This list is similar to Oratory's preference rankings.
HD600, HE-1, Elex, Utopia all seem to validate Olive's research. Consensus on SBAF is that the Target has an unreasonable bass boost but Olive states that amount of bass boost comes down to preference...I don't get the hate.....
Details, details. If this is true, they why does Oratory recommend quite a bit of EQ to HE-1, HD600, Elex to fit Harmon. Why are Elex and HE-1 considered warm headphones (per slope) when they tend toward perceived bright? Bass boost is personal, but should we heed to lowest common denominator of consumer "more bass" tastes as a target?
Other than the bass, Oratory's Harmon target tends toward bright. Note how HD58X, HD650, and HD660S are punished and sent to the middle of the list below HD700. You can't cherry pick the ones that fit the model and say it's good. For every headphone that fits in the rankings, there are three that don't.
I'm sorry, didn't notice the second post. Could someone please delete my comment on the other? Redundant.
Another thing: HE4XX is close to Harman treble balance. No thank you, that one gave me a headache and my main headphones aren't very polite there either.
The main critique of the Harmon curve is that because of the way they do the testing (short periods of critical listening) the listeners tend to choose FRs that sound engaging and exciting for short periods but would be fatiguing in the long run. This is fine and dandy if you want headphones to listen to for a hour or so but a pretty big issue for long term use.
For me personally the Harmon curve induces a headache due to the absurdly high subbass and tinnitus from the jacked up 3-5k range. I also find that it sounds very hollow due to a lack of upper bass.
@purr1n It’s my understanding that we cannot compare measurements from different measuring systems? Yet everyone overlays HT over graphs from various sources. Tyll took his own system to Harman to recreate the target, which made it comparable to all his hp measurements. IIRC Tyll’s Harman Target was right in between the 650 & 600 from mids on up. Am I misunderstanding something about how this all interrelates?
The hate is based on a fallacy, others more knowledgeable than I must know this. But it is still criticised. If you look up measurements for the same HP from several sources, even if they use the same equipment, they will all be different. The published HT is not directly applicable to measurements from oratory, or anyone else, all discussion based on such a scenario are nonsensical.
Optional bass pref. aside the hate does not appear to be rational or grounded in facts. Tyll’s directly reference-able work with the Harman Target shows that they were right on the money given it’s alignment with the HD6*0 if you exclude the additive bass.
There may be a dislike for Olive & his work regardless of merit. Though it’s quite possible I’m mistaken on some aspect, or my HT knowledge is out of date.
It may well be that the bulk of my music is tizzy hash-noise but even excepting the bass bump (which I admit not minding haha) I find that stuff that measured close to HT on Tyll's rig fatiguing at moderate volumes. I've been following oratory's measurements too and have PeaceGUIed my way through a few headphones (presuming consistency) to meet the target and always found them sounding poorly.
I figured it was simply my being unaccustomed to "normal" sound until others likewise opined that it was really more a *fun* voicing than anything else. Heck I'm not even 100% sure I subscribe to B&K because my experience on Sonarworks's profile made me think it was overly warm and bloopy.
At the end of the day though... eh. More valuable is consistency and a volume to make use of relative measurements imo.
Looking at the data after some years it’s a closer match for the 600, the 650 is -2db at 3.5khz & is known to be dark in the upper treble. That 3.5khz hump is where 99% of HPs go wrong, but I do find the 600 a bit much from there on up. Even so that HT is by far better than most HP’s frequency response, and would still serve as a good guiding light for HP tuning vs whatever the hell the industry has been doing.
I tried sonarworks years ago on the 650 & 800. At least 1 of them it flattened the 3.5khz hump level to 1khz, sounded rubbish. Those measurements did not reflect subjective listening or measurements from other sources. I think they were applying a speaker compensation to the headphones as well (?!), or maybe that was optional.
I EQ to the 650 FR, but flat from bass rolloff-1khz, with a few db more 5.5khz on up.
Chalk it up to preferences perhaps, but I'm still skeevy of what passes for neutral treble with the HT. Again that could just be my ears not wearing in yet (poking fun) or having horrible taste in music (completely serious), but the target doesn't nearly have good balance for my ears and gear. I'm in agreement that it's better than FF or DF, but preference remains so.
Preference still has to start from a point accuracy to be done well. But no one FR will ever be right for all as we have differing HRTFs. I should have qualified my statements with the HD6*0 being widely, though subjectively, considered the most accurate. Even that can only be an average at best due to HRTF variations, which perceptually vary further with individual sensitivities to diaphragm, materials, cup etc.
Read these "rules" AND introduce
yourself before your first post
Being true to what the artists intended
(opinion / entertainment piece)
Comments on Profile Post by Rthomas