Quote from: ultrabike on September 10, 2012, 03:40:37 AMI agree that it is more practical in the long run to mod the headphones. But I don't think that was an echo canceller or predictor structure. That more than likely was straight FIR convolution to the impulse response which did not took into consideration non-linear distortion and positional variations.Oops. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought xnor did it that way. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was a straight FIR convolution.I was just throwing out an idea that worked on a similar principle.
I agree that it is more practical in the long run to mod the headphones. But I don't think that was an echo canceller or predictor structure. That more than likely was straight FIR convolution to the impulse response which did not took into consideration non-linear distortion and positional variations.
There is one headphone that comes across as almost linear phase (non-minimum phase) from IF impulse response inspection that I find interesting: The Shure SE535. I haven't heard it, and I have comfort issues with IEMs. However, some people think it's quite good, while others think it's kind of meh... Not a consensus fail as the Ultrasone and the Denon Buger King though...
It was also stated by xnor to be a minimum-phase only deconvolution, not a full deconvolution.I think it's interesting as an indicator of how good the impulse response can theoretically get if you only use EQ. (rather than say stick a mic between the headphones and your ears and run DRC-FIR)
If it were that simple to create the perfect headphone there would have been handy sellers that were already selling headphones with built-in active compensation for large sums of money as they would be very easy to make and sound 'perfect'.No such thing yet.
