I think they should have a home with Paul at PS audio so everyone on the tour can hear Mr. Nudell's artwork. Putting them in a private setting would be like taking the Mona Lisa and hanging it in some wealthy person's vacation home.
hey Dan!, im betting he wont, I tried to encode a 192khz pcm to DSD128, then play it back to my RME Babyface then redo again with a true DSD DAC... it's barely recognizable difference, worst thing is TASCAM DSD encoder made my 192khz 32bit track lower gain and added higher noise floor lol. and as I mentioned at my other person comment, PCM already surpassed DSD noise floor with 32bit and 64bit float at some DAW that supports it...
That's a great point about recordings. I always find them to be a "crapshoot" regardless if they are on LP, CD, Cassette or file format. Even today, to my ears, no format is king. It all depends on what the recording person did.
I think part of the digital mastering problem is a paradigm shift, in how people mix. Which is we haven't taught the younger generation of audio engineers all the tricks that where used during the analog era. The art form of using analog saturation and compression in the recording process really is a true art. Sadly it hasn't been passed on to the younger master and mix engineers. The problem often isn't the software so much as the lack of exposure and knowledge to mix like how we use to. When it comes to training mix engineers and recording engineers. The guidance isn't there anymore. The time constraints add to this problem. So many people want stuff cheap, and fast as possible. Which obviously has a negative effect. I fight with my bandmates all the time about understanding and placement of stuff in the mix, and appropriate saturation and compressions. Despite my having 15 years of experience in live engineering and recording. (Yeah i know not quite the same as studio work, Which I have some as well, just not on the same level) But yeah seriously can drive you bonkers.
Not only that, but I'm sure digital recording and mixing equipment work completely differently to analog equipment, so the old techniques and subtleties may be thrown out the window with the new equipment anyway, thus requiring an entirely new skillset, plus the time to develop it. Little wonder things have gone to pot. : /
@@HareDeLune Yeah completely agree there. the Difference between analog recording levels, and digital is huge. Only in the last year or two has it really become more demystified without spending years digging into it. I am glad I learned on analog first.
@@TheTsunamijuan Perhaps you have just hit upon the key! Like the difference between traditional and digital art. It is better to learn the basics the old fashioned way, using pencil, paper, paint, and canvas, before proceeding into the digital realm. If you immediately jump into the deep end of digital, something gets lost in translation. If the young'uns were taught how to do analog mixes first, it might improve everything across the board! Pun somewhat intended. : D
@@HareDeLune you might be right, I am one of those people that appreciate broad and as complete as possible understandings of things. So missing information not only drives me nuts. But makes me go deeper down the rabbit hole. Sadly the recording and music industry is heavily built around old wives tales and false understandings of way things really work. Making the growth of my bald spot that much larger :)
I love that you said crap shoot with vinyl Paul. Because with modern records, I have found that only maybe 30% of the vinyl I purchase (from top labels/plants/mastering engineers) has a sound quality that is commensurate with the price tag, and at the same time analogous with 60s-70s vinyl recordings.
Paul, why don't you buy the speakers from Arnie's family. You know more than anyone, what these mean. I'm very chocked that YOU didn't grab them right away....
@@wesw9586 So buy them. Why should we assume Paul wants to drop over $20k on a pair of speakers for sentimental value? That's quite presumptuous . He has IRS V's for Christ's sakes!
Digital can sound amazing (not what most of us have heard -- but the best digital, which is uncommon). Same is true for vinyl. Bang for the buck, digital wins. However: -- If you had a dream digital set-up... State of the art transport, state of the art DAC, and content recorded correctly (not overly processed or equalized or compressed), clean A/C power (critical of all digital components). vs. -- If you had a dream vinyl set-up... State of the art turntable, state of the art tone-arm, state of the art cartridge, all professionally dialed in (nearly no one does this): / setting the effective length of the tone-arm / setting the cartridge's weight / setting the vertical tracking alignment / rake angle / setting the anti-skating / setting the overhang / setting the offset / setting the zenith angle / setting the cartridge's azimuth / state of the art phono-amp ...and cherry picked, white hot stamper pressings, then... Vinyl wins. Bang for the buck, digital wins. Digital is far, far easier to set-up, and although digital can get crazy expensive, it pales in comparison to what the ultimate analog set-up costs. But when you get everything, and I mean everything, dialed in with vinyl, then nothing is better (other than the master tapes). I could be mistaken, but I suspect that, based on Paul's position on proper DSD mastering and his claim that it sounds best, well... I suspect that Paul has never heard a dream analog set-up, or at least not with cherry picked, white hot stamper pressings. Cheers!
I was hooked by Arnie's designs when in the 90's. A rep walked into the store that I worked in, we got chatting and he showed me a brochure. in amoungst his range of products wasInfinity speakers, I was taken back by the designs. I then took on the Car audio range. toon, I was hooked! Those Emit tweeters, WOW! I I still have a pair of Infinity Modulus satellite & Sub combination. Sadly the sub no longer works and is in need of repair. really wish I was able to afford such incredible speakers like these and the legacy that they represent. I never usually get jealous, but I am on this occasion.
I enjoy vinyl recordings of the 70's and 80's much more than most current offerings. There seems to be an 'edginess' in the latter, a bit like they try to imitate high resolution digital.. Let analogue be analogue. _That_ difference is what many of us like and enjoy.
I don’t think they’re getting more scarce. I personally think there are many wonderful sounding vinyl records being produced today. Just look at what people like Chad Kassem is doing at Analogue Productions, the Kevin Gray mastered Blue Note 80th series, Tone Poets, etc., Shane at Intervention Records, Impex, MoFi, etc., etc... I listen to 95% vinyl, and you just need to know what to look for and where to find it. Edit: The Abbey Road records are totally hit or miss. I don’t care if it was mastered digitally, as long as it sounds good.
If done correctly, if it's analog or digital you won't tell the difference. it comes down to technique and hardware . I've worked on songs that were recorded digitally and sound great. you do have guys out there that love to make things too loud, and that's when problems start occurring. I also mix this one song that was tracked using a studer a800 ,and there was so much noise. Some Engineers love it and some Engineers use saturation plugins to emulate that.
Some recordings of music you may never seen on a CD, so it is nice to have vinyl records. Simply another music source and very pleasant to listen to with properly aligned equipment.
Since I have been watching your show it rekindled my interest in sound and decided to break out some of my vinyls that are 56 years old. I bought them when I was 16 and have taken immaculate care of them. I destaticed and clean each one.before playing. I forgot how much good sound cane out of the records! They were flawless.The math tells me my CD collection has better sound but it’s fun to get in the LP time machine and venture back Tina special place andvtim
Thanks for the info. It is worth noting that many respectable recording engineers using ProTools and other digital recording tools use 3rd party converters and I/O’s to enhance the sound quality captured and reproduced in their studio with DAW’s. Companies like Apogee and Lynx Studio come to mind _ both companies make solid products.
Indeed, Pro Tools is ubiquitous and used by many great producers. It can sound quite good in the right hands. Still, that doesn't mean that it's the best. It is not.
@@farlonfudpucker6640 The reason for the 15 to 20 degree tracking angle for playback is that the cutting stylus is/was set to an angle. The two need to match. If the cutter was vertically straight, the optimum playback VTA would also be zero degrees. Cutting angles may vary depending on the specific lathe and its operator.
Paul, you're onto something here! I had HPs personal pair of Gen Vs after Accoustat 2 + 2 s with double servos. The 2+2s were better in my room. I now have M Shifters personal pair of 3.4s which are incredible
My latest acoustic miracle. A $5 full range driver in an oversize enclosure with an acoustic gap between rhe driver and enclosure. A little bass shy (a sub would remedy) but a nice warm sound anyway. The $5 FR driver has a small mod for extended top end, so no lack of treble (which is also boosted by the acoustic gap). Even with such cheap drivers I don't use any crossover filter. The driver is directly connected to the amp. Of course you can't crank the shit out of them but great lounge speakers for normal listening. The sound slope of the speaker is controlled solely by the driver position over the speaker hole. Amp is always flat. You would think it's shouty but the acoustic gap does it all, you can still (basically) have too much or not enough voice with the gap being changed.
I buy new vinyl, and old in fair condition, I'm also young. Now, I'm not lucky or mature enough to know what a new older pressing sounds like. But, my system being high resolving, I can say so many records I own have that real, lively analogue sound. And there are some that sound compressed and 'digital'. But I suppose it really depends what you're listening through... I've got a shibata mounted direct drive TT, going into a valve preamp, then into a small D amp w/tone control, speaker output into an RCA line converter, back into a big power amp, into JBL4311s with a ribbon tweeters.
Great message. The sooner the market shifts to DSD, the sooner I can buy all the old PCM CDs used on ebay. With the right gear, PCM can sound very good.
I had no knowledge of these issues between analogue and digital mastering. But I always prefer the sound reproduction from my 70s and 80s viynl compared to viynl bought in the last 5 years. So now I seek out good quality old viynl records.
When its a digital recording transferred to vinyl, it sounds like better digital (CD quality). For me, its not worth it. I only listen to vinyl that's 100% analog. If you haven't noticed, try listening to the CD versions of your 70s and 80s vinyl. Not remasters, just a simple transfer to digital. They usually say AAD on them. I think these are the best sounding CD's I have.
Those speakers are so pretty. I have a real thing for ones with a ton of drivers, visually speaking. I understand well enough, although superficially, how those designs work and that unless it is done just right the prospect of more drivers is meaningless and possibly counterproductive, that the demand on placement and room acoustics must be harsh (probably the biggest drawback for the buyer), but these speakers (in general too) just look so, so awesome. I mean, if you have the cold hard cash for these, buy them for the looks alone and even just display them (but treat them with respect, of course, so that Mr. Arnie may rest peacefully).
I have recorded music only once, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. Our drummer once opined that with his new turntable, he could hear the shape of the room. I personally think he could simply hear the room. With that one experience I had, I played my bass direct into the console, to the already recorded tracks. Everything was perfectly "quantized", locked to a never changing beat. The only instrument recorded in a room was the drums. Even those were sampled and manipulated digitally to change the played beats. This might be the producer's specific method, working with what he had in a small studio. But it was one of the things that soured me on the recording process. It left a clinical sound to the finished product. While recording and mastering methods might contribute to that, I do think that it is how systems like protools are used, not just that they are used.
I have largely had positive experiences with affordable - most likely digital - new remasters of old recordings. I guess the cutting process filters out most of the digital nasties that may be on the master.
Many CDs and files (even highres) are extremly dynamically compressed these days - popular music more, jazz (ECM for instance) and classical music less. The vinyl counterparts are mostly not (it's paradox!) A few years ago I talked to the sound engineer of "The Nits", a dutch popular band, which always produces quite a nice sound since 30 years+. The LP of their last album (which was only digitally available at this moment and, if not much, but still compressed) in the works, and I asked, if they are going to do that for the vinyl as well. The answer was very short: "No, why should we do that?"
@@filmnarr163 I am familiar with loudness war. I was just saying that the sound engineer you talked to is right, there is no need to compress a master for vinyl cutting as it is limited before entering the cutting head anyway, for instance a DMM Cutting-Head SX84 on a Neumann VMS-82. pure-analogue.com/the-cutting-lathe/
@@MrTalaue But at the end, the vinyl all to often has a lot more dynamics left than the digital offerings - and that is crazy in my opinion. Especially for people like me, who own expensive digital gear like PS Audio , this is hard to swallow...
@@filmnarr163 I don´t have digital gear, just analog, records and open reel as the sound is better, but dynamic range is far larger digital. Only 40dB with vinyl, 66dB with reel to reel and 120dB+ digital.
First question in determining whether or not you should invest in vinyl is to determine if there are any vinyl albums that interest you in the first place. If there are, figure out how many there are and ask yourself if you have the finances to build a good quality system. Once you have clearly defined what your vinyl system will look like and how you will enjoy it, then try to find a way to try out a vinyl system. Find a company that will give you a nice trial period with your gear and get a handful of high quality albums. THEN determine whether or not the system is worth it to you. Try seeing if you can't try out a high quality dac in the same price range and see how it compares. If at the end of the day you find out that you really like vinyl, cool. If not, that's fine too.
Hey Paul. At Octave what system are you using to mix in DSD? All I saw to mix on was the Studer desk. Also does anyone make plugins capable of processing DSD?
I believe all software and hardware based systems for mixing audio are only able to function using the PCM format. Using Roon, with the right d/a converter playing back a pcm file upsampled into the DSD format has many sonic advantages. Using the Roon media player with, Tidal, and my existing digital collection has an amazing sound. At this point, it's not just what converter are you using, more like do you have Roon, and do you know how to use it ;-) .
Gus Skinnas has become the custodian of the Sonoma system. It enables limited mixing and editing using a system called bit wide. People argue that this is really PCM - I have no idea myself.
Looking at these speakers, with the line of Emmitt tweeters and 4" midrange as well as the midbass side mounted woofers they probably sound pretty good they look a lot like infinity betas did back in the 90s.
Paul is stuck in 2000s... With todays processing power and software DSPs available ProTools sounds as good as any... DSD - Direct Stream Digital - is a generic PCM digital audio data format, but one that uses only one bit at a very high sample rate. The standard rate is 64 times 44.1kHz, which is 2.8224MHz. However, the standard DSD rate has long been argued as insufficient, and a higher DSD rate of 5.6448MHz is now offered by some recorders, including the Korg range. Most systems that claim DSD compatibility actually transcode the DSD audio to high‑resolution PCM (24/96 or 24/192, for example), do all the signal processing at that resolution, and then transcode the result back to DSD. So, no Paul, PCM doesn't sounds more "digital" than DSD... Also, who's gonna throw $25000 on a pair of 30 years old speakers that never made it to the production line?
Why would he sell his mentor’s personal and one of a kind reference speaker? Seems odd to me, but I’m a sentimental guy. Also, did I understand correctly that they come with all the power needed to drive them?
What a great question! Every band/Artist ive had the privilege to know in my life who have made releases on vinyl, all did so using PCM masters. Although the mix is slightly altered to better adhere to vinyl, I can personally atest that the records sound somehow better when put up against simply playing back digitally. One friend of mine even recorded his album in quad/surround and it worked perfectly playing the vinyl through a Dolby PL decoder!
@@MrTalaue Young enough I suppose.. Regardless, all analog studios have been more of a boutique/novelty thing in the past 10-15 years. If your a broke unknown or up and coming artist your recording in PCM and if you do put a release on vinyl its a low production, usually around 500 copies or so. Thats been my experience.
@@AllboroLCD Analog recording was not PCM, that is digital. Since I only listen to analog I haven´t bought new vinyl records the past 30 years except true analog NOS.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Yes I know about the long waiting lists, it's insane. Are you going to do a traditionally made mastering, a Direct Metal Mastering or a HD record?
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Sounds interesting. I hope it will be affordable, now that most quality records are going for hefty prices that sometimes even cross the 70 dollars.
Let’s take photography as a comparison. Pure analogue is taking a photo with analogue camera and film. Vinyl made from digital masters is like taking an analogue photo of a digital image. Kind of the same but different
film has resolution, sensibility and dynamic range just like digital. you could have a digital capture far exceeding the capabilities of certain films... as of now, digital audio has far surpassed analog in resolution... let's not confuse formats w/ mastering and mixing techniques/skill levels :}
Out of sheer curiosity, what DAW, if any, do you use in your recording, mixing and mastering process? Thank you for your avid dedication to sound fidelity🙏
Hi Paul, this vid and priors motivated me trying out DSD. So I took the time and relaxed to a DSD 512 (upsampled from DSD 256), a few recordings where Gus Skinas has breen involved in. Of course, all components have an influence, but I am truly amazed by 'the silentness with ease and dynamic space around and in instruments and vocals'. But does it not lead to curiousity into an format even better, perhaps even generation not converted bits but true waves? Theoretically this is imaginable...
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. So... He's actually not listening to DSD512 because it doesn't exist? Holy S**T you really have a problem with DSD don't you! I don't have any problem with PCM.
@@angelwars3176 remodulating is the better word, ty. Everybody should decide for themselves what sounds better, no ear, nor room, nor system, nor conditions are the same. If Cerastes does not hear any difference, I can and will only agree with him. I'm just thankful having heard my system sound at its best, to me.
@@edmaster3147 Thanks - I'm not criticising just trying to enlighten people of the difference between PCM and DSD. Check out the help section at NativeDSD.com and in particular Tom Caulfield and his brilliant and clear explanations of DSD and remodulation.
Speakers are beautiful and I am sure the sound is amazing. Family should auction the speakers with a minimum floor of $30,000 - I haven't as yet won the lottery?? Poor me 😢
Somebody needs to save those speakers for THE PUBLIC! The world should hear them rather than them being squirreled away in some private location. Please don't let them go.
Speakers are too close together for a proper listen, drives me nuts to keep looking at them. I mean unless that speaker you are leaning on is the center speaker in a 5.1 array (nope).
Why would you use analoge vinyl a to bring digital recorded music to the end user? Just keep it digital until it has to be amplified for the speakers. I am sure people who care can afford a decent DAC.
I agree. But I think this trend started back when CD was the main digital format. If you have a good turntable setup, digital recordings on vinyl sounded like better digital because you don't have the 16/44 cap, like on a CD. Personally, I don't feel the improvement is worth it. Also, there's another factor that's often overlooked. For a long time audiophiles were waiting for a better digital format than CD. Then we got DVD-A and SACD. They looked promising, especially SACD, but somewhere around 2005 Sony stopped support for the SACD format. People were pissed, and a lot of them went back to vinyl. For a while, you couldn't even buy a TT. The demand was so high, everyone was cleaned out. For the most part, that's how the current demand for vinyl got started.
@@asdqwe4468 I know its an emotional topic, but you're wrong on just about every issue. You need to do a little more research before you attempt a conversation. The answer to whatever your reply, is no. I'm not going to spend the night typing just so you can try to capitalize on anything bigger than a spelling mistake in order to try to win point. You'll say that anyway, so there's no reason for me to waste my time. I'm not trying to be an ass on purpose, but every conversation like this always goes the same way. That said, I'll give you some information to point you in the right direction. "CD has the better quality in every aspect. If you just like the sound of vinyl that's fine." That's a false statement. CD is fixed at 16/44. Vinyl is not. In context of this conversation, if you have a high res digital recording, it can be transferred to vinyl. What's different about analog, is resolution will vary depending on the quality of your playback gear. The better the system, the more you hear. "But if you follow the common definition of quality then vinyl is worse in everything." Do you look up the definition of a CD before you play it? "Get your ears checked and see which frequencies you can still hear. 16/44 is plenty and a lot more than most of the old hifi dudes can hear." So what if your hearing rolls off as you age? That's only 1 single aspect of what we hear, and you're confusing it with resolution. Do you have to have perfect vision to see the difference between DVD and Blue Ray? Same thing with audio. "SACD and the like was no success because nobody can hear the difference. It's just a waste of time and money. That's why it's not in production." That's an opinion based on a guess. The real story is quite different. SACD failed due to several factors. The largest was marketing. Also, in my opinion, it was a huge mistake for the format to specify both dual layer and single layer. They should have all been dual layer. That way people could have built their CD collections, with the option to upgrade to SACD with no additional cost.
If the digital recording has a super-audio sampling rate (approx 2.8mHz at one bit) it is going to sound really good. The CD is not as dynamic because the sample rate is 44.1khz. You can convert super-audio to analog and burn it to vinyl...it really is all about the sampling rate. Also 180g vinyl produced using original master tapes sound amazing and are definitely worth buying. Recording off the master tape eliminates any digital sampling and any digital to analog conversion. You will need a high-end record player to get the best sound. I use a Dual 704 or Thorens TD-224, but most of the record players made in 70s to mid-80s play very well because that's when the industry was strong and making good stuff, IMHO.
As dsd is a 1 bit stream it needs much higher sampling rates than PCM. That being said 44.1 is sometimes not good enough, but this has nothing to do with dynamics - it is often that the anti aliasing filter is too close of the audible band and if not properly designed it can sound like shit.
Actually in dsd there is very little processing that is doable, for ex. You cannot alter the gain of a dsd clip without converting it to PCM before. So it is very unlikely that any dsd record is actually """true""" dsd except for analog ports
If done correctly, vinyl sounds like vinyl. Which is why vinyl surged in popularity. The sterile perfection of digital and hifi was achieved decades ago (Brothers In Arms circa 1986 at a high end audio store; my mind was blown). Then, we wanted imperfection. Just my 2 cents.
Are people making music, sounding digital? Or are they souding, analog? How does a human sound? Just go somewhere and shout. Is what your hear digital? I really mean, how do you hear it? Digital or analog? I've heard digital on vinyl, some are doing it for me, but still the lust for analog is there.That's a thought. Retoric. Cheers to all of you here!
How can a vertical mouth a meter wide sound realistic? Technically great sound but not my cup of tea when it comes to acoustic source (but each to their own). Just saying. They look kool though. My theory is that as soon as you diverge from the classic box shape for enclosures it's (instantly) a complete nightmare!
I thought people preferred vinyl for its analog sound, isn't this just making it digital; if not normally it definitely is when transferring via Bluetooth.
I have to say I really love your insights Paul! But with this video you kind of lost me at @1:04 . I really can nit understand what is the added value of releasing on vinyl when everything is digital. So many conversions are taking place this way, and given that with every conversion some information is lost. I just cant believe that this can be the most efficient way to transport the audio.
It might be good to talk about the controversy with MOFI and their use of DSD. They got sued and lost because they had a digital step in the otherwise analog process. But the reason they did that was to deliver a vastly superior product. I think people really need to get their head around what DSD is and is not. I got it right off the bat and find it exasperating to talk to people who thing digital is digital. It is NOT, in the case of PCM and PDM. Even Sony knew way back when they introduced DSD as an archiving format that they coundn't release recordings without ecrypting them because they would be selling the actual master recording, otherwise. Do people realize the significance of that? Apparently not.
To some dsd is too soft with softened transients, while to others this is more natural. To my ears pcm is more "real" and exciting So each of us pick your thing
I have had my car 12 years, it looks brand new. I hate it when people lean against it. It worth about $6,000. But, that is probably just me being whiner.
Have been playing some DSD and comparing to the analog recordings on vinyl. Both are great. But the analog has that extra something special that reaches my heart in a way that DSD doesn't. It's a matter of person experience.
Regarding the speakers... if they have not been sold... why don't each of the 154 000 subscribers to this channel, pay $1.00, so that PS Audio can set them up in a room for people to come by and have a listen. I will probably never make it there, but just know that they and the IRS V are there for people to hear and enjoy, would be worth a donation.
Search around YT youll find videos of all analog first album pressings against newer digital re-masters on DMM disc and the results may astound some people.
Give The Beatles Abbey road 50th anniversary on vinyl a listen. I was blown away with the Quality. Sounds alot different than the original on account of the remix. if your open to a newer sound but at high quality, you'll love it.
Sadly most companies don't have the real passion and motivation to care beyond a certain sonic level...and the smaller scale home studio setups are often like a mixed box of chocolates occasionally great but more often disappointing. That's said there are great studios, producers and engineers that are passionate about capturing or mixing music to its best. Strangely it is more noticeable now that I stream, because with vinyl we used to buy between 4-10 albums a months and maybe 2 would be questionable. Yet streaming I can listen to 10 different artists in an evening or even more when say checking through recommendations...so its far more noticeable even though still in Hi-Res. Another things that seems a bit questionable is the digital remastered stuff... as some sound like they have been mixed and done by someone wearing boxing gloves and a hearing aid LOL.
It's never been worth buying vinyl since digital came along. What you really want is music mastered from analogue tape in 24 bit digital. That way you can really hear all the detail and frequency response captured on the tape. Unlike vinyl which has to have the highs and lows of the signal chopped off for the cutting process to work properly.
Thing is DSD 2.8mhz noise floor is terrible than just using a 96khz 32bit float which is pretty much the same equivalent. sooooo...... in the end, just get a better DAC then record and master it to 192khz/32bit which is pretty much the same as DSD5.6mhz, you wont gonna have any problem because back in the 90s towards to early 2000 24bit was the standard now a days you can even go 64bit with some daws and some Audio Interface can do 32bit recording. to be honest PCM already surpassed DSD in terms of noise floor capacity just look for it in the web. what makes vinyl record sounds digital to him is I bet it's because of the loudness war, and that's what is causing all of the crap shoot now a days
I suppose, but some people are catching on to some of the "interesting" things they're putting out. I was not at all happy with the 2020 Rush Permanent Waves box set.
Don't have to try very hard? I think they have a serious reputation to keep - Paul needs to listen to some of the Beatles remasters especially the 5.1 mixes.
I agree with Paul that SACD does sound better (if the recording is conceived from the get go in dsd), but the dsd has *ONE BIG PROBLEM* ...and that's it's very poor ability to reproduce bass well (because of the very high sampling rate). In fact the best bass reproduction is in order of quality Analog (vinyl) - PCM (Cd) - DSD (Sacd) Ask any recording engineer who's worked with all 3 formats and he can confirm.
The solution for that is to use much higher rate DSD (512/1024/2048). Standard rate DSD (DSD64) is just getting one's feet slightly wet into high-res digital audio. But the sky is the limit here with ever increasing sample rates and digital signal resolutions.
Ed Fort You got it backwards buddy 😂 Dsd64 already samples at *2.82 Mhz* that's *MEGA* , waaaay too high for a signal that's 30-40 Hz The higher you go with the sampling the worst the bass is. The best digital set-up running in tens of thousands of $ can't match the dynamics and slam of the bass coming from a 3k $ turntable. Trust me...I tried with my local hi-fi all the possible combos. Even a Rega P6 with a 500$ cartridge has a better bass than most digital front ends. It's just sounds like a drum, you can clearly hear the kick-drum in the mix...the separation. Digital bass sounds like, well, just bass Then again it will be foolish to even pretend that the *fractured/fragmented* reproduction (digital signal) of something that's *continuous* (analog signal) can be just as good. That's like trying to compare a hi-res digital *photo* of a painting vs the actual oil/canvas/brush painting.
@@SpaghettiKillah DSD64 &128 can already capture amazing low end from a double bass instrument let's say, albeit while still leaving plenty of room for improvement. The trouble is that there's no resolution room left to reproduce at the same detail and quality the sound coming from higher note instruments at the same time. I've heard incredible low end from a double bass in a DSD64 file, far better, deeper, rumbling and detailed than any CD song I've ever heard. You haven't heard quality recording in DSD format if you think the slam is missing from the bass. It's not. And it gets better with the higher sample rate (resolution).
What are you talking about? Even DSD64 can capture a far wider dynamic and frequency range than analogue. It can reproduce bass with no problem. Increasing the bit rate (NOT sample rate - DSD does not sample) allows the ultrasonic noise created from the process to be filtered out more gently which is a good thing but very subtle.
Angelwars Oh so you're not only ignorant but also trying to teach me something? 😂😂 How can you increase the bit when the *very definition* of the DSD (Sacd) files is a sequence of *1 bit* , yes *one* bit resolution at the sampled *frequency* of 2.82 Mhz which is x64 times higher than the cd, thus the name DSD64. Educate yourself before posting stupid things next time. You're confusing DSD with PCM.
It took skill to set up the boards in a recording studio and somone with very good ears to do it. Most of the ditigtal stuff is done with a computer and it dosntbtake as much skill. Now yes tape did make a difference But ditigtal music sounds systhnic analog dosnt. Ive recorded live bands With analog equipment and had it come out very close to what I listen to being played live. I didnt have an audio booth But I did have most the other items and mixing boards, mics are very important placement is also important So taking all this into account yes you can get a ditigtal recording that sounds like crap also a record that wasn't done good. A lot of it has to do with the sound engineers skill and equipment as well as technical knologe of sound and recording. And all this has to fit a speaker 1/2" round to 22" round with a 5.25 being the middle of the group. And what the band wants it to sound like. For all we know the drummer is tone deaf. He plays by big sound vers small sound. Dont belive me one band had a one arm drummer who kicked ass on the drums.
Oh brother...our digital recorded vinyl is better than other digital recorded vinyl. This is where I question audiophile reviews. Are ALL new vinyl pressings crappy? Can you recommend other modern studios making great pressings?
I think they should have a home with Paul at PS audio so everyone on the tour can hear Mr. Nudell's artwork. Putting them in a private setting would be like taking the Mona Lisa and hanging it in some wealthy person's vacation home.
I guess I'm kinda off topic but do anyone know of a good site to stream new movies online ?
@Dariel Baylor Flixportal :P
@Alberto Jackson Thanks, signed up and it seems like a nice service :) I really appreciate it !!
@Dariel Baylor glad I could help =)
I bet you couldn't pass an ABX test between DSD and PCM. Prove me wrong..?
hey Dan!, im betting he wont, I tried to encode a 192khz pcm to DSD128, then play it back to my RME Babyface then redo again with a true DSD DAC... it's barely recognizable difference, worst thing is TASCAM DSD encoder made my 192khz 32bit track lower gain and added higher noise floor lol. and as I mentioned at my other person comment, PCM already surpassed DSD noise floor with 32bit and 64bit float at some DAW that supports it...
Given that a new pair of Focal Utopias goes for 200k upwards, 25k sounds like a steal 😂
You could go with Sopra No3's too , if that's your taste.
I think you really wanted to frame the speakers, lol.
Those speakers are why I clicked on this vid😉
@@donde2k me too. hahaha
@@donde2k an thought I was the only one 😂😂😂😂
I kept scrolling up so I could see Paul's head
Also people stop turning CD's into Vinyl! Use the darn masters already!
Paul was clipping.
4dB hot!
That's a great point about recordings. I always find them to be a "crapshoot" regardless if they are on LP, CD, Cassette or file format. Even today, to my ears, no format is king. It all depends on what the recording person did.
Absolutely. -Way- too much emphasis on format; it’s really become a fetish.
"I just worry... I haven't listened to a recording..." Might be worth reserving judgement on Abbey Road until you've actually heard their output!
Digital is just the storage method. It's the A to D and the D to A that is important.
That's a nice contradiction you have there. :)
Hint: The 'D' in 'A to D and D to A' also stands for 'Digital'.
I think part of the digital mastering problem is a paradigm shift, in how people mix. Which is we haven't taught the younger generation of audio engineers all the tricks that where used during the analog era. The art form of using analog saturation and compression in the recording process really is a true art. Sadly it hasn't been passed on to the younger master and mix engineers. The problem often isn't the software so much as the lack of exposure and knowledge to mix like how we use to.
When it comes to training mix engineers and recording engineers. The guidance isn't there anymore. The time constraints add to this problem. So many people want stuff cheap, and fast as possible. Which obviously has a negative effect.
I fight with my bandmates all the time about understanding and placement of stuff in the mix, and appropriate saturation and compressions. Despite my having 15 years of experience in live engineering and recording. (Yeah i know not quite the same as studio work, Which I have some as well, just not on the same level) But yeah seriously can drive you bonkers.
Not only that, but I'm sure digital recording and mixing equipment work completely differently to analog equipment, so the old techniques and subtleties may be thrown out the window with the new equipment anyway, thus requiring an entirely new skillset, plus the time to develop it.
Little wonder things have gone to pot. : /
@@HareDeLune Yeah completely agree there. the Difference between analog recording levels, and digital is huge. Only in the last year or two has it really become more demystified without spending years digging into it. I am glad I learned on analog first.
@@TheTsunamijuan
Perhaps you have just hit upon the key!
Like the difference between traditional and digital art. It is better to learn the basics the old fashioned way, using pencil, paper, paint, and canvas, before proceeding into the digital realm.
If you immediately jump into the deep end of digital, something gets lost in translation.
If the young'uns were taught how to do analog mixes first, it might improve everything across the board!
Pun somewhat intended. : D
@@HareDeLune you might be right, I am one of those people that appreciate broad and as complete as possible understandings of things. So missing information not only drives me nuts. But makes me go deeper down the rabbit hole.
Sadly the recording and music industry is heavily built around old wives tales and false understandings of way things really work. Making the growth of my bald spot that much larger :)
@@TheTsunamijuan
I can relate, my friend! XD
I love that you said crap shoot with vinyl Paul. Because with modern records, I have found that only maybe 30% of the vinyl I purchase (from top labels/plants/mastering engineers) has a sound quality that is commensurate with the price tag, and at the same time analogous with 60s-70s vinyl recordings.
Hi my friend,,
you got us all dreaming,..
Not as long as I. have. A hole in my arse.. Love em tho...
Dang! If only I had the dough. Hold em for me, I'll get a summer job 😊😊😊😊😊
In my more enlightened moments I realize everything comes down to the mixing and the mics And then throw in the studio or recording space
yep. can't 'hifi' out a poor mix or recording.
@@mark_nz You can compensate with different speakers but obviously not everyone desires to do so.
@@ryacus I think the "sh*t in sh*t out" analogy applies here :)
@@ryacus you just can't. a bad recording is bad on any speaker. a bad mix is even worse :}
Badly recorded music sounds like crap whether it is analog or digital.
Paul, why don't you buy the speakers from Arnie's family. You know more than anyone, what these mean. I'm very chocked that YOU didn't grab them right away....
Because he's not a hoarder?
@@mmmbbq there's a difference between hoarding and collectibles. These might be the most significant speaker ever to not see production.
@@wesw9586 So buy them. Why should we assume Paul wants to drop over $20k on a pair of speakers for sentimental value? That's quite presumptuous . He has IRS V's for Christ's sakes!
This makes me wonder, is the dynamic range of DCs also lower than old vinyl?
Digital can sound amazing (not what most of us have heard -- but the best digital, which is uncommon).
Same is true for vinyl.
Bang for the buck, digital wins.
However:
-- If you had a dream digital set-up...
State of the art transport, state of the art DAC, and content recorded correctly (not overly processed or equalized or compressed), clean A/C power (critical of all digital components).
vs.
-- If you had a dream vinyl set-up...
State of the art turntable, state of the art tone-arm, state of the art cartridge, all professionally dialed in (nearly no one does this):
/ setting the effective length of the tone-arm
/ setting the cartridge's weight
/ setting the vertical tracking alignment / rake angle
/ setting the anti-skating
/ setting the overhang
/ setting the offset
/ setting the zenith angle
/ setting the cartridge's azimuth
/ state of the art phono-amp
...and cherry picked, white hot stamper pressings, then...
Vinyl wins.
Bang for the buck, digital wins.
Digital is far, far easier to set-up, and although digital can get crazy expensive, it pales in comparison to what the ultimate analog set-up costs.
But when you get everything, and I mean everything, dialed in with vinyl, then nothing is better (other than the master tapes).
I could be mistaken, but I suspect that, based on Paul's position on proper DSD mastering and his claim that it sounds best, well...
I suspect that Paul has never heard a dream analog set-up, or at least not with cherry picked, white hot stamper pressings.
Cheers!
I was hooked by Arnie's designs when in the 90's. A rep walked into the store that I worked in, we got chatting and he showed me a brochure. in amoungst his range of products wasInfinity speakers, I was taken back by the designs. I then took on the Car audio range. toon, I was hooked! Those Emit tweeters, WOW! I I still have a pair of Infinity Modulus satellite & Sub combination. Sadly the sub no longer works and is in need of repair.
really wish I was able to afford such incredible speakers like these and the legacy that they represent. I never usually get jealous, but I am on this occasion.
I enjoy vinyl recordings of the 70's and 80's much more than most current offerings.
There seems to be an 'edginess' in the latter, a bit like they try to imitate high resolution digital..
Let analogue be analogue. _That_ difference is what many of us like and enjoy.
Paul, ahem, and where are the new PS Audio speakers?? How about an update? Thanks, Ed.
There was one just the other week ua-cam.com/video/40iOdv6i1jE/v-deo.html
@@grymkaft Thank you! Just the info I needed.
They've lost the point anyway. Don't worry about them.
feeling waiting for a train that's not coming
I don’t think they’re getting more scarce. I personally think there are many wonderful sounding vinyl records being produced today. Just look at what people like Chad Kassem is doing at Analogue Productions, the Kevin Gray mastered Blue Note 80th series, Tone Poets, etc., Shane at Intervention Records, Impex, MoFi, etc., etc... I listen to 95% vinyl, and you just need to know what to look for and where to find it. Edit: The Abbey Road records are totally hit or miss. I don’t care if it was mastered digitally, as long as it sounds good.
If done correctly, if it's analog or digital you won't tell the difference. it comes down to technique and hardware . I've worked on songs that were recorded digitally and sound great. you do have guys out there that love to make things too loud, and that's when problems start occurring. I also mix this one song that was tracked using a studer a800 ,and there was so much noise. Some Engineers love it and some Engineers use saturation plugins to emulate that.
Some recordings of music you may never seen on a CD, so it is nice to have vinyl records. Simply another music source and very pleasant to listen to with properly aligned equipment.
Since I have been watching your show it rekindled my interest in sound and decided to break out some of my vinyls that are 56 years old. I bought them when I was 16 and have taken immaculate care of them. I destaticed and clean each one.before playing. I forgot how much good sound cane out of the records! They were flawless.The math tells me my CD collection has better sound but it’s fun to get in the LP time machine and venture back Tina special place andvtim
If you were to put those two speakers together, you’d have a perfect “bowling pin”.
Or a guitar case.
That's just like, your opinion man.
@@donny303 LIKE WOW
@@donny303 you're out of your element
Such audio systems. And such a beautiful area.
Where is it exactly?
Thanks for the info. It is worth noting that many respectable recording engineers using ProTools and other digital recording tools use 3rd party converters and I/O’s to enhance the sound quality captured and reproduced in their studio with DAW’s. Companies like Apogee and Lynx Studio come to mind _ both companies make solid products.
Indeed, Pro Tools is ubiquitous and used by many great producers. It can sound quite good in the right hands. Still, that doesn't mean that it's the best. It is not.
So Nudel’s reference only pair speakers even challenge the IRSVs??
The "sparkle" or lack of it could be due at least in part to a difference in vertical tracking angle (VTA) between older LPs and newer ones.
A phono cartridge has a specified VTA, but it sounds like you're saying that records have a VTA also. Please explain.
@@farlonfudpucker6640 The reason for the 15 to 20 degree tracking angle for playback
is that the cutting stylus is/was set to an angle. The two need to match.
If the cutter was vertically straight, the optimum playback VTA would also be zero degrees.
Cutting angles may vary depending on the specific lathe and its operator.
Arnie Nudell and Jim Thiel were true greats.
Paul, you're onto something here! I had HPs personal pair of Gen Vs after Accoustat 2 + 2 s with double servos. The 2+2s were better in my room. I now have M Shifters personal pair of 3.4s which are incredible
My latest acoustic miracle. A $5 full range driver in an oversize enclosure with an acoustic gap between rhe driver and enclosure. A little bass shy (a sub would remedy) but a nice warm sound anyway. The $5 FR driver has a small mod for extended top end, so no lack of treble (which is also boosted by the acoustic gap). Even with such cheap drivers I don't use any crossover filter. The driver is directly connected to the amp. Of course you can't crank the shit out of them but great lounge speakers for normal listening. The sound slope of the speaker is controlled solely by the driver position over the speaker hole. Amp is always flat. You would think it's shouty but the acoustic gap does it all, you can still (basically) have too much or not enough voice with the gap being changed.
WHAT?
What ever happened of PS Audio's line of speakers based on Arnie's and Pauls collaborative efforts which these were the reference??
I buy new vinyl, and old in fair condition, I'm also young. Now, I'm not lucky or mature enough to know what a new older pressing sounds like.
But, my system being high resolving, I can say so many records I own have that real, lively analogue sound. And there are some that sound compressed and 'digital'.
But I suppose it really depends what you're listening through...
I've got a shibata mounted direct drive TT, going into a valve preamp, then into a small D amp w/tone control, speaker output into an RCA line converter, back into a big power amp, into JBL4311s with a ribbon tweeters.
Great message. The sooner the market shifts to DSD, the sooner I can buy all the old PCM CDs used on ebay. With the right gear, PCM can sound very good.
I had no knowledge of these issues between analogue and digital mastering. But I always prefer the sound reproduction from my 70s and 80s viynl compared to viynl bought in the last 5 years. So now I seek out good quality old viynl records.
When its a digital recording transferred to vinyl, it sounds like better digital (CD quality). For me, its not worth it. I only listen to vinyl that's 100% analog.
If you haven't noticed, try listening to the CD versions of your 70s and 80s vinyl. Not remasters, just a simple transfer to digital. They usually say AAD on them. I think these are the best sounding CD's I have.
Those speakers are so pretty. I have a real thing for ones with a ton of drivers, visually speaking. I understand well enough, although superficially, how those designs work and that unless it is done just right the prospect of more drivers is meaningless and possibly counterproductive, that the demand on placement and room acoustics must be harsh (probably the biggest drawback for the buyer), but these speakers (in general too) just look so, so awesome. I mean, if you have the cold hard cash for these, buy them for the looks alone and even just display them (but treat them with respect, of course, so that Mr. Arnie may rest peacefully).
I have recorded music only once, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
Our drummer once opined that with his new turntable, he could hear the shape of the room. I personally think he could simply hear the room. With that one experience I had, I played my bass direct into the console, to the already recorded tracks. Everything was perfectly "quantized", locked to a never changing beat. The only instrument recorded in a room was the drums. Even those were sampled and manipulated digitally to change the played beats.
This might be the producer's specific method, working with what he had in a small studio. But it was one of the things that soured me on the recording process. It left a clinical sound to the finished product.
While recording and mastering methods might contribute to that, I do think that it is how systems like protools are used, not just that they are used.
I have largely had positive experiences with affordable - most likely digital - new remasters of old recordings. I guess the cutting process filters out most of the digital nasties that may be on the master.
Many CDs and files (even highres) are extremly dynamically compressed these days - popular music more, jazz (ECM for instance) and classical music less. The vinyl counterparts are mostly not (it's paradox!) A few years ago I talked to the sound engineer of "The Nits", a dutch popular band, which always produces quite a nice sound since 30 years+. The LP of their last album (which was only digitally available at this moment and, if not much, but still compressed) in the works, and I asked, if they are going to do that for the vinyl as well. The answer was very short: "No, why should we do that?"
His answer is correct, the vinyl cutting process includes compression in itself.
@@MrTalaue Compare here dr.loudness-war.info/ many CDs with their Vinyl counterparts - You will be surprised...
@@filmnarr163 I am familiar with loudness war. I was just saying that the sound engineer you talked to is right, there is no need to compress a master for vinyl cutting as it is limited before entering the cutting head anyway, for instance a DMM Cutting-Head SX84 on a Neumann VMS-82. pure-analogue.com/the-cutting-lathe/
@@MrTalaue But at the end, the vinyl all to often has a lot more dynamics left than the digital offerings - and that is crazy in my opinion. Especially for people like me, who own expensive digital gear like PS Audio , this is hard to swallow...
@@filmnarr163 I don´t have digital gear, just analog, records and open reel as the sound is better, but dynamic range is far larger digital. Only 40dB with vinyl, 66dB with reel to reel and 120dB+ digital.
First question in determining whether or not you should invest in vinyl is to determine if there are any vinyl albums that interest you in the first place. If there are, figure out how many there are and ask yourself if you have the finances to build a good quality system. Once you have clearly defined what your vinyl system will look like and how you will enjoy it, then try to find a way to try out a vinyl system. Find a company that will give you a nice trial period with your gear and get a handful of high quality albums. THEN determine whether or not the system is worth it to you. Try seeing if you can't try out a high quality dac in the same price range and see how it compares. If at the end of the day you find out that you really like vinyl, cool. If not, that's fine too.
Hey Paul. At Octave what system are you using to mix in DSD? All I saw to mix on was the Studer desk. Also does anyone make plugins capable of processing DSD?
I believe all software and hardware based systems for mixing audio are only able to function using the PCM format. Using Roon, with the right d/a converter playing back a pcm file upsampled into the DSD format has many sonic advantages. Using the Roon media player with, Tidal, and my existing digital collection has an amazing sound. At this point, it's not just what converter are you using, more like do you have Roon, and do you know how to use it ;-) .
@@marko1970 Given that it is a PCM file what kind of bit depth and sample rate are you looking at then?
Gus Skinnas has become the custodian of the Sonoma system. It enables limited mixing and editing using a system called bit wide. People argue that this is really PCM - I have no idea myself.
Looking at these speakers, with the line of Emmitt tweeters and 4" midrange as well as the midbass side mounted woofers they probably sound pretty good they look a lot like infinity betas did back in the 90s.
Do I detect a lack of headroom?
😁
Nice looking speakers.
Cello inspired?
Can't believe you'd part with them!
Those should be auctioned off, to get the best price for the Nudell family. $30k seems low.
Put them on ebay and promote it from Paul's channel.
Paul is stuck in 2000s...
With todays processing power and software DSPs available ProTools sounds as good as any...
DSD - Direct Stream Digital - is a generic PCM digital audio data format, but one that uses only one bit at a very high sample rate. The standard rate is 64 times 44.1kHz, which is 2.8224MHz. However, the standard DSD rate has long been argued as insufficient, and a higher DSD rate of 5.6448MHz is now offered by some recorders, including the Korg range.
Most systems that claim DSD compatibility actually transcode the DSD audio to high‑resolution PCM (24/96 or 24/192, for example), do all the signal processing at that resolution, and then transcode the result back to DSD.
So, no Paul, PCM doesn't sounds more "digital" than DSD...
Also, who's gonna throw $25000 on a pair of 30 years old speakers that never made it to the production line?
Why would he sell his mentor’s personal and one of a kind reference speaker? Seems odd to me, but I’m a sentimental guy. Also, did I understand correctly that they come with all the power needed to drive them?
The guy has no sense of loyalty (or *any* other). Just ask his former partner, Stan Warren!
@@digggerrjones7345 oh 😳
Someone from the Nudell family should have those speakers.
$30k might be more important right now. Most audio innovators did get rich in this niche industry.
Those speakers look pretty crazy
I can see how these influenced your speakers
Would like to DIY those speakers
What a great question! Every band/Artist ive had the privilege to know in my life who have made releases on vinyl, all did so using PCM masters. Although the mix is slightly altered to better adhere to vinyl, I can personally atest that the records sound somehow better when put up against simply playing back digitally. One friend of mine even recorded his album in quad/surround and it worked perfectly playing the vinyl through a Dolby PL decoder!
You must be very young...
@@MrTalaue Young enough I suppose.. Regardless, all analog studios have been more of a boutique/novelty thing in the past 10-15 years. If your a broke unknown or up and coming artist your recording in PCM and if you do put a release on vinyl its a low production, usually around 500 copies or so. Thats been my experience.
@@AllboroLCD Analog recording was not PCM, that is digital. Since I only listen to analog I haven´t bought new vinyl records the past 30 years except true analog NOS.
@@MrTalaue I implore you to pick up an album you own thats also available in Direct Metal Master "DMM" Disc and do a comparison.
I want to buy the speakers all right... just wish I could
When will you release your music on vinyl?
We hope this summer. Production of vinyl is backed up like crazy and we're trying.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Yes I know about the long waiting lists, it's insane.
Are you going to do a traditionally made mastering, a Direct Metal Mastering or a HD record?
@@QoraxAudio More traditional 180 gram virgin vinyl with lacquers and metal masters.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Sounds interesting.
I hope it will be affordable, now that most quality records are going for hefty prices that sometimes even cross the 70 dollars.
Let’s take photography as a comparison. Pure analogue is taking a photo with analogue camera and film. Vinyl made from digital masters is like taking an analogue photo of a digital image. Kind of the same but different
film has resolution, sensibility and dynamic range just like digital. you could have a digital capture far exceeding the capabilities of certain films...
as of now, digital audio has far surpassed analog in resolution... let's not confuse formats w/ mastering and mixing techniques/skill levels :}
Out of sheer curiosity, what DAW, if any, do you use in your recording, mixing and mastering process?
Thank you for your avid dedication to sound fidelity🙏
PS Audio should buy those speakers. Part of your history.
Hi Paul, this vid and priors motivated me trying out DSD. So I took the time and relaxed to a DSD 512 (upsampled from DSD 256), a few recordings where Gus Skinas has breen involved in. Of course, all components have an influence, but I am truly amazed by 'the silentness with ease and dynamic space around and in instruments and vocals'. But does it not lead to curiousity into an format even better, perhaps even generation not converted bits but true waves? Theoretically this is imaginable...
@Ed Master: Would like to point out that DSD has been an obsolete format for decades now ... and it sounds exactly the same as PCM.
To be accurate it's been remodulated up to DSD512, DSD doesn't use samples it works with bit rates.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. So... He's actually not listening to DSD512 because it doesn't exist? Holy S**T you really have a problem with DSD don't you! I don't have any problem with PCM.
@@angelwars3176 remodulating is the better word, ty. Everybody should decide for themselves what sounds better, no ear, nor room, nor system, nor conditions are the same. If Cerastes does not hear any difference, I can and will only agree with him. I'm just thankful having heard my system sound at its best, to me.
@@edmaster3147 Thanks - I'm not criticising just trying to enlighten people of the difference between PCM and DSD. Check out the help section at NativeDSD.com and in particular Tom Caulfield and his brilliant and clear explanations of DSD and remodulation.
Speakers are beautiful and I am sure the sound is amazing. Family should auction the speakers with a minimum floor of $30,000 - I haven't as yet won the lottery?? Poor me 😢
I would suspect those speakers have sold 10x’s over since the video was posted 5 hours ago.
I would bet against that.
Somebody needs to save those speakers for THE PUBLIC! The world should hear them rather than them being squirreled away in some private location. Please don't let them go.
Jeez there is alot goin on with those speakers, To get all that to align
Ethan Winer and Paul are the definitive #ANSWER
Speakers are too close together for a proper listen, drives me nuts to keep looking at them. I mean unless that speaker you are leaning on is the center speaker in a 5.1 array (nope).
For display here I would say
Why would you use analoge vinyl a to bring digital recorded music to the end user? Just keep it digital until it has to be amplified for the speakers. I am sure people who care can afford a decent DAC.
I agree. But I think this trend started back when CD was the main digital format. If you have a good turntable setup, digital recordings on vinyl sounded like better digital because you don't have the 16/44 cap, like on a CD. Personally, I don't feel the improvement is worth it.
Also, there's another factor that's often overlooked. For a long time audiophiles were waiting for a better digital format than CD. Then we got DVD-A and SACD. They looked promising, especially SACD, but somewhere around 2005 Sony stopped support for the SACD format. People were pissed, and a lot of them went back to vinyl. For a while, you couldn't even buy a TT. The demand was so high, everyone was cleaned out. For the most part, that's how the current demand for vinyl got started.
@@asdqwe4468 I know its an emotional topic, but you're wrong on just about every issue. You need to do a little more research before you attempt a conversation.
The answer to whatever your reply, is no. I'm not going to spend the night typing just so you can try to capitalize on anything bigger than a spelling mistake in order to try to win point. You'll say that anyway, so there's no reason for me to waste my time.
I'm not trying to be an ass on purpose, but every conversation like this always goes the same way. That said, I'll give you some information to point you in the right direction.
"CD has the better quality in every aspect. If you just like the sound of vinyl that's fine."
That's a false statement. CD is fixed at 16/44. Vinyl is not. In context of this conversation, if you have a high res digital recording, it can be transferred to vinyl. What's different about analog, is resolution will vary depending on the quality of your playback gear. The better the system, the more you hear.
"But if you follow the common definition of quality then vinyl is worse in everything."
Do you look up the definition of a CD before you play it?
"Get your ears checked and see which frequencies you can still hear. 16/44 is plenty and a lot more than most of the old hifi dudes can hear."
So what if your hearing rolls off as you age? That's only 1 single aspect of what we hear, and you're confusing it with resolution. Do you have to have perfect vision to see the difference between DVD and Blue Ray? Same thing with audio.
"SACD and the like was no success because nobody can hear the difference. It's just a waste of time and money. That's why it's not in production."
That's an opinion based on a guess. The real story is quite different. SACD failed due to several factors. The largest was marketing. Also, in my opinion, it was a huge mistake for the format to specify both dual layer and single layer. They should have all been dual layer. That way people could have built their CD collections, with the option to upgrade to SACD with no additional cost.
If the digital recording has a super-audio sampling rate (approx 2.8mHz at one bit) it is going to sound really good. The CD is not as dynamic because the sample rate is 44.1khz. You can convert super-audio to analog and burn it to vinyl...it really is all about the sampling rate. Also 180g vinyl produced using original master tapes sound amazing and are definitely worth buying. Recording off the master tape eliminates any digital sampling and any digital to analog conversion. You will need a high-end record player to get the best sound. I use a Dual 704 or Thorens TD-224, but most of the record players made in 70s to mid-80s play very well because that's when the industry was strong and making good stuff, IMHO.
As dsd is a 1 bit stream it needs much higher sampling rates than PCM. That being said 44.1 is sometimes not good enough, but this has nothing to do with dynamics - it is often that the anti aliasing filter is too close of the audible band and if not properly designed it can sound like shit.
Watch out for those Ribbons Paul~
Actually in dsd there is very little processing that is doable, for ex. You cannot alter the gain of a dsd clip without converting it to PCM before. So it is very unlikely that any dsd record is actually """true""" dsd except for analog ports
If done correctly, vinyl sounds like vinyl. Which is why vinyl surged in popularity. The sterile perfection of digital and hifi was achieved decades ago (Brothers In Arms circa 1986 at a high end audio store; my mind was blown). Then, we wanted imperfection. Just my 2 cents.
Are people making music, sounding digital? Or are they souding, analog? How does a human sound? Just go somewhere and shout. Is what your hear digital? I really mean, how do you hear it? Digital or analog? I've heard digital on vinyl, some are doing it for me, but still the lust for analog is there.That's a thought. Retoric. Cheers to all of you here!
Looks a lot like the Genesis 7.1 floor standing speakers.
Now I really want to encode pcm data onto an LP just to make people mad
I would love to get one of your recordings.
30k USD is a great price for those!!!
How can a vertical mouth a meter wide sound realistic? Technically great sound but not my cup of tea when it comes to acoustic source (but each to their own). Just saying. They look kool though. My theory is that as soon as you diverge from the classic box shape for enclosures it's (instantly) a complete nightmare!
Miles at Abbey Roads mastering new vinyl reissue records sound like CRAP
I thought people preferred vinyl for its analog sound, isn't this just making it digital; if not normally it definitely is when transferring via Bluetooth.
I have to say I really love your insights Paul! But with this video you kind of lost me at @1:04 . I really can nit understand what is the added value of releasing on vinyl when everything is digital. So many conversions are taking place this way, and given that with every conversion some information is lost. I just cant believe that this can be the most efficient way to transport the audio.
It might be good to talk about the controversy with MOFI and their use of DSD. They got sued and lost because they had a digital step in the otherwise analog process. But the reason they did that was to deliver a vastly superior product. I think people really need to get their head around what DSD is and is not. I got it right off the bat and find it exasperating to talk to people who thing digital is digital. It is NOT, in the case of PCM and PDM. Even Sony knew way back when they introduced DSD as an archiving format that they coundn't release recordings without ecrypting them because they would be selling the actual master recording, otherwise. Do people realize the significance of that? Apparently not.
To some dsd is too soft with softened transients, while to others this is more natural.
To my ears pcm is more "real" and exciting
So each of us pick your thing
Paul should read book on tape. I could listen to him talk all day
That's very kind. Actually, I did. Both my memoirs, 99% True, as well as my Eat Diet book are both available as audio books with me reading them.
I have had my car 12 years, it looks brand new. I hate it when people lean against it. It worth about $6,000. But, that is probably just me being whiner.
Nice unique looking speakers
Walnut will look great
I like the idea line array and sub combo
Have been playing some DSD and comparing to the analog recordings on vinyl. Both are great. But the analog has that extra something special that reaches my heart in a way that DSD doesn't. It's a matter of person experience.
Regarding the speakers... if they have not been sold... why don't each of the 154 000 subscribers to this channel, pay $1.00, so that PS Audio can set them up in a room for people to come by and have a listen. I will probably never make it there, but just know that they and the IRS V are there for people to hear and enjoy, would be worth a donation.
Many people like/enjoy the 'distortion' one gets from 100% analog recordings (and Tubes for that matter)
I prefer it to digital distortion.
Search around YT youll find videos of all analog first album pressings against newer digital re-masters on DMM disc and the results may astound some people.
I can't find the YT web or videos. Can you help me with this? thank you
@@xaviborrell9078 ua-cam.com/video/kSPKS-DvSL0/v-deo.html
Give The Beatles Abbey road 50th anniversary on vinyl a listen. I was blown away with the Quality. Sounds alot different than the original on account of the remix. if your open to a newer sound but at high quality, you'll love it.
Sadly most companies don't have the real passion and motivation to care beyond a certain sonic level...and the smaller scale home studio setups are often like a mixed box of chocolates occasionally great but more often disappointing.
That's said there are great studios, producers and engineers that are passionate about capturing or mixing music to its best.
Strangely it is more noticeable now that I stream, because with vinyl we used to buy between 4-10 albums a months and maybe 2 would be questionable. Yet streaming I can listen to 10 different artists in an evening or even more when say checking through recommendations...so its far more noticeable even though still in Hi-Res.
Another things that seems a bit questionable is the digital remastered stuff... as some sound like they have been mixed and done by someone wearing boxing gloves and a hearing aid LOL.
Paul, Why not auction these off from PS audio, starting bid $20K ????? Highest bidder takes them all !!!!
It's never been worth buying vinyl since digital came along. What you really want is music mastered from analogue tape in 24 bit digital. That way you can really hear all the detail and frequency response captured on the tape. Unlike vinyl which has to have the highs and lows of the signal chopped off for the cutting process to work properly.
Aside from the fact that artists signed off on vinyl test pressings as the final finished version?
Those speakers are absolutely beautiful. If I had the money, I’d buy em in a second! They’re also a part of HiFi history.
Imagine owning Peter Walker's Quad ESL 57 electrostatics.
I'm from Lincoln England too
Octave records.....OK so are you remastering old analog records from tape or vinyl sources with DSD? The source is everything....
Thing is DSD 2.8mhz noise floor is terrible than just using a 96khz 32bit float which is pretty much the same equivalent.
sooooo...... in the end, just get a better DAC then record and master it to 192khz/32bit which is pretty much the same as DSD5.6mhz, you wont gonna have any problem because back in the 90s towards to early 2000 24bit was the standard now a days you can even go 64bit with some daws and some Audio Interface can do 32bit recording. to be honest PCM already surpassed DSD in terms of noise floor capacity just look for it in the web. what makes vinyl record sounds digital to him is I bet it's because of the loudness war, and that's what is causing all of the crap shoot now a days
No, we don't do remastering. Octave Records is all new material recorded onto DSD.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Thanks!
It's too bad they don't have to try very hard at Abbey studios anymore because of their well known name.
I suppose, but some people are catching on to some of the "interesting" things they're putting out. I was not at all happy with the 2020 Rush Permanent Waves box set.
@Doug Sawyer Sucks, but I'm just giving an example of something Abbey Road hasn't done a great job of.
Don't have to try very hard? I think they have a serious reputation to keep - Paul needs to listen to some of the Beatles remasters especially the 5.1 mixes.
I agree with Paul that SACD does sound better (if the recording is conceived from the get go in dsd), but the dsd has *ONE BIG PROBLEM* ...and that's it's very poor ability to reproduce bass well (because of the very high sampling rate).
In fact the best bass reproduction is in order of quality Analog (vinyl) - PCM (Cd) - DSD (Sacd)
Ask any recording engineer who's worked with all 3 formats and he can confirm.
The solution for that is to use much higher rate DSD (512/1024/2048).
Standard rate DSD (DSD64) is just getting one's feet slightly wet into high-res digital audio. But the sky is the limit here with ever increasing sample rates and digital signal resolutions.
Ed Fort
You got it backwards buddy 😂
Dsd64 already samples at *2.82 Mhz* that's *MEGA* , waaaay too high for a signal that's 30-40 Hz
The higher you go with the sampling the worst the bass is.
The best digital set-up running in tens of thousands of $ can't match the dynamics and slam of the bass coming from a 3k $ turntable.
Trust me...I tried with my local hi-fi all the possible combos. Even a Rega P6 with a 500$ cartridge has a better bass than most digital front ends. It's just sounds like a drum, you can clearly hear the kick-drum in the mix...the separation.
Digital bass sounds like, well, just bass
Then again it will be foolish to even pretend that the *fractured/fragmented* reproduction (digital signal) of something that's *continuous* (analog signal) can be just as good.
That's like trying to compare a hi-res digital *photo* of a painting vs the actual oil/canvas/brush painting.
@@SpaghettiKillah DSD64 &128 can already capture amazing low end from a double bass instrument let's say, albeit while still leaving plenty of room for improvement.
The trouble is that there's no resolution room left to reproduce at the same detail and quality the sound coming from higher note instruments at the same time.
I've heard incredible low end from a double bass in a DSD64 file, far better, deeper, rumbling and detailed than any CD song I've ever heard.
You haven't heard quality recording in DSD format if you think the slam is missing from the bass. It's not. And it gets better with the higher sample rate (resolution).
What are you talking about? Even DSD64 can capture a far wider dynamic and frequency range than analogue. It can reproduce bass with no problem. Increasing the bit rate (NOT sample rate - DSD does not sample) allows the ultrasonic noise created from the process to be filtered out more gently which is a good thing but very subtle.
Angelwars
Oh so you're not only ignorant but also trying to teach me something? 😂😂
How can you increase the bit when the *very definition* of the DSD (Sacd) files is a sequence of *1 bit* , yes *one* bit resolution at the sampled *frequency* of 2.82 Mhz which is x64 times higher than the cd, thus the name DSD64.
Educate yourself before posting stupid things next time.
You're confusing DSD with PCM.
It took skill to set up the boards in a recording studio and somone with very good ears to do it.
Most of the ditigtal stuff is done with a computer and it dosntbtake as much skill.
Now yes tape did make a difference
But ditigtal music sounds systhnic analog dosnt. Ive recorded live bands
With analog equipment and had it come out very close to what I listen to being played live. I didnt have an audio booth
But I did have most the other items and mixing boards, mics are very important placement is also important
So taking all this into account yes you can get a ditigtal recording that sounds like crap also a record that wasn't done good. A lot of it has to do with the sound engineers skill and equipment as well as technical knologe of sound and recording. And all this has to fit a speaker 1/2" round to 22" round with a 5.25 being the middle of the group.
And what the band wants it to sound like.
For all we know the drummer is tone deaf. He plays by big sound vers small sound. Dont belive me one band had a one arm drummer who kicked ass on the drums.
What 30 K $ ??? No thank you very much . For that kind of money I can close my eyes and get the KEF's Blades Two .
them speakers though... mwaahh
Oh brother...our digital recorded vinyl is better than other digital recorded vinyl. This is where I question audiophile reviews. Are ALL new vinyl pressings crappy? Can you recommend other modern studios making great pressings?
Except for nostalgia, what's the point of buying vinyl? That's a real question, not just rhetorical.