you need to remember when you run a loop back you are using both DAC and
ADC. One can be better than the other. Years ago when I discovered RMAA
I started to do measurements at home with M-Audio Transit sound card. My
DAC always produced better numbers then what I was getting with loop
back.
Kellen wrote:
My RMMA results gave me final noise level at -106.1 but I am talking
about the screenshot which shows information down -130+ like with your
Touch screen shot in your blog being showed underneath here. I wonder
about these very low readings that are passed the EMUs skills.
Archimago wrote:
This has been accurate in my testing. The noise floor varies depending
on the frequency and usually, what I have seen is that the EMU's ADC
noise floor is excellent from 100Hz to 10kHz ~-130dB with some noise
susceptibility lower down and above. Less susceptible to noise as
Kellen wrote:
And many of my thanks go out to you, Archimago.
I did the loopbacks test and got each of noise and dynamic range @
-112db. My thinking is this reading is the best the EMU can perform at,
no? If so, how can it show my Touch testings @ -130db as it does? Is it
a guess work on
Archimago wrote:
You should try running that Touch measurement again. No way it can do
-130dB from 20-20kHz. If you're measuring the analogue output, you
should be getting about -105dB with 24-bit audio. This correlates nicely
with what John Atkinson got in the Stereophile measurements using
Stratmangler wrote:
Are you still using the noisy SMPS supplied with it?
A decent quiet PSU lifts the performance levels considerably, at least
it does in my experience.
I've used both over the past year... Borrowed a friend's linear power
supply about 6 months back. Interestingly, I didn't
Kellen wrote:
I solved the stereo crosstalk problem by interchanging L-R RCA's. Now,
measuring -103 dB and getting excellent rating.
Was thinking would this EMU and RMAA combinations be good to
measure power amp performances?
That's more like it!
And you'll (likely) see that the
Kellen wrote:
Was also wondering just how accurate the EMU is because on some of these
graphs it is showing levels way low like -130dB. If not accurate to
these low levels does it make wrong the results? Merci.
This has been accurate in my testing. The noise floor varies depending
on the
I solved the stereo crosstalk problem by interchanging L-R RCA's. Now,
measuring -103 dB and getting excellent rating.
Was thinking would this EMU and RMAA combinations be good to
measure power amp performances?
Was also wondering just how accurate the EMU is because on some of these
graphs it is showing levels way low like -130dB. If not accurate to
these low levels does it make wrong the results? Merci.
Kellen's Profile:
Kellen wrote:
Wow, this is awesome stuffs.
I also have a EMU 0404USB which I have used for years to record stuff
with my band. I never thought to use it to measure like you are here.
I think I will download the RMAA software and do a test on my Touch.
Just for interests sake.
Hi
Archimago wrote:
Hi Kellen... Yup, give it a go!
The EMU 0404USB is quite a remarkable, flexible device! I wish Creative
improved the driver (on occasion, I get unexplained crashes switching
sample rates for example) but it's a discontinued device. The ADC
hardware seems quite capable and
Good news. I got it to work. RMAA was very picky about calibration
signal and test signals. Didn't find it very user friendly but got it in
dues time.
Have a bit of a problem though. My stereo crosstalk measurement is very
poor -6.5. Ran a few tests and they all came back the same reading on
Stratmangler wrote:
Are you still using the noisy SMPS supplied with it?
A decent quiet PSU lifts the performance levels considerably, at least
it does in my experience.
I did my unit with an upgraded regulated supply. Didnt notice any sound
difference though I only ever use it for recording
Wow, this is awesome stuffs.
I also have a EMU 0404USB which I have used for years to record stuff
with my band. I never thought to use it to measure like you are here.
I think I will download the RMAA software and do a test on my Touch.
Just for interests sake.
Haven't been through the forums much... Lots to do over the summer to
worry about audio!
However, I managed to borrow one of these units from my brother-in-law
to check out. So... For those who may have wondered what a current low
end digital streamer measures like in terms of analogue out and
Archimago wrote:
Haven't been through the forums much... Lots to do over the summer to
worry about audio!
However, I managed to borrow one of these units from my brother-in-law
to check out. So... For those who may have wondered what a current low
end digital streamer measures like in
Hello guys... Been away for a little while. In any case, managed to put
something up from some measurements I did a few weeks back. Thought I'd
try out one of Stereophile's digital tests which they've been doing for
ages!
An example of what looks like upsampled SACDs out there. Unlike video
where you can see the difference between Blu-Rays and DVDs quite
obviously, you can't with audio. Many of the SACDs (and by extension
ripped DSD64 files from these sources) are upsampled...
Archimago wrote:
An example of what looks like upsampled SACDs out there. Unlike video
where you can see the difference between Blu-Rays and DVDs quite
obviously, you can't with audio. Many of the SACDs (and by extension
ripped DSD64 files from these sources) are upsampled...
ralphpnj wrote:
DSD my ass!
At least your donkey will be more analog...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Archimago wrote:
Another MUSINGS post...
Most folks here will know about this already. Wanted to answer a
question asked by a reader and put an opinion out there...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/musings-is-cd-sound-quality-1644-pcm.html
Your thoughts and comments are pretty much
Another MUSINGS post...
Most folks here will know about this already. Wanted to answer a
question asked by a reader and put an opinion out there...
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/musings-is-cd-sound-quality-1644-pcm.html
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
Hi everyone, I want to thank fordgtlover for sending me the SB Duet
package for testing all the way from Australia! A true gent.
I'm putting together a post to discuss that Hi-Fi News USB Test article
which should be out by the weekend.
Afterwards, I'll put the Duet thru its paces and a
Archimago wrote:
I'm putting together a post to discuss that Hi-Fi News USB Test article
which should be out by the weekend.
What's to discuss. It's Hi-Fi News so I'm going to go way out on limb
and predict that the tests finds that the most expensive USB cable from
their biggest advertiser
ralphpnj wrote:
What's to discuss. It's Hi-Fi News so I'm going to go way out on limb
and predict that the tests finds that the most expensive USB cable from
their biggest advertiser sounds the best. Wouldn't that be a surprise!!!
True... The twist here is that they claim to have done blind
Archimago wrote:
True... The twist here is that they claim to have done blind tests AND
showed some objective tests. Might as well waste some time to see what
they did and have it on public/Internet record for folks to think about
:-).
I'm sure that Hi-Fi News' blind tests are about as
Archimago wrote:
True... The twist here is that they claim to have done blind tests AND
showed some objective tests. Might as well waste some time to see what
they did and have it on public/Internet record for folks to think about
:-).
Unfortunately the objective tests are eye diagrams,
Julf wrote:
Unfortunately the objective tests are eye diagrams, but the review isn't
based on them. No information on the statistics, sample size or actual
results of their blind listening.
It's even worse than that IMO!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
fordgtlover wrote:
I have a spare I'd happily ship over to you.
Hi fordgtlover - I'll PM you with info!
Guys, just finished a piece on digital filters - linear phase / minimal
phase / NOS, etc. with graphs and such using my TEAC DAC. Fun
intellectually to think about but I think like many
I don't have a SB Receiver, hence the lack of measurements at this
point...
One thing I will say looking at the spec sheets, the BB PCM 1748 in the
SB3 *could* be better than the Receiver's Wolfson WM8501 assuming the
Wiki is correct. Of course, much of this depends on how the analogue
output is
Actually the SB Receiver (the player part of the Duet) is not the same
as an SB3. Most of all it has a different DAC, and there are other
differences as well (no headphone port, no IR receiver, etc). See
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Hardware_comparison
But whether it measures, or
aubuti wrote:
Actually the SB Receiver (the player part of the Duet) is not the same
as an SB3. Most of all it has a different DAC, and there are other
differences as well (no headphone port, no IR receiver, etc). See
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Hardware_comparison
But whether
Archimago wrote:
I don't have a SB Receiver, hence the lack of measurements at this
point...
One thing I will say looking at the spec sheets, the BB PCM 1748 in the
SB3 *could* be better than the Receiver's Wolfson WM8501 assuming the
Wiki is correct. Of course, much of this depends on
I haven't seen any testing on the duet. I have read that it is the same
as the SB3, and as such it should measure the same. But does it?
Have you tested it? If not, are you interested in testing it?
fordgtlover's Profile:
I've just read through this entire thread and signed up to thank you for
all your hard work.
fordgtlover's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=60112
View this thread:
fordgtlover wrote:
I've just read through this entire thread and signed up to thank you for
all your hard work.
A pleasure! Enjoy.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this
There are a few of us already running LMS on the Dual and it works fine
( better than my WHS actually). Scan times are slightly slower but more
stable than Windows IMO.
CW
Chunkywizard's Profile:
Hello Archimago !
Very nice job ! Thanks a lot ! Don't you thing it would be interesting
to measure also the new SB gear (Wandbord Rasberry Pi) to see how
they perform with respect to the official Sbs ?
JG Naum's
JG Naum wrote:
Hello Archimago !
Very nice job ! Thanks a lot ! Don't you thing it would be interesting
to measure also the new SB gear (Wandbord Rasberry Pi) to see how
they perform with respect to the official Sbs ?
Sounds like a neat idea. Not sure where I get these new devices
For Wandboard there is one hardware board everyone seems to be using
(Wandboard dual $99 see Wandboard.org) and one software build
(communitysqueeze.org). Your best bet would be to borrow one from
someone close by, where are you based? Are the moment it's just digital
out but when JohnS has done
Chunkywizard wrote:
For Wandboard there is one hardware board everyone seems to be using
(Wandboard dual $99 see Wandboard.org) and one software build
(communitysqueeze.org). Your best bet would be to borrow one from
someone close by, where are you based? Are the moment it's just digital
Curious...
Has anyone tried any measurements on gear with ModWright's tube analogue
output stage? Would love to see what happened to the noise level and
frequency response...
Archimago's Profile:
Archimago,
Great stuff overall, and I love how you've plotted the results.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread:
Figured it was time to look into the DiffMaker software. With a bit of
trial and error, got this working quite well with my gear with good
reliability.
Will allow me to measure with standard musical content and monitor how
close hardware/software changes the analogue output... I can see some
The most common view, when I google it, is to connect the shield only at
the *source* end, to avoid ground loops, which seems reasonable.
Gandhi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58909
View this
Gandhi wrote:
The most common view, when I google it, is to connect the shield only at
the *source* end, to avoid ground loops, which seems reasonable.
And the ideal scheme is to use floating, fully differential inputs and
balanced connections, and keep signal ground and safety earth
A few measurements over the weekend with various power cords.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-power-cables-for-low-power.html
Have a good week everyone...
Archimago's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
A few measurements over the weekend with various power cords.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-power-cables-for-low-power.html
Have a good week everyone...
Perhaps it's time to change the name of this thread: Real World Audio
Testing for the Real People
ralphpnj wrote:
Perhaps it's time to change the name of this thread: Real World Audio
Testing for the Real People Living in the Real World
;-)
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
Gandhi wrote:
Regarding cable directionality, my analog electronics teacher a loong
time ago taught me the following.
I was just discussing this with a friend, who's a qualified electrical
engineer, and whilst he agreed with:
In a shielded signal cable, the shield is only connected in one
darrell wrote:
the advocacy of empirical evidence as the basis for our understanding of
reality is important in whatever field.
Ramen.
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
Regarding cable directionality, my analog electronics teacher a loong
time ago taught me the following. In a shielded signal cable, the shield
is only connected in one end to avoid a ground loop, which otherwise
might result in hum. The best noise suppression is achieved when the
shield is
Gandhi wrote:
Regarding cable directionality, my analog electronics teacher a loong
time ago taught me the following. In a shielded signal cable, the shield
is only connected in one end to avoid a ground loop, which otherwise
might result in hum. The best noise suppression is achieved when
My opinion piece on digital cables (but much applies to analogue as
well). This one could make some folks unhappy!
TGIF!
Enjoy the weekend, everyone!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/musings-audiophile-digital-cables.html
Archimago wrote:
My opinion piece on digital cables (but much applies to analogue as
well). This one could make some folks unhappy!
TGIF!
Enjoy the weekend, everyone!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/musings-audiophile-digital-cables.html
Good piece!
Your experiment in using one
darrell wrote:
Good piece!
Your experiment in using one half of an analogue interconnect as a
coaxial digital cable is particularly interesting to me, as I use one
half of a 3 or 4 metre analogue interconnect to connect my Touch to my
DAC, because it's the only cable I own which is long
Archimago wrote:
Dunno about that right-left issue, but I think if you investigate the
directional flow issue, you would see that there is only *one* correct
direction. Connecting backwards and you're sure to be hearing curtains
between you and the music. Just ask the guys running that cable
darrell wrote:
Hmmm... I think I understand that on the surface of it, the left-right
issue might be caused by the lack of an electrical connection between
the two components, but on the other hand, wouldn't special audiophile
quantum tunnelling effects ensure that the music still got
Archimago wrote:
...It's fun just putting stuff out there in a more empirical
fashion...
At the risk of repeating myself, it's great that you feel this way. Our
society (and the internet which is simply a reflection of society) is
far too polluted by conspiracy theorists and mystics (and dare
OK. Let's finish off the cable measurement series. Analogue
interconnects on offer today to demonstrate the difference compared to
digital cables.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-analogue-rca-interconnects.html
Just posted my measurements of TosLink digital cables on the blog...
No real surprises. Bits are bits!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html
Archimago's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
Just posted my measurements of TosLink digital cables on the blog...
No real surprises. Bits are bits!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html
Nice, however the results are worthless because you failed to include
the Audioquest -
ralphpnj wrote:
Nice, however the results are worthless because you failed to include
the Audioquest - Diamond Optilink Cable ($489/0.75m
http://www.musicdirect.com/p-58031-audioquest-diamond-optilink-cable.aspx)
which we all know will easily outperform any el-cheapo cable based on
all
Archimago wrote:
I may have to repurpose them as jewelry for my wife like how some of
those ads have cables around some (often ugly) girl's neck...
Ouch - I suggest you re-read that sentence and consider how it could be
interpreted in a manner I'm sure you didn't mean!
And make sure your wife
cliveb wrote:
Ouch - I suggest you re-read that sentence and consider how it could be
interpreted in a manner I'm sure you didn't mean!
And make sure your wife never sees the post - you know how women have a
habit of reading the worst into what we men say.
Dang it... You quoted me so
Archimago wrote:
Just posted my measurements of TosLink digital cables on the blog...
No real surprises. Bits are bits!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html
Where in the heck are your listening notes? A review without listening
notes from your
Jeff52 wrote:
Where in the heck are your listening notes? A review without listening
notes from your golden ears is not complete. Dammit Archimago, I was
really looking forward to your comparison based upon selected recordings
and how it relates to your reference system. :) Back to audio
Jeff52 wrote:
Where in the heck are your listening notes? A review without listening
notes from your golden ears is not complete. Dammit Archimago, I was
really looking forward to your comparison based upon selected recordings
and how it relates to your reference system. :) Back to audio
What complicates things is that there might have been a situation where
paying more (for example a CD player in the 80s) could make a
significant audible difference but this has ceased being the case in the
2010s (for decently engineered digital sources). However, people carry
over the logic from
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Here is my take on this - if we consider ourselves as part of the
scientific/objective community - a) If we are 100% sure that power
cables, interconnects, speaker cables and usb cables etc do not make a
difference and that audiophiles are deluding themselves. We just
garym wrote:
Archimago has done a lot of this quite nicely (option b). So have
others (plenty of threads at hydrogenaudio.org that discuss, provide
references to technical peer-reviewed papers, etc.). None of this
makes a bit of difference to the audiophools who refuse to believe.
They
darrenyeats wrote:
What complicates things is that there might have been a situation where
paying a lot (for example a CD player in the 80s) could make a
significant audible difference but this has ceased being the case in the
2010s (for decently engineered digital sources). However, people
Julf wrote:
Indeed. And it is no coincidence that most fanatic audiophiles grew up
in the 50's, 60's, 70's and perhaps 80's - while kids who grew up in the
digital era don't care. If they get into vinyl, it is because of the
novelty of the mechanics.
What about the novelty of the LP cover?
ralphpnj wrote:
What about the novelty of the LP cover? To me a stack of LPs with their
big, beautiful cover art is way cooler than a stack of cheap CD jewel
cases with their tiny, hard to read covers and booklets.
Well, yes, the fold-out poster from Queen's Jazz lost something in the
Julf wrote:
Well, yes, the fold-out poster from Queen's Jazz lost something in the
translation to CD... :)
Which is just one more reason why so many audiophiles prefer analog over
digital :)
Gotta love those bicycles!
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
First time, we have comparative datapoints
Have you checked out Hydrogen Audio?
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread:
A look at some USB cables. Might as well... :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread:
Archimago wrote:
A look at some USB cables. Might as well... :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
BTW: Since I'm in the Witness Protection Plan, I'm actually not going to
bother posting some of these results on the usual audiophile forums...
Archimago wrote:
A look at some USB cables. Might as well... :-)
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
BTW: Since I'm in the Witness Protection Plan, I'm actually not going to
bother posting some of these results on the usual audiophile forums...
Mnyb wrote:
Oooh cant you borrow one of those 5000$ usb cables ;)
Maybe... I'll have to ask friends if they still have one for me to
borrow (of course they might not want to - they'd probably rather sell
it first than see the results on the Internet!). Dealerships have really
gone down around
Mnyb wrote:
Oooh cant you borrow one of those 5000$ usb cables ;)
Not if he's going to clearly show that the $5,000 USB performs no better
than a $5 no name USB cable. However what he can do is run the tests but
then declare the tests flawed since the $5,000 USB sounds night and day
better
Jeff52 wrote:
It is interesting to note that one does not see as much subjectivity
when it comes to video related gear. Yes there is some, but not to the
extent of audio stuff. At least with video one may look at a picture
and compare that to another picture which sort of takes care of
One of the problems with audio is that one cannot simultaneously listen
to two versions of the same music played on a system or two different
pieces of equipment playing the same music at the same time. Most of us
lack the background in electronics in order to understand and evaluate
electronic
Jeff52 wrote:
One of the problems with audio is that one cannot simultaneously listen
to two versions of the same music played on a system or two different
pieces of equipment playing the same music at the same time. Most of us
lack the background in electronics in order to understand and
ralphpnj wrote:
And when, exactly, do you intend to show us your qualifications :)
Hi Ralph, I do have some basic electronics background, but I would never
claim to have qualifications in the audio arena. :) My comments were
just observations and not meant to imply I am qualified or an expert.
Jeff52 wrote:
Hi Ralph, I do have some basic electronics background, but I would never
claim to have qualifications in the audio arena. :) My comments were
just observations and not meant to imply I am qualified or an expert.
I was joking you know. Anyway don't sweat it since most of the
ralphpnj wrote:
I was joking you know. Anyway don't sweat it since most of the
discussions around here don't get all that technical. I am also not an
expert but I can and do understand basic science and when people claim
something scientifically impossible I should not have to present an
Jeff52 wrote:
Like you I am no expert but do understand basic science and have some
ability to detect BS. :) For some reason audio, as opposed to most other
similar things, remains firmly grounded in subjectivity even when the
subjective opinions are obviously without any scientific basis. I
Jeff52 wrote:
Hi Ralph, I do have some basic electronics background, but I would never
claim to have qualifications in the audio arena. :) My comments were
just observations and not meant to imply I am qualified or an expert.
:) afaik , there is no special laws of physics for audio , I don't
Jeff52 wrote:
Apparently he is unwilling to consider that the majority of audiophiles
can hear a difference between the cables.
That's a two-edged sword you're swinging. After years and years of
reading audiophile forums, one almost never sees a subjective audiophile
make any allowance for
ralphpnj wrote:
By the way, as far as I can tell the Audiophile section of this forum is
one of the few places where discussions about audio include empirical
measurements, logic, and common sense.
There is always Hydrogen Audio...
SBGK wrote:
the problem is your measurements don't account for the empirical
evidence of changes to sound caused by any number of factors.
All modern science is pretty much based on empirical evidence, but to
qualify as empirical evidence, observations have to satisfy a bunch of
criteria,
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297
View this
Soulkeeper wrote:
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
Unfortunately audiophoolery seems to involve a fair bit of cargo cult
science.
Soulkeeper wrote:
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
And ALWAYS follow the money.
ralphpnj's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
So lets consider the experiment for a minute and what one would imagine
happening...
I assume you believe jitter will ebb and flow with the irregular data
rate at 40%?
If so, then you believe that if I use the J-Test to graph it out, I
would see these jitter sidebands
Archimago wrote:
Hey guys,
Another blog post up for this week... Measured some of my laptops!
Native built-in DAC, adaptive USB1 DAC, asynchronous CM6631 USB-SPDIF.
Bottom line: No voodoo. Computer audio can be complicated but so long as
the software player drivers are bit-perfect, and
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Good one. Asynchronous USB is a good development. But I doubt all asynch
DACs will sound the same. You or others might disagree.
Not quite like that the DAC's may offcourse be different but anything
goes as a transport to the DAC given its async USB2 ?
I think that's
Mnyb wrote:
Not quite like that the DAC's may offcourse be different but anything
goes as a transport to the DAC given its async USB2 ?
... .
Agree, yes theoretically (for that matter Touch is also an asynch
transport). But there are reviews of various async usb transports in
various
1 - 100 of 446 matches
Mail list logo
