>Isn't the normal frequency response of a healthy ear dependent on the shape of the ear cartilage and the configuration of the ear canal and the ear drum? It wo

>Isn't the normal frequency response of a healthy ear dependent on the shape of the ear cartilage and the configuration of the ear canal and the ear drum? It would be different for every individual Yes, there's some individual variation, but human ears are all generally roughly the same structure, so there are known baselines for how they work. There's about 40 dB difference in minimum audible threshold between 50 Hz and 5 kHz. Same with near the top end of the hearing range, though where exactly that lies is more subject to individual variation (and age) >so it is not easily quantifiable therefore the inverse operator will not be exact, optimum, or anything else. However, if you can model the signal then you should be able to design the inverse operator. It's not originating from actual sound, so I think the approach fundamentally doesn't apply. Active noise canceling relies on destructive interference to actually physically remove the sound before it is perceived. Once you have the nerve signal, I think there simply isn't an anti-sound that would result in some other nerve signal that adds up to perceived silence.