[RikudouGoku]

 

[Jansvast]

Hmm, will the CRA also play sound with a disconnected driver

I see you've also been lurking in the server

 

[hmscott]

Those would be far more interesting with listening reports before and after disabling the drivers. I'd like to know if listening matches the measurements. I'd be very surprised to find that the "missing" drivers don't have an audible effect with some music genres.

Measurements don't always match listening reality. This might be a good example of how little the measurements catch of the full breadth of effect on the wide range of musical presentations, far more to the effect to what is heard listening, than shown by measurements.

When working with a range of BA's in a gathering of 12 of them per ear - CCA CA24 12BA, the range covered by a particular BA may be small, with some ranges being less noticeable than others, but we should notice an audible difference given the range and audio material exercising that frequency range.

These large combinations of specialized BA's are ofen the ones that show the most HISS with older tubes as well, completely unheard and unnoticed when wearing dynamic headphones; BA's can pickup and present clearly small signals within their narrow range far better than a dynamic driver.

KZ IEM's are a great inexpensive test for rating tubes usage/age/lifetime remaining. Even tubes measuring well will HISS if long used, while new/unused examples of the same tube will measure well and generate no HISS at all.

If the sensor/transducer used to take the measurements is a typical broadband spectrum dynamic, it will miss a lot of the output of the signal that the BA's will pickup and present clearly. And, when missing, that BA's frequency range on the "right" material will show that gap clearly. Such as removing the BA with the range that shows the tube HISSing, if that BA is gone the HISSIng won't be as audible.

 

[nraymond]

Except timing (jitter)

I could see a USB cable potentially having an impact on synchronous audio over USB or a poorly implemented asychronous design. Today almost all USB audio interfaces are of the asynchronous type, which means the master clock is in the USB audio device and through a feedback loop the rate of flow of audio data from the host is modulated to minimize jitter. Why I said the quality of the asynchronous audio implementation matters is because nothing is stopping a designer from using a frequency synthesizer instead of a fixed oscillator, and an asynchronous USB audio device with a frequency synthesizer for the master clock could have worse jitter than synchronous USB audio, regardless of the USB cable. The bottom line is that if the USB cable is to spec and the USB audio device is asynchronous with a well implemented low jitter master clock, you'll be fine and you don't need a special USB cable for good audio.

 

[steely333]

I could see a USB cable potentially having an impact on synchronous audio over USB or a poorly implemented asychronous design. Today almost all USB audio interfaces are of the asynchronous type, which means the master clock is in the USB audio device and through a feedback loop the rate of flow of audio data from the host is modulated to minimize jitter. Why I said the quality of the asynchronous audio implementation matters is because nothing is stopping a designer from using a frequency synthesizer instead of a fixed oscillator, and an asynchronous USB audio device with a frequency synthesizer for the master clock could have worse jitter than synchronous USB audio, regardless of the USB cable. The bottom line is that if the USB cable is to spec and the USB audio device is asynchronous with a well implemented low jitter master clock, you'll be fine and you don't need a special USB cable for good audio.

Low bar hearing reference points DMS and Zeos show your hearing and understanding of the technical details is lacking. You can peruse through multiple threads on this usb jitter subject.

 

[saldsald]

Those would be far more interesting with listening reports before and after disabling the drivers. I'd like to know if listening matches the measurements. I'd be very surprised to find that the "missing" drivers don't have an audible effect with some music genres.

Measurements don't always match listening reality. This might be a good example of how little the measurements catch of the full breadth of effect on the wide range of musical presentations, far more to the effect to what is heard listening, than shown by measurements.

When working with a range of BA's in a gathering of 12 of them per ear - CCA CA24 12BA, the range covered by a particular BA may be small, with some ranges being less noticeable than others, but we should noice a difference given the range and material exercising that frequency range.

These large combinations of specialized BA's are ofen the ones that show the most HISS with older tubes as well, completely unheard and unnoticed when wearing dynamic headphones; BA's can pickup and present clearly small signals within their narrow range far better than a dynamic driver.

KZ IEM's are a great inexpensive test for rating tubes usage/age/lifetime. Even measuring well they will HISS if long used, while new/unused examples measure well and generate no HISS at all.

If the sensor/transducer used to take the measurements is a typical broadband spectrum dynamic, it will miss a lot of the output of the signal that the BA's will pickup and present clearly. And, when missing, that BA's frequency range on the "right" material will show that gap clearly. Such as removing the BA with the range that shows the tube HISSing, if that BA is gone the HISSIng won't be audible.

You can almost expect all budget DD+BA/MST hybrid to have the same graph before and after removing some BAs/MST as this is how these makers tune their IEMs. The graphs also show the limitation of comparing SPLs.

 

[SpaceOperaVillain]

^ saldsald beat me to it. SPL, and these cheap mics that are recording them, is just one macro sized feature of an acoustic wave's characteristics. Your ears are way more sensitive than those graphs.

 

[saldsald]

^ saldsald beat me to it. SPL, and these cheap mics that are recording them, is just one macro sized feature of an acoustic wave's characteristics. Your ears are way more sensitive than those graphs.

I actually think the mics are probably alright even thou they are not the most sensitive mics used for recording. It is probably the algorithm used in the software not extracting enough information to describe our hearing perception graphically. But yes I totally agree SPL is just one macro feature that loosely represent what we should expect to hear from the speakers.

IMHO, SPL is most useful for comparing IEMs made of the same driver(s), such as for channel matching and modding.

 

[DeltaAudio]

it only gets worse..

HBB x KZ DQ6s.. turns out it's actually a single DD iem.

i unsoldered the tweeter DDs one by one hoping to plot the different frequency ranges of the drivers and turns out every frequency is managed by the one big driver.

It's about time KZ gets exposed for this. Some of these drivers are decorative, i feel like I've been lied to.

 

[Jansvast]

I was skeptical about the ZE series, but really didn't see the DQ6 coming... What a shame, KZ, what a shame...

 

[steely333]

Except timing (jitter)

Amend. 5v supply.

 

[steely333]

it only gets worse..

HBB x KZ DQ6s.. turns out it's actually a single DD iem.

i unsoldered the tweeter DDs one by one hoping to plot the different frequency ranges of the drivers and turns out every frequency is managed by the one big driver.



It's about time KZ gets exposed for this. Some of these drivers are decorative, i feel like I've been lied to.

it only gets worse..

HBB x KZ DQ6s.. turns out it's actually a single DD iem.

i unsoldered the tweeter DDs one by one hoping to plot the different frequency ranges of the drivers and turns out every frequency is managed by the one big driver.



It's about time KZ gets exposed for this. Some of these drivers are decorative, i feel like I've been lied to.

Didn't something like this get reported for the DQ6 years back. Forgot the final conclusion?

 

[steely333]

Didn't something like this get reported for the DQ6 years back. Forgot the final conclusion?

ZS6 not DQ6

 

[saldsald]

it only gets worse..

HBB x KZ DQ6s.. turns out it's actually a single DD iem.

i unsoldered the tweeter DDs one by one hoping to plot the different frequency ranges of the drivers and turns out every frequency is managed by the one big driver.



It's about time KZ gets exposed for this. Some of these drivers are decorative, i feel like I've been lied to.

No it is not. This has been done with the original DQ6 and CSN. The 10mm DD is too dominant relative to the 6mms so their FR can not be shown. Also I believe the 6mms are not tweeters they're responsible for the mid range. Repeat the measurements by replacing the 10mm with a 22.5 ohm resistor and you will understand.

Didn't something like this get reported for the DQ6 years back. Forgot the final conclusion?

 

[SpaceOperaVillain]

it only gets worse..

HBB x KZ DQ6s.. turns out it's actually a single DD iem.

i unsoldered the tweeter DDs one by one hoping to plot the different frequency ranges of the drivers and turns out every frequency is managed by the one big driver.



It's about time KZ gets exposed for this. Some of these drivers are decorative, i feel like I've been lied to.

So the two 6mm make no sound without the 10mm disconnected? Is there a crossover? My guess would be no, which means that the two 6mm drivers are additive. Not really a scandal either way. These 10mm driver units are used as full range single DD IEM all over the place.