[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/18/2021 6:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:59:16 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/17/2021 11:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:29:44 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/17/2021 9:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 13/02/2021 9:41 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 11/02/2021 11:57 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
For music, I'd rather have restricted bass
than lumpy out of control bass. Your mileage may differ.

And a real sub for music should, and can provide extended bass that is
NOT lumpy or out of control. Whether it does or not simply depends on
your choice of sub/s and X-over.

And mains. And the room. The room is the hard part.

If the room is so bad you have to eliminate the bass entirely, then
perhaps you need to fix the room acoustics.

Most small rooms are that way, I am sorry to report. Small square ones
being the most frustrating, of course.
--scott

+1

Do the math on the LF wavelength and one will see that very few homes
will have rooms large enough. Then the fun begins...

Think how small a room you have with headphones. The bass in there is
perfectly manageable. It just takes effort and some cash.

d

Apples vs. oranges, really.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

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

[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

[[email protected]]

Neil wrote:

===============

Do the math on the LF wavelength and one will see that very few homes
will have rooms large enough.

** Err - large enough for what ??

Perfectly possible to get very good low bass in a domestic lounge room.

Seems you don't know how.


...... Phil

[[email protected]]

Neil wrote:
============

Apples vs. oranges, really.


** Hmmm - sounds more like "sour grapes" in your case.



....... Phil

[geoff]

On 19/02/2021 12:50 pm, wrote:
Neil wrote:

===============

Do the math on the LF wavelength and one will see that very few homes
will have rooms large enough.

** Err - large enough for what ??

Perfectly possible to get very good low bass in a domestic lounge room.

Seems you don't know how.


..... Phil




I certainly can. And even more-so (to a disturbingly and unrealistic
degree) if I move my head to around 12" from the rear wall with 'normal'
music !

My current faves for an epic low bass sound try Nora Jones 'Turn Me On'
(bass drum), or bass'n'drums on Peter Gabriel Shaking The Tree, or bass
on Don't Give Up outro.

Unless one is talking about subsonic bass steady frequencies, which are
a different thing.

geoff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/18/2021 6:51 PM, wrote:
Neil wrote:
============

Apples vs. oranges, really.


** Hmmm - sounds more like "sour grapes" in your case.



...... Phil
In "my case" it's a matter of elementary physics.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/18/2021 6:50 PM, wrote:
Neil wrote:

===============

Do the math on the LF wavelength and one will see that very few homes
will have rooms large enough.

** Err - large enough for what ??

Perfectly possible to get very good low bass in a domestic lounge room.

Seems you don't know how.


..... Phil



Childish insults are not convincing arguments. Since you have no idea
what I know, why not just stick with facts based on elementary physics?

--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

Neil wrote:
===========

Apples vs. oranges, really.


** Hmmm - sounds more like "sour grapes" in your case.

In "my case" it's a matter of elementary physics.


** You need to look a bit more into the physics.

It ain't B&W like you think.


...... Phil

[[email protected]]

Neil wrote without thought :

====================

Do the math on the LF wavelength and one will see that very few homes
will have rooms large enough.

** Err - large enough for what ??

Perfectly possible to get very good low bass in a domestic lounge room.

Seems you don't know how.



Childish insults are not convincing arguments.

** I made no insult and you have not posted any argument yet.

Since you have no idea what I know,

** But I do know what you don't seem to.

As do others.


....... Phil

[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.

[Trevor]

On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end, none
of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try to
play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on headphones?
Must be impossible in your universe surely?

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/20/2021 12:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end,
none of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try to
play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on headphones?
Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever? Though I won't speak for all, MY head is not
hollow, ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing waves
and their anomalies. The same can be said for an-echoic chambers, which
is why I drew that analogy to headphones.

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,
that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.

--
best regards,

Neil

[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 11:41:14 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2021 12:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end,
none of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try to
play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on headphones?
Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever? Though I won't speak for all, MY head is not
hollow, ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing waves
and their anomalies. The same can be said for an-echoic chambers, which
is why I drew that analogy to headphones.

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,
that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.

The side of your head and the shell of the headphones form two
reflective surfaces. That is why they put acoustic damping material in
there.

d

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

[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

[[email protected]]

Neil is a fool wrote:
=================

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on headphones?
Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever?

** In fact - it is very apt.

Though I won't speak for all, MY head is not
hollow,

** I dispute that. Your head is quite empty.

ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing waves


If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,

** No the fool shifts the context by re-defining the question.
I was waiting for that move.

that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.

** More complex physics is involved than just "standing waves".
Which the fool has got wrong anyhow.

....... Phil

[[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

[Trevor]

On 21/02/2021 3:41 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/20/2021 12:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end,
none of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try to
play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on
headphones? Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever? Though I won't speak for all, MY head is not
hollow, ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing waves
and their anomalies. The same can be said for an-echoic chambers, which
is why I drew that analogy to headphones.

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,
that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.


You seem to be confused. There is nothing in physics that says you cant
create a room without significant standing waves. And it is only your
opinion that no room can possibly be adequate for most people to enjoy
music with proper bass response, even if you cant.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote:
============

On 21/02/2021 3:41 am, Neil wrote:

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,
that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.

You seem to be confused.

** Or much worse.


There is nothing in physics that says you cant
create a room without significant standing waves.

** Or arrange multiple speakers for that same result.

And it is only your
opinion that no room can possibly be adequate for most people to enjoy
music with proper bass response, even if you cant.

** Neil is like the blind man who meets an elephant for the first time.
He walks up and grabs the elephant's tail.

Then exclaims aloud: " Ah, an elephant - is just like a snake ! "


...... Phil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/20/2021 2:36 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:41:14 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2021 12:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end,
none of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try to
play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on headphones?
Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever? Though I won't speak for all, MY head is not
hollow, ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing waves
and their anomalies. The same can be said for an-echoic chambers, which
is why I drew that analogy to headphones.

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a recording,
that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on elementary physics.

The side of your head and the shell of the headphones form two
reflective surfaces. That is why they put acoustic damping material in
there.

d

The _acoustic damping_ makes the headphone shell surface non-reflective.
The side of one's head is both absorptive and not flat, so it is also
non-reflective. There are anomalies, but they are small in relation to
the headphone's non-linear response.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/21/2021 4:12 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 21/02/2021 3:41 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/20/2021 12:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/02/2021 3:32 am, Neil wrote:
On 2/16/2021 11:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 15/02/2021 10:27 pm, Neil wrote
IMO, those interested in subwoofers are looking for a visceral
experience rather than an accurate reproduction, so to that end,
none of the variables really matter.

Yes that would be an opinion only. I always laugh when people try
to play pipe organ music on their LS3A's for example. :-)


Unless your playback room is the size of the cathedral, you're just
going for a visceral response with a sub-woofer.

That would be your opinion too of course. Fortunately the biggest
advantage of a cathedral is the reverberation time, and can be recorded.
I wonder whether you have ever heard anything below 1kHz on
headphones? Must be impossible in your universe surely?


I wonder if you realize that your comment about headphone frequency
makes no sense whatsoever? Though I won't speak for all, MY head is
not hollow, ergo there are no reflective surfaces to create standing
waves and their anomalies. The same can be said for an-echoic
chambers, which is why I drew that analogy to headphones.

If you think subwoofers allow for accurate reproduction of a
recording, that's fine, but it's your opinion, not facts based on
elementary physics.


You seem to be confused. There is nothing in physics that says you cant
create a room without significant standing waves. And it is only your
opinion that no room can possibly be adequate for most people to enjoy
music with proper bass response, even if you cant.


Only you have made claims that one can't create a room without
"significant standing waves". My statement about an-echoic chambers
being the epitome of such rooms says nothing about creating a good
listening environment. But, doing so requires one to calculate the
position of those standing waves.

All of my comments have to do with the nature of subwoofers, that
originated as a compromise for speakers without the dynamic range to
produce the LF that they provide. The many issues that come along with
them range from lumpy crossover to their centralized location which
negates any possibility of accurately positioned sound (many points
already made by some others in this discussion).

My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the inability to produce
good bass responses either in the speakers themselves or the room. In
fact, I've enjoyed a very good living in part from designing such
speakers and creating good listening experiences in some very
challenging environments, such as pressurized domes.

And, doing either of those involves elementary physics.

Carry on, if you must.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:09:40 -0500, Neil
wrote:

The _acoustic damping_ makes the headphone shell surface non-reflective.
The side of one's head is both absorptive and not flat, so it is also
non-reflective. There are anomalies, but they are small in relation to
the headphone's non-linear response.

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.

d

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

[UnsteadyKen]

In article ,

Don Pearce says...

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.


Excellent article about headphones and their interaction with ones
lugholes:

https://www.hifinews.com/content/bet...dphone-testing



And should the response be linear anyway?:

https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/04...curves-part-1/



--
Ken

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:27:21 -0000, Unsteadyken
wrote:

In article ,

Don Pearce says...

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.


Excellent article about headphones and their interaction with ones
lugholes:

https://www.hifinews.com/content/bet...dphone-testing



And should the response be linear anyway?:

https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/04...curves-part-1/

That's frequency response. Nothing to do with linearity.

d

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

[UnsteadyKen]

In article ,

Don Pearce says...

That's frequency response. Nothing to do with linearity.


it is not necessary to point out the obvious, obviously.

I thought the link interesting; relevant to the subject and could
have lead to further discussion without descending into the usual point
scoring exercise.

Fell at the first hurdle.

--
Ken

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:31:54 -0000, Unsteadyken
wrote:

In article ,

Don Pearce says...

That's frequency response. Nothing to do with linearity.


it is not necessary to point out the obvious, obviously.

I thought the link interesting; relevant to the subject and could
have lead to further discussion without descending into the usual point
scoring exercise.

Fell at the first hurdle.

You certainly did. That was pure gibberish.

d

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/21/2021 9:29 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:09:40 -0500, Neil
wrote:

The _acoustic damping_ makes the headphone shell surface non-reflective.
The side of one's head is both absorptive and not flat, so it is also
non-reflective. There are anomalies, but they are small in relation to
the headphone's non-linear response.

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.

d

the non-linear response of headphones
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-response

Now, you explain your very reflective head.

--
best regards,

Neil

[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

[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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:35:29 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/21/2021 9:29 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:09:40 -0500, Neil
wrote:

The _acoustic damping_ makes the headphone shell surface non-reflective.
The side of one's head is both absorptive and not flat, so it is also
non-reflective. There are anomalies, but they are small in relation to
the headphone's non-linear response.

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.

d

the non-linear response of headphones
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-response

Now, you explain your very reflective head.

Again, not a word about non-linearity. And the reflective head. You
are going to have to explain how it could not be - you are in the land
of ducks having no echo here.

d

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

[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 3:26 am, Neil wrote:


Only you have made claims that one can't create a room without
"significant standing waves". My statement about an-echoic chambers
being the epitome of such rooms says nothing about creating a good
listening environment. But, doing so requires one to calculate the
position of those standing waves.

I feel the need to score a point here. Anechoic is one word an is not
hyphenated, despite what Thunderbird's spell-checker might think.

geoff

[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 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

[[email protected]]

Neil the Nutter Bull****ted:
======================

the non-linear response of headphones
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-response


** Dear NG followers:

The odd looking response curves published on that *amateur* site are the result of the test set up - which is described in the vid as being ".... not actually made for measuring headphones ".

All the dips and peaks at top end are test anomalies, so is the LF roll off.

IMO the ONLY way to sensibly evaluate headphones is to wear and listen to them for a while.

IME ES models win, hands down on sound and comfort grounds.

It is also interesting that the site used a powerful amplifier to drive the various phones - rated at 24W into 32 ohms from its "balanced" headphone connector. That is enough to smoke most phones and your ears in a fraction of a second .
Very stupid.


...... Phil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/21/2021 5:27 PM, geoff wrote:
On 22/02/2021 3:26 am, Neil wrote:


Only you have made claims that one can't create a room without
"significant standing waves". My statement about an-echoic chambers
being the epitome of such rooms says nothing about creating a good
listening environment. But, doing so requires one to calculate the
position of those standing waves.

I feel the need to score a point here. Anechoic is one word an is not
hyphenated, despite what Thunderbird's spell-checker might think.

geoff

Being "old school" I agree with you, but things change and the main idea
is to communicate. It would be a problem if you asked what "an-echoic"
meant! ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 2/21/2021 4:03 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:35:29 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/21/2021 9:29 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:09:40 -0500, Neil
wrote:

The _acoustic damping_ makes the headphone shell surface non-reflective.
The side of one's head is both absorptive and not flat, so it is also
non-reflective. There are anomalies, but they are small in relation to
the headphone's non-linear response.

The side of the head is actually very reflective. And you are going to
have to explain this non-linear response. I've never seen it.

d

the non-linear response of headphones
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-response

Now, you explain your very reflective head.

Again, not a word about non-linearity. And the reflective head. You
are going to have to explain how it could not be - you are in the land
of ducks having no echo here.

d

Sorry that you didn't understand the curves in the tests, since they are
the definition of audio linearity.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding duck echos.

--
best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

Kneel finger painted:

===================

I feel the need to score a point here. Anechoic is one word an is not
hyphenated, despite what Thunderbird's spell-checker might think.

geoff

Being "old school" I agree with you,

** What "old school " was that - your parent's basement?

the main idea is to communicate.

** The why don't you try it sometime ???

Instead of constantly lying, bull****ting, insulting your betters and obfuscating.


NB That was a *rhetorical* question


....... Phil

[[email protected]]

Kneel finger painted his own ****:
===========================

Again, not a word about non-linearity. And the reflective head. You
are going to have to explain how it could not be - you are in the land
of ducks having no echo here.

d

Sorry that you didn't understand the curves in the tests, since they are
the definition of audio linearity.

** In the world of "audio" linearity is synonymous with low harmonic distortion.

Transfer linearity, linear excursion etc.

Only in the world of *audiophoolery* it becomes something else.


I have no idea what you're talking about regarding duck echos.

** ROTFL !!!!

" A duck's quack never echoes.... "


...... Phil