You proposed a test. Yet you have no results to share using it to show its efficacy and the bar set by any product.
I prefer to call it an 'experiment' rather than a test (I have an aversion to tests). And yes its true that I haven't done the experiment myself using a multitone stimulus to discern the differences caused by CM noise pollution.
You need that if want me to care about what you proposed.
I have no such want. If you'd like to make progress in understanding SQ differences, you might wish to perform the experiment. If not, then don't.
Same back to you
But our two situations are not symmetrical. You're putting forward measurements which you claim say something relevant about your kit. I explained why they do not. I put forward an experiment you could perform should you so desire. A proposal for an experiment is not a claim.
You throw out some vague metric for which you have no data to share.
This is nonsense. I agree I was vague about the number of tones so let me add detail. Try with a stimulus of 100 or more tones. Do you need any more detail to perform the experiment? If you still consider the experiment a 'vague metric' then explain what's missing.
So even if I had my data for a PC, you wouldn't have anything to compare it to. What I shared is industry standard data and is the most common measurement for transports. I am open minded to anything new you propose but please put aside the personal tone and be constructive.
I don't follow what you are saying.
Firstly why do you need to do a comparison? You could begin by comparing the noise floor with a digital zero stimulus with that under a multitone stimulus. The digital zero would give you a baseline for determining the degree of noise modulation.
Secondly, just because something is 'industry standard' doesn't mean its any practical use. In this case I've explained why not, if you disagree then what have I said so far which isn't correct? Show me my faux pas please.
Thirdly you're claiming something about 'personal tone' - chapter and verse please as this looks to be your own personal perceptual distortion to me. If you have evidence for the 'personal tone' then I'd like to see what it is.
Finally, I'm being constructive here so don't understand why you request me to be constructive. What in what I have so far written isn't constructive - chapter and verse again please.