I listen with circumaural headphones a lot, several different types, and I have a couple different loudspeaker setups as well.
When I bought in-ear canal buds, aka earphones, for mobile listening, I was struck by the difference. In fact, I hardly ever listen to them because I really don't like what I hear! Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, the curves and ridges don't look like mere decoration.
Our ear looks like it is shaped the way it is for acoustic effect. Putting the speaker in your ear canal skips the outer ear. Yet, I have read over and over that earphones are supposed to be the ultimate . . . .
Anyone have any thoughts or input?

Can't stand them either. Loved the Stax "Nearphones".
What we don't know how to explain is how our brain processes hearing. The outer rear does all kinds of FR and phase shaping. Our brain knows that. We learned what clues represents a sound. Do some tests. Listen to music, move your ears around, cup your hands, push them back. Do one at a time. Really changes sound clues.
Buds eliminate all those clues. They can't tell you if the tiger is coming at you from the front or the rear. That was important when we learned how to hear! Now everyone with buds can't tell where the biss is coming from. Hmmm. natural selection may still work.

Most IEM have a poor fit because the shape of each ear is so different. I use UE11 (http://www.ultimateears.com/_ultimateears/products/custom/ue11pro_description.php) pro's which are custom molds and I find them as enjoyable (for different reasons) as my B&W Diamonds. Once you go custom molds you can never go back to standard IEM's

Well, without getting into an evolution/creation debate (I'll be happy to address that in another forum), not only does the pinna of the ear help to gather and direct soundwaves into the auditory canal where it stimulates the auditory network in the inner ear, but there are sound waves that we can interpret that pass through the cranial bones. It's why you still "hear" when your ears are completely plugged. In-canal earbuds bypass that auditory info, as well, where some on-ear headphones, especially the more open back type, can capitalize on it and often sound "better" or more natural.

I listen with circumaural headphones a lot, several different types, and I have a couple different loudspeaker setups as well.
When I bought in-ear canal buds, aka earphones, for mobile listening, I was struck by the difference. In fact, I hardly ever listen to them because I really don't like what I hear! Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, the curves and ridges don't look like mere decoration.
Our ear looks like it is shaped the way it is for acoustic effect. Putting the speaker in your ear canal skips the outer ear. Yet, I have read over and over that earphones are supposed to be the ultimate . . . .
Anyone have any thoughts or input?OF course. The shape of the pinna plays a role in detection of distance. All you have to do is google this topic and/or HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function).

............ but there are sound waves that we can interpret that pass through the cranial bones. It's why you still "hear" when your ears are completely plugged. Not much really. Only very low frequencies can affect the transducers if the external auditory meatus is completely blocked with non-porous and non-conductive materials.

I am with Schro on that Kal. I was looking into hearing protection recently and found some testing that says completely blocking the ear only provides about 36dB suppression. General overall as it is somewhat frequency dependent. I also seem to remember "The Cheapskate" doing a piece about some leather ears he had.
Buds may be an excellent monitoring tool if you want accuracy to identify flaws in a recording. Kind of like JBL L100's, where they could make any flaw jump out at you. Great monitor, terrible in a home!

Not much really. Only very low frequencies can affect the transducers if the external auditory meatus is completely blocked with non-porous and non-conductive materials.

True, different frequencies are passed differently. However, there are many "parts" to the perception and interpretation of hearing, including sound waves stimulating the external meatus and activating the stapes/incus, etc., but also sound waves that hit other areas of our body, previous experiences with sound, how our brains interpret the sound, etc. If any of those factors are altered, our perception will be different. Of course, that can change as we adapt to the differences.

I had typed a long explanation about how many different mechanisms/stimuli interact in concert to provide us with balance and our sense of position in space, but it got erased (stupid computer) before I could post. My approach to this is as a physical therapist, so my understanding/education in anatomy and physiology may be different from yours. However, it was another way of justifying my point above. If this discussion continues along those lines, I may get the energy to type it out again.

I am with Schro on that Kal. I was looking into hearing protection recently and found some testing that says completely blocking the ear only provides about 36dB suppression. General overall as it is somewhat frequency dependent.Certainly. It really depends on what you mean by blocked.

True, different frequencies are passed differently. However, there are many "parts" to the perception and interpretation of hearing, including sound waves stimulating the external meatus and activating the stapes/incus, etc., but also sound waves that hit other areas of our body, previous experiences with sound, how our brains interpret the sound, etc. If any of those factors are altered, our perception will be different. Of course, that can change as we adapt to the differences.Well, there is a difference between hearing something and detecting a pressure wave. To hear, the sound is transduced by the inner ear, usually via (but not always) the middle ear bones. How we perceive an event depends on the sum of detected signals but only some of them constitute "hearing."

I had typed a long explanation about how many different mechanisms/stimuli interact in concert to provide us with balance and our sense of position in space, but it got erased (stupid computer) before I could post. This is not relevant except, perhaps, for fish. Although both systems are parts of the inner ear, they detect different forms of mechanical energy.

My approach to this is as a physical therapist, so my understanding/education in anatomy and physiology may be different from yours. My approach is as a neurobiologist, professor and author of a textbook of physiology.

I would hope that there is no fundamental disagreement on the facts, especially if we stick to the original topic of the influence of the outer ear.

By blocked, I mean custom fit inner plugs, a bit of duct tape, and high quality external protectors. SOP. I am thinking audio frequency, as like you mention, lower frequency does different things, like kills my sinuses. Higher frequencies do neat things like give you a headache and you don't know why. ( Oh the fun we had in college)

I don't have a clue what the limits for active cancellation are. I have not been impressed with what I have tried.

Fascinating the backgrounds of the posters here! Same with the Morgan club, so many people I would never have met or talked to if we were all not all sick enough to like crude silly pre-war sports cars. An old computer scientist like me would never venture out that far otherwise.

No, Kal, no disagreement on the facts at all. I guess the issue I'm raising is more about semantics regarding "hearing" as a strict, textbook sensory perception, vs. the real-world interpretation of auditory stimuli both via the normal avenues (the ear) as well as other influencers/factors, and how they're interpreted as a whole.

I think that distinction is relevant to the OP regarding the role of the outer ear, because it's a factor in both the distinct sense of hearing, as well as one of the factors in the overall interpretation of sound.

The example of balance was intended more as an easier-to-understand distinction of different and distinct receptors (i.e. proprioceptive nerve networks in joints + vision + vestibular system, in concert with numerous reflexes such as the VOR) working in concert to affect the interpretation of environmental stimuli, and when one of the factors is altered, it affects the overall interpretation. I didn't intend to relate the vestibular system of the inner ear with the auditory function of the ear, so I apologize if this wasn't communicated well.

No, Kal, no disagreement on the facts at all. I guess the issue I'm raising is more about semantics regarding "hearing" as a strict, textbook sensory perception, vs. the real-world interpretation of auditory stimuli both via the normal avenues (the ear) as well as other influencers/factors, and how they're interpreted as a whole.Good point except that I would also move the word 'auditory' to between the words normal and avenues.

I think that distinction is relevant to the OP regarding the role of the outer ear, because it's a factor in both the distinct sense of hearing, as well as one of the factors in the overall interpretation of sound. understand the former but can you explain how the pinna participates in the latter?

The example of balance was intended more as an easier-to-understand distinction of different and distinct receptors (i.e. proprioceptive nerve networks in joints + vision + vestibular system, in concert with numerous reflexes such as the VOR) working in concert to affect the interpretation of environmental stimuli, and when one of the factors is altered, it affects the overall interpretation. I didn't intend to relate the vestibular system of the inner ear with the auditory function of the ear, so I apologize if this wasn't communicated well.OK.

By the way, Kal, I've always enjoyed your articles and reviews in Stereophile, and now knowing more about your background, I have a whole new level of appreciation for them. I've never had a chance to directly thank you for them, so I'll take the time now.

By the way, Kal, I've always enjoyed your articles and reviews in Stereophile, and now knowing more about your background, I have a whole new level of appreciation for them. I've never had a chance to directly thank you for them, so I'll take the time now.Thank you, very much. (Hey, you don't think that one can make a decent living reviewing audio equipment, do you?)

I find it interesting that even after you have compensated for the known effects of the head and outer ear by applying a HRTF to the signals to left and right headphones, the directional cues are still inadequate and to a large degree unconvincing. Just try listening to multichannel sound processed by Dolby Headphone or similar system. Good but no cigar.

There is evidence that even small head movements play an important role in directional perception. Hence the probably need for real-time head tracking for headphones!

- Terry

I find it interesting that even after you have compensated for the known effects of the head and outer ear by applying a HRTF to the signals to left and right headphones, the directional cues are still inadequate and to a large degree unconvincing. Just try listening to multichannel sound processed by Dolby Headphone or similar system. Good but no cigar.

There is evidence that even small head movements play an important role in directional perception. Hence the probably need for real-time head tracking for headphones!

- TerryUndoubtedly. The two well-documented neural mechanisms for directional detection rely on phase and timing (although they are also frequency sensitive) and they are statistical, especially in view of the temporal limitations imposed by synaptic transmission and neuronal processing. Head movements are essential for getting (1) detection in the mid-sagittal plane and (2) higher resolution in all planes.

Wow. thanks everyone--
Now I have a lot to research:)
As a lawyer, I don't have the scientific background some of y'all do, but I am a natural skeptic.
Regarding HRTF, this is still on topic, who has heard any artifical head recordings? The only material I'm familiar with is an old Edgar Froese album, Aqua. I'd love to hear some more.
I've also never tried Dolby headphone processing. I downloaded AKG's version to use with Windows Media Player, but I wasn't that impressed (maybe it was the bad MP3s!).

Wow. thanks everyone--
Now I have a lot to research:)
As a lawyer, I don't have the scientific background some of y'all do, but I am a natural skeptic.
Regarding HRTF, this is still on topic, who has heard any artifical head recordings? The only material I'm familiar with is an old Edgar Froese album, Aqua. I'd love to hear some more.
I've also never tried Dolby headphone processing. I downloaded AKG's version to use with Windows Media Player, but I wasn't that impressed (maybe it was the bad MP3s!).The recent SACD of the computer-translated Gould/Goldberg variations has a dummy-head stereo track. Also, google binaural recordings for more. Not a lot but worth a look.