Listeners strongly prefer the Harman target over DF, Lorho, and FF headphone targets

Evidence

The first version of the Harman target curve (Olive et al., 2013a) was tested against other targets using the virtual headphone method described above. Listeners strongly preferred the Harman target in descending order of preference to two DF targets (Møller et al., 1995b), two high-quality headphones, the Lorho target, and the FF target. The trained listeners described both DF targets as having too much emphasis in the upper midrange (2–4 kHz) and lacking bass. The Lorho target had too little energy at 2–4 kHz, which made instruments sound “muffled and dull”. The FF target was strongly criticized for its strong emphasis between 2 and 4 kHz, lack of bass, and harsh and nasal colorations. Listeners described the highest rated Harman target as having “good bass with an even spectral balance”. The measured frequency responses of the headphone targets correlated to and confirm listeners’ descriptions of their sound quality (see Olive et al., 2013a, figure 2). — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1790

Categorization

• QUESTION: The specific spectral-correction relation — why 2-4kHz emphasis/hollowness feedback maps to high-energy listeners’ descriptions — invites exploration of the perceptual basis for upper-midrange spectral sensitivity.
• XREF: Relates to Diffuse Field (DF) and Free Field (FF) headphone targets from Møller’s work, foundational psychoacoustic reference curves.