The "scope" shots you refer to are more likely the Wavelab/DAW "scope" screen captures which would never have absolute measurements anyway. I referenced the amplification amounts in the white paper. Nearly all tools of that type lack resolution at the low amplitude levels needed for noise analysis. I tried many options and was not fully satisfied with any of them.
Perhaps the wrong tool then? I'm sure one of your Keysight oscilloscopes would be suitable together with a fixed gain amplifier. At the moment all I see is a squiggly line without axes, and some gain value, which together still means nothing. I could lend you my HP 400F which will measure down to a few microVolts RMS.
No thanks, no competent engineer would use a piece of antique test equipment like the HP 400F to do modern day measurements.
If you cannot understand a gain of +94, +90 or +72 dB and a full scale image of the resulting waveform, well I don't know what to say. It is pretty clear to people who have read the white paper. The corresponding FFTs show the detailed frequency amplitude information. The recording fidelity at the DAW is what matters to the euro user, more so than readings of millivolts or microvolts.
Reminding here for folks who have not seen the white paper that all power bus measurements are given in actual units, milliVolts peak to peak, milivolts rms and in dBV for spectrums.
I agree real world bus bar tests would be an interesting comparison.
Agreed, except your results aren't real world - you use a bench power supply (which, as you state yourself, no-one else would use to power a Eurorack system), together with a specific set of modules that very few people are likely to have the exact same setup and therefore your results are mildly interesting at best. Without knowing exactly what your collection of modules is doing to the rails it is difficult to predict how well your system will perform with any other set of modules.
Here's the quote on the power supply: "The high specification bench power supply was chosen to reduce dependencies of any particular power supply and to focus on the interaction between modules and their shared power connection under the best possible circumstances."
So...if I used a noisier power supply that would be more helpful? Not for the experiment that was being run. Your complaint is baseless.
The comment on module selection is ridiculous. By that logic no selection of modules or parameters is valid, therefore let's not ever provide any results. Folks are tired of arguing about theories without concrete data on how it helps their recordings.
Your last sentence is correct. Every different set of modules, every different set of parameters or selected algorithms, every change of power bus solution and every different position of the modules provide a different test result. Other people have definitely gotten that message from the white paper.
There seems to be some mistaken idea that the results represent the absolute value of noise in a eurorack modular system, or tries to show some repeatable test that can be duplicated anywhere. Nowhere does it say that in the text. Please read it. It is a study of the same configuration with four different power bus solutions, for comparison purposes on typical noise differences, and providing guidance on how much improvement can be gained from the power bus or the output module choices.
Show any other comparison of real eurorack audio outputs to a recording solution for eurorack power solutions. Why is presenting that data so controversial?
Have you asked Graham Hinton for his results for a eurorack system? I've never seen any either.
On MW there are various posts from Graham containing actual repeatable measurements; for example, in this post
Graham provides a measurement of 50-60 microOhms on a 17" busbar (about 6-7 times better than your LIBB according to your "Worst case resistance measurements" table). That is a measurement that can be repeated and verified.
LIBB resistance measurements are also repeatable and verified with professional calibrated equipment. Your comparison seems to imply otherwise.
But that's not the measurements I was talking about. I was talking about audible results. It could be scope plots or DAW recording waveform and FFT images. Those results for bus bars do not exist to the best of my knowledge. If you know otherwise, please provide the link.
I could go on further, a lot further, but to what end? I do hope your boards sell well as they are definitely a step up from those abominable flying busboards. As to how well your solution holds up under the many and varied system configurations only time will tell. All I would ask is this: cut out the BS and snake oil - the audio hifi world has more than enough to go around without the modular synth world contributing its own.
LIBB is selling very well thank you.
The statement "BS and snake oil" is completely bogus. I present more data than anyone has ever seen, and you come back and attack it. Have you ever designed a power delivery network? Do you know what it is? Come back to us when you've read and understood one of the standard engineering tests on Power Integrity. I've seen nothing here to show you understand the concepts that you are refuting. It is not snake oil, it is 21st century power engineering design.