RMAA Tests: (Welcome to add others!)

[jerryfreak]

You need levels to remain the same for all devices to be able to compare.

i did a bunch of these today, feeding from my rme adi2 pro fs and topping D70 at high (+24 dBU), mid (-2 dBU) and low levels (-14 dBU), to get a sense of preamp quality on those that have gain stages. a few were loopbacks or DAC balanced to a USB-capable recorder, many were recorded as wavs to SD cards

devices i tested today
RME AD!-2 pro FS
RME ADI-2
Benchmark ADC1
Benchmark AD2402-92
Mixpre6 (1st gen)
Zoom F6
Tascam DR100 mkiii
Marantz PMD661 (stock)
Marantz PMD 661 (Oade 'warm' mod)

some were boosted in post as they werent capable of hitting 0dbfs at low input levels

heres some screenshots, a few have dupes

all the .sav files are in the attached zip, named relatively descriptively (ask if it doesnt make sense)

have at it...

 

[bennetng]

Looks like RMAA is ridiculously buggy

 

[jerryfreak]

when i right-click on that field it shows me frequency response+ IMD on same plot. perhaps i changed an option somewhere

 

[bennetng]

when i right-click on that field it shows me frequency response+ IMD on same plot. perhaps i changed an option somewhere

Thanks! I don't know the slots are right-clickable until now...

 

[Rja4000]

Here's some RMAA tests I've done within the last year or so if anyone is curious.

Obviously you can't differentiate between the AD or DA ... but I've found that generally my results seem to be pretty close to other people's measurements of similar interfaces. Generally when I run a bunch of the tests things usually stay pretty much the same even if I change the sample rate from 48 to 96khz or if I measure the same interface a year or two later.

I find the RMAA measurements on Exound & Prosound IXBT & Archimago's Musings sites usually seem to be pretty good resources as far as comparing interfaces. Most manufacturers with great published specs usually seem to have great RMAA results which is a good sign too.
Not nearly as informative as the tests here with AP ... but to get a general idea of how a device might perform it's better than no information.

*Perhaps saving you some money also ... for example I measured my MOTU 828ES and realized it was pretty close to the RME ADI-2 PRO FS so I saved by not 'upgrading' The FS R is a TINY bit better ... but not personally worth it to lose the 2 preamps and 7.1 surround outputs and 8 analog inputs. Perhaps to someone it is worth the extra cost.

*I did measure a Zoom F4 at the same time I measured the Mixpre 10T ... lost the results but they weren't too far off the Mixpre actually if I remember right. Apollo X had super bad windows drivers and I gave up on that

If anyone has other results to share as far as recording interface RMAA tests: you're welcome to post in this thread as more info on recording interfaces would be nice to know! -Or better yet send it in to be tested also View attachment 85392View attachment 85393View attachment 85394View attachment 85395

I wonder why you use A weighting for THD+N, why to limit frequency response to 40Hz-15kHz and what "IMD 10kHz" means...
Is the other IMD SMPTE or DIN ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Looks like RMAA is ridiculously buggy
View attachment 86070
View attachment 86071

Yes it is pretty buggy, and in case you didn't know clicking on the graph graphic on the far right shows all the devices at once so you can compare the curves.

 

[bennetng]

Yes it is pretty buggy, and in case you didn't know clicking on the graph graphic on the far right shows all the devices at once so you can compare the curves.

Yes I know since they are obviously buttons, but even this feature is buggy. Just for example I was experimenting different DSD to PCM filters to remove ultrasonic noise, the graphs are obviously different in RMAA and in other software like Audition and DeltaWave.

So RMAA gave me an impression that one of the filters tends to alias ultrasonic noise to the passband but actually it is not.

Turns out when there is a tone the noise floors suddenly perfectly overlapped, it doesn't make sense. Looks like different parts of the whole test signal are placed too closely and RMAA analyzed some signals at the wrong time and corrupted some graphs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes I know since they are obviously buttons, but even this feature is buggy. Just for example I was experimenting different DSD to PCM filters to remove ultrasonic noise, the graphs are obviously different in RMAA and in other software like Audition and DeltaWave.
View attachment 86082
So RMAA gave me an impression that one of the filters tends to alias ultrasonic noise to the passband but actually it is not.

View attachment 86083
Turns out when there is a tone the noise floors suddenly perfectly overlapped, it doesn't make sense. Looks like different parts of the whole test signal are placed too closely and RMAA analyzed some signals at the wrong time and corrupted some graphs.

I already compared it to Diffmaker. When it's works then ok. But too often it does something weird. Maybe the paid version is better.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here are some results from a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 1s generation. 44, 48 and 96. RMAA wouldn't function correctly at 88 khz.

 

[jerryfreak]

RME ADI2ProFS loop @+24dBU
RME ADI2ProFS @ +24dBU >Benchmark ADC1
Benchmark DAC3 HGC @+24dBU >RME ADI2ProFS
Benchmark [email protected] dBU> Benchmark ADC1

RightMark Audio Analyzer test

Testing chain: Balanced Interconnects
Sampling mode: 24-bit, 96 kHz


Summary

Frequency response

Noise level

Dynamic range

THD + Noise (at -3 dB FS)

Intermodulation distortion

Stereo crosstalk

This report was generated by RightMark Audio Analyzer 6.0

​

 

[bennetng]

These results made Merging Anubis with two "real" 32-bit ADCs look embarrassing...

 

[jerryfreak]

well that is all top-shelf gear

on the ADC side, DAC3 seems to be besting the ADI2 Pro FS (note this is not the FS-R version with the slightly improved AK4493)

the ADC1 is close to the RME, but only above +24dBU

i have some other gear to test, but only the benchmark stuff i have goes above +24 dBU, so ill probably use the RME

 

[jerryfreak]

Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ @+22dBU >ADI2ProFS
Benchmark DAC3 HGC @+24dBU >ADI2ProFS
Topping D70 @+12dBU > ADI2ProFS

RightMark Audio Analyzer test

Testing chain: Balanced Imnterconnects
Sampling mode: 24-bit, 96 kHz


Summary

Frequency response

Noise level

Dynamic range

THD + Noise (at -3 dB FS)

Intermodulation distortion

Stereo crosstalk

This report was generated by RightMark Audio Analyzer 6.0​

 

[bennetng]

RME has firmware update to reduce passband ripple:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?pid=132178#p132178

Inspired from RME I also made a correction filter to my motherboard's Realtek ADC. No practical value for a codec like this but a similar approach can be applied to other ADCs with uncorrected ripples as well (e.g. MOTU).

 

[jerryfreak]

i saw that post, but it was so long ago i assumed i was past that. im on v86 (that is v87.... what are the odds?)

 

[bennetng]

i saw that post, but it was so long ago i assumed i was past that. im on v86 (that is v87.... what are the odds?)

Better ask @MC_RME about this.

 

[bennetng]

I think the 40-15khz is just numbers of how flat it is within that range: it does measure beyond that as you can see if you open the graphs. It's just factory settings: easier to compare to other people's results I'd guess.


Otherwise wow! lots of great updates! I'm interested in the Passband ripple - It would be nice if Motu could upgrade their firmware to do the same thing!

You can do an ASIO loopback recording with the 828ES using the attached file, and upload the recorded audio file. I can try to analyze the file and make an impulse response correction filter so you can use this filter to reduce the ripples. The AKM datasheets provided some preliminary info but I need more data from an actual recording.

 

[bennetng]

I don't want to waste your time for it as it's pretty minimal ... Just one of those things that if it's an easy thing the company can do in the firmware like RME did: it would be sweet. Here's the recorded loopback file though anyways if you're curious.

Here is the result. Hopefully it won't degrade other measurements. I attached the correction filter in wav and txt format. The filter should be compatible with sample rates below 96k as well, but not above.

Original:

Corrected:

 

[VintageFlanker]

Matrix Mini-i Pro 3, measured with E1DA Cosmos (Grade B) ADC.

Fixed output (4.2Vrms). Cosmos set to 4.7V.

 

[sm5]

MOTU 828 (2024 version) - Measures a bit better than Motu MK5 in all parameters.

It's about 4x larger and MUCH heavier than the MK5. It's possibly one of the most solid-built pieces of rackmount gear I've ever owned. The 828ES I had was not nearly as deep or as heavy duty as the 828 (2024). It definitely seems built to last. The larger knobs that are more spaced out is nicer than the MK5 also that has a volume button that doubles as headphone volume and power button.