The hardest to me was the 1khz, and the easiest the 10+12khz.
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.16
2017-11-13 23:37:45
File A: 1000Hz_gen.wav
SHA1: b303226639a6f0633023c06bccc5dcc3711f2742
File B: 1000Hz_rec.wav
SHA1: 774114f7416ddbdc290faece1c8b02d9ec2f676c
Output:
WASAPI (event) : Headphone (VIA HD Audio), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
23:37:45 : Test started.
23:38:22 : 01/01
23:38:32 : 02/02
23:38:40 : 03/03
23:38:49 : 04/04
23:39:01 : 05/05
23:39:13 : 06/06
23:39:39 : 07/07
23:39:48 : 08/08
23:39:56 : 09/09
23:40:07 : 10/10
23:40:26 : 11/11
23:40:35 : 12/12
23:40:35 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
-- signature --
59ef2a10457073939030f79ab9000dcdd5395f7a
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.16
2017-11-13 23:44:47
File A: 2kHz gen.wav
SHA1: 83cdde7dd2d9e166fa7f92a0a8b69526ce83357f
File B: 2kHz rec.wav
SHA1: 63db87c63b3d51d113d6de5279dfd179b1858643
Output:
WASAPI (event) : Headphone (VIA HD Audio), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
23:44:47 : Test started.
23:45:19 : 01/01
23:45:34 : 02/02
23:45:39 : 03/03
23:45:49 : 04/04
23:45:53 : 05/05
23:45:58 : 06/06
23:46:02 : 07/07
23:46:06 : 08/08
23:46:10 : 09/09
23:46:13 : 10/10
23:46:17 : 11/11
23:46:21 : 12/12
23:46:21 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
-- signature --
782be79c93083a040623da0114db20dffca4d6d8
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.16
2017-11-13 23:42:19
File A: 10+12khz_gen.wav
SHA1: 821894330fe457aa2c82286c7f323c34d0dab4ac
File B: 10+12khz_rec.wav
SHA1: 271b9efc65be91ca113cfc1248032534c9f88463
Output:
WASAPI (event) : Headphone (VIA HD Audio), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
23:42:19 : Test started.
23:42:53 : 01/01
23:42:59 : 02/02
23:43:03 : 03/03
23:43:07 : 04/04
23:43:12 : 05/05
23:43:16 : 06/06
23:43:25 : 07/07
23:43:29 : 08/08
23:43:33 : 09/09
23:43:37 : 10/10
23:43:41 : 11/11
23:43:45 : 12/12
23:43:45 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
-- signature --
d0d5ff625726dc6427338c2a5e4fc32c0e676f3e
Last edited:
Well, this should settle the matter. Scott and Geddes and any others who dont seem to believe one can hear much of anything in the way of distortion. I would guess they have not spent much time critically listening.
I will not be back to my home music system for another month. Would love to take test now. Wondering also how an excellent headphone use would change any results or make it even more sensitive.
THx -- Richard Marsh
I will not be back to my home music system for another month. Would love to take test now. Wondering also how an excellent headphone use would change any results or make it even more sensitive.
THx -- Richard Marsh
Last edited:
Many highly regarded headphones have distortion comparable to or significantly in excess of these test signals:
Speakerphone Etymotic Research ER4XR Measurements
I am curious to hear your thoughts on this...
Ive been developing a ribbon for the last 6 months. Out of 3 diaphragm designs 1 has stood out and while everything looks like a go I am torn on its release. The "problem" is making the desision between the "high" distortion version and the "low" distortion version. The reasion there is a dificult decision is two fold. 1- the higher distortion version has a nice 90 db sensativity vs an 86 db sensativity on the lower distortion version. 2- Neather I nor anyone else so far can tell the difference between the two listening to music.
some details...
This ribbon is designd to be used as low as 1khz. In the lower distortion version, 2nd through 5th HD are all down around .3%-.5% @90 db 1 meter. In the higher distortion version 2nd,4th,and 5th are all below .5% but 3rd starts climbing at around 3khz reaching 4% by 1khz.
I was quite suprised when I started listening tests. I thought for sure I would easily hear a difference. I simply do not.
While my "test" is simple and im sure we could, in theory anyway, tear it down from a technical standpoint, it seems an interesting example of two basically identical transducers measuring quite different distortion levels yet sounding identical.
Ive been developing a ribbon for the last 6 months. Out of 3 diaphragm designs 1 has stood out and while everything looks like a go I am torn on its release. The "problem" is making the desision between the "high" distortion version and the "low" distortion version. The reasion there is a dificult decision is two fold. 1- the higher distortion version has a nice 90 db sensativity vs an 86 db sensativity on the lower distortion version. 2- Neather I nor anyone else so far can tell the difference between the two listening to music.
some details...
This ribbon is designd to be used as low as 1khz. In the lower distortion version, 2nd through 5th HD are all down around .3%-.5% @90 db 1 meter. In the higher distortion version 2nd,4th,and 5th are all below .5% but 3rd starts climbing at around 3khz reaching 4% by 1khz.
I was quite suprised when I started listening tests. I thought for sure I would easily hear a difference. I simply do not.
While my "test" is simple and im sure we could, in theory anyway, tear it down from a technical standpoint, it seems an interesting example of two basically identical transducers measuring quite different distortion levels yet sounding identical.
Last edited:
Maybe ask yourself who, or what market, you are planning to sell them to? Will it be people who care about specifications? Will it be mastering engineers with very keen ears? (if so, you might want to see if some of the better ones can hear any difference.) Or, will you be selling it to a market that cares more about sensitivity and maybe maximum achievable SPL? If you are sure it won't make any difference no matter who the target market consists of, then why is the decision so hard?
Thanks Karl, I tried the 2kHz test again with DacMagic Plus and even lower volume level than before and got 10/12 and 11/12.
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2017-11-14 11:32:48
File A: 2kHz gen.wav
SHA1: 83cdde7dd2d9e166fa7f92a0a8b69526ce83357f
File B: 2kHz rec.wav
SHA1: 63db87c63b3d51d113d6de5279dfd179b1858643
Output:
WASAPI (event) : Speakers (Cambridge Audio USB Audio 1.0), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
11:32:48 : Test started.
11:33:52 : 01/01
11:34:15 : 02/02
11:34:35 : 03/03
11:34:50 : 04/04
11:35:08 : 05/05
11:35:15 : 06/06
11:35:39 : 06/07
11:35:47 : 07/08
11:35:54 : 08/09
11:36:07 : 09/10
11:36:23 : 10/11
11:36:32 : 11/12
11:36:32 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.3%
-- signature --
78d0069405a3c06480f9f9295b14c19c351713edSo not perfect yet, but much better than before in this test
.
Yes. In fact in the past years I have posted several test threads with mathematically added distortion here at diyaudio, but the files had some mistakes that were detectable by abx switching and those mistakes were not originated in distortion. I have learned quite a lot from these mistakes and maybe I might be able to prepare a test with mathematically added distortion, similar as the one measured, into a music sample.
I am 62, maybe the detection of the 5th harmonic at 10kHz and about -62dB from the fundamental is more difficult to me
Well if it were cheap to make a ribbon that outperforms the present offerings in some meaningful ways then it would be a much easyer decision. The higher sensativity version would goto the wider market. However due to cost the units will cater to a crowed where many are convinced that such distortion numbers indicate poor performance. This is enough to make many question it.
We have test half to death with a number of people and are confident that while there maybe someone on the planet that can hear a difference we have reason to be confident that there seems to be more to the distortion argument than we know.
One of the most interesting things that has developed through all this is how easily we were able to hear the differences between diaphragm designs. There originally were 5 different designs. pure foil types, sandwich constructions, laminated foil/film types and some unique constructions I will have to stay quiet on. All were constucted in a variety of masses, with a variety of magnet configuations and face plate geometrys as well as all sorts of transformer wind arraingments and core types. While the distortion profiles of many were lower than the version that is winning this war, their sound quality was simply not as convincing or often had some specific coloration that in extended listening became abvious.
Last edited:
i guess you've not encountered the "no usable metric" mantra.
it is a troubling problem from a measurement/quantitative perspective, but to simply say it's irrelevant and a non issue does not make the phenomenon/problem go away.
this is a debate that has been going on for a long time and what dismays me the most is when polarization occurs rather then engage in open discussion in order to work towards enlightenment.
To be fair, I think that Earl is on recent record here saying that speaker low level distortion is audible on pure tones, but not in music playback.
That would be the next step in the test, music playback of the same device where the sine distortion is easily heard.
Remember some years ago when Art did a huge series of horn driver tests?
1K test
First try and I found it easy. Dell laptop soundcard, 6V6 SEP, Vistaton fullrange drivers.
But with headphones and my M-Audio soundcard as headphone amp, much harder, not sure I could pass. Strange.
First try and I found it easy. Dell laptop soundcard, 6V6 SEP, Vistaton fullrange drivers.
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.12
2017-11-14 10:32:00
File A: 1000Hz_gen.wav
SHA1: b303226639a6f0633023c06bccc5dcc3711f2742
File B: 1000Hz_rec.wav
SHA1: 774114f7416ddbdc290faece1c8b02d9ec2f676c
Output:
DS : Speakers / Headphones (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Crossfading: NO
10:32:00 : Test started.
10:32:14 : 01/01
10:32:32 : 02/02
10:32:39 : 03/03
10:32:50 : 04/04
10:32:59 : 05/05
10:33:11 : 06/06
10:33:23 : 07/07
10:33:34 : 08/08
10:33:44 : 09/09
10:33:55 : 10/10
10:34:06 : 11/11
10:34:13 : 12/12
10:34:21 : 13/13
10:34:32 : 14/14
10:34:32 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 14/14
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
-- signature --
a892693f55c57bbbc78156de6cb572f9eb0085e810K + 12K
Again, easy. The recorded file had an extra tone.
Again, easy. The recorded file had an extra tone.
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.12
2017-11-14 10:42:37
File A: 10+12khz_gen.wav
SHA1: 821894330fe457aa2c82286c7f323c34d0dab4ac
File B: 10+12khz_rec.wav
SHA1: 271b9efc65be91ca113cfc1248032534c9f88463
Output:
DS : Speakers / Headphones (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Crossfading: NO
10:42:37 : Test started.
10:42:44 : 01/01
10:42:53 : 01/02
10:43:03 : 02/03
10:43:12 : 03/04
10:43:24 : 04/05
10:43:33 : 05/06
10:43:40 : 06/07
10:43:51 : 07/08
10:44:02 : 08/09
10:44:12 : 09/10
10:44:19 : 10/11
10:44:29 : 11/12
10:44:39 : 12/13
10:44:49 : 13/14
10:44:49 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 13/14
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%
-- signature --
1fd217ec079cac40bc5494cdb00f9614754ade5d- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.