Audio Quality: RightMark Audio Analyzer 24/96

We've already discussed that RightMark is only as good an analysis tool as the equipment on which it is run. Thus, it does a good job of presenting an overall picture of input and output. If a device shorts itself on input capabilities while maintaining good output, however, its ability test high will fall short.


Audio Quality: RightMark Audio Analyzer 24/96

We've already discussed that RightMark is only as good an analysis tool as the equipment on which it is run. Thus, it does a good job of presenting an overall picture of input and output. If a device shorts itself on input capabilities while maintaining good output, however, its ability test high will fall short. This pushes manufacturers to produce balanced products in order to see good RightMark scores in reviews, but also skews reviews against products that have good output, poor recording, and only use a loopback test.

The other issue that we've run into when testing with RightMark is that when using loopback, input and output grounds are not separated sometimes. This means that running line-out to line-in on the same card can add a ground loop and distort numbers artificially. We could avoid this if we had high quality transformers to build a circuit where we could isolate one side from another. Unfortunately, we don't have the components to build anything of high enough quality on hand. Furthermore, any component that we put between the input and the output of the card would affect the signal and, thus, the test.

In most cases, we can get a good enough picture using loopback, even in situations where a ground loop is created. But we've decided to run one test in a two-card setup in order to get a better picture of what's going on. This gives us a better idea of how things stack up without distorting the picture artificially. In this case, the Intel solution is not capable of recording 24-bit audio, so we set up the Gina3G to record the Intel solution at 24/96 on a separate computer. All other tests were run using loopback. As the Intel and Gina3G solutions were required to loopback to the same physical device, there is the possibility that a ground loop could have raised the average noise slightly.

For our first test, the Audigy 4 is obviously the top card in terms of noise and dynamic range. The Audigy 2 comes in second. The Gina3G wins out in the swept IMD test with its very flat response. We are sad to see that the Intel solution performed so poorly here.


TestEcho Audio Gina3GSB Audigy 2 ZS Platinum ProSB Audigy 4 ProIntel HD Audio
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB:+0.01, -0.10+0.02, -0.10+0.02, -0.09+0.14, -0.22
Noise level, dB (A):-102.8-107.1-109.6-82.2
Dynamic range, dB (A):102.7106.8108.982.5
THD, %:0.00540.00140.00190.0030
IMD, %:0.00620.00190.00230.025
Stereo crosstalk, dB:-102.8-102.4-108.6-76.2

Spectrum graph
Frequency response

Spectrum graph
Noise level

Spectrum graph
Dynamic range

Spectrum graph
THD + Noise (at -3 dB FS)

Spectrum graph
Intermodulation distortion

Spectrum graph
Stereo crosstalk


ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7orrAp5utnZOde6S7zGiqoaenZH53fJVobQ%3D%3D

 Share!