Frequency response: "very poor" on SB audigy

just encountered this very strange thing. Right Mark Audio Analyzer 5.5 reports and diagrams a "very poor" frequency response on my SB0570 Audigy at 44 Khz and 6 bits (not only) loop-back test.
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6409/rmbenchmark3pv.jpg
is this normal?

walkietv wrote:
ahaa! thanks. the problem is the guide is pretty old and the mixer and EAX look different. Could you tell me please exactly what should i change. I mean what to put in REC, Source in the mixer. I checked the EAX console-only time scalling was acti've. Any other setting in EAX? thank you!
- all options on all EAX panels tabs needs to be set 'OFF' (i.e. not enabled).
- if you're running the loop back test (line-out --> line-in), the Rec -source shall be set to AnalogMix() (or if you see the Line-In mentioned there as separate source then select it).
- you can set the monitor while recording by pressing the '+' sign above the Line-In slider (Surround Mixer) --> disable this option (i.e. no monitoring while measuring)
Other settings:
- windows audio performance options --> set acceleration and SRC to 00%
- on Surround Mixer, set master volume 00%, Source: Wave 00%, Line-In 50% and rec source 50% (adjust the signal level to ~ -dB by moving the Line-In or/and rec sliders)
jutapa

Similar Messages

Intermittent low volume and poor frequency response

I have a 10 month old 30 Gig video IPOD that drops the volume level and loses all its low frequency response at times and then will recover after a while. This happens on a song or songs that I know are properly leveled and that work sometimes and not at other times. The issue seems to be much more prevalent when IPOD is cold or cool. After it has been operating for an hour or so the problem seems to go away. It is very common when first turned on. I am getting ready to return it while it is still under warranty but thought maybe someone has an easy fix.

Returned for warranty repair.

Very poor video quality after transcoding in Adobe Encore CS5.1

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I have very poor video quality after transcoding the video file (MPEG) in Adobe Encore CS5.1. Below you see my used settings in my filmproject.
The problem exists after transcoding in Adobe Encore CS5.1. I checked all steps and found out that there is no problem until transcoding. My exported file in MPEG has very good video and audio quality.
Facts:
1. Camcorder: Panasonic AG-AC160AEJ
Operating System : Windows 7, 64 Bit, Ultimate edition
Source files: MTS files
Recording settings (clip settings):
Type: MPEG Movie
Image Size: 1920 x 1080
Frame Rate: 25,00
Source Audio Format: 48000 Hz - compressed - Stereo
Project Audio Format: 48000 Hz - 32 bit floating point - Stereo
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1,0
2. Sequence settings in Premiere Pro
Sequence was created from Clip directly with settings above.
3. Exporting settings in Adobe Premiere Pro:
Match sequence settings was activated. Now other changes were set.
4. Exported File:
Video
Image Size: 1920 x 1080
Data Transfer Rate: 25920 kBit / s
Frame rate: 25
Audio:
Bit rate: 384 kBit / s
Channels: 2 (stereo)
Frequence: 48 kHz
5. Transcoding settings in Adobe Encore:
I used different transcoding settings such as automatic DVD Transcoding, CBR and VBR.I also set “use maximum render quality”. But all results were always the same: very poor quality.
Why does the encore transcoding cause such bad video quality?
How can I solve this problem?
Please help me soon.
Best regards.

Hi Ann,
1) I did not only „Automatic (based on source)“ options in my tests, but also many other customized options.
The results are very poor. I have done a new test with the following settings. The result is also poor:
Download link: http://www.klavierlehrer-bayern.de/download/test_mpeg2dvd_1.m2v
Export Settings:
Format: MPEG2-DVD
Preset: Custom
Codec: MainConcept MPEG Video, Quality: 5
Frame Rate: 25 fps
Field Order: Upper
Pixel Aspect Ratio: Automatic (based on source)
Render at Maximum Rate: [active]
Bitrate Encoding: VBR, 2 pass
Minimum Bitrate (Mbps): 5
Target Bitrate (Mbps): 9
Maximum Bitrate (Mbps): 9
GOP Settings
M Frames: 4
N Frames: 12
Use Maximum Render Quality: [active]
Multiplexer: None
2) Why shouldn’t I use the “Match Sequence Settings” in exporting? Because of the big output file size?
I used it and the results are very good as I expected:
Download link: http://www.klavierlehrer-bayern.de/download/test_MatchSequenceSettings.mpeg
Export Settings
Match Sequence Settings [selected]
1920 x 1080, 25 fps, Upper, Quality 50
User Maximum Render Quality: [active]
3) I tried also Dynamic Link in PremierePro (to Encore).
The results are also poor.
4) I will test also LagarithLoslessCodec and frameserving +DGMPGDec. But the video is vertical long drawn-ot.
I think I did not use it correctly.
Regards

MacBook core duo Sept. 2006 - the audio is a mystery. Any analogue out has bass boost with bass distortion. With digital out, by USB or Airport Express Airtunes, the frequency response is normal. Somewhere, Apple put in an analogue bass boost.. why?!

Since new, my Macbook core duo has sent all audio to all analogue outputs with frequency distortion. Some physical hardware or firmware in the analogue section adds a bass boost to the frequency response of the audio.... And, this boost adds bass frequency distortion to most, if not all, of the audio analogue output.
This happens for all audio sources, players, iTunes, videos, streaming audio/video, movies... any sound source available to the Macbook. No-one with whom I have talked about this problem, has ever heard of it. Not elegant ideas for reducing it are to use equalisers on players and iTunes. iTunes even has a preprogrammed "bass reduce" on its equaliser, as if it knows already that this inherent bass boost "feature" has been built into the Macbook, and cannot be defeated by the user.
The digital audio is of sufficiently high quality to play well on a very good to excellent sound-system; so, it's a shame someone has mucked around with the frequency response of the analogue conversion, by designing the frequency distortion right into the computer. This motherboard, (which includes the sound-section), has been replaced, along with the speakers, and everything sounds exactly the same as it was before.
To receive a flat frequency response and no frequency distortion, I listen on one receiver using Airtunes, (it doesn't matter whether or not the analogue or digital output jack is wired analogue or connected via optical cable.... the freq. response is flat); and I listen on a high-end stereo system using an USB output port to an A/D converter, passing the analogue result using long patch-cords connected to the "line-in" jacks of the stereo. The bummer is that most of my audio sources are not derived from iTunes... hence, I cannot use Airtunes with Airport express for them. I've tried using "Airfoil" without luck. The sound becomes distorted with sibilance and other frequency anomalies.
Question: has anyone else discovered this sound imperfection in any Mac product? And, does anyone know if Apple is aware of it? Finally, has anyone found an Apple fix for the problem; or, at least, come up with better solutions than I have?
Thanks heaps for any impute and answers you may supply!! junadowns

Army wrote:
This might not help you a lot, but if you want a stable system, try using packages from the repo wherever possible, look at the news before you update your system and don't mess things up (like bad configuration etc.).
When it comes to performance, you won't gain much by compiling linux by yourself! Just use the linux package from [core] or if you want a bit more performance, install the ck-kernel from
[repo-ck]
Server = http://repo-ck.com/$arch
(this has to go to the bottom of /etc/pacman.conf)
(use that one which is best for your cpu (in your case this might be the package linux-ck-corex).
Hmmm, Linux-ck-corex doesn't even load.. I am now trying to install the generic one. Hope it works.
Edit: I will first try linux-lqx...
Last edited by exapplegeek (2012-06-26 18:33:31)

Frequency response requirements for headphones with CMSS on XFi ???

Hi,
I would like to know if someone could tell me what kind of heaphones are suitable for the CMSS mode with the XFi.
I mean between : flat response/free-field correction/diffuse-field correction.
Applying HRTF filtering should mean that headphones with flat response is the best option ( same configuration as binaural recordings).
But I have a big doubt that Creative team expects costumers to possess such a pair of headphones, as it is rather for scientific uses (psychoacoustics, audiology etc...).
So, if we look at the technical solutions for wide audience we have two options (FF correction and DF correction). Here is a trick because these corrections intend to reproduce some of the effects from HRTF (for two different environment configuration of HRTF measurements). It is why the frequency response of most of the headphones have a notch between 4Hz and 0 kHz.
To simplify, if we listen binaural sounds with classical headphones the effect of outer pinna is reproduced twice.
So I guess Creative have implemented a kind of normalization/equalization/correction process to deal with the non-flat frequency response of headphones, but do someone know if they have chosen diffuse field or free field correction ?
This post might seem a detail but the issue can be very important for the accurate localisation and the coloration? of 3D sounds with headphones.
Thank you, and please forgive my english!

The only possibility that I can think of is that 2/2. mode is NOT as simple as headphone mode with crosstalk cancelation. Perhaps the HRTF only kicks in for sound sources outside of the arc directly in front of the listener. If that were the case, you wouldn't percei've any distortion for sound sources in front of you.
Also, you are wrong regarding DirectSound3D. Keep in mind that Direct3D and DirectSound3D are not the same. The whole point of OpenAL and DirectSound3D is that they present an API to the programmer through which there is NO specification of the number of speakers. When using OpenAL or DirectSound3D, the only thing a programmer can do is specify the location of a mono sound source in 3D space relati've to the listener. The speaker settings for your DirectSound3D or OpenAL device will then determine how this sound is "rendered" by the soundcard. It is not under control of the game. For example, if you have 5. speakers and the 3D position is behind you, the SOUND CARD will make the decision to use the rear speakers. If you use headphones, the SOUND CARD will decide to apply an HRTF to create the illusion of a rear sound source. The point is that the game does not have control over how many speakers you will get sound from.
However, to further complicate the situation, there are SOME games (HL2 is an example) where DirectSound3D is used, BUT the sound output of the game itself IS a function of the Windows speaker settings. This is not how programmers are SUPPOSED to use DirectSound3D. I've written about this countless times. There is a good post on [H]ard|Forum about this. Do an "advanced" search with my username (thomase) looking for the terms "hl2" and "cmss".

I must be doing something stupid: Very poor quality DVD rendering!

I am new to Apple products and after trolling this forum, I was able to create a DVD using iDVD on my Mac mini Core Duo - 2Ghz model. But, the video is of very poor quality (compression artifacts). I am lookging for guidance to creating a better video quality. But first, let me give you some background...
I have created enough DVDs for my home videos captured both from my S-VHS camcorder and min-DV camcorders (both PAL and NTSC) using Pinnacle Studio (buggiest software in the world) and Adobe Premiere Elements under Windows. I have clear expectation of video quality and understand the quality differences between various standards.
I have a fairly new toy - Canon Powershot TX1 digital camera which is an amazing compact camera that shoots 720p video @ 30fps and stores them in MJPEG format. Very good optics (10x optical image stabilized zoom). The only con is that it has very poor low light shooting ability.
The steps I took to create this DVD...
1. Import the .avi and .jpeg files from my camera into iPhoto library.
2. Use iMovie (all part of iLife'08) to stitch the avi clips and also some of jpegs. Added transitions, titles and music in iMovie.
3. Also, added some of my old low resolution avi files (from my older Canon camera - probably in 640x480 resolution).
3. Exported it in the largest file mode (960x540) which created a 1.8GB file.
4. Opened this movie file in Garageband and added the Chapter markers.
5. Shared it with iDVD which automatically launched iDVD and showed the chapters in very nice scene selections menus.
6. Invoked the Burn menu to burn the movie into a DVD using iDVD.
Am I using the right methodology (I want the chapters)? I also observed that an earlier project which was pure 15 minutes of 720p content created a 4.7GB size exported file from iMovie whereas this current project has 51min of avi (of which about 10min is low res and the rest is in 720p format) and 12min of still photos produced a 1.8GB file when exported. This clearly tells me that the exported file is of poor quality. Why did that happen? Was it because I mixed the content and included low res videos?
I should probably try creating a DVD from the pure 720p content and see how that looks.
Any pointers would be a great help. BTW, the mac mini, iPhoto and iMovie forums are just awesome. The quality of posts and responses is very high.

Thanks a lot, F Shippey.
I exported it as a .dv file and then I was able to produce the DVD correctly with the Revolution theme and 11 chapters. I haven't done any editing any clips yet in iMovie. In most cases, I will not need to do that in most cases as the Canon TX1 creates individual avi clips every time I record and stop a recording. Having used a camcorder for over a decade now, I know how silly most of the recordings are.
I will be rendering most of my videos as h.264 so that I can use the mac mini as a media server instead of using DVDs. I have to rip my own DVDs as h.264 soon (back to handbrake).
PS: While creating my first DVD in OS X + iLife'08 tools, I noticed the following bugs:
1. The clips disappear from the display in the editing window when the project becomes large and I had to zoom in and out to make them reappear. I verified that I wasn't viewing past the end of the last clip. If I hover the mouse in the blank window, it will show the clip in the preview window on the right.
2. I had 11 chapters marked in Garageband and then I shared it with iDVD, it created two pages of scene selections with 6 chapters in each page. In the 2nd page, it added a random window (unconnected) for the 12th chapter that I didn't have. I didn't check for that and so my finished DVD has this weird 12th chapter with a copied moving clip in the window, but when selected, it doesn't do anything.
These two bugs are way few compared to what Pinnacle Studio threw at me.
Message was edited by: new2appletv

Buil-in microphone frequency response graph

I'm curious as to where I can find a frequency response graph for the built-in mic in the 15" MBP 2.8. I know it's a silly thing to want, but... Sometimes I don't have the time or resources to set-up an external mic with a flat frequency response, and would just like to use the built-in mic very quickly to "EQ" or "ring out" rooms. I can't find the info on the built-in mic anywhere. Any suggestions?

Have you ever used the microphone? Have you ever actually used a laptop to do this?
I don't have a graph, but from years of working with audio I can tell you that it doesn't have the frequency response, sensitivity and directionality to do what you want.
A nice external mic and portable interface like the iMac would not only do a better job but would look a lot more professional than running around trying to point the cheap microphone of a laptop in the right direction.

Flat Frequency Response

I probably shouldn't have to be asking this question since I charge people for my obviously amateurish recording abilities but it's one that I've never had explained to me and one I need to know the answer to......
Let me set the question up this way:
When you get in the car and pop in a professionly produced cd, most people crank the treble control up to 6-10 (on a scale of 10) and the bass up to (4-10) depending on the factory speakers and type of material and whether or not they care what their music sounds like. When you get home and you're listening to the much higher end home stereo still listening to that professionaly produced album, you still reach for those treble and bass knobs and crank them up several notches or if you have a graphic eq you tweak out a smiley face .
There's so much emphasis in the recording world about getting a flat frequency response out of your room with absorbers and bass traps and spreading around the reflections with deflectors, etc...etc..etc..., that we spend thousands of dollars on this stuff and some measuring software to make sure that it's flat. Then we use that flat response to produce music that sounds great and expect that to translate to those cd players and home stereo systems.
(I'll additonally preface my question by saying that I've had no problems getting my music to translate from my home studio to any other playback system, but I'm a little confused about what's going on.)
Now finally my question(s), when we reach for those treble and bass knobs on our car and home playback systems, are we really just trying to make up for the lack of bass and top end in those systems so that we too can achieve a flat frequency response and make the music sound good on whatever system? or
Do we as listeners actually prefer the smiley face frequency response in music and are we taking a cd that itself has a flat frequncy response and making a smiley face out of it so that it sounds good to our ears? (Please don't give me a material/genre answer.)
The reason I ask is because I have to put a graphic eq on my Truth 2031A monitors to make the professional stuff sound good through them, and then I in turn mix my music to sound the same for whatever material/genre of course. (I'm not really interested in any monitor bashers or I would've asked this over at Gearslutz.)
So again rephrased...Do the masses think music sounds good when it has a flat frequency response or the smiley face and if it's the lattter of those, how are we supposed to achieve that when our home studio setup is producing a flat frequency response, do we tune our monitors with eqs like me?
Additonaly I understand that when were talking about flat frequency responses in rooms we're talking about throwing sine waves through a system and ranging their frequencies, measuring them out so that we can detect any over emphasis/deficiencies in the room so maybe this question is a little more towards monitor tuning.

If you look up Fletcher and Munson in Google, you might begin to get a bit of the start of an idea of why this isn't quite as straightforward as it seems.... and I'm not sure that I can give you a complete answer either, although I can give you a few connected but slightly random things to ponder, wearing my acoustician's hat:
The fundamental problem is that when things are quieter (and less distorted, incidentally) our ears get more sensitive to the midrange frequencies, and if we listen to music that way, it invariably sounds as though the bass and treble are out of balance. In cars it's slightly different though; the frequency response of whatever's in there generally tends to be anything but flat - and often over-emphasises the midrange anyway. Treble tends to get absorbed very easily in upholstered cars, and since most car speakers don't have anything like acceptable tweeters in as a rule, it's not surprising that people want to increase the treble. As for the bass - well I'm always turning that down personally, but I know what you mean in principle!
If by a 'commercial' CD you mean one where the vocal is prominent, then yes I can easily imagine why you might as a matter of course want to increase the response at the extremes - it makes sense if you think about it. The mid-range vocal is prominent and probably compressed, so its average level is louder than the backing - this helps it to stand out. But also it distorts the overall time-based response - the backing may well be balanced so it's okay on its own, but that doesn't always translate if you have the wrong vocal settings applied, or at a minimum, applied unsympathetically. And some voices make this significantly worse; for instance Sealion Dying (AKA Celine Dion) makes the most appalling racket in the midrange, and you'd definitely need less of that!
So really I'd say that it's not a Bass/Treble issue, but a midrange one. If you look at commercial CDs in general, you tend to find that the energy distribution is pretty even over the whole audio band, which implies that it falls off at 6dB/octave if you look at it in Audition (this is an energy/Hz thing), but in reality most CDs these days are mixed a little brighter than that - more like a -3dB/octave slope down from about 1kHz, and that's partly to compensate for a lot of things - some of which are cars... You do have to watch out for the distortion issue though - most people don't realise, but you are able to tolerate rather higher levels of non-distorted sound than anything with significant distortion levels in it, and if that distortion is in the midrange, then you'll want it quieter anyway. So decent, over-rated under-run PA systems always sound cleaner and louder but you should beware - they can damage your ears just as much, if not more.
Do car interiors themselves increase the chances of midrange boost occurring? I think it's a pretty safe bet that they do, as a rule, simply because of the size of them, and the treble problem I already mentioned. And if you are trying to compensate for too much midrange, then the rest follows. Most domestic replay systems these days seem to be midrange heavy to me as well - I haven't heard anything cheap recently that had anything like a flattish response - and they really don't suit the rooms they are in either.
If you want to listen to material as it really should be, then you need to experience it live first, I'd say, and then do a direct comparison with what you can hear in your monitors. I'm fortunate - I can do this quite regularly with a variety of material. Do I tend to leave things as flat as they are recorded? Well, it depends on what it is. If it's in any way classical, then sometimes I look carefully at the bass balance, but generally I leave the rest alone. Everything else these days I just get to sound good - and that can mean all sorts of tweaks, depending on all sorts of things. More and more though, I've come to the conclusion that too much midrange isn't necessarily a good thing - but that's mainly because of the general lack of good reproduction equipment around these days.
As for monitors and flatness - well that's not really an issue for most people, compared to getting their listening environment correct. If you have a pair of cheap monitors in a good room, the chances are that the results will sound better than an expensive pair in an uncorrected room - despite what all the monitor freaks on gearslutz might say. These days, even the cheaper ones can sound quite respectable. But flatness isn't an issue with monitors really - a decent impulse response, and low distortion are far more important. Chances are that if a manufacturer has got this right, the monitor is going to be suitably 'revealing' anyway - which is what a monitor is supposed to do.
The one thing you do not do though, is EQ the feed to your monitors - that went out of fashion almost as soon as it came in - fortunately. You fix the room so that it's more truthful. If you EQ the monitor feed it will inevitably only sound good in one place in the room, and that's no use to man nor beast. The only decent things that proper room correction systems can do is equalise the immediate time response to take account of what's actually between the monitors and you - which if done properly can improve stereo imaging no end.
So answers? Well not really. But at least I've explained a few (but not all) of the issues.

Frequency response measurements with pxi-5922

I’ am using signal express and the pxi-5922 digitizer together with the AWG pxi-5441 to analyse the frequency response of a buffer amplifier. See the attached signal express file. Many different ways to measure the frequency response have been tried and this is the best I came up with. It is basically two tone extract steps in a sweep loop. But I’ am still uncertain if this is the best way to do this kind of measurement. The fact that the detected frequency differs between the two channels worries me, even when the two channels of the pxi-5922 are looped. Is there a more accurate way to determine the frequency response?
Best wishes
Stefan Johansson, SP
Attachments:
sweep.JPG ‏397 KB
Frequency Sweep funkar.seproj ‏81 KB

Claudia-
Thanks for the response.
Regarding the CJC- When I switch it on, the temperature readings I get are very random, roughly negative 1 degrees. (I am operating right now at room temperature, and will be using J-type TC's to measure ~43 degrees C). Also, when I use the built-in CJC, the aquisition rate seems to slow down considerably. When I use the "user specified" everything seems to be ok, including the aquisition rate.
I measured the resitance of the Thermistor on the TBX-68T and it was about 5000 Ohms, as expected.
Just to make sure: When using the TBX-68T, do I need to hard-wire a thermocouple to Channel 1/auto-zero and another to channel 0/CJC? Because I connected a TC to channel 0 right now, but I wasn't 100%
sure.
I've attached my main vi and two sub vi's that I am using for the voltage aquisition part of my project. (Note:the current measurements are just voltage measurements multiplied by the recipricol of the resistance it was measured across, ie. 10).
I would like to keep this file as is because it writes to a file exactly the way I want it to. I'd like to have the temperature aquisition with the 4351 in the same vi as the 6030E so that they both stop and start at the same time. I am just not sure how and where to log the temperature data since there will be fewer data points than the voltage data. Any suggestions? Should I write two separate files? can I somehow append them?
Thanks again. Hope to here from you soon.
Attachments:
EBlackMainDAQ.vi ‏107 KB
Save_Data8.vi ‏45 KB
Build_String_Array5.vi ‏33 KB

BT Infinity - Very poor latency during peak times....

Hi guys,
I hope that you can help. I am a little bit disappointed with my connection at the moment. Let me try and give you a breakdown of the issue so that it may help you distinguish where the fault may actually lie.
I have been a user of the BT Total Broadband service for a number of years. My ADSL 2+ has always been great, 18Mb Down, 1Mb Up. Latency has always been acceptable, ranging from about 30ms off-peak to about 50-60ms on peak for a server that I regularly game on.
BT infinity very recently became available in my area, the promise of a faster connection for little or no additional cost was a no brainer considering the quality of the connection that I have had from BT up until now.
The line was installed with ease and for the first day it was truly stunning. 50Mb Down, and 12Mb Up seemed brilliant, Latency also improved, dropping down to 15ms off peak, and 25-30ms on peak. For the first day it was absolutely stunning.
Since then, its just gone wrong, Most people would be happy with the connection, but I am not as I know that the service provided to me is/was better than that supplied to me by BT infinity.
Now, when running the speed checker, the speed is superb. Day or night the speeds are pretty consistant, never really dropping any lower than 45Mb Down / 10Mb up, it’s the latency that is the issue! Off peak, it can be as low as 10ms connecting to these servers, on peak it now shoots up to over 250ms between peak hours, making gaming near impossible.
The speed and latency tests don’t really help either (such as the BT speed test, pingtest.net and speedtest.net)
All three during peak hours report 45+Mbps downloads, 10+Mbps uploads and response times of sub 25ms. The problem is however, is that these tests are not really that accurate for the internet experience that I am getting
The speedtesters and ping testers are using best-case servers for the results, these resulting servers are therefore held within the BT network, and that’s why these speeds are great.
As soon as a server is outside of the BT Network, its poor. Very, very poor indeed.
As my latency is so good within the BT network, I can’t see there being any issues with the line. Not that it has stopped BT from running a new line from the cabinet to my house, and patching/checking for wet joints before they supposedly put this new line in. From my understanding it has to be BT’s connection out to other nodes on the internet.
Every time that I speak to BT by phone, they don’t seem to understand the problem as my speeds and latency are fine – (and on the BT WAN they are) – yet in reality the connection is very sub par.
My gaming server however seems fairly happy, like I say my old BT adsl 2+ connection to it always seems stable. I have even ran tests via a neighbours ADSL2+ circuit, and a 3g Dongle simultaneously as my infinity check Both still report < 60Ms response times during peak hours (when BT Infinity is 250Ms+ at the very same time)
Can any of you guys please shed some more light on the problem, and more importantly what I can do in an attempt to resolve it. There are not many LLU’s here, so changing ISP is not really an option for me.
Has anyone from BT Infinity had this problem, and was able to resolve it. If so how did you resolve it? Maybe I am explaining the problem to the their Customer Services Teams incorrectly?
I asked them to define what latency meant, and their answer was totally incorrect. I cant help but feel if I keep calling them (and they don’t understand my problem) it may never be resolved as a result.

That is what i thought! If there were errors or collisions down the line, this could effect latency. i know my latency to most of the BT Wan is spot on.
That said, thats what IP Profiles / BRAS is for, to drop the speeds on your line if required to ensure quality of bandwidth for the line in question so that collisions / packet loss does not occur, it downgrades automatically, so why force it even lower!?.
I dont want to say I know BT's job, as I dont. but I would like to think i have a fair understanding of how networking works - It seems that BT Customer Service, and even the engineers speaking from me from their 2nd/3rd line support teams should really be re-educated on providing factual information to their customers rather than hoping that I dont understand what they are waffeling on about!
Most of the delays are much higher in BT's infrastructure. Not that they will admit it, i think their 'no throttle policy since 1st Feb 2013' is far more relevant than my line and its connection to the WAN

Frequency response - sound and vibration

Hi,
I need to find the frequency response of the DUT. I am using the NI example from sound and vibration toolkit to do
so (LabVIEW 8.5\examples\Sound and Vibration\Getting Started\SVXMPL_Getting Started with Swept Sine (DAQmx).vi) now my problem is
to tabulate the phase difference between the stimulus and response when i do it i get constant values. Even though i dont give any response
signal to the channel i get the wave same as stimulus, is it suppose to be like that !!!!!!!!!! I will attach my vi so that it gives the idea where
i am measuring the phase difference pls check it and help me with this.....thank you in advance.
Attachments:
DAQ Freq resp (req)_trial.vi ‏121 KB

What is the DAQ card you are using for executing this Frequency Response?
This DAQ error is related to the output frequency of your signal higher than the possible output rate of the card. Basically, you are trying to update at a rate higher than the capability of the card.
For doing Frequency response, generally you need to have a NI DSA card (446x/447x/449x) with one Analog output and two analog inputs (minimum). Generate the swept sine signal from the Analog output channel, give this signal as input to your DUT and also to one of the Analog input channel. This input to your Analog input channel will act as your Reference signal. Then the response signal from your DUT, connect it to another Analog input channel. You would get a very good response results.
The reason why you need to have a DSA board is that, for doing Frequency response, we need to acquire both high frequency and low frequency components without much loss. This is possible only if your DAQ board has a higher dB value (in the range of >110dB) which is present only in DSA boards.
I have completed a Frequency Response Analysis just a week back with the same example programs. So there wont be any problem with that vi.
Regards,
Sundar Ganesh

VERY Poor Wireless Signals

Hello everyone! I have a Linksys WRT54G v8 Wireless-G Broadband Router. I receive VERY poor wireless signals from it. There are no frequency interferences, physical obstructions, or anything like that. I have tried channels 1, 6, and 11 (non-overlapping channels), but did not seem to notice a difference. How can I adjust the Wireless -> Advanced Wireless Settings in order to improve the wireless signals? Thank you!
Message Edited by Shadowz_O_Death on 08-27-2008 06:23 PM

Shadowz_O_Death wrote:
Hello everyone! I have a Linksys WRT54G v8 Wireless-G Broadband Router. I receive VERY poor wireless signals from it. There are no frequency interferences, physical obstructions, or anything like that. I have tried channels 1, 6, and 11 (non-overlapping channels), but did not seem to notice a difference. How can I adjust the Wireless -> Advanced Wireless Settings in order to improve the wireless signals? Thank you!
Message Edited by Shadowz_O_Death on 08-27-2008 06:23 PM
Hi
Is the firmware up to date ?
If not , then upgrade the firmware .
U can even try channel - 9 !!
Advance wireless settings : RTS threshold - descrease by 42.
Fragementation - decrease by 42.
Beacon Interval - change to 75 or 50.
Observe the settings.
pe@c3
"What u Give , is wht u better start expecting to take back".. - http://Forsakenbliss.wordpress.com

Iphone 5s not picking up home Wi-Fi and/or very poor signals even in downtown area

Switched to Verizon and bought IPhone 5s less than 3 weeks ago. It was fine the first week then suddenly it won't recognized my home wi-fi and got very poor wireless signal. I have my old IPhone 4s and it works fine like a charm for wi-fi. It keeps reloading and not pop up any wi-fi signals. I went to the mall and normally it should pop up multiple wi-fis but it didn't. However my ipad did. I keep trying to reboot it or even reset it to factory settings and still doesn't work. Then yesterday my calls keep dropping in the middle of business conversation. This is unacceptable and no one seems to be helpful at Verizon. I even took screen pictures throughout the day yesterday to show when suddenly my home wi-fi popped up and a minute later it disappear. This also a domino effect for my photo stream, icloud back up, and most importantly my data plan. Now I can't even use my paid home wi-fi and use up all my data plan with Verizon and none of them care. I almost feel like switching to other providers. I also see that this is somewhat common to IPhone 5s with their troubled software or signal chip but not getting help from Verizon is the worst.

I downloaded the Speedtest app on my iPhone and iPad and would randomly test one right after the other. I accumulated about 5 tests a day on each device over the course of 3 days. I set up an appointment at the Genius bar. I told the Genius that I set up my phone as new and then showed him my comparisons of the Speedtest on both devices. He handed me a new (non-refurbished because it hasn't been out for long) phone, no questions. Apparently it was a hardware issue and not an iOS 8 bug.

NB205 - very poor product and service, do not buy Toshiba!! Completely dead in 6 months

I am posting this to warn as many people as possible to avoid buying Toshiba in the future. Not only was the product faulty, which I can understand sometimes happens w mass production. But the service was completely unacceptable, which was the deciding factor for me.
1. My new Netbook NB-205/BL started intermittently shutting down for no reason (complete black screen, not even to blue screen). By the time I returned home from my trip it had stopped working altogether. The power light will come on, and the fan/hard disk will try to spin for a split second and then go silent and stop completely.
2. Upon calling tech support who walked me through a bunch of diagnostic attempts (removing and re-inserting battery, etc.), they concluded it was dead and I needed to send it in.
3. The only thing I really care about is my data as I had stored a bunch of invaluable photos and downloaded about $200 worth of Amazon MP3s since receiving the Toshiba NB205.
4. Tech support assured me they would back up the hard drive for me and ship either a fixed or new computer with all my data still intact. They asked me to register it w their warranty department and call them back so they could send me a shipping box to send it back in. I did all that and it's been >3 weeks and no box.
5. So today I called Tech Support again and the guy goes "Oh yes, you have shipped your computer in for a hard drive failure?". At which point I had to explain how A) it's not a hard drive failure B) I haven't shipped anything anywhere because I never got the box I was promised.
6. Then I proceed to ask him again if my data would be safe, to which he informs me it's Toshiba policy/practice not to back up data for customers. I found this to be unacceptable and then I didn't know who to trust so I asked for a supervisor.
7. This supervisor wasn't able to help me either as he further informed me that they will not back anything up for me AND that I had to pay for shipping AND pay an authorized Toshiba Repair Center to back my hard drive up.
8. I suggested what everyone who I've talked to has said: Toshiba could send me a new computer since they've diagnosed the old one as being dead. I could swap out the hard drives, or they could send me one without a hard drive. And I could send them back the dead NB205.
9. NO was the answer. Toshiba wouldn't do anything for me, because software issues are NOT under warranty. And backing up my hard drive is considered to be a software issue. I repeatedly told him that it's their defective hardware that is causing the need for data backup. But this went ignored and I was told they don't cover anything in this case.
I either had to lose my data or pay probably $100 for a Toshiba dealer to back up my data for me. Oh yeah, and there isn't one of those within 20 miles of me and I live in Silicon Valley!! Oh yes, and they want me to pay to ship them the dead computer.
10. I finally asked him how he would feel if he was the customer, and if he felt this was any way to treat Toshiba customers. He replied by saying they have a process, and this is the process!
Well the next time I and any of you are in our "process" of deciding which brand of technology to buy, I'm certainly not going to consider Toshiba anymore. This is the second chance I'm giving Toshiba after having a very poor laptop AND service experience in 2000. Well, it took me 9 years to give them another shot, and I'm never going to trust them again. I told myself "well, it's a high quality Japanese brand, one that commands a premium in price that people are willing to pay so it should be an excellent product. AND if things do go pooryly, Toshiba will stand behind their name."
I was SO wrong!!! Let this be a message to all people out there, as I did read these forums before buying my product, but the NB205 was so new it didn't have many posts.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! I'm done with you Toshiba, it's really too bad that you will not honor your brand with fair treatment of your customers.
Ming Wu

It isn't that difficult to back up the data from the hard drive. You can easily do it yourself for about $20. http://www.datarecoverytutorial.com/recover-data-from-failed-laptop-notebook/
As for Toshiba backing up your data, ALL of the manufacturer's have that same policy. NONE of them will backup the data for you nor will they guarantee that your system will be returned with the existing data intact. This is spelled out in the Warranty documents and is fairly common knowledge amongst most computer users.
If the data was that important you should have been backing it up to USB flash drives, a usb external hard drive, or some other backup device on a daily basis just for this very reason. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't make it Toshiba's problem.
If you don't post your COMPLETE model number it's very difficult to assist you. Please try to post in complete sentences with punctuation, capitals, and correct spelling. Toshiba does NOT provide any direct support in these forums. All support is User to User in their spare time.

Apex report performance is very poor with apex_item.checkbox row selector.

Hi,
I'm working on a report that includes some functionality to be able to select multiple records for further processing.
The report is based on a view that contains a couple of hundred thousand records.
When i make a selection from this view in sqlplus , the performance is acceptable but the apex report based on the same view performes very poorly.
I've noticed that when i omit the apex_item.checkbox from my report query, performance is on par with sqlplus. (factor 10 or so quicker).
Explain plan appears to be the same with or without checkbox function in the select.
My query is:
select apex_item.checkbox(1,tan_id) Select ,
brt_id
, tan_id
, message_id
, conversation_id
, action
, to_acn_code
, information
, brt_created
, tan_created
from (SELECT brt.id brt_id, -- view query
MAX (TAN.id) tan_id,
brt.message_id,
brt.conversation_id,
brt.action,
TAN.to_acn_code,
TAN.information,
brt.created brt_created,
TAN.created tan_created
FROM (SELECT brt_id, id, to_acn_code, information, created
FROM xxcjib_transactions
WHERE tan_type = 'DELIVER' AND status = 'FINISHED') TAN,
xxcjib_berichten brt
WHERE brt.id = TAN.brt_id
GROUP BY brt.id,
brt.message_id,
brt.conversation_id,
brt.action,
TAN.to_acn_code,
TAN.information,
brt.created,
TAN.created)
What could be the reason for the poor performance of the apex report?
And is there another way to select multiple report records without the apex_item.checkbox function?
I'm using apex 3.2 on oracle 10g database.
Thanks,
Niels Ingen Housz
Edited by: user11986529 on 19-mrt-2010 4:06

Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately changing the pagination doesnt make much of a difference in this case.
Without the checkbox the query takes 2 seconds.
With checkbox it takes well over 30 seconds.
The second report region on this page based on another view seems to perform reasonably well with or without the checkbox.
It has about the same number of records but with a different view query.
There are also a couple of filter items in the where clause of the report queries (same for both reports) based on date and acn_code and both reports have a selectlist item displayed in their regions based on a simple lov. These filter items don't seem to be of influence on the performance.
I have also recreated the report on a seperate page without any other page items or where clause and the same thing occurs.
With the checkbox its very very slow (more like 20 times slower).
Without it , the report performs well.
And another thing, when i run the page with debug on i don't see the actual report query:
0.08: show report
0.08: determine column headings
0.08: activate sort
0.08: parse query as: APEX_CMA_ONT
0.09: print column headings
0.09: rows loop: 30 row(s)
and then the region is displayed.
I am using databaselinks in the views b.t.w
Edited by: user11986529 on 19-mrt-2010 7:11

Frequency response: "very poor" on SB audigy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for