As shown, it was 90 dB SPL at one meter. I had to wear ear protection for the test.Is it clear how loud the listening test was done at? We know how loud the distortion measurement was made at, and we know that lower playback levels would give lower distortion.
Some more info from @amirm before we go to far help. But it is a very interesting area to explore.
I have not said this. I have no way of turning the distortion on and off to determine if it is audible. I *can* do this with two amps or DACs, one of which distortions while both have the same frequency response. This is key: frequency response is by far the dominant factor in evaluating speaker sound. My brain won't focus on distortion as long as there are frequency response errors.My point was that Amir didn't find the distortion audible when he listened loud - yes, not a peer reviewed study ))
Sorry, I extrapolated what you wrote which was:-I have not said this. I have no way of turning the distortion on and off to determine if it is audible. I *can* do this with two amps or DACs, one of which distortions while both have the same frequency response. This is key: frequency response is by far the dominant factor in evaluating speaker sound. My brain won't focus on distortion as long as there are frequency response errors.
Three things:So have I and many others, that is why I thought it was worth having it all in one thread, and particularly since nobody has satisfactorily (to me at least) explained why one rule for speakers and a different one for electronics is OK from a SQ pov, I understand making low distortion even frequency response electronics is relatively trivial and getting anywhere near with speakers impossible but that is a practical rather than SQ matter.
That was meant to say there was no sudden break up of either driver bottoming out, or the amp clipping, or going into compression.Sorry, I extrapolated what you wrote which was:-
"I was pleased that even at extreme, there is no sudden distortion."
Pkane's Distort software. It was made for this. Free download. Best such thing I've seen for trying distortion profiles.I feel that DACs above 0.1% start becoming irritating. ("TDA1543" from China). Time for a double blind.
Or we can make it even quicker if somebody knows of some distortion-injecting filter in Audacity, then we can play until it becomes detectable. All while on a speaker with a distortion higher than that.
Three things:
1. If I serve you salty ice cream, you are not going to care how good the flavor of vanilla is in it! Frequency response is so dominant as far as "speaker distortion" goes that it is by far the dominant factor in determining likeability of a speaker. Your brain instantly goes for evaluating that as I just post.
2. With electronics such as DACs, getting distortion and noise to incredibly low levels is essentially "free." A $99 DAC gets there. There is no reason to reward electronics that are not well engineered because in most cases, you are not given a discount for that lowered performance, either in purchase price or cost to manufacture.
3. There is a huge gulf between electronics distortion measurements and acoustic. I can modify simple parameters and drastically change the nature of the distortion shown. We are seeing the effects of the room, microphone distortion, fixture rattling, measurement technique (sweep type, window function), etc. None of these factors come into play with electronics measurements.
I was asking how loud the listening test was, not the distortion measurement.As shown, it was 90 dB SPL at one meter. I had to wear ear protection for the test.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...rformance-power-amps.10026/page-3#post-366387
Fred Jacquot’s explanation makes intuitive sense to me. Any error existing in the first component in the chain is going to be increased by errors made by components positioned later in the chain. When a DAC is the first component, its errors will be the most obvious because those errors are amplified and added to by every component following in the chain. Speakers will have the least impact since they are the final component.
Ive been complaining about this double standard for a while now. I gave up trying to prove my point because it’s lost in the sea of noise that is constant bashing on poorly measuring dacs.
I find the whole obsession about dacs bizarre...
Left - Piano, Right - Oboe, Bottom - Voice, Source - Here
A small % of THD from reproducing lower frequency components is not going to change the shape by much. A change in frequency response will.
Don't forget, though, that @amirm has pointed out that distortion and noise are cumulative. According to him, it's not a matter of a 1% THD speaker masking the distortion in a 0.01% THD DAC. It's that the DAC creates its distortion and the speaker distorts that distorted signal further.
I can not find corroboration that .1% is audible with music at any frequency.
I also can not find much that supports that 3rd order distortion is easy to spot. (@.1% levels) Most of the opions I find suggest 2nd, 3rd are particulaly benign.
Is there any robust speaker distortion testing that has been done that is published and available? Nearly all of what I find is very small studies or dialog on the chat forums. I find some theoretical articles and some very strong guesses but not any real robust stuff (such as Harman's frequency response testing)
Often in electronics when the levels of harmonic distortion are high, so are the levels of intermodulation distortion.
Is that also the case with loudspeakers?
Definitely.
I just thought of an idea.
Throw in the 32-tone IMD that has been done for DAC/AMP/etc.
It shows THD, IMD, even frequency response in one shot.