|
|
还是从废柴16/44开始吧$ @# w# E% F) H4 L! F7 H- ^) l
ALC888:
* N+ s) f) @% }* WSummary| Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB | +0.06, -0.40 | Good | | Noise level, dB (A) | -91.4 | Very good | | Dynamic range, dB (A) | 91.2 | Very good | | THD, % | 0.0043 | Very good | | THD + Noise, dB (A) | -79.8 | Average | | IMD + Noise, % | 0.014 | Very good | | Stereo crosstalk, dB | -90.4 | Excellent | | IMD at 10 kHz, % | 0.110 | Average | | General performance | 6 O [( U- C }* c1 g
| Very good | 8 @, |: L6 h* _. e( R( I
是不是很糟糕?IMD表现非常弱,就像当初那个解释创新src问题的文章里描述的一样* K# w- P( U p6 D _
事实证明,HDAUDIO依旧无法绕过传统的SRC问题,16/44注定是垃圾表现# B! }! X: t& }$ a! Y2 H1 i
虽然其他指标已经超过了很多声卡的水平
, N S% x6 i/ N2 c5 d: I! |1 _; e; t1 q
找个竞争对手,谁呢?就se200的7.1输出吧' J# Y, h+ r( e0 _% _! i
Summary| Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB | +0.02, -0.25 | Very good | | Noise level, dB (A) | -92.0 | Very good | | Dynamic range, dB (A) | 92.0 | Very good | | THD, % | 0.0016 | Excellent | | THD + Noise, dB (A) | -85.4 | Good | | IMD + Noise, % | 0.0074 | Excellent | | Stereo crosstalk, dB | -89.1 | Excellent | | IMD at 10 kHz, % | 0.0075 | Excellent | | General performance |
y. c. u. }- B$ p# W | Excellent | IMD的差距足以致命
, @5 C I4 b( \( l) W- A* {+ T
" A8 T T U5 ]3 U l那么,16/48如何呢?se200的16/48和16/44差不多的
1 M% C% S F/ ~) Y不过hdaudio么:
) F& U8 a5 e/ ZSummary| Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB | +0.04, -0.21 | Very good | | Noise level, dB (A) | -91.8 | Very good | | Dynamic range, dB (A) | 91.7 | Very good | | THD, % | 0.0012 | Excellent | | THD + Noise, dB (A) | -84.1 | Good | | IMD + Noise, % | 0.0080 | Excellent | | Stereo crosstalk, dB | -90.1 | Excellent | | IMD at 10 kHz, % | 0.0075 | Excellent | | General performance | % I% L. ?/ `: f5 L/ h7 C
| Excellent | + q v/ U7 n0 _- `* A# [
注意IMD,已经达到se200 7.1的水平了!/ [, K. g/ Z9 ?$ E6 p7 P
其他数据也不弱!
6 P6 o0 E+ ?4 [+ }* m/ x2 N) t; j9 H$ k- W7 Z' Z
不过么,16bit下的测试向来被我无视的:shifty: |
|