Oh, I didn't even notice the labels. RMS level is shown correctly, isn't it? THD is showing as 0 is because there is no fundamental to measure.But the graph is showing rms level at -90 something and thd+ n around 0. that doesnt make sense.
The entire graph shows rms level at like -98db. I’m not understanding how that is correct? Also it shows thd+n at 0 instead of a large negative number. Why wouldnt each point in the graph be relative to the fundamental level at that frequency?Oh, I didn't even notice the labels. RMS level is shown correctly, isn't it? THD is showing as 0 is because there is no fundamental to measure.
The entire graph shows rms level at like -98db. I’m not understanding how that is correct? Also it shows thd+n at 0 instead of a large negative number. Why wouldnt each point in the graph be relative to the fundamental level at that frequency?
The ratio of fundamental amplitude to the harmonics is 1, since they are both at the noise floor level. 20*Log10(1) is 0dB.Also it shows thd+n at 0 instead of a large negative number.
Sorry I’m being dense here, but why are you saying fundamental was at the noise floor? It should have been close to 0db for the entire sweep.Currently, dBr applies to fundamental and harmonics calcuations, and therefore affects THD and THD+N, as well as harmonics amplitudes, not noise or general signal levels.
Since your fundamental was at the level of the noise floor (non-existent), THD was 0dB, and therefore THD+N was also zero -- all harmonics were at the same level as the fundamental, and so dBr units moved them up to 0 dBr.
Your spectrum showed no fundamental above noise floor:Sorry I’m being dense here, but why are you saying fundamental was at the noise floor? It should have been close to 0db for the entire sweep.
Sorry I meant the pic before that of the sweep. It was at 0db output from the dac and so into the cosmos adc about -3db.
I don’t understand it but post 2156 was just me switching post 2154 results to 20-24000 as you had suggested. Then I got that weird result in 2156. No idea why that would have happened just switching freq range. Ad you can see playback is still at 0db in both. On the spectrum post pic, I just clicked on spectrum tab from the sweep I did in post 2156.There was still no fundamental there, as far as I can tell, since the RMS and peak levels of the signal were way, way below -3dB.
I'm lost as to what you're looking at and what you posted and why. Are these all different results with different configurations? If so, I'm not sure what the issue is or what you want me to look for.
The only thing I see across all of these is that the RMS level of the signal is very low, consistent with no test signal (just noise) going into the ADC. From the sweep result:
View attachment 234229
I don’t understand it but post 2156 was just me switching post 2154 results to 20-24000 as you had suggested. Then I got that weird result in 2156. No idea why that would have happened just switching freq range. Ad you can see playback is still at 0db in both. On the spectrum post pic, I just clicked on spectrum tab from the sweep I did in post 2156.
Guess I need to try everything again.
Is there a scaling bug when using the different sample rates?
Works with WASAPI, the frequency range on the graph is following the WASAPI INPUT device (Don't be fooled with the naming of the "Hi-Fi Cable" devices, they shoud be like this, you'll have to think them as a pipe):
View attachment 234234
But it doesn't work with ASIO when changing the sample rate of the INPUT device:
View attachment 234235
It does however kind of work when changing the ASIO OUTPUT sample rate:
View attachment 234236
This prevents the measurement of the filters because you have to use the lower sample rate with the output device and not with the input device.
Should the scaling follow the input device here as well?
Particularly about the 192K output of the E-mu:Is there a scaling bug when using the different sample rates?
Works with WASAPI, the frequency range on the graph is following the WASAPI INPUT device (Don't be fooled with the naming of the "Hi-Fi Cable" devices, they shoud be like this, you'll have to think them as a pipe):
View attachment 234234
But it doesn't work with ASIO when changing the sample rate of the INPUT device:
View attachment 234235
It does however kind of work when changing the ASIO OUTPUT sample rate:
View attachment 234236
This prevents the measurement of the filters because you have to use the lower sample rate with the output device and not with the input device.
Should the scaling follow the input device here as well?
If you look at the bottom the rate used for input and output is 96k. If you don’t see two rates on the status bar, the same rate was used for both.Also (I just found out) strangely seems to record even 384K just fine.
I don't know if it's really happening...
View attachment 234305
That's what 192K does,cant do more averages though,have to put the ext. PSU I think.If you look at the bottom the rate used for input and output is 96k. If you don’t see two rates on the status bar, the same rate was used for both.
With version 1.50 it seems like the graph is getting cut off beyond my 20-20 range. Is there something that prevents me from seeing the whole spectrum? While it's measuring and averaging, I see everything.
*** Edit ***
it only happens when I am recording in stereo as opposed to mono
************
View attachment 234168
View attachment 234169