"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 10:38:18 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
Speaks to an apparent lack of familiarity with modern objective
testing
techniques that like proper subjective testing uses music as a
reference
comparison. Basically we have the ready means to numerically compare a
source signal to what it becomes after passing through some process.
We
can
numerically quanitify changes in gain, timing, spectral response and
nonlinear distortion as well as qunaitify the addition of noise by
this
means.
Every test you mention can be done far more accurately and repeatable
with
a test signal specifically suited to the test. Music won't be it.
In essence, you've just repeated the earlier false statement without
providing any additional evidence.
Here you go.
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/dl_down...r_Manual_e.pdf
This is the user manual for Rohde & Schwarz UPV Audio Analyzer.
But it is just a user manual and not a refereed technical paper or
university textbook.
In fact the accuracy and repeatability can be pretty much equal.
Virtually every piece of test equipment improves it's accuracy and
repeatability by averaging. Non-repetitive music samples do not lend
themselves to this and for measurements like THD+N (ref pg 130)..you will
note that "sinusoidal signals are required".
This manul is relevant only to the piece of equipment for this is the user
manual and does not even in slightest establish limits for modern
measurement technology.
Obviously, so-called "Non repetitive music samples" can be themselves
repeated.
This evidence lacks relevance and authority.