Ilkless

We introduce the concept of this 3-part Harman Curve series, explain human sound localization and its relationship to frequency response. Headphones make better speakers than speakers; speakers make better headphones than headphones. This is not a Zen riddle, but the most succinctly provocative way to summarize two parallel strands of audio research that have quietly persisted over about half a century. Moreover, both these strands promise evidence-based improvements to both tonal and spatial reproduction of sound. Both assertions cannot be simultaneously correct, it seems. As far as we know, this is the very first article series targeted at the layman to identify, explain and reconcile it. Understanding the premises and milestones of this curious research tradition is important because it provides a powerful lens to understand its most famous product of late: the Harman curve. Quick Links Click and jump to section A Quick Rundown of How the Series Is Split What is the Harman Curve? Outlining Sound Localization in Human Beings A Quick Rundown of How the Series Is Split. Part 1 <- You are here. The first part of this series will first explain the fundamental, shared principles of human hearing all these approaches are derived from. Part 2. Go to Part 2 The second installment examines various technologies that have been developed in response to these insights for both loudspeakers and speakers. Tracing the lineage from which the Harman curve descends helps clarify its relative position in this technological landscape. Thus, we can compare Harman curves (because several variants were developed and refined for different applications) to both alternative listening curves and processing techniques in the third part. Curves covered include the highly-abstracted diffuse and free-field curves, and more niche derivatives of both by Sonarworks, Waves NX, Etymotic, Siegfried Linkwitz, and David Griesinger. We will talk about comparison to alternative playback processing techniques includes: crosstalk cancellation. head-related transfer function (HRTF) synthesis. crossfeed. Part 3. Go to Part 3 This third part will also allow us to distinguish what is left beyond the Harman target curve for headphones and in-ear monitors (which each have their own respective curves). To use a popular phrase, equalizing to a calibration curve might border on diminishing returns. The choice of corrective processing strongly depends on: recording and mastering techniques (such as microphone placement and panning), the type of headphone used. the anatomy of the individual. Moreover, the wavelengths of the high frequencies involved in HRTF synthesis and correction are very small. This entails significant sensitivity to variations in headphone placement with each wear, and even within the same listening session as position subtly shifts. It is a complex and dynamic problem. Any further improvements are inconvenient while yielding an uncertain payoff. Much more transparency on the part of studios and sound engineers for their choices, as well as painstaking listener experimentation would likely be needed. Hopefully, more knowledge of these issues increases consumer pressure on manufacturers to address these issues and scale their solutions to improve the listening experience, especially on headphones. What is the Harman Curve? Named after the audio equipment manufacturer, Harman, most of its main researchers were affiliated to, the curve entered the spotlight in 2013, after (now-retired) headphone guru Tyll Hertsens of InnerFidelity published a comprehensive feature article summarising the key papers published on the subject. The Harman curve essentially is a target frequency response of what a pair of “good” headphones should exhibit when measured with specialized equipment. The curve is, in fact, a careful balance between individualization and a certain conception of mass appeal, founded on the same psychoacoustic principles that underpin both strands of research. But how was this balance struck, why was it struck, what does it compromise and what does it synergize with? Addressing these questions requires a look at Harman curves, the long (but rewarding) way round. It complements the great articles out there that explain what Harman curves are - a coarse approximation of broadly-agreeable tonality that disregards precise individualization for spatial audio and precise tonality (which are inter-related problems). Outlining Sound Localization in Human Beings. The first step to understanding Harman curves is to understand the relationship between frequency response (which is what the Harman curves serve as a target of) and human sound localization. Rtings and Wikipedia delve into the subject in more, though still accessible, detail, as does this page by Southampton University. For the purposes of simplicity, here’s the summary. There are four types of cues that dominate directional localization: head-related transfer function (HRTF) interaural time difference (ITD) interaural phase difference (IPD) interaural level difference (ILD) Every ear has it own HRTF. Every single ear has its own head-related transfer function (HRTF): changes to the frequency response of external sound sources that our shoulders, torso, head, and ears (both the external pinna and internal canal) cumulatively contribute to as sound from a free-field source bounces off them. HRTF changes when the direction changes. The HRTF changes as direction changes. We map these changes to a specific direction in our brain when the altered sound hits our eardrums. We have adapted to these changes. Interaural (between two ears) cues assist the HRTF cues. As the two ears are separated by the head, there is a difference in time that the sound reaches, due to the different distance from the source, compounded by the different way sound “wraps” around the head depending on the frequencies excited by the source sound. There is hence also a difference in volume level. ILD becomes more predominant than ITD at 1kHZ and above. The tradeoff point between which cues become predominant is currently estimated to be around 1kHz, with ITD cues becoming less consistent and precise with placement at high frequencies. This is due to the corresponding wavelength of around 17-18cm at 1kHz, which is the approximate diameter of the human head. As the frequency gets higher and the wavelength gets smaller relative to the head, they are less able to “wrap” around it, giving rise to a significant level difference. Thus, ILD becomes a more predominant cue above around 1kHz, while ITD less so due to its relative instability. Essentially, we triangulate sound through the differences in loudness, phase, and timing between each ear as well. Broad HRTF features can predict coarse trends. Despite the evident variance in head morphology, there are some broad HRTF features that allow us to determine coarse trends. This concept is crucial to the Harman curve. For instance, a high-level ear canal resonance consistently appears around 3kHz, though the exact center frequency, intensity and Q (technical term for “sharpness” or “narrowness” of the resonance) and shape of the resonance may differ. It is one of the most characteristic features of the HRTF. Frequency domain accuracy is a necessary but insufficient component of spatial hearing. Tonality and space are related, though not synonymous. Regardless, a prerequisite of accurate spatial reproduction is an individualization of the frequency response, to compensate for the individual differences in the changes induced by the HRTF as the sound hits the eardrum. What happens if the HRTF is mismatched? What does a mismatched HRTF entail subjectively? Audiophile label Chesky Records released an extremely well-received binaural album by singer-songwriter Amber Rubarth (“Sessions from the 17th Ward”). One of the songs was “Full Moon in Paris”. This author heard the acclaimed spatiality of the recording as a mass of indistinct sound that flitted in and out of the surface of his head. Despite the recording being made using a binaural dummy head, which ought to generate plausible interaural cues, the sound felt like a blurry halo that clung to his scalp. However, frontal, external localization with headphones fell grossly short, even with a high-performance Stax earspeaker setup. Ex-Harman Chief Scientist (no relation to the Harman curve research projects), and now independent researcher, David Griesinger, offers this explanation: Binaural demonstrations are often effective – especially with sounds that are to the side or rear of the head. Azimuth cues derived from the time delay between the two ears, and the head shadowing of the head are effective even when the timbre is grossly incorrect. When a sound source is rapidly moving the brain tends to ignore incorrect elevation cues if they conflict with the expected trajectory. If a visual cue is present at the same time it will almost always dominate the aural cues. With some good showmanship and a subject who is willing to be convinced, these demonstrations can be quite convincing. But with skeptical listening frontal localization of fixed sources is rarely achieved. Yet, even Griesinger’s explanation seemed to be too charitable for what this author experienced. This is likely because this author was of East Asian descent, and his morphology differed enough for HRTFs to diverge even more significantly than Caucasian listeners from the HRTF of the dummy head used. This meant frontal externalization of the sound was not achieved, let alone precise frontal positioning of the sound sources. Thankfully, work has been done to come up with a standardized dummy head that more closely resembles the broad trends in head morphology of East Asians, which would hopefully close the gap somewhat. How Sennheiser gets its acclaimed “soundstage” Headphone design can also help to partially overcome this issue. The Sennheiser HD800(S) is a leading...

Read More from Ilkless