Products > Test Equipment
Looking for an audio analyzer
Loboscope:
If you have a audio-interface like the RME Babyface or you intend to buy it or a similar high-quality interface like the Fireface UC, then I will consider again "hpw-works". I am musician too and my approach to electronics is to control, maintain and if necessary repair my audio gear. Therefore I have some signal-generators, a Rigol scope (DS1104Z) and of course some multimeters. But if I want to check or verify the performance of modern half-decent and decent preamps, ADC´s and so on more in deep, this stuff will not be accurate and sensitive enough.
But I never would pay a fortune for one of the (really superb!) Audio-Precision devices. If you will buy expensive stuff like this, you must make money with it.
So I looked for am reasonable and payable alternative. The QA401 looked also good to me, but I had already some very good RME-Interfaces and finally I discovered the software "hpw-works" and I considered that this software-solution would give me not only a more than sufficient but also a really professional test-suite together with my RME´s. So i purchased it.
You can download a 14-day test-version of hpw-works here: http://hpw-works.com/index.php/download/evaluation-edition-sw-kit
There you will find also the pdf-tutorial of hpw-works. The fact that it has an amount of 475 pages may give a hint of the capabilitys of this software.
My experience is, that if troubles, failures and bugs will become audible, you never have to look as deep as -120 dB into a spectrum, audible trash will be located far above this level. But if your test-suite is capable to look as deep as -120 dB (or even deeper how my suite can do) and you will not find any "dirtiness", than you can put your mind at rest and you can assume that you audio-gear will work perfectly.
_Wim_:
--- Quote from: DaJMasta on January 07, 2017, 04:55:58 pm ---For the sake of being sure I won't be able to notice any difference on my own, I want something with significantly better fidelity than I can discern.
--- End quote ---
I think this holds true for a QA401 also, and even for a sound-card based system.
--- Quote from: DaJMasta on January 07, 2017, 04:55:58 pm ---Most of the testing I have in mind is either strictly electrical or acoustic with as much of the room taken out as possible (a source and a mic in a small isolation chamber in a quiet room)
--- End quote ---
Depends on what frequencies you want to measure, but going below 1000Hz it becomes increasingly more difficult to have “an isolation chamber” and take out the room, and you can forget about”small”. Outside is than the most feasible option, and for low frequencies you can use ground plane measurements.
--- Quote from: DaJMasta on January 07, 2017, 04:55:58 pm ---I don't consider myself an audiophile, I'm perfectly satisfied with high bitrate mp3s for listening, and I don't believe in tube, capacitor, or oxygen-free copper voodoo. If I'm going to buy an expensive audio cable, it's because I want one with lots of EMI rejection because I have it routed through a nest of digital signal cables and want it to effect my noise floor an absolute minimum (and for whatever reason I couldn't just untangle the nest).
--- End quote ---
Than you are already on the right track ?
--- Quote from: DaJMasta on January 07, 2017, 04:55:58 pm ---The QA401 seems like the right approach, but I don't know if it's the ideal unit for my applications. The BNC interfaces just mean I need a bunch of adapters and no mic preamps mean extra stuff in the signal chain and extra expense. While the software may be good, it seems there's no shortage of good audio analysis software that will run with sound card devices, so i don't think that's a particular selling point. It's price point is good, but if I can get a deal on a good audio interface, I can get the connectors and preamp integrated and can get a bit lower THD+N baseline on everything. I don't think the QA401 offers any special input protection that studio gear wouldn't match.
--- End quote ---
That is a reasonable point to which I can fully agree , but I think buying AP or dScope like gear will still be a lot more expensive unfortunately . But if you can catch a nice deal on one of these, it is for sure more convenient to play around with, and the extra THD+N headroom is a nice bonus…
It is indeed unfortunate that the QA401 still has no ASIO drivers available (it on their to-do list), that would make this device absolutely fantastic.
_Wim_:
--- Quote from: ci11 on January 07, 2017, 05:40:17 pm ---The advatnage of using an audio interface is its relatively low initial cost, the con is the opamp many of them have in the signal chain were not made specifically for sound and vibration measurement - but "good sound", whatever that means to the designer.
--- End quote ---
This is not true, I have this card, and it frequency responce is rules flat, so no sound tailoring. See meausurment I made in loopback (output connected to input)
Edit: addad summary
_Wim_:
Although the EMU-1616m is very good performance wise, the big disadvantage are its drivers, which reguraly cause a BSOD and other nasty issues
ci11:
--- Quote from: _Wim_ on January 07, 2017, 07:28:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: ci11 on January 07, 2017, 05:40:17 pm ---The advatnage of using an audio interface is its relatively low initial cost, the con is the opamp many of them have in the signal chain were not made specifically for sound and vibration measurement - but "good sound", whatever that means to the designer.
--- End quote ---
This is not true, I have this card, and it frequency responce is rules flat, so no sound tailoring. See meausurment I made in loopback (output connected to input)
Edit: addad summary
--- End quote ---
I think there is a misunderstanding. What I said is "The one that sits in this sweet spot is the E-MU 1616m". This means that the 1616m is good, not bad. My comment is about 2 points:
1. Not every audio interface is a good candidate for objective measurement. The circuit, parts and implementation must be carefully evaluated. The 1616m is a winner, many are not.
2, Many audio interfaces cost well under $1000, some costing just $100 to $200 retail. At these prices, parts quality are not always the best. And that means they do not last, or they are not always linear. Even if the circuit, parts and implementation are all correct, if the parts quality do not stand up to critical use, then it's only as strong as the weakest link. In the case of the 1616m, the problems are in the caps count and their low quality. You can see bulges in many of the caps in the pictures listed in the post.
As to the drivers, there has been no issues with Win7 X64 or Win10 Pro. Touch wood - I have not seen a BSOD ever.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version