I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

deludedaudiophile "You can't compare the frequency response of a headphone to speakers."

You most certainly can and in fact should make such comparisons and they are valid, meaningful, and useful in determining and establishing the relative accuracy of not only each other but the recording itself which is why you will find in many recording studios and other recording environments that both speakers and headphones are used for judgment and evaluation of the work underway.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation.

@mahgister

"The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify"

So far so good, just like the human eye is not a passive organ of perception. It is understood that the brain contributes as much to the interpretation of the images detected as the eye itself.

There is no reason to not assume that the ear/brain operates in a similar fashion.

"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."

Now this is contentious.

For example, does this include the Klippel software and measuring systems as used by some of the most advanced audio labs today?

If not, then the following assumption cannot possibly hold any water, can it?

"It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim..."

I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI?

"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."

 

Now this is contentious.

«The technical specifications of the human ear are remarkable. We can hear sounds that evoke mechanical vibrations of magnitudes comparable to those produced by thermal noise (de Vries 1948; Sivian and White 1933). Hearing is so sharply tuned to specific frequencies that trained musicians can distinguish tones differing in frequency by only 0.1% (Spiegel and Watson 1984). Finally, our ears can process sounds over a range of amplitudes encompassing six orders of magnitude, which corresponds to a trillionfold range in stimulus power (Knudsen 1923).

These striking characteristics of our hearing emerge because the ear is not a passive sensory receptor, but possesses an active process that augments audition in three ways (reviewed in Hudspeth 2008; Manley 2000, 2001). First, amplification renders hearing several hundred times as sensitive as would be expected for a passive system. The active process next exhibits tuning that sharpens our frequency discrimination. Finally, a compressive nonlinearity ensures that inputs spanning an enormous range of sound-pressure levels are systematically encoded by a modest range of mechanical vibrations and in turn of receptor potentials and nerve-fiber firing rates. The active process additionally exhibits the striking epiphenomenon of spontaneous otoacoustic emission, the production of sound by an ear in the absence of external stimulation. Although considerable attention has been devoted to these properties in mammalian and especially human hearing, the four defining features of the active process are equally characteristic of nonmammalian tetrapods (reviewed in Manley 2001).»

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944685/

Artificial Intelligence is NOT intelligence...This is another matter out of this subject thread for sure...

Because "meanings" in human experience emerge through the deeply rooted biological body in all evolutive history beginning with the first cell...And this rooting is INTEGRATED at all scales and worked all the times not as a passed over abandonned tools but like an actual tools, our body host trillions of cells...... Life never let anything die without reason..Life explore and play but is not blind sorry...Randomness is not understood in biology...It is understood only in mathematics anyway...( the most important fact in mathematics is nor order or randomness but some kind of "music", this is demonstrated by non commutative geometry works of the fields medallist Alain Connes)

And in some very important theoretical approach in neuro research we must distinguish INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS completely... They are no more synonymus...

Consciousness is biologically and symbolically rooted , intelligence is only symbolically rooted, one is more fundamental...Consciousness encompass intelligence, not the opposite... There exist in the universe an "artificial intelligence" completely closed on themselves with no root in this universe at all... But i cannot enter this here...

Read Giulio Tononi... among others...or Penrose-Hameroff works etc...About the difference between consciousness and intelligence...

An intelligence rooted in an embodied consciousness work non algorithmically and work CONJUGATED AND IN CORRELATION with all others embodied intelligence through a hierarchical set of Markov blankets......To understand that read Karl Friston works among others...

The prime numbers distribution that Goedel used to created the first part of his famous theorem is essential...And primes numbers distribution is non algorithmically reducible ....

An A. I. do not and never will do...

Transhumanist science is technology gone mad...Not science...Yuval Noah Harari is an exemple of perfect intelligence without any ethical consciousness, he promote the right for some to hack the human body and negate the freedon of humans...

Intelligence has nothing to do with being "wise"....

«Do you claim that poetry rule over mathematics?»-Groucho Marx 🤓

I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI?

@clearthink

Let me restate. You can compare the frequency response of headphones to speakers. You can also jump off a tall building. Doing the latter without a parachute and the former without applying appropriate corrections are both bad ideas. Are you advocating bad ideas?

I really got into headphones when travelling extensively pre-Covid.

The graph above, the Harmon Preference curve, is based on in-ear frequency response of over-ear and in-ear head phones. If your headphones match this response tested with a dummy head, then they will approximately match the response of a good flat on axis speaker in a room.

Perhaps you should not make insults like this,

I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation.

when it implies you are providing accurate information, when what you were doing is misleading due to inaccurate or insufficient information.

It’s curves like this (there are several variants) that headphone designs nowadays target. Maybe we should do something similar for Amps plus speakers.

To the original posts author, I think we do that already. It is called flat though it may relate back to the Harmon in room preference curve. That would be worth checking out again.