"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
How do your results compare with this?
OK, I'll take that challenge:
http://tinyurl.com/368zqz
http://tinyurl.com/32v5x6
ouch!
Understand that this is bogus and doesn't represent the
actual performance of the interface.
No doubt, its bogus.
http://www.birotechnology.com/soundc..._line-line.htm
is pretty much the same as what I get.
The actual frequency
response is within a couple of tenths of a dB over the
range.
As the report I'm citing shows.
I measured crosstalk to be a bit worse than RMMA,
and slightly higher THD at selected frequencies between
100 Hz and 10 kHz. It doesn't even sound half bad when
used to record music (!).
There's something very funny going on with that computer.
I'm not complaining about the performance of the UCA202,
The FR of the UCA202 is pretty much beyond reproach with a caveat. If you
test it as an ADC with a wideband source, it has response up to a few KHz
*above* the Nyquist frequency. IOW, its anti-aliasing has been compromised
to obtain in-band smoothness.
I'm complaining about how RMMA measures it.
Agreed.