[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber... 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues such
as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not. Apples vs. oranges.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Trevor]

On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...Â* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues such
as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/19/2021 11:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...Â* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues
such as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.


At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:44:44 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2021 11:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...Â* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues
such as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.


At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.

What headphones are you using that are so non-linear? Ear buds or
something by Dr. Dre I presume. Get some decent ones - they are far
more linear than any loudspeaker. Personally I use Stax
electrostatics.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/20/2021 2:38 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:44:44 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2021 11:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...ÂÂ* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues
such as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.


At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.

What headphones are you using that are so non-linear? Ear buds or
something by Dr. Dre I presume. Get some decent ones - they are far
more linear than any loudspeaker. Personally I use Stax
electrostatics.

d

Perhaps you should look into the subject rather than make such claims. I
provided a link that presents the frequency linearity in my other reply
to you.

Headphones are all very different, and in many cases are
special-purpose. I prefer my Sennheisers to most others for listening to
mixes and such, and even the ones that are pushing 50 years old still
work well. OTOH, my David Clark headphones work quite well when I'm
flying a plane because they reduce the engine noise and optimize
communications with the control tower. But, they'd suck for listening to
music as badly as the Sennheisers would suck for flying.

So, what headphones you prefer is quite OK, but I doubt that I need
"better" ones.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:50:52 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2021 2:38 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:44:44 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2021 11:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...ÂÂ* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues
such as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.


At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.

What headphones are you using that are so non-linear? Ear buds or
something by Dr. Dre I presume. Get some decent ones - they are far
more linear than any loudspeaker. Personally I use Stax
electrostatics.

d

Perhaps you should look into the subject rather than make such claims. I
provided a link that presents the frequency linearity in my other reply
to you.

Headphones are all very different, and in many cases are
special-purpose. I prefer my Sennheisers to most others for listening to
mixes and such, and even the ones that are pushing 50 years old still
work well. OTOH, my David Clark headphones work quite well when I'm
flying a plane because they reduce the engine noise and optimize
communications with the control tower. But, they'd suck for listening to
music as badly as the Sennheisers would suck for flying.

So, what headphones you prefer is quite OK, but I doubt that I need
"better" ones.

I have Bose for my plane - and I would not touch anything by Bose for
listening to music. Horses for courses.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 22/02/2021 10:05 am, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:50:52 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2021 2:38 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:44:44 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2021 11:58 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/02/2021 10:30 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:23:02 -0500, Neil
wrote:

No. Small rooms vs smaller rooms. The physics doesn't change.

d

Perhaps if that "room" is an an-echoic chamber...ÀšÃ‚Â* 8-)

--
best regards,

Neil

No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

d

They also don't have reflective surfaces that lead to phase issues
such as cancellations and boosts. Most listening rooms DO have those
problems, while earphones do not.

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.


At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.

What headphones are you using that are so non-linear? Ear buds or
something by Dr. Dre I presume. Get some decent ones - they are far
more linear than any loudspeaker. Personally I use Stax
electrostatics.

d

Perhaps you should look into the subject rather than make such claims. I
provided a link that presents the frequency linearity in my other reply
to you.

Headphones are all very different, and in many cases are
special-purpose. I prefer my Sennheisers to most others for listening to
mixes and such, and even the ones that are pushing 50 years old still
work well. OTOH, my David Clark headphones work quite well when I'm
flying a plane because they reduce the engine noise and optimize
communications with the control tower. But, they'd suck for listening to
music as badly as the Sennheisers would suck for flying.

So, what headphones you prefer is quite OK, but I doubt that I need
"better" ones.

I have Bose for my plane - and I would not touch anything by Bose for
listening to music. Horses for courses.

d


Actually I'm repairing a Bose 1800VI power amp that is reputed to be
quite good. But when you pull it apart it turns out to be Carvin.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Neil the fool wrote:
=================


No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

** Wrong, only open air can do that.
Anechoic chambers have limited size and hence low frequency absorption.



At least we agree about some aspect of this. But, the problems within
headphone earcups are minor compared to their non-liner response curves.


** This just gets better and better.....

Soon he will get to digital is crap and wires matter most.



...... Phil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/20/2021 4:27 PM, wrote:

Neil the fool wrote:
=================


No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

** Wrong, only open air can do that.
Anechoic chambers have limited size and hence low frequency absorption.

You are lying with your troll post. I did not write what you are
responding to, above.

Your childishness is really not impressive, even though you think so.

--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

Neil the asshole wrote:
=================


No. Anechoic chambers don't have an acoustic size - they simulate
infinite space.

** Wrong, only open air can do that.
Anechoic chambers have limited size and hence low frequency absorption.

You are lying with your troll post.

** ROTFL - the lying troll is you pal.


I did not write what you are responding to, above.

** OK, Don Pearce did.

That is a trivial error while the post is correct and needed saying.

Your childishness is really not impressive,

** OTOH - your ****ing asshole, attitude IS most impressive.


....... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:54:02 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I did not write what you are responding to, above.

** OK, Don Pearce did.

That is a trivial error while the post is correct and needed saying.


I did, and I should have caveated it by adding that it applies down to
the lower operational limiting frequency of the absorber. The idea of
anechoic is that nothing comes back. You can achieve that by either
having infinite space or perfect absorption.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal! And problems in rooms can be
reduced by acoustic treatment.

The interesting thing is that because the volume (AND the volume of your
ear canal) are much smaller than a room, the chamber resonances that were
bass problems get moved up and turn into upper midrange problems. The bass
becomes easy since the volume is too small to have resonance issues, but
other things get harder.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
===============

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal!

The interesting thing is that because the volume (AND the volume of your
ear canal) are much smaller than a room, the chamber resonances that were
bass problems get moved up and turn into upper midrange problems. The bass
becomes easy since the volume is too small to have resonance issues, but
other things get harder.

** There is no problem, other than how to sensibly measure the response of a headphone.
Using an imitation head with a tiny measurement mic buried inside the ear hole is ********.

The outer ear and ear canal does NOT create response anomalies for the * owner * of that ear.
The person's brain tunes them out so we hear sounds correctly.

FYI:

ES headphones are almost acoustically transparent, creating no trapped space for resonance to exist.
Other types having a weak air seal are not very different.



....... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Actually the acoustic space within headphone earcups do cause problems
too. Even the space within your ear canal!

The interesting thing is that because the volume (AND the volume of your
ear canal) are much smaller than a room, the chamber resonances that were
bass problems get moved up and turn into upper midrange problems. The bass
becomes easy since the volume is too small to have resonance issues, but
other things get harder.

** There is no problem, other than how to sensibly measure the response of a headphone.
Using an imitation head with a tiny measurement mic buried inside the ear hole is ********.

This is true, but there are standard methods to measure them. There are a
bunch of standard ear simulators which might not emulate my ear or your ear.
But if I see a plot made with a Zwislocki coupler or a Keller coupler, I know
I can compare it with other measurements made with the same coupler.

But... headphones are designed with those resonances in mind. And it's hard
for headphone designers to work around some of those resonances.. if it were
easy, there woudn't be so many different-sounding headphones out there.

The outer ear and ear canal does NOT create response anomalies for the * owner * of that ear.
The person's brain tunes them out so we hear sounds correctly.

Right. That's the problem. When you put on headphones, it's like putting
on someone else's ears and all of that brain training goes out the window.

For example, you're used to having a notch caused by reflections off your
shoulders. You use that to some extent to judge height of a sound source.
Where that notch is depends on your shoulder and neck geometry. So if you
try to emulate it in headphones to make the headphones sound more natural,
the place to put it is different for you and for me because our brains are
adapted for different bodies.

ES headphones are almost acoustically transparent, creating no trapped space for resonance to exist.
Other types having a weak air seal are not very different.

Yes, it's MUCH easier to do if you can go with an open-back design. This
leads to much more consistent measured response from person to person.
But it also kind of defeats much of the purpose of headphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
-----------------------------

** There is no problem, other than how to sensibly measure the response of a headphone.
Using an imitation head with a tiny measurement mic buried inside the ear hole is ********.

This is true, but there are standard methods to measure them.

** Shame they all make the same mistake.

But... headphones are designed with those resonances in mind.

** No they are not - cos it is not possible.

And it's hard
for headphone designers to work around some of those resonances..

** The word is "impossible".
There are no such design features.


if it were
easy, there woudn't be so many different-sounding headphones out there.

** They are way closer to each other than speakers.

The outer ear and ear canal does NOT create response anomalies for the * owner * of that ear.
The person's brain tunes them out so we hear sounds correctly.

Right. That's the problem. When you put on headphones, it's like putting
on someone else's ears and all of that brain training goes out the window.

** This is just plain nonsense, based on your previous nonsense.

Fraid you are using "wall to wall " thinking when every idea backs up the others in a crazy loop.

For example, you're used to having a notch caused by reflections off your
shoulders. You use that to some extent to judge height of a sound source.
Where that notch is depends on your shoulder and neck geometry. So if you
try to emulate it in headphones to make the headphones sound more natural,
the place to put it is different for you and for me because our brains are
adapted for different bodies.

** Shame that is worse nonsense.

ES headphones are almost acoustically transparent, creating no trapped space for resonance to exist.
Other types having a weak air seal are not very different.

Yes, it's MUCH easier to do if you can go with an open-back design.

** Most hi-fi head phones are open types.

But it also kind of defeats much of the purpose of headphones.

** It does not.



........... Phil