Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Product Reviews
Lectrosonics Quadra Digital IEM Review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Langston Holland" data-source="post: 33034" data-attributes="member: 171"><p>Further Observations</p><p></p><p>When buying a new measurement program, I compare it's output to everything else I have ever had access to. My tests show CLIO's analog I/O measurements identical to Smaart, MLSSA, SysTune, EASERA Pro and ARTA. Here is an example comparison between <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/SAC/CLIOvSmaartComp.pdf" target="_blank">Smaart and CLIO</a>. Digital I/O testing is new to me and part of the reason I'm scratching my head a bit on the Quadra's latency measurements when driven digitally.</p><p></p><p><u>Quadra HF Phase at 48kHz</u>:</p><p></p><p>It turns out that the wiggles in the phase trace when the Quadra was driven by CLIO's digital output were due to issues with the latter. The same thing can be seen in the measurement of the near perfect Benchmark DAC1:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/CLIO_DAC1_Phase.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p><u>Latency Measurements</u>:</p><p></p><p>I also have the amazing Benchmark ADC1 and inserting this with the DAC1 in a measurement loopback yields a state of the art result.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/ADC1_DAC1_48kHz_96kHz.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>The measurements also yield a combined throughput latency slightly longer than spec'd by Benchmark:</p><p></p><p>ADC1 + DAC1 48kHz Spec: 3.10ms, Measured: 3.17ms</p><p>ADC1 + DAC1 96kHz Spec: 2.18ms, Measured: 2.27ms</p><p></p><p>When deriving a digital drive signal from the ADC1 to feed the Quadra the 48kHz phase wiggles disappear. It also provides more insight on just how well designed the Quadra is.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/ADC1_Quadra_48kHz_96kHz.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>At this point I'm looking forward to clarification on the Quadra's <0.5ms latency spec when driven digitally. Inserting the ADC1 and Quadra in the measurement loop produces latencies of 4.69ms at 48kHz and 3.26ms at 96kHz. If Benchmark's latency specs for the ADC1 are close to reality, which they are as shown earlier, then the approx. actual latency of the Quadra system from digital input to earphone output on the beltpack is 3.60ms at 48kHz and 2.59ms at 96kHz.</p><p></p><p>BTW, the Quadra had no trouble accepting digital inputs from sample rates of 44.1, 48, 88, 96, 176 and 192kHz.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Langston Holland, post: 33034, member: 171"] Further Observations When buying a new measurement program, I compare it's output to everything else I have ever had access to. My tests show CLIO's analog I/O measurements identical to Smaart, MLSSA, SysTune, EASERA Pro and ARTA. Here is an example comparison between [url=http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/SAC/CLIOvSmaartComp.pdf]Smaart and CLIO[/url]. Digital I/O testing is new to me and part of the reason I'm scratching my head a bit on the Quadra's latency measurements when driven digitally. [u]Quadra HF Phase at 48kHz[/u]: It turns out that the wiggles in the phase trace when the Quadra was driven by CLIO's digital output were due to issues with the latter. The same thing can be seen in the measurement of the near perfect Benchmark DAC1: [img]http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/CLIO_DAC1_Phase.png[/img] [u]Latency Measurements[/u]: I also have the amazing Benchmark ADC1 and inserting this with the DAC1 in a measurement loopback yields a state of the art result. [img]http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/ADC1_DAC1_48kHz_96kHz.png[/img] The measurements also yield a combined throughput latency slightly longer than spec'd by Benchmark: ADC1 + DAC1 48kHz Spec: 3.10ms, Measured: 3.17ms ADC1 + DAC1 96kHz Spec: 2.18ms, Measured: 2.27ms When deriving a digital drive signal from the ADC1 to feed the Quadra the 48kHz phase wiggles disappear. It also provides more insight on just how well designed the Quadra is. [img]http://homepage.mac.com/soundscapes/PSW/WirelessTests/ADC1_Quadra_48kHz_96kHz.png[/img] At this point I'm looking forward to clarification on the Quadra's <0.5ms latency spec when driven digitally. Inserting the ADC1 and Quadra in the measurement loop produces latencies of 4.69ms at 48kHz and 3.26ms at 96kHz. If Benchmark's latency specs for the ADC1 are close to reality, which they are as shown earlier, then the approx. actual latency of the Quadra system from digital input to earphone output on the beltpack is 3.60ms at 48kHz and 2.59ms at 96kHz. BTW, the Quadra had no trouble accepting digital inputs from sample rates of 44.1, 48, 88, 96, 176 and 192kHz. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Product Reviews
Lectrosonics Quadra Digital IEM Review
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!