Harman Curve and REW

[Dan Twomey]

What values in REW's 'add room curve' would emulate the Harman house curve?

Regards,
Dan

 

[skid00]

I can't tell you what the values are.

I set bass rise starting at 135 Hz. Later, I changed this to 185 Hz, to get a better bass balance with my music. I have a slope of 1.2, extending to 15 Hz. (My Carver Amazings (now) have useful output down to there (with hand-optimised deep bass filters)).

I start my treble fall-off at 1800 Hz, to aid with voice 'clarity', and the fall-off is 0.9. My hearing drops off at 15 KHz in one ear, and 16.5 KHz in the other... In my room, this provides clear, balanced treble without causing strain after a few hours of listening.

I listen most closely to acoustic music, and go from classic rock to newer 'fusion'? jazz, new age and female vocalists. So some very deep bass, some poorly-recorded hissy female vocals, violins, electronic instruments. At one point in my REW journey, I had some EQ curves for individual songs, but the more I tweaked EQ, the less I needed that.

Identify your best-recorded music, and build up a set of curves. I use eqAPO. These might get you started:

In the eqAPO config file:
# Include: hd 800 eq for eqAPO.txt
Include: hd 800 eq for voice.txt [this is the *active* curve]
# Include: hd 600 eq for eqAPO.txt
# Include: carver 1.2.txt
# Include: carver 1.3.txt
# Include: carver 1.5.txt
# Include: carver 1.7.txt
# Include: carver 185 at 1.2.txt

In any of these txt files:
[this is a carver file, to show eq curves for each speaker]

# match other headphone loudness
Preamp: -11.8 dB

# kill extremes:
Filter: ON HP Fc 10 Hz
Filter: ON LP Fc 18000 Hz

Channel: l
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 17.75 Hz Gain 9.00 dB Q 3.100
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 26.80 Hz Gain -5.60 dB Q 3.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 34.80 Hz Gain -6.90 dB Q 2.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 64.40 Hz Gain -12.70 dB Q 2.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 71.90 Hz Gain 8.10 dB Q 7.195
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 115.0 Hz Gain -6.40 dB Q 2.083
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 180.5 Hz Gain -8.50 dB Q 2.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 249.0 Hz Gain -4.60 dB Q 3.524
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 409.0 Hz Gain -7.00 dB Q 1.027
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 486.0 Hz Gain -4.90 dB Q 2.341
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 711.0 Hz Gain 4.60 dB Q 5.320
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 751.0 Hz Gain -5.60 dB Q 7.445
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 1292 Hz Gain -3.50 dB Q 5.677
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 1812 Hz Gain -6.20 dB Q 2.120
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 3127 Hz Gain -5.90 dB Q 5.073
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 4096 Hz Gain 2.50 dB Q 1.002
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 5943 Hz Gain -4.90 dB Q 1.000
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 10709 Hz Gain -7.10 dB Q 1.000
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 11196 Hz Gain 7.10 dB Q 2.999
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 14563 Hz Gain -7.40 dB Q 2.999


Channel: r
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 17.45 Hz Gain 9.00 dB Q 3.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 31.75 Hz Gain -8.80 dB Q 2.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 50.40 Hz Gain -9.20 dB Q 2.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 81.70 Hz Gain -2.20 dB Q 21.676
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 89.60 Hz Gain 4.70 dB Q 7.833
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 110.5 Hz Gain -8.20 dB Q 2.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 159.5 Hz Gain -5.30 dB Q 5.248
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 197.0 Hz Gain -7.70 dB Q 1.001
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 452.0 Hz Gain -10.30 dB Q 1.001
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 677.0 Hz Gain 3.60 dB Q 7.816
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 749.0 Hz Gain -3.40 dB Q 7.595
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 975.0 Hz Gain -6.20 dB Q 5.969
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 979.0 Hz Gain 9.40 dB Q 3.212
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 1618 Hz Gain -7.70 dB Q 1.000
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 2604 Hz Gain 4.60 dB Q 5.406
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 3776 Hz Gain -2.50 dB Q 1.020
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 7423 Hz Gain -1.70 dB Q 3.446
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 9106 Hz Gain -6.40 dB Q 1.005
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 10845 Hz Gain 4.30 dB Q 3.000
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 14423 Hz Gain -8.90 dB Q 2.674

 

[Dan Twomey]

After reading some posts elsewhere I thought I'd start by setting a LF target starting at 160Hz and set the rise slope of 2.5dB/octave. For HF I set a HF Fall starting at 2.5kHz and a falling slope of 2.5dB/octave.
Like a lot of questions there is no right or wrong answer. Try it and see what it does!

Regards,
Dan

 

[DanDan]

I have a Studio here in a domestic environment. So I can check translation between the Control Room and untreated domestic rooms with different playback systems. Over a couple of years, literally, I tried all sorts of Target Curves.
I ended up with pretty much exactly the Bruel and Kjaer curve. I think less treated rooms would probably need more clarity, but even with that strong 6dB tilt from 100-10K, the sound in the treated RC is super clear.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

What values in REW's 'add room curve' would emulate the Harman house curve?

There is no such thing to emulate. It's more of a generic term for predicted room power response for a typical monopolar narrowing directivity bass>treble speaker. Unfortunately, once these myths start on audio forums, there is no end.
But don't take my word for it, from "Dr Harman" himself http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1257186792693#c6396937937000339289

Dr. Sean Olive November 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM
In truth, the optimal in-room target curve may depend on the loudspeaker directivity and reflectivity of the listening room. If the room is acoustically dead with few reflections and/or the directivity of the loudspeaker is quite high, the in-room response will represent a higher proportion of the direct sound, which should be flat. Using a target curve with large downward tilt will make the loudspeaker sound too dull.

etc, etc.
The real "Harman Curve" is the anechoic on/off axis of their loudspeakers, which tend to be smooth, with gradual tapering off axis.
Above the transition frequency (>500hz +/- most rooms), that type speaker, placed in a "normal" reflective bounded space, will produce a downward sloping LF>HF "Harman house curve". Below the transition, the room/modes dominate and thus EQ should be based en situ, with judicious reduction of peaks.
No amount of magic curves can replace a good pair of ears there, to tell ultimate user SQ.
YMMV.

cheers

 

[DanDan]

IMO the Harman research is per se academic. This is further complicated by Headphone Target response research, which ends up with the same Harman Curve title. Perhaps a purely empirical viewpoing...... Bruel and Kjaer measured actual responses in domestic and hi fi dealers listening rooms. So many decades later, Sonarworks did a similar survey, and remarkably their curve is very close to the original B&K. . https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf

 

[AJ Soundfield]

After reading some posts elsewhere...

Try this other Harman Curve guy one

 

[DanDan]

Hi AJ, that links doesn't seem to be working.

 

[EarlK]

Hi AJ, that links doesn't seem to be working.

AJ's link worked for me

 

[DanDan]

Yup he fixed it. Interesting too, noting Toole's focus on the speakers. I don't favour the misleading term Digital Room Correction. They are all Speaker Controllers to my mind. Floyd refers to the relative futility of Eq above say 500Hz. He has a point in context. But in a strongly treated listening space, essentially anechoic, the typical flat response of a great loudspeaker, on axis, close, is very very bright. It is nice to be able to tailor a curved HF fall off, as Dirac Live facilitates.
.

 

[ddude003]

Try this other Harman Curve guy one

Thank you @AJ Soundfield ... Interesting thread...