D
Deleted member 16543
Guest
NopeI'm achingly curious to find out whether this option was explored further, either by @amirm or @Mad_Economist or anyone else, for that matter.
NopeI'm achingly curious to find out whether this option was explored further, either by @amirm or @Mad_Economist or anyone else, for that matter.
Yes, the 4620 is the ear sim (including the canal and pinna) used in the 5128, although apparently you can also buy it standalone.Is that the one used in their 5128 mic?
Yes, the 4620 is the ear sim (including the canal and pinna) used in the 5128, although apparently you can also buy it standalone.
Possibly of interest to you, the third Sony paper includes simulation of sound propagation inside the canal at very high frequencies - I recall that was an interest point.Well, yeah.. I'd say it's "sufficiently anthropomorphic" too!
Possibly of interest to you, the third Sony paper includes simulation of sound propagation inside the canal at very high frequencies - I recall that was an interest point.
Anyway, any and all feedback is welcome including whether we should even bother doing this.
This fixture is long gone but review of HD650 is already done on the GRAS fixture: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/sennheiser-hd650-review-headphone.18774/That's too much money. But as to what to test....the ol' standby - the Sennheiser's legendary 650 of course.
That's too much money. But as to what to test....the ol' standby - the Sennheiser's legendary 650 of course.
There are several different methods that could be used to derive a neutral in-ear response curve for the 5128 rig. Some would be more difficult than others, and require the use of a 5128 rig to perform various measurements. While others would not. And could at least be used to maybe get you in the general ballpark.
We developed one based on research that we used in this thread/evaluation. Alas, you have no way of confirming its validity without extensive controlled testing so the results cannot be defended. Indeed what we developed was not correct.There are several different methods that could be used to derive a neutral in-ear response curve for the 5128 rig. Some would be more difficult than others, and require the use of a 5128 rig to perform various measurements. While others would not. And could at least be used to maybe get you in the general ballpark.
... Indeed what we developed was not correct.
In contrast, I grabbed the target for GRAS45C and ran with it. That unit is one third the price to boot so there is really no reason to use BK 5128.
...
To derive a neutral in-ear response curve for the 5128 rig you need a 5128 rig (also, necessary condition, but not sufficient).
I don't know what methods you have in mind that wouldn't require it. I guess it depends on your definition of ballpark.
We developed one based on research that we used in this thread/evaluation. Alas, you have no way of confirming its validity without extensive controlled testing so the results cannot be defended. Indeed what we developed was not correct.
In contrast, I grabbed the target for GRAS45C and ran with it. That unit is one third the price to boot so there is really no reason to use BK 5128.
Also, I find that fitting headphones on the GRAS 45C is much easier than doing the same with B&K 5128. The constraint of a full head with the material that it is built out of makes it harder to make physical corrections. IEMs were next to impossible to stuff in the artificial ears and have them stay there.
I'm for free speech. Intelligible speech would be even better.
I'd suggest to keep your posts short and to the point. It was somewhat difficult to sort through the free form ones in the other thread, to be honest. No offence intended.. it might be just me.
If you could succinctly describe your diffuse field based method I think you will find people willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.
Accuracy to what? If I told you I have a new unit of measure for length that is called gzu. I tell you my phone is 3.3 gzu. What does that tell you about the real length of my phone? Nothing because you have no frame of reference for that new measurement.That's a non sequitur. The reason is increased accuracy.. Provided one can develop a correct method.