It's not pink noise. It's M-Noise or Music Noise originally made by Meyer Sound and now integral to the AES75-2023 loudspeaker measurement standard. (It has a distinctive cracking sound.) Our free software "SpeakerMeasure" uses this signal and automates much of the AES75 procedure.
I really like the idea of auditionDSP. I would like to use auditionDSP in place of my hardware DSP in my system. Are there any auditory drawbacks when running my filters in auditionDSP software vs. exporting and uploading them to a hardware DSP box? Thank you
There are no auditory drawbacks. There might be some subtle differences. For example auditionDSP uses state-space IIR biquads which have lower noise than more common IIR implementations in many hardware DSP's, particularly for filters at low frequencies - e.g. subwoofer filtering. Also, a hardware DSP may have different quality AD/DA converters than your audio interface (with auditionDSP).
Great. But why has the pink noise signal for treble channel distortion in it?
It's not pink noise. It's M-Noise or Music Noise originally made by Meyer Sound and now integral to the AES75-2023 loudspeaker measurement standard. (It has a distinctive cracking sound.) Our free software "SpeakerMeasure" uses this signal and automates much of the AES75 procedure.
I really like the idea of auditionDSP. I would like to use auditionDSP in place of my hardware DSP in my system.
Are there any auditory drawbacks when running my filters in auditionDSP software vs. exporting and uploading them to a hardware DSP box? Thank you
There are no auditory drawbacks. There might be some subtle differences. For example auditionDSP uses state-space IIR biquads which have lower noise than more common IIR implementations in many hardware DSP's, particularly for filters at low frequencies - e.g. subwoofer filtering. Also, a hardware DSP may have different quality AD/DA converters than your audio interface (with auditionDSP).