solderdude
Grand Contributor
Finally some sensible (technical) things coming back into the thread. This is purely a technical thing.No, simulating much of the body is outside the scope of ear simulators. They provide an acoustic load the the device-under-test that is similar to the acoustic load presented by the human ear.
There is no muscle in the human body that significantly affects the acoustic load provided by the ear.
Correct, that is outside the scope of ear simulators. Again, an ear simulator does not simulate your hearing, that is not the goal.
The goal is to present the sound source (the loudspeaker in the earphone) with an acoustic load similar to the acoustic load presented by the human ear.
Doing things for profit is not counter indicative to getting good results (nor is it indicative of it..)
I would like to add that the acoustic load present by certain standards 'represents' (kind of close) some 'average' of human models that was found.
It does not have to be an actual representation of your, mine or someone else's actual acoustic load nor does it include variances in hearing after the ear drum nor the brain (perception). This is a confounding variable as soon as people's opinions on what they hear comes into the mix.
This is where the targets come in. Correlation with sound + correction of the fixtures 'modifications due to the, in the standard described, ear canal with correct inserting depth/seal for IEMs.
Standards are good to ensure repeatable results between fixtures adhering to the same standards under 'perfect' circumstances. There are quite a few 'aids' to ensure that in lab conditions with special fixtures.
The trick that is now onto Harman is to find out the correlation between individual hearing/perception and the relation between say a specific GRAS standard and the BK5128 or derivatives. Curious to learn what they learned at Harman and how their new target differs from the old one and if they manage to get consistent results with BK.
Last edited: