Just realized no proper thread was made to explain in a simple way the blindtest I organized a little while ago:
So here it is:
Blindtest.
Rotating cube (enclosure) with 2 different drivers per round, one driver at a time, on-axis to the listener.
Bandpass crossover 360hz @ 7,200hz (48db/oct slope).
Both EQ'd and SPL-matched.
About a dozen different drivers tested total.
Nobody could identify blindly any of them, EVEN by swinging the head left/right in the hope of spotting differences in power response (directivity).
Over 150 rounds total were made. Various music excerpts, various music genres, various lengths.
The types of drivers couldn't be more mixed: from a 2'' compression driver to a 10'' pro mid, to a small 4'' fullrange, to a 8'' woofer to a ultra high-end 8'' fullrange, and so on...
Nobody could spot anyone of them, not even close, in that EQ/SPL-matched 360hz-7200hz bandwith.
....
EDIT: 28th april 2020
It was 360hz-7200hz for the final set-up @ 48db/octave.
1.65m listening distance, on-axis to the listener's head +/- 2 degrees,
Adjustable chair so the ears would be on-axis, even for short or tall participants.
SPL real-time monitored with an Audiocontrol Industrial SA-3051 with SPL calibrated mic = min. 86db max. 95db. (music excerpts)
And we didn't use a miniDSP 2x4HD as said before, it was a a nanoDIGI 2x8 feeding a Forssell DAC (MADA-2b high-end studio converter) and finally on a 50ASX2 amplifier.
ROOM:
Total volume: 147m³, build similarly as the University of Surrey's audio room dimensions & BBC R&D's ratio...
5.5 meters (width)
8.1 meters (lenght)
3.3 meters (height)
RT60 : 350ms
Noise floor : 29db (C-weighting)
TRANSDUCERS TESTED:
Radian 950PB-Beryllium with horn Goldwood GM-450PB*
Dayton audio RS225
Visaton FR10
Voxativ AC-1.6
Eminence Kappalite 10''
Visaton B200
Tang Bang W3
Airborne FR151
*Only horn that could fit our cube + had good reviews + was good for 500hz.
....
Food for thoughts in your next multi-way project.
Also, I highly suspect the other octaves could have the same fate, tweeters, woofers, subwoofers... Even if I never tested that.
So, basically, what's left is the SPL output potential of one driver, the power response (which is, in stereo, probably audible) and his ability to cover certain frequencies OR, more precisely, to be EQ corrected to do so.
Everything else is basically unrelated to his sonic qualities: Pricing, durability, weight, size, enclosure requirements, looks, and so on...
Voilà.
So here it is:
Blindtest.
Rotating cube (enclosure) with 2 different drivers per round, one driver at a time, on-axis to the listener.
Bandpass crossover 360hz @ 7,200hz (48db/oct slope).
Both EQ'd and SPL-matched.
About a dozen different drivers tested total.
Nobody could identify blindly any of them, EVEN by swinging the head left/right in the hope of spotting differences in power response (directivity).
Over 150 rounds total were made. Various music excerpts, various music genres, various lengths.
The types of drivers couldn't be more mixed: from a 2'' compression driver to a 10'' pro mid, to a small 4'' fullrange, to a 8'' woofer to a ultra high-end 8'' fullrange, and so on...
Nobody could spot anyone of them, not even close, in that EQ/SPL-matched 360hz-7200hz bandwith.
....
EDIT: 28th april 2020
It was 360hz-7200hz for the final set-up @ 48db/octave.
1.65m listening distance, on-axis to the listener's head +/- 2 degrees,
Adjustable chair so the ears would be on-axis, even for short or tall participants.
SPL real-time monitored with an Audiocontrol Industrial SA-3051 with SPL calibrated mic = min. 86db max. 95db. (music excerpts)
And we didn't use a miniDSP 2x4HD as said before, it was a a nanoDIGI 2x8 feeding a Forssell DAC (MADA-2b high-end studio converter) and finally on a 50ASX2 amplifier.
ROOM:
Total volume: 147m³, build similarly as the University of Surrey's audio room dimensions & BBC R&D's ratio...
5.5 meters (width)
8.1 meters (lenght)
3.3 meters (height)
RT60 : 350ms
Noise floor : 29db (C-weighting)
TRANSDUCERS TESTED:
Radian 950PB-Beryllium with horn Goldwood GM-450PB*
Dayton audio RS225
Visaton FR10
Voxativ AC-1.6
Eminence Kappalite 10''
Visaton B200
Tang Bang W3
Airborne FR151
*Only horn that could fit our cube + had good reviews + was good for 500hz.
....
Food for thoughts in your next multi-way project.
Also, I highly suspect the other octaves could have the same fate, tweeters, woofers, subwoofers... Even if I never tested that.
So, basically, what's left is the SPL output potential of one driver, the power response (which is, in stereo, probably audible) and his ability to cover certain frequencies OR, more precisely, to be EQ corrected to do so.
Everything else is basically unrelated to his sonic qualities: Pricing, durability, weight, size, enclosure requirements, looks, and so on...
Voilà.
Last edited:
Huh???
Reinforces what Toole, Gedees etc say, freq response is the most important thing in a speaker by far. On and off axis. And thanks for taking the time and having the guts to post something that will be bashed by the "everything makes a difference" crowd. Cant wait for the ridiculous coments to start coming in.
Last edited:
You tried?
Please explain in details the methodology, the number of participants and the detailed results.
Well, first, that is entirely untrue.
Both drivers may sound vastly different if not EQ corrected and not SPL-matched, even with a poor source, and that is the point.
I say: poor source or stellar one; it won't change a tiny bit the results if the drivers are both EQ-corrected and SPL-matched.
But just to add a layer of cockyness in my statement, let me say that a 20$ driver will most likely sound the same (which means, not identifiable in a blind test) using a ''poor source'' VERSUS a 200$ driver with a stellar source.
And by ''source'' I mean the electronics, not the music, which needs to be the same mastering/recording for both, in that comparison.
So, yeah, I would be down any day of the week to bet any amount that THAT:
20$ driver + 30$ DAC + 256kbps compressed AAC file
would be indistinguishable from:
200$ driver + 3000$ DAC + uncompressed 24/96 file
Given both are EQ-corrected the same and SPL-matched.
And when I say i'd bet any amount, that includes my car. I'm either very confident or I'm a total fool.
Last edited:
The next step, at least to my eyes (ears) would be the sound system V.S. the live musician. Violin, piano, flute, anything...
In a hypothetical blind test, 90 individuals out of a total of 100 unable to recognize the real violin, piano or flute. The sound system will then be “90% high fidelity” for these instruments and in this context.
Useless, you say? No. That would be an excellent start, opening possibilities. Opening the gates of nuances, degrees, and objectively for once.
Because it can then serve as a comparative basis. An infinitely more objective comparative base - so, more useful - than a million opinions launched left and right on our personal tastes.
We could thus discover that certain loudspeakers sold on the market for thousands of $, euros or pounds, succeed in deceiving only 10% of people in comparison with real instruments, perhaps even zero... Therefore, not ''Hi-Fi'', for most, or for all ears...
It is the lack of an objective comparative base which misses, in audiophilia, in that "HiFi" world that lost his way a while ago.
In a hypothetical blind test, 90 individuals out of a total of 100 unable to recognize the real violin, piano or flute. The sound system will then be “90% high fidelity” for these instruments and in this context.
Useless, you say? No. That would be an excellent start, opening possibilities. Opening the gates of nuances, degrees, and objectively for once.
Because it can then serve as a comparative basis. An infinitely more objective comparative base - so, more useful - than a million opinions launched left and right on our personal tastes.
We could thus discover that certain loudspeakers sold on the market for thousands of $, euros or pounds, succeed in deceiving only 10% of people in comparison with real instruments, perhaps even zero... Therefore, not ''Hi-Fi'', for most, or for all ears...
It is the lack of an objective comparative base which misses, in audiophilia, in that "HiFi" world that lost his way a while ago.
Here we go with the first denial and the most common excuse, "Blind test are useless". Tell that to Dr Toole.
You didn't explain all that in the first post of this thread. Are you planning to at some point?
Do you have pics of the test setup? A test flow chart? A schematic of the equipment setup? Phonograph? Radio? Other source? Only analog EQ applied? Digital switching power amp? What was the SPL level matched to at the listening point? Distance from speakers? Critical distance in room? How were participants selected? Etc.?
The value of your test results is highly questionable. You did not identify who the listeners were or their experience in evaluating sound differences.
Toole makes a major point of the need for highly qualified listeners in order to have meaningful results. I believe your results need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Toole makes a major point of the need for highly qualified listeners in order to have meaningful results. I believe your results need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
OK, I'll explain. I put the word "blind" in quotes because it is a word used to imply scientific accuracy. A null result when testing devices with known and measurable differences should be considered a failure of testing protocol, not a publishable result in itself. The history of blind testing reveals many of these misleading null results going all the way back to Edison in 1913.
What this reveals is that people are bad listeners. It says nothing about the equipment being "tested".
For the testing protocol described in this thread, the naked 48dB slopes would appear to be the dominant sound signature.
What this reveals is that people are bad listeners. It says nothing about the equipment being "tested".
For the testing protocol described in this thread, the naked 48dB slopes would appear to be the dominant sound signature.
You are right, I forgot to point out the links of thread about all the blind tests, unfortunetely all image links are broken, will try to find some on my computer:
World' Best Midranges - SHOCKING Results & Conclusions.
World's best midrange Blind Testing - Need your help.
DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever
...and projects/discussion related to blind tests:
World's best Tweeters Blind Testing
The Ultimate Blind Test - The whole speakers/system.
Time for a visit at the AUDIOLOGIST...(what ?!?)
Thousands of posts... Many arguments pro/con blind testing... many discussions about all related topics...
Happy reading.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.