• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Speaker Equivalent SINAD Discussion

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
2,426
Likes
5,178
Location
Land O’ Lakes, Florida
#1
I 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 what will be used for now as it is decently accurate (probability 0.86). I think before suggesting alterations/alternatives, that we should first understand Olive's algorithm; he has filed a patent for it and is available as a searchable PDF (warning: may download instead of view).

Please bear with me.
His algorithm is such:

Screen Shot 2020-01-10 at 1.27.35 PM.png


Here is it as a percentage:
Screen Shot 2020-01-10 at 1.40.31 PM.png



NBD (Narrow Band Deviation): Average Narrow Band Deviation (dB) in each 1/2-octave band from 100 Hz-12 kHz
NBD_ON: On-axis
NBD_PIR: Predicted In-room Response
Screen Shot 2020-01-10 at 1.43.40 PM.png

  • y-bar is the average amplitude value within the 1/2-octave band n
  • y-sub(b) is the amplitude value of band b within the 1/2-octave band n
  • N is the total number of 1/2-octave bands between 100Hz-12kHz
  • NBD can be a good metric for detecting medium and low Q resonances.
LFX (Low Frequency Extension): Log10 of the -6dB point (below 300Hz) in the Sound Power curve, relative to average Listening Window (300Hz-10kHz) SPL.
Easy to understand; turning this into a formula:​
Screen Shot 2020-01-10 at 2.01.21 PM.png
As noted, for rear-firing speakers, making the -6dB point in the Sound Power curve be relative to the average Sound Power SPL may be better than the average Listening Window SPL.

SM_PIR (Smoothness of Predicted In-room Response): Smoothness in SPL based on a linear regression line (at least 1 square error) thru 100Hz-16 kHz.
This is the only aspect that is complex:​
Screen Shot 2020-01-10 at 2.09.44 PM.png

  • n is the number of data points used to estimate the regression curve
  • X and Y represent the measured versus estimated amplitude values of the regression line.
  • A natural log transformation is applied to the measured frequency values so that they are linearly spaced. Smoothness (SM) values can range from 0 to 1, with larger values representing smoother frequency response curves.

___________________________

Observations & Critiques

  1. THD is not included. Rating THD performance is hard to do as we would have to agree on what is audible. I'll start with a suggestion of a downward slope where audibility thresholds is set to 10% THD @ 20Hz and 0.1% THD @20kHz; this is already considerably lower that what I consider audible, but I reduced it to please others.
  2. The preference rating as is does not weight frequencies differently (to my knowledge), meaning a dip at 20kHz effects the score the same way an identical dip at 200Hz would, even though the later would be magnitudes more audible.
  3. I think NBD_ON may have too much of an effect on the score, we almost never listen solely on the direct axis. I can't alter the algorithm and see if it improves as I don't have Harman's data, but I think it should be changed to a NBD on the Listening Window, or maybe a +/-5° window to not deviate too much.
  4. Working on the assumption that on-axis is the intended axis, some speakers are designed to have no or little toe-in, so that 15° to 30° off-axis is the reference axis. Same for vertical on-axis.
  5. CSD: All these measurements, including the reflections, are measuring at Time 0, yet the perceived tonal balance may be altered if the speaker does not uniformly/smoothly decay
  6. Group Delay: This algorithm doesn't factor in "loose" bass (i.e. group delay past 1 cycle).


That's all I got for now.

Since Mr. Olive has all the data to check, and it is his work being critiqued (possibly improved), I wonder if he would be wiling to run any altered version to see if it obtains a higher correlation.

EDIT: Working on the calculation based off the NHT's text files Amir provided.
 
Last edited:

617

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
812
Likes
1,582
Location
Somerville, MA
#2
  1. THD is not included. Rating THD performance is hard to do as we would have to agree on what is audible. I'll start with a suggestion of a downward slope where audibility thresholds is set to 10% THD @ 20Hz and 0.01% THD @20kHz; this is already considerably lower that what I consider audible, but I reduced it to please others
THD is simply not a useful descriptor of sound quality. In designing speakers, I and other designers use THD as a way of hinting at the frequencies and levels where a transducer is running up to mechanical limitations, but other than that it simply does not correlate to what we hope it does except in extreme cases.

See Geddes' papers on the subject:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_II.pdf

Powerpoint summary:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/The Perception of Distortion.pdf

"THD and IMD have no correlation to the perception of the distortion that they are intended to represent.
Correlation is possible with a metric that takes into account the way the ear actually functions
One of the most important implications is that distortion in loudspeakers could well be an insignificant factor"

Great summary article from Multimedia Manufacturer:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/THD_.pdf

I have no idea how easy it would be to derive this value from Klippel data but it would be the way to go in my opinion.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,846
Location
Zg, Cro
#4
THD is simply not a useful descriptor of sound quality. In designing speakers, I and other designers use THD as a way of hinting at the frequencies and levels where a transducer is running up to mechanical limitations, but other than that it simply does not correlate to what we hope it does except in extreme cases.

See Geddes' papers on the subject:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_II.pdf

Powerpoint summary:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/The Perception of Distortion.pdf

"THD and IMD have no correlation to the perception of the distortion that they are intended to represent.
Correlation is possible with a metric that takes into account the way the ear actually functions
One of the most important implications is that distortion in loudspeakers could well be an insignificant factor"

Great summary article from Multimedia Manufacturer:
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/THD_.pdf

I have no idea how easy it would be to derive this value from Klippel data but it would be the way to go in my opinion.
From Toole's book "Sound reproduction .." - only 2 pages about non-linear distorion, and here is the summary (page 453):

"In loudspeakers it is fortunate that distortion is something that normally
does not become obvious until devices are driven close to or into some limiting
condition. In large-venue professional devices, this is a situation that can occur
frequently. In the general population of consumer loudspeakers, it has been very
rare for distortion to be identifi ed as a factor in the overall subjective ratings.
This is not because distortion is not there or is not measurable, but it is low
enough that it is not an obvious factor in judgments of sound quality at normal
foreground listening levels."
 

617

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
812
Likes
1,582
Location
Somerville, MA
#6
Did Earl ever rate his own speakers on his metric?
Earl made home speakers with pro sound drivers, and his comments on their distortion characteristics mimic what Toole says above; he says they they will go loud enough to cause hearing damage before hd becomes a factor.

I'm building a pair of Abbey's right now and I'll let you know if that is accurate.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
28,548
Likes
75,599
Location
Seattle Area
#8
Earl made home speakers with pro sound drivers, and his comments on their distortion characteristics mimic what Toole says above; he says they they will go loud enough to cause hearing damage before hd becomes a factor.

I'm building a pair of Abbey's right now and I'll let you know if that is accurate.
Thanks. Still, I was hoping he had rated his own speakers using that metric so we had an example to look at.
 

TimDH

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
13
Likes
11
#9
Thanks. Still, I was hoping he had rated his own speakers using that metric so we had an example to look at.
Amir, I raised a question before: wouldn't the directivity of the speaker enter into how you want to estimate the in-room performance (weighting of direct-reflected-power metrics)?

thanks for the great work
 
OP
M

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
2,426
Likes
5,178
Location
Land O’ Lakes, Florida
Thread Starter #10
Did Earl ever rate his own speakers on his metric?
Just thought of this, how difficult is it actually to use Olive’s algorithm? I don’t know how Klippel stores the data, so how difficult is it to calculate something like NBD?
 
Last edited:
OP
M

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
2,426
Likes
5,178
Location
Land O’ Lakes, Florida
Thread Starter #11
it has been very rare for distortion to be identified as a factor in the overall subjective ratings.
This is not because distortion is not there or is not measurable, but it is low
enough that it is not an obvious factor in judgments of sound quality at normal
foreground listening levels."
Right, I’m suggesting a real low impact, like maybe 4%. Using that, going from 0-4, and if subtracting this parameter in the formula:
  • 0% for vanishing low THD
  • 1% for low THD
  • 2% for THD target
  • 3% for decently above target
  • 4% for way past target
 
Last edited:

617

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
812
Likes
1,582
Location
Somerville, MA
#12
Thanks. Still, I was hoping he had rated his own speakers using that metric so we had an example to look at.
Unfortunately on further review it's not obvious how Gm would even be tested in a speaker. It's basically a system which weights HD by order and level if I'm not mistaken, and the studies were carried out by distorting a reference recording with different distortion profiles. These were then auditioned and ranked by test subjects using IEMs.

Absolute and comparable HD distortions of speakers are really hard to do and I'm aware of no real standard. Unlike FR which we can cleverly separate from room response, harmonic distortion changes quite a bit depending on where you measure (not aware how directivity plays into this although I would assume higher orders get quieter off axis).

The best HD tests I've seen rely on steady state stepped sine signals which of course become mingled with room response. The traditional way to deal with this is by close mic'ing, which works well except for the fact that if the speaker is loud enough for distortion to be a major factor, and the mic is 1" away, the test signal at the capsule is very very loud and the mic itself contributes distortion.

It may turn out you need to build an anechoic chamber after all. I will increase my patreon support if you decide to do so.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
28,548
Likes
75,599
Location
Seattle Area
#13
Just thought of this, how difficult is it actually to use Olive’s algorithm? I don’t know how Kippel stores the data, so how difficult is it to calculate something like NBD?
The high level formula is known as you wrote. In detail though, I lost out of time to focus on what the specific computation is. Klippel fully exports graph data and I am able to open them in Excel so we can compute what we want.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
28,548
Likes
75,599
Location
Seattle Area
#14
The best HD tests I've seen rely on steady state stepped sine signals which of course become mingled with room response. The traditional way to deal with this is by close mic'ing, which works well except for the fact that if the speaker is loud enough for distortion to be a major factor, and the mic is 1" away, the test signal at the capsule is very very loud and the mic itself contributes distortion.
To this end, I do have the laser module for the Klippel analyzer. I don't have the actual laser fixture, nor do I know what it cost. But if we can detect distortion using that, it would eliminate the issues with room noise and such.
 

617

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
812
Likes
1,582
Location
Somerville, MA
#15
To this end, I do have the laser module for the Klippel analyzer. I don't have the actual laser fixture, nor do I know what it cost. But if we can detect distortion using that, it would eliminate the issues with room noise and such.
That's obviously the way to do it. I think that the HD graphs have the potential to be really misleading and I would recommend not publishing them as I believe many readers would latch onto them and make incorrect assumptions about the DUT performance.
 

dwkdnvr

Active Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
231
Likes
293
#16
I'm not sure that measuring distortion is any more difficult than measuring frequency response in terms of room impacts. Using the log-sweep sine method, you can capture both IR and HD in a single sweep, and the auto-correlation provides a fair amount of noise immunity and SNR. Room influenced reflections and modes would still need to be handles though, but it 'should be' viable for >200Hz or so testing. This is most likely what sites like HiFiCompass ect are using for individual driver measurements and these are seen as very useful.

The volume problem is tougher. Unless you want to perform a series of close-mic sweeps covering each driver and then merge, you're going to have to do it at 1M or farther to allow for driver integration, and that means full volume testing.
 

617

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
812
Likes
1,582
Location
Somerville, MA
#17
I'm not sure that measuring distortion is any more difficult than measuring frequency response in terms of room impacts. Using the log-sweep sine method, you can capture both IR and HD in a single sweep, and the auto-correlation provides a fair amount of noise immunity and SNR. Room influenced reflections and modes would still need to be handles though, but it 'should be' viable for >200Hz or so testing. This is most likely what sites like HiFiCompass ect are using for individual driver measurements and these are seen as very useful.

The volume problem is tougher. Unless you want to perform a series of close-mic sweeps covering each driver and then merge, you're going to have to do it at 1M or farther to allow for driver integration, and that means full volume testing.
I think we need to get back to what we want the measurements for. To my mind what we are getting at is output level - how loud can the speaker go. The Kali specification lists distortion figures at three frequencies, and I think this is sensible.

Distortion in speakers is similar to amps where there is an inflection point where it starts to increase much faster. A distortion sweep could show that frequency.

I think we need more data and maybe some other people to chime in here.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,025
Likes
4,882
Location
Australia
#18
It be would be interesting to see how driver suspension characteristics affect very low level drive performance, e.g. at threshold of hearing levels and how this relates to relevance of S/N performance of preceding devices.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
28,548
Likes
75,599
Location
Seattle Area
#19
I'm not sure that measuring distortion is any more difficult than measuring frequency response in terms of room impacts.
Well, for frequency response we are using the analyzer's advanced math and double scan to remove the room influence. In contrast, the distortion measurements are done like you would do with just a scan and no processing. So room modes and reflections get in the way and screw up the results. Imagine if you have a room mode at second harmonic. It could add up to 20 dB to that amplitude.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
28,548
Likes
75,599
Location
Seattle Area
#20
It be would be interesting to see how driver suspension characteristics affect very low level drive performance, e.g. at threshold of hearing levels and how this relates to relevance of S/N performance of preceding devices.
It is best to think of these measurements as "large signal" analysis, not small. The latter is an entirely different thing and may very well require state of the art in anechoic chambers and such. We lack data for large signal which is by far the most important thing in speakers. Let's get that under our belt and over time we can see what drill downs can be done.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom