Should YouTube Hi-Fi Channels be Banned?
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Thursday June 6, 2024
David Mellor
David Mellor is CEO and Course Director of Audio Masterclass. David has designed courses in audio education and training since 1986 and is the publisher and principal writer of Adventures In Audio.
Long ago… I gave up on You Tube for “REALLY ENJOYING”…high end music recordings…via YT.
JUNK
@donk1822: Any review on YT will likely be better than one of those meaningless What HiFi reviews where equipment has 'talent', or not ;).
@MrSlipstreem: I never rely on anything anyone says unless it's backed up by verifiable facts that I can check for myself. Anything else is just entertainment.
@EleaticStranger: The "science" of audio is hard to understand. Maybe I'm dumber than most people but I appreciate explanations, as much as demonstrations, because it helps to inform buying choices. You're good at cutting through the marketing jargon and calling BS on overpriced, unnecessary gear. That's very helpful to the non-expert consumer.
@ConorHanley: A way with words (rhetoric) firstly otherwise who would bother watching and an overly paranoid outlook. Don't believe anything said or heard unless under double-blind conditions. Even then...dunno if that's enough.
@guyboisvert66: Audio Myths Workshop: Watch your brain!! Do blind testing.
The quality of the source is much more relevant but yeah, there can be subtle quality difference between Youtube lossy and lossless but i'm really not convinced any people can hear it!
The thing that makes me rolling my eyes: People doing review without providing any measurements!
https://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
@davejones538: I think unwatched videos should be deleted and daily tubers should have to deleted content monthly 🤣
@Synthematix: All social media platforms should be banned
@carlitomelon4610: That's it:
Time for a true British audiophile platform that prioritises audio quality over video.
Let's call it "Me-Valve"
🎵🎶😀🎶🎵
@abdosoviet7696: 8K or 16K if I'm watching a nature video but Hi-Res if I'm listening to a track full of instruments.
@abdosoviet7696: Really cool! 💪🏼
@IvanToman: It is funny how someone thinks that recording something, then putting on youtube, will make someone else being able to hear what the person recording was able to hear. It is not about youtube lossy compression, in theory it is but in reality it is very small loss of fidelity. The problem is, LOL, in 1) recording equipment, and more importantly, 2) listening equipment on the other side. You can't demonstrate how combination of amplifier and speakers, recorded in your room, with your devices, sounds, being played on the listener's equipment in his room. What he is hearing is mostly how his equipment sounds, not how your equipment sounds. LOL again. With that being said, I love your channel, videos and presentations.
@mansurkhan2764: Honestly, I don't care much about youtube being an "old hat HD" or being even better than that, but when it comes to music: Isn't youtube just 160 Kbps? which is pretty pathetic, it should at least be 320 Kbps, 16 bits of Depth, at 44100khz, [then it would at least be basic CD standard]; of course then it would still be lossy, and not lossless, but honestly I could definitely live with that for getting music from youtube!
Of course the presenter is right that then its about costs, how many servers, etc. does youtube use, and since they will be dumping the costs on to us, we get 160Kbps, etc. which colloquially speaking (US slang) SUCKS!
@SupaKoopaTroopa64: Opus is a truly impressive codec. Even with YouTube's ~130 Kbit audio, I can only notice the compression when directly comparing it with lossless audio. On the other hand, I can notice MP3 artifacts from a mile away, even at rates more than double what YouTube uses! I do wish YouTube would dedicate more bandwidth to audio though. The 4k version of this video is using 10.4 Mbit video, meaning that it is using nearly 100x more data for video! If this video used lossless, uncompressed CD audio, the audio would only take up ~15% of the stream.
@MrSlipstreem replies to @SupaKoopaTroopa64: Opus and MP3 (when encoded with LAME in VBR mode) both reach perceptual transparency for almost anyone when averaging around 190kbps. The biggest problem when encoding to MP3 is people deliberately abusing the encoder by forcing it to CBR mode and using bitrates significantly below 320kbps. This still happens far more often than you might think despite LAME MP3 VBR's superiority being common knowledge for over 20 years.
@sabrowenie: I read your affiliate links. Ordered nose pliers. Hope they work better than the Harbor Freight model I was using.
@PabloIify: I would love to hear Hi-Fi audiophile demonstration, is there any other platform that allow .wav or .flac upload?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @PabloIify: I have in the past uploaded demos to my own server so people can download them bit for bit. Hardly anyone did.
@johnchildress8707: 24bit/96KHz?! no 24bit/192KHZ? or 24bit/176KHz?
@oldvalvemic: There is only one demo worth having if you are thinking of buying a piece of gear and that is the one in person. All else is ridiculous due to the obvious restrictions of human experience shoved through an algorithm and a mixed set of transducers. It is however useful ,if you trust the reviewer to hear information and usually comparative information to equipment you are familiar with. I know from previous postings that you speak obvious sense and often have food for thought in the professional and domestic audio community that is fun to chew on. I don’t however need attempted subtle audio demos from you (or anyone) and would find it faintly silly if you tried to do one. Links to high resolution audio files externally might be an answer if you are talking difference in audio signal but trying to replicate an experience of listening in a room to equipment through this medium is just silly and should just be subjectively and objectively spoken about.
@Kr-nv5fo: YouTube audio is 128 kbps Ogg Vorbis by they way, in case someone wants to know.
@AUNTMAVIS: You can avoid youtube ads by setting your vpn country to Moldova. Try it.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @AUNTMAVIS: Shh.. If I don't get my share of the ad money I can't run my channel. Set your VPN to USA where the ad revenue is higher.
@spacemissing: Hearing a characteristic of one speaker through another speaker ---
or headphones --- is at best a bad comromise.
Other equipment is similarly affected.
@gozzsr: few weeks ago a video with black board drawing of the audio waves in simple detail, compression (res____) something to do with how close the lines would be if signal wasnt turnt into wave, pitch loudness couple more items. can not find it any clue
@EricIolo: Thanks!
@AudioMasterclass replies to @EricIolo: Thank you. Your gesture is greatly appreciated. I hope you will continue to enjoy my channel.
@EricIolo: No need to ban them, they ARE on they way out. Most of the audiophiles will be dead in the next few decades, and I doubt if they will be replaced with new ones. Younger people wont care about sound, as long they can hear the tunes. Most younger people dont know about stereo, and the ones who do could not care less. Tha art form of critical listening on expensive equiptment is nearly gone.
People only care how loud it goes, and of course, THE BASE! Dont forget about the BASE!
They watch films, enjoy the loud sound, and pop on the subtitles to the hear the dialogue that you can barely make out!
I could not care less if the stay or go! Its all BOLLOCKS !
@homeopathical: "Boycott all HiFi channels that include audio demonstrations" is the choice of the viewer and not the content provider.
There are countless popular videos of people reviewing songs that they've heard for the first time, reviews of comedy sketches and the tasting of food and drink.
We value the opinion of the reviewer, or perhaps even their humour, sarcasm, mannerisms and/or appearance.
Keep up the good work as long as you enjoy doing it :D
@radman8321: There is no functional difference between lossless and lossy to an end listener, especially for a man of your advanced years. At least you are self-aware enough to question whether you can hear any difference at all, or whether you just think you can. Just about all hi-fi these days is good enough, so I prefer reviews to focus on build quality, functionality, flexibility, and cost.
@niceride777: Audio demonstrations are great!
@DenisPerron: I prefer better audio quality since I use a computer with a 13-inch screen most of the time, but with a DragonFly Red DAC and Sennheiser HD 598 CS headphones. I find it strange that people have moved to HD, then 4K and even 8K, but still listen to poor quality audio files in MP3, 128 kbits. As if people have more respect for their eyes than their ears. My car is a Tesla Model 3, I changed 10 out of 14 speakers to put in much better quality ones. It makes a very big difference. And what's more, the car's audio system reproduces flac format files well. I tested music streaming with Tidal. The problem is that the quality decreases when you are on the move. So I unsubscribed. I could clearly see the difference between a Flac file and Tidal streaming.
@wa2368: You look like a psychotic creature on your thumbnails with that pointed index finger of yours. Quit doing it!
@AudioMasterclass replies to @wa2368: I decline.
@JamesBrownHeh: After several months of watching YouTube videos about headphones after being out of the hobby for several years, I found that generally the language used to describe headphones helped me zero in on the right sound signature for me.
All the channels I watched did not do demos. While demos I think can be good to compare one sound vs another, they certainly can't be used to demonstrate the benefits of this or that piece of equipment. You're after all limited or empowered by your own gear, first and foremost.
Another learning I had is that through this process I've come to train my ears (really my brain) to pay attention to things I didn't listen for before. I hear more in terms of soundstage and timbre than I did before I started my journey. I suspect these kind reviewers are further along that path than most of us.
@dmccallie: Audio reviews ought to be silent but with lots of graphics of the actual sound measurements. No measurements? Not much value in the review, other than for functional definitions.
@LapsangTe: One thing about sound and audio is that it's very subjective. I have watched so many videos on Youtube where someone tells me that one machine sounds so much better than the other, and I can't hear any difference what so ever. Whether it's because of the audio quality on Youtube or not I don't know.
@foldedearth: Do you use a mic and record what is coming out of your speakers or take a line out? If the former we are listening to your room acoustics, and whatever you do I am still hearing my system not yours even if YouTube was perfect.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @foldedearth: I output from my iPhone 4 in my downstairs toilet and record it on my iPhone 6S Plus on the other side of the door. I stick a finger in one ear for better transparency and staging. I then transfer to cassette and have my parrot to repeat what it hears. Then I upload in 64 bps MP3 and ask my audio enthusiast viewers to form a judgement.
@Helenography0741: did u run out of stuff to talk about
@AudioMasterclass replies to @Helenography0741: Oh no way, I'm here for decades to come. Enjoy,
@BillyBanter100: Regardless of cost aways audition audio hi fi and TV products live before you buy.
@artysanmobile: Truth is, nothing should be banned except for deliberate hurt. Bad info, ignorance? These things must exist in a free society. If one learns to discern, it will be their most precious skill. If not, well they will then be the noise we have to sort through in our free speech world.
Make sure once you propose a cure that it is not worse than the illness. Be the change you wish for.
@fredashay: What's the point of life?
Faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, and more money!
@Roosville1: Ban all video that starts with "What's Up..... or "Whaaaaaattts Upppppp". IT would easily clear the servers for 24.96.
@coastwalker101: Tell the haters to eat sewage, it does not work but feels immensely satisfying. YouTube bitrates etc are good enough unless you are into oxygen free copper and those little black squares we used to stick on Linn Sondek LP12's. Thanks for the chuckle.
@OldGuyHifi: I use demos on my channel as a way to introduce new music to the viewer. I lack a sophisticated audio recording gear so I do my best. Good topic. Thx.
@bluesfish55m51: Seems to me 4K video is a bigger data gobbler then lossless audio would be. Come on YT! For me, demos to portray a piece of gear is worthless. That said, many of the verbal descriptions of a piece of gear’s performance have more distortion than a Crosley TT. It’s all just good fun and a diversion from this damn spreadsheet I’m supposed to be updating!
@KwangMarkEleven: The reason why I watch (and listen) to your videos, is that I think your opinions are very informed, your explanations are very clear, the topics you address are interesting (as is the case of this video), you are very smart, you know a lot of whatever you talk about, and I like your sense of humor. I am perfectly aware of the limitations of YouTube audio, so I understand that audio demos in YouTube should not be the only source of my opinion on how a specific equipment sounds. I think that you also understand YouTube’s limitations and that whenever you put audio on your videos, you do it very carefully, to highlight perceptible differences. Your content is very good 👍. Please keep posting your content.
Greetings from Mexico-Tenochtitlan, capital city of the aztecs.
@mypetdrgn: Totally love the humor and honesty of this channel
@joseluisperez820: Thanks!
@AudioMasterclass replies to @joseluisperez820: This is very much appreciated thank you. I hope you continue to enjoy my channel. DM
@maxbg: Demonstration even when lossy is better than any description that can be explained by words.
@Mikexception: It is as much pointless accusation as not allow to present in You tube paintings of art because of not enough milions of pixels in compare to original which cost 5 milions $.
@armandocamorra2488: Love demonstrations
@simoncliff4376: I think online audio demos are pointless. Irrespective of whether or not the source is lossy, the sound you hear is the sound of your device,, which in most cases is going to be a smartphone or a lap top.
@smirkingguru: Skip U-Tube...bring back Circuit City listening rooms. At least back in the day you could hear the difference between bad audio and terrible audio and [they gave you free coffee].
@DavidMander-rs4uk: Yes boycott audio masterclass 😆👍
@Rob1972Gem: How about this ban Your channel on YouTube it produces no valuable content and gives very misleading and inaccurate. I’m not even going to use the word advice just talks a load of rubbish.
@hugobloemers4425: Demonstrations suck and I always skip them all together. Channels that only rely on them fail to capture my interest and in the long run I will un-follow them. Using words to describe sound is not easy, just like it is not easy to write a best selling novel. But those who manage that like Kelvin from Stereo review X, make for exceptionally good videos.
@1974UTuber: I have no issue with Audio videos on YouTube. I do get a little tired of product pushers and anyone who constantly dumps on Audiophiles.
I love hearing about technical things like mixing techniques etc. I would love to hear someone explain how various mixing effects were made and done in the past. But then you run into Copyright issues if you try to play the part of the song your talking about
@donjohnstone3707: You have raised some interesting questions. IMHO. For those seriously interested in audio equipment, hearing sound samples in a lossless format would probably be appreciated, especially when listening test comparisons between similar types of equipment can be provided. The problem remains though, of how any individual pieces of equipment will actually perform with the system someone has and the room where it is set up and playing.
@paulstubbs7678: An interesting conundrum, to me the only solution is for the video sound track to be uploaded some place else for those who want the purest form to download.
However I have seen a few 'reviews' where it was all recorded with a mobile phone, so then it would not matter how it was uploaded, it's kind of useless from the start.
How many reviewers have a 'golden microphone', so even with lossless audio of the review, your still at the mercy of the reviewers mic, etc. etc.
In the end it does not matter what the reviewer, or YouTube do, it's never going to sound better than your speakers, DAC, and amp, as that's what your listening to it on.
@straymusictracksfromdavoro6510: A very tongue in cheek, subtle and clever comment on comments regarding the quality of audio demonstrations accessed from YouTube, you make some very good points indeed. However, I don’t think anybody is being critical of H-Fi channels per se, but instead just pointing out that the limitations that exist at our end make subtle differences in audio a little difficult to hear, not to mention the crap gear that some of us listen to it on, (guilty - well pointed out). As for giving up – good God, never ever do that, if you did then from where would people like me get access to intelligent, knowledgeable, droll (very) and above all extremely entertaining YouTube commentary?
@SubTroppo: My visit to an Audiologist specifically with tinnitus was a waste of time and money and they are still polluting my letterbox after more than five years.
@nabman_: I don't care for demo audio.
@spamtrap3000: Always good content and great questions posed but one thing you MUST stop is the annoying emphasis zoom ins and zoom outs that are everywhere on YouTube. It's as bad as the over-done shaky handheld camera shots on TV and movies. It's useless and annoying. Doesn't add anything and just takes you out of the moment. Most are barely zoomed in as it is so they are nothing more than needless strobes in and out. Lose them please. Everything else is great though. I learn a lot from your vids.
@MrGhostown81: I figure that if it sounds good through Youtube, than it must sound good in real life. And if it sounds like Sh**, than it's even sh**tier in real life. So uploading an audio example is a good thing.
@adam872: Another alternative is to upload the uncompressed audio to a file sharing service and link to it in the description box. That way you can download the file onto your own system and listen to it.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @adam872: I've tried that. Hardly anyone clicked.
@georgelewis3047: I will have nightmares tonight about Lossy Audio!
Summary: Utube audio quality is utter shite and not a suitable platform for HiFi. You could have said all this within 30 seconds.
@michaeldeloatch7461: I like what you are doing, sir. I can't hear much over 6kHz anyway, so phooey on lossless codecs. I got a lossy codec in my skull.
@TheAntibozo: I would like to hear you interview Terence Stamp. It isn't that i expect Terence Stamp to have a great deal of insight about audio reproduction, but there is a bit of similarity between your respective voices, and i think hearing both of these voices in a conversation would be quite mellifluous to the ear. As an alternative, Terence Stamp could interview you. As for this video, i think your deductions are sound.
@josephregina3247: If they are din with quality microphones or direct feeds and listened to with a decent T DACa d headphones then yes I like them. They may not tell the whole story but if used to compare two components for example there is enough quality to let you hear the overall characteristics of each and their differences. I’ve used these videos to narrow down my buying list of components to audition and so far it worked for me. There’s a Japanese Audio Store called Sound Tek and they have some of the best comparison videos on YouTube.
@DrSigma-hr3re: Simple solution: Host the lossless audio demonstration files on a cloud service and link them to your video so viewers who care about that level of detail can check them out for themselves.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @DrSigma-hr3re: I tried that. Hardly anyone clicked.
@DrSigma-hr3re replies to @DrSigma-hr3re: @@AudioMasterclass in that case, take it as a victory 😄
@MacinMindSoftware: I'd much rather you feed my confirmation bias that so much of these expensive differences are imperceptible. Things that matter more are good quality content, good mic technique, good post-processing and editing, and good (even inexpensive) speakers.
@chuckmaddison2924: I find some of them entertaining, referring to the snake oil . The way things are going in Australia with the government wanting to ban misinformation a lot might get blocked.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @chuckmaddison2924: Don't worry, you'll always have a single source of truth.
@ricktotty2283: Don’t be swayed by what people say. I liked what you said in your earlier videos. 24/96 is good enough. Poorly recorded music is made even worse by good enough. Good recordings of good material are very. For snobs,let them spend their money and have fun. You keep doing what you do!
@mike86400: I’ve found that binaural recordings seem useful for serious audio demo purposes on YouTube. Maybe look into that. It’s a lower bar for me to don headphones than to download wav files. For example, NRD channel with Ron does this sometimes. Cheers!
@pablohrrg8677: Several youtube reviewers already upload a lossless file of the recording of the test and share the link.
Even then we would be hearing those recordings on our inferior equipment and its quality would be the ceiling. If my equipment is better than the one tested, why sould I change it?
That is why a review is a demonstration and a critique of its features. Sometimes we may agree with the reviewer and then he/she becomes trustworthy.
@rabit818: Sarcasm, like Audio Masterclass, should be a prerequisite for all reviewers.
@georgelewis3047 replies to @rabit818: Problem is, the folks who are most in need of sarcasm are the same ones who don't register sarcasm!
@richardmarkham8369: Hifi reviews used to be in magazines! No audio at all there... I guess you could make lossless files available to download for people to listen to, if you can find somewhere to host the files? Much as I love hifi kit, I do have to acknowledge my age and hence hearing is barely able to detect the difference between CD and vinyl versions of the same album. No way I'm going to be able to hear difference in amps. Besides you tend to get used to listening to the kit you have and you have to learn to ignore the urge to go out and buy something more 3x the price because you think it might sound slightly better...
@AudioMasterclass replies to @richardmarkham8369: A number of commenters have made the same suggestion. I tried it a while ago but hardly anyone clicked.
@richardmarkham8369 replies to @richardmarkham8369: @@AudioMasterclass Ha! Well I guess nobody really cares and everyone is prepared to take your word for it! (not that you harp on about the amazing transparency and 3d sound stage like most reviewers do, thank god!)
@phildavis3105: I suppose it begs the point that most folks aren’t watching YT on high end audio systems. For one thing, they don’t have screens - that would be the home theater YT crowd. Then there is the issue of tablet, phone, or ear bud speakers. I suppose all are better than transistor radios, but still. How about this: no demos but rather commentary that this sounds better than that under these circumstances, in that environment, for people that still can hear audio in the 8-15kHz range. Easy Peezy.
@scottlowell493: There are a couple channels with cult followings that measure hi fi gear.
Problem is, they do play with the results.
They also favor certain brands that measure poorly. They scoff at less costly gear that measures as well as the brands they shill.
For the viewer: "These $700 speakers have a slight dip here and there, they are really inferior"
For themselves: "These $7000 a pair speakers don't measure well but they don't SOUND that way."
It's all marketing and manipulation.
It's all bias and opinion.
Sadly, cultist viewers take it as gospel.
Youtube isn't just lossy, it's rolled off about 16khz.
@CarlVanDoren61 replies to @scottlowell493: Audio Club member has a pro treated room at $120k, no clap echo! Alsyvox Botticelli X sound amazing on YouTube 😊
@kevinmcgrath3591: we all know that an mp3 removes whats known as the stuff you cant hear in a lossless file........can someone reverse this please? in other words - leave the bit you ''cant hear' and remove the stuff you 'can hear' .....what would that sound like ? BTW Youtube audio is far from awful if the source is excellent.
@Douglas_Blake_579 replies to @kevinmcgrath3591: That can be done in a good sound editor, Audacity or better.
Take a lossless wav file ... make a copy as MP3 or AAC .... now decode the lossy copy back to a wav file, line it up with the original lossless one, invert it ... and what you hear is the difference between them ... what they didn't think we can hear.
@kevinmcgrath3591 replies to @kevinmcgrath3591: @@Douglas_Blake_579 thanks, I could do it but im lazy 🤣is there an example already on youtube?
@Douglas_Blake_579 replies to @kevinmcgrath3591: @@kevinmcgrath3591
There are examples of "null testing" audio files, but none involving lossless-to-lossy-to-lossless transcoding, that I know of. But one thing I'm pretty sure of ... For a self-professed lazy person it would probably entail more work finding a good example than doing it for yourself. (Grin)
You might want to get in touch with David (our humble host) and perhaps there's an interesting video in this for both of you.
@maxtrue9744: Upload your videos to your cloud drive and give us the link to it. Instant 25 96 audio demonstrations. I do that all the time.
@grahamstrahle4010: Answer is to have links to lossless files in the description box that the viewer can download if they choose, i.e. external to YouTube
@nicholaswilliams1197: I lean toward preferring talking more in HiFi reviews because I don’t think I can get an accurate sounds from a YouTube demo. It’s not exactly the lossy nature of the audio, it’s that there is a chain in the way. You demo a set of speakers, the sound is recorded by a microphone of some kind, that gets recorded and edited, that’s uploaded to YouTube, YouTube does its thing, I play it through my system and speakers. That’s a good bit of separation and will I really be hearing your speakers or mine? It helps to have a “referee” to compare in the same video. Switching back and forth between two sets of speakers helps distinguish the differences, but it’s not the same as being in the same room as them. No method is perfect, which I understand. I don’t mind if an audio demo is done, but I do want to thoroughly hear the reviewer’s impressions since he is in that room. I suppose this is an argument for physical HiFi shops!
@davespagnol8847: My issue with audio demonstrations is this: If the system through which I'm playing back the video is not as good as the one you're demonstrating, then I'm not going to hear what is so special about the equipment you're using. If the system, on the other hand, is good enough to hear everything, then I don't need to buy the product you are demonstrating, as the one I have is better!
Never mind, having a sense of humour helps and you have that in spades!
@CarlVanDoren61 replies to @davespagnol8847: Yes, gents spot on 😊
Live, different animal
@Barbarapape: Hi-Fi demonstrations on Youtube or any other internet based media are a waste of time,
What you hear depends on how good your amp and speakers are that you listen to it through.
Not many will use studio quality monitors and even then they will add their own tonal changes
to the sound.
Go and listen to a live band, record it with the very best equipment, then play it back on High end
Hi-Fi and it will not sound quite as good as the live performance.
As for banning it, that may be a step to far, what should be banned is sponsored gear reviews
no way are they going to tell you the whole truth, buy Hi-Fi with your own ears and don't believe
the hype from reviewers that have not paid for the equipment themselves.
@HeavyCrown2030: I listen to YouTube Music and its not bad, streaming music in Hires no accurate without Upsample and a proper DACand DDC .
But my Digital Turntable built with the output circuits used to cut Vinyl give me perfect Analog when accessed from a local thumb drive.
@joelcarson4602: Want high quality video? Read reviews of TVs, go see them in action and buy what you want/can afford. Buy a decent Blu-ray player and buy Blu-ray discs. Done. All streaming video is going to be compressed to one degree or another. All. STREAMED. VIDEO. Done.
CD quality 16/44.1 streaming audio is eminently doable nowadays. Bits is bits. How do I know? Because you would not be able to install software from or store data on CD-Rs and DVD-Rs like has been done millions and millions of times in the last three decades. The Software wouldn't work and the data would be corrupt otherwise. That has been demonstrably true via literally hundreds of trillions of sucessful uses of digital storage. Snap out of it folks.
@CarlVanDoren61: If U can't play with the Big
🐕 Dogs stay on the porch
@teashea1: I (TES Productions and the Meadowlark label) have eight albums on YouTube Music. YTM is one of the 150 music services that CD Baby distributes to. Of course, this is different than regular YouTube. Here is one example --- Meadowlark Paper Hearts by Thomas Shea and one more --- Miles Away by Justice.
@shipsahoy1793: 😵💫wow, it's really interesting to see from the comments that so many people listen to what others say, but they're still not hearing them without their
own "filters."
@Douglas_Blake_579: Lord knows my life would be simpler if they did....
@paulfriedman4767: I'm just here for your unboxing music.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @paulfriedman4767: Don't worry, the album is coming out later this year.
@marxman00: I vote to ban all forms of recorded music.....( written music score allowed )It will stop all this alarm and distress......lets uninvent it back to the good old days ,
@andymouse: I only watch your channel as far as Audio goes, your opinion is enough for me and I don't like audio demos. I want to know specifications, build quality and other stuff like that. I like a bit of technical input to from someone who can tell one end of a resistor from the other and I like to see inside if possible or explanations of industry terminology etc. The rest of my audio needs are catered for by electronic tutorials or the repair and design of amp's channels as I like to repair damaged audio equipment for fun as a hobby with a bit of design work (hackery) thrown in. My shite laptop and your channel are all I need along with other technical sites. Now to have a butcher's at what other people have written....cheers.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @andymouse: I invite comment readers to explain why one end of a resistor is indeed different to the other…
@andymouse replies to @andymouse: @@AudioMasterclass :)
@Douglas_Blake_579 replies to @andymouse: @@AudioMasterclass
Back in the good old days of through hole parts, I used to arrange resistors so that the active end, useable as a test point, was always nearest the colour code bands. Made trouble shooting a lot easier. But, true enough, I don't think the resistors cared the first whit about that.
These days... hell you can barely see the parts, never mind their orientation.
@shipsahoy1793 replies to @andymouse: @@Douglas_Blake_579 with today's tiny chip components, package parasitics won't come out to play at 50 MHz or less like they did in the old days..even leaded metal film resistors were much better at 100 MHz than the old carbon resistors..
@Douglas_Blake_579 replies to @andymouse: @@shipsahoy1793
Yes, and???
@wmrg1057: Most people are probably listening on their phone, so who could tell the difference.
I prefer 24/192 anyway for any real work. Otherwise 16/44.1 is good enough
@AudioMasterclass replies to @wmrg1057: As I know from many comments, people are indeed listening on their phones, on speaker, in mono. St. Jude should probably have a word with them.
@ridirefain6606: Never found any use for audio Demos for obvious reasons and will say so. That being said, I am not going to badger someone into stop posting them. It is their content, who am I to tell them what and what not to post?
@pascalmartin1891: In words, or in graphs? One can visualize some audio effects.
@earthoid: It's not just a hifi issue. Some YouTube TV reviewers think that we can see subtle picture differences between high-end TVs via their camera recordings of the screens. That video is eventually displayed on a phone or computer that is not physically capable of reproducing those subtleties even if their camera had the capability to detect them which it probably does not.
@Spawndukes: I love audio demonstrations. YouTube audio is way better than what we used to have to listen to. I dont know the specific audio rates but it seems to be at least as good as a CD. Going from lossy to lossless on the internet will never be as big a jump as going from tape to CD. Remember, there is a huge amount of great sounding music that was produces on tape and it still sounds great. YouTube is the medium we have, so we just mix/listen around and trough it.
@duroxkilo replies to @Spawndukes: the youtube audio codec (opus 251) is 136 kbps vbr at 48kHz, regardless of the video resolution. is a great sounding compression algorithm for what it is :)
@simonzinc-trumpetharris852: Reviews are fine. It's the demo's that are pointless. And hi-res is pointless as well.
@andymouse replies to @simonzinc-trumpetharris852: I took way longer to say the same thing :)
@shaneonpole: I'm watching your video on my iPhone 6...the audio through its internal iphone speaker is never going to sound good...(i never listen to any audio demonstrations on YouTube from anyone).
@LS7-OQ: This is a commonsense and entertaining HiFI channel. Always get a chuckle. Thank you.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @LS7-OQ: You’re welcome.
@MarcelNL: I really don't care so much about image quality, except in the photos that I make (been doing that for over 25 years now) and when I'm photoshopping.
My tv is 10 years old and not 4K. On the computer I use F-Lux for less blue light. Only when I am using Photoshop, I temporarily turn it off.
Audio though, now that's an entirely different story. That must really be good!
@victoriaq5157: Another reason to ban them from UTube: everyone I have found are shills for companies whose product they review. Why don't HiFi channels advertise bed linen or dog food, products they do not review? We skip or fast forward the ads anyway!
@CarlVanDoren61 replies to @victoriaq5157: Yes, found actual users on FB groups 😮
@georgelewis3047 replies to @victoriaq5157: Most are just self-appointed 'experts' with one slanted view or another and a modicum of video production skills.
@jazzandcocktails7 replies to @victoriaq5157: The expression "conflict of interest " never occurred to them. Not to mention the " collabs" with companies whose products they review.
@robertthurston6858 replies to @victoriaq5157: He talking about music played on YouTube. Not HiFi equipment reviewers .