EQ or no EQ? Harman vs Stock... Is the crowd right about what sounds best?

Submitted by casper_wolf t3_y7f4jc in headphones

When I first got my headphones, I EQ'd them and hated it, then I tried some of the convolutional filtering from the AutoEQ project and got them close to harman and liked the effect. It's been a few months on that setup and in the last week i've switched back to no EQ and things feel ever-so-slightly more dynamic to me? I've traded some emphasis here and there and a bit of balance for a bit more "umph", you know? A little sparkle, a little tickle and slap... you know what I mean? Anyways, I'm sure I'll change preferences in the future, but just wondering if anyone out there has ideas on whether EQ-ing generally affects the dynamics of their cans? I'm NOT knowledgeable on the subject so I'm probably saying something obviously dumb here.

In the meantime, I'm appreciating the stock tuning and thinking about the guys who tune these things and how much pressure they probably have on their shoulders to make a "stock tuning for the masses". I'm also wondering about Harman... I know it's the composite of audio preferences of "the crowd", but there are many cases where an average is not the "best" and of course "best" is highly subjective in the first place when it comes to audio, so maybe Harman is actually just "meh"?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JSoppenheimer t1_isu5ggh wrote

Quite obviously you should only listen to your ears here. Harman target is a product of a preference study, and while it can be useful as a suggested starting point to try, trying to "learn" to like it is pointless if it just doesn't click with you. It's not supposed to click with everyone, and trying to push it as objective correct option for everyone is something that even the research never tried to suggest in any way, because unlike the worst internet zealots, the people behind the research actually understand what a preference study means.

As a comparison, imagine if I made a study about what pizza toppings are the most agreeable for the majority of people. Now, it would be useful info to know that pepperoni-tuna (or whatever) is what you should serve if you don't know your audiences preferences but wish to please as many as possible, but the idea that you'd have to order pepperoni-tuna personally yourself every time because it's "objectively proven to be the best pizza topping combo for human taste" is ridiculous.

13

SupOrSalad t1_isuf65t wrote

So Harman, it's not just a crowd sourced target based on an average preference.

The target was first derived from the frequency response of flat speakers, in a typical room, recorded on a head and torso simulator. The bass boost and downward slope is what we expect to hear from good speakers in a good room.

From that, there was group testing done to tweak things by a few dB, and the Harman research says to adjust the bass level less or more to your preference.

The target itself is meant to be a reference point, but not necessarily something to adear to exactly, especially in the treble since the target is very much smoothed and doesn't represent the peaks and dips that headphones or speakers can have at our eardrums.

As for what to EQ to, we all hear differently and have a unique HRTF. This means what you see on a frequency response graph will not represent what your hear, or the frequency response at your own eardrum (mostly past 3khz), so EQ to your own preference

9

Cannonaire t1_iswr89t wrote

Thanks for the accurate description!

I use Harman as a last EQ to 'correct' my headphones to a reference point, but I have a preferential EQ before that which mostly raises the mids and subbass, while lowering midbass and lower treble. This all means I get to use the same preferential EQ on all my headphones and I can still have them sound similar when I want them to because my preferences adjust from Harman.

1

LucasRunner t1_isuz70x wrote

I don't like these auto eq presets to harman.

I use eq to fill up some holes in the frequency response of my headphones and tame down some overly boosted areas they have and thats it. Preety much some fine tuning of the mids.

The results are normally the same headphones but with less "nasal" or shouty voices and they become way more full and tonality correct. Voices become way more lifelike.

But the whole harman curve doesn't really work for me

7

o7_brother t1_isu7qco wrote

EQ =/= Harman curve

Just EQ to whatever the fuck you want, like I do (which happens to be close to Harman anyway)

5

rhalf t1_isu77kf wrote

Yes, EQ can affect the dynamic range. Quite typical, especially for weaklings like single BA IEMS. It's generally adviced to be delicate with it. If you add 10dB of bass boost, then don't expect to come out of it without significant tradeoff. There is a reason headphones and speakers are tuned to roll off down low.

​

I think you need a perspective.
Headphone FRs vary *wildly*. The question that I'd ask you is how much influence do you think the engineer has over driver tuning? I can tell you, not much. Harman Target headphones are rare because it's not an easy target to reach. Earphones and headphones are quite sensitive to tiny changes in acoustic impedance. With loudspeakers it's easier because you have all the space and mass in the world to do it. You can use multiple drivers and strap even the wildest crossover to them, with a notch filter on every peak. Now go see how you do it with a tiny headphone driver. Not to mention taking measurements of speakers is a breeze compared to headphones.
Unsurprisingly many classic headphones that are sometimes still in production predate the Harman Target and so were intended to hit diffuse field tuning (like a loudspeaker).

Meanwhile the differences between human anatomies are generally subtle.

3

goldfish_memories t1_isxalcr wrote

If you apply a EQ filter of 10db gain, then you should set a pre amp of -10db to avoid clipping. But then you'll obviously need to boost the volume to achieve the same perceived loudness, which might cause increased distortion or you amp not having enough power for the whole dynamic range. Though I doubt one can accurately quantify "macrodynamics" claimed by you/OP

1

rhalf t1_isxcb8s wrote

I didn't claim "macrodynamics", but dynamic range and of course I need to add increase of compression, which is inevitable if you force any transducer into more excursion. Since the driver is operating outside of it's optimal range, you may notice loss in accuracy. This has always been a problem with headphones. They use single drivers, which means that if you mess with the bass, you decrease fidelity in the upper range. There's no way around it. You will loose macrodynamics, as you called it, because every driver compresses the more, the further away it's pushed outside of it's mechanical center.

So to sum up, increase in nonlinearities from using EQ is inevitable, especially with boosting bass. This is especially propnounced in single driver headphones, because it affects broader range, including the region of highest hearing sensitivity. So using EQ is always a matter of tradeoffs and weighing desired and undesired audible outcome.I personally listen at low volume so I like EQ, any compression from it is not noticeable in regular use, but I can see how people can have issues with their equipment.

1

EatTomatos t1_isv7lsr wrote

Yeah. I have a calibration mic, which I can use in conjunction with ear simulator measurements. So I can flatten out the response then bring the EQ back to harman from the ear measurements. That makes it harman but even smoother than usual. And the end result, is usually you always percieve less dynamic-range. It's not always the driver being bottomed out, usually the driver performs fine but it just loses out on DR. So that's something to consider with harman.

Plus, many people including myself prefer cutting either the mid highs or treble a little, to make harman less harsh. It's more of a perceptual thing though.

2

blorg t1_iswsomp wrote

I don't get good results with the AutoEQ presets, I don't know why but a lot of them just sound outright wrong.

I get much better results with Oratory1990's targets, I tend to like Harman for overears and his own target for IEMs.

Try these if you haven't.

AutoEQ is totally algorithmic and I think sometimes gets it wrong, it can be trying to EQ the high treble, or EQing small peaks or dips, based off measurements that may not have them in the same place you have them on your head. A narrow filter applied to a narrow peak just 500Hz off can make things worse rather than better.

Oratory's EQs are checked manually by listening and tweaked by ear. He doesn't try to EQ anything specific over 10kHz or so, just uses broad high shelf filter. I haven't ever heard one that sounded as egregiously wrong as many of the AutoEQ ones do (particularly the IEM ones).

I don't always only EQ to Harman, either, although I do use Oratory1990's Harman target on over-ears more than anything else. I also on some stuff just address specific issues, so things like, add bass shelf, smooth over or remove peaks, etc. And leave the rest of it alone.

One thing Harman does, with headphones like the Arya, is it fills in/brings up the 1-3kHz recess. This pulls in the soundstage as well. HD800S has a recess in the same place, it adds to soundstage. So I often listen to the Arya with just a Harman bass shelf (or sometimes less) and leave the rest as the rest is pretty much fine. Or with the HD800, just bring up the bass to flat, and, bring down the 6kHz peak a little.

IEMs I generally listen to stock, but there are some with specific issues, like add mid-bass to the Dioko / Symphonium Helios, remove the mid-bass bloat and smooth over the pinna gain wonkiness on the Fiio FD5, add treble to the Dunu EST112 or Zen, reduce mid-bass and treble peaks on the Beyerdynamic Xelento. I'm far more likely to just go for correcting specific issues like peaks or not enough / too much mid-bass on IEMs.

EQ isn't just Harman or nothing, and it's certainly not just AutoEQ Harman which frankly sounds crap to me a lot of the time.

2

casper_wolf OP t1_isy1vxl wrote

Thanks! I’ve learned a bunch from the replies here. Good info

2

dongas420 t1_it0u0o5 wrote

Use oratory1990's Harman presets instead of AutoEQ if you can.

AutoEQ can't properly adjust the upper treble because of the inherent unreliability of headphone measurements in that region, while oratory1990 actually listens to his presets to ensure they sound right. The stuff I've seen/heard AutoEQ output for headphones like the N700NC M2 (scooping out 6 kHz on a headphone that's already got plasticky timbre because of excess upper treble) is honestly a hot mess.

2

kazuviking t1_isu8d1k wrote

Harman with less upper mid energy.

1

Egoexpo t1_isuar58 wrote

Which headphone are you using? This is important to understand what "dynamics" you are talking about.

About Harman Target "average to the masses", it's not just "average to the masses". I don't know why audiophiles think they're special people (sorry for that aggressive take). Harman Target is the same as "two deadly neutral speakers in your head" with a little more bass, and all people like neutral speakers in blind tests (they tested in research). It's not just a "average to the masses", it's sound fidelity.

Maybe you like some "coloration" in the sound of you headphone, that's not a problem. And obviously the Harman Target isn't perfect, it's an average, we have some differences in HRTF and bass volume preferences for example. To solve this, you need to EQ with a tone generator using your own ears.

1