Audiophiles - What if you could have pure perfect analogue sound?
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You have some of the best and deepest videos on YT. Excellent!
Perfect analog is a perfect oxymoron. 😂
I've come to the point where I think that 16/44.1 cd quality is more than enough for playback with a decent dac.. recording is different.. also this is hilarious.. "audiophiles" crack me up.. luckily I don't have more money than sense
In a modern digitalized world where food is processed , ..........;ands the outcome are the deseases like mentalhealth problems, chronic deseases, allergies and worse......
The same is with musc reroduction...............processed , sliced and reconstructed >sold as being better than the real thing .............sorry about not experiencing the emotions of the real thing and having that listening fatigue or nasty headache after listening to that perfect and expensive Hi-end ......if it woud be my wife causing these inconveniences I would divorce.........after living for years a PERFECT mariage .............
As far as I know, you have a great sense of humor.
Pure perfect analog would be a guitar. And I suck at guitar. it's pure and still sounds terrible. outside of the mechanical fun of other formats. Digital is obviously the way to go.
Why must we argue about "digital vs. analogue (aka vinyl/ tape / r2r / 8track / fm radio / whatever)" over and over again? Every side tries to find new ultimate arguements to persuade the other side. This is really exhausting in any way: producing or consuming.
No, we do not need to! How about this: Everyone hears the music the way he wants without beeing criticed from others. In return, everyone let any other poeple hear their music the way they like without criticizing them. It is so easy.
The best thing about it: We could transfer this principle to live in general . What a peaceful world we could get.
The reasons vinyl sounds so good is because generally speaking it was much better mastered. Also cartridges introduce a pleasant second harmonic distortion at higher frequencies.
You don't need a new analogue format. You just need to record in high-definition such as 192/24 and have a very accurate reconstruction filter. Maybe something like HQ player could do that. You could have controls for how analogue you want it to sound.
Get yourself a good tuner and a reasonably good audio interface and you have hours of recordings to keep you happy.
Just get some MBL 101 X-treme because and be happy.
It's a dream. Having a SSL mixing board, with a 32 track tape deck, a rack full of hardware effects and microphones has a whole chain of noise. Recording studios who have this gear, spend $150,000 a year to keep it working, for it is all inherently buggy and noisy. Then they master it all down to a digital file.
The main case for analogue audio is simple:
a) analogue audio requires a very simple recording/replay mechanism which at the same time is a product of highly sophisticated engineering i.e. it will still work with rudimentary equipment but will work superbly with superb equipment - this is what is its claim to success
b) analogue audio storage media are physical, some longer living some less so, some more fragile some less so, but from all of them, on the whole, the most physical of them, vinyl records, are made to outlast us all and the replay devices they are intended for still work: try playing a vinyl record from the 80s on a decent budget deck from 80s - it will still work as it did then (40 years ago). Now try that with a cd from the 90s (30 years ago) - that's right, the cd player no longer works: what happened to the "forever" in "CD: perfect sound forever"? Analogue media are more long lasting than digital same way clay tablets and carved stones were more resilient than papyri and parchments.
2:26 That's not the point: FM radio uses a huge infrastructure, there are hundreds of millions of FM radio reception devices out there worldwide replacing which will just cost billions and last, but not least, it works brilliantly at what it does employing a fairly simple but sophisticated technology that CAN be replicated by the enthusiast/hobyist should the need ever arise (as with ANY analogue radio format - try that with digital).
2:39 DAB is shit, it's a shitty format that has been rammed down consumer throats (because, let's face it, consumers just like to consume, especially anything labelled as "new" and "better") who know too little about it (or care too little about it) to make an informed decision. If you have a similar marketing campaign now saying that DAB II is better, they'll switch to DAB II. If you repeat that in a couple of years with DAB III, they'll happily switch to DAB III just as they do with their mobile phones.
3:12 Feel free to make a video about as long as you slate is as badly as you just did for DAB. Stick to FM - it's better and you can have a superb tuner for not much money.
3:18 Maybe not but keep an eye on OMA - you never know. Regarding casette or reel-to-reel decks, the problem is not the unavailability of decks (there's plenty second hand ones to go around), it's the unavailability of new blank tapes.
3:37 You don't need any of that. No consumer ever needed such extravagant devices just to listen to music - unless you are FBI or NASA or some similar scientific laboratory or just a recording engineer. What would you need such highly performing audio gear today anyway? Most of today's music is utter crap.
I kind of lost you after 11:00...
1:42 Correct - same difference between a home cooked meal and a take away.
Two words. Business case.
As in, how big is the market for this folly and who’s going to do the R&D? Maybe there are enough ‘audiophiles’ to pay for the dev and infrastructure. I doubt it, tho’.
NOTE: I remembered the problem of a lack of nuance in comments on social media. Yes, I know our man here is being whimsical, even sarcastic.
Who cares , let folks have their hobbies. Some folks search for the perfect writing pen. Who cares
“Sonic Enchantment” 👍😎
DSD direct!!! of course playback extension 50k
Isn't the universe quantized anyway? So technically, even analogue is digital... And digital is analogue extremism.
So maybe if you had the ultimate analogue recording stored on ultimate mastertape, and then skipped the entire distribution chain and transmitted the master recording once on FM with extreme quality, and people had to have an equal extreme receiver and a recorder with metal tape at home. Maybe?
I love this video! Thank you. I like both digital and analogue. Though for some of my favorite albums I prefer to have a vinyl copy as well as the hi-res digital file. To me I am not offended if digital is transferred to vinyl. I am mostly offended by low quality digital file formats. I originally went back to vinyl years ago due to lack of Hi-Res audio files available for many of my favorite artist. Though now days this has finally been changing. I cannot stand wireless streaming that is for sure. I like either the analogue with physical connections or digital with physical plugs to the speakers whenever possible.
I am in the market for quality speakers now as a matter of fact. There are so many to choose from. Any suggestions on what to look for? Or what brands get it right?
After all, what good is having the perfect analogue or perfect digital copy if the speakers do not reproduce all the highs, mids and lows? lol
I was wondering if audio could be stored as vectors or mathematical approximations or curves and straight lines. To play the audio it must be converted to pcm or dsd, and it can be converted to any bitrate and bit depth that a device supports. One can construct analogue mathematical blocks that calculate these vectors in the analogue domain, then use an adc to capture these approximations and put it into a digital file. DSD is pretty close but can't do steep transients very well. Vectors can do it easily.
As playback devices continue to improve, the vector audio can then just be rendered with improved quality. It's a bit like pal/ntsc resolution remastered series recorded on 16mm film. The source material has a much higher resolution compared to pal/ntsc, hence hd remasters are possible. All series recorded digitally directly can't be easily upscaled (though AI upscaling is constantly improving, you're still being lied to as more detail is artificially created).
I suspect that you need to experience a synergistic pure analog system. Once dialed in, an all analog system with no silicon and no ribbon cables in the signal path can be a wonderful thing to experience when built right. It's absolutely true that this is a rare experience, and the source quality is key. It won't last forever, but the majic is real.
There was a vinyl record format with noise reduction equalization that was released toward the end of the vinyl format before CD players took over the market, the noise reduction was for pops, clicks and noise inherent in the vinyl disc and a special decoder was needed to hear the encoded vinyl record, it worked as well as Dolby did for tapes. This encoded vinyl format was reviewed on "Techmoan" YouTube Channel.
I'm guessing dbx (all lower case). I hated dbx for cassettes but I imagine it would work better with vinyl. The market didn't take to it though, which sometimes does happen even with good formats - Betamax and DAT for instance. DM
It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. What we need is a different attitude towards both the essence of music and dynamic range by those who hold the purse strings in the music industry.
The next great leap in audio will be when we connect our brain to a computer with access to the part of our brain used to understand sound as music. We’ll be able to be triggered directly as well as “record” audio back into the world from our brain to “trigger” other brains
Near perfect analog audio was achieved some time ago using photo-optics and movie film. But even then I would stay with digital for the massive and convenient storage of a hard drive and small computer.
In the not too distant future you will get your wish. Analog electronics are making a comeback. They don’t have to count 0 to 1.
I really don't like FM radio because of the V-shaped equalizer settings that they always use.
Just broadcast it neutral!
Why do you remind me of Paul McCartney? Not just facial appearance but speaking voice too.. huge Beatles fan so please take it as a compliment...cheers
BBC national "analogue" FM is distributed using NICAM since the 1990's and prior to that it was a propietary PCM, so it's not end to end analogue, and if they play a CD...... Plus live concerts (Radio 3) from venues use digital (dial up) feeds because analogue leased lines are expensive. Your 'local' station is usually piped from the London HQ of Bauer or Global, digitally of course.
Audio enthusiasts can be quite an irrational bunch - including me. So, let me try to be rational. This whole 'discussion' (debate? argument?) is a moot point! For starters all of the music we're listening to is just a reproduction of a prior performance, time-stamped, dated in the past. It's just an artificial recreation. No matter how I tweak my kit, no matter the highest quality of performance and recording, I can't get my living room/listening room to recreate a symphony hall, nor a nightclub, or stadium PA system. It doesn't matter if my playback is sourced digitally or in analogue (or analog), besides all the digital gets converted to analogue. Whether I'm playing my best recorded and produced CD's or vinyl, it doesn't matter. There are poor versions of both, good versions of both, and great versions of both. Just received my first DeutscheGrammophon Original Source version Beethoven's 7th symphony. It's absolutely amazing, especially so as a vinyl rendition. Playback is great: dynamic range, soundstage, instrument separation, detail, and intricacies. And, here's the irrational part, it came wrapped in a nice bow with that "analogue warmth". Hah! Enjoy your music!
Well "see you soon" when we hear more of how this perfect analog music delivery will happen 😅
in the end, perfect analogue will probably sound just like digital, and will be rejected by vinyl enthusiasts because there is no distortion
Well AFAIK part is happening. There are a number of companies developing a vinyl process involving laser cut stampers, which can, according to my calculations, reach CD quality. Yes, I did my own estimates, didn't believe a single word of their PR material. But, That is impressive for vinyl. It may dip into acceptable level of quality for the more pragmatic of music lovers.
Please note, perfect vinyl on the outer groove has about 2 times the maximum theoretical information density of CD quality. Thats roughly 17bits at 44.1kHz, or 16/88.2. (These numbers are based on actual molecular width of the vinyl polymers with rectangular stacking, disregarding the stylus). Obviously, it is not even in the same galaxy as 24/96 high-res, but, arguably, 24/96 is massive overkill.
The only place you can hear perfect analog is in a concert hall, not miked (obviously) and saved in your memory bank.
I'm not sure you can call FM radio analogue. The end to end system is mostly digital with all playout and sound desks in the BBC and most non-BBC radio being digital. These feed digital routers, which in turn feed digital distribution systems. Only the modulation done in the FM transmitters and demodulation in the listeners' receivers are "analogue".
The BBC's distribution system has been digital since the early 70s. Unknowingly, BBC Radio is likely to be the first digital audio most people ever heard (over a certain age!) in the UK. The original system was 32KHz PCM followed by Nicam in the late 80s. Both were non-lossy formats, although Nicam stretched that definition a bit as it used 10 bits shifted over the dynamic range of the audio.
Arguably, back in 70s the best quality music it was possible to hear were live concerts on Radio 3. These were unprocessed and analogue from the source to the continuity suite in BH, then digital to the main transmitters. Later, digital lines were used from the venue, firstly via the Sony PCM-F1 system and later on BT supplied digital lines and uplinks. If you had a good tuner getting a good signal then the quality was stunning. When sitting in the studio and comparing the received audio to a high quality receiver, the only difference was some noise inherent in the FM multiplex system. FM in its unprocessed native form is very good but its potential as a high quality medium is now rarely fulfilled due to audio processing.
Another thing to consider for those who are inherently opposed to digital audio is the connection between the cochlea in the human inner ear and the auditory cortex of the brain where sound is perceived.
They are joined by nerves, which transmit their information by action potentials, an electrical signal which is basically “on” or “off” and therefore binary. Massively parallel of course, there are an estimated 50,000 nerves (data lines) per side.
So we could consider the human cochlea as the ultimate ADC and the last stage of all hearing digital!
Going back a few stages, analogue tape works by the orientation of magnetic domains. North or South - nothing between. So - digital. 🙂
One more question for the digital dude.
If digital audio is so vastly superior to old, tired, noisy analog, can you explain why human beings MUCH prefer the original old, tired, noisy analog recordings done in the 40's and 50's to the "new digitally remastered" CD's of the same title?
In fact, i'd say among audiophiles, MOST HATE remastered albums. I know I do.
I vividly recall the very first generation CD players we got in to the high end audio store I managed back in the 80's.
We all sat, baited breath for that advertised "perfect sound forever", as I placed the CD in the drawer and pushed "Play"
As the music played, every single person in the room who had a look of excitement, suddenly had a look of disappointment.
Most of us said "That's it"? while shaking our heads and shrugging our shoulders.
ANY turntable in the store easily kicked that "perfect sound forever's" ass.
The Micro Seiki's, the Thorens, etc, DESTROYED the cdp.
Even the Technics SL1200's easily did. or those horrid Marantz tables.
Gotta love those cliche's that somehow stick like "Perfect sound forever" or "Safe and effective"
Hi very interesting video, I totally agree that dab in the the Uk not that great transmitting in mp2, when listening on dab during lift in conditions ie large high pressure areas I can pick up dab+ from the continent they transmit dab+ aac in high bit rates up to 100kbits but in this country it’s only max 40kbits. Classic Fm is going dab+ end of the year I just hope it’s better than 40kbits . In the states they we’re thinking using Mondial digital format on Mw Am buts it seems that it died. Regards mark
Thanks for that , I do very much enjoy your technical content , interesting concept on your take on digital and analogue formats, I like both recently bought rega planner 3 to complement my Rotel A11 t11 cd 11 including ifi zen dac v2 set up. I find my deck audio it’s not far off cd quality. Kind regards mark
i have to say that i had the luck of having a family that enjoyed a lot hearing music ,with the years some of them knowing that i was very interested in music and music components they ofered me their systems because they were almost never working and i have to say that i have a very good system from pioneer 76 catalog and in the 90´s i wanted a new more modern system in Black ,i bought three diferent systems from diferent brands ended up keeping again a Pioneer high-end system that works perfect today but i have to admit that nothing that i bought top´s the 76 pioneer system that was ofered by my father when buying a new extremelly expensive system from REVOX/Studer which is also mine today, i think at the time everything was built to last and prove their higher quality against other brands , and in my opinion digital is just a diferent path to analog sound come to our ears, which i don´t like much the sound of compact disc ,some of them but other digital sources are already very good since the late 80´s like the DAT which was and is a very expensive format but quality wise i even compared it to the sound of reel to reel decks, but if to choose i still prefer Reel decks, analog ones
Which Pioneer gear are you speaking of?
Questions for the "McCartney doppelganger"
1) Are human ears analog or digital?
2) Are speakers analog or digital?
3) are musical instruments analog or digital?
4) are microphones digital or analog?
5) if DIGITAL is so superior, why do ALL DACS convert those perfect 1's and 0's back into that crappy analog sound? Wouldn't humans MUCH prefer to listen to those 1's and 0's?
6) if digital is so perfect, why does it need noise shaping, anti aliasing filters that add phase shifts (time delays), dither, etc? I know of NO musical instruments that have any of those things, nor any human voice that does.
7) if digital audio is SO superior, why don't we have digital speakers and digital headphones that simply output those perfect 1's and 0's for our listening enjoyment and pleasure?
BTW, you're talking about analog music on vinyl or tape, not analog music in it's purest form, which would be LIVE UNAMPLIFIED music.
Sorry to burst your digital bubble.
CD's and DVD's are also mass produced and I would argue that CD's don't have enough storage capacity to house an album of 24 bit 356 K uncompressed digital audio.
Amazes me how the term "listener fatigue" was never mentioned until after the advent of digital audio. Might it be because the human ear is ANALOG and the human brain is ANALOG and both tire trying to make sense of DIGITAL audio? Or, is it possible that music starts out analog, is converted to digital, then converted back into analog that our brain and ears don't love?
BTW, I'm a musician of nearly 60 years, I'm an audiophile of 50 years, having sold high end audio both before and after the "perfect sound forever" format was introduced, and a recording engineer. I'm sure I don;t know shit about any of this though, as the "Nyquist theory" experts among us remind me of that every post I make.
I'm sure they are right having read a single paper that was WRONG the day it was written. It was and remains a THEORY. THEORY isn't FACT. On paper, it works. Never mind that. Adding phase shifts and time delays to music, totally altering the waveform into something it never was to begin with, adding dither, noise shaping, etc is NEVER a good idea in my dumb ass brain. I'm sure i'll be told how wrong I am., probably by many of you.
Well, here the terms analog and digital just represent a format how recorded sound is stored.
Live un-amplified music then could be purest form, but then you also ask the location where the music is performed. The same live un-amplified music will sound different in living room, church, forest, open space, desert...
Here is a space for snob rants about "audiophile" and the road to "perfect sound", or pretending to get a bit closed to perfection whatever the word perfection it could possible mean, and I bet many people would call their personal preferences of perfection.
Analog vs digital? Who cares anyway...
There is no such thing as perfect sound.
Even in the room can interfere with it.
Just make something that sounds good and enjoy the music.
As always, you crack me up! Thank for laughter. Keep up your "great work". Digital wasn't made for such imperfect world. People love distortion and background noise...)))
I would think that in order to get a perfect analog response - without actual analog - one would need to use a quantum computer.
So my initials are PAF ( Perfect Audio Format) And I used to sell HiFi ( what a coincidence) 😊
The best I can come up with is capacitive cylinders,
which in operation would be much like CED video discs.
Perfect Analog Format spelled Thumbdrive
Pure, perfect, analogue recording and reproduction exists, we've had it for over 40 years - it's called digital audio. The weakest links being the microphones and the speakers.
These discussions tend to be religious from both ends of the spectrum, getting into them is just a waste of time.
I enjoy both analogue and digital. Analogue not only because of nostalgia, but because of the tactile experience, which involves not only getting Vinyls out of their sleeves but threading an open reel every once in a while.
My 70th Sony Amp delivers a lively and energetic soundscape, while my Marantz fills the room with a highly detailed multi channel sound when playing back BD Audio...
This has already been invented. It is called 'LaserDisc'.... Has been very successful..
You may be right here, or at least on the right lines. Comment readers might like to know that discs could have digital or analogue audio. In the UK a disc with analogue audio would be 'LaserVision'. I've never heard this other than at exhibitions and a long time ago. I suspect the audio quality may be less than perfect due to compatibility issues with the video signal. However if such a disc could be audio-only then I would imagine the potential audio quality could be very high. DM
it might not be 24-bit equivalent but vhs hifi analog audio is almost as good as cd, afaik and is cheap and easy to record and listen back from
VHS Hi-Fi was definitely a good thing in its day but it isn't often pointed out that it needed strong noise reduction to work and couldn't be considered the equivalent of CD quality. DM
VHS Hi-Fi is analog and very good.
VHS Hi-Fi was definitely a good thing in its day but it isn't often pointed out that it needed strong noise reduction to work and couldn't be considered the equivalent of CD quality. DM
Humans have a preference for the euphony of tape saturation distortion, including the master tape, cut into acetate and then stamped into pvc. Just a philosophical question; How can the vastly imperfect H. sapiens sapiens create anything, "Perfect"?
To me Analogue is Vinyl, why, because it is the only format where new quality equipment and media is been created.
Cassette is basically dead, it seems anyone wanting to make a 'tape machine' (they are not HiFi) does not even think of making a transport, they just go shopping for what junk is still being peddled in the back block of... China.
Then there is tape, only the basic 'type 1' tapes are made - if you want anything better then it's whatever stocks are out there buried in the back of some all but forgotten warehouse.
On the otherhand, I'd like to see more analogue mixing/mastering - get us as far as possible away from the loudness wars, however I'll take my copy in digital.
Digital as a format does not bother me al all, However I hate these DAW's, most seem to be only used to murder the music. As for the old CD labels AAD ADD etc, I'd like a DAD. PSaudio were recording in DSD, then, because digitally directly manipulating DSD is extremely hard (impossible?) they were using an old analogue desk.
Oh, and 'sleeve art', don't care at all, to me it's just marketing candy, to suck you in. Maybe this is from my very bad experiences with various music playing software that 'magically' races off to download the album are - and gets it all very wrong, even trying to break apart a group of tracks from a CD as it thought it knew better and these are Not from the same source CD/LP, grouping some tracks off separately with different album art - What an absolute mess. I'm over it, give us a clean text based list, one that I can easily edit.
But finally there is the problem of a lot of people's ears these days NOT been tuned to quality, but rather crap. as in they are quite happy listening to audio via the speaker of their mobile phone - or if lucky a Bluetooth speaker, both with extremely processed sound to try an ilk out any sore of usable (ha) sound from the crappy driver & useless amps. (I mean, what does one expect when limited to a 5V power supply!)
I concur with those who believe attending a live performance is the gold standard. Recording live and studio performances for later reproduction is and always has been a commercial enterprise. Cost effective mass produced media with best attainable sound quality for distribution to the masses is the business model. For the foreseeable future, it would be less expensive to hire musicians than acquire what is needed for perfect analog audio. There was a time before recording when your choice was to attend a performance or purchase the sheet music. I’m not certain where this fits in, but I have listened to piano rolls recorded by George Gershwin and Claude Debussy among others. These being recorded more than one hundred years ago. Perfect analog if you consider that it is a piano playing right there in front of you. My understanding is that the Debussy rolls are technically more nuanced. Real perfection would be if we could resurrect those decomposing composers. Ever listen to a cylinder recording or an acoustic recording on a crank up Victrola? Modern vinyl records are just one step up in the evolution of the mass distribution of a product. Today we are living in the best of times with DDD recordings.
I'm not an expert on piano rolls despite owning a Disklavier. However I did once visit the British Piano Museum. I think it was there where I was told that the recording instrument could only transcribe the volume across the whole keyboard, not individual notes. I may have misunderstood and could be wrong but this is my memory. A knowledgeable comment reader may be able to add detail. DM
@@AudioMasterclass The Musical Museum in Brentford, London, England has a large collection of piano rolls, with over 20,000 rolls as well as an extensive collection of instruments. I believe that there are recordings available of player pianos with rolls made by famous musicians. There are probably MIDI transcriptions as well. I once listened to a player piano playing a popular song of the time with lyrics printed on the roll, an early version of Karaoke. I prefer singing left to the professionals.
Even “perfect” analog recordings will be played through loudspeakers that are far from perfect. Then we add on problems with room acoustics. These issues will completely swamp and mask any advantages in “pure analog”.
your class-AB amp chops up your audio in to 2 halves, a more horrible way than digital ever does.(digital doesn't chop, but cant explain in short here).
new analog 30IPS on metal tape reel to reel tape using 2 heads per channel where 1 head gap optimized for low freq, and the other head optimized for high freq, no Dolby!!, GaAs based low noise playback tape head pre-pre-amps.
Seriously digital is the perfect analog.
Vhs hi-fi is analogue, and it has interesting specs. 20hz to 20khz flat response and over 70db of s/n ratio.
Would I have any interest in making audio recordings to those bulky cassettes? No...
I have access to the perfect analogue format 3 or 4 times every week. As a performing, acoustic musician it's called participating in rehearsal and performance ;)
What I hear is that no matter how much effort I've put into preserving a recording, some jack wad's AI will content match it to a 16kbps rip from Spotify and sue my work out of existence.
I once got copyright claimed on sine wave tones I'd included in my video. It got thrown out. DM
Couldn’t really get into listing to all this but yeah perfect analog is an interesting paradox by way of say zero distortion as that’s why digital is so sterile regarding recording processes.
You’re TOTALLY WRONG about there not having been a new vinyl lathe built
The T560 is made in Germany has been for the last decade it attaches to a Technics 1200. Is utterly superb, it’s used by numerous studios and artists.
Get ya facts right ya pompous know it all!
I've always aspired to be a pompous know it all and now apparently I've achieved this status. Also, apparently, you didn't hear me when I said "AFAIK" in the video. Oh well. The T560 looks interesting. I suspect it wouldn't compete with a Neumann but I may explore what creative purposes people have put it to. Info at https://www.vinylrecorder.com/index-e.html DM
@@AudioMasterclass AFAIK is no excuse. Do your research first.
There’s a few YouTube videos showing this device in action. It cuts perfect dub plates and masters etc. Invented by a German audio genius whom could teach you a thing or two. And unlike most German tech this is relatively simple to operate and affordable. 100’s of studios have this. 🙂 It wasn’t built to compete with anything. It was built to do a job which it achieves admirably.
@@jamespeters2859 I have indeed done my research on lathes built for bulk record manufacture and still AFAIK there has been none made since the 1980s. If anyone has further knowledge on this I would be pleased to hear of it. Notice how I'm being polite. Calling me names - 'pompous know it all' - says more about you than it does about me. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Wrong again! Your concern over the word pompous, of which you are and even admit to it, yet scold someone for pointing it out, accusing them of calling you names, says nothing about me, but everything about your big phat ego and inflated opinion of yourself. Duh!
Were I to call you a name, it’d likely rhyme with the word ‘punt’. …Now as Father Ted would’ve said. Fek off!
Sort your ego out bud, eat some humble pie and learn how to deal with people correct, when they’re in the right.
You didn’t know about that German lathe which loads of cutting edge studies are using. …Cutting edge, good one eh.
There are many people in the U.K. which know A LOT more than yourself about specialised subjects within the expansive audio world.
P.S You didn’t do your research, for if you had you’ve known about that vinyl lathe which is used for record manufacturing of any quantity. And the German professor like guy whom makes them, knows more about that specialised subject than you ever will. That’s his profession.
You’re a Jack of all trades master of none. …Definitely a know it all ‘punt’ is applicable to you.
What bothers your ego is you didn’t find this, you’ve not known about this, 100’s have been made dozens of studios are using this in the U.K.
Life is too short to chase perfection. Just enjoy the music.
Aye, i had this whole speech about some great artist being not as 'talented' or trained in the art the were pursuing, yet their talent at expressing emotions or evoking images or stuff like that made more than up for it.
If music works for you it works for you. No matter the technical complexities.
Just like gold chasers. Oh, only one more year and I quit. In a search for the biggest nugget.
That's a tricky one. On the one hand there are those rare people that devote their whole existence, to creating the absolute best music they can and sometimes their music lives on for centuries held in high regard. Then there are those who aim for mediocrity and short term fame, and their music tends to be quickly forgotten within a few years or a couple of decades if lucky.
@@writenamehere0000 To all of them ,just buy a equalizer and one can get a good sound from what one has at home, not thinking how much more thousands of dollars one will spend in a new recent speaker model, to those who say that equalization changes the way music was intended to be heard ,buying new speakers thinking they are better also does that but much more expensive and one can learn how to use a equalizer , as they do in every recording studio in the world in a diferent path of the recording process
we can do both
Pure analog is a contradiction in terms. Its nature is based in distortion. 😄🧐
It doesn't exist
Hard Drive Analogue ?.... Or Read music script , the most pure analogue music ever!........ dem digital beaches is hot..(for the time of year)
The answer is DSD. It is stored as bits, but since the sampling rate is extremely high and what defines the amplitude of the signal is density of those bits in time, it sounds like analog, but with the precision of digital. Somewhat like grain in a magnetic tape.
I thought the same thing, where would it sit in this conversation..? With the storage capacity and speeds we have now there is no problem there. All we need is for some company to manufacture a basic standalone multi track recorder so it can be available to studios and audio engineers... please!
@@borisgrigull7772dsd is huge. Recording native DSD is the only way this argument holds water. Upsampling PCM to DSD is snake oil and a waste of hardware
@@Maver1ck911 yah, I love doing live take recordings, I am heading towards just getting a stereo DSD recorder and some mastering quality Reel to reel and mixing directly into both simultaneously...
If I am not mistaken (and I very well could be) early versions of 12" video discs were actually recorded in an analog fashion using PCM (pulse code modulation) or capacitive modulation (CAV/LaserDisk) but don't quote me on that.
They could host full sized album art because of their 12" size for that "vinyl" album feeling.
And because the medium is capable enough for video reproduction it should be FAR more than capable for ultra high end audio reproduction.
Audiophiles could revel in the care and cleaning of the disks, the handling and storage, and the very high/exclusive price of both the media and the players.
However, I for one would not be in the market for such a thing at any price.
Many, many moons ago I worked in a major brand's tape duplicating facility (Ampex).
The pecking order in terms of quality from best to worst for our products was: "fast" open reel (15ips), "normal" open reel (7.5ips, or occasionally 3.75ips), 8 tracks (3.75ips), and cassettes (1-7/8ips) in any guise.
Dolby wasn't a thing for cassettes just yet, which placed cassettes firmly at the "throwaway" end of the audio spectrum, but that was OK for the vast majority of listeners.
Years later I gave up on 8 tracks for use in our cars when by then Dolby came to the rescue for cassettes.
However, when CDs became readily available I switched over quickly and happily.
Now it is 100% digital for our vehicles (wave, mp3, flac), and no looking back.
At home however I still maintain a decent record deck (turntable).
Frankly I only keep it to be able to play back my vinyl collection on rare occasions.
That said, I really do understand the attraction of vinyl for many people.
The nostalgia, the cost, the inconvenience, the hands-on involvement...
I get it.
And to each their own...
So, few people care, it will never happen. If it does the price will be so high, it won't sell. Look at the price of an LP with it's far from high quality sound. What would it cost if was very high quality. But it already exists. It's called digital.
Would a PWM recording at a very high sampling rate be technically analogue, surely?
You've been framed mate.🤣
Apparently Metallica are buying up vinyl printing plants left right and centre.
Here's a link for comment readers https://www.billboard.com/pro/metallica-bought-vinyl-record-pressing-plant/ DM
You did it again. Made me poor another shot of whisky. The drink got another 3db out of my 6 generation John Baldary album It ain't easy. Oh the enjoyment! We will first start out making a device that has a chip where the actual D.N.A of a sound engineer is in it. Just think I can here you! Then switch out the chip presto we have George Martin. This is so great on so many levels. The royalties that abounds ! And the perfect analogue sound is experienced by way you hear it. A new thing that pushes the bounds of eight track and mp3. Best Regards Jack.
I would be very interested in seeing your comments on the views presented in this video: https://youtu.be/4QeqSYIXDr4. It takes a professional to take on professional and I am not one myself.
OK I've listened to a couple of minutes. I've often said similar myself. We are used to the sound of analogue from the many great recordings made on analogue. The sound has become part of music itself so we seek to retain that texture through nostalgia. One argument may be to say we should probably try and wean ourselves off it. The sound should be in the voice or instrument and the recording should capture that accurately. But people just like the analogue sound and I doubt if it's going away anytime soon. DM
12:56 Haha, those thoughts were rattling round my head half way through the video.
I wouldn't care for a perfect analog format if I cannot tell the difference from digital.
For me it's the opposite - the charm of analog technology is how it can "color" the sound in a pleasant way.
I care for analog when it's being used while creating the music, but I listen to the digital record in the end. And it's been great for me. :)
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between and analog synth and an analogue simulation of said synth in a blind test please.
To all the people who are so concerned about sound quality: What do you listen to, music or sound? I listen to music and I really enjoy a good piece of music with bad sound quality more than a bad piece of music with perfect sound quality. Yes, of course I want the best possible sound quality, but in the end it is about the music, not the sound equipment. And with all those stories from hi-fi enthusiasts and audiophiles about what they hear from their sound system, have they ever been to live performances of real musicians, who play their music without electronic amplification? Or have they ever played or heard an acoustic instrument up close? Then you know that even the best recording, played on the best sound system, sounds really different. That you like to listen to expensive equipment that you like sounding, and are willing to pay a lot of money for it, totally fine, but don't try to convince me that your sound system is much better than mine for whatever reason. For you your sound system is the best and for me my sound system is the best, we are not the same.
Those two digital chicks at the end. LOL. Creepy just like digital format audio. _:)=))))))
Don't say that, the chump thinks digital chicks are better than analogue chicks!
@@englishdeltajazz But he hates re-masters, so its ok :)
Master just loves his two female look AI creatures. Both AI horse repeat exactly what he dictates, so you must understand the level of happiness ration when master's door open and wife walks in.
I upset a friend of mine years ago when he was showing me his Accuphase Stereo tuner and singing the virtues of his perfect ends to end analog radio setup... I happened to mention that the BBC used NICAM 3 as their link between program output and all of the transmission sites.... Plus they frequently recorded LP records to PCM, Using a Sony PCM encoder and a Beta deck... I visited the radio 3 studios in the late 1908's...thanks David
My brain skipped that but I’m sure I’ll return to it in a future video. And the Sony PCM-F1 and its 11 microsecond delay between channels. DM
@@AudioMasterclass oh I'd forgotten that.... I also had a PCM-701 at home with a Sony SL-HF100, connected to record Hi-Fi stereo in analogue to tape and simultaneously PCM as video. The BBC 701'S were modified of course to add SP/DIF. Some lovely SL10s and EMTs too :)
iTS a shame speaker technology hasnt progressed that much (compared with digital exponential almost), I still think its a waste to perfect that part when loudspeakers are no where near what they should be,its been very small improvements since the very first speaker.
You raise a good point that I’m sure I will include in a future video. DM
Speaker technology is going to change dramatically in the coming years for consumer audio, especially small form factor devices. DSR will produce analog audio for our ears from digitally fed chip-based MEMS speakers which can be scaled into arrays for any SPL you need. This tech is on the cusp now. Extremely interesting stuff. Has been developed by an Israeli company called Audio Pixels (which is publicly listed on the ASX in Australia). Along with first manufacturing being done by a Chinese company called Earth Mountain. Their production facility is now nearing completion. This is a major change, and taken over a decade to develop, however at this stage it is so new few in the audio world know that this is coming. I think by decade end it will have happened as swiftly and as thoroughly as LED/LCD panels completely replaced CRT. I still expect we will have analog speakers forever, and Amps to drive them, but it will just be for audiophile's consumption. Mainstream audio products will be completely digitized within a few years, for every aspect of the chain except the final analog sound wave which our ears pick up. As I said this tech is new and will make up for the lack of speaker progress you have cited. However, it is entirely digital except of course for the final sound wave.
@@challengeclub7985 Sounds promising, very intrigued to hear what they reproduce like.
Wonder if that is the piezo type,where they use similar means to the inkjet printer,kind of scatters sound precisely,heard of that recently.
Remastering in the current sense of the word: "making good recordings sound worse". So painfully true! Qobuz likes to substitute my favorite albums for the latest remastered abominations. Bastards!
I remain optimistic that this trend will be reversed in the, hopefully, near future. DM
Just go to a live classic concert in a real concert hall like the philharmonic Concert Hall in Cologne, enjoy
I concur https://youtu.be/_MfA5JLivyU DM
This question reveals that true "audiophiles" are craving an experience from their youth. It's only natural, and it's perfectly fine. But the pseudoscience to justify the belief that the equipment of their youth is "better" is just silly!
We're unlikely to ever have 100% digital audio but 100% Analog audio is a thing and can be improved if the money was there.😁
What is 100% analog audio? all electronics work to the same principles, there is no such thing as purely analog audio, it does not exist😂
@@telefoneification5813 An analog signal has infinite amplitude resolution. I hope this helps.😁
Thanks @@davidkclayton Contrary to popular belief, digital systems can provide infinite amplitude resolution if they are properly dithered. Have nice day
Perfect Analogue Audio = lift your your butt and go to live events, where the amps add their distortion, metres and metres of cable degrade the sound in any case, and microphones and their cables/wireless links connect to amplifiers and speakers. The best analogue audio - open air small concerts with no amplification except via the natural acousitcs of an amphitheatre, or cathedral, chapel or church with a wonderful pipe organ. Or an orchestra, quintet, or whatever blows your hair back. Perfect analogue audio means also making sure that your ears aren't messed up with, inter alia, medicines, loud noise damage, tinitus (stress induced) et cetera. And each individual has ears and a brain that processes the music differently.
Says this olde dude who has an extensive LP collection, multiple record players, pickups, tonearms. I also have a large collection of CDs and SACDs. I have not got the money for a decent "affordable" streamer. That will take a bit of time and is not high on my list of priorities.
The big thing is that I enjoy music for the sake of music. The digital domain has matured over the years and way too many idiots hang onto the past, and on top of it look down their noses at us mere "mortals." Twits!
To quote the French "Viva la différence."
And yes, so many of the remastered LPs are total crap ac81017. Bought a few LPs and stopped - they're absolutely crap.
Thanks for your wonderful humour David.
"The digital domain has matured over the years"
How so? has 'perfect sound forever' become more perfect? are today's ones and zeroes 'better' ones and zeroes?
@@englishdeltajazz The sampling resolution and methods have improved. Unfortunately CD players have not changed much, but if high resolution sampling could be delivered to the masses at an affordable price it would be marvelous. However the biggest problem is that bad mastering, mixing and production still messes up way too many recordings.
I once knew a mastering engineer who worked for Decca on their classical recordings. She told me that typically there was nothing much to do with audio enhancement of the recordings, but... there were dozens, if not hundreds and sometimes thousands of edits to be done for a release. Working on her Sonic Solutions digital workstation, this could be tedious, but entirely doable. I wonder how that would be done if working on some hypothetical analogue format. Out with the chinagraph pencils and razor blades again?
Yes I think it was a Decca engineer who answered my question on how often there would be an edit. Average thirty seconds was the reply. This would have been the early days of digital when there was a lot more freedom in editing than on analogue so perhaps they were a little giddy on this new technology. DM
What type of edits? Curious as usually that’s done by mixing engineers not mastering.
@@chinmeysway Editing the stereo recording for the best parts of the best takes. DM
"REmastered" - A process in which the quality of a previous recording is diminished while charging a premium price. That has been soooo true - sadly too many times! But, you may be surprised to learn that there is a fresh alternative offered by a venture that doesn't even bill the client until after the client is totally convinced in the improved sound. I.E: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBGaFjQeycM
15IPS 1/2 inch analogue tape with Dolby SR played back on a Studer A80. Pretty much perfect. (Though even Rishi Sunak might blanche at the cost). But what would you play on it? How much content is available that was produced entirely in the analogue domain?
Funny thing is that with the amount of money some audiophiles spend they could afford the system you’ve just described. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Hehe. They'd still have hardly anything untainted by digitalness to play on it. I suppose they could hire people to steal the original masters, perhaps? 🙂
The "Perfect Analog" medium would likely be some form of magnetic media based system, like a 10" or 12" magnetic disk in some sort of sealed carrier shell with the playback heads built in. Modern magnetic head design can place astounding amounts of digial information on the surfaces of hard disk media, surely such could be modified to place analog signals of such quality that they would qualify as "Perfect Analog" Now there might have to be digital tracking pulses on the disk to inform the mechanism where the analog goodness is located on the disc's surface, but that would not be part of the analog information. Blank discs could be equiped with record/playback heads to touch all the bases for such a format.
There, I've solved it, a larger, flat media that will invite album artwork, liner notes, a real physical, tangible object AND expensive exclusivity to appeal to the most discerning amoung us.
No applause, just throw money.
The current problem with analog (no matter how perfect) is in its reproduction. Unless you have a reel to reel tape player that's as expensive as a used car, and bulky tapes of your favorite music running at least at 15 IPS. Otherwise, you're stuck with vinyl, and its mechanical restrictions - a tiny diamond stylus on a miniscule metal shaft connected to a nearly microscopic coil, producing a miniscule voltage analogue "signal" that's been compressed in order for loud transients to NOT cause the stylus to jump out of its track - then restored per the RIAA equalization standard (adding more distortion).
Hence, DIGITAL - as imperfect as it currently is with it's current sampling rate not quite high enough to avoid the harsh high frequencies due to the digital squaring-off of the highest frequency waves. It's this too-low sampling rate that is the reason anyone would want a hissy, dynamic-muted vinyl disc.
Digital doesn't generate a squared off 20khz waveform. It generates a pure, distortion free, 20khz sine wave.
That's not possible with the 44.1 Hz CD sampling rate. @@RacingAnt
@@catkeys6911 sampling for CD is 44.1khz, not 44.1hz, but nevermind.
Nyquist frequency for CD is 22khz. That means, any sine wave with a fundamental frequency less than that will be captured, and reproduced perfectly. The DAC and following filters do not create stepped waveforms. This has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of digital sound. A square wave is made up of an infinite sequence of sine waves of diminishing amplitude, summed to create the square wave, so will not get past the 22khz output filter. All that comes through is the sine wave.
That was a mis-type, I know its 44.1 Kilohertz A good DAC is helpful, but sampling rate is sampling rate. If you only get, say 3 or 4 samples to reproduce a 12,000 hz- range sizzle of a cymbal, you're going to miss some data. It can get smoothed out so as not to sound harsh, but now you've added an artificial element by filtering out some of the waveform, no? @@RacingAnt
@@catkeys6911 CD can capture all of the shape and harmonics that make up the cymbal, right up to 22khz. Analogue cassette tape would capture the same harmonics, but up to 15khz or so, so less shape. A top-end turntable could maybe match the harmonics of CD, but at 70dB signal to noise, rather than 96dB, so there's going to be less information there. That "shape" is made up the same way as a square wave - a mix of frequencies. The ear can only hear those harmonics up to 20khz (most people it's way lower than this). Human's can't hear the "shape" of a sound with information above 20khz. So, CD is good enough. 24 bit, 96khz is way more than any other analogue source can match.
Digital for the mass market always was a very good idea and basically nobody doubts that. High End audio always was a niche market, there isn't a controversy here either. There are always people who are willing to pay insane amounts of money for something the majority of people can't understand, that true for records, but it is also true for wine, for meat, for watches, for paintings you name it.
Of course, the are records that sound terrible, even full analog ones and there are digital remastered records that sound great even though there was a D involved somewhere in the process because a 50grand studio DAC sounds different from a 300 quid DAC at home, who could have thought. This is all not controversial, so what's the point?
If you have a great recording and you play it on a good turntable not a 99 quid Tesco thing made in China but maybe on a 1000 quid Rega with a decent phono stage that is more than just a 30 Cent Op-Amp then it can sound phenomenal. Will it sound exactly like a CD or digital stream? No it will not. Now here is the real question, will it sound worse? Unfortunately, there is not a simple yes/no answer because in some areas digital has clearly some advantages (and nobody doubts that) but in some areas analog has it's advantages too, and I am not talking about a bigger sleeve but technical advantages in sound reproduction. If you for some reason prefer digital over analog then good for you but there are thousands of people who prefer analog. Obviously they are all within the group of these 1% of audiophiles and not in the group of 99% who only listen to music on their way to work.
I miss the days of going into tower records and thumbing through the record bins. Comparing many vinyl recordings to a CD version in many cases the vinyl sounds better.
Your new format sounds awesome (pun intended) and I especially would love to get cover art back. I have the best headphone amp there is, and as such I already have the Perfect Analogue Format....cheers. Debbie made a great point but Betty soon put her right.
Few fun facts :)
Sometimes back in the day, in the process of releasing an album on vinyl, other mastering engineers were involved. For example, if an album was to be manufactured in other countries than US they'd send a copy of the master tape, not the master disk. So then, another "mastering" was quickly done in order to create an master disk for replication. This means - if you don't the first pressing done by the first mastering engineer on the first master disk, chances are that the sound is way off compared to the original.
Many albums released in the 80's were recorded on Sony multitrack digital machines and mastered on digital, then pressed to vinyl. I bet that not so many people listening to those albums are aware of the high level of "contamination with digital".
Another instance of contamination was recording to synced Studer 24-tracks then copying to 48-track DASH to mix because it was faster than waiting for the Studers to sync. DM
@@AudioMasterclass true 😊
One famous example is Metallica -Metallica ('91). The album was transfered to a DAT tape for the mastering process. If I remember correctly the first iterations of DAT were 14 bit.
There is something about the quality of early 70's vinyl records mastered properly (and I have plenty without the noise at 1:50 as shown in this video). The digital counterparts don't sound as good.
Unfortunately this digital fool has drunk the digital kool-aid. They sold hm 'perfect sound forever' in the early 80s and he's listened to it for so long he can no longer hear how awful it is.
Well, I'd probably run away.
It has not to be perfect (to me anyway). I know, nowadays some (more 'more or less experimental music') people say that to cover up their sometimes frightening nonchalance, but almost perfect. Up untill 16khz, with a really tiny bit of flutter, almost not noticable, a little bit of distortion (be it valve or transistor), some tape hiss - perfect! And now I'm describing more or less my utterly imperfect Revox D36 (1960).
Perfect enough for me. It's just tons of fun.
I had a G36 which at one time was cheaper secondhand than an A77. I liked it. DM
I'll make do with streaming from Qobuz. I just wish these remastering idiots would just leave the originals recordings alone. There again, what would i know i'm just an AUDIOPHILE 🙂
I was a mastering idiot for about 20 years. I left because almost every day I would have record company execs, producers and artists insist that I make their project "louder than anything else I had ever done". After the 10,000th time trying to explain that this would make their release sound worse, falling on... well, deaf ears, I gave up.
What's the difference between a gain control and a volume control?
Gain is where you increase the level of a signal, such as from a microphone. Volume is a more casual term generally used to refer to actual sound rather than signals. That’s the short answer. A more detailed answer may need a whole video in itself. DM
From a technician's standpoint ...
Volume controls alter the level of the signal being fed into a fixed gain circuit.
Gain controls alter the actual gain of the circuit.
Both are used to manage the output level.
Like in a mic preamp with both gain and output level controls. My preference is to keep volume for actual sound. I’ll go into that when I make my video on the topic. DM
Volume is used to lower an input signal before entering a stage (like entering a preamp stage for example). So volume is always attenuating the signal. Gain is used to amplify a signal by adjusting the amplification (gain) of the stage the signal is entering.
Yep .... that too.
You can comment on this video at YouTube