Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 9177

Presented at the 137th Convention
2014 October 9–12 Los Angeles, USA
This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at least
two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention paper has been repro-
duced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes
no responsibility for the contents. Additional papers may be obtained by sending request and remittance to Audio Engineering
Society, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165-2520, USA; also see www.aes.org. All rights reserved. Reproduction of
this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without direct permission from the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society

The Influence of Listeners’ Experience, Age,

and Culture on Headphone Sound Quality
Preferences
1 2 3
Sean E. Olive , Todd Welti , and Elisabeth McMullin

Harman International, Northridge, CA, 91329, USA

1
Sean.Olive@harman.com
2
Todd.Welti@harman.com
3
Elisabeth.McMullin@harman.com

ABSTRACT

Double-blind headphone listening tests were 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.

music and infotainment wherever they go. Yet, the

1. INTRODUCTION
Headphone sales reached $8.2 billion worldwide in
2013, and they continue to grow [1]. The popularity of
headphones is tied to the growth of smartphones and
other mobile devices that allow consumers to enjoy
science related to the perception and measurement of
headphone sound quality is not well understood. There
appears to be little consensus among headphone
manufacturers on how to optimize the design of a
headphone for good sound. This situation hasn’t
changed much since 2001 when Poldy summed up the
headphone industry as follows:
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

“A palate of different frequency responses is available experiences participated. The listeners gave comparative
to cater for individual preferences, and each preference ratings for four headphones including three
manufacturer has its own headphone philosophy with popular models (Sennheiser HD800, Audeze LCD-2,
frequency responses ranging from flat to free field and and Beats Studio Edition), and a headphone calibrated
beyond” [2]. to a new target response reported in [6]. A virtual
headphone listening test method was used in order to
Researchers have recently shown experimental evidence remove non-auditory biases (brand, price, visual
that headphones calibrated to the diffuse-field (DF) and appearance, comfort, celebrity endorsement, etc.) from
free-field (FF) target responses are less preferred to listeners’ judgment of the headphone sound quality [10].
other target response curves. Lorho recommended a
modified DF target that reduced the 3 kHz peak from 10 The organization of this paper is as follows: Section 2
dB to 3 dB [3]. Fleischmann et al. found listeners describes the method and test procedure of the
preferred a headphone target response, which more headphone listening experiments, Section 3 describes
closely matched the sound of a loudspeaker in an ITU-R the results of the listening tests, with discussion and
listening room [4]. However, they never divulged the conclusions in sections 4 and 5.
details on what the headphone target response curve
should look like. More recently, Olive et al. provided
experimental evidence that showed a headphone target 2. EXPERIMENT ON HEADPHONE SOUND
response based on in-room measurements of an accurate PREFERENCE
loudspeaker calibrated in a reference listening room was
preferred to DF, FF and other target responses of This section describes the method, test setup and
headphones highly regarded for their sound quality [5], procedure employed for the listening tests.
[6]. The notion that headphones should simulate the in-
room response of an accurate loudspeaker makes perfect 2.1. Selection of Headphones
sense given that most stereo recordings are mixed and
optimized to sound good through loudspeakers in Three popular headphones were selected for the
rooms. Most listening rooms provide bass reinforcement listening tests listed in Table 1.
from room modes and boundary effects, yet headphones Table 1 The prices and descriptions of the headphones
calibrated to the DF and FF target response curves lack models used in this study.
this “room gain”, and therefore sound too bright and
thin.
Headphone Brand & Price Description
Together, these four recent studies provide scientific Model
evidence and the motivation to develop a better industry
headphone standard that promotes optimal headphone Sennheiser HD800 $1500. Over-ear (OE), open
sound quality. However, a new headphone standard will back (OB) with ring
not likely gain wide acceptance unless there is evidence radiator driver
it satisfies the tastes of a broad demographic based on
listeners’ age, listening experience and culture. Previous Audeze LCD2 $995. OE and OB with a
studies on loudspeaker sound quality preferences [7], version 2 magnetic planar driver
[8] have shown that listeners tend to prefer the most
accurate models regardless of listening experience and Beats by Dre Studio $299 OE, closed back with
culture. While a recent headphone study [9] suggests Edition dynamic driver and
that college students and trained listeners have similar active noise cancellation
headphone preferences, the effects of age, training and
culture on headphone sound preferences have not been Harman Headphone $119 OE, OB, dynamic driver
thoroughly investigated. Target Response equalized to Harman
implemented on Target Response [6]
To that end, this paper reports the results of a series of replicator phone:
double blind listening tests conducted in four countries Sennheiser HD518
(Canada, United States, China and Germany) where 238
listeners from a broad range of age and listening

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 2 of 11
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

The headphones ranged in price from $119 to $1500. Fig. 1 shows the measured frequency responses of the
The Sennheiser HD800 was an open-back model physical headphones compared to the virtual versions.
employing a ring radiator driver. The Audeze LCD2
was an open back headphone using a magnetic planar
driver. Both models are considered to be among the best
sounding headphones according to various headphone
review and enthusiast websites. The third headphone
was a Beats Studio Edition headphone, a closed-back (a)
headphone with a dynamic driver and active noise
control (ANC). The fourth headphone was the
Sennheiser HD518, which was an open back design
with a dynamic driver. This headphone was also used as
the replicator headphone.

2.2. Virtual Headphone Method

A virtual headphone method was employed in order to

control and remove non-auditory biases (headphone
brand, price, visual appearance, celebrity endorsement, (b)
fit and comfort) from the listeners’ judgment of sound
quality. In a previous paper [10], we tested and
validated the virtual headphone method by comparing
listeners’ preference and spectral balance ratings of six
different headphones using both virtual and standard
test methods where the actual physical headphones were
compared. The correlation in headphone preference
ratings between virtual and standard test methods was
quite high (r = 0.85). We speculated that higher
correlations could be achieved if headphone leakage
(c)
effects were better simulated for individual listeners,
and biases related to headphone weight/comfort were
removed from the standard method.

2.2.1. Measurement and Equalization of

Headphones

The frequency response of the left and right channels of

each headphone was measured on a GRAS 45 AG
coupler equipped with the adult ITU type 3.3 pinna. An
average of nine measurements was taken based on nine (d)
reseats of the headphone on the coupler to minimize
errors related to how the headphone was positioned on
the coupler.

Using the auto-EQ function of Harman’s Audio Test

System (HATS), an infinite impulse response filter was
Figure 1 The left (upper black curves) and right (lower
designed to simulate the frequency response of each
set of red curves) channel frequency responses of the
headphone on the simulator headphone. The virtual
actual (dotted curves) and virtualized (solid curves)
filters were then implemented on the playback device
headphones for the (a) Harman target curve (b)
(Apple iPad 4th Generation) using Apple’s Core Audio
Sennheiser HD800 (c) Audeze LCD2 and (d) the Beats
frameworks.
by Dre Studio Edition.

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 3 of 11
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

The graphs indicate that there is very good agreement
between the physical versus virtual headphone up to
about 10 kHz. We chose not to equalize the headphone
below 30 Hz (to avoid low frequency distortion) and
above 10 kHz due to measurement errors related to
headphone position on the coupler.
2.3. Selection of Listeners
Table 2 summarizes details about the different
participants in this study related to their nationality, age,
gender, and listening experience. A total of 238 listeners
participated in this study ranging in age from 20 to 70
years age (median age = 29 years, standard deviation =
11 years). Seven different listening groups were tested
at five locations in four countries: USA, Canada,
Germany and China. Four of the listening groups were
compromised of Harman employees from different
locations in United States, Germany and China. The
other three listening groups were made up of
undergraduate college students enrolled in audio
engineering/production programs: Citrus College and
Loyola Marymount University (LMU) both located in
the Los Angeles area, and Harris Institute located in
Toronto, Canada.

Table 2 Details on the different listening groups used in this study.

Group Country Count Median Age Gender Experience Description

(Standard Count N = None
Deviation) L = A Little
M = Medium
AL = A Lot

Harman NR USA 9 39 (10.9) Male = 7 N (0) L (1) M (2) AL(6) Harman employees
Female = 2 in Northridge,
California

Harman FH USA 23 38 (13.4) Male = 20 N (6) L (3) M (4) AL(10) Harman employees
Female = 3 in Farmington Hills,
Michigan, USA

Harman KB Germany 72 38 (9.2) Male = 67 N (24) L (19) M (18) AL (11) Harman employees
Female = 5 in Karlsbad,
Germany

Harman SZ China 26 31 (6.5) Male = 19 N (3) L (10) M (1) AL (12) Harman employees
Female = 7 in Shenzhen, China

Citrus USA 24 23 (5.5) Male = 18 N (5) L (6) M (9) AL (4) Audio students at
College Female = 6 Citrus College in
Los Angeles, USA

LMU USA 15 21 (1.2 Male = 14 N (0) L (3) M (12) AL (0) Audio students of
Female = 1 Loyola Marymount
University in Los
Angeles, USA

Harris Canada 69 23 (8.9) Male = 60 N (5) L (11) M (20) AL (33) Audio students and
Institute Female = 9 AES members in
Toronto, Canada

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 4 of 11
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

The gender makeup of the listening panel was 86% SD – Steely Dan / Two Jazz Pop with Male
male and 14% female. Against Nature / Cousin Vocal
Dupree / Giant Records
Prior to the test, each listener was asked to describe /B00004GOXS/ February 29
their critical listening experience using one of the four 2000
possible categories. The four listening experience
categories and the percentage of listeners who chose DD / Dido/ Safe Trip Home Rock Pop with
them were: none (18%), a little (22%), a medium /Don’t Believe in Love/ Arista/ Female Vocal
amount (23%), and a lot of experience (37%). Included B001EO2UKO / November 18
in this last category were Harman trained listeners (44% 2008
of the category) from USA, Germany and China. These
39 listeners all had tested normal audiometric hearing,
had successfully passed the Harman listener training (a
minimum of level 7 of Harman’s How to Listen [11]), 2.5. iPad Listening Test Software
and participated in formal listening tests on sound
quality evaluation. A custom listening test application was written for
Apple iPad to administer the tests in an automated and
The remaining participants were not tested for normal repeatable manner. The software application
audiometric hearing, nor were they formally tested for administered all aspects of the test including
their critical listening ability. A common feature among presentation of treatments, and collection and storage of
the 238 listeners is that they had an interest in audio. the listeners’ responses. It also provided the equalization
The listeners either worked for an audio manufacturing to simulate the frequency responses of the different
company or they were currently students enrolled in an headphones under test (see section 2.2.1).
audio production course, and considering a career in this
area. Fig. 2 shows the graphical user interface of the listening
test application.
2.4. Program Selections

Table 3 summarizes the three music selections used in

these listening tests. The tracks were digitally copied
from commercial CD, and edited into short 15-20 s
loops. All three tracks were spectrally analyzed and
deemed to have sufficiently dense and broadband
spectra to facilitate listeners’ judgment of potential
differences among the headphones in terms of their
spectral balance, bandwidth extension and coloration.

Table 3 Details on the three program selections used in

this study.

Program ID /Artist / CD / Description

Track Name/ Record Figure 2 A screen shot of the custom iPad application
Label/ASIN/ Release Date used for these listening tests.

ES / Estelle w. Kayne West /
Shine/ American Boy / Atlantic
Records, 2008, B00142Q7H8 /
April 29 2008
Hip Hop with male The graphical buttons (A through D) allowed the
and female vocal listener to switch among the different headphone
treatments or pause the music. The four sliders below
each button allowed listeners to enter their numerical
preference ratings for each headphone. The 11-interval

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 5 of 11
Olive et al.
preference scale was defined from 0 to 10 with semantic
descriptors at every second interval: 1 (Strongly
dislike), 3 (Dislike), 5 (OK - Neither Like Nor Dislike),
7 (Like), and 9 (Strongly Like). To encourage a
consistent use of the scale, listeners were given the
following guidelines in choosing how they separated
their ratings between two headphones: a ≤ 0.5 point
separation implied a slight preference, 1 point
separation a moderate preference, and ≥ 2 points
separation implied a strong preference. Listeners could
optionally provide comments to describe the underlying
reasons for their preferences. The software application
automatically randomized the order in which programs
and headphones were presented in each trial.
2.6. Relative and Absolute Playback Levels
The relative playback levels of the different headphones
were matched to the same loudness level according to
the ITU-R 1770.2 loudness meter. The average absolute
playback level was set to a comfortable level: 78 dB (B-
weighted slow). All the tests were conducted in quiet
listening rooms to minimize the influence of
background noise on listeners’ headphone preferences.
2.7. Listening Test Procedure
Prior to the test, listeners were given listening test
instructions including a demonstration of the test
software so that they were familiar with how to switch
between headphones and enter their ratings and
comments. Listeners were told they would be evaluating
different headphone equalizations and rating them based
on their personal preferences in sound quality.
Each listener completed a total of six trials using three
different programs with two observations. There were
no time limits imposed on the listener to complete the
test. On average, the test was completed in about 15
minutes. Listeners could pause the test at any time to
take a break, or ask the test administrator for help
regarding the test instructions and software user
interface.
3. RESULTS
Section 3 presents the statistical analysis of the
headphone preference listening tests and the main
effects.
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 6 of 11
Headphone Sound Quality Preferences
3.1. Statistical Analysis
The results were analyzed using 5-way repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-
subject fixed factors were Headphone (4 levels),
Program (3 levels) and Observation (2 levels). The
between-subject factors were Listening Group (7 levels)
and Listening Experience (4 levels). The dependent
variable was preference rating. All statistical tests were
performed at a significance level of 5%.
Prior to ANOVA, inspection of the residuals confirmed
the underlying assumptions of ANOVA were not
violated. As a precaution, nonparametric analysis of the
data was performed and produced the same effects and
conclusions as the ANOVA. Therefore, we only report
the results of the ANOVA in the sections below.
The main effects on preference were Headphone: F (3,
702) = 498.17, p = <0.001; Program: F (2, 468) = 4.9, p
= 0.008; and Listening Experience: F (3, 234) = 3.4, p =
0.02. There also were significant interactions between
Headphone * Program: F (6, 1404) = 17, p < 0.001; and
Headphone * Observation: F (3, 702) = 3.2, p = 0.02.
3.2. Effect of Headphone on Preference
Fig. 3 plots the mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals based on all 238 listeners. A post-
hoc Scheffé test confirmed that the differences in
preference among all headphones were statistically
significant.
Figure 3 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals for the headphone treatments based
on all 238 listeners.
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

Note that from this point on, headphones are labeled as

HP1 through HP4 based on the order in which they were
preferred. The most preferred headphone was based on
the Harman target curve, HP1 (preference rating = 6.2).
It was slight-moderately preferred to HP2 (5.8),
moderate-strongly preferred to HP3 (5.0), and strongly
preferred to HP4 (2.2). Both HP2 and HP3 were also
strongly preferred to HP4. HP2 was slightly-moderately
preferred to HP3.

3.3. Effect of Program on Preference

Program had a small effect on preference ratings (see

Fig. 4). The effect was less than 0.2 of a preference
rating. On average, the headphones received higher
preference ratings for program P1 (“American Boy”)
relative to programs P2 (“Cousin Dupree”) and P3
(“Don’t Believe in Love).
Figure 5 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals for the interaction between the
factors Program and Headphone.

3.5. Effect of Listening Experience on

Headphone Preference

Listening experience had a significant effect on how the

listeners used the preference scale (see Fig. 6).

Figure 4 The mean preference ratings and 95%

confidence intervals showing the effect of Program
averaged across all headphones and listeners.

3.4. Interaction Effect Between Program and

Headphone

The significant interaction effect between Program and

Headphone is graphically illustrated in Fig. 5. The effect
was largely isolated to Program P3 (Dido’s “Don’t
Believe in Love”), which produced slightly higher
preference ratings for the HP1, and slightly lower
ratings for HP3. Apart from this interaction, the
headphone ratings were relatively independent of the
Program.
Figure 6 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals based on the listeners’ self-assessed
listening experience.
The less experienced listeners tended to give higher
preference ratings than the more experienced listeners.
This behavior is consistent with previous studies that
examined the influence of listener training on
loudspeaker [7],[8],[12] and headphone preference

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 7 of 11
Olive et al.
ratings [9]. In those studies, trained listeners tended to
give lower, more reliable and discriminating preference
ratings than the untrained listeners. In those studies,
both trained and untrained listeners generally preferred
the same loudspeakers and headphones. The next
section addresses whether the listeners in the current
study also preferred the same headphones regardless of
their prior listening experience or training.
3.6. Interaction Effect Between Listening
Experience and Headphone
Fig. 7 plots the mean headphone preference ratings for
the four different listener groups categorized according
to their self-assessed listening experience. The first
observation is listeners generally preferred the same
headphones based on ranking, regardless of their
training or listening experience.
Figure 7 The mean headphone preference ratings and
95% confidence intervals for different listener
categories based on their listening experience.
However, there was an interaction effect between
Listening Experience and Headphone related to how the
listeners scaled their preference ratings. The listeners
with more experience, denoted in Fig. 7 as “Medium
Amount” and “A Lot”, were able to discriminate more
among the four headphones, as indicated by the wider
range of scores given to the them. The listeners with
less experienced, denoted as “None” and “A Little”
tended to assign higher ratings to the headphones, and
were less able to discriminate between HP1 and HP2.
3.7. Does Listener Nationality Influence
Headphone Preference?
To answer this question the data was analyzed using a
repeated measures ANOVA model that included the
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 8 of 11
Headphone Sound Quality Preferences
between-subjects factor Country (4 levels: Canada,
USA, Germany, China), and the fixed within-subject
factors Headphone (4 levels), Program (3 levels), and
Observation (2 levels). The dependent variable was
preference rating.
Country had a significant effect on preference: F (3,
232) = 5.64, p = 0.001. There was also a significant
interaction between Country and Headphone: F (9,696)
= 2.34; p < 0.012. These effects are discussed in the
following sections.
3.8. Effect of Listeners’ Country of Residence
on Preference
Fig. 8 summarizes the mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals based on the listeners’ country of
residence. The average preference ratings from listeners
in Canada and China were identical, and slightly higher
than those given by listeners in Germany and USA. This
could likely be explained by differences in the makeup
of trained and untrained listeners among the four
countries we tested. For example, there were no Harman
trained listeners in the Canada sample, which could
explain the higher ratings. Additional analysis could
confirm or deny if this explanation was valid.
5.5
Preference Rating
5.0
5.08 5.08
4.5
4.86
4.48
4.0
Canada China Germany USA
Listeners’ Country
Figure 8 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals for each headphone based on the
country of residence of the listener.
3.9. Interaction Effect Between Country and
Headphone
A more important question in this study was whether
the listeners’ country of residence or culture influenced
their headphone preferences. Fig. 9 shows the mean
Olive et al.
preference ratings and 95% confidence intervals for the
different headphones according to the listeners’ country
of residence.
The first observation is that the listeners’ country had
little influence on their headphone preferences. The
order in which the headphones were rated from most
preferred to least preferred was the same for Canadians,
Chinese, Germans and Americans. The main differences
among these listening groups are how they weigh their
likes-dislikes for certain headphones. The Americans
and Canadians tended to rate HP4 lower than the other
listeners, with the Chinese being the most forgiving of
this headphone. The Germans gave slightly higher
ratings to HP2 than did the other groups.
Headphone: HP1 HP2
6
Preference Rating
1
Canada China Germany
Listeners’ Country
Figure 9 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals for the different headphones shown
as a function of the listeners’ country of residence.
3.10. Does the Listeners’ Age Influence Their
Headphone Preferences?
For decades, many audio marketing departments have
posited that audio playback systems require different
sonic signatures to satisfy the alleged different tastes of
different demographic groups defined according to age,
culture and socio-economic status. To date, there have
been no published studies to support this rationale, yet
the belief still persists.
To determine whether the age of the listener influenced
their headphone preferences, we categorized listeners
into the following five age categories in years: < 25, 25-
34, 35-44, 45-54, and > 55. A repeated measures
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Headphone Sound Quality Preferences
ANOVA model included Age (5 levels) as a between-
subjects factor, and found no significant effect on
preference due to age; F (4,232) = 0.24, p = 0.45.
There were also no interaction effects between Age and
Headphone on preference as illustrated in Fig. 10.
Headphone preferences were generally the same from
the youngest to the oldest age categories with one noted
exception: the oldest listeners (> 55 years) were not able
to discriminate between HP1 and HP2. These listeners
also had the largest error bars, which is related to the
relatively low number of listeners (i.e. eight) in this
category. Such a small sample of older listeners makes
it difficult to draw any general conclusions about their
headphone preferences.
HP3 HP4
USA
Figure 10 The mean preference ratings and 95%
confidence intervals for different age categories of
listeners.
Finally, it is important to note that the effects of hearing
loss (noise-induced and age-related loss) were not
factored into this study. Only the trained Harman
listeners from US, Germany and China were tested for
normal audiometric hearing. This could be important
since Toole has reported hearing loss adversely affects
listener performance and loudspeaker preferences [13].
4. DISCUSSION
In the previous section, we presented experimental
evidence that showed listeners, on average, preferred
the same headphones regardless of their listening
experience, age or country of residence (i.e. Canada,
USA, China and Germany). The most preferred
headphone (HP1) was based on the Harman target
Page 9 of 11
Olive et al.
response that simulates the in-room response of an
accurate loudspeaker calibrated in a reference listening
room. This study confirms the results from previous
studies [5], [6] where this target response was preferred
to other choices.
Looking at Fig. 1, there is a clear relationship between
the measured frequency responses of the headphones
and how listeners rated them based on their sound
quality preferences. The most preferred headphone
(HP1) has the measured response shown in Fig. 1 (a).
The other headphones (HP2, HP3 and HP4) received
preference ratings that tended to correspond to how far
their response deviated from the response of HP1. The
target response of HP1 could be the basis for a new
headphone standard that would likely have wide
acceptance among listeners of different age groups,
cultures, and listening experiences.
This study also confirms findings from previous studies
in which the authors reported that listeners generally
preferred the most spectrally well-balanced
loudspeakers [7], [8], [13] and headphones [5], [6], [9],
[10] regardless of age, or listening experience. In [8],
the author reported that Japanese and American college
students preferred the same loudspeakers as trained
American listeners. These studies along with the current
one suggest that “good sound” is more of a universal
percept rather than a matter of personal taste influenced
by culture, age or experience.
In this current study, listening experience had an
expected effect on preference (see Fig. 6) that has been
reported in previous studies [7]-[9]. Listeners with more
experience and training tended to give more
discriminating and lower preference ratings than
listeners with less experience. However, as previous
related studies have shown, the headphone preferences
(see Fig. 7) were generally the same regardless of
listening experience. Apparently, humans are quite
adept at recognizing good sound from bad sound when
given the opportunity to compare them under controlled
listening conditions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper reported the results of a series of controlled
double blind listening tests where 238 listeners gave
comparative preference ratings for four headphones
using a virtual headphone method. In this way, non-
auditory biases (e.g. headphone brand, price, celebrity
endorsement, weight, comfort, etc.) were removed from
AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12
Page 10 of 11
Headphone Sound Quality Preferences
listeners’ judgment of sound quality. The listeners
included both trained and untrained listeners over a
wide range of age groups from Canada, USA, China and
Germany. This allowed us to study the influence of age,
gender, listening experience and nationality on
headphone sound preferences Based on the statistical
evidence presented in section 3, there are three main
conclusions:
1. Listeners generally preferred the same
headphones regardless of their listening
experience, age or country of residence.
2. As a group, the experienced listeners gave
lower and more discriminating headphone
preference ratings than the less experienced
listeners.
3. The most preferred headphone (HP1) had a
measured target response that simulated the in-
room response of an accurate loudspeaker
calibrated in a reference listening room. The
more the frequency response of the other
headphones deviated from this, the less they
were preferred.
It is important not to generalize the results of this study
beyond the conditions tested here. Ideally, a much larger
sample of listeners from different countries should be
tested before claiming that cross-cultural tastes in
headphone sound either exist or don’t exist. Hopefully,
this study will encourage other researchers to continue
this work. Based on these results, a new headphone
standard based on the target response of HP1 would
likely be widely accepted among listeners. It is
encouraging to find further experimental evidence that
there is a wide acceptance among listeners for accurate
headphone reproduction, as there is for accurate
loudspeaker reproduction.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harman International supported this work. The authors
would like to thank Dr. Rafael Kassier, Steven Li, and
Jonathan Pierce from Harman who recruited the
listeners and assisted in administering the tests in
Harman Germany, China, and Michigan. We are
indebted to Blair Francey at Harris Institute in Toronto
for recruiting the listeners and allowing us to use their
facilities for testing. We also thank Linda Gedemer
(Loyola Marymount University) and Stephen O’Hara
(Citrus College) for providing college students for these
Olive et al. Headphone Sound Quality Preferences

tests. Finally, we thank all of the listeners who Symposium of Electroacoustic Technology
participated in these tests. (ISEAT), Shenzhen, China, (2013).

[10] Olive S.E., Welti T., and McMullin E., “A Virtual

7. REFERENCES
Headphone Listening Test Methododology,”
presented at the 51st Audio Eng. Soc. International
[1] Future Source Consulting, “Headphone Market to Conference, Helsinki, Finland, (August 2013).
Exceed $8 Billion in 2013, www.futuresource-
consulting.com/2013-11-headphones.html (2013 [11] Harman How to Listen: A Listener Training
November). Software Program For Mac and Windows,
www.harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com (July 2014).
[2] Poldy C. A., “Headphones,” in J. Borwick, Ed.,
Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook, 3rd
[12] Bech, Soren, “ Selection and Training of Subjects
Edition, pp. 585-692 (Focal Press, Oxford, 2001).
for Listening Tests on Sound-Reproducing
Equipment,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 40, pp. 590-
[3] Lorho Gaëtan, “Subjective Evaluation of 610 (1992 July/August).
Headphone Target Frequency Responses”, J. Audio
Eng. Soc., preprint 7770, (2009 May).
[13] Toole, Floyd E. Sound Reproduction: The
Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers
[4] Fleischmann, F., Silzle, Andreas, and Plogsties, and Rooms, Focal Press (2008),
Jan, “Identification and Evaluation of Target
Curves for Headphones”, presented at the 133rd
Audio Eng. Soc. Convention, preprint 8740, (Oct.
2012).

[5] Olive Sean E., Welti Todd, and McMullin

Elisabeth, ”Listener Preference For Different
Headphone Target Response Curves,” presented at
the 13th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., preprint no.
8867, (2013 May).

[6] Olive Sean E., Welti Todd, and McMullin

Elisabeth, ”Listener Preferences for In-Room
Loudspeaker and Headphone Target Responses,”
presented at the 13th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc.,
preprint no. 8867, (2013 Sept.).

[7] Olive Sean E, “Differences in Performance and

Preferences of Trained versus Untrained Listeners
in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study,” J. Audio
Eng. Soc., vol. 51, No. 9, pp. 806-825 (2003
September).

[8] Olive Sean E, “Some New Evidence That

Teenagers and College Students May Prefer
Accurate Sound Reproduction,” presented at the
133nd AES Convention, preprint 8683, (2012
April).

[9] Olive Sean E.,” Do College Students Prefer the

Same Headphone Sound Quality as Trained
Listeners?” presented at the International

AES 137th Convention, Los Angeles, USA, 2014 October 9–12

Page 11 of 11