Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
BTW if all channels averaged 17 dBmv, you'd hit 17+3+3+3+3 = 29 dBmv.
And Regency Fish Restauarant to you!!!
|
Which is a far more technically reasonable correlation with max input of 33dBmv than my corrupted variant of your algorithm. viz a ludicrously absurd (17*16) -3 -3 -3 -3 = 260dBmv!
That said if you applied my inverted logic then the more d/s bonded channels then the nearer to optimal 0dBmv you'd want the average.
Thus 16 x 2.8 -3 -3 -3 -3 = 32.8dBmv ….and allowing for 8dBmv equalisation these could even range from -1.2 through +6.8 for the 16 channels?
Curiously, coincidentally (yet conveniently) that almost aligns with node/platform optimal ranges!
Which only goes to prove that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and some of us can "clone" anothers concepts and totally pervert the facts to fit our observations without a clue of what we're doing!
Must go - there's a a buzzing again in my wall box!
Hate fish - guess what the wifes cooked tonight! Poetic justice….