Great topic, Paul! Here's my observations on the re-awakening of interest in tube production (and some home hi-fi) gear: We can thank the release of the compact disk for lifting awareness of the sound of tube based audio production equipment! How? By the mid/late 80s, the record labels were starting to re-release a lot of their earlier recordings, and the recording community got reaquainted with that long overlooked sonic character. They looked around and started to ask how to get some of that sound back. "Use the older gear" they were told. "O.K., get me some!" "Can't! It's all been depreciated and replaced long ago!" "Well, then, make some more!"...Fast forward to today, and it is hard to find a pro recording facility without some form of vintage or newly made tube gear, FWIW. The point being, that the character and personality of the old recordings, in their new digital form, spoke better for themselves than any amount of hand-waving and jaw-boning could. Also, back in the day, the tube dynamics processing was quite mature and could be very effective/attractive sounding, for both the recording facilities and the record mastering & broadcast studios. Heck, a little while back, there was even a (then) secret plan hatched among some of the Los Angeles vinyl record mastering community to provide a 'vinylizer' service for the CD releases planned by the big record labels. A master lacquer would be cut for the express purpose of carefully playing the lacquer back, digitizing it, and providing those files to the label for release, with all the care and finesse baked in by the mastering engineer! There's more to this story, but for now I must sign off. Best Regards!
Assuming ones sound system is up to the task, 90% of any recording is going to be dependent on how good the mastering actually is. Many of the early digital re-releases really sucked. (I blame the Yamaha NS10's for that) And by the time the mastering techs got a handle on it, we got into the loudness war in the later 90s and it sucked even more. Analog by the early 80s had been nearly perfected and some of the best recordings we are familiar with from the late 70s didn't even have any tube gear what so-ever in the mastering/recording stage. Other than guitar amps maybe. It really boiled down to the skill and goals of the mastering engineer to determine that level of warmth and fullness we got used to in 'the old days'.
I had a vinyl to cd transfer service, and the results were shockingly good. I have tons of copies I've made from vinyl of every genre imaginable. We even transferred home recordings from WWII that I was able to make not only intelligible but enjoyable.
@4:25 "...vacuum tubes, that vinyl, all those things have a sound to them that isn't exactly neutral -- which is true" This should not suggest that digital gear does not have a sound to it, or that digital gear is neutral. Michael travels with his homemade analog-to-digital recordings, because most digital releases have between sub-par to pretty good sound quality. Most digital source material is not great. So Michael creates great digital source material from his great sounding vinyl so that he can listen while he travels and also so that he can show the right influential people the difference between digital that the record labels release to the public and his homemade creations, so that they will understand the lousy job that the record companies do for most releases. But Michael's digital creations, as good as they are, are not as good as his vinyl playing directly from his turntable. Most digital gear does not sound natural. That does not mean that it sounds bad. No two CD players sound the same (excepting same manufacturer / same exact model). You have to spend quite a bit on a transport and DAC to get digital (with the right source material) to really sound great. Most folks think that digital sounds better than vinyl. That is true, due to the difficulty and prohibitive cost at really getting vinyl to sound great. So people hear digital and it does sound better than what they are used to hearing with vinyl. But you are still in a Corvette. If you want to have Ferrari performance, you would need to play digital via Michael's transport and DAC. After listening to Michael's gear, you will hear how artificial most digital gear sounds. My points are 1) "color" is inherent in every box, every cable, every stylus, every tone-arm, etc, and 2) Michael's creations and Michael's stereo are unlike anything most folks have every heard. Cheers!
Way back in the early days of digital (late 80's) I recorded some MFSL UHQR albums onto a Sony PCM-601 from a Merrill turntable and a great tube pre-amp (forgot what it was) - still sounds amazing and captured that sound perfectly. I still have a working PCM-601 and the tape is still good. So glad I do, the turntable, pre-amp and vinyl were not mine so I cannot reproduce that today in analog.
Glad to see you are back in the office, I have been a fan of this channel for a while now and I must say every video you have is extremely informative.
Conversely Paul, I’ve had many an argument on those who are pro Vinyl that they are just listening (in the majority) to a digital recording cut into Vinyl with all the digital ‘flaws’ they criticise captured in analogue. For example a really really low quality mp3 of say 32mbps cut to vinyl will sound just like a low quality mp3, full of digital artefacts. Just like a CD that adds crackle and pops from a record, or your friends Analog to digital recordings from vinyl. Digital, with its weaknesses is by far the best solution for quality, accessibility, convenience. There is a reason the whole industry swung digital. Great video...
Paul, First off glad to see you back at work! Hope your audio guide is coming along well and that it hasn't sidetracked your adventure novel you mentioned you would write to much. This brings up something some folks have been doing along time. Recording vinyl rips. Folks can save their precious recordings, sound great and have the benefit of playing them back on a server or music player if their choice as many times as they wish. Getting to recording the sound of tubes I wish more engineers making music used them in their process instead of all digital. I'm not the most knowledgeable but I have seen some have many different tube gear (for mics, preamps etc) in their studio to add what all the computer recording software can never provide. I remember seeing Tom Pettys vintage all tube recording console he used when he was alive (think the video is on you tube where his neighbor Larry shandling drops by). Jackson Browne is another that used analog and tube gear recording. I think he used a lot of Manley labs tube gear in his studio. Just because it's faster and easier to crank out a new album doesn't mean it will sound better. With how much better digital has gotten it's still some great tools the engineer can use to craft their music. Their are some great analog to digital converters out there that won't scatter your bank account either. Though I'm sure Mr fremer is using nothing but the best😀
@@QoraxAudio I've tried to find some with no luck. I bought a MP-501 tube amp that is being shipped right now. Could you show me a song with tube equipment? I'd really appreciate it.
@@latle111 I think this one is directly recorded from a tube amplifier: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LloT_zc0_Hw.html However, I don't have my system connected to the web at the moment to check it...
Finally! An honest and educated opinion on Analog v. Digital. I can digitally record a signal from a vinyl record and it sounds like the record. Doing it the other way around doesn't work as well. An analog record from a digital source does not sound like the source. To get an analog tape sound from purely digital sources, I use a Crane Song HEDD. It imparts pentode order and triode harmonic distortion in a controllable manner plus there is a "Tape Saturation" control that works somewhat like a compressor, but more subtly. it tends to roll off the highs when pushed hard, making the sound somewhat fuller.
Even Michael Fremer admits a digital recording of vinyl is superior sounding compared to an original digital recording. He brings files recorded off vinyl to shows and people love 'em. A quick search and listen to MrVinylObsessive's channel here on RU-vid should make nonbelievers believe there's some truth to this. Whatever magic vinyl does, a digital recording of it will preserve it.
Probably because records are mastered with more care than just a random crappy MP3 file or CD. I think the good thing you hear isn't the source itself (CD vs vinyl) but just a more skilled mastering engineer vs less skilled mastering engineer.
From my experience the real advantage of analogue recordings over digital is the ability to preserve the time domain accurately in music. Regarding the amplitude side of the waveform, digital is superior and hence can accurately record an analogue source along with any coloration from said analogue recording. although tubes are coloured (some more than others) they also preserve the fidelity of the time domain better than solid state. This is an extensive subject but the topic of fidelity should not be limited to a discussion of amplitude distortions which I agree can be accurately recorded digitally from an analogue source.
@@ACM1000000PT I am not referring to jitter in the conventional sense. I am referring to delays resulting from processor based technology for processing information. .Even if you have a perfect TCXO this does not resolve the issue of processing delays, since a processor does not work instantaneously . The problem isn't with the data in a static form , but when computer based technology has to reproduce a complex waveform from said data in real time. Unfortunately its an issue that is inherent in digital technology. This is a subject that is not discussed because what do you do when the problem is with the technology itself? The industry than throws in red hearings such as better clocks which does not address the real issue.
@@ACM1000000PT This is known in the industry but not discussed because its an inconvenient truth that does not support the audio industry business model . People like PQ from Audionote England (who is researching a 14 bit DAC design) and Kondo attempt to address this issue with their unconventional approach to Digital playback, by simplifying digital processing. By simplifying digital playback you (if implemented correctly) may improve the time domain and get closer to the immediacy of analogue. SACD is an example of a failed attempt to improve digital playback by chasing red hearing solutions by focusing on greater resolution.
The whole point of recording is reproducing sound at a later point in time, a fraction of a second more delay isn't that big of a deal, right? ;) As long as the delay time is kept constant there's no issue. Vinyl and tape based playback are dependent on the consistency of the motor driving them as well as centrifugal forces, which makes them susceptible to deviations in time. Probably even more than digital.
Back in the day, I used to record vinyl onto cassette tape to be used in the car and it sounded much better than the CD version as well as the prerecorded cassette tape. You could clearly hear that it was vinyl and not due to pops or groove noise.
That is great food for thought . I agree 100%. .. Definitely good to see you back at the office. Don't hold back on the garden Paul . We are waiting those Tomaters 😁♥️✌️
Some notable (to my mind) "tubey" sounding recordings are "The Byrds Greatest Hits" and Marty Robbins' "Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs." They sound like they are glowing. Clean-shaven Waylon Jennings albums also have that "tubelishious" sound in spades. An original pressing of Zappa's "Cruising With Ruben and the Jets" album is a good thing to demonstrate the holographic quality a good tube amp has. The separation between the various instruments and the stacked (doo wop) vocals is astonishing.
I have recorded all my very limited vinyl selections to digital, from (as in including) needle drop to auto lift off, and I keep it as one recording, not splitting it into tracks. - Every time I play them back, it takes me straight back to the time when I actually played it. I tried splitting the tracks, but the absolute dead silence between tracks killed it for me. The only problem I have is most music software cannot handle the concept of a complete LP in one file, as in the 'track title' tags etc, and jumping to the next 'track' ends up jumping you to the next LP. All problems I can happily live with as I enjoy my vinyl. The same can (and is) done with electric guitars, record the audio straight of the guitar, before its amplifier. However to play it back, you need a guitar amplifier. However you can now hear how that tune sounds through a Fender tube amp, then maybe try a VOX, all the time whilst playing with the various amp controls, and different speaker cabinets - lots of experimenting without having a guitarist there to repeatedly play the same piece over and over.
If I'm not mistaken, you can write up your own .cue file for a long track that can accomplish what you are describing. You can index the time and include track title, performer, etc. and the software can read it as a playlist for the long audio track. It's a bit involved, but doable.
Great question, interesting answer. I love to record vinyl onto my Technics dbx cassette decks for the convenience of playing at my desk or minidisc for playing in my previous car. I really need to sort that out again as I don't have a minidsc player, but I do have an Aux input now. .
Vinyl in this instance is just another form of special effect (eq, compression, limiting, etc.). We've been recording tube sound for many years. All those mic'ed stage amps of Clapton, Hendrix, et al transferred first to tape and then vinyl (and now digital). Those were tube amps (pre transistor). If you have an appropriate digital capture rate then you can effectively duplicate the quality of the original source material whether live or vinyl with whichever colouration you want to add.
Hi Paul one day you ought to valuate some Tim de Paravicini valve amplifiers.I feel valve amplifiers with there low global negative feedback and low damping factor may suit pair Bose loudspeakers; giving them the boost in the bass end, which Bose lack.
The sound of tubes never left recording studios, mainly in mic preamps. Analogue channel summing or even going through tape is still used today every time the recording engineer or producer wants that sort of analogue audio saturation and compression. Digital can definitely have an analogue sound, as long as it is recorded after passing through any analogue signal chain. Vinyl is the same.
If you can record a signal chain digitally and retain its character, that also suggests that DSP may be possible to recreate that character. This can be trained and tested over thousands of hours of original master recordings. If, after this is done, the DSP bits coming out are identical to a reference signal-chain via the ADC, then it IS identical.
Except that a recording going through real hardware instead of a dsp will not sound exactly the same. A DSP would need to emulate hardware gear. Much DAW software have emulation of different outboard gear, but recording through real hardware will always give better result. That something is identical is something that only exist in theory but never in real life.
I’ve read an article where they trained a time-delayed neural network to ‘model’ an analog device. They also trained a time-delayed neural network to get an inverse model to correct the analog device. If you think about that, a lot becomes possible… A CD sounding as vinyl, vinyl sounding as a CD, a solid state amp sounding as a tube amp, a tube amp sounding as a solid state device. This all reminds me off the Carver Challenge, where Bob Carver reproduced the sound of any amplifier.
@@JerryRutten Why would you need an neural network for that? You can simply use an impulse response, although I imagine that wouldn't capture all intricacies of a system.
So many audiophiles get into bit rate and FLAC while vinyl as mentioned has in untruth sound. But that untruth sound is why the music sounds so pleasing to the ears. i believe unless the recording is near perfect than the more resolving the equipment the more unpleasing the sound. Enjoy the Music..
That was a powerful admission. As I suggested earlier, isn't it time that someone developed DSP methods to simulate vacuum tube and vinyl sound, so that anyone can enjoy that if they prefer, without the drawbacks (expense, wearout, noise) of real tubes and LP's?
This type of thing already exists. The vinyl software plugins adds ticks, and noise simulating noise from the needle in a dirty or worn record. Over twenty years ago one could get plug-ins to simulate various microphones, compressors, etc.
@@vinylrules4838 Certainly don't want the noises! Yes, I own equipment that has microphone and cabinet modeling, but it's pro type equipment and not in the hands of the typical consumer. Tube amp and vinyl simulation would be much more mainstream.
You can already get the valve sound from solid state devices. See Nelson Pass’s designs. www.passlabs.com/ Nelson also publishes his designs for DIYers: www.passdiy.com/
Jonathan Sturm Don't agree with you 100%. I just traded a wonderful tube preamp for a set of incredible PASS phono and line stage preamp's and as wonderful as the PASS sounds there are still some sonic differences in the sound of my current system which makes me feel that I should've never sold my tube preamp but I won't be switching preamps in-and-out of my system. Fortunately I still have a tube power amp and the combination of the PASS pre's and mu Audio Research power amp sounds quite stunning through my Maggies.
I think most budget musicians figured that one out in the 90s when recording on the PC was cheap but the equipment to do so properly was still an arm and a leg.
Sure you can, guitar tube amps can be profiled and recreated with digital amps like the Kemper. And if it works for guitars, it works for the wole band. Not to mension the impulse responses used to simulate speaker cabinet /mic setups.
All recording mediums all stages all devices all passive components all conductors all cables all transducers etc are current noise generators/filters and the sound in the room is the resultant of the interactions of all these noise modifiers and hence the final sound signature of the system. Some noises subjectively play nice together and some don't and this is the reason for system 'synergy'. Devices such as the Bybee Purifier are relatively strongly effecting lumped current noise filters that define the sound of the system according to where they are placed in the system and are most effective when 'bounding' the system which means at power supply, signal source and final transducer. In the case of BQP the upstream generated noises are filtered and this defines the noise behaviours of downstream stages, however the BQP is not quite flat ie 'white' and causes a final or overiding signature of it's own. To this end I have developed a subjectively white filter method that defines the noise behaviours of systems rendering systems unreactive to signal embedded noise and bringing the listening experience directly to 'front of stage' and 3D space. I am also able to directly introduce vinyl sound into my digital system and as an interesting point this sound is directly dependent on the vinyl formulation/donor record used!....this is explanation for preferences for particular vinyl labels and editions......noteworthy is that vinyl formulations/recipes were closely guarded secrets including sources of the carbon black used. Now to the recorded vinyl sound question, yes vinyl and tube sounds are perfectly recordable and subjectively perfectly identifiable on systems treated using my method. Digital recordings of vinyl preserve the sound of the vinyl formulation and all the limitations of vinylsuch as limited snr tracing distortions rolled out/monoed lows frequency dependent limited dynamic range etc etc. Once 'digitalis' is removed vinyl transcriptions although subjectively pleasing really are the poor cousin in comparison to well recorded/mastered digital recordings and frankly sound like AM radio. Old ears have grown tired of nasty system sounds triggered by digital (digitalis) and vinyl source triggers different set of system behaviours that are subjectively less objectionable....this disparity need not be and when digitalis is deleted digital sound is far and away superior in every way. Typical/economical systems that meet standard criteria (FR SNR power envelope etc) are indeed good enough to produce convincing involving and pleasing sound when discordant behaviours are substantially reduced or eliminated by means of incorporation of lumped current noise filtering. Paul McG if you read this post you might like to get in touch. Thanks for your always interesting presentations.
I know some vinyls really sound great but whenever I purchased a new vinyl record (back in those days;) I immediately made a copy to casette. Even initially playing brand new vinyls wet you could still hear scratches on the recording. It's an awful medium to store information/data/music on.
Tube pre amps (particularly for mic), tape mastering, analogue desks are all widely used to get a more 'analogue' sound in the recording environment. I think the 'Brothers in Arms' album had some convoluted mastering process that illuminates the point(?). Many older AAD/ADD classical recordings (particularly EMI) are superb. On the other hand, CD recordings from my old LP12 are not good - almost like a caricature of the worst of vinyl. I also have a couple of CD's that are 'transcribed' from Vinyl by the record company - also not good. These are classical, which is inherently more suited to a digital replay medium imo - as is totally electronic music imo. I can't disbelieve Paul and Micheal - at what cost is the system responsible for this magic!? My own conclusion; capture tubes/tapes/analogue desks? - Yes! Vinyl? I suspect success is very dependent on both the material, and the equipment involved.
True, but even their cheapest players are out of my price range!... But yeah, I sure would love to have one of their top-end model high-resolution players! I certainly could do a LOT with one of those! (Too bad they cost so many thousands of dollars!)
To the one asking the question: Tubes are used everywhere in the recording and mixing process. Tube mics, mic stages, line stages, various guitar and bass amps, outboard compressors, tubed sum mixers etc.
Has the calm voice, but I’m not so sure about when he’d start raising his voice and start bible-thumping - might sound like an excerpt from “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. 🙂 I believe he’s given the impression that he’s not particularly a religious man, in any event.
Hi Paul. I just subscribed because I noticed electrostatics are being made again. I want to learn more about those and planars? and others. This video about digital recordings of records is strange. I feel more of a yes & no answer, because the nature of digital is to approximate, and compress into a format. Interesting to think of simulated hisses and pops, etc. But digital can never equal analog, even if it can fool the ear. My question is: why not just record from reel to reel tape? Why don’t they make tape recorders? Nowadays, you literally have bands recording onto their computers, with no care whatsoever regarding frequency response or compression formats, etc. So this may be entirely moot. I’ve never heard digital that was any good. Sorry people: no! You can’t squeeze a vinyl record out of a digital recorder, ever.
Well, the quick answer is tape recorders are becoming more scarce as time goes on and people lose interest. Also, tape has a maximum dynamic range of about 70dB where a standard digital recorder is about 100dB-30dB great dynamic range and that is only at 16 bits. At 24 bits the dynamic range of digital is off the charts. So digital does not "compress" as you suggest.
PS Audio Which uncompressed format and device are we talking about? Because literally every consumer format is lossy & compressed, and bands are commonly recording on lossy compressed formats. So, theoretically, with uncompressed, high bit rates, and perfect programming that records and simulates all sounds digitally, I’m sure you can make a decent secondary copy of a vinyl. But I still think the third copy onto audio tape would not be as good as an original copy onto an audiophile tape recorder, taking into account the dynamic ranges you report. In other words, a digital transfer does not improve upon the quality of the original, even if it is not adding artifacts. Can you please tell me the model numbers of the devices we are discussing here? In general, 99.9% of music is being sold & produced on lossy digital formats. I obviously can not name these companies and formats here. ;-)
I think one of these computers was the ENIAC which ultimately had 20,000 Vacuum tubes. Tube failures were a constant problem, but they got in down to about one tube failure every 2 days. The longest it ever operated without a failure was about 5 days
There is an old (1945) science fiction novel "The World of Null-A" by A.E. van Vogt where people were tested by the Machine to see if they qualified to join the ruling elite. The Machine was a giant computer the size of a skyscraper because it used vacuum tube technology. The point contact transistor was invented at Bell Labs in 1947, followed by the bi-polar transistor in 1948.
My fave playback method is listening to CDs with a tube pre & SE KT77 tube amp. The convenience of CDs and the warmth of tubes is a winning combo in my opinion
Mikeal B Tretow (ABBA:s )Recording engineer used tube microphones on their last record because he thought that the digital master-tape recorder had to hard S-sounds and that the Tube corrected.
Hello Paul. I really appreciate your chanel from Prague. Have you been updated this chapter? Iwould like to fine an AAD converter to record my vinyls. My setup is McIntosh, MT5, C2300 (and MC275). Thank you, I'm not sure if my post will reach you :)
Kind of over-simplified as different tube gear will not sound the same regardless of it's purpose and position in the recording and playback chains; ditto for different solid state gear. There are even single box components such as the Origin (You should like that name, Paul) STT-1 twin topology recording system from Millennia Music and Media Systems. In one double rack mount case you get both tube and discrete solid state mic preamps; tube and discrete solid state 4 band parametric equilizer; tube, discrete solid state, and passive compression (which purist you won't touch, it can be by-passed as can the equalizer) and much more . They claim more than 130 possible signal paths, all in the analog domain. And of course it will not sound the same as the Forsell Technologies SMP-2 (Class A discrete JFET with 48v phantom power; yeah, I looked it up) mic preamp for the Sanken CO-100[K] omni-directional condenser microphones or the Integer Audio RMP2 (discrete solid state signal amplification, but with an op-amp unity gain buffer and output driver; ditto) mic preamp for the AEA R88 stereo ribbon microphone that were used for the "Out Of Thin Air" album. Or the sound of, say, the Thermionic Culture Snow Petrel vacuum tube mic preamp (Radio Technique RTC5654/Svetlana EF86/Tung-Sol 6189; again ditto) which was designed for ribbon mics. All of the latter three are minimalist (mostly, the Snow Petrel does have an "Air" treble tone control) 2-channel microphone preamplifiers where-as the Origin STT-1 is an everything-but-the kitchen-sink 1 channel system. All are well regarded, none are inexpensive. Like hi-end audio, ya' pays yer money and makes yer choices. Options, options, options.
so could you then put that recording and "press" it onto a vinyl, and record that... making the result recording "double vinyl" sounding? ... and could you then take that and record it, "press" it onto a vinyl and so on... what does that make it? doesn't coloration = degradation
What's killing the perception of digital is remastering. People who grew up with a certain album want to hear it the way they heard it back then, not remastered or " improved" in any way. I want to hear the album with the songs in the same order, just as it was then, not changed in any way. Easily done with digital. Why they insist on remastering these things rather than simply digitizing them is beyond me. Digital recording is close to perfection at this point, it's easily done. It's a sales gimmick, and a bad one.
The distortion made by tube amps is already on lots of digital recordings. E.g. electric guitar music using tube amps to soft clip the signal is common. Likewise, the wow & flutter, distortion and noise from a vinyl playback can easily be recorded digitally for those who enjoy such artifacts.
@@ThinkingBetter The only “air conditioning” in my home is a wood burning cookstove that also heats the Great Hall. Because double glazing we need to open the French window to hear the sound of frogs, crickets, birds, cattle etc during the warmer weather of summer.
@behexen250 Yes, of course, studios often have a collection of "boxes" that can yield various sound effects and those can involve tubes. Personally I find this a bit silly as modern studios are digital already and a DSP can do a much preciser, optimizable and configurable job in whatever sound math your tube will yield like even harmonic distortion added near clipping level. Tubes age quickly, have large tolerances and need warm-up, which aren't great in a professional environment. No, there is nothing a tube can do to an audio signal that a modern DSP can't do better.
Really good digital stays very close to the truth. Very good vinyl is more comfortable for some to listen to. Same with 'tube sound.' When a listener becomes attuned to vinyl and/or tube sound, digital can sound brittle or harsh. Can you handle the truth? Like Scotch or Rum, you pick. Once you're settled into one, the other is unpleasant. Nothing is wrong with that; humans sense is based upon experience. When you become all evangelical about your taste is when things go off the rails. *Don't expect a Rum drinker to quickly get his taste around Scotch.* Neither is a hero; neither a villain.
Remember radio rips? Back when there was radio before the loudness war. It was great. They would play an uninterrupted album side one night and play the other side the next.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind No. Maybe it’s because I was the only DJ in Tasmania who played whole album sides. I had the midnight to dawn slot on Sunday nights at 92 FM. The station manager used to give me a hard time for not talking enough, but I figured my audience wanted to listen to music, not my dulcet tones. I imagine the record distributors would not have taken kindly to my making it easy to record their product. While the records played I used to dub the latest releases to cassette in the studio next to the one that was broadcasting.
@@jonathansturm4163 Yeah, the music industry came down on them for their little program that here they called "Record A Record." It was KZAP 98.5, a big powerhouse in the 1970's now recently revived with some of the original DJs but reduced to an LPFM on the "low end." They were always fairly freeform and are available online now as well, commercial free now, accepting donations. Still very good programming IMO.
I can imagine that statement raising an eyebrow with Micheal i.e. "digital captured his analogue turntable perfectly ... And his 200k plus TT played back that quality on his portable cassette player" What were you both drinking 😅
yes you can record it but it's just an interpretation of the sound. you can get very close to it that it make you think it's the same but theoritically it should be impossible cause the act of recording it's self changed the sound. like we need a quantum microphone hahahaha but then the act of recording the theoritical phonons changes the sound....
Hey Paul. I saw something on another RU-vid channel that I found interesting. Producers and recording engineers are starting to recreate analog sound even though the entire process is recording digital by adding compression and distortion that mimics traditional all analog recording. After watching this video, I was shocked at how much the sound changed. This video is here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-N3po6BF_SQ8.html
