Audio Masterclass can help you become a better producer in your own home recording studio.
The Audio Masterclass Music Production and Sound Engineering Course is a fully-tutored, practical online course. We'll help you learn how to get the best from your home recording studio. We'll listen to your work, help you resolve any problems, and take you all the way to a commercial release standard of production.
Audio Masterclass also offers courses in Equalization, Compression & Dynamics, Reverb & Effects, Mixing, and Mastering.
Learn in your own home recording studio. Upload your practical assignment projects for our helpful friendly advice. Achieve an Audio Masterclass certificate on successful completion of your course.
Learn audio online with Audio Masterclass - AudioMasterclass.com
Why is it that every RU-vidr thinks they are Cecil B Demille? Just show us what we want to see instead of trying to play producer and pad out your video with filler and think your opening stuff is exciting. It just makes me click next. And who the hell calls records ..vinyls??? Sure you can guess that I won’t be subscribing.
@@AudioMasterclass can you understand English > I was referring to your sarcastic chortling…, or are u being obtuse ? You want mind me reporting you for misinformation thx
I was going to ask about what would happen if you used an onion, and then you did! I haven't got much more to say really, except that maybe we should try measuring the effect of digital and analogue audio on the listener rather than confining ourselves to analysing the audio alone. Of course, this has been attempted - perhaps successfully, I don't know. There was, I believe, an experiment with cows listening to both digital and analogue audio which was conducted back in the mid-'80s. I can't find the paper to reference it, but it was reported in a CD magazine of the day (I would name it if I could remember). I can't recall much about that article, so I don't know if it was a well-designed experiment, whether it led to meaningful findings, or if the findings could be replicated. But there is that question about what you choose to examine or measure. If you analyse what a tape is, you could measure the composition of the strip of film, the binder, the magnetisable coating, and the extent of its magnitisation, but that won't necessarily tell you that The Beatles are in there somewhere (or maybe it would?), or, importantly, what effect it would have on you if you heard the recording (or consumed the diced onion - once cooked, mixed and mastered). Just a thought - and not a very original one.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 These days it's very rare (for me) to hear purely analogue audio. Even the stuff I record to reel-to-reel is almost entirely digital in origin.
It's interesting how I cannot hear any effects of slicing and dicing when I listen to my CD's, be they AAD, ADD or DDD recordings. I believe that the reason for that is found in the explanation by Monty Montgomery on his excellent video about digital audio, that everyone should watch.
Watched Monty. I thought of reconstruction of digital to analog like dot-to-dot but at such a high resolution that you can't see any straight lines and even if you could there's a stylized curve between the dots from the analog nature of drawing it. What I came away with from Monty was: Reproduction from digital is a smooth analog characteristic. So choose your noise. No available analog medium can reach the low noise floor of the digital accomplished for the masses with the introduction of the CD.
How did I know you were a Waitrose shopper? I was shocked to find, after moving to West Wales, that my nearest store is two and a half hour's drive away. Oh well..
It quit mattering to me, if it ever actually did. There is enough time allotted in life to enjoy both. I'd have to question all that happened to the "mixes" in studio and every other alteration that happens to it and that would drive me mad. It all sounds good, and better, to me.
Having in the distant past seen how crap analog circuitry is when looking at a signal on an older analog Tektronix oscilloscope, square waves, for instance, are treated rather poorly, one can only imagine how floppy large mechanical low frequency drivers image bass frequencies, let alone the desperate jittering of a tweeter's diaphragm "reproducing" those inaudible overtones. We shouldn't be satisfied with anything less than direct neural input!😳
All CLASS-AB amps slice the audio into 2 parts, positive and negative, literally 2 halves, amplified via 2 completely differently manufactured devices PNP & NPN (Fet p-channel and N-Channel), and then combined back together with a ton of negative feedback to make it all work, but the fools never complained about sliced which it IS!, lets complain about digital..... This is the answer to give to anyone complaining about slices and dices, ask them about their audiophile crapintosh amp $$$$$
It's a good question whether slicing into two is better or worse than slicing into 65,536 or more. I might ask it, but probably not answer it, in a future video.
Bonus points for spelling analogue correctly. Like most analogies, the taped recording of a sound wave is rather different from the "real" thing. The athlete ran "like the wind" is a good "image" but isn't real. The magic & crucial determinant is "like". Analogues are "like" something and metaphors THE thing...even is mystically unreal. The athlete ran like the wind; she's a stallion.
As I understand it: One overlooked aspect of the digital audio process is the reconstruction filter -- the low pass filter after the DAC. The "infinitely thin slices" are very sharp pulses that hit the low pass filter and ring like a bell. Each pulse rings out for many samples afterward, and all these ringy pulses overlay on top of each other. The end result -- the sum of it all -- is the original analog signal with all the missing slices filled in (minus the high frequencies above twice the sampling rate). The reconstruction filter is what fills in the areas between the slices, er, samples and gets you back to the original signal. And any low pass filter can serve as a reconstruction filter, including the natural rolloff of your ears.
I had a friend go to Munich high end audio show last week, armed with possibly the most horrible anti music track I could possibly make, and play it on some of those million dollar systems. Just to take the piss out of everybody and get a few laughs.
You produce a fantastic factual and wonderfully cool channel. I just love any music or expression of the human spectrum. I am being influenced by your lectures.
Because that's not the original. Monty's video is licensed under Creative Commons and several channels use it. No problem with that but I prefer the original source.
You, possibly unwittingly, make an interesting point. VInyl enthusiasts, and cassette, seem to enjoy the problems and limitations of the medium, so why not digital listeners too/
I have a mid range system. I'm happy with that, It sounds good enough to my ears. ..I can't can't hear what he's talking about. But then we could also do a 4K video test without glasses. I think I listen to the music nit the format
The good news is that you now know that you either need to upgrade your equipment or visit an audiologist. You can find my further thoughts on this topic here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EdDnAnSPQpg.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1VzhiBSv28.html
To all audiophiles: can you see the frames in a film? Just 24 FPS are enough to make you believe that they are not different “chunks”; in monitors, generally, anything over 60 Hz is considered as a stable image. I don’t know what the ear frequency is - maybe someone will: in any case, it cannot be more than 70 Hz, the maximal frequency of human brain (gamma waves) - I don’t think it’s possible and, anyway, it would be completely useless. So, summing up: that despicable CD-Audio, with only 44100 Hz is… 630 times faster than your senses. And yet, some of you can hear it… Are you superhuman?
24 might be the 'film look' but I certainly prefer 60 fps for my RU-vid videos and I'm not imagining the difference. Any of my videos that include iPhone footage or effects, I make at 60 fps even though my camera maxes out at 29.97.
@@AudioMasterclass So for most (I think it will be almost all) new vinyl, the audio was sliced and diced at some point before being pressed? Do you think anyone would be able to tell?
You who were there at the time, surely most of it was recorded on tape? Wide bands, if I remember correctly. How did it work? Did you connect a number of microphones? could the tape recorder record ten or more microphone sounds? On occasion, you can give a history lesson.
You can find my further thoughts on this topic here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EdDnAnSPQpg.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1VzhiBSv28.html
Is that a proper brown onion? Or one of those extra large onions? The latter I find is less tasty. I like a small brown onion, the type that makes you cry, in the way that audiophiles, cry when listen to music on their system. Thanks for the video!
Yes analog to digital conversion does indeed slice and dice an analog signal. An Analog To Digital Converter (ADC) samples the analog signal from a microphone (or other transducer). It is essentially a recording voltmeter that gathers the voltage of the signal as a binary number at a fixed sampling rate. This results in a whole slew of measurements recorded a whole mess of times per second. At 44,100sps (samples per second) that is one sample every 22 microseconds. At 16 bit resolution for a 2 volt signal each step in the measurement is 30 microvolts. Whatever happens between those samples is indeed lost... but it would also be so far beyond our hearing we'd never notice it... 44khz or higher. Not even a bat could hear it, even if it was there. Whatever happens to the levels between samples is on such a small resolution, less than 1/960th of a decibel, that nobody could ever hear it. The samples are stored in a computer file as a sequence of binary numbers, where they are no different than any other computer data. Stored, manipulated, and communicated just like any other computer data, with bit perfect resolution. The big secret is in the reconstruction filter on playback. Here the gap between samples and the differences in amplitude are smoothed by "reconstruction filters" that give back a nearly exact version of the original analog signal. Very simply ... it's so close as makes no difference... and with higher bit size and sample rates it gets even closer.
@@AudioMasterclass Until it captures things like RF noise and power spikes, it will be "nearly" ... but if you think about it, that's actually a good thing.
Another flaw that frustrates me to no end. Unlike other disk based media of the time, such as floppy disk and laser disk, the CD has no protective shell encasing it. This was due to Sony deeming it "too expensive" to add. Now I want you to think of all the CDs, DVDs and Blu Ray disks that have been ruined by accidentally slipping out of someones hand, or being placed carelessly on a coffee table. So much waste over a pointless cost cutting measure.
When CD-ROM first became a thing, caddies were needed due to the need to be absolutely bit-perfect without question. But when drives became caddy-less I didn't notice any degradation or lack of performance in my CD-ROMs. I don't have answer for this, but the answer for CD is, as I said in the video, to keep CDs in their cases, in your hands, or in the player. Nowhere else.
And that's why I am sticking to vinyl, VHS tapes, cassettes, mechanical watches, AM radio, dial micrometers, stethoscope cardiograms, paper maps, and everything else that is analog.
Who wants to listen to music that has to be reconstructed? Apparently a lot of top drawer audiophiles, since vinyl sound requires a RIAA reconstruction filter to boost bass and limit treble by as much as 30db.
Well said!!!. A huge number of vinyl 'purists' believe that they're listening to a perfect reproduction of any given track, not realising that there is plenty of mastering required to make that track work on vinyl. I can see why some dislike digital though. The loudness wars and poor mastering, reduced dynamic range etc etc, just meant that CD tended to end up with a poorer version of any song, more suitable for radio perhaps. Regardless, nobody is taking digital and my Roon away from me :-)
@@Douglas_Blake_579 t'is rather annoying indeed. But, when you've a well produced song, digitally, you have the best version. There is a database of dynamic range against many hundreds of songs. I don't recall the website, but it was quite interesting.
I was a bit of an audiophile back in the '70 -'80s and I had excellent hearing back in the day. I was in the top independent stereo retailer back then when the first digitally-mastered album came out - Ry Cooder's "Bop til you Drop" - and they were very excited to play it, and they played it all the time. Why? Because it sounded phenomenal! No noise floor at all, every detail revealed, incredible dynamics and the biggest, cleanest bass you ever heard. What was crystal clear was that digital was superior to analog recording, and CD's were going to be superior to vinyl records. And they were - even in my system with a lousy CD player versus a Thorens TD-160 turntable with a top-flight Shure cartridge. Are there poorly mastered CD's? Absolutely. But the technical superiority of digital recording and playback are painfully obvious to those of us who only had analog for many years.
Indeed. People forget that in the 80's when CDs became widespread we were (nearly) all blown away by how much better the recordings sounded in this new format. I have plenty of vinyl but I don't kid myself that those LPs sound better.
I like occasionally playing my Vinyl records but I prefer my CD's for all the reasons you mentioned, plus the convenience of playing up to 80 minutes, or more on a multi disc player, without having to turnover or change the disc. They are also easier to maintain and keep clean than records, which unlike CD's, wear a bit every time you play them.
Well, flac files created from a digital source as a CD are identical. I don't have access to master tapes. Not relying on the DAC on cd player to play music but instead a really nice DAC on my computer usb port (Douk Audio).
I don't think the apple/onion analogy adds anything: sampling is not that hard to understand. Of course sampling is not a problem if done at sufficient rate/depth. The only question is what is that sufficient level: that's an experimental question dependent on content/situation/listener.
