Performance rating

Because some of you have asked for a rating that would be easier to understand than most graphs, I’ve added a performance value between 0 and 10 in the graph S4. You can get more infos here


Category: Measurements

For many people, most curves and graphs are not so easy to understand so some of you have asked about a simple performance rating. We have tested the ratings proposed by Sean Olive in AES papers 6113 and 6190 but for some reasons, it was not totally satisfying. Those ratings are based on anechoic room measurements extended to Predicted In Room results. With our method, we only measure InRoom values and we have to quantify performance based only on those real measurements.

We get the score from three main factors :

  • SM_IRR SMoothness of InRoom Response between 125 and 11500Hz : the proposal of Olive is not very intuitive (Pearson coefficient) and this value is not used by us
  • NBD Narrow Band Deviation of InRoom Response between 125 and 11500Hz (6.5 octaves) : measured surface difference between 1/20th octave curve and 1/2 octave curve, so it is not related to target and general slope
  • WBD Wide Bandwidth Deviation of frequency response from target curve : it is a value based on area difference (so related to variance) between the measured response and the target response between 125 and 11500Hz
  • LFD Low Frequencies Deviation is based on area difference between the measured response and the target response between 25 and 125Hz (2 octaves) but calculated on a linear frequency scale
  • please notice that the displayed mean value is the lowest of L and R values

It is important to understand that the rating is only based on measured amplitude response and is missing other factors that may influence audible quality : max levels, directivity, distortions, phase and time response, etc… So be carefull when you compare ratings of different systems, ithe highest may not be the best ! But compare numbers before/after equalisation/correction is certainly valid.