how about Electrostat Headphones in the "following chain"?
<$200 universal disc player or a do you insist on $k DAC - which, Ayre, Benchmark, Carey,...?
or is someone going to pull a Lucy, yanking the football away by claiming Digital Audio sucks, only vinyl has DDR?
have to put some stakes in the ground - what are your DDR reference systems, what's good, what's bad
<$200 universal disc player or a do you insist on $k DAC - which, Ayre, Benchmark, Carey,...?
or is someone going to pull a Lucy, yanking the football away by claiming Digital Audio sucks, only vinyl has DDR?
have to put some stakes in the ground - what are your DDR reference systems, what's good, what's bad
Last edited:
The room is often called the "unseen elephant in the room".
Rooms have a HUGE influence.
dave
Antedocially i would expect them to have a highish DDR, but not having listened to any since the Jenklin float 3.5 decades ago i haveno personal opinion -- i haven't spent significant time listening to headphones since when you could but Sennheiser HD414 a similar length of time ago.
I am a frugal-phile, not in the least because i amp poor. None of the gear costs much money, and little of it was paid for with straight cash.
Much of my system is DIY with a broad range of speakers and amps. Primary amp is a custom built triode EL34 PP using Dynaco ST70 iron and a dynamutt front end. Also have some Pass Class A, and an SE EL34 here and more available.
Speakers invariably end up being EnABLed as they clearly show increased DDR not in the least in a greater ability to throw a 3D image/soundstage.
If there is a crossover in the system it is almost always 1st order and quite low (150-350 Hz), and because it is much easier to get right a simple PLLXO.
Full rez computer files on a MacMini (cost me a disk & a RAM upgrade + had to bake some cookies to bribe the tech) with PureMusic playback. A pro-audio Firewire DAC (Edirol FA66 not much cash around here, it offered the best performance for not much cashm the pro guys probably sell a 1000 DACs for every single unit of a hifi DAC).
dave
An idea... From someone who hasn't a clue...
Bare with me now as I have no idea, but if it's all about the ability to retain low level details within a complex passage of music couldn't we just play two complex but known waveforms though the driver then add a lower level waveform and measure the outcome?
Forgive me if I'm way off but im trying to understand..
Bare with me now as I have no idea, but if it's all about the ability to retain low level details within a complex passage of music couldn't we just play two complex but known waveforms though the driver then add a lower level waveform and measure the outcome?
Forgive me if I'm way off but im trying to understand..
there's an infamous track of a Brahms lullaby with a Sousa march added at -60 dB with a challenge to ABX/DBT by ear - want to try?
Liberty Instruments, Inc. Home Page
Audio DiffMaker example files
for judging the source and electronics headphones are cheap for the "resolution" though soundstage ends up as a line between your ears for normal stereo mixes
Sennheiser HD600, 650 are generally considered "audiophile quality" for ~US$300
Liberty Instruments, Inc. Home Page
Audio DiffMaker example files
for judging the source and electronics headphones are cheap for the "resolution" though soundstage ends up as a line between your ears for normal stereo mixes
Sennheiser HD600, 650 are generally considered "audiophile quality" for ~US$300
Last edited:
That is the kind of test approach that might well lead to some results. Test would have to be done in a VERY quiet space (ie anechoic chamber), and one would have to do some work to extract the lower level waveform. A measuring chain with very high dynamic range itself would be required.
This would be much easier with electronics as they do not mangle the waveform nearly as bad as even the best speaker.
Initial experiments likely best done with simplier excitation waveforms.
You'd want to set the lower waveform at varying levels, the 60 dB example jcx mentions very likely pushing well into levels where even transducers with very high DDR would be burying significant amounts of the information (if a really dynamic classical piece we are probably talking about information 40-90 dB down.
dave
That makes me wonder why you implied my hearing acuity suffered because of my tinnitus.
Wow - March 2015 -> Today - now there's a jump in time. Glad I clicked here, if only to see "onform"'s avatar gif.
Depicts how I feel about my laptop's trackpad - especially when using linux. Thanks, "have to have implemented every feature imaginable that cant be turned off" PC hardware competition...
Depicts how I feel about my laptop's trackpad - especially when using linux. Thanks, "have to have implemented every feature imaginable that cant be turned off" PC hardware competition...
I have tried something like this method, but am unsure about how to analyse the results.
The testing went like this:
- Use REW to provide sweep tests
- Use pink noise as the masking signal
- Use the same pre-recorded section of pink noise
- Before running the sweeps, use the measurement mic to make a recording of the speaker playing pink noise
- Use a digital mixing desk to provide USB I/O, and take care of recording time alignment.
In order to run the test, I mixed the section of pink noise and the REW input to feed to the speaker. The feed coming back from the microphone was subtracted with the previous recording of the speaker playing pink noise.
ie, the speaker would audibly be playing pink noise during the testing, but REW would only "see" the sweeps coming back, allowing the measurement of a speaker's frequency response while it was operating with a wide-band excitation signal over the top.
I then reduced the REW sweep feed by 6dB, and ran the sweep again.
And repeated a few more times, covering 36dB of dynamic range.
At an estimated -30dB sweep level (relative to the pink noise), the frequency response curve started to get a little more bumpy, but it stayed much the same shape as the previous curves - applying more smoothing would render the responses identical.
So, what does that tell us?
I have no idea.
I think the next step would be to repeat the setup with a few different drivers and see if the frequency response curves hold up better (or worse) as the sweep levels drop.
I'm still working out how to make this into quantitative data. ie, "This driver has a DDR of 40dB". The jump from a series of graphs to a single digit will require some simplification.
Thinking aloud (well, in text) at this point: what about the RMS difference in the response curves going from 0dB (sweep level = pink noise level) to -30dB (sweep is -30dB from pink noise level)?
It'd mean there's a single digit (lower = better) that tells us how imperfect the driver is. Maybe.
Apologies for the ramble. If anyone wants the dataset, I'll upload it.
Chris
It was probably a while ago, but yes.
I've recently taken delivery of a Beyerdynamic MC910, which is similar to the MC930 I've been using, but omnidirectional. ie, no proximity effect screwing up the frequency response curves.
Should still be low-noise and sensitive, though, so ought to be useful for experiments like these.
Chris
I've recently taken delivery of a Beyerdynamic MC910, which is similar to the MC930 I've been using, but omnidirectional. ie, no proximity effect screwing up the frequency response curves.
Should still be low-noise and sensitive, though, so ought to be useful for experiments like these.
Chris
I've been thinking more on this topic. Pondering audio like this is probably a disease, but that's okay - there are worse things to get hung up on.
The core idea here is that a high-level signal might add some "mush" that swamps (rendering inaudible, or obscured in some way) low-level details. Better drivers will add less mush/mash/noise/whatever, making it easier to hear those low-level details.
So, what would we call the mush added by high-level signals?
I believe that this has, in fact, already been defined: it's non-linear distortion.
When a driver produces signals that are not part of the excitation signal, it's exhibiting non-linear distortion.
The easiest (for me) way to measure that is simply measure the harmonic distortion of the driver. More harmonic distortion = more mush = less DDR.
There's also inter-modulation distortion, which visibly shows "mush" on a spectrum analyser. However, testing for that is less standardised.
If someone could name a few high & low DDR drivers, I'll see if I've got any of them here to test.
Cheers,
Chris
The core idea here is that a high-level signal might add some "mush" that swamps (rendering inaudible, or obscured in some way) low-level details. Better drivers will add less mush/mash/noise/whatever, making it easier to hear those low-level details.
So, what would we call the mush added by high-level signals?
I believe that this has, in fact, already been defined: it's non-linear distortion.
When a driver produces signals that are not part of the excitation signal, it's exhibiting non-linear distortion.
The easiest (for me) way to measure that is simply measure the harmonic distortion of the driver. More harmonic distortion = more mush = less DDR.
There's also inter-modulation distortion, which visibly shows "mush" on a spectrum analyser. However, testing for that is less standardised.
If someone could name a few high & low DDR drivers, I'll see if I've got any of them here to test.
Cheers,
Chris
Hi Chris, maybe some of Dave's suggestions here are of use. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...dan-eikona-2-help-deciding-5.html#post6629418
I shall ask this question here because I don't really want to start a thread about it.
It has been suggested that when a speaker or driver chassis moves in reaction to cone movement for example, this movement can cause a loss of small signal information, does anyone know how this happens, if it does?
It has been suggested that when a speaker or driver chassis moves in reaction to cone movement for example, this movement can cause a loss of small signal information, does anyone know how this happens, if it does?
It's Newtonian physics that the basket/magnet will accelerate in the opposite direction to the cone.
In terms of what that sounds like when mounted to a cabinet, we have to make a big pile of assumptions, which don't necessarily hold in reality.
For example, if we take a cube-shaped enclosure with the driver taking up most of one face, the entire cabinet will accelerate in the opposite direction to the cone. If we put the measurement mic behind the cabinet, we'll probably get some direct sound (in the nearfield) from the cabinet pushing air towards the mic.
As you measure from larger distances, the air displaced at the back of the cabinet will be shuffled towards the front of the cabinet (give or take), because there's a slight vacuum created there.
It's pretty obvious stuff if we set the combined mass of the basket + magnet + cabinet to be equal to the mass of the cone. However, in reality, there are usually a couple of orders of magnitude difference between Mmd and the mass of the hardware. So, the cabinet accelerations will be tiny.
Given the relative miniscule-ness of the accelerations (and the resulting SPLs), I'm inclined to build reasonably sturdy cabinets and call it good. Such things will be taken care of with proper construction techniques, and if you've got a couple of subwoofer drivers with really heavy cones, mount them for force cancellation.
Having mulled it over further (45 minutes of commuting each way allows a certain amount of pondering between traffic lights), I'm pretty much convinced that DDR is proportional to the distortion performance of a given speaker.
Chris
In terms of what that sounds like when mounted to a cabinet, we have to make a big pile of assumptions, which don't necessarily hold in reality.
For example, if we take a cube-shaped enclosure with the driver taking up most of one face, the entire cabinet will accelerate in the opposite direction to the cone. If we put the measurement mic behind the cabinet, we'll probably get some direct sound (in the nearfield) from the cabinet pushing air towards the mic.
As you measure from larger distances, the air displaced at the back of the cabinet will be shuffled towards the front of the cabinet (give or take), because there's a slight vacuum created there.
It's pretty obvious stuff if we set the combined mass of the basket + magnet + cabinet to be equal to the mass of the cone. However, in reality, there are usually a couple of orders of magnitude difference between Mmd and the mass of the hardware. So, the cabinet accelerations will be tiny.
Given the relative miniscule-ness of the accelerations (and the resulting SPLs), I'm inclined to build reasonably sturdy cabinets and call it good. Such things will be taken care of with proper construction techniques, and if you've got a couple of subwoofer drivers with really heavy cones, mount them for force cancellation.
Having mulled it over further (45 minutes of commuting each way allows a certain amount of pondering between traffic lights), I'm pretty much convinced that DDR is proportional to the distortion performance of a given speaker.
Chris
There would be a reduction in SPL, but would there be any instance in which information could actually be lost? For example if the speaker movement was greater than the smallest cone movement? I think this is what Dave (planet 10) has said if I understand him correctly. But I don't see how that could happen, to my mind there would only be a doppler (phase) shift in addition to the SPL reduction.