Hooked on the Science of Sound

This past month, I was interviewed by Bruel & Kjaer's, "Waves Magazine" in their Expert Profile feature. For those people not familiar with Bruel & Kjaer located in Denmark they are one of the oldest (in operation since 1942) best known manufacturers of acoustic and vibration measurement equipment.

The interviewer was interested in how my career transitioned from musician to recording engineering to acoustic/psychoacoustics. Essentially, my career has been a world-wind trip through the Circle of Confusion where I was guided by my interests, curiosity in the perception and measurement of sound, and the opportunities I was presented at the time. There was no master plan. Hopefully, we've helped remove some of the confusion in the circle by providing with a better understanding of what influences the quality of recorded and reproduced sound, and how to make it better and more consistent.

You can read the entire interview here:

TWiRT 337 – Predicting Headphone Sound Quality with Sean Olive

The predicted sound quality of 61 different models of in-ear headphones (blue curve) versus their retail price (green bars).

On February 16, 2017 I was interviewed by host Kirk Harnack on This Week in Radio Tech. The topic was  "Predicting Sound Headphone Sound Quality". You can find the interview here.

During the interview, Kirk asked if it's possible to design a good sounding headphones for a reasonable cost. Or does one need to spend a considerable amount of cash to obtain good sound? Fortunately for consumers,   my answer was that you can get decent sound without having to spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars. In fact, there is almost no correlation between price and sound quality based on our research.

 I referred to the slide above that shows the predicted sound quality for 61 different models of in-ear headphones based on their measured frequency response.  The correlation between price and sound quality is close to zero and, slightly negative: r = -.16 (i.e. spending more money gets you slightly worse sound on average).

So, if you think spending a lot of money on in-ear headphones guarantees you will get excellent sound, you may be sadly disappointed. One of the most expensive IE models ($3000) in the above graph, had a underwhelming predicted score of 20-25% depending what EQ setting you chose. The highest scoring headphone was a $100 model that we equalized to hit the Harman target response, which our research has shown to be preferred by the majority of listeners.

The sound quality scores in the graph are predicted using a model based on a small sample of headphones that were evaluated by trained listeners in double-blind test. The accuracy of the model is better than 96% but limited to the small sample we tested.  We just completed a large listening test study involving over 30 models and 75 listeners that will allow us to build more accurate and robust predictive models. 

The ultimate goal of this research is to accurately predict the sound quality of headphones based on acoustic measurements without having to conduct expensive and time consuming listening tests. The current engineering approach to tuning headphones is clearly not optimal based on the above slide. Will headphone industry standards, headphone manufacturers and audio review magazines use similar predictive models to reveal to consumers how good the headphones sound?  What do you think?

15 Minutes with Harman’s Audio Guru Sean Olive: Sound & Vision Magazine Interview

"The problem is that the current standard audio specifications for headphones and loudspeakers are almost useless in terms of indicating how good or bad they sound." —Sean Olive
Read more at S&V Magazine 

In May 2016, I was interviewed by editor Bob Ankosko in Sound&Vision Magazine about my views of where audio currently is,and where it is going.  You can read the interview here.  One of the recurring questions that I get asked is whether people really care about sound quality anymore. The fact that a recent study found 55% of Americans  typically listen to music through their laptop speakers doesn't bode well for the immediate future. While the recent focus has been on the poor quality of the source material (e.g. compressed MP3),  a typical laptop speaker system won't produce the bottom 3-4 octaves of music whether or not the music is compressed or recorded in high resolution (e.g. 24-bit, 96 kHz).

In terms of  home loudspeakers, the trend is smaller size, fewer number of loudspeakers, and wireless. Sound Bars and  small, powered wireless speakers are what consumers currently want in their homes. The current challenge for engineering is  to build high quality systems with these features but still deliver good sound for prices that consumes will pay. The fact that more consumers are expecting a  high quality (and branded) audio system in their automobiles suggests that the  desire to have good audio is not dead.

What do you think the future holds for audio and sound quality?

A Virtual Headphone Listening Test Method

Fig. 1 The Harman Headphone Virtualizer App allows listeners to make double-blind comparisons of  different headphones through a high-quality replicator headphone. The  app has two listening modes: a sighted mode (shown) and a blind mode (not shown) where listeners are not biased by non-auditory factors (brand, price, celebrity endorsement,etc). Clicking on the picture will show a larger version.

Early on in our headphone research  we realized there was a need to develop a listening test method that allowed us to conduct more controlled double-blind listening tests on different headphones.  This was necessary in order to remove tactile cues (headphone weight and clamping force), visual and psychological biases  (e.g. headphone brand, price, celebrity endorsement,etc )  from listeners' sound quality judgements of headphones.  While these factors (apart from clamping force) don't physically affect the sound of headphones, our  previous research [1]  into blind vs. sighted listening tests revealed their cognitive influence affects listeners'  loudspeaker preferences [1], often in adverse ways. In sighted tests,  listeners were also less sensitive and  discriminating compared to blind conditions when judging different loudspeakers including their interaction with different music selections and loudspeaker positions in the room. For that reason, consumers should be dubious of loudspeaker and headphone reviews that are based solely on sighted listening.

While blind loudspeakers listening tests are possible through the addition of an acoustically-transparent- visually-opaque-curtain,  there is no simple way to hide the identity of a headphone when the listener is wearing it.  In our first headphone listening tests,  the experimenter positionally substituted the different headphones onto the listener's head from behind so that the headphone could not be visually identified. However, after a couple of trials, listeners began to identify certain headphones simply by their weight and clamping force. One of the easiest headphones for listeners to identify was the Audeze LCD-2, which was considerably heavier (522 grams) and more uncomfortable than the other headphones. The test was essentially no longer blind.

To that end, a virtual headphone method was developed whereby listeners could A/B different models of headphones that were virtualized through a single pair of headphones (the replicator headphone). Details on the method and its validation were presented at the 51st Audio Engineering Society International Conference on Loudspeakers and Headphones [2] in Helsinki, Finland in 2013.  A PDF of the slide presentation can be found  here.

Headphone virtualization is done by measuring the frequency response of the different  headphones at the DRP (eardrum reference point) using a G.R.A.S. 45 AG, and then equalizing the replicator headphone to match the measured responses of the real headphones.  In this way, listeners can make instantaneous  A/B comparisons between any number of virtualized headphones through the same headphone without the visual and tactile clues biasing their judgment. More details about the method are in the slides and AES preprint.

An important questions is: "How accurate are the virtual headphones compared to the actual headphones"?  In terms of their linear acoustic performance they are quite similar. Fig. 2 compares the  measured frequency response of the actual versus virtualized headphones.  The agreement is quite good up to 8-10 kHz above which we didn't aggressively equalize the headphones because of measurement errors and large variations related to headphone positioning both on the coupler and the listeners' head.

Fig. 2 Frequency response measurements of the6  actual versus virtualized headphones made on a  GRAS 45 AG coupler with pinna. The dotted curves are based on the physical headphone and the solid curves are from the virtual (replicator) headphone.  The measurements of the right channel of the headphone (red curves) have been offset by 10 dB from the left channels (blue curve) for visual clarify. Clicking on the picture will show a larger version.

More importantly, "Do the actual and virtual headphones sound similar"? To answer this question we performed a validation experiment where listeners evaluated 6 different headphone using both standard and virtual listening methods Listeners gave both preference and spectral balance ratings in both standard and virtual tests. For headphone preference ratings the correlation between standard and virtual test results was r = 0.85. A correlation of 1 would be perfect but 85% agreement is not bad, and hopefully more accurate than headphone ratings based on sighted evaluations. 

The differences between virtual and standard test results we believe are in part due to nuisance variables that were not perfectly controlled across the two test methods. A significant nuisance variable would likely be headphone leakage that would affect the amount of bass heard depending on the fit of the headphone on the individual listener. This would have affected the results in the standard test but not the virtual one where we used an open-back headphone that largely eliminates leakage variations across listeners.  Headphone weight and tactile cues were present in the standard test but not the virtual test, and this could in part explain the differences in results.  If these two variables could be better controlled even higher accuracy can be achieved in virtual headphone listening.

Fig.3 The mean listener preference ratings and 95% confidence intervals shown for the headphones rated using the Standard and Virtual Listening Test Methods. The Standard Method listeners evaluated the actual headphones with tactile/weigh biases and any leakage effects. In the Virtual Tests, there were no visual or tactile cues about the headphones. Note: Clicking on the picture will show a larger version.

Some additional benefits from virtual headphone testing were discovered besides eliminating sighted and psychological biases: the listening tests are faster, more efficient and more sensitive. When listeners can quickly switch and compare all of the headphones in a single trial, auditory memory is less of a factor, and they are better able to discriminate among the choices. Since this paper was written in 2013, we've improved the accuracy of the virtualization in part by developing a custom pinnae for our GRAS 45 CA that better simulates the leakage effects of headphones measured on real human subjects [3].

Finally, it's important to acknowledge what the virtual headphone method doesn't capture: 1)  non-minimum phase effects (mostly occurring at higher frequencies) and 2)  non-linear distortions that are level-dependent. The effect of these two variables on virtual headphone test method have been recently tested experimentally and will be the topic of a future blog posting. Stay tuned. 

References

[1] Floyd Toole and Sean Olive,”Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things,” presented at the 97th AES Convention, preprint 3894 (1994). Download here.

[2] Sean E. Olive, Sean E., Todd Welti, and Elisabeth McMullin, "A Virtual Headphone Test Methodology," AES 51st International Conference on Loudspeakers and Headphones, Helsinki,Finland (August 21,  2013). Download here

[3] Todd Welti, "Improved Measurement of Leakage Effects for Circum-Aural and Supra-Aural Headphones," presented at the 38th AES Convention, (May 2014). Download here.

Harman Gives Loudspeaker Course To U of Rochester Engineering Students

Recently Mark Glazer, Principal Engineer at Harman Luxury Audio and  Revel Loudspeakers gave an invited lecture to University of Rochester Audio/Acoustic Engineering Students. The students are part of the graduate acoustic and music engineering program that is overseen by Professor Mark Bocko, Distinguished Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering. By exposing the students to the fascinating engineering and science of loudspeakers, it is hoped the students will consider a future career in loudspeaker or audio engineering.

The 1-hour lecture gave an overview of what are the current best practices in designing a modern-day loudspeaker.   

The proof of good loudspeaker design is ultimately judged on how good it sounds. Dr. Sean Olive (me), Acoustic Research Fellow at Harman International  presented an overview of the science of evaluating loudspeakers, which included test results from a competitive benchmarking of the new Revel Concerta 2 M16 (designed by Mark Glazer) against three competitors. The results of the listening test results were generally predictable based on the set of anechoic measurements made of the different loudspeakers.

Following the lecture, we got a tour of the University's engineering facilities, which include some impressive 3D laser scanning tools for studying the vibrational modes of loudspeakers. We heard some very novel flat-panel loudspeakers with vibrational mode control developed by the Ph.D students and Professor Bocko, followed by  presentations of research projects undertaken by the Masters and Ph.D. engineering students who are working in acoustics and audio-related research. Overall, the quality of acoustic and music research being done there is impressive. As always, Professor Bocko was a gracious host, and we look forward to a return visit (hopefully in the summer or fall months).

Mark Glazer's speaker design course slides are available here:

Factors that Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones

Most people would agree that headphone purchase decisions are heavily influenced by the brand and styling (size,  weight, color, quality of  materials).   But what is considered stylish and fashionable  by me is not shared by my 15-year old daughter (this week donning purple hair), and vice versa. In other words, the perceived visual aesthetic  of the headphone  is really in the the eyes and mind of the beholder, and this can vary with age, gender, culture, and other demographic category. 

But what about sound quality?  To what extent does the consumer's  age, gender, culture and prior listening experience influence their taste in headphone sound quality?  Is there a scientific basis for headphone manufacturers to design headphones that have different amounts of bass and treble aimed to satisfy the tastes of a targeted demographic group? 

To answer this question, we recently conducted a  study on factors that influence listeners’ preferred bass and treble balance in headphone sound reproduction. Using a method of adjustment a total of 249 listeners adjusted the relative treble and bass levels of a headphone that was first equalized at the eardrum reference point (DRP) to match the in-room steady-state response of a reference loudspeaker in a reference listening room. Listeners repeated the adjustment five times using three stereo music programs. The listeners included males and females from different age groups, listening experiences, and nationalities (Canada, USA, Germany and China).  The results provide evidence that the preferred bass and treble balances in headphones was influenced by several factors including program, and the listeners’ age, gender, and prior listening experience. The younger and less experienced listeners on average preferred more bass and treble in their headphones compared to the older, more experienced listeners. Female listeners on average preferred about 1 dB bass and 2 dB treble than their male counterparts. Listeners over 55 years preferred less bass and more treble than the younger listeners suggested that they were compensating for possible hearing loss that is associated with increased age.

We recently presented the results of this study at the 139th Audio Engineering Society Convention in New York City, October 29th-November 1, 2015. The paper is available for download in AES e-library. A PDF copy of the presentation can be found here. Or you can view an animated version of the presentation on Youtube.

The Influence of Listeners' Experience, Age and Culture on Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

At the recent 137th convention of the Audio Engineering Society we presented our latest research paper entitled, "The Influence of Listeners' Experience, Age and Culture on Headphone Sound Quality Preferences."

The paper describes some double-blind  headphone listening tests conducted in four different countries (Canada, USA, China and Germany) involving 238 listeners of different ages, gender and listening experiences. Listeners gave comparative preference ratings for three popular headphones and a new reference headphone that were virtually presented through a common replicator headphone equalized to match their measured frequency responses. In this way, biases related to headphone brand, price, visual appearance and comfort were removed from listeners’ judgment of sound quality. On average, listeners preferred the reference headphone that was based on the in-room frequency response of an accurate loudspeaker calibrated in a reference listening room. This was generally true regardless of the listener’s experience, age, gender and culture. This new evidence suggests a headphone standard based on this new target response would satisfy the tastes of most listeners. 

The paper is available for download from the AES e-library. You can also find a PDF of our presentation here or view the presentation on YouTube.

My Article on Headphone Sound Quality in 2014 LIS

The 2014 Loudspeaker Industry Sourcebook came out this week. In it, you can find an article I wrote called "Perceiving and Measuring Headphone Sound Quality: Do Listeners Agree on What Makes a Headphone Sound Good?"

The article is a summary of some recent published research we've conducted at Harman on the perception and measurement of headphone sound quality.

Together, these studies provide scientific evidence that when headphone brand, price, fashion, and celebrity endorsement are removed subjective evaluations, listeners generally agree on what makes a headphone sound good.

So far, this has been true regardless of users' listening training, age, or culture.  The more preferred headphones tend to have a smooth, extended frequency response that approximates an accurate loudspeaker's in-room response. This new target frequency response could provide the basis for a new and improved headphone target response. You can find more details on the research here.

Interview in Professional Sound: The Lack of Meaningful Loudspeaker & Headphone Specs

Last October,  I was in Toronto giving a presentation to the local AES section on the perception and measurement of headphones. After the talk, I sat down with Mike Raine from  Professional Sound for an interview. Some of what we discussed is summarized in this article called Sound Advice.

The theme of article is a recurring one that I've discussed before in this blog (see "The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality" and "What Loudspeaker Specifications are Relevant to Sound Quality?").  The bottom line is that the loudspeaker and headphone industry has utterly failed to provide consumers meaningful product specifications that indicate how truly good (or bad) the products sound. Read on to find out why.

Do Listeners Agree on What Makes a Headphone Sound Good?

This past weekend, I attended the ALMA 2014 Winter Symposium in Las Vegas where I gave a talk entitled, "The Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality: Do Listeners Agree on What Makes a Headphone Sound Good?" The presentation gives a summary of some key findings of our headphone research conducted over the past 18 months. It also includes some unpublished preliminary findings from a current study on headphone preferences of trained and untrained listeners both young and old from China, Canada, USA, and Germany. The focus of this study is to determine whether listeners from different cultures and age groups prefer the same headphone sound quality as trained listeners when the influence of headphone brand, fashion and celebrity endorsement are removed from the test. 

The abstract for my talk is reproduced below. A PDF of the slide presentation can be downloaded here:

The popularity of headphones has now exploded to produce annual worldwide sales of almost $10 billion. Premium headphones ($100+) now account for 90% of the annual revenue growth, as consumers’ audio experiences are becoming a primarily mobile one. Market research indicates sound quality is a driving factor in headphone purchases with brand and fashion also being important factors among younger consumers. Yet, ironically the science behind what makes a headphone sound good and how to measure it is poorly understood. This combined with the lack of perceptually meaningful headphone standards may explain why purchasing a headphone today is like playing Russian Roulette with your ears. The magic bullet to achieving more consistent headphone sound quality is science.


We recently conducted a series of controlled double-blind listening tests on popular headphones (both real and virtualized models) to better understand the relationship between their perceived sound quality and acoustic performance [1,3,5]  A second set of experiments measured listener preferences of different headphones equalized to different target curves responses including the recommended diffuse and free-field target curves [2].  A third set of experiments used a method of adjustment where listeners directly adjusted their preferred bass and treble levels of a headphone and loudspeaker equalized to the same in-room target response [4]. In this way, we could measure the variation in individual listeners’ taste in headphone spectral balance, and determine the extent to which the preferred headphone target response should simulate the response of an accurate loudspeaker in a reference listening room.


Together, the results of this research show that when the influence of brand, fashion and celebrity endorsement are removed from headphone tests, both trained and untrained listeners regardless of age and culture, generally agree on which headphones sound best and this correlates to their acoustical performance.


References

1. Sean E. Olive and Todd Welti, "The Relationship between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality", presented at the 133rd Audio Eng. Soc. Convention, San Francisco, USA, (October 2012).
2. Sean E. Olive, Todd Welti and Elisabeth McMullin, "Listener Preferences For Different Headphone Target Response Curves",  presented at the 134th Audio Eng. Soc. Convention, Budapest, Hungary, (May 2013).
3. Sean E. Olive, Todd Welti and Elisabeth McMullin, "A Virtual Headphone Listening Test Methodology", presented at the 51st Audio Eng. Soc. International Conference, Helsinki, Finland, (August 2013).
4. Sean E. Olive, Todd Welti and Elisabeth McMullin, "Listener Preferences for In-Room Loudspeaker and Headphone Target Responses"  presented at the 135th Audio Eng. Soc. Convention, New York, USA, (October 2013).
5. Sean E. Olive, "Do college students prefer the same headphone sound quality as trained listeners?", presented at the 4th ISEAT, Shenzhen, China, (November 2013).

Harman Kardon factory tour: Pure to the art of sound

Some of the Harman and competitor headphones that we've recently tested.

Giving Harman R&D lab tours and presentations to customers and audio journalists is a part of my job. Recently, we played host to some automotive journalists in town attending the Los Angeles Auto show.

Automotive audio journalist Shawn Molnar wrote this great article about his visit to our R&D labs that you can read in his popular BMWBlog.

Shawn gives an overview of  his visit to our labs where we showed the journalists our R&D facilities used for testing and evaluating Harman loudspeakers, headphones and automotive audio systems.  Most people I meet know Harman for its JBL and Harman Kardon consumer and professional products. They are surprised to lean that 75% of our sales are from Harman branded (JBL, Harman Kardon, Infinity, Lexicon, Mark Levinson) automotive audio and infotainment systems.

Research by CEA has found that consumers now spend almost as  much time listening to music in their cars as they do in their homes.  Moreover, the audio experiences in the car are increasingly more sonically satisfying than those experienced in the home. Branded audio systems in premium cars typically provide 7-channel surround sound through 16+ loudspeakers that deliver a full-range, balanced, enveloping sound stage that can reach concert sound pressure levels. Compare this to the tinny, spatially bereft stereo speakers in your MacBook Pro or flat panel TV, and you begin to understand why people are listening to music through headphones when they're not listening in their cars.

So, why don't automotive journalists spend more time writing about audio / infotainment systems in cars given that consumers tell us it's an important factor in their overall satisfaction rating of the car?  When reading reviews of new cars, wouldn't it be nice to hear more about the quality of the audio system than how many heated cup holders it has?

The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality

To my surprise, this morning an audio friend tweeted a link to an article I recently wrote for our company's  internal newsletter  entitled, "The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality."  My article can be found on a new Harman Innovation website  launched today that features articles on current and future disruptive technology that will impact consumers' infotainment experiences. Check it out.

My article focuses on a longstanding pet peeve of mine (first mentioned in this blog posting): The lack of  perceptually meaningful loudspeaker and headphone specifications in our industry.  While consumer surveys repeatedly report sound quality to be a driving factor in their audio equipment purchases, consumers lack the necessary tools and information to identify the good sounding products from the duds.

This is particularly true for loudspeakers and headphones where the typical throw-away "10 Hz to 40 kHz" specification provided by the manufacturer is utterly useless. This specification only guarantees that the product makes sound, with no guarantee that the sound is good.  While the science exists today to accurately quantify and predict the perceived the sound quality of  loudspeakers (and hopefully, soon headphones), the audio industry continues to drag its heels into the 21st century,  and not routinely provide this information to consumers.

A rare exception is JBL Professional who provides comprehensive detailed measurements on studio/broadcast monitors like the new JBL M2 Master Reference shown below. Inspecting the measured frequency response curves shown  below, you can easily recognize the loudspeaker sounds exceptionally neutral and accurate based on the shape (flat, smooth, and extended)  Based on this set of measurements, we can predict how a listener would rate the sound quality of the loudspeaker in a controlled listening test, with 86% accuracy. The only pertinent information not shown in this graph is how loud the loudspeaker will play before producing audible distortion (trust me, this loudspeaker will play very loud! )

Perceptually meaningful loudspeaker specifications like these have been available for almost 30 years! Yet,  these specifications are currently not part of any professional and consumer loudspeaker standard. Such a standard would go a long way towards improving the quality and consistency of recorded and reproduced sound. Audio consumers want to hear the truth. We need to provide better information and audio specifications so they can find it.

JBL M2 Master Reference Monitor provides true reference sound quality that is clearly indicated by its technical measurements shown below. 

The spatially-averaged frequency response curves of the JBL M2  (from top to bottom) for the listening window (green), the first reflections (red), and the total radiated sound power.  At the bottom are shown directivity indices of the sound power (dotted blue) and first reflections (dotted red). These measurements tell us that the quality of the direct and reflected sounds produced by the loudspeaker will be very accurate and neutral over a relatively wide listening area.

Harman Researchers Make Important Headway in Understanding Headphone Response

Todd Welti, Sean Olive and Elisabeth McMullin are shown above with their custom binaural mannequin, "Sidney" wearing a pair of AKG K1000's. No fit or leakage issues with these headphones.

Tyll Hertsens, Chief Editor at Innerfidelity recently visited our research labs in Northridge, and wrote a nice story in his blog about our headphone research and visit to Harman. You can read the entire story here.

In his story, Tyll summarizes three of our recent AES papers on headphones, the first one of which I already wrote about in this blog. I hope to write summaries of the other two papers in the upcoming weeks when I can find some free time.

The Relationship between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality

Above: The brands and models of six popular headphones used in this study.

In many ways, our scientific understanding of the perception and measurement of headphone sound quality is 30  years behind our knowledge of loudspeakers. Over the past three decades, loudspeaker scientists have developed controlled listening test methods that provide accurate and reliable measures of   listeners' loudspeaker preferences, and their underlying sound quality attributes.  From the perceptual data, a set of acoustical loudspeaker measurements has been identified from which we can model and predict listeners' loudspeaker preference ratings with about 86% accuracy.

In contrast to loudspeakers, headphone research is still in its infancy. Looking at published acoustical measurements of  headphones you will discover there is little consensus among brands (or even within the same brand) on how a headphone should sound and measure [1]. There exists too few published studies based on controlled headphone listening tests to identify which objective measurements and target response curves produce an optimal sound quality. Controlled, double-blind comparative  subjective evaluations of different headphones present significant logistical challenges to the researcher that include controlling headphone tactile and visual biases. Sighted biases related to price, brand, and cosmetics have been shown to significantly bias listeners judgements of loudspeaker sound quality. Therefore, these nuisance variables must be controlled in order to obtain accurate assessments of headphone sound quality.

Todd Welti and I recently conducted a study to explore the relationship between the perception and measurement of headphone sound quality. The results were presented at the 133rd AES Convention in San Francisco,  in October 2012.  A PDF of the slide presentation referred to below can be found here. The AES preprint can be found in the AES E-library. The results of this study are summarized below.

Measuring The Perceived Sound Quality of Headphones

Double-blind comparative listening tests were performed on six popular circumaural headphones ranging in price from $200 to $1000 (see above slide).  The listening tests were carefully designed to minimize biases from known listening test nuisance variables (slides 7-13). A panel of 10 trained listeners rated each headphone based on overall preferred sound quality, perceived spectral balance, and comfort. The listeners also gave comments on the perceived timbral, spatial, dynamic attributes of the headphones to help explain their underlying sound quality preferences.

The headphones were compared four at a time over three listening sessions (slide 12).  Assessments were made using three music programs with one repeat to establish the reliability of the listeners' ratings.  The  order of headphone presentations, programs and listening sessions were randomized to minimize learning and order-related biases. The test administrator manually substituted the different headphones on the listener from behind so they were not aware of the headphone brand, model or appearance during the test  (slide 8).  However, tactile/comfort differences were part of the test.  Listeners could adjust the position of the headphones on their heads via light weight plastic handles attached to the headphones.

Listeners Prefer Headphones With An Accurate, Neutral Spectral Balance

When the listening test results were statistically analyzed, the main effect on the preference rating was  due to the different headphones (slide 15).  The  preferred headphone models were perceived as having the most neutral, even spectral balance (slide 19) with the less preferred models having too much or too little energy in the bass, midrange or treble regions.  Frequency analysis of listeners' comments confirmed listeners' spectral balance ratings of the headphones, and proved to be a good predictor of overall preference (slide 20). The most preferred headphones were frequently described as "good spectral balance, neutral with low coloration, and good bass extension," whereas the less preferred models were frequently described as "dull, colored, boomy, and lacking midrange".

Looking at the individual listener preferences, we found good agreement among listeners in terms of which models they liked and disliked (slides 16 and 18). Some of the most commercially successful models were among the least preferred headphones in terms of sound quality. In cases where an individual listener had poor agreement with the overall listening panel's headphone preferences, we found either the listener didn't understand the task (they were less trained),  or the headphone didn't properly fit the listener, thus causing air leaks and poor bass response; this was later confirmed by doing in-ear measurements of the headphone(s) on individual listeners (slides 26-39).

Measuring the Acoustical Performance of Headphones

Acoustical measurements were made on each headphone using a GRAS 43AG Ear and Cheek simulator equipped with an IEC 711 coupler (slide 24). The measurement device is intended to simulate the acoustical effects of an average human ear including the acoustical interactions between the headphone and the acoustical impedance of the ear.  The headphone measurements shown below include these interactions as well as the transfer function of the ear, mostly visible in the graphs as a ~10 dB peak at around 3 kHz.  It is important to note that we since we are born with these ear canal resonances, we have adapted to them and don't "hear" them as colorations.

Relationship between Subjective and Objective Measurements 

Comparing the acoustical measurements of the headphones to their perceived spectral balance confirms that the more preferred headphones generally have a smooth and extended response below 1 kHz that is perceived as an ideal spectral balance (slide 25). The least preferred headphones  (HP5 and HP6)   have the most uneven measured and perceived frequency responses below 1 kHz, which generated listener comments such as "colored, boomy and muffled."  The measured frequency response of HP4 shows a slight bass boost below 200 Hz, yet on average it was perceived as sounding thin; this headphone was one of the models that had bass leakage problems for some listeners due to a poor seal on their ears.

Above: The left and right channel frequency response measurements of each headphone are shown above the  mean preference rating and 95% confidence interval it received in blind listening tests. The dotted green response on each graph shows the "perceived spectral balance" based on the listeners' responses.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this headphone study is one of the first of its kind to report results based on controlled, double-blind listening tests [2]. The results provide evidence that trained listeners preferred the headphones perceived to have the most neutral, spectral balance. The acoustical measurements of the headphone generally confirmed and predicted which headphones listeners preferred. We also found that bass leakage related to the quality of fit and seal of the headphone to the listeners'  head/ears can be a significant nuisance variable in subjective and objective measurements of headphone sound quality.

It is important for the reader not to draw generalizations from these results beyond the conditions we tested. One audio writer has already questioned whether headphone sound quality preferences of trained listeners can be extrapolated to tastes of untrained younger demographics whose apparent appetite for bass-heavy headphones might indicate otherwise. We don't know the answer to this question. For younger consumers, headphone purchases may be  driven more by fashion trends and marketing B.S. (Before Science) than sound quality.  While this question is the focus of future research, the preliminary data suggests  in blind A/B comparisons kids pref headphones with accurate reproduction to colored, bass-heavy alternatives.  This would tend to confirm findings from previous investigations into loudspeaker preferences of high school and college students (both Japanese and American) that so far indicates most listeners prefer accurate  sound reproduction regardless of age, listener training or culture.

Future headphone research may tell us (or not) that most people prefer accurate sound reproduction regardless of whether the loudspeakers are installed in the living room, the automobile, or strapped onto the sides of their head.  It makes perfect sense, at least to me. Only then will listeners hear the truth --  music reproduced as the artist intended.
________________________________

Footnotes
[1] Despite the paucity of good subjective measurements on headphones there does exist some online resources where you can find objective measurements on headphones. You will be hard pressed to find a manufacturer who will supply these measurements of their products. The resources include Headroom.com, Sound & Vision Magazine, and InnerFidelity.com.  Tyll Hertsens at InnerFidelity  has a large database of frequency response measurements of headphones that clearly illustrate the lack of consensus among manufacturers on how a headphone should sound and measure. There is even a lack of consistency among different models made by the same brand.

[2]  Sadly, studies like this present one are so uncommon in our industry that Sound and Vision Magazine  recently declared this paper as the biggest audio story in 2012. Hopefully that will change sooner than later.

Behind Harman's Testing Lab

This past week I had an enjoyable time meeting well-known technology writer Robert Scoble who was visiting our Harman facilities in Northridge, CA along with his geek-in-command Sam Levine. As part of the tour, I showed  them our Reference Listening Room and Multichannel Listening Lab where we do product research and double-blind evaluations of loudspeakers. We discussed the science and philosophy behind how we design and measure the sound quality of our products.

One of the topics of discussion was my recent research that explores whether high school and college students from USA and Japan have different tastes and preferences in the quality of reproduced sound compared to older trained listeners.  We talked about differences in the tastes and performances of trained versus untrained listeners, and how Harman is able to accurately predict  subjective preference ratings of loudspeakers based on a predictive model that analyzes a set of comprehensive anechoic measurements.

After running Robert and Sam through a few trials of listener training using  our software "How to Listen", I decided to put them through a couple of double-blind listening test trials to see if they had the right stuff. They compared four different brands of floor-standing loudspeakers located  behind an acoustically transparent, visually opaque curtain where each loudspeaker is shuffled into the same position via an automated speaker shuffler. All of our tests are conducted double-blind because we have found that even trained listeners are influenced by nuisance variables such as brand, price, size, etc.

 In these tests Robert and Sam heard the same four loudspeakers that have been evaluated previously by hundreds of untrained listeners including young, old, American, Asian, and European listeners, whose preferences and performances were compared to those of our panel of trained listeners. From these tests, we have found evidence that most listeners prefer the most accurate, neutral loudspeaker regardless of age, culture or listening experience.

When the listening trials were done, the curtain went up, and Robert and Sam were surprised to discover their favorite choice was the most accurate loudspeaker which was the least expensive. The science works.  One of the speakers Robert didn't like was a model that he actually owned: it had excessive amounts of treble and upper bass, which I'm told is mandated by the manufacturer's marketing department who believe that "boom and tizz" are what their customers want. Luckily, I haven't met many of their customers, yet. Robert, then surprised me by turning on his camera doing an impromptu interview, which hopefully you'll enjoy. If you want to learn more about the engineering process and tools behind designing a speaker, check out the interview with one of our speaker engineering stars, Charles Sprinkle.

In my next blog posting I hope to discuss some of the exciting research we've been doing on the relationship between the perception and measurement of headphone sound quality. The goal is to develop the same science for measuring and predicting the sound quality of headphones that we've found useful for designing good sounding loudspeakers.  Stay tuned!

More Evidence that Kids (American and Japanese) Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

Geoffrey Morrison, an audio writer at CNET and Sound & Vision has posted a nice summary  of my latest AES paper "Some New Evidence that Teenager and College Students May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction" presented at the recent  132nd AES Convention in Budapest, Hungary.


The paper is available for download here at the  AES E-library, and I have provided a YouTube video and a PDF of my presentation slides that summarize the main points of the research.


 The abstract of the paper reads as follows:


A group of 58  high school and college students with different expertise in sound evaluation participated in two separate controlled listening tests that measured their preference choices between music reproduced in (1) MP3 (128 kbp/s) and lossless CD-quality file formats, and (2) music reproduced through four different consumer loudspeakers. As a group, the students preferred the CD-quality reproduction in 70% of the trials and preferred music reproduced through the most accurate, neutral loudspeaker. Critical listening experience was a significant factor in the listeners’ performance and preferences. Together, these tests provide some new evidence that both teenagers and college students can discern and appreciate a better quality of reproduced sound when given the opportunity to directly compare it against lower quality options. 


The effects of culture and trained versus untrained listeners on loudspeaker preference are topics that have been discussed in previous postings on Audio Musings. To further shed some light on this topic, I also ran 149  native speaking Japanese college students through the same loudspeaker preference test along with 12 Harman trained listeners.  The graph below shows the mean loudspeaker preference ratings for these two groups of listeners along with the four different groups of high school and college students from Los Angeles.  

Not surprising, (at least to me) I found that the Japanese college students on average preferred the same accurate loudspeaker (A) as did the 58  Los Angeles students, and the trained Harman listening panel. The main differences among the different listening groups  were related to the effect of prior critical listening experience:  the more trained listeners simply rated the loudspeakers lower on the preference scale, and were more discriminating and consistent in their responses. This result is consistent with previous studies. The least preferred and least accurate loudspeaker (Loudspeaker D) generated the most variance in ratings among the different listening groups. This  was explained by its highly directional behavior combined with its inconsistent frequency response as you move from on-axis to off-axis seating positions. This meant that listeners sitting off-axis heard a much different (and apparently better quality) sound than those listeners  sitting on-axis.


 While the small sample size of listeners doesn't allow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring  to find that  both the American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options.


It would appear that the reason kids don't own better sounding audio solutions has nothing to do with their supposed "deviant"  tastes in sound quality, but more do with  other factors  (e.g. price, convenience, portability, marketing, fashion) that have nothing to do with sound quality.  Music and audio companies should take notice that kids can indeed discriminate between good and bad sound, and prefer accurate sound, despite what the media has been falsely reporting for the last few years. With that out of the way, we should focus on figuring out how to sell sound quality to kids at affordable prices and form factors  they desire to own.


The research suggests that if we cannot figure out how to sell better sound to kids, we have no one to blame but ourselves. 

Harman Science of Sound Demonstrations at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest 2011

October 14-16, I will be  giving Science of Sound presentations for the Harman Luxury Audio Group (room #8020)   at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (RMAF) in Denver, CO. My demonstration will be repeated every 1/2 hour on the hour and half-hour.

Drop by and find out more about the science behind Harman audio product development and testing including JBL and Revel loudspeakers. I will be demonstrating our latest release of the "How to Listen"  software used for training and selecting listeners for product research and testing. Find out how discriminating and reliable you are as a critical listener.

Attendees will be given 30% discount coupons towards a copy of Floyd Toole's book "Sound Reproduction" (Focal Press), a book that describes much of the current scientific knowledge and perception of  the sound quality of loudspeakers, listening rooms, and their acoustical interaction with each other.  I will be raffling off a few copies to the best performing listeners.

I hope to see you there!

Topics Related to Perception and Measurement of Reproduced Sound

On Tuesday, April 26th 2011, I will be giving a presentation at the meeting of the Los Angeles AES Chapter on several topics related to recent audio research at Harman International. The topics include:

• Preference in Quality of Reproduced Sound Among Generation Y
• Are There Cross-Cultural Preferences in Quality of Reproduced Sound?
• The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
• Harman's How to Listen: A Software program for Training Listeners

I've briefly discussed these topics in Audio Musings over the past few months, and you can find summaries of them by clicking on the links above. I'll be giving an update on new findings, and briefly touch on topics not mentioned above. As a door prize, Harman will donate a free copy of Dr. Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction (shown on the right side bar) autographed by the author of the book.

AES members and nonmember guests are welcome to attend. The meeting will be held at the Sportmen's Lodge in Studio City. More details can be found at the Los Angeles AES website.

Version 2.04 of Harman How to Listen Now Available For Download!

Version 2.04 of Harman How to Listen is now available for download here.

This update fixes the problem with the noise and hum attribute tests. We've also updated the user's manual to help navigate around some installation issues some users have reported.

Version 2.03 of Harman How to Listen Now Available For Download!

You can download the latest update of Harman How to Listen  (version 2.03) here. This update fixes a bug in the Windows version that prompted listeners to locate program material that was not packaged with the installer. There is no significant change to the Mac version. Enjoy!