[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]]

geoff wrote:

===========

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.


** Yep, a PM1400 " magnetic field " job.

Tip from an expert:
Be very wary of any amplifier that has speaker maker's name on it.

Bose, JBL, AR, Renkus-Heinz, EV, Altec ......



...... Phil

[geoff]

On 22/02/2021 6:17 pm, wrote:
geoff wrote:

===========

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.


** Yep, a PM1400 " magnetic field " job.

Tip from an expert:
Be very wary of any amplifier that has speaker maker's name on it.

Bose, JBL, AR, Renkus-Heinz, EV, Altec ......



..... Phil




I was thinking about a different amp entirely, which was internally
Carvin - not Carver.

This says Bose on the PCBs - I wounder what the Carver one says. It is
a 'straightish' Class AB power amp with a touch where DC rails are
monitored and a triac momentarily switches in an extra section of mains
transformer primary if they dip. Nothing to do with Carver's sonic
holography magnetic field amp mumbo-jumbo, unless that's all it is ....

Had failed because the inside of the casing was essentially a solid
block of fluff and dust (pub).

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