Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY)

172.98.67.72
Posted on August 15, 2015 at 08:34:10
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002
 Well folks, now that Windows 10 is released, I bet a number of folks are wondering *yet again* whether the OS will make things sound different...
Will jitter change?
Will there be noise with processor load?
Will I need to install stuff like "Fidelizer" to optimize the OS for sound?
And I have a look at that JPLAY software again...

Here's my take on the matter using my TEAC-UD-501. With a return of the DiffMaker tests :-)

Enjoy the summer everyone!
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Mesurements showed changes in sound waves with changes to O/S and player S/W., posted on August 15, 2015 at 08:58:21
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The plots show measurable differences in the analog output, well above the background noise. Assuming your measurements were done competently this shows that changing the software in the computer system affects the signal sent to loudspeakers. The spikes are far enough above the noise in the FFT bins that it seems likely that the tests will give consistent results, assuming the test conditions remain stable.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Mesurements showed changes in sound waves with changes to O/S and player S/W., posted on August 15, 2015 at 09:25:52
SBGK
Audiophile

Posts: 444
Joined: March 22, 2012
 that's unfortunate, in the past a lot of people have used Archimago's previous measurements to argue there is no difference, leading to unsightly spats between the likes of jriver/HA and subjectivists. Maybe the waters will be calmed by these new findings.

Just need ArnyK to confirm the findings with a properly conducted double blind test and we can all live happily ever after.


http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 15, 2015 at 10:02:16
Dynobot
 Would be interesting to see Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac test results instead of W7 vs. W10

 

+1 nt, posted on August 15, 2015 at 10:43:40
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

 

This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks., posted on August 15, 2015 at 11:24:33
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 If you are hearing OS tweaks or other types software tweaks, with no change in the data that's fed the DAC there is almost certainly a hardware problem to blame.

Over-compromising the test system beyond levels where even carcass's system has been broken (oh come on now it's supposed to be a joke) in order to exaggerate the effects for the purpose of measuring and comparing the effectivity of the various flavors of solutions being used, seems extremely interesting.

Just look at that big, bold, and beautiful 60Hz noise problem that completely dominates this system and is even louder in the spectral plots than the test signal itself.

LoLOL! I don't even want to know how that is being accomplished.

As I said this is the perfect system for the job.

This test could not be better untless compared to a much less electrically compromised system for contrast.

 

RE: This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks., posted on August 15, 2015 at 12:16:58
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You are looking at a different plot than the one I looked at (the noise plot). In the noise plot the hum was at -110 dB and there was no signal, just noise floor from the DAC and the ADC. The hum was in a completely different frequency range than the spikes that I commented upon. It would not have been audible nor did it interfere with the measurements of the spikes.

I agree that the hum is indicative of sloppy test procedures, equipment selection, etc... At the least, there should be explanation of how much of the hum is coming from the DAC and how much from the ADC and other explanation that shows knowledge of and good use of tools. However, the good news is that software changes in the computer are showing up and that with careful testing this method could be used to evaluate software tweaks in the computer (rather than dismissing them as inaudible).


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 15, 2015 at 12:18:17
SBGK
Audiophile

Posts: 444
Joined: March 22, 2012
 the problem of that is the technology/driver/kernel and user app would be different between linux/os and windows. At least with comparing versions of windows the drivers and technology would be the same whether it's wasapi/ks or asio.

As an aside, is windows the only os that allows the audio stack to be bypassed and can use event mode ?
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

 

RE: Mesurements showed changes in sound waves with changes to O/S and player S/W., posted on August 15, 2015 at 12:26:40
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 This is just a continuing part of the JRiver smear campaign of JPlay. smh

 

RE: This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks., posted on August 15, 2015 at 12:41:50
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "You are looking at a different plot than the one I looked at (the noise plot)."

LOL! I looked at all of them.

Are you saying you disagree with something I said? The plots I was obviously referring to are the only relevant test worth talking to outside the context of his system, the one with an actual reference signal for comparison, which clearly show a evidence of a hardware problem/s in my opinion. Don't you agree it's a hardware problem?

"In the noise plot the hum was at -110 dB "

Really Tony? -110dB with respect to what exactly?????? Meaningless!

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 15, 2015 at 13:04:29
Dynobot
 Then test the different technology/kernel/driver etc etc etc of Windows vs. Linux and see if it actually makes a measurable difference.



 

dBfs, posted on August 15, 2015 at 13:30:40
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Really Tony? -110dB with respect to what exactly?????? Meaningless!"


I made the assumption that Archimago used constant settings to record the output of his DAC with his ADC on all of his graphs. So they are dB down below the maximum signal that appears or could appear in any of his tests. I also assumed that he calibrated the gain of his DAC to ADC loop so that it is unity gain. So therefore, all dB would be relative the the maximum output in the 44/24 format, that is to say that -110 dB would be -110 dBfs. with 0 dBFs corresponding to +8388607 or -8388608 integer sample values.

I assume that anyone competent to record digital audio with a PCM recorder would understand how to set up their equipment to get consistent levels and would understand that in PCM recordings dB levels are referenced with respect to full scale, hence the term dBfs. I did not question Archimago's competence in regard to these matters and I assumed that anyone reading and commenting would be equally knowledgeable.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

OK, back on topic. , posted on August 15, 2015 at 13:50:46
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 You keep avoiding my question. Are you disagreeing with my OP or not regarding assertions about hardware problems relation to software tweaks?

 

You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 15:03:53
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... that if you repeat it enough times, some people might actually believe it.

"beyond levels where even carcass's system has been broken" - how do you know that it's broken, and what are the levels of it being broken? Is the fact that you can't hear any differences on your system, differences which are obvious to everyone beyond couple of overly "frugal", hearing-impaired jerks, enough to assume someone else's system is "broken"?

Wait... don't tell me - it's not the fact that your system is of low resolution, or the fact that you can't hear pretty much anything that other people hear easily. It's the fact that YOUR hardware is NOT BROKEN, unlike everyone else's. That sounds about right, LOL.

 

RE: You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 17:45:36
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 """Wait... don't tell me - it's not the fact that your system is of low resolution, or the fact that you can't hear pretty much anything that other people hear easily. It's the fact that YOUR hardware is NOT BROKEN, unlike everyone else's. That sounds about right, LOL."""

Now just hold on one dam second!!!

Haven't you read the latest issue of Stereophile
with the new Class A category for totally crap PA speakers and associated equipment???

 

boohoohoo, posted on August 15, 2015 at 18:03:30
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 I just can't take anymore. lol

 

We need another new category, obviously., posted on August 15, 2015 at 18:11:56
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 For the owners and listeners of said new category of Class A equipment.

Too bad we can't have a separate forum for them, too. Wait a second - isn't HydrogenAudio the place they belong to? I mean, the class of equipment used, and the "nothing makes any difference, and if it does, you're a gullible fool" mantra - everything is in place.

The real question then is - why here?

 

RE: We need another new category, obviously., posted on August 15, 2015 at 18:53:54
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 I note that you've very carefully never posted loopback response captures of your gear. You must be very embarrassed by the results.

 

RE: You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 19:13:32
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "for totally crap PA speakers and associated equipment??? "

LOL you love my speakers and that's why I have them listed in there instead other pairs I have likely to get more creds with kooks like you.

 

RE: You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 20:36:19
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 Oh please... Nothing to do with credibility. You are just one of the more truly clueless and obnoxiously individuals here. Have never read one shred of any actually listening experience or any credible usable information ever from you. As was just mentioned, why in the world are you here???

 

RE: You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 21:03:13
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 whatever. As if anyone cares what your trips are like while sailing through lala land. I'm here cause I felt like it. I could care less what you think I or anybody should be posting about or how useful you are finding my posts to be.

 

RE: You keep perpetuating the same BS, over and over again - apparently, in the hopes ..., posted on August 15, 2015 at 21:13:47
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 At least you are being forthright that your only purpose participating here is to be an ass. I commend your honesty.

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 15, 2015 at 21:23:37
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 For all that may be interested in the correct information regarding JPlay as opposed to the stupid lies that this agenda driven moron keeps perpetuating please see the link below.

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 01:31:47
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 If only you would pay attention to the Measurement Software and the A to D Hardware to make these state-of-art, then I and others should be more inclined to accept your lab findings.

As it is, they are not of much value.

We are talking, not of a vast investment, but a worthy one, bearing in mind the time and cost that you have already invested.

Do your backers prefer the use of limited measurement capability and limited detection thresholds?

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 03:04:24
SBGK
Audiophile

Posts: 444
Joined: March 22, 2012
 so asio has lower noise than ks according to that chart
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 03:57:01
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I wonder why I was able to correctly guess the outcome results before reading the article?

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 04:25:15
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
 I wonder why I was able to correctly guess the outcome results before reading the article?

Lucy told you.

But it's as nothing. I was able to predict the comments so accurately that I couldn't tell the difference between what was predicted and what was said. Not even after two blind tests, three double-sighted stabs in the dark and an Audiostream review.

So there.

 

"how useful you are finding my posts to be" - about as useful..., posted on August 16, 2015 at 07:01:24
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... as those of any other cheap deaf dumbass, pretending to play "science", while dealing with profound inferiority complex.

If it's of any consolation - you're definitely not alone in that regard. Looking on the bright side, there are not that many of you in this forum, either.

HydrogenAudio, on the other hand, is entirely different matter. I highly recommend you take your bright ideas there.

 

RE: We need another new category, obviously., posted on August 16, 2015 at 07:09:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Loopback response checks are OK for quick and dirty functional checks, but do not relate to performance of the equipment as it is used, which is either in input mode (ADC) or output mode (DAC), thereby affecting software and hardware.

In addition to interactions which give different performance, there are other problems as well. If they show a level of performance they do not provide a means to partition the performance between the input side and the output side. Worse, in some cases there is the possibility of offsetting errors. (Example might be jitter if common clock is used for ADC and DAC, depending on delays due to buffering.)

Another problem is that to be trustworthy, measurements require trustworthy test equipment and test equipment has to be fit for purpose and kept in a state of good working order and calibration.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: "You are just one of the more truly clueless and obnoxiously individuals here.", posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:25:32
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 Oh Bob, I am so hurt.

I thought I was your favorite Asylum Inmate.

:-(




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: " as those of any other cheap deaf dumbass", posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:28:18
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 RE: 'other'...

I sure hope that's me you're speaking of.

I can become quite jealous when you use your favorite 'terms of endearment' with other inmates. ;-)


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Agree 100%, posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:28:31
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 So quick and dirty that's why when it's easy to spot egregious problems like the OP's 60Hz intrusion you know it's real bad. In fact it really draws suspicion when results are indeed this unreliable and someone is still doesn't want to display theirs for some 'mysterious' reason.

Loopback tests are fantastic for making relative comparisons. Like for example: has may last tweak caused my mountainous 60Hz problems to show up any smaller than the size of mt Everest with respect to the signal I'd like to hear yet?

Some of the posters who are brave enough to have posted their results, and I suspect many who haven't, could obviously benefit from the useful data which can be pulled from tests like this. My question is why would anyone who doesn't have access to the high end test equipment be ignoring whatever valuable data they do have available from the tools they do have access to?

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:37:40
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Do your backers prefer the use of limited measurement capability and limited detection thresholds?

Perhaps you might want to ask them.

 

RE: "how useful you are finding my posts to be" - about as useful..., posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:45:16
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "If it's of any consolation"

lol. get over yourself. What on earth leads you to believe I would ever want anything from you? Consolation?

"I highly recommend you take your bright ideas there."

And what bright ideas would those be Mr never brings upany tech issue longer than it takes to draw in help from Tony or No_Tech?

Care to stick your neck out and actually discuss any of the technical shortcomings of these ideas which leads you to believe they are not worthy of this forum???

Oh by the way your normal technique of hurling insults until you draw one of your buddies into the game to argue about off topic diversions or grammar errors like Tony or just just have a complete emotional breakdown like No_Tech so you can slink away without ever addressing a single technical point AGAIN..... those types of comments ,as worthless as they are, are about anyone ever expects from you....

 

RE: Agree 100%, posted on August 16, 2015 at 08:56:53
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I see no egregious hum intrusion in the charts. Please be specific as to what you are talking about, identifying the particular chart(s) involved.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Agree 100%, posted on August 16, 2015 at 09:07:41
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 You don't see the 60Hz peak on the IMD+N graphs? Unless that is part of some weird test signal, that is terrible.

 

I guess I haven't given you enough credit., posted on August 16, 2015 at 09:09:06
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 RE: 'other'...

You ARE capable of learning, after all.

 

When you're saying noise to signal ratio and industry says signal to noise ratio, worry., posted on August 16, 2015 at 09:39:24
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 When your noise is louder than your signal, there is a problem.

 

RE: Agree 100%, posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:57:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The two big peaks are the IMD test signal, as per SMPTE standard RP120-1994.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Wow, a 7KHz + 60 Hz IMD test?, posted on August 16, 2015 at 12:11:16
Dave_K
 Who would do an intermodulation distortion test with 7KHz and 60Hz as the test frequencies? That's a very odd choice of frequencies given that any +/- 60 Hz sidebands are going to be too close to 7KHz to really identify on a log plot.

Not sure what Archimago was trying to achieve with that one.

 

RE: Wow, a 7KHz + 60 Hz IMD test?, posted on August 16, 2015 at 12:42:05
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Test software computes the result so there is no need to look at a display. However, if you want to, my software (Soundforge 10c) can scale the display window for any desired range, e.g.blow up the entire horizontal scale to go from 6900 to 7100 Hz. The FFT itself has more than enough frequency resolution with 65K points and Blackman Window.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Wow, a 7KHz + 60 Hz IMD test?, posted on August 16, 2015 at 13:35:16
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 How do you know that the problem you create, apparently being gain calibrated to the 60Hz peak since it is by far the largest, doesn't totally confuse the algorithm and invalidate any IMD+N result? If nothing else you've limited the IMD test signal level to IMD artifact signal level ratio by having the gain set where the IMD test signal is lower than it could be under more ideal circumstances and so limited the resolution of any results that are attained.

 

Let's get this straight...., posted on August 16, 2015 at 13:43:54
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 You are seriously trying to suggest that low Q peak at 60Hz is part of the IMD+N test signal provided by the testing algorithm employed by this software and an expected part of the sequence????

If that doesn't get a readers BS flag waving nothing will. You are going to need to cite sources from the authors suggesting this is anything more than completely TL generated nonsense.

 

Truly Ugly, posted on August 16, 2015 at 14:02:52
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You are doubly ignorant. First about well known and established test signals that can be used to measure IMD in standardized ways (as can be seen by reading the Wikipedia article) and about reading and interpreting FFT plots such as are produced by audio test instruments, audio test software and audio editors.

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.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Truly Ugly, posted on August 16, 2015 at 15:00:59
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "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.

 

See.... you needed all that scientific exchange to conclude that he "exhibits a nasty personality ...., posted on August 16, 2015 at 15:12:21
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 .... by attacking people who have already provided sufficient information" and so on, and so forth.

To me (and to Bob C., might I add), it was clear from the beginning that we're dealing with dumb and nasty moron, who has clearly defined agenda on his mind - any further scientific, or otherwise, exchanges notwithstanding.

 

"I am so hurt" - I believe that, Ivan, I really do., posted on August 16, 2015 at 15:15:33
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 The question is, are you also butt-hurt - and if so, why could that be?

 

RE: MEASUREMENTS: Audiophile Sound and Operating Systems. (Windows 8.1, 10, Fidelizer, JPLAY), posted on August 16, 2015 at 16:00:38
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 This is the most cogent argument made yet concerning this topic :)

 

Link, posted on August 16, 2015 at 16:48:57
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 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.

 

But that still doesn't mean things are awesome...., posted on August 16, 2015 at 17:28:27
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 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.

 

RE: See.... you needed all that scientific exchange to conclude that he "exhibits a nasty personality ...., posted on August 16, 2015 at 22:05:52
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 Tony is one of, if not the smartest person here but living in such a beautiful state filled with such nice people may make it harder for him to see the true psychos here...

 

I think you really do need to look at the display in this case, posted on August 17, 2015 at 06:22:50
Dave_K
 Sorry, I should have explained what I was getting at yesterday but was running out the door.

The test software is reporting what it calls "intermodulation distortion + noise" using the SMPTE frequencies but if you look at the IMD+N level reported in the summary (0.0019%) it seems obvious that the software is neither using the SMPTE analysis method nor some other method of quantifying the IM sidebands. Or at least it's not doing it correctly. If it were, the result would be more like an order of magnitude lower.

Given the reported level of IMD+N (0.0019% = -94 dB), I suspect the software is including THD + IMD + noise + anything else not the signal. If I'm right, it's a useless test because all it's really measuring is the level of power supply hum in Archimago's test rig. In fact, I think 5 of the 8 metrics reported in the RightMark summary appear to be just measuring power supply hum: Noise level, Dynamic range, THD, IMD + N, IMD + N (swept).

But in order to know for sure whether I'm right or not, you would need to blow up the display to see what's going on near 7 KHz. Maybe you would see +/- 60 Hz sidebands at the -100dB level, but I doubt it. And I suspect the spectral leakage around the 7k peak in an FFT plot would obscure any lower level sidebands.

I think Archimago has a problem with power supply hum in his test setup which is above the level of any distortion products and it results in inaccurate metrics being reported by his software. And the only way to really separate the power supply related components from distortion products is via FFT analysis, in which case choosing a very low f1 for the IMD test isn't helpful.

Also, I really do think the choice of 7KHz and 60Hz frequencies is dumb. I honestly thought that the SMPTE IMD test was a legacy test that nobody used anymore, but after searching around I see that some people are still using it. The problem I see with it is twofold: First, the choice of a very low f1 will make it hard to interpret the result via FFT because low level sidebands could be buried in the spreading of the peak at f2. Second, choosing an f1 that coincides with the power supply frequency could potentially lead to confusing results in systems with a power supply hum problem. I think the DIN method with 8KHz + 250Hz is more useful, as is the HF intermodulation test.

 

Glad you finally got that, posted on August 17, 2015 at 06:49:10
Dave_K
 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.

 

RE: Glad you finally got that, posted on August 17, 2015 at 07:46:51
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "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.

 

RE: I think you really do need to look at the display in this case, posted on August 17, 2015 at 08:22:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 If I were doing the tests, I would have used a wide variety of IM test signals. One needs to look at all the stages of signal processing and look at the effect likely defects and limitations have on the signal output by the system, choosing particular tests to catch each possible problem area.

Measurements are useful for engineering purposes when they are used interactively by an engineer. They are completely useless (if not dishonest) when used as marketing tools to non-technical customers. Even where they are directed at technical customers they are suspect, because the lack of interactivity makes it impossible to do hands-on testing to understand what is going on, which includes at least understanding the accuracy of the measurements and their significance. To use measurements to prove a "religious" point is the equivalent of counting angels on the head of a pin. (Especially as in this case some of the plots did show that operating system changes affected measurements.)

I was not commenting on the intelligence in the selection of IM test signals. However, now that the point has been raised, I suspect that there may be some merit to use of a low frequency test signal if one is looking to see low level non-linearities in a DAC's output. However, it might be even better to use a DC signal if there is a DC path from digital to analog to digital. This will show up a lot of converter artifacts as a change in noise floor. Sometimes one can infer this behavior by looking at published curves, e.g. DAC spec sheets.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: I think you really do need to look at the display in this case, posted on August 18, 2015 at 08:07:51
Dave_K
 Pretty much agree with all of that, particularly measuring being part of interactive, iterative process.

My impression of Archimago's blog is that he's just having fun experimenting like a kid with a chemistry set and not serious about digging into what's going on.

 

RE: I think you really do need to look at the display in this case, posted on August 18, 2015 at 08:45:32
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 2 agendae points.......

1. He's angry that he can't afford higher performing equipment.

2. Therefore: he's creating a "straw man" to "prove" an objective position in a subjective field.

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

Page processed in 0.046 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]