is those of us older mixers that have lost much over 6K? How do we handle that?
interesting video Justin as all ways, I have a question if you have time, I have the Dt990 pro's should I upgrade to something more expensive or are they good enough to get the job done while learning? If so , any recommends for an upgrade below $1000?
There was this interview where a reviewer (crinacle) interviewed the harman guy so you should probably watch that. The people they took in to do the study were not mixing/mastering engineers but their own employees. And that is a reason not to trust it. We don't know what room, what speakers, the room's measurements, reverberations etc. they used. Most importantly, we don't know what songs they used to test (we all know songs were not mixed and mastered by the same people and that different artists and engineers will have a unique sound to them). You said it yourself, rooms and speakers sound different, even from studio to studio. Hey man, if they took you in and said EQ this thing, I'd trust the results from it. But not this study. With that said I've tried the MM-100 and their so good for the price - maybe the best tuned headphones in that price range (definitely not flat but it's better than a lot). Does your headphones sound like your room and speaker setup?
I actually think you need at least 2 different headphones 1 nice "studio" quality set and and another beats or skullcandy bass heavy set i was looking at freq response and skullcandy and beats have a flat low end up to about 300hz where most of the mixing or studio headphones are flat untill you get down to around 200hz
There are few things you got wrong though, one is some male prefer bass heavy because they can't hear very high frequency well (mine cut off around 15-16 khz), but can actually hear sub-bass well. And female like to lower some bass because they can hear much higher frequency than male, but cannot hear much lower sub-bass like a male, so it makes sense that they will appreciate high more and not overpowering bass. And just for your knowledge, we all have natural roll off sensitivity in both low end and high end (threshold is slightly different between male and female though), so even flat is just relatively and depending on your general hearing protection efforts and ages. Also I don't think the Harman curve is inherently flat, it's just a slightly V-shape equaliser with boost emphasize around 4khz (presense range boost) and roll off after 10khz. That to make it slightly clearer in speech, taming the ultra high and makes music sound more exciting. IMO the flat curve are the best for headphones, but there is some physical limitation that preventing a headphone sound anything flat other than in a sine wave sweep, which I will leave that subject to the later part. Last thing I don't think you get it right is the fact that if we have all have "natural emphasize" on mid and upper mid, why do we still need to enhance that range in a Harman curve? Shouldn't we cut it down since if we have natural boost in our biology system, by compensate we should really cut down that frequency area to make it flat, and not boost it more? This is because it was never meant to be flat at all. What it does is to mimicking a good sounding entertainment "Hi-Fi" system like in old traditioning room and old traditional way, so that anyone who listening to it will be automatically attracted to it. The concept behind it is to emphasize what our ears think are "information" and naturally reduce those what our ears think are "noise" or "annoyance", like a perfectly crafted, expensive entertainment "Hi-Fi". As for why headphone inherently cannot be flat, it's due to physical limitation and not just because it will not sound good in our biological ears. 1st and biggest limitation is it's using one diaphragm to vibrating sound, that is the main reason why it can never be like those +-1.5db, super expensive studio moniter's flat. Even if you can make it sound relatively flat in a sine sweep test, but in reality when all the frequency come to play at once, it will break the moving system and distorting the sound and sustainability of the moving part. we all know when wave form join, there will be standing wave and destructinve wave, that also applying to vibration that happen in same place. This is also why most headphone are bass lighted and didn't design it in a way that really emphasize bass, it's for accuracy and longevity purposes. Fun fact, even the sub-bass you create by using that relatively light and tiny diaphragm (40-80hz) are using superposition in the 1st place, but not without limitation. The 2nd limitation is the acoustic characteristic in a headphone chamber. The fact that 40hz wavelength is around 8 meter long in real life tell you that you can never get accuracy wavelength in that tiny ear chamber of your headphone, no matter how flat the driver are. It's just like the rules of physics that you should not get an 8-10 inch subwoofer in a small space, like a single person's toilet or cars, you're not gonna get a flat response free from standing wave on that tiny little chamber. That's why I suggest anyone who value fidelity should only use Open-Back headphone. Yes if a single person size toilet space are opened two walls, it would still makes it a acoustic equivalent of a corner, but the alternative are super closed 4 corner. The conclusion is, it's a very simply physics, but it's also a very vast and complicate subject. The simplify version is, no you can't get accurate bass and sound in an headphone/in ear, so inevitably the Harman target's targetting the next best thing, a good entertaining sound that emphasize what you think are information. This is also why flat studio monitor tends to sound mostly the same (to an extend), where as headphone it's a much wilder ride, cause the former choose fidelity in trade off, while the later choose musicality. Btw I still use my Grado with EQ, and it's not Harman target but a real flat EQ, it sounded great. What i do differently is I just use a 5 band EQ to make it sounded relative flat from 100-4k hz (according to the official website frenquency response graph), and leave the below 100 subbass and above 4k high frequency's roller coaster alone, and it sounded great. I also added the subbass a little with jet effects, x-bass enhances and to my ears it's not the usual annoying 100hz boost that mostly appeal to female but a real sub-bass (40-80hz) enhancement. IMO if you don't want to damage the tuning or even the driver's moving system of your headphone in long term, you should not mess with it in an extreme and unproffesional way without knowing what you doing, that's also why most EQ on DAP only range from +- 6db or less. (Also not letting you adjusting the sub bass)
I’m sorry, but I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the Harman curve. Don’t worry, that’s not at all uncommon! Let me know if this helps make sense of it: Due to our physiology, flat headphones do not sound flat to us. Headphone frequency response has to be adjusted away from flat in some way in order for headphones to sound flat to humans. When you listen to flat speakers in a flat room, the physical dimensions of your outer ear, head and shoulders physically change the frequency response to have the “V shaped boost” you describe. But, when we listen to music in headphones, our outer ear, head and shoulders are no longer in the equation-so that “v shaped boost” is removed. We need to put it back in some how, or it will sound “wrong” to us. This means that flat headphones never “sound flat” to us, because the physical filter that all sound in the real world passes through in our everyday lives has been completely removed. Therefore, the Harman curve, and other target curves like it, try to bring that natural human filter back into the equation, so the sound seems flat to us again (even though it’s not.) Stated differently: Our ears and bodies make it so that flat signals in the real world are no longer flat when they actually reach our eardrums and are perceived by our brains. Therefore, when we take our ears and bodies out of the equation, we have to apply similar filters so that things sound “normal” to us again. I hope that helps make sense of it! There’s a lot more I could address in this comment, but I hope that will do for now. I know this is counterintuitive at first-it was for me-but you can confirm for yourself that this is how it works. Thanks and be well!
@@SonicScoop I think you mis-representing and mis-understanding the experiment. The experiment do say they use RR1_G response curve (relatively flat curve) for their loudspeaker preference, but they do it in an untreated room, so the hearing result is definitely mostly affected by the room sound. In reality the shorter listening distant, the more direct sound and less room sound you hear, so usually studio monitor designed to listening at near-field listening level. I doubt that was the case though, so I just assume it's 50% direct sound and 50% room sound, and it's definitely not flat at all. This is from logic perspective. From scientific perspective, usually an experiment goes by the thought process of hypothesis > objective > procedure > finding/discussion > conclusion. The hypothesis of this experiment would be like, to use seinheiser hd518 to simulate what people likes similar to the the flat speaker in an untreated room sound experience, emphasize for the word simulate. The objective, would be to determine what human perception like the best when it comes to headphone, in referencing to the untreated room setup. The procedure would be what they do in experiment where they just use human perception as basis. The discussion and conclusion is the Harman target curve, are what most peoples in the group think it's best sound/like the best. You should noticing that both the objective, hypothesis and conclusion didn't and shouldn't emphasize for human body biological/flat and accurate frequency response, it's to determine what people like the best when given multiple choice, in reference to an untreated room recording. Given all the uncertain variables in their experiment, IMO it's wise to do so. To put it in simpler term, to determine a good "Hi-fi" experience people like. There are other problems though, like with each different headphones (other than what they use in the experiment), they came with their own different designed headphone chamber and headphone driver. Which I already mentioned in previous reply and you can refer back to it. Also from the graph you showed in your videro, they are all resonant (body part vibration from sound), and body resonant usually proportional to the volume you listening, so if you lack the body/torso vibration in your headphone listening experience, I don't think you can add it back by putting EQ, and it had not been proven so. All in all, I really appreciate your video and feedbacks (I'm a weirdo always like knowledge, research and sometime debates). To be honest, to this point I still haven't have the full information on that specific experiment (such as speaker type, room shapes, listening distance) so this is only the current conclusion that may change if I have more information. Speaking from my listening experience, the Harman Target is way overshoot and sounded pure v shape in term of frequency response. They do say you can adjusting the bass and 4k boost to your liking/preference, but even +-3db is pretty noticeble in term of the v shape frequency response nature. So I ended up just use flat response and it sound more or less like my near field (EQ ed flat) studio monitor in my long rectangular mostly untreated room, just with little skewed subbass and slightly roller coaster after 6khz. Given the limitation I mentioned before, it's not to bad for musicality purposes.
KI mean they do they are just what people like to call reference hspeakers as they give you the full flate range of sound... UIt's the exact same concept as daylight bulbs and 100% color acrate displays... It just makes creating art somuch easier as you can use a middle ground instead of having to need all the kinds of stuff your target audnce would likely use to view your art... That is why using Beats or any bass "only" headphones/speaker makes zero sense for a anyone masyttering audio serouly and faithfully to their work and their audnce... Litterly using a PC speaker yes the thing only capble of 1 bit beeping would be much better then beats as it's flat not heavly soecalized in one area... So yeah Flat headphones and speaker do exsit they are just rare to see as most people don't like them outside profesnal envomnets... I like them even outside by audio work as I want the "best" exp[erince of a Video game my main work as a real gaming Jornolist not those fake bloger that give us a bad repution... So I can make my judge ment the best I can... Sp yeah what kind of contration BS is this?
![Best Headphones for Mixing: $400 & Under [2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mPPmlXcrCOg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Best Headphones for Mixing: $400 & Under [2024]](/img/tr.png)
It was very nice of you to give me such a detailed response to the email I sent you. But to do an entire episode on this topic is mind-blowing! Thanks for all that you do, Justin.
The AutoEQ community is amazing. I'd been using a curve for my headphones for a while, and loved it, and then the glue began to fail on my headphone pads. I got some replacements from Dekoni, and it turns out there's a Harman curve for my headphones with those exact pads too!
It's not about how pleasant it is for me, but how accurately I can work: how well the work translates to a range of speakers. It gets me a response I can trust.
Cool to hear! Will have to check it out.
@@SonicScoop [Leaving this here not as a reply to you, but to anyone curious about how I use it...] Since I felt unsure if the parametric settings would transfer to any EQ plugin in the DAW, given that Q figures are abstract from EQ to EQ, I went with AutoEQ's curve for EqualizerAPO (a free app) so that I'd be using a known measurement. EqualizerAPO gets the downloaded curve ("+" > "Control" > "Include") and EqualizerAPO's Device field is then routed to the Output of Voicemeeter Banana (another free app). Voicemeeter Banana's "Hardware Out" and my DAW's audio settings are both pointed to the audio interface, and Windows' Sound settings connect the "Choose where to play sound" output to "Voicemeeter AUX Input". EqualizerAPO and Voicemeeter Banana are added to my Start-Up Apps so they load up automatically on each Windows session.
This gives me a set-it-and-forget-it arrangement where the AutoEQ correction curve only affects my headphone monitoring, with no risk of this weird eq ever getting baked into the audio by accident. The only thing I have to remember is to turn off the correction when I switch to monitors. I spend 99% of my time on the headphones, so the final advantage here is that I'm always listening to everything (music, movies, this TH-cam video) through this same correction. There's no warm-up required to acclimate myself to the correction, since my brain knows only this sound now.
It's, as said community, bunch of volunteer enthusiasts making measurements with quality equipment of whatever phones they're getting their hands on. Oratory's impulse response for DT 700 Pro X works great for tracking and even for some mixing. I've also entered his equivalent graphic EQ curve into soundcraft UI24R's aux for for band practice sessions, and another curve for KZ AS16 IEM's for live, makes them better for sure.
With regards to EQing to 'flat', you'd also have to measure your specific set of headphones at your own eardrum to factor out non-HRTF related HpTF variation that may exist between you and a HATS... for your headphones. And then also know your own HRTF. The other issue is that no free field or front-biased sound field is going to make sense for headphones given the use condition of it being worn on the head, and not at a distance and from a specific direction/location like speakers. So even if you can emulate the speakers in the room, that'll still sound wrong without the same direction-based psychoacoustic priming that you get with those speakers in your room. This is why you we use the DF condition, it better emulates the 'sound helmet' situation you're in with headphones. Connecting it to speakers in a room is really to get a sense of the bass to treble delta that people prefer, and Harman showed you get similar results for both.
that makes another question for to me , if you don't trust your speakers and your room , then why we trying to emulate that to our headphones ? or the aim is to emulate a professional studio ? in this case how guaranteed is even 100% accurate emulation , sound even good to you ? because of different preference 🤔
Buncha gibberish smh, tells me nothing about the soundstage
@@listener-reviews HAH! How did you find this hahaha
@@ResolveReviews my objectivist senses were tingling, just tell me about the technicalities and no one gets hurt
Great episode! Thanks JC 🔥
Omg that topic is what im looking forward to. Thank you so much
More videos like this, this is sooo important!
Glad you liked it! Thanks :-)
Justin, what are your thoughts on headphone cross-feed when working on your mix’s stereo image? Thanks for the great video!
thank you, Justin this is very interesting to see by chance, my set-up is basically the same HS8 in an untreated room so Audeze LCDX with Topping pre amp and sonor work EQ correction with wet and dry mix of around 40 to 50 per cent for mixing still very much learning what I am hearing and building my audio chain that pleases my ears
GREAT video 🙏🏼💯 Thanks for telling it like it is: headphones with a flat response are a myth, and compromises will have to made with any set of cans; even with the ones costing $Ks!!
Very Good to hear this whole Video. Thank you Justin.
That's why the NS-10's were so 'effective'
The response rises in the top-end around 2k. My old Sony MDR-V700 headphones , sort of ,do the same, for dj-ing purposes.
After I measure a room with sonarworks and REW. I use my console to apply correction. Set it up around 80db and then apply what I can without much boasting. Then run a slow frequency sweep and make things flat to my perception as much as I can. I do the same sweep technique with headphones at a set comfortable mixing volume with as little bands as possible. That’s what I like that works for me .
I found out after installing a nice stereo in my car, that there are target curves to compensate for how small of a space a car is. Most of the curves involve a rise in the low end from around 250hz and down, and a gentle downward shelf in the rest of the frequencies as the frequencies get higher. That was a fun learning experience!
I prefer my Sony wh1000 xm2’s over the xm3’s, xm4’s and xm5’s. Also over my nuemann closed headphones. However the xm2’s are pretty close to the nuemanns. I go back and forth between those two while mixing and mastering. If it works on both of those with the same bass boast curve I like and also on my studio monitors ( hs8’s on a very treated room ) it tends to translate decently. Best results I’ve gotten in 25 years as a hobbyist and an occasional mixer and mastering guy for hire.
Very interesting how your body and ear have such a big impact on the frequency respons.
i already figured out headphones and iems. i got plenty of flat transparent headphones. aint hd600 lol.
TB Morphit is another headphone correction software. It runs as a plugin in your DAW. They even have it for iOS/iPadOS (as an auv3 plugin).
An old school method was to play songs that you love the mix of and use a 15 to 30 band EQ to make the tracks sound their best (to you). Use that EQ curve for monitoring while mixing. If a bass heavy track ended up sounding TOO bassy, you would back off the bass, as appropriate.
*If a bass heavy track sounded too bassy while setting your multiband EQ, that is.
When it comes to loudspeakers, there's "flat," and "flat."
A good loudspeaker should measure flat in "free-space" or an anechoic room.
When you bring this loudspeaker into a room, it will measure like a variation of the Harman (preference) Curve in the listening position.
This is important.
There will be bass boost in your room, and it will tilt down slightly towards the top frequencies.
If you use some sort of auto-correction software and leave the target curve flat, you are doing it wrong. (There's no "yeah, but..." - it's wrong)
On the catch up. Let's goooo
BENNNNNNNNJ
Thanks for amazing episode justin , can you please explain these to me , if i'm not mistaken the Harman curve aim is to emulate good sounding speakers in a good treated room , right ? (please correct me if i'm wrong) so if that's the case , what's the definition a "Good" sound ? cause beside physical influences on hearing everyone's preferences is different , maybe a young male prefer more bass music not because of torso and neck but also due to needing for more energy or feelings that a person can have in a day ? so my main question is how to find a target EQ for mixing ? a target that sound flat to most people or finding a target that sound pleasant to people listening the same genre you are listening ? is having a reference better idea of using EQ to make flat headphones or speakers ?
My 2 cents: IF you don't like the sound of your headphones or can't get mixes to work, start with a harmon correction, adjust to taste. Listening to a lot of your favorite music along the way.
thats cool this topic i just work since a couple months with this harman curve, and i'm wondering why it works so well for me and mixes sounds like i hear it on the headphone. Beyerdynamic 1990 Pro
We measure headphones using a dummy head but we don't measure speakers the same way. I mean that my guess is that the strange shape of Harman curve comes from the shape of ear canal that is introduced by the dummy head. I have measured headphones with just a flat surface (with a hole for the mic) in front of the headphone and the result is pretty flat with a steady roll of in highs. So why we still use a dummy head ?
But what about Steven Slate? My expectation is that it will allow me to emulate speakers while mixing on headphones. Is that a mistake to upgrade from my Senheiser HD 600? Also, not addresses is those of us older mixers that have lost much over 6K? How do we handle that?
I used DSoniq's Realphones, it's fully featured and inexpensive. 😎
interesting video Justin as all ways, I have a question if you have time, I have the Dt990 pro's should I upgrade to something more expensive or are they good enough to get the job done while learning? If so , any recommends for an upgrade below $1000?
There was this interview where a reviewer (crinacle) interviewed the harman guy so you should probably watch that.
The people they took in to do the study were not mixing/mastering engineers but their own employees.
And that is a reason not to trust it. We don't know what room, what speakers, the room's measurements, reverberations etc. they used.
Most importantly, we don't know what songs they used to test (we all know songs were not mixed and mastered by the same people and that different artists and engineers will have a unique sound to them).
You said it yourself, rooms and speakers sound different, even from studio to studio.
Hey man, if they took you in and said EQ this thing, I'd trust the results from it. But not this study. With that said I've tried the MM-100 and their so good for the price - maybe the best tuned headphones in that price range (definitely not flat but it's better than a lot). Does your headphones sound like your room and speaker setup?
Good video
next time can you get in the weeds Justin! haha. love your passion and taking the time
I actually think you need at least 2 different headphones 1 nice "studio" quality set and and another beats or skullcandy bass heavy set i was looking at freq response and skullcandy and beats have a flat low end up to about 300hz where most of the mixing or studio headphones are flat untill you get down to around 200hz
I also need that low end under 80 hz for monitoring. lol. And I’m 40.
Same for me, and I'm 56
if there is an audio translator control romm, headphone or speaker free of sin...let it cast the first stone. c'mon
Paul Third en pls 😂
There are few things you got wrong though, one is some male prefer bass heavy because they can't hear very high frequency well (mine cut off around 15-16 khz), but can actually hear sub-bass well. And female like to lower some bass because they can hear much higher frequency than male, but cannot hear much lower sub-bass like a male, so it makes sense that they will appreciate high more and not overpowering bass. And just for your knowledge, we all have natural roll off sensitivity in both low end and high end (threshold is slightly different between male and female though), so even flat is just relatively and depending on your general hearing protection efforts and ages.
Also I don't think the Harman curve is inherently flat, it's just a slightly V-shape equaliser with boost emphasize around 4khz (presense range boost) and roll off after 10khz. That to make it slightly clearer in speech, taming the ultra high and makes music sound more exciting. IMO the flat curve are the best for headphones, but there is some physical limitation that preventing a headphone sound anything flat other than in a sine wave sweep, which I will leave that subject to the later part.
Last thing I don't think you get it right is the fact that if we have all have "natural emphasize" on mid and upper mid, why do we still need to enhance that range in a Harman curve? Shouldn't we cut it down since if we have natural boost in our biology system, by compensate we should really cut down that frequency area to make it flat, and not boost it more? This is because it was never meant to be flat at all. What it does is to mimicking a good sounding entertainment "Hi-Fi" system like in old traditioning room and old traditional way, so that anyone who listening to it will be automatically attracted to it. The concept behind it is to emphasize what our ears think are "information" and naturally reduce those what our ears think are "noise" or "annoyance", like a perfectly crafted, expensive entertainment "Hi-Fi".
As for why headphone inherently cannot be flat, it's due to physical limitation and not just because it will not sound good in our biological ears. 1st and biggest limitation is it's using one diaphragm to vibrating sound, that is the main reason why it can never be like those +-1.5db, super expensive studio moniter's flat. Even if you can make it sound relatively flat in a sine sweep test, but in reality when all the frequency come to play at once, it will break the moving system and distorting the sound and sustainability of the moving part. we all know when wave form join, there will be standing wave and destructinve wave, that also applying to vibration that happen in same place. This is also why most headphone are bass lighted and didn't design it in a way that really emphasize bass, it's for accuracy and longevity purposes. Fun fact, even the sub-bass you create by using that relatively light and tiny diaphragm (40-80hz) are using superposition in the 1st place, but not without limitation.
The 2nd limitation is the acoustic characteristic in a headphone chamber. The fact that 40hz wavelength is around 8 meter long in real life tell you that you can never get accuracy wavelength in that tiny ear chamber of your headphone, no matter how flat the driver are. It's just like the rules of physics that you should not get an 8-10 inch subwoofer in a small space, like a single person's toilet or cars, you're not gonna get a flat response free from standing wave on that tiny little chamber. That's why I suggest anyone who value fidelity should only use Open-Back headphone. Yes if a single person size toilet space are opened two walls, it would still makes it a acoustic equivalent of a corner, but the alternative are super closed 4 corner.
The conclusion is, it's a very simply physics, but it's also a very vast and complicate subject. The simplify version is, no you can't get accurate bass and sound in an headphone/in ear, so inevitably the Harman target's targetting the next best thing, a good entertaining sound that emphasize what you think are information. This is also why flat studio monitor tends to sound mostly the same (to an extend), where as headphone it's a much wilder ride, cause the former choose fidelity in trade off, while the later choose musicality.
Btw I still use my Grado with EQ, and it's not Harman target but a real flat EQ, it sounded great. What i do differently is I just use a 5 band EQ to make it sounded relative flat from 100-4k hz (according to the official website frenquency response graph), and leave the below 100 subbass and above 4k high frequency's roller coaster alone, and it sounded great. I also added the subbass a little with jet effects, x-bass enhances and to my ears it's not the usual annoying 100hz boost that mostly appeal to female but a real sub-bass (40-80hz) enhancement. IMO if you don't want to damage the tuning or even the driver's moving system of your headphone in long term, you should not mess with it in an extreme and unproffesional way without knowing what you doing, that's also why most EQ on DAP only range from +- 6db or less. (Also not letting you adjusting the sub bass)
I’m sorry, but I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the Harman curve. Don’t worry, that’s not at all uncommon! Let me know if this helps make sense of it:
Due to our physiology, flat headphones do not sound flat to us.
Headphone frequency response has to be adjusted away from flat in some way in order for headphones to sound flat to humans.
When you listen to flat speakers in a flat room, the physical dimensions of your outer ear, head and shoulders physically change the frequency response to have the “V shaped boost” you describe.
But, when we listen to music in headphones, our outer ear, head and shoulders are no longer in the equation-so that “v shaped boost” is removed. We need to put it back in some how, or it will sound “wrong” to us.
This means that flat headphones never “sound flat” to us, because the physical filter that all sound in the real world passes through in our everyday lives has been completely removed.
Therefore, the Harman curve, and other target curves like it, try to bring that natural human filter back into the equation, so the sound seems flat to us again (even though it’s not.)
Stated differently: Our ears and bodies make it so that flat signals in the real world are no longer flat when they actually reach our eardrums and are perceived by our brains.
Therefore, when we take our ears and bodies out of the equation, we have to apply similar filters so that things sound “normal” to us again.
I hope that helps make sense of it!
There’s a lot more I could address in this comment, but I hope that will do for now.
I know this is counterintuitive at first-it was for me-but you can confirm for yourself that this is how it works.
Thanks and be well!
@@SonicScoop I think you mis-representing and mis-understanding the experiment. The experiment do say they use RR1_G response curve (relatively flat curve) for their loudspeaker preference, but they do it in an untreated room, so the hearing result is definitely mostly affected by the room sound. In reality the shorter listening distant, the more direct sound and less room sound you hear, so usually studio monitor designed to listening at near-field listening level. I doubt that was the case though, so I just assume it's 50% direct sound and 50% room sound, and it's definitely not flat at all. This is from logic perspective.
From scientific perspective, usually an experiment goes by the thought process of hypothesis > objective > procedure > finding/discussion > conclusion. The hypothesis of this experiment would be like, to use seinheiser hd518 to simulate what people likes similar to the the flat speaker in an untreated room sound experience, emphasize for the word simulate. The objective, would be to determine what human perception like the best when it comes to headphone, in referencing to the untreated room setup. The procedure would be what they do in experiment where they just use human perception as basis. The discussion and conclusion is the Harman target curve, are what most peoples in the group think it's best sound/like the best.
You should noticing that both the objective, hypothesis and conclusion didn't and shouldn't emphasize for human body biological/flat and accurate frequency response, it's to determine what people like the best when given multiple choice, in reference to an untreated room recording. Given all the uncertain variables in their experiment, IMO it's wise to do so. To put it in simpler term, to determine a good "Hi-fi" experience people like.
There are other problems though, like with each different headphones (other than what they use in the experiment), they came with their own different designed headphone chamber and headphone driver. Which I already mentioned in previous reply and you can refer back to it.
Also from the graph you showed in your videro, they are all resonant (body part vibration from sound), and body resonant usually proportional to the volume you listening, so if you lack the body/torso vibration in your headphone listening experience, I don't think you can add it back by putting EQ, and it had not been proven so.
All in all, I really appreciate your video and feedbacks (I'm a weirdo always like knowledge, research and sometime debates). To be honest, to this point I still haven't have the full information on that specific experiment (such as speaker type, room shapes, listening distance) so this is only the current conclusion that may change if I have more information.
Speaking from my listening experience, the Harman Target is way overshoot and sounded pure v shape in term of frequency response. They do say you can adjusting the bass and 4k boost to your liking/preference, but even +-3db is pretty noticeble in term of the v shape frequency response nature. So I ended up just use flat response and it sound more or less like my near field (EQ ed flat) studio monitor in my long rectangular mostly untreated room, just with little skewed subbass and slightly roller coaster after 6khz. Given the limitation I mentioned before, it's not to bad for musicality purposes.
KI mean they do they are just what people like to call reference hspeakers as they give you the full flate range of sound... UIt's the exact same concept as daylight bulbs and 100% color acrate displays... It just makes creating art somuch easier as you can use a middle ground instead of having to need all the kinds of stuff your target audnce would likely use to view your art... That is why using Beats or any bass "only" headphones/speaker makes zero sense for a anyone masyttering audio serouly and faithfully to their work and their audnce... Litterly using a PC speaker yes the thing only capble of 1 bit beeping would be much better then beats as it's flat not heavly soecalized in one area... So yeah Flat headphones and speaker do exsit they are just rare to see as most people don't like them outside profesnal envomnets... I like them even outside by audio work as I want the "best" exp[erince of a Video game my main work as a real gaming Jornolist not those fake bloger that give us a bad repution... So I can make my judge ment the best I can... Sp yeah what kind of contration BS is this?
I’m sorry, but this is really hard to read. Can you try it again with a spellchecker? Thanks!