@Merkurio It certainly sounds to me that your simply repeating what you've read from other websites. I see no original thinking in any of your responses, nor any helpful suggestions to improve the measurements, and certainly nothing that that would help explain the discrepancy in the measurements you prefer. You realize you're beginning to look a bit disingenuous at this point.
You state that both measurements show a similar result, they do not. I can't even imagine why you or anyone else would say that. A tenfold difference in the distortion numbers is not even close to similar. You might say the lines are similar in shape, but who the hell cares, this isn't 2nd grade art class, it's a damn measurement, and the higher of the two is most definitely wrong.
Man, if I went to a TA in an engineering lab and showed a report result like that, they'd laugh in my face and rip the paper up right in front of me. If my boss (if I had a boss
asked me to measure something not once, but twice, and I gave him both these results stating that they'e similar, what do you think he'd say? But in your world, a measurement, even if inaccurate due to test protocol, is just fine.
WOW, just WOW!
I think I figured out the problem here... You're missing what the area under the graph represents. AAHHH, that's the problem, somewhere along the way you learned that the area under the line on the graph is meaningless. Well, I'm here to tell you that it has meaning, there's information in the area below those wiggly lines, and that information, invisible to most, is what some call magic.
GO BILLS !!!