<h2>Mostly a Relative measure</h2>
<p>Assuming you have a well-known, well-printing nozzle and filament combination, then you can print a <strong>benchmark</strong> print, change one factor and then test with altered settings.</p>
<p>One of the most ubiquitous prints for a benchmark is <a href="https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18604/why-is-a-3d-benchy-considered-a-good-test-print-for-fdm-printers">Benchy</a>. Benchy isn't so much a calibration test, but has all aspects you need in a benchmark. Overhangs, rounded corners, sharp corners, small diameter parts and sharp corners followed by longer stretches: it's all in there! and with those one gets a decent idea of print quality for other parts.</p>
<p>Another typical benchmark test is a cube, which has the sharp corners and stretches.</p>
<p>Depending on which factors you switched, you get a resulting <strong>relative</strong> quality comparison between the two prints. But you won't get a <em>measurable</em> metric, unless you invent a score based on artifacts.</p>
<h2>Filament factors</h2>
<p>Among the factors that would show up based on bad filament. The three most noticeable I can think of are:</p>
<ul>
<li>hissing, bubbling &amp; gaps can indicate wet filament</li>
<li>stretches of random underextrusion and motor skipping can indicate uneven filament diameter</li>
<li>sudden stalling of the extruder and no extrusion indicates a bulge on the filament</li>
</ul>
<h2>Nozzle factors</h2>
<p>Nozzle problems generally are systemic and would show up on the whole print.</p>
<ul>
<li>clogs from bad machining result in systematic underextrusion or no extrusion at all</li>
<li>too large a nozzle shows in a larger print</li>
<li>too small a nozzle shows in bad wall-to-wall and inter-layer adhesion and extruder skipping</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-22T11:01:55.183Z
2024-01-22T11:01:55.183Z
Trish
<p>Given that, a printer is well-maintained and calibrated.</p>
<p>I'm searching for a particular nozzle accuracy and filament quality test:</p>
<ul>
<li>First, is there a specific print test that can be performed to test the quality of the nozzle alone, based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a score of some kind, a metric reflecting the nozzle quality?</li>
<li>Secondly, is there a specific print test to test the filament quality, <strong>not strength properties</strong>, solely based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a filament quality score or metric?</li>
<li>Lastly, are there &quot;known good&quot; standards that results could be compared with?</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-28T13:37:31.447Z
What exactly do you mean by "quality"?
Mołot
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-28T14:13:47.320Z
Perhaps nozzle (diameter) accuracy is a better term.
Bob Ortiz
<print-quality><filament><nozzle><quality><filament-quality>
Can a print test be performed to determine nozzle and filament quality?
Bob Ortiz
# Can a print test be performed to determine nozzle and filament quality?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-11-06)

Given that, a printer is well-maintained and calibrated.

I'm searching for a particular nozzle accuracy and filament quality test:

* First, is there a specific print test that can be performed to test the quality of the nozzle alone, based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a score of some kind, a metric reflecting the nozzle quality?
* Secondly, is there a specific print test to test the filament quality, **not strength properties**, solely based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a filament quality score or metric?
* Lastly, are there "known good" standards that results could be compared with?

**Tags:** print-quality, filament, nozzle, quality, filament-quality
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What exactly do you mean by "quality"?  
> **username_0**: Perhaps nozzle (diameter) accuracy is a better term.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-01-22. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

## Mostly a Relative measure

Assuming you have a well-known, well-printing nozzle and filament combination, then you can print a **benchmark** print, change one factor and then test with altered settings.

One of the most ubiquitous prints for a benchmark is [Benchy](https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18604/why-is-a-3d-benchy-considered-a-good-test-print-for-fdm-printers). Benchy isn't so much a calibration test, but has all aspects you need in a benchmark. Overhangs, rounded corners, sharp corners, small diameter parts and sharp corners followed by longer stretches: it's all in there! and with those one gets a decent idea of print quality for other parts.

Another typical benchmark test is a cube, which has the sharp corners and stretches.

Depending on which factors you switched, you get a resulting **relative** quality comparison between the two prints. But you won't get a *measurable* metric, unless you invent a score based on artifacts.

## Filament factors

Among the factors that would show up based on bad filament. The three most noticeable I can think of are:

* hissing, bubbling & gaps can indicate wet filament
* stretches of random underextrusion and motor skipping can indicate uneven filament diameter
* sudden stalling of the extruder and no extrusion indicates a bulge on the filament

## Nozzle factors

Nozzle problems generally are systemic and would show up on the whole print.

* clogs from bad machining result in systematic underextrusion or no extrusion at all
* too large a nozzle shows in a larger print
* too small a nozzle shows in bad wall-to-wall and inter-layer adhesion and extruder skipping


---

