or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by briskly

These types of measurements include the frequency response of the ear canal and the diffraction of the outer ear. If you had noticed from my previous post, there was a measurement of a headphone's response from inside the headphone paired with the subjectively determined response of the same headphone.The sound input before entering the ear should still be flat.
Our goal in this case of equalizing by ear is get a response that seems flat. Diffuse field response is not intended, but that is the result these tend to follow.Loudness adjustments will be needed when done by ear, especially as dependent on level. The middle and inner ear have compression mechanisms that increase the input range of sound, and also affect the transfer response when active. This is the response of the loudspeaker in the listening room used in the Harman...
Neutral curve has a simple answer: headphone insertion gain matched to or approximately close to the subject's diffuse field transfer function. You would get that using reference noise and sweeps. The problem is that people tend not to like that, which is what inspires all this research. Harman takes the position that a downward sloping response, from room absorption and LF bumps, in speaker listening seem more natural to listeners, and thus should be reflected in headphones.
Some measurements here. Link.   Competent enough, besides the slightly too high output impedance for some crossover fitted IEMs, at 3 ohms. Measurements are pretty typical for the line.
I do not know of earphone studies in particular, but audible effects of phase and polarity are preferentially tested in anechoic chamber or with headphones. Not all instruments can be identified by polarity even over headphone, and typical recording techniques of multi-miking or anything more than a single instrument tend to make this more difficult to distinguish.
This was made from analysis of headphone measurement data from innerfidelity, and at the time there weren't many lower range Stax measured. You can always go over it yourself using the criterion established in the first post, and the Lambdas generally do well based on that, besides some minor quibble with the bass response.
Is there any particular reason to test a DAC using a 997 Hz sine instead of 1kHz? I figure that 48/96/192 kHz sampling rates are integer multiples of 1kHz, but what difference could we expect from that?
The reference plane in the human ear canal is defined as corresponding to the position in the canals where plugs would normally terminate in the ear. See here.This is around the second bend of the canals, where the cartilage makes way for the skull proper, as stated in the 711 simulation you linked. Hence the reference to the bony part of the ear canal. As to @speakerphone and distance to reference plane measurements, a snippet regarding insertion and reference plane...
Basically, all the stuff shotgunshane said. You could have gotten the Fiio EX1 for a lower price which is pretty much the same thing as the Titan 1.   Don't you already have the RE-600? Why would you order the very similar sounding RE-400? It won't fix the bass woes you had on RE-600, and likely still be too dull.
Titan 1 insertion depth by Tyll seems unrealistic. The large body makes a fit at the reference plane (bony part of the ear canal) very difficult, so the peak goes down in frequency.Here's what happens as you move Titan 1 away from the reference plane. Note that this is raw data, using a comparable ear canal simulator to Tyll's.Canal resonance is a pesky thing, isn't it?
New Posts  All Forums: