I've been looking at RMAA. Recently, many tech sites have actually been using it to tech quantitative measurements of sound card performance. Shock and awe.
Anyway, I'm curious how good it really is? How much faith should I put in the results? Obviously I don't believe a 1dB difference is significant (or probably even repeatible), but how about a 5dB difference?
Full Version: Thoughts on RMAA?
QUOTE
I've been looking at RMAA. Recently, many tech sites have actually been using it to tech quantitative measurements of sound card performance. Shock and awe.
Anyway, I'm curious how good it really is? How much faith should I put in the results? Obviously I don't believe a 1dB difference is significant (or probably even repeatible), but how about a 5dB difference?
Anyway, I'm curious how good it really is? How much faith should I put in the results? Obviously I don't believe a 1dB difference is significant (or probably even repeatible), but how about a 5dB difference?
It's pretty damn good. I have it on machine, but I haven't learned how to use it. I am just being honest with you
. I wanted to attempt to use it to test my Revo 5.1 card. It depends on what you are analyzing. Are you interested in THD, IMD, or Dynamic Range? etc. I think it does a good job for the most part. It largely depends on what method you test with, loopback, etc. I hope that helps a tad bit. After analyzing the results you can go, yes the card really does live up to it's name or no it's pretty poor in this area. 
The frequency response test is extremely accurate. It detected a 0.01 dB attenuation at 20 kHz caused by the insertion of a 5 meters interconnect cable between my CD player and my DAT deck.
The IMD test graph is not well displayed. You must manually zoom around the high frequency peak in order to see the actual IMD at its bottom.
The IMD test graph is not well displayed. You must manually zoom around the high frequency peak in order to see the actual IMD at its bottom.
RMAA is an excellent piece of software[ though I can think of several things to make it considerably better, but is is freeware, and you can only expect so much 
]. The practical usefulness of the software, however, is completely dependant on the knowledge and comprehension of the user. One should also have some knowledge of the perceptual research defining hearing thresholds in relation to the measured parameters, otherwise the measurements won't have any meaning to the user.
-Chris
]. The practical usefulness of the software, however, is completely dependant on the knowledge and comprehension of the user. One should also have some knowledge of the perceptual research defining hearing thresholds in relation to the measured parameters, otherwise the measurements won't have any meaning to the user.-Chris
QUOTE(WmAx @ Jun 3 2006, 11:02) 
though I can think of several things to make it considerably better, but is is freeware, and you can only expect so much
-Chris
-Chris
The developers are open for any suggestions and feedback:
http://forum.rightmark.org
QUOTE(Egor @ Jun 3 2006, 04:05)
QUOTE(WmAx @ Jun 3 2006, 11:02)
though I can think of several things to make it considerably better, but is is freeware, and you can only expect so much
-Chris
-Chris
The developers are open for any suggestions and feedback:
http://forum.rightmark.org
Indeed. I have had discussions[My user name is MadWolfZX on that forum] with the main developer, and he agreed that my suggestions were good ideas, and that he would try to incorporate them into future version(s). However, the changes have yet to materialize.
-Chris
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.