- Joined
- Nov 18, 2021
- Messages
- 787
- Likes
- 595
Surely, if their missionary quest ends them up with a $450000 turntable and ancillaries, they are going to be delighted?
Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financiallySurely, if their missionary quest ends them up with a $450000 turntable and ancillaries, they are going to be delighted?
What on earth makes you say that? It's the same signals, only using a more compact connector.The Dave, TT2 or Qutest would suffice as they all have dual BNC inputs. 765kHz through a Y adapter is not the same.
There is more to it than that and a Google search should provide an explanation.What on earth makes you say that? It's the same signals, only using a more compact connector.
There is more to it than that and a Google search should provide an explanation.
Yes but just imagine that device, spinning as silent as the grave, and with greater accuracy than the atomic clock! Forever! Mind you, things will go downhill when you put a record on it!Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financially
Well that was an informative response. Not.Trying to win against math? You pick hard battles I must say.
Yes we can see that you are not clearly, just as clearly as the fact that you do not know those things.
And spiritually I’d say. I think we shouldn’t underestimate how addictive it is to have a following.Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financially
Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem posits exactly that. When the sampling frequency is > 2 X the sampled analog frequency, the original signal is mathematically the only solution.There's a lot wrong with your post there. Human ears are less sensitive to lower frequencies. Amir has talked about this in one of his videos.
When you say "a sound has to be sampled only twice in order to be properly reconstructed" I don't think you understand what "properly reconstructed" means. It does not mean it's going to be perfect.
I'm not a sound engineer or electrical engineer and I know those two things. Don't be ignorant.
A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem posits exactly that. When the sampling frequency is > 2 X the sampled analog frequency, the original signal is mathematically the only solution.
The theorem expects the original signal to be appropriately bandwidth limited.A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.
Some are more than 120 kHz. But we don't need to sample those because we cannot hear that and almost all microphones don't reach that high either. Being generous there's nothing to be gained audibly at more than 96 khz.A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.
Beat to death in:A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.
So a more expensive Chord DAC needs more help than a cheaper one? If so, that proves that longer tap filters are worse, not better!A point that needs making is that the Mscaler is designed to enhance the performance of DACs with dual BNC inputs. This is limited to the Qutest, TT2 and Dave. It does not include Chord's mobile DACs such as the Hugo 2, where it is merely compatable.
Certainly makes the hobby cheaper for us as time goes on.I repeat, in the Chord presentation, there was *definitely* a difference - I thought the music had a deeper and more atmospheric soundstage as RW claims on 'The Wam' site apparently. What stumped me (but none of the other listeners it seems) is that the mean volume seemed slightly reduced with the M-Scaler working. sadly, I wasn't able to return and listen again under my terms and as I said earlier, I've had similar things with absolute phase in systems sensitive to it and slight level differences, especially with half a minute or so between A and B, will screw it up for the listener anyway. As for trusting the ears alone (and the mind behind them) to tell things that measurements can't - FECK OFF - especially if you're over 60 years old (or close to it). Thank heavens in my case as *everything* now 'sounds' wonderful and eff subjective differences now