Master Complaint Thread About Headphone Measurements

[Smaestro]

That would sound extremely muffled if that were the case.
Studio monitors should have a flat response on axis, just like hifi speakers b.t.w.
Its the music content (SPL) that, only on average, is similar to pink noise. For that you thus need speakers with white noise spectrum.
It is best to use speakers using pink noise (and then undo that slope to obtain the speaker response) because tweeters and midrange speakers can not handle the energy of white noise at high SPL and would burn. They don't when using pink noise as there is less energy in the upper bands.
Speakers in a room change that to a gradual downwards slope with some resonances (boosts and cuts) in the lower part of the frequency range but not in a pink-noise kinf of way.

I say... engineers should mix so that listeners in a room hear 'natural and powerful sound'.

Unfortunately they also have to take into account the usage of phone speakers, car audio, boom boxes, medium quality speakers and even all kinds of headphones.

Ah yes, excuse me. It makes no sense at all now that I think about it.

I guess the idea I tried to articulate is the opposite: mix on an inverse pink noise response, so that the audio (while working on it) follows a white noise spectrum. Under the assumption that this would improve the energy spread of frequencies. But pink noise is already the equal energy default, and white noise isn't. So yeah. Good thought experiment.

As a sidenote, about mixing for lower quality audio. In the end it's a net plus, that more people can experience music, regardless of quality. Worth it, IMO.

 

[Smaestro]

As for "mixing headphones", I suppose (I don't work in this field) it would be different if a headphone were in fact tuned to provide a colouration that aids in discerning aspects of the mix while not actually intending for that tonality to be heard by the consumer. But if those "mixing headphones" are indeed being used as a stand-in to speakers for guiding EQ adjustments, then tonal standardization would be necessary lest those mixing headphones perpetuate the Circle of Confusion.

I agree with your whole point.
As far as what I'd like from mixing headphones, is an additional emphasis on certain areas. For example:
I'd love it if headphones are a bit over sibliant (in the 7-9kHz).

Let's say a song would have a "perfect" amount of sibilance. The mixer tries to achieve this target (as fast as possible I'll add). However, the effect of missing that target in both directions is not equal. If you have a little bit too much sibilance, it can completely ruin the song, making it unlistenable. On the other hand, having not enough sibilance, does not ruin a record. There are so many songs that have a 'th' instead of an 's' sound, and while it's not making the song better, it also only makes it a little bit worse.

In my opinion of course.

Does this add to the circle of confusion? Depends on if the mixer is actually aware of this trait and uses it. If he is aware of the effect and uses it well, then it would not. And it would help in speeding up the process, as there usually isn't that much time reserved for mixing.

 

[splitting_ears]

I agree with your whole point.
As far as what I'd like from mixing headphones, is an additional emphasis on certain areas. For example:
I'd love it if headphones are a bit over sibliant (in the 7-9kHz).

Let's say a song would have a "perfect" amount of sibilance. The mixer tries to achieve this target (as fast as possible I'll add). However, the effect of missing that target in both directions is not equal. If you have a little bit too much sibilance, it can completely ruin the song, making it unlistenable. On the other hand, having not enough sibilance, does not ruin a record. There are so many songs that have a 'th' instead of an 's' sound, and while it's not making the song better, it also only makes it a little bit worse.

In my opinion of course.

Does this add to the circle of confusion? Depends on if the mixer is actually aware of this trait and uses it. If he is aware of the effect and uses it well, then it would not. And it would help in speeding up the process, as there usually isn't that much time reserved for mixing.

That's a fair point, although I don't see why headphones should have a sibilance boost built in. We don't expect that from speakers, do we?
It also means you're stuck with that 7-9kHz boost even when you're not working. Hardly a plus in my book.

If you need to zoom into certain spectrum areas, why not create a few EQ presets to see how the music holds up in different scenarios? Limited bandwidth, bass boost, treble boost, etc? That should be easy to set up in any DAW.

 

[Smaestro]

That's a fair point, although I don't see why headphones should have a sibilance boost built in. We don't expect that from speakers, do we?
It also means you're stuck with that 7-9kHz boost even when you're not working. Hardly a plus in my book.

If you need to zoom into certain spectrum areas, why not create a few EQ presets to see how the music holds up in different scenarios? Limited bandwidth, bass boost, treble boost, etc? That should be easy to set up in any DAW.

I fully agree. I had the same thought eventually, but you beat me to it.

I do this already with a couple of other monitoring presets that I can toggle with a single click, among which:

Mono
LR channel swap
Left channel only, and Right channel only (on both ears)

Phone (low and high pass, with some resonance peaks)
Bass energy only (low cut)
Fletcher Munson (adjustable for the 20 dB down from the upper line)
Cross feed (with switchable EQ, delay, speaker angle and room size)

Small effort to add some sibilance, there's no reason to have any of this baked in.


I did have another idea, written below, but I disprove the idea by the end. I'm leaving it up here because I typed it already and perhaps the thought experiment is useful for others.

Hypothesis: For audio engineers, a flat and smooth frequency response is more important than a bumpy but Harman accurate one. The logic being that a flat response can be EQ'd perfectly into Harman, while a bumpy approximation of Harman can hardly be improved any further.

So you rate headphones on how accurate they can reach Harman with an reasonable EQ, for example 8 band PEQ, rather than out of the box performance.That's what Amir already does, but, it's not really accurate. For example, a lot of headphones FR slope down towards the subbass. This downward curve is then usually corrected with a Butterworth or flat shelving filter, but this only brings the average subbass level up, it doesnt correct the slope. A better correction is to use a different shelving filter or add another bell at 5Hz for example.

But...... Ok on second thought the current review system is exactly what I'm proposing, only with perhaps different limits of how much complexity the EQ is allowed to have. So never mind haha, all is well, the current system is fine.

Only if the manufacturer gives instructions with their headphones on how to EQ, can this make sense. (Inaccuarate out of the box, accurate Harman with EQ.) Have any manufacturers done this so far? If not, I wonder why not. Its a pretty easy way to get more sales from the Harman crowd.

 

[solderdude]

The wheel has already been invented. Not all wheels are perfectly round and have proper bearings though and not all wheels look alike (except for being round)
An 'average' target has been arrived at that suits the majority of headphone users (consumers).
The majority means there is another group that has a different preference which can be because of various reasons.

The problem with suggesting any EQ is that such would have to be based on measurements and requires a good seal for instance and a certain way to wear the headphone.
It is the main reason why Oratory1990 for instance shows which bands to EQ to taste and because of limitations in the used measurement gear can only suggest EQ up to a certain frequency (where it already is inaccurate).

So whatever strategy one can think of has already been done and considered.

Personal taste is not the same as scientific correct and that requires ideal circumstances which aren't really present in real life and test fixtures only adhere to a standard they were designed to meet.
Ones ears may not meet that standard, in fact most ears won't so adjust to taste on reproduction and on the recording side 'learn' the sound of the headphone or EQ it towards the sound of the monitors in the control room at the mixing console.

Harman is not perfect nor are other targets nor will EQing to some target, obtained on some fixture using some protocol not automatically lead to the correct EQ on ones head (if only for product variance).

 

[Smaestro]

After delving into all the information of Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive and other information, kindly provided by Amirm and the members of this forum, I have formed a couple of key points regarding audio production. I'm curious to your thoughts.

1. Under the assumption that an audio engineer (mixing and/or mastering) works best on the dr. Toole recommended speakers+room (flat-in-an-anechoic-room, placed in a semi-reflective room, user at ideal location), it follows that the ideal average FR for mixing headphones should be Harman OR 2013, not OR 2018, as OR 2013 was measured to be equal to the ideal room+speakers.
   
   
2. Recommending Harman OR 2018 adds to the circle of confusion. Harman OR 2018, as used in the reviews on ASR, is the most common preference. That makes it valid recommendation to consumers from a buyers guide perspective. However, if the goal is to end the circle of confusion, then OR 2018 should not be used, as it deviates from the optimal room+speakers as determined by dr. Toole.
   
   
3. Using any other FR during audio mixing or mastering does not contribute to the circle of confusion, as long as the audio engineer is so used to that FR that his/her recollection of music is based on that FR. As music always gets mixed and mastered to fit its genre, the product will not have more or less of any frequency region than it's predecessors. Of course, the basic condition must be fulfilled that all normally audible frequencies are at indeed audible and not cut-off. However, there is another hard condition on this:
   
   
4. If the studio speakers+room deviate from the 'dr. Toole recommendation', then the headphones used should deviate from OR 2013 in an equal way. This to keep the studio and the headphones as similar as possible. The Engineer is free to swap around between different FR's if desired, but unnecessary differences should be prevented.

 

[solderdude]

You could consider that the lack of tactile feel, opposite speakers, might lead to a preference of a bit more bass and more relaxed treble.
Harman research is about preference and there is no single correct preference but in the end the choice was made to create some (highly smoothed) target that would satisfy most listeners. It is nothing more than that.

The fact that the curve was revised a few times should tell you enough that it isn't as dry cut as it seems.
Then there is production variance, seal issues, placement differences, deviating preferences, sometimes interaction with amplifiers.

3 & 4: requires a mixing or mastering engineer that really knows his headphone or knows how to EQ it.
Judging from the abundant usage of DR compression and tonal accuracy of many (pop and rock) recordings some of these guys are way of the mark.
Fortunately there are also a lot of excellent recordings of which we often do not know if headphones are used and in what stage/purpose of the mixing/mastering process.