My conclusion is time and events had reduced that persons high frequency hearing threshold. I rode in someone's car they turned up the sound and the high end was jacked up. Headphones essentially remove room acoustics from the equation, but other aspects remain. Our perception of sound is changed by the listening environment. Perception of sound changes with age and by incidents that happen. In the recorded music world, reference monitoring and hearing perception of decision makers is the dominate factor. But only the listener can say what is correct to their perception. That is, we can determine what is measurably and technically correct, according to the metrics that define correct. Respectfully to all here (and Dr David Griesinger) I wonder how you will define, measure and "correct" the subtle aspects of the physical and private experience of hearing. I guess it isn't really useful lol Do you have any takes on why this would or not work? If I flatten out the headphones by ear though, there will no longer be the possibility to do this "inverting method" because I would've already included my own ERTF in the process. In order to flatten out the headphones, a measurement of it's frequency response would be required, measurement of which would've already been done using a GRAS system, which has it's own HRTF.
What if I EQ my headphones to make them completely flat (and when I say flat I mean the true flat, dark, boring sound), then, after this, do an equal loudness test and invert the result of that equal loudness test to basically have my own Ear's Transfer Related Function (ERTF), making me able to EQ my headphones to that?ĮDIT: Actualy, I guess there would be a problem with this method. Click to expand.Thanks! I'm watchig this and it just made me think about a method that wouldn't require calibrated speakers to achieve similar results, but this time for ear transfer related function:
0 kommentar(er)
