|
|
还是从废柴16/44开始吧
6 W+ h5 \4 w9 y. g' ~4 V) N, TALC888:
, l; t% m8 V& ?2 w. r+ KSummary| 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 |
8 D0 c/ ^2 y5 I6 P$ p | Very good | . L9 ]! @3 O6 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' f; o( I8 D/ s# |- O1 @# e' b
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
& J& D* f4 d6 b2 @虽然其他指标已经超过了很多声卡的水平% a' n4 Q* R# A. }& f, Q7 @' U/ P
3 @" G* j; x+ _" p* I% ^+ ?' W3 D9 S
找个竞争对手,谁呢?就se200的7.1输出吧1 F$ [" P3 a7 {. Z* _: L
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 | . r7 \( }6 c* c3 d- V% l+ v6 G6 x& ^
| Excellent | IMD的差距足以致命
/ R7 ?' O4 H2 J; G
6 f: N9 N/ k0 A9 T/ \) u那么,16/48如何呢?se200的16/48和16/44差不多的) R/ h$ ?5 o5 n/ ]
不过hdaudio么:
, n+ P# P* o5 C' Z6 m1 SSummary| 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 | ' @" S* Y* |( n' {
| Excellent | 1 Q+ w; C) z; j7 E. Q y
注意IMD,已经达到se200 7.1的水平了!6 K1 a% q: J9 E. Q9 M* {% k
其他数据也不弱!
; e8 e+ M, R" R( M4 J+ p/ U1 x6 h0 K3 g% u! g" C- ~$ ~4 Y5 u7 I
不过么,16bit下的测试向来被我无视的:shifty: |
|