In Reply to: This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks. posted by Ugly on August 15, 2015 at 11:24:33:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks. - Tony Lauck 08/15/1512:16:58 08/15/15 (3)
- RE: This severely compromised system is THE best way to contrast the merits of the software tweaks. - Ugly 12:41:50 08/15/15 (2)
- dBfs - Tony Lauck 13:30:40 08/15/15 (1)
- OK, back on topic. - Ugly 13:50:46 08/15/15 (0)