Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GUTB

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time." This is the first sentence of the wikipedia article on Frequency. If it's incorrect please assist the world and make an edit.
  2. No, the ProAcs are superb speakers and I'm very happy with them. I probably won't upgrade until/if I get something TADs, Magico, Raihdo, etc. Or if I end up doing the radial speaker thing.
  3. Switching power is the enemy of audio because it gets high-frequency hash into the audio circuit and AC mains, has problems with ground loop formation, etc.
  4. Yes. Sound is energy over time. Energy from one peak to another peak over a certain period of time is the frequency, ie, the how many times these peaks arise over an arbitrary period of time (Hz). 20 kHz can be seen in the time domain as 0.05 milliseconds. Humans can react to sound energy in moments of time much lower than that, even though we can't hear the tone as a frequency of sound.
  5. Nyquist is mathematically correct, but it requires an arbitrary limit -- in reference to audio, the limits being between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, humans react to moments of sound far beyond our frequency-domain acuity would otherwise suggest. Additionally it was shown that humans do in fact respond to high-frequency music information even though we cannot consciously detect high-frequency sound. If our audio sensory system deals with frequency and time-domain elements differently, the reliance on frequency sampling as a way to get to "perfect sound" becomes problematic. This is catching up with the FACT that people can perceive the benefit of high-resolution audio and various types of filtering. I think many people in this thread have heard the benefits of high-resolution audio for themselves.
  6. And your experience with listening to reel-to-reel tapes is...?
  7. It's been a while since I watched this misinformation video. I note that comments have been disabled. For those who are confused by misinformation like this, it's just tired BS about how digital audio is perfect because of lines on an analyzer. Based on this junior-grade explanation no DACs sound different from one another and there is no benefit to any resolution of audio above Redbook. If anyone of you have have heard one DAC being better than another, or who use various filters and DSD conversion schemes to get better sound, or you find high-resolution audio sounds better than you should discard this video. If you think this misinformation is authoritative than forget about MQA you appear to think there is no such thing as high-resolution audio whatsoever. A sinewave cannot be transformed to and from a square wave without change of data. There is nothing wrong with Nyquist from a mathematical standpoint but only between two arbitrary limits (ie, 20-20k). Liken it to a circle -- no such thing exists in nature, it's a series of lines close enough together that our brains can summarize the shape as a circle, but that is an illusion. However, when Shannon-Nyquist developed the sampling theorem it was at a time before human's time-domain (and high-frequency) acuity was widely understood.
  8. Yes, thank you for some reason I didn't see the original response.
  9. I'd like to think my ProAc D30Rs are among the better values. But the point is, why can't someone make something like the ProAc but at a quarter of the price? EDIT: The latest version, the D30RS, is up to $7.8k, so I don't know if I'd still call them a better value. ProAc dealers do not offer price cuts either.
  10. If so why won't anyone describe their MQA playback chain?
  11. You only had to say "I don't have MQA". You're anti-MQA activism appears to be ideological and/or social. Why not? Weren't you curious about the sound quality improvements being reported?
  12. Well I just compared the MQA CD and regular CD version of Portrait in Jazz (Bill Evans Trio - Riverside). My initial impression listening primarily to the 2nd track is that there little difference. I think the MQA-CD has better tone on the cymbal and the cymbal decay is more defined against the background / longer lasting. Definitely one of the least different MQA vs non-MQA tests I've done. I'll do a more comprehensive test later, maybe demag the discs too. I'll note that MQA-CDs you get out of Japan like this one is are technically MQA on UHQCD media. UHQCD is a new CD media which has a priority physical mastering process and produces media that returns a much stronger signal from the laser head of a CD player. Someone on here tested it last year I believe and was able to verify this claim. Using a sampler disc I found the improvement of UHQCD is most heard in lower frequencies. I bought a non-Japan MQA CD the other day so we'll see how that sounds.
  13. There are DSD512 recorders out? I have to hear that.
  14. I haven't tested MQA directly against vinyl yet. My sense is that my best vinyl records are still better. But my vinyl system is also over $10k so it's maybe not the best comparison. I paid $600 for a SMARTractor alignment tool. I'm proud of my $1k Hashimoto SUT. I'm definitely deeper into the analog side of things currently.
  15. In my home soon...I hope. I have to find the right machine I don't won't junk, but if I don't need the show hotrods for $10k+ than I'd prefer something cheaper.
  • Create New...