Flat targets may beat the Harman curve for binaural headphone rendering
Evidence
Researchers at Reality Labs, Meta (Engel et al., 2022) studied this question conducting separate tests where 20 listeners compared stereo and binaural content through headphones equalized to different targets. The targets included the Harman target (Olive et al., 2013a), as well as bass and treble modifications made to it, and a flat target curve which they hypothesized would be preferred for binaural rendering. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1861
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- QUESTION: Why would a flat steady-state target be preferred for binaural material — does it relate to the direct-sound dominance of headphone-rendered spatial audio?
Related
- Flat frequency targets suit binaural audio while Harman suits stereo (similarity 0.91)
- No single headphone target satisfies most listeners (similarity 0.82)
- Headphone and loudspeaker bass targets converge on the same in-room response (similarity 0.82)
- A headphone target curve descends gradually with frequency and boosts bass. (similarity 0.80)
- Listeners strongly prefer the Harman target over DF, Lorho, and FF headphone targets (similarity 0.79)
- Top-rated headphone responses cluster tightly around a shared mean curve. (similarity 0.79)
- Audience bass preferences deviate from the Harman target by up to six dB. (similarity 0.79)
- Harman’s calibration target curve encoded deliberately tilted in-room response, not flat room response (similarity 0.78)
- A single headphone target curve cannot satisfy all listener preferences (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- The Harman target curve was strongly preferred over all competing headphone targets
#expands(0.72) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1790 - Listeners preferred the Harman-target headphone in 28 of 31 models tested
#corroborates(0.70) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1797