Tony Has Never been great talker, But a topsound speaker maker, in the world, he was in the making of what his heart tells him so less of the remarks of the mic. its hard enough for him to express him self as the sound says it all from Glastonbury festivals to today's media, thank you tony & john for being with us and getting better sound for all the world to hear and thank you to Ann for looking after Tony's inspiration and partner over these amazing years gone are the years of Turbo Sound love you all God bless Andreas Theophanous the one and only Wildgreek.
as a lecturer he is not in charge of or responsible for audio quality of tedx talks. he is designing and producing some of the best club speakers out there tho.
From , Turbosound to Funktion - One. Tony, is an absolute legend in the game. Always a pleasure to play on his sets. From Acid raves back in the day to our own (strictly vinyl) warehouse parties now.100% with him on every word he says. Much ❤️
22:45 >> Actually, "House" music beginnings were late 70's. At that time, clubs like Studio 54 and Paradise Garage had immense sound systems. I don't wanna go to clubs anymore. Club's in my view, has lost a lot of it's true social "thing" (I'm also married with children now). But one of the few clubs, I would still visit, is Cielo in New York. 1. Is has a well tuned F-One system. 2. The acoustics are good. 3. The music is good and high quality audio (the owner is aware of quality sound)
Good on you Tony, all power to you mate. Many of todays albums are compressed and loud beyond belief. Its all about on the go and cheap and banging a "tune" out to make money. Unfortunately 90 % of people don't really aim for better even if they know better because it is outside fashion and it takes time, costs money to get it right etc.Respect to you for telling it how it is.
Thank you very much mister Andrews for sharing this knowledege with us.i think it was very educative and it maked me change the way i "see" sound.RESPECT!!!
Well he has been invited to the show, what ever gear they use in the show is part of TEDxTalks. It's like a dj going to play in a club using the gear found in the club, he cant help it if the gear sucks
I totally respect Tony's philosophy, this should be a basis for all acoustic, mechanic, live sound, recorded and amplified. Although if he was at Wembley Arena on 07/11/2012 listening to the tuning of his Funktion One sound system, he would be so embarrassed and furious..... Kinda have to get things done on your own territory before slamming others am afraid....
the biggest issue is that many of the online music providers charge a surcharge to be able to down load .wav files make .wav more accessible and cost effective form providers like Beatport and we will see an increase of people buying and playing .wav as opposed to Mp3
The nyquist theorem states as you probs know, the audio has to be sampled at double the highest frequency in the wave for a perfect reconstruction. The problem is, the treble frequences, get sampled less, e.g, 20khz gets sampled only twice a second whilst the sub frequences get over sampled. So there is a quality shift in the reconstruction of the frequencies. To get around this, u record at 96/ 88.2 to get all the detail across all the frequencies captured. dither down 4 max quality @CD quality
I agree with the commenters who said his breath noise in that mic is borderline unbearable and also the commenters who said an 320kbs mp3 will not sound that much different than a wav file. I just A/Bed Metallicas Kill Em All CD with 320kb mp3s through high end headphones and monitors and I am not certain I could tell a difference at all. He does bring up many fantastic points here though. A great watch.
That makes sense. To you & I though, we would notice after a period of time that sort of fatigue more so than the average club goer. But in reality, when it comes down to playing tracks through a PA in a club environment, the majority of the audience isn't going to notice. I try to play WAVs when I am performing by any means necessary because of that reason, especially if I am playing a set to a more mature crowd that knows the difference. In a perfect world we are all audiophiles.
I did a study into it when I studied Music Technology, where I played samples of white noise and a track as a blind test, through decent studio monitors and mid range headphones. Around 70-80% of people said the .mp3 was higher quality, or that they couldn't tell a difference. The ones who got it right, still weren't certain. So from my findings, his argument is pretty bias and over-exaggerated on that part.
of course he's right !! Do the same attempt again, only this time with a club system and a stink normal home hi-fi system. And what most people think is better quality is what seems louder to them.
Indeed, the Nyquist theroem means that it doesn't matter above 40kHz of sampling rate of you go for 20kHz as the highest frequency. But only theoretically, since it then requires a perfect sinc-function multiplied with the discrete valutes of the PCM-signal to recreate the waveforms. And a perfect sinc-function is infinite in time, and that then requires infinite computing time to recreate it. In reality it is approximated. Higher sampling rate will lead to a better approximation of the original
so many things, not sure where to begin, but yes, that one about how sensitive our ears are I was amazed he said it. The other obvious one was 'distortion' being 'twisted truth' and 'lies', without acknowledging that everything is distortion in one way or another anyway, so everything is lies according to this guy!
Yep fair enough, I suppose other factors could be at play in a club to grab the attention of the listener... I do agree with what Tony is saying though.... If we can't aim for best practice with the digital domain (good for downsizing and logistics), we may as well just go on back to good ol' analogue. May not be a useful analogy, but it's kinda like buying an Aston Martin( aka Turbo Sound rig) for the experience, then converting the engine to run on veg oil cause it's cheaper to use.
I'm not arguing that you don't lose information in the process of converting to mp3, it's impossible not to. All I was saying was that an mp3 made from say a 96000 24bit WAV that takes the space of a 44100 16bit WAV will sound have higher quality than a 44100 16bit WAV, just as a 320kbps mp3 made from a 44100 16bit WAV will sound better than a 320kbps WAV. Although in the mp3 you lose time domain information and in the low quality WAV you lose the high frequency info, or add sample noise.
I can't be exactly sure what he is referring to. I can understand you saying a late and intact signal shouldn't make any difference, and I'd agree. However imagine some kind of signal processor, what ever type it may be, that worked on splitting frequencies, processing them individually (though different digital chains and therefore different total times) and putting them back together, putting them out time / phase with respect to each other. Just a thought.
I think what Tony is probably saying is, Yes it's fine to render in eg: 88khz/24/32bit,.. Keep the fidelity of the "source audio's" transients after you have arranged your music, by not compressing the f&^k out of it, and squaring off the wave in post production, because that should happen at the volume knob. And when you are publishing your files, have a standard of 16bit, 44khz as a minimum and not MP3, if it is going to be amplified through a system. I'm afraid that is being practical..
RU-vid does add a slight mushy haze to the sound, but I don't record stuff off youtube unless I can't find it on Spotify etc (yes Spotify is mp3 but on a good sound card with good headphones it's satisfyingly crystal clear on the right tracks), also CDs degrade in sound quality mainly due to scratches and some of them did sound a bit metallic due to poor recording perhaps?
Its a TedX (independently organized) meaning budget limitations. Perhaps they could've gotten a DPA but the organizer put it on the low importance list?? Next time your in the studio try telling your musicians not to breath into the microphone, there's trade offs in audio simply that.
I can't hear a difference until it goes below 128k, I thought I heard slightly more treble detail and extension in a 192kbps mp3 of Vengaboys - The Vengabus (Don't laugh, that recording actually has a very crisp and clean rhythm to it!), than in a 128k WMA, but then again the CD I ripped from had a few scratches on it. My source is a Toshiba Satellite Pro 200 (one of the best quality reproduction sources I've heard) and Sound Magic E10 in ear headphones (so I guess I could go really expensive!)
That is your opinion, Take into account tho, that many DAW productions are already compressed to hell. IMO data compression from a file is going to reduce the resolution period. This visual would be a good analogy for the dithering process. I have noticed the difference dithering my own material from DAW>88.2khz>44.1khz>320khz, and I can notice a difference in the stereo field, plus some frequency bands distort/attens more. When you scale things up more a tad, to PA you can notice difference.
to show WAVs much higher quality he compares its highest standard "sample rate" (96kHz*24bit*2channels = 4608kbit/s) with mp3's highest "bit rate" (320kbit/s) which is the wrong attempt. mp3s are also sampled with 44.1kHz and 16bit but are compressed in view of psychoacoustics whereas the bit rate states the required rate to be streamed in real time. regarding sound quality nowadays he makes a good point though and i like his passion
Tony Andrews does speak a lot of truth here albeit a bit hamfistedly ...I suspect this talk about hi res audio may be preaching to the converted though. Quality has indeed dropped to mind crushingly low levels over the last few digital years. My issue with TA is that over many years of listening as a sound engineer I have found Funktion1 have not come up to the mark of hi quality listening. I object as well to this diatribe about what is good for the soul in music regardless of resolution.
True, the sound quality all around is horrible, especially when played by DJ's maxing the gain whenever they get the chance. The bitrate is simply the size over time. Size in kilobits/length in seconds = bitrate in kbps.
I mean, storage is getting much cheaper! On and offline... 1 Hr @ 320kbs mp3 = 144.0 MB and 16bit Wav/44.1khz @ 1 Hr = 317.52 MB Just a little over double the size.... I think there are solutions... I just think a commercial/business attitude change needed. Agree there are the hold backs you mention, but we should be aspiring to go that bit extra with audio.... We can only hope, I suppose....
As an audiophile myself, I am going to have to disagree with the WAV to MP3 picture reference. Any studio WAV that is 24 or 16bit that I receive from a producer hot off the DAW doesn't sound much different when it's compressed to a 320 kbps MP3. Unless of course we are compressing any lower than that.
Tony is a man of great knowledge, I fully support his ideas and I love audio. but he is simply not a good speaker in my eyes. He is so passionate about what he tells that he is going to the next point when the previous one hasnt even been handled properly, just trying to get the message across
The irony of the mic quality is just incredible, though it's true that he can't be entirely blamed for it. But what I find quite ridiculous is his critique of distortion, completely forgetting that sought-after distortion is central for rock as well as for several other genres. Desired distortion can sound glorious. Ask John Cale, Lee Ranaldo or Kevin Shields about it....
What I don't like in a lot of budget PA is beaming screechy midrange in 15inch drivers crossed at 3khz (or just left to roll of naturally) to a metallic, poorly dampened tweeter horn in a 2 way system. It'll sound OK with dance music but try playing Muse or Greenday through it and it'll have that fatiguing belt sanderish whine to it.
I wouldn't compare studio compression to whole audio file down compression as it's 2 completely things regarding outcome. I'm saying that his WAV to MP3 visual is a bit drastic when you simply listen to the same tune; one being 1411kbps and the other 320kbps, if ofcourse we are talking "full quality".
They are literally two different things entirely, just on outcome. A FLAC is data compressed and lossless. Dynamics compression (increasing RMS and loudness) and lossy data compression I agree with Tony Andrews are both issues with DJs. Most digital releases have more dynamic compression than the vinyl release, and in this day in age there is no reason to be using a lossy version of an audio file unless you just don't have access or own the lossless one. Certainly no one should be paying for lossy digital music files anymore.
You might be correct. Just out of curiousity, was there any specific part of the data that were wrong? The only thing I remarked was how he almost glorified the sensitivity of human perception.
I hear so often from people that high fidelity sound is wasted on them. How can people say this when evolution has spent tens of thousands of years tuning our ears and brains for perfect detail, tone and balance. Most frustrating. Edit, I forgot direction and placement.
sharkstakovic ...well just saying.. could it be that all these years...they have been tuning our brains an ears, forva specific reason..that doesn't necessarily benefit us?..dont forget about the whole 440hz-vs- 432hz situation... and im sure i dont have to remind you all what the tv does....
should i really produce music in 96000 hz, since i use a lot of processing like flangers, chorus, etc? will this be much better than 48000? i thought the nyquest theorem means it didn't matter after 48000?
you can't use skrillex's production as an example. his shit isn't crunching...it doesn't peak when you play any of his wav's. as for live sound, he uses a controller and not a mixer so his level is locked for the whole set. it's the sound guys fault if the speakers are crunching.
You have to admit, though, that overloading to the point of distortion and damaging of hearing is considered for more acceptable in the world than doing the same with the sense of sight. If sound systems were running 85-90dB top at the average dancing areas in the space, then percieved S/N ratio, THD, and frequency response would be better. And who likes walking out of a club, even ones with custom F1 installs like I was at last night, and having their ears feel like they're stuffed with cotton?
I disagree with your point to be honest; but even assuming it was valid, I tested 10 friends; with no musical knowledge, and then tested my class, all of whom have moderately good ears, and knew what to listen for (including my tutor, who has years of experience in audio engineering, who actually gave the wrong answer). There may have been flaws in my test somewhere, but I made sure to get my results from people with trained and untrained ears, and there was little difference in the outcome.
There may be many home audio headphones that beat Sound Magic E10, some speakers also, but I'll eat my hat (or earphones) If I find PA Equipment (designed for getting very loud with quite good sound quality) that beats them in SQ, possibly Funktion One would match them I haven't heard enough.
Observed sounds quality is incredibly subjective. Personally I find mp3 to be unlistenable. You could consider it similar to video. A 720p video source is considered high definition on a television. If you were to project this onto a cinema screen, the resolution would render it unwatchable. As you amplify a piece of audio to louder levels, the inadequacy of mp3 is undeniable. It was not until after listening to analogue, and hi fidelity music for some time that I have developed a hatred for mp3
Well that's the beauty of an mp3, the sound quality to bit rate is better. A 320kbps WAV would sound like crap. You'd have to halve the bit rate to 8 bit and sample frequency to
I know your not juxtaposing data compression to amplitude compression, nor am I man. They are though, both factors of the ideal Tony is promoting.... Don't "square off" the source material, and don't reduce the quality to mp3 if auditioning to the public. Visually it may well be drastic, but in principle that is what you do when you reduce to 22-ish%, add a standard modulated noise to the mp3 (standard model), loose stereo field then amplify that thru a PA system to an audience=fatigue.
very interesting but one QUESTION... I completely agree with tony in almost every point and always quote him by telling people to use good quality ... but my limit of good quality is also 1440 kbps, cause my kind of music being sold on beatport just exists in that maximum quality ... even on cd ... so my question to all record labels or beatport for example ... why don't they increase the quality for a online music store where the biggest DJs buy their sounds and tracks ? my point is that DJ are being limited to use good quality (in a lot of genres) (my genres are deep / tech house by the way)
Part of the problem is that larger HD Audio tracks takes up more server space. That means it gets more expensive and many DJs choose to cheap out. Back in the day it was simple. You wanna spin? Go get your records, a set of good needles, pay what they cost and break your back hauling those discs about - and don't forget those needles when you leave. However here's the major problem. Many top DJs who actually make their own stuff, chooses to just use MP3. Not only does this mean it's only released in that format, but also they choose to play their own stuff in the MP3 format. For some it's simple. It's much quicker when creating the music and it's also quicker when doing the mixing and mastering. Then there's the question of how much space it takes up on their computers. Funny thing is that these guys make a lot of money, but again take the lazy approach and go cheap. A great example is Garrex. Everything is 320 MP3. I know he's a shitty DJ and producer, but still. At least he could make his repetitive EDM crap in a better format. Have you tried contacting the label to find out how to get hold of better quality audio? If it's available they can get it for you. Do some footwork. Back when I started out in the late 80's, you'd have to spend days in various interesting record stores, listening, searching and what not. This meant you had to spend hours listening to stuff and talk to other djs, label people and vendors. It was a blast, and it made the scene a lot more creative and alive.
Even just 16/48 would sound better than vinyl if the digital files weren't dynamically compressed the shit out of for digital release. Only reason vinyl can sound better is because that type of compressor use to make the master louder messes up the stylus playback. So vinyl masters are more often to have slightly wider dynamics than digital releases. The exception is some acoustic music for vinyl is more likely to go through a compressor to bring up very low level detail, but that's still a very wide final dynamic range (and low RMS) to the content. Dance music RMS is already high enough that you're not losing much on the noise floor of vinyl so you don't use compressors on vinyl dance mix masters, but the Loudness War has resulted in their abuse for digital releases where the medium does not malfunction at very high RMS and limited dynamics and they want their release to be louder (or as loud) as everything else at the same spot on the volume knob. Laziness meets the evils of marketing shills.
I agree with most of what Tony says..but,..Truth is...they (the many brands) went to manufacture everything in China, use cheaper MP3s instead of WAVs etc...but it's still an expensive world with economic, financial and other crises! :(
Until producers start rendering their tracks out at 4,000kbps (whatever # he said), audio will continue to sound as it does. Yes in a perfect world we all want what Tony wants but 32bit wavs are HUGE files so it's just not practical unless you are a complete audiophile like Tony Andrews.
Subject matter was most interesting to "try" to listen to, but for gods sake please do something nasty with that head set mic. Such as bin it or get a decent sound engineer to sort out a decent mic arrangement for you.
Cruelty is a Heart that has NO Music in it,& doesn't know it's vacant. Animals in Zoo's hear no Music or Natural sounds from Nature from which they come & are. Sadder yet is, you have NO idea what I am saying.
I so agree. But why then do we accept systems like Void and Function One? I believe we are creating a generation of people with hearing and listening problems. I hate to say it, but Function One are really pretty horrific sounding to anyone caring about fidelity. Virtually all horn systems are more about power and presence than anything approaching quality sound. Maybe as a someone who has created music since very young, and taken great care of my ears, and been willing to spend for a great home and studio system, I have other things I am optimizing for than power transfer and cost to amplify. They are lower in upper-mid nastiness than some of the cheaper horn or related systems out there. However, event their best in 2021-2022 does not compare, or come close to high fidelity. They are still very harsh, fatiguing and having all sorts of issues compared to a great non-horn loaded or related system. Anyone who has listened to all of the best, even some of the hybrids like L-Acoustics, D&B and others blow away Function One's best. Like most of the stuff out there based on horns, these systems need help if we are to have anything approaching great fidelity that does not leave your ears and soul hurting.
I don't want to go poking holes in your study because I obviously don't have all the data or full context, and i'm sure you are more educated in this field than me... it just rubs me the wrong way haha. You should send your test results to tony here. I bet he'd cry
