Digital Signal Transmission

[PeterSt]

15 hours ago, TomJ said:

In my opinion, there is currently so much nonsense in the forums in the field of digital singnal transmission.

 

Sure. But your post is a best example of it.

Why don't you try a few things yourself first, prior to putting up a charismatic post which testifies that you didn't. 🙂

 

All right, we are not so nice to you. So maybe after you start over, take out the stipulation, indeed tell about what you all tried and could not hear for differences ...

 

Btw, this looks inconsistent to me :

 

15 hours ago, TomJ said:

Sound differences can then only be caused by electromagnetic interference. I use a USB isolator that makes a transfer (asynchronous) to my DAC impossible.

 

Are you saying that because of that isolator transfer of electromagnetic waves are blocked ??

I sure hope not that you wanted to say that. 

And if those two sentences have their own right of life, then the first sentence gives "a" (!!) answer to your own question. Right ?

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

@TomJ, Although you wouldn't say it, @pkane2001 is your friend in this thread. He may also be the only one. Haha. But at least he measures (I do too), finds (marginal) differences, and next ignores that because he can't explain it.

Did I say this about right, Paul ?

 

Tom, this is not about cans of worms. Your myths are very real, and the reality behind the myths are as real. 😜 But for example, I have a (Phasure) forum full of it, for something like 15 years now. I could be the one who "invented" all this sh*t by means of (bit perfect) playback software changing SQ all over the place, next a DAC which would be able to counter-act what the software changes for SQ (I was intrigued), this DAC in various incarnations with all the isolations possible (always as a first with that although one element was almost beaten by @Superdad (this was a matter of days, if not hours) - that latter telling that a few on this globe work for and on the same cause - that really doing a few things.

 

The subjects have been beaten to death so often, that it will be hard to receive normal honest and relevant responses. You can see this in this very thread, now you know that the key players all immediately jumped in (and upon you). I too wasn't very serious - was I ?

 

So I repeat : step into this with an open mind instead of having your conclusion ready in advance. That never works well.

 

Remember, Paul is your friend. Utilize that fact. You really can learn a thing or two.

 

 

PS: And if you *really* want to know, step in your car, drive 310km/u in Germany, hop over the border and listen at my place (In Holland). It should be fun. But a warning : it could cost you some money - well spent. This is up to you.

[PeterSt]

On 2/13/2021 at 7:07 PM, TomJ said:

How could the software matter

 

Software is capable (by accident or by explicit means if one knows what he is doing), of implying different "schemes" of current usage. Normally this is not about the amount of current per se, but merely about the "flatness" opposed to spikes. These current schemes are able to droop into the DAC and from there influence jitter (which obviously is a clear reason for changing SQ).

N.b.: With different wording, this was my message in my first post in the Phasure forum (prior to that these phenomena already lived (by my ideas) in an other forum, hosted by Bert Doppenberg (BD-Design), might some recognize him).

 

When one (me) can influence the DAC's behavior, one can also counter-act that by all the means in a creative mind. I never succeeded over the course of time so far (the DAC exists for 11 years now).

Notice that as these are commercial products, I am thus not alone at all in my findings and judgments, settings and further tweaks. @sandyk mentioned JPlay. That too exists for influencing the sound, with the notice that it is a spin-off from XXHighEnd (my software). A few more exists, only one that I know of not springing from XXHighEnd.

 

These days, a bit out of ideas for the DAC (it never works out anyway, as implied, no matter what isolation), I started to work with cables. And in 100% of cases they work out for what they should do : counter-act the final anomalies not under control by other means. In other words, this is not about can-of-worms strange-act cables ... they are made for an explicit job and they work out for everyone.

 

The real can of worms is about the desire to measure what we can easily hear. And *this* now appears to be impossible (although I myself can do it). So what we can hear the most easily, can not be measured at all, or we don't know how to do that.

The real can of worms is about fine people like Paul, who at least is eager, where such people spread the word to you that because they can not measure "it", "it" can not be there. And there your myths are born. And mind you, Paul could be the only one who is actually on "my side" with an open mind, but who still has the huge problem that he can not really measure "it".

All thousands of others "know" that they measure well, and next decide that each cable or whatever is a myth in itself.

 

Peter

 

Edit:

Maybe I should emphasize to you, Tom, that it is the most easy for you to read my posts as self-advertising. But this is not the intention at all. Instead, all is a super long journey of improving sound for 1. me myself and 2. share that with others (very close to cost price). All what we make at Phasure went this route.

And if it really would be self-advertising, others will this time jump on to me, or else my posts will be (or should be) deleted. I only hope you read them first then.

 

 

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, TomJ said:

I was talking about USB as a data transport, not as a power source for a dac, what was the focus of the measurements of your link.

Maybe it is known, that there are DAC not using the power of USB.

Lack of knowledge?

 

Tom, already yesterday I typed a post that you show more and more that you don't understand a think of this all. This time I won't scratch my text.

You really have no clue.*

 

*) This happens to more of us, so no big deal. But don't twist this into the others not understanding.

 

You appear to have so few knowledge about this, that you don't understand a word of what the others are telling.

 

PS: Nobody talked about the power over USB, nor implied it, nor even thought about that. Only you do. With this little fact in mind, go read all again and try to see what the subjects really are. OK ?

PPS: Alex did, but only in response to your pose. And it is not even relevant.

 

 

[PeterSt]

And @TomJ, now we are as far as knowing that you need to learn about "everything" in this realm, what interferences (you speak abut all the time) do you have in mind ? I feel that if we work this out, you will suddenly be a lot more knowledgeable. 

Heads up.

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 P..S.

 Even though your DAC may not be powered via USB, it may still need to see a " handshake" via the +5V from the  PC, in which case this noisy +5V can still induce RF/EMI into the Data wires

 

Alex, I think you may be confusing the handshake procedure with ground being required. Maybe in some occasions +5V is needed (I don't know about them - but that doesn't tell much 🤪) but ground most often (always ?) is required. And this ground is not required for the data ...

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

The quality of the USB power matters just as much for DACs that don't need USB to power them.

 

... additionally ... each DAC which requires 5V over USB to power itself, can be regarded a toy. So IMHO such DACs should not be the subject of this topic. It could confuse the OP (haha).

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Of course! Got anything objective to back up this bold and exciting claim? I'm ready to weld if you do 🤪

 

Paul, you are so funny. But I am sure that you think that the "quality" of a PC does not matter. Am I right ?

I mean, if this is clear(ed) then we can understand your fun better.

 

PS: I am half-serious. But you'll know what I mean. So your answer is of some importance (which is also half-serious, but 0.5 + 0,5 makes 1).

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, TomJ said:

and you show me the dirt of USB power and all the people think USB is eval.

 

Tom, USB *is* evil. Trust me. It can be turned into an interface with lower jitter than SPDIF, but this is so difficult that it took 6 or 7 years after asynchronous USB was "invented" for audio to get there by one or two DAC manufacturers.

 

And a hint for you (it could silence you somewhat 🤫): USB implies a relatively very high 8KHz signal, which is right in the audio band. It is pure distortion. Here too, it is the most hard to tame, but it can be done to at least something which should be inaudible, but which will still always be measurable.

In itself this signal implies (data-) jitter, because it is an oscillation beating with the DAC's audio clock.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

No Peter .

Some DACs do need to see+5V, but all seem  to need the 0 volts reference 

 

Ahem. I was saying that ?

[PeterSt]

OK, I am apparently missing your point. Never mind.

 

Maybe to clarify - the 0 volt reference is required for the handshake procedure (which is at connecting the DAC, or powering it up - or powering up the PC). After that has been established, the ground can be removed. Not that I tried this with all DACs. 😝

 

Thinking about this, I am pretty sure that these days I would be able to provide that ground locally (thus not over USB). It would be illegal ground all right, but it would be harmless just the same because it will only be used at this handshake.

Oh wait, this is Covid-19. No handshakes !

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Peter,  I think you're making very general statements that are a bit out of date and not supported by facts.

 

Maybe it is too difficult to understand my poor English. I never said that today this is still a problem. I only said it has been hard to overcome. And sure, once one gets it done, all can do it, as long as the data is shared.

 

Your measurements show nothing as the noise level is too high (hence the FFT not deep enough etc.). Next up is your (obviously) expected "but you can't hear that". I think I was ahead of you with that one.

 

Tell me again where I was wrong of off somewhat.

N.b.: You could ask me to show the 8KHz at just over -160dB - but it is useless because that too would be from I think 2015, and techniques  undoubtedly improved again.

 

Quote

Any "beating" or interaction with the DAC clock would be at a level below that.

 

Ah, OK. So it won't imply jitter.

No wait, that jitter would be at inaudible levels.

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, TomJ said:

I keep getting answers that bad jitter is to blame and that jitter is also the cause of the deterioration of the sound over the network - which is absolute nonsense, since all systems use TCP / IP.

 

Somehow TCP/IP seems to be a solution for you, while it solves completely nothing.

 

8 hours ago, TomJ said:

For your information: I have a streamer that is operated with an LPS (I am aware that the USB power is otherwise useless). The streamer streams via USB to an Intona isolator, which is passive and has no other power supply

 

For your information, ever back half the world was using the Intona USB isolator because I brought it to the audio market. Maybe you like to see my serial number 00001 ?

I now use it as a cable lifter.

For your information, the Intona is not so much passive with its two FPGAs inside. Unless the German innovator now has a passive solution indeed. In that it case it sure was for "my information".

 

Quote

Which DACs are you talking about that have overcome the USB problem?

 

Maybe it depends on what USB problem you refer to, but let's say "all" which cost a little more. Please keep in mind that I only referred to the difficulty of getting there.

If you meant the "one or two" I mentioned who solved it at first, well ... I'd like to mention exaSound as the second. The first I already mentioned somewhere (haha).

 

1 hour ago, TomJ said:

Here is a comparison of S/PDIF vs. USB - USB is the clear winner:

 

Of course. And I did not say it wouldn't. Still FYI, if I would make a new design all over, I would attempt S/PDIF.

Btw, you can't come up with general FFTs of general S/PDIF DACs. I'd try Chord (768KHz S/PDIF). I never looked myself (or tried to find FFT plots from it) but I think I can guess it ...

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Wait... -160dBFS isn't deep enough for you? What is?

 

Always in good spirit Paul. So now I said that -160dB isn't good enough ?

Where ?

I only said that it is still measurable. IIRC that is.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, TomJ said:

Here is a comparison of S/PDIF vs. USB - USB is the clear winner:

 

Ahem. I only see now that you used exaSound yourself as the example. Apologies if I stipulated something obvious. But they really were the first to show as low noise figures etc. as I could create it myself.

 

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, Superdad said:

I think it is funny how some folks buy into the notion that the ex-Microsoft guy who bought an AP analyzer and floods the net with graphs somehow is somehow smarter than all the high-end engineers and chip guys who have been deep in this for decades.

 

Ha ! The phrase of the day !! No, the month.

 

Quote

I could compile a list of renowned engineers (including Mike Moffat, Damian Martin, Ted Smith, John Curl, Michael Pflaumer, and Keith Johnson) who Amir has basically dubbed “hacks.”

 

I surely would incorporate John Swenson (you would too !) and if you'd allow me: you too. Bringing technologies together is as important (count in Jesus R regarding this. Barrows. There are more.)

 

Damian would typically come up with rivets. Just saying. Haha.

[PeterSt]

Quote

Since the measurements I posted go down to -160dBFS

 

 

@pkane2001, Paul, you sure did show that. I overlooked this one :

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, TomJ said:

But the problem then seems to be more about making the diagnosis. But how, without measurements? Seems to be a gamble.

 

No, not really, because we also have empirical data. The problem with that obviously is that e.g. I can only bring that across by words.

A doctor takes the anamnesis (apart from 18 century rough blood pressure measurement) and from what he learned he will have an educated guess. No need to measure something like an appendix (Blinddarm) issue to already know it's most probably that. The patient doesn't measure either. He only responds relatively to his normal life which is without pain.

 

... or pain in the ears ... or pain in the ears of his wife ...

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, TomJ said:

I'm not talking about the fact that a switch cannot increase the sound quality, but that it does not change the data less than 20 $ switches.

 

Tom, let's try to digest this (it has been said a couple of times by others, but please note it is crucial):

 

1. All switches or USB interfaces or USB cables or Ethernet cables, transfer the data 100% the same without any bit error. This counts for everything you read about changes in Sound Quality. And, if people stipulate that this is because of lost bits or changed bits etc., than they don't know what they are talking about (trust me on this).

 

2. Jitter is not about changed bits or lost bits. Thus, by no means jitters is caused by that. For now I won't go into details what jitter exactly is, except for that it is about a mechanism that reads upgoing voltages and/or downgoing voltages and that the moment in time that a voltage is seen as up- or downgoing, is not constant (see more below for further elaboration).

 

3. Despite the voltages are properly read (a 1 is read as a 1 when it should and a 0 ditto), the moment in time this is determined may change from audio word to audio word. Audio word : the level of the audio signal, which comprise the stream of such words. This is harder to explain for now (and for me to you), but let's say this is not important. The below is:

 

 

Let's envision that this is a clock signal. It exists in your DAC and it is used to "clock out" those audio words. A short cut of the story would be that at each upgoing / rising of the slope of this wave form, a new part of the analogue output signal is added. This is about this stream of audio words.

Let's say that the chips involved detect that the wave / voltage is definitely rising where you see the mouse pointer. But, first draw an imaginary horizontal line through this picture, and do this through the mouse arrow head;

You see three rising edges of the wave form, and you can now see that all three rising edges will not be detected at the same time, if you only draw that line and also draw a time scale under it. This is because the signal you see is noisy. The wave form "sculpture" is not as thick or thin at all places. ... Say that the left most edge is seen as rising "on average", the second one as too early (with the first one as the reference), and the 3rd one will be late (because it's line is thinner where the horizontal line crosses).

 

That is jitter and you could say "ohh, but I knew that !".

OK.

 

Now what you should take from this post is that this noise can be created by a countless number of sources. It can be that ugly switch, that misbehaving PC, that poorly shielded USB cable, that poorly terminated Ethernet cable and still countless more. Easier to see would be the power supply doing it, might that be a power supply somewhere that throws sh*t back into the mains, or might that be the PSU in the DAC being poor because it does not sufficiently reject that noise from elsewhere.

 

Jitter is the phenomenon which is audible, and the noise in that clock signal is the last instance which creates jitter.

If this last instance can be made 100% immune (and not 99% "because you won't hear that anyway"), THEN all else around it won't matter and it can be as noisy as it likes.

 

No isolation helps with this because of ...

 

"interference".

So Tom, that was your used word/phenomenon of which I asked you later whether you would know what you actually meant by it. I think I do (and it could be derived from your own (OP) text), because ...

it goes through air.

 

And now all stops. All we can now do is take care of those countless sources of noise. It includes you led light. It is everything.

The alternative would be to shield the clock (and even beyond toward the D/A conversion elements) such that it can not be interfered by such through-air "radiation" from elsewhere.

Galvanic isolation is only part of the solution (it may block noise in the copper lines and mind you, it may also block noise in the glass lines (the signal I showed you will just exist in glass the same, once it is only that noisy signal).

On a side note, think how re-creating a noisy signal, may create a cleaner signal (this is e.g. the "REGEN" devices of Uptone (Superdad)).

 

Since there are countless sources indeed and per source already countless solutions or counter attacks for it exist, DACs sound all quite different. And still each DAC *will* receive its bit perfect data. The USB solutions and even Ethernet solutions, all may sound different again. Not only because they may present a cleaner (regenerated) signal, but because they will just have a different radiation pattern. Ehm, for better or for worse, because definitely no manufacturer is taking that into account; this is totally out of our control, which is already caused by how devices are inter-linked.

 

So you see, it is not about a digital signal being bit perfect or not (because all is bit perfect in the first place).

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

Funny thing is: DAC and other digital engineers (especially if you get into RF, telecommunications, and microwave engineering) deal with the ground-plane and clock issues in their designs as a matter-of-course.

 

Although this would be a correct statement in itself, it should be noted that in the professional world of (RF, telecom, microwave, etc.) engineering it is about one thing only : get the bits across without change. They don't care about jitter at all, as long as it is within the thresholds of the bits not changing.

And here audio is different, because "we guys" (but @Teresa too 😊) are highly sensitive to jitter - we just hear it. So everything, including this post, just sent from Holland to the US of A, arrives unchanged. There is no hearing / audio involved. Jitter does not matter a bit (haha) during the transmission of the post. Or, when you read it back in Germany - same thing.

[PeterSt]

On 2/19/2021 at 9:40 AM, TomJ said:

And cable-sound or sound of a router should not be the target. But I can still here slightly differences of USB cable from Isolator to the DAC. This could be because different cable handle HF and noise different. Best way would be, that the Isolator would be integrated on the board of the DAC.

 

Paul, maybe it is your time to constructively respond to this, might that be hidden in your genes somewhere.

Also, *I* personally have the OP in mind (you seem to have forgotten it):

 

On 2/13/2021 at 7:07 PM, TomJ said:

How could the software matter as long as the data is being properly transmitted from the receiving TCP / IP stream to the USB port?

 

Obviously we'd expect a negative response from you, would I propose that my software exists for a most explicit reason (explained by me to some degree in one of the first posts).

... there is nobody in this nice world that does not hear the differences between always bit perfect software settings.

... there is nobody in this nice world that returns one of our cables, while everybody is entitled to (instead people blindly buy new versions).

 

Even you did not return your Lush^2. Oh, okay, now I am too funny. But maybe you should.

 

With this latter in mind, I like to remind you - or just make clear to you, that nobody (maybe but me) is showing FFT's etc. etc. of HIS or HER situation. It's all manufacturer sh*t (if at all) or maybe these days AmirM biased nonsense (yes, sorry, that's what it is). So if Tom shows an FFT of his RME ADI-2 (which is a perfectly fine DAC for measurements for at least the D/A chips used) in his system, then nothing - just totally nothing tells me that in his situation with all possibly (!) improper grounding, the FFT would show as nice. So for this reason alone in his situation an other cable could make a difference, while in your situation (or Amir's) it does not make a difference at all.

 

May I, please, emphasize the fact that Tom clearly has a huge advantage of the Intona, which THUS makes the RME ... what ?

You tell.

And then to think (trust me) that I personally hear the processing of the Intona and that I for that reason can't bear it (in the end, after creating something better myself).

 

There is no better empirical test than thousands and thousands (yes, that is what it is) of people all being so happy that they a. keep on using and b. keep on upgrading, no questions asked.

Only those who never try, or those with such a closed mind that it is just impossible for them to hear-though, most probably won't even try. You are an - again-half - kind of exception.

 

So now *I* am scaring people eh ?

No Paul, I am practicing audio as a hobby and improve the quality of that, day by day. And I am not in it for the $. Not at all.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, TomJ said:

So something positive has to happen with the intona.

 

Tom, I don't know if it is still the case, but with the first versions of the Intona, Daniel showed the decrease of my mentioned 8KHz "distortion". Assumed that your RME won't get rid of that herself, it needs galvanic isolation to depress it to some degree. I know from that other means of galvanic isolation subject to a DAC that isolate i2s from the outside also helps the 8KHz distortion.

Mind you, this is only one element from quite some more. But at least Intona advertised with it (justified).

 

Edit: 

I'd like to add that the level of the 8KHz distortion is quite 100% related to grounding. Thus, do something slightly "wrong" with that (whatever wrong is, but for example the difference between earthed and not-earthed mains power) and the level is higher or lower.

USB is evil because its ground related to mains ground (this happens in the PC). This is why isolating USB does not even 100% help. Better ground schemes in the DAC helps best.

 

[PeterSt]

52 minutes ago, TomJ said:

Then I only have to care about a clean power supply for the extender - right?

 

If all were that simple ...

First off, all which is glass (fiber) always sounds worse. This will be related (unproven) by the processing which is required to (in-DAC) convert back to copper. Throughout time a few in the group at Phasure (including myself) tried this (IIRC this was always about Adnaco).

 

56 minutes ago, TomJ said:

But I have understood, that noise can "jump" from one side to the other in the intona -right?

 

Although I myself could expect that such a thing would happen indeed, I could never prove that by means of measuring radiation (it is just not notably there). It is stuff at the complete other end that will radiate. Example : put in a USB cable in the PC and leave it open at the other end. *That* creates a transmitting antenna throughout the USB cable. And that is caught by anything willing to be a receiving antenna, like components in the DAC.

 

Your better option is to cascade two Intonas. At least this sounds notably better to me. I did that with my own isolator in-DAC, but this is hard to have consistently working. This is how that never because a commercial product and how I had to remove it too (for me it is useless to have better gear than the (potential) customers).

 

From my own isolator it is known that it blocks noise for IIRC 60% only ( @Superdad may still know the figure better than me).

So Yes, indeed it should be so that some of the noise "jumps" (this is hard for me to envision, but alas).

 

Tom, let's keep in mind that once you are as far that you tend to work on phenomena like blocking noise, the better approach really would be the ISO-Regen. That isolates and re-generates a clean signal at the same time. Regarding this, try to grasp that the bits can be captured 100% without error by such a device, and including isolation from the dirty (PC) side, close to the DAC the signal can be regenerated as clean as possible, preferably with a clean PSU indeed.

But ... welcome to the world of USB tweaks after all ?

[PeterSt]

27 minutes ago, TomJ said:

Is this also the case for Ethernet to fiber and back in your opinion?

 

I can't tell this because I don't use Ethernet interfaces, nor did I design with them. What's to be done at converting back to copper seems similar as USB to me, while the "decoding" of Ethernet is something I don't know the (current usage) impact of.

Ethernet is a different beast for noise signature because a. we use it all over, b. we also use it connected to the Internet, and c. to audio seemingly unrelated connections already change for SQ when the Ethernet cable is changed (say for a boutique one, but I have only experience with our own).

The debate around Ethernet switches is something I like to stay far from because although it is clear to me that the SQ changes with different switches, it is not clear to me whether that will be for the better or for the worse (I don't see the logic really).

 

34 minutes ago, TomJ said:

So with ISO-Regen there is no need for audiophile switches and servers?

 

If that would be the last element in the chain, then very far, theoretically, it would be correct. But it is not at all because my software still happily change the sound as always, without and with ISO-Regen. And thus the answer is (sadly) No - that need remains (but mind my (non-)opinion on switches).

If your mentioned "server" is the audio playing PC, then that is the most crucial of it all, these days. However, please notice that this is in the context of not-streaming from the Internet and only local playback (you mentioned this as making no difference for you).

 

If you first regard all the noise-"impact" as a number and state that a million, then something like a server contributing say 100.000 may be or will be inaudible for a difference. But if that 1 million is decreased to 200.000 first and the server remains (which is a logical process in the audio world) than the 100.000 the server contributes obviously implies half and the impact is no less than huge.

All what's left, next is going to have a larger impact again when diminished.

 

Maybe good to know:

If my proposed 1M of noise comprises of say 100 sources than noise is as noise is intended - it is random and for that matter quite harmless (you'd miss out on detail in the music, but in itself it is "bland"). Let's observe that 8KHz USB distortion again;

In the pictures you showed it will mostly be buried in that other (say 1M) noise. This is not so any more once most of the noise is tamed and put down to -160dBFS (see my discussion with Paul and my overlooked graph). Thus, where an FFT would be able to dig out distinct tones (like the 8KHz) it can't when all frequencies exhibit above the level of that 8KHz distortion.

But what if all other noise would have been taken out and the 8KHz remains ? It can easily be there at -140dBFS. Then it would be a relative severe distortion, although always people will exist who say that this has to be inaudible.

 

Moral: you may perceive no difference between local playback and streaming because that 1M noise is still present. That you miss out on the best sound is something else.

... As I said, hop in the car and come over because let's remember, I really can measure most of this easily and I won't rest until all is clean. And you have no idea how much audible this all together is (with say 100.000 left only).

On the other note, don't think I can measure the differences in USB cables, because apart from eye diagrams which tell nothing, I can't qualitative measure this. The change of a shield configuration will let you drop your jaw on the floor, and *still* I can not measure this. This all relates to the inherent low jitter such systems are these days (this is in the fs realm) and how this still determines the sound largely.

 

I hope this makes sense.

[PeterSt]

45 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Not correct, Peter. FFT can dig well below the noise floor

 

So you didn't read accurately what I wrote.

Or I didn't write accurately what I intended, in your language.

Read again how I described noise. Or don't. I actually don't care.