It's not one or the other, it's both. Quality of musical reproduction, in all its aspects, allows for a greater degree of emotional involvement that the music that resonates with us can evoke in the listener. If that were not so, we never would have advanced beyond Edison's recording and playback equipment. The all too common pitfall is in falling into the trap of an unending pursuit of 'just a bit better gear' of gear that purports to offer to usher us into an imagined magical moment that we can repeat at will. Just as wisdom starts with acceptance of our ignorance, so too does musical enjoyment start with appreciating what we have and the enemy of appreciation is wanting 'more'... but with 'more' never being quite enough.
Very good comment, observations! I totally concur. It is the balance of resolution and integrity, and not just one of them. I am stressing the importance of the musical integrity in my videos, because I noticed that if I do anything less, people take no notice at all and miss it entirely. When we enter into a discussion about it, then it will gain traction a lot stronger. And, of course, it is very personal what the balance means for one person... as even for a person, that balance changes from time to time, from mood to mood, year by year. And that's all right, as long as we are aware of the process and can consciously tap into it to fine tune our system to our needs.
The subjects you cover have bugged me for decades. Your insight has really helped me. The most valuable lesson, for me, is to pursue what gives the most dramatic meaningful emotional experience. Thank you.
Hey, Janos. I very much enjoy your longer vids, so thank you for taking the time to do so. I’m sure I’m not the only one who appreciates it. I’m glad you checked out Romy The Cat’s channel. I like his delivery, and hie certainly has a lot of experience and knowledge regarding audio. I’d love to hear those huge beautiful horns behind him. He’s got a great website he’s had for many years at this point too. It’s interesting how Harry Pearson took descriptive words from photography and applied it to audio. I have to admit that I never fully put the two together until recently. I knew they used similar words, but not to that degree. Thank you for the kind words as well. It really means a lot, especially coming from someone such as yourself, of whose opinion I very much respect. Please tell Kintaro and Machi I send my best…🐱🐱🎶😊💜
What I put recently together, is that in photography they never fall under the illusion that the photograph is equivalent to the real thing that was photographed... while in audio everyone is talking about the reproduction being just like the real thing... I think the recording does for the ears what the photo does for the eyes. Yet, the sound is always more evocative of the imagination and that leads us to think it is real, or, close to real... and we never think that portrait is a real human no matter how good the monitor is.
@ Great observation! Excellent parallel. In some of your vids from a few years ago, you spoke of the resolution of a painting vs audio, so you were already ahead of the curve. It’s kinda like if you see a picture of a great piece of architecture or a beautiful woman. No matter what anyone tells you, you know it’s a picture, but with audio, it can become a much more realistic representation. I’m trying to think of how much ones other senses could effect both situations now. Again, great observation, Janos!
@@realworldaudio I’ve been trying to think of real life examples of when seeing a picture vs the real thing were especially not even close. Seeing pictures of things like the Eiffel tower, the Great Wall, The Terracotta Warriors, Tokyo at night, The Swiss Alps, or the starry sky in rural Maine were absolutely and completely different and even overwhelming experiences compared to a picture. I still feel extremely fortunate and grateful for being able to see those things with my own eyes. Again, great observation, Janos!
I like your comment, but you are unfortunately not correct. First off, it is stupid enough extremely common to use volume controls in even high-end analog gear that have A/D and then D/A converters in a fairly cheap chip. LP is very granulate because the needle can not detect smooth surfaces, tape is made out of small magnets and each magnet can only have one polarity. Analog is in fact of fare lower resolution than digital. :-)
In my experience, very good digital get‘s fairly close to analog, but in absolute terms - assuming the recording and pressing are both top notch - analog absolutely reigns supreme. Generally speaking, the way something was recorded is a much bigger factor. I always say „recording/ mastering“ trumps the type of media, every time. So many LPs these days are disappointing, which leads me to prefer the CD. Even more to the point: there are quite a few stellar performances/ recordings to be found on UA-cam, which - despite the UA-cam compression - make many CDs sound flat.
I experienced the same. I have a CD that I burned from a 160k mp3 that I downloaded from Napster 25 years ago, soundtrack of the Conan the Barbarian movie, played by the Naples Symphony Orchestra conducted by Basil Poledoris. They used a speed change on it, so it's off-tune and has some weirdness to it because of that alteration. Also, low quality mp3... despite that, it has one of the most authentic brass on it - the tuba sounds so real, there's only one recording I heard that has higher "integrity" to the tuba than this... From time to time I play that CD. From a measly 160k mp3 source it has an incredible layer of complexity and depth to it, and each time I listen it's a treasurehouse to explore. I did notice that in the early digital era one of the earliest mp3 encoder was the "llame", and 160k mp3-s encoded with llame sounded way more real than higher bit rates mp3s later on. I have (had) a lot of Vangelis LPs ripped to 160k llame, and they just had astonishing naturalness and analogue quality to them. Not as much detail as the source, but listenable for any number of plays. There's a lot of music on YT (uploaded from amateur musicians) that just sounds so whole and rewarding, better than most CDs and hi rez material...
You're unscripted speaking style Is great. Recording: Most studio's use flat monitors. It's ridiculous and dumb but most do it. Over compression , over use of effects. Non original plug in over use. Over mixing over everything. Microphones have different frequency ranges. Like driver's. I build and modify my own and run multiple mics on the same channel. For a full range sound. Tailored recording is something I experiment with. Mixed for tube amps or digital etc. There is currently no tailored mastering. A recording could have options. For amplifier type , bass or treble extension etc. 😊
I think Janos’ most insightful comments occur at around the 30 minute mark. It is not analog or digital delivery media that is key (let’s stop slinging arrows on this point). Instead it is the treatment of the material from recording (thanks Craig Adam’s) through the mixing and mastering process. It is ham-fistedness here where the connection between artist and listener can be lost.
This is my first time here, but I’m really disappointed to see the same old tired comments along the line of analogue reigns supreme. It doesn’t any more than digital reign supreme. Audiophiles like to make statements like this because it is nice to think that we are all striving toward the same audio standard, except we aren’t. We are all different and we value different things in musical reproduction. It’s NOT about which is better, IT IS about which presentation you prefer. If you prefer analogue, that’s fine. But understand that it is your personal preference, nothing more. The same would be true of digital. Having a preference does not require you wrap that preference in pseudo superiority. IMHO, the majority of audiophiles are not looking for the most resolving equipment; they are looking for the equipment which produces the sound most pleasing to their ears. That can be analogue, digital or a mixture of the two. Analogue vs. digital debates need to go in the trash bin along with tubes versus SS. They are meaningless.
Thank you for your kind comment! First time viewers on my channel often miss key points in my videos. No offense though, as each of us pays attention to different things. I asked AI to summarize the message of this video and got this summary: "The speaker emphasizes the importance of experiencing music from various eras to achieve a paradigm shift in understanding and appreciating sound. Access to the depth and history of music enhances the appreciation of modern recordings." This reflects accurately what I wanted to convey, and I am sad it did not come through as well as I intended. I'll make a follow up video to clarify as probably others missed my point as well, and the topic could use some context. Thank you!
@@realworldaudio It wasn't your video as much as a couple of comments dredging up an issue that shouldn't be part of the conversation in 2025. Best wishes
This is my first time here, but I’m really disappointed to see the same old tired comments along the line of analogue reigns supreme. It doesn’t any more than digital reign supreme. Audiophiles like to make statements like this because it is nice to think that we are all striving toward the same audio standard, except we aren’t. We are all different and we value different things in musical reproduction. It’s NOT about which is better, IT IS about which presentation you prefer. If you prefer analogue, that’s fine. But understand that it is your personal preference, nothing more. The same would be true of digital. Having a preference does not require you wrap that preference in pseudo superiority. IMHO, the majority of audiophiles are not looking for the most resolving equipment; they are looking for the equipment which produces the sound most pleasing to their ears. That can be analogue, digital or a mixture of the two. Analogue vs. digital debates need to go in the trash bin along with tubes versus SS. They are meaningless.
It's not one or the other, it's both. Quality of musical reproduction, in all its aspects, allows for a greater degree of emotional involvement that the music that resonates with us can evoke in the listener. If that were not so, we never would have advanced beyond Edison's recording and playback equipment. The all too common pitfall is in falling into the trap of an unending pursuit of 'just a bit better gear' of gear that purports to offer to usher us into an imagined magical moment that we can repeat at will. Just as wisdom starts with acceptance of our ignorance, so too does musical enjoyment start with appreciating what we have and the enemy of appreciation is wanting 'more'... but with 'more' never being quite enough.
Very good comment, observations! I totally concur. It is the balance of resolution and integrity, and not just one of them. I am stressing the importance of the musical integrity in my videos, because I noticed that if I do anything less, people take no notice at all and miss it entirely. When we enter into a discussion about it, then it will gain traction a lot stronger. And, of course, it is very personal what the balance means for one person... as even for a person, that balance changes from time to time, from mood to mood, year by year. And that's all right, as long as we are aware of the process and can consciously tap into it to fine tune our system to our needs.
Thank You for the Audio Club 🙏
The subjects you cover have bugged me for decades. Your insight has really helped me. The most valuable lesson, for me, is to pursue what gives the most dramatic meaningful emotional experience. Thank you.
Hey, Janos. I very much enjoy your longer vids, so thank you for taking the time to do so. I’m sure I’m not the only one who appreciates it.
I’m glad you checked out Romy The Cat’s channel. I like his delivery, and hie certainly has a lot of experience and knowledge regarding audio. I’d love to hear those huge beautiful horns behind him. He’s got a great website he’s had for many years at this point too.
It’s interesting how Harry Pearson took descriptive words from photography and applied it to audio. I have to admit that I never fully put the two together until recently. I knew they used similar words, but not to that degree.
Thank you for the kind words as well. It really means a lot, especially coming from someone such as yourself, of whose opinion I very much respect. Please tell Kintaro and Machi I send my best…🐱🐱🎶😊💜
What I put recently together, is that in photography they never fall under the illusion that the photograph is equivalent to the real thing that was photographed... while in audio everyone is talking about the reproduction being just like the real thing...
I think the recording does for the ears what the photo does for the eyes. Yet, the sound is always more evocative of the imagination and that leads us to think it is real, or, close to real... and we never think that portrait is a real human no matter how good the monitor is.
@ Great observation! Excellent parallel. In some of your vids from a few years ago, you spoke of the resolution of a painting vs audio, so you were already ahead of the curve. It’s kinda like if you see a picture of a great piece of architecture or a beautiful woman. No matter what anyone tells you, you know it’s a picture, but with audio, it can become a much more realistic representation. I’m trying to think of how much ones other senses could effect both situations now. Again, great observation, Janos!
@@realworldaudio I’ve been trying to think of real life examples of when seeing a picture vs the real thing were especially not even close. Seeing pictures of things like the Eiffel tower, the Great Wall, The Terracotta Warriors, Tokyo at night, The Swiss Alps, or the starry sky in rural Maine were absolutely and completely different and even overwhelming experiences compared to a picture. I still feel extremely fortunate and grateful for being able to see those things with my own eyes.
Again, great observation, Janos!
Happy 2nd anniversary to La Gorda, the speaker I built! Thank you for sharing your knowledge👋
Hello Sebastian, happy birthday to La Gorda!!! Awesome!! I'm so glad she's keeping on singing!
The thing to remember with a pure analogue reproduction chain is that the resolution is infinite, not sampled in time like digital.
I like your comment, but you are unfortunately not correct. First off, it is stupid enough extremely common to use volume controls in even high-end analog gear that have A/D and then D/A converters in a fairly cheap chip. LP is very granulate because the needle can not detect smooth surfaces, tape is made out of small magnets and each magnet can only have one polarity. Analog is in fact of fare lower resolution than digital. :-)
In my experience, very good digital get‘s fairly close to analog, but in absolute terms - assuming the recording and pressing are both top notch - analog absolutely reigns supreme. Generally speaking, the way something was recorded is a much bigger factor. I always say „recording/ mastering“ trumps the type of media, every time. So many LPs these days are disappointing, which leads me to prefer the CD. Even more to the point: there are quite a few stellar performances/ recordings to be found on UA-cam, which - despite the UA-cam compression - make many CDs sound flat.
I experienced the same. I have a CD that I burned from a 160k mp3 that I downloaded from Napster 25 years ago, soundtrack of the Conan the Barbarian movie, played by the Naples Symphony Orchestra conducted by Basil Poledoris. They used a speed change on it, so it's off-tune and has some weirdness to it because of that alteration. Also, low quality mp3... despite that, it has one of the most authentic brass on it - the tuba sounds so real, there's only one recording I heard that has higher "integrity" to the tuba than this... From time to time I play that CD. From a measly 160k mp3 source it has an incredible layer of complexity and depth to it, and each time I listen it's a treasurehouse to explore. I did notice that in the early digital era one of the earliest mp3 encoder was the "llame", and 160k mp3-s encoded with llame sounded way more real than higher bit rates mp3s later on. I have (had) a lot of Vangelis LPs ripped to 160k llame, and they just had astonishing naturalness and analogue quality to them. Not as much detail as the source, but listenable for any number of plays.
There's a lot of music on YT (uploaded from amateur musicians) that just sounds so whole and rewarding, better than most CDs and hi rez material...
You're unscripted speaking style Is great.
Recording: Most studio's use flat monitors. It's ridiculous and dumb but most do it. Over compression , over use of effects. Non original plug in over use. Over mixing over everything. Microphones have different frequency ranges. Like driver's. I build and modify my own and run multiple mics on the same channel. For a full range sound. Tailored recording is something I experiment with. Mixed for tube amps or digital etc. There is currently no tailored mastering. A recording could have options. For amplifier type , bass or treble extension etc. 😊
I think Janos’ most insightful comments occur at around the 30 minute mark. It is not analog or digital delivery media that is key (let’s stop slinging arrows on this point). Instead it is the treatment of the material from recording (thanks Craig Adam’s) through the mixing and mastering process. It is ham-fistedness here where the connection between artist and listener can be lost.
Janos: Can you direct us to Craig Adam’s comment? Which video was the comment on?
Hi there, Steve. There’s a link to it in the description. 👍🎶😊
This is my first time here, but I’m really disappointed to see the same old tired comments along the line of analogue reigns supreme. It doesn’t any more than digital reign supreme. Audiophiles like to make statements like this because it is nice to think that we are all striving toward the same audio standard, except we aren’t. We are all different and we value different things in musical reproduction. It’s NOT about which is better, IT IS about which presentation you prefer. If you prefer analogue, that’s fine. But understand that it is your personal preference, nothing more. The same would be true of digital. Having a preference does not require you wrap that preference in pseudo superiority. IMHO, the majority of audiophiles are not looking for the most resolving equipment; they are looking for the equipment which produces the sound most pleasing to their ears. That can be analogue, digital or a mixture of the two.
Analogue vs. digital debates need to go in the trash bin along with tubes versus SS. They are meaningless.
Thank you for your kind comment! First time viewers on my channel often miss key points in my videos. No offense though, as each of us pays attention to different things. I asked AI to summarize the message of this video and got this summary: "The speaker emphasizes the importance of experiencing music from various eras to achieve a paradigm shift in understanding and appreciating sound.
Access to the depth and history of music enhances the appreciation of modern recordings."
This reflects accurately what I wanted to convey, and I am sad it did not come through as well as I intended. I'll make a follow up video to clarify as probably others missed my point as well, and the topic could use some context. Thank you!
@@realworldaudio It wasn't your video as much as a couple of comments dredging up an issue that shouldn't be part of the conversation in 2025. Best wishes
This is my first time here, but I’m really disappointed to see the same old tired comments along the line of analogue reigns supreme. It doesn’t any more than digital reign supreme. Audiophiles like to make statements like this because it is nice to think that we are all striving toward the same audio standard, except we aren’t. We are all different and we value different things in musical reproduction. It’s NOT about which is better, IT IS about which presentation you prefer. If you prefer analogue, that’s fine. But understand that it is your personal preference, nothing more. The same would be true of digital. Having a preference does not require you wrap that preference in pseudo superiority. IMHO, the majority of audiophiles are not looking for the most resolving equipment; they are looking for the equipment which produces the sound most pleasing to their ears. That can be analogue, digital or a mixture of the two.
Analogue vs. digital debates need to go in the trash bin along with tubes versus SS. They are meaningless.