Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Feb 24, 2019
Thanks. I'll have a read of the information in the link in your post and a fiddle with the math.It's 4 components, I'll explain them without getting into the actual calculations:
Speaker Equivalent SINAD DiscussionI thought I'd create a thread where suggestions/comments can be made on if Amir were to rank speakers based on measurements, how would he do so. As of right now, since Amir wants his rating to be based on listening tests and not just opinions, Sean Olive's Predicted Preference rating is likely...www.audiosciencereview.com
- Narrow Band Deviations of On-axis: Chunks the response into sections, averages the SPL of each section, within each section it sees how the SPL of the individual frequencies compares to the section average.
- Narrow Band Deviations of PIR: Same as above but for the PIR.
- r² (aka correlation squared) of PIR: Checks for a linear relationship (trend line) for the PIR; downside is wide vs narrow dispersion plays a role, where more slope (narrower dispersion) scores higher.
- Bass Extension: Self explanatory
While we don't have the 70 spinoramas & human response data, I'm willing to bet that if Olive just "normalized" the PIR to its own slope and did the PIR on that, that the preference rating would be more accurate. The reason to have #3 is that since the PIR most always has a slope, #2 won't score super high, as the avg SPL of the treble would be lower than the avg SPL of the midrange, so #3 is added to the formula to offset that (greater slope: lower NBD & higher SM ; lesser slope: higher NBD & lower SM), but the offset isn't great as it seems #3 changes more than #2 does.
Can't make much more of an informed comment until then.