|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.159.77.150
In Reply to: RE: Truly Ugly posted by Tony Lauck on August 16, 2015 at 14:02:52
"You are doubly ignorant."Mostly only since you have failed to establish where there is any evidence this is part of the test. Is there some documentation you've read stating the test conforms to this standard you've linked? The fact remains that is the rattiest looking test signal ever produced if it is intended to be used as a test signal. I am still highly skeptical you are right but we'll see if you can come up with anything.
"Worse, you exhibit a nasty personality by attacking people who have already provided sufficient information for you to figure out what you don't know and how to learn it."
lol whatever Tony. Only because you think you've finally managed to corner me logically for once, you try to pretend that is somehow evidence of poor behavior. I think your dishonor in your debate tactics speak clearly for themselves. Besides, why don't we actually establish you are correct first before you get too carried away patting yourself on the back, mmmkay? Especially since using a 60hz test tone in systems likely to be compromised by energy in that exact band seems like ridiculously poor judgement and I'm still hoping the software authors weren't that clueless.
Edits: 08/16/15Follow Ups:
I admit I'm wrong. The thing that shocks me is that the test signal on the authors site looks as ratty as the OP's.
Though I'm not sure my laziness to do digging into the things I didn't realize, when I first mistakenly assumed this was a noise signal and still mistakenly assumed the author of the software would go with a more reasonable and common TMD test such as CCIF or DIN, necessarily qualifies as nastiness or ugliness considering the apparent quality of this so called test signal appears in the test.
It is hardly what I'd call a pure and solid, high Q 60Hz signal. What is that all about? Does that actually even conform to SMPTE? It's a weird an unexpected choice implemented in an even weirder manner.
I don't know that any of that weirdness could reasonably be argued to be obvious to the level I'd be reasonably accused of nastiness or ugliness for having questioned it.
It took me a few posts to understand that you were confusing the test signal @ 60Hz with a hum problem. I thought you were commenting on the power supply spuria at -110 dB, which are a problem IMO for someone trying to measure the performance of digital sources.
The SMPTE IMD test is a legacy test that's been around for many decades. Like I wrote to Tony, I didn't realize anyone was still using it. My ignorance. I don't think it's a good choice of frequencies. I also don't think it's being implemented properly by the RightMark software, otherwise the reported level would be much lower.
But I don't understand what your complaint is with the 60 Hz component of the test signal. I'm confident that the test signal is a pure 60 Hz tone mixed with a pure 7 KHz tone, and the way the peak looks in the FFT is determined by window type. It looks like a flat-top window to me. If your complaint is the width of the peak, that's mainly due to the log frequency scale, and secondly a function of the window type.
"I thought you were commenting on the power supply spuria at -110 dB,"
I mentioned early on -110 dB is a level I wouldn't want to put up with and again in another response. Bad enough I think that it may even be a data point supporting my original assertion...that noise challenged systems are the most affected by software/OS tweaks when there is no difference between the data being sent to the DAC.
"My ignorance. I don't think it's a good choice of frequencies."
I also made the point it's a bad choice of frequencies and gave my reasoning.
"I don't understand what your complaint is with the 60 Hz component of the test signal."
I haven't spent much time staring at pure tones generated by sound cards at high resolution. And while I get the log scale can be tricky for some I am fairly used to looking at it and have am just expressing my surprise that a decent soundcard can't pull off a more pure tone. Having significant energy + or minus 10Hz is a surprise to me...almost as if it were something much less controlled than an D to A updating at 96kHz or whatever. Id expect most modern soundcards could presumably create very low distortion and time accurate sine waves at that frequency. As I say not an expert, doesn't seem right to me.
However that still doesn't answer how this line of question , ie my not understanding 60Hz is part of the RMAA IMD+N test, actually matters for something. What was the point of any of this??? Tony does this often. Picks some irrelevant point to argue for fifteen posts then disappears without ever actually making his any relevant point. Was he just here to prove he is the smartest person in the world that only knows things that don't actually matter?
Seems like a troll to draw attention away from subjects he and others here are don't want to address for some reason...hardware noise issues. They become militantly opposed to any sort of discussion about anything related. I'm guessing the discussion all hoits to close to home and forces them to ask themselves unfavorable questions about gear that cost too much. but that's only a guess. Surely will draw great ire from some but we will see if it actually draws out some relevant, on topic point of discussion. I doubt it. It's all part of the game.
Tony, I don't think you being right on this last point makes any sort of statement or argument one way or the other about my original point that the more compromised systems are perfect for the experiment.I'm sure you'll at least agree only -110 dB down on the 60Hz signal is still not great noise performance if that truly is an accurate representation at the gain setting the IMD+N test is run at. If that's true that's one piece of evidence not contradicting my original claim to SBGK in this thread.
If you feel me knowing the smpte standard was obviously being used, this test actually conforms to that standard, and what frequencies are in the standard when I am not even ambitious enough to have gone beyond looking at OP's pictures and reading his article, you have a funny idea about what comes as obvious for me.
As much as I appreciate your setting me straight on RMAA I'm hoping this last long string of posts had some actual point to any of it other than again diverting attention from the point I made to something apparently irrelevant? I'm not seeing the bigger picture you are trying to paint if there is one.
If there is some point you are planning to make, now would be a good time to make it.
Edits: 08/16/15 08/16/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: