Great Product Can Make A Better World

1. Brief Summary



Since the beginning of creating Endpoint Mixing sound technology, our company have been developing and using systematic sound quality evaluation methods to quantify its performance. This paper provides details of these test methods and performance test results with the latest version of EMX software. The software was being tested with multiple speakers within different test environments and performed by internal and external testers, and the test report shows that Endpoint Mixing is able to produces 3.7 times better sound quality compare to stereo sound reproduction method. Note that the test merely focus on sound quality and the added benefit of 3D sound is disregarded in the test because they are not comparable.

These are a few highlights:

  • Sound quality enhancement using Endpoint Mixing range between 1.8 and 5.6 times; depend on content. Please see test method A for details.

  • Customer pay as little as 1/73 the price of regular stereo for Endpoint Mixing having the same sound quality. Please see test method B for details.

  • There are scientific evident showing that live performance effect, or 3D effect, gives audience added sense of happiness, but since the test disregard this factor, one should expect better overall user experience when consider the total benefit of sound quality and 3D effect.


Back to top





2. Introduction



Over the development process of this new sound technology, there are ever increasing needs to evaluate the sound quality for directions. And throughout the different stages from proof of concept, prototyping, different progressive stages of development until the final rollout; systematic benchmark testing is crucial to drive and evaluate the progress of technology research, product development, and justify the project.

As endpoint mixing is a novel sound technology, there is no pre-existing product for direct comparison to prove its superiority and potential issues. We identified and decided that the closest proximity of which comparison should be conducted side by side with Endpoint Mixing is Stereo. Therefore in this paper we are comparing endpoint mixing and stereo and provide a systematic method to quantify the difference. Both at a positive and negative side of these identified comparison characteristics.

The followings summarizes the detail steps of the test method, preparation, resources, time, steps and procedures for a complete cycle of sound quality evaluation test.


2.1 Test Method Overview

There are two types of test methods, test method A focus on comparing Endpoint Mixing and Stereo, test method B focus on identify price different between two systems producing similar sound quality where one use Endpoint Mixing and the other use Stereo.





Back to top








3. Test Method A - Endpoint Mixing vs Stereo



Test Subject: Siremix EMX software version 0.9.1

Software: Microsoft ® Windows 10

Hardware: Personal Computer, Sound Blaster Omni 5.1 sound card

Speakers: All tests are performed on Siremix recommended speakers as stated in this PDF document ↗.

Test Room A – All bookshelf size speakers are tested inside this room. The dimension is ( L x W x H ) 5m x 4m x 2.2m, plain white wall no sound treatment and basic wooden floor.

Test Desktop A - All desktop speakers, particularly, Logitech® Z607 5.1 Surround Sound Speaker, are being tested on a desktop bench inside Test Room A.

Test approach: prepare all test materials make sure all content used across different test subjects are the same and same quality specification, such as, format, bit width, and Internet is always at maximum performance during the test, setup and perform the test according to test procedure.

Test preparations: EMX installed and configured properly on test PC, make sure all test content are ready, test playback some test content on target speakers, and adjust volume using sound pressure meter.

Test procedure:
  1. Play test content (e.g. a song) on stereo, listen and record rating.
  2. Immediate play the same content on Endpoint Mixing, listen and record rating.
  3. Repeat step 1 for next test content.
Method A - Test Results
(Rating score 1-10; 1=lowest, 10=highest)
Test ContentStereo RatingEM RatingSummaryComments
1- Spotify - Santana SmoothS1: 2
S2: 1.6
S3: 2
S1: 7
S2: 9
S3: 8
S1: 3.5 x
S2: 5.6 x
S3: 4 x
2- Spotify - Eagles I can’t tell you whyS1: 2.5
S2: 1.8
S3: 3
S1: 9
S2: 9
S3: 9
S1: 3.6 x
S2: 5 x
S3: 3 x
3- CD - Ashley & Franks Birch TreeS1: 2
S2: 2
S3: 2
S1: 9
S2: 7
S3: 8
S1: 4.5 x
S2: 3.5 x
S3: 4 x
4- YouTube - Stream of Praise Won't Give UpS1: 2
S2: 2
S3: 3.6
S1: 9
S2: 9
S3: 9
S1: 4.5 x
S2: 4.5 x
S3: 2.5 x
5- Apple Movie - Ghost In The Shell first scene [00:07:56 - 00:13:08]S1: 2
S2: 2.5
S3: 2
S1: 9
S2: 7.5
S3: 7
S1: 4.5 x
S2: 3 x
S3: 3.5 x
6- Apple Movie - John Wick 3 - glass museum fight with two killers [01:46:00 - 01:49:02]S1: 3
S2: 2
S3: 4
S1: 8
S2: 7
S3: 7.2
S1: 2.66 x
S2: 3.5 x
S3: 1.8 x
SummaryS1: 3.88 x
S2: 4.18 x
S3: 3.13 x
In summary all equipments (Z607, Dayton+Lepy+Mivoc, Steljes) has similar result, which average is 3.7x


Legend:
S1: Logi Z607
S2: DLM
S3: 2 of Steljes
(Please refer to this PDF document ↗ for more information about speakers.)



Back to top








4. Test Method B - Price comparison between same sound quality



Test Subject: Siremix EMX software version 0.9.1

Software: Microsoft ® Windows 10

Hardware: Personal Computer, Sound Blaster Omni 5.1 sound card

Speakers: All tests are performed on Siremix recommended speakers as stated in this PDF document ↗, except the low end speaker product.

Test Room A – All bookshelf size speakers are tested inside this room. The dimension is ( L x W x H ) 5m x 4m x 2.2m, plain white wall no sound treatment and basic wooden floor.

Test procedure:
  1. Play test content (e.g. a song) on first system.
  2. Play test content on second comparison system.
Method B - Price comparison between same sound quality - Test Results
(A.k.a. Performance-price ratio comparison test.)

Let there be two sound system S1 and S2.
Where Q(S) is the function of the quality producing a certain level of sound quality for a input system S.

The test objective is to find out the price of S1 and S2 where Q of S1 is equal to Q of S2:
Q(S1) = Q(S2)

** With respect to the context of the test -- Stereo vs Endpoint Mixing -- S1 is being assigned as Stereo sound system, and S2 is being assigned as Endpoint Mixing sound system.

TEST RESULT
#S1S2Quality ComparisonPrice Gap
1Yamaha® NS-5000 speaker suite - 49,000 Euros2 of Steljes and MiVoc subwoofer suite - 667 Euros
Overall sound quality are close enough to pass blind test without telling which is which; are in terms of loudness, frequency response, details, width and depth of sound image. However, Endpoint Mixing lack in aspects including tonal balance for some instances, high degree details, quality treble, overall perspective, low frequency range, and musicality. On the other hand, Endpoint Mixing is stronger with building soundstage.
EM is 1/73 the price of Stereo
2Dali® Rubicon 8 and Cayin® CS-100A KT-88 - 8,100 EurosDayton, Lepy and MiVoc subwoofer suite - 476 Euros
Overall sound quality are close enough to pass blind test without telling which is which; are in terms of loudness, frequency response, details, width and depth of sound image. However, Endpoint Mixing lack in aspects including tonal balance for few instances, high degree details, quality treble, and low frequency range. On the other hand, Endpoint Mixing is stronger with building soundstage.
EM is 1/17 the price of Stereo


Back to top








5. Conclusions



Endpoint Mixing passed all tests and hit high scores in both test A and B.





Back to top








Reference 1 - Speakers used in the test



The following speakers are used in test:
Test TypeLogitech® Z607Dayton and Lepy, MiVoc2 of Steljes NS3, MiVoc
Test AYesYesYes
Test BNoYesYes
(Please refer to this PDF document ↗ for more information about speakers.)



Back to top

THE SOUND TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION BEGINS HERE

© 2015-2020 Siremix GmbH. All rights reserved.