>
>> My suspicion (that means somewhere between an 'opinion' and a
>'fact')
>> is that if standard two tone tests were performed, using a few different
>> audio frequencies and applying some weighting/averaging rule to them, were
>> applied to the same setup, there would be a large correlation with the
>> referenced results. I would like to see that done (maybe it has and the
>news
>> just hasn't arrived here yet.) as a qualification for or against the
>> spectrally averaged method as proposed.
>
>
>The three-tone test I used to use does this. It is basically a two-tone test
>with levels varied at a syllabic rate. It is best to do that test with the
>HF tones at close spacing and at wide.
>
>Unfortunately the test I used is no easier and no better than just using
>speech, it is actually more complex and gives no better answers.
>
>I think speech is the best test.
>
** Amen, Tom. The advantage of speech is that there are a plethora of
tones and the varying current tests the effect of power supply
un-regulation. Two or three-tone tests don't. However, the jury is
still out on whether or not filthy words are any better than ordinary
words for checking transmitter filth.
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|