https://youtu.be/4Wsk93Dcjiw

This guy is parading his EMT 948
studio turntable on YouTube and
recording it through his phone!

Unbelievable! Melmoth, you must
step in and teach this guy how to
play LPs and capture their sound
in a more appropriate manner ;-)

dk

This video is 9 months old.
There are hundreds of thousands of new videos on youtube every single day.

So you are just as insane as the turntable guy to get all excited about this.
More so, I'd say.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 7:35:52 PM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
>
> This video is 9 months old.

So what? Some, if not most) of the music
discussed in this ng is hundreds of years
old!

> There are hundreds of thousands of new
> videos on youtube every single day.

And .... ?!?

> So you are just as insane as the turntable
> guy to get all excited about this.

Really? Should I start parading my stereo
system on YouTube? ;-)

> More so, I'd say.

Kettle ... calling ... teapot ... black ... ?!?

dk

On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:

> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> recording it through his phone!

Part of the material self, "I am defined by what I own"?

Chris

On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 11:41:31 UTC+1, Chris J. wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
>
> > This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> > recording it through his phone!

I nearly bought one of those. I used to hang out in BBC Redundant Stock when they were getting rid of a lot of studio equipment. Speakers, turntables mostly. The BBC made a lot of their own amplification. The EMT948s were about £400 then if I remember correctly. They had a few. Obviously they were collectible, but prices have soared.

In article <4ff1b5c2-14a3-4cf1-9701-66499a10f166n@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performanceandmedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 11:41:31 UTC+1, Chris J. wrote:
>>On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
>>> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
>>> recording it through his phone!
>I nearly bought one of those. ....
>Obviously they were collectible, but prices have soared.

I don't know about the infernal YT, but in fairness to the phone
recording, many phones these days do have higher resolution/bandwidth
than a CD....

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:49:04 PM UTC-5, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 11:41:31 UTC+1, Chris J. wrote:
> > On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
> >
> > > This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> > > recording it through his phone!
> I nearly bought one of those. I used to hang out in BBC Redundant Stock when they were getting rid of a lot of studio equipment. Speakers, turntables mostly. The BBC made a lot of their own amplification. The EMT948s were about £400 then if I remember correctly. They had a few. Obviously they were collectible, but prices have soared.

I can't help but feel insanity is at the heart of being an audiophile. The key ingredients are money and imagination (the kind you aren't even aware of) - the rest follows. I just watched a youtube video yesterday about surfactants in the context of record cleaning, and it ended with the presenter claiming that X surfactant boosted the mid-range, made vocals more clear, improved soundstage, etc. compared to other surfactants, which also had their own character. Complete hallucinatory bullshit. It's no wonder we burned witches at the stake.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:52:47 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <4ff1b5c2-14a3-4cf1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 11:41:31 UTC+1, Chris J. wrote:
> >>On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> >>> recording it through his phone!
> >I nearly bought one of those. ....
> >Obviously they were collectible, but prices have soared.
> I don't know about the infernal YT, but in fairness to the phone
> recording, many phones these days do have higher resolution/bandwidth
> than a CD....

The recording technicals are Irrelevant when you consider output and input.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <4ff1b5c2-14a3-4cf1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> >>> recording it through his phone!
>
> I don't know about the infernal YT, but in fairness to
> the phone recording, many phones these days do
> have higher resolution/bandwidth than a CD....

The output from the cartridge could be fed directly
into an preamp/ADC. No nee for a mike in the chain.
Smartphone mikes are not exactly studio quality.

dk

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:40:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> > In article <4ff1b5c2-14a3-4cf1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
> > >>> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> > >>> recording it through his phone!
> >
> > I don't know about the infernal YT, but in fairness to
> > the phone recording, many phones these days do
> > have higher resolution/bandwidth than a CD....
> The output from the cartridge could be fed directly
> into an preamp/ADC. No nee for a mike in the chain.
> Smartphone mikes are not exactly studio quality.
>
> dk
ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio quality-wise…. Not much point in bemoaning what even at full quality with optimal analog to digital interfacing is going to end up low bitrate crap.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:27:23 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:40:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> > > In article <4ff1b5c2-14a3-4cf1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >
> > > >> On 10 Jun 2023 Dan Koren wrote:
> > > >>> This guy is parading his EMT 948 studio turntable on YouTube and
> > > >>> recording it through his phone!
> > >
> > > I don't know about the infernal YT, but in fairness to
> > > the phone recording, many phones these days do
> > > have higher resolution/bandwidth than a CD....
> >
> > The output from the cartridge could be fed directly
> > into an preamp/ADC. No nee for a mike in the chain.
> > Smartphone mikes are not exactly studio quality.
>
> ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio
> quality-wise…. Not much point in bemoaning what
> even at full quality with optimal analog to digital
> interfacing is going to end up low bitrate crap.

You don't seem to have noticed my point was not
about audio quality. It was about the imbecility of
the person who used his smartphone to capture a
high quality recording played through his speakers
instead of simply taking the output directly from
his cartridge/turntable into a preamplifier/ADC.
Even Melmoth knows how to do this.

dk

In article <26d3f769-b433-40e1-a717-b95ed67c1c35n@googlegroups.com>,
vhorowitz <vladhorowitz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio quality-wise.

Is that actually true? Some streaming services stream CD quality
or higher audio.

I don't know what the limits are on YT, however. These sorts of
threads don't tend to shine any light on it either....

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:37:27 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <26d3f769-b433-40e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> vhorowitz <vladho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of
> > crap, audio quality-wise.
>
> Is that actually true?

Of course not. There is junk, gems, and
everything in between.

> Some streaming services stream CD
> quality or higher audio.

vhorowitz apparently believes all YT
content is uploaded by amateurs.
This isn't even remotely true.

There are plenty of (semi-) official
channels of major recording labels
and orchestras, many providing
higher quality content than CDs.
Keep in mind standard CDs are
limited to 16 bit 44.1 kHz. There
are plenty of 24 bit 192 kHz files
on YT.

> I don't know what the limits are on YT,
> however. These sorts of threads don't
> tend to shine any light on it either....

YouTube-DL can provide details by
querying URLs to find out how the
files are encoded

https://youtube-dl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

dk

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 5:37:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <26d3f769-b433-40e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> vhorowitz <vladho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio quality-wise.
>
> Is that actually true? Some streaming services stream CD quality
> or higher audio.
>
> I don't know what the limits are on YT, however. These sorts of
> threads don't tend to shine any light on it either....

@Todd
It’s MOSTLY 128kbps, but some seem to be 256kbps AAC. Not exactly audio nirvana. Spotify is better than this, but not much, despite claims they would join Tidal/Qobuz/Apple Music for cd quality or higher quality.

@Dan
I really don’t care if you were talking about audio quality or not. Of course it’s stupid demonstrating anything with a mic picking up previously recorded sound. Duh….if you think what I posted was irrelevant, you’re free to stick your head, with ear buds attached, back in the sand….I won’t give a crap or complain that you could get a more authentically “youtube audio quality” experience by sticking your head in a bowl of water. Please feel free to experiment with this….

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio quality-wise…. Not much point in bemoaning what even at full quality with optimal analog to digital interfacing is going to end up low bitrate crap.

That's an exaggeration. The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes. You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is there is measurably inferior to many other options out there.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 8:55:47 PM UTC-5, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> > ALL audio on YouTube is a cesspool of crap, audio quality-wise….. Not much point in bemoaning what even at full quality with optimal analog to digital interfacing is going to end up low bitrate crap.
> That's an exaggeration. The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes. You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is there is measurably inferior to many other options out there.

I'll amplify: the cult around high-res is also just market groupthink. Mind you, the "analogue is better" crowd is also just another cult. There are a lot of very good to great options out there, and those who decry the very good options as terrible - like YouTube - have just bought too far into one channel to think clearly.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.

There is plenty of audio on YouTube that is far above
the sound quality of commercial 16 bit 44.1 kHz CDs,
up to and including 24 bit 192 kHz studio recordings.

dk

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:10:04 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.
> There is plenty of audio on YouTube that is far above
> the sound quality of commercial 16 bit 44.1 kHz CDs,
> up to and including 24 bit 192 kHz studio recordings.
>
> dk
Dan,
You can upload up to 24 bit 192 kHz to your heart’s content, but it is all transcoded and delivered by youtube at 16bit, no better than MP3 quality and very likely middling 192kbps.

Mswd,
I’d rather not start spinning around on what you hear, or I hear or don’t hear, but if you’re trying to argue that 16bit middling quality MP3, or AAC is not distinguishable from something of higher quality then I’ll have to disagree… My ears are not that crappy yet that a 192kbps file sounds just as good as a FLAC file. If it’s garbage in garbage out, sure it’s not going sound any better at higher anything, but honestly, what passes for listenable on YouTube is personally only when it’s accompanied by a video… If I want to listen to audio only, I’ll find it somewhere else. To each his own, I guess.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 8:39:13 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:10:04 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.
> > There is plenty of audio on YouTube that is far above
> > the sound quality of commercial 16 bit 44.1 kHz CDs,
> > up to and including 24 bit 192 kHz studio recordings.
>
> Dan,
> You can upload up to 24 bit 192 kHz to your heart’s content,

Of course.

> but it is all transcoded and delivered by youtube at 16bit,
> no better than MP3 quality and very likely middling 192kbps.

That is only true if one listens directly on YouTube. Off-line
downloaders such as 4kdownloader or YouTube-DL can
download any of the file formats available on YouTube,
including the highest definition ones.

Also note that recordings provided to YouTube by major
labels are not "uploaded", they are delivered digitally in
any format the label chooses, including the highest
definition ones.

Do you ever research the topics you write about?

dk

Dan Koren a écrit :
> Even Melmoth knows how to do this.

https://www.amazon.fr/Madison-MAD-TA10BT-Amplificateur-tube-st%C3%A9r%C3%A9o/dp/B014W3QSRE

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:45:54 AM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a écrit :
> > Even Melmoth knows how to do this.
>
> https://www.amazon.fr/Madison-MAD-TA10BT-Amplificateur-tube-st%C3%A9r%C3%A9o/dp/B014W3QSRE

Merci beaucoup! ;-)

dk

On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 02:55:47 UTC+1, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes. You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is there is measurably inferior to many other options out there.

I listen a lot to YT and have no complaints. If I want the last bit of quality I might buy the CD or download, but that rarely happens.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 4:53:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 02:55:47 UTC+1, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.

Yes, but you are painting with too broad a brush.
One should not generalize to "adequate". There
is plenty of hgh quality 24/192 content on YT
if one knows how to find it.

> You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance
> because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is
> there is measurably inferior to many other options out
> there. I listen a lot to YT and have no complaints. If I
> want the last bit of quality I might buy the CD or
> download, but that rarely happens.

What makes you think "the last bit of quality" is not
available on YT? Again, there is plenty of 24/192
material. It won't play through one's browser but
it can be downloaded by offline downloaders
such as YouTube-DL or 4kdownloader.

dk

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 5:07:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 4:53:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 02:55:47 UTC+1, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.
> Yes, but you are painting with too broad a brush.
> One should not generalize to "adequate". There
> is plenty of hgh quality 24/192 content on YT
> if one knows how to find it.
> > You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance
> > because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is
> > there is measurably inferior to many other options out
> > there. I listen a lot to YT and have no complaints. If I
> > want the last bit of quality I might buy the CD or
> > download, but that rarely happens.
> What makes you think "the last bit of quality" is not
> available on YT? Again, there is plenty of 24/192
> material. It won't play through one's browser but
> it can be downloaded by offline downloaders
> such as YouTube-DL or 4kdownloader.
>
> dk

Happy to be corrected. I just know that I don't place any particular value on value on 24/192- certainly not enough to pay for it. Give me enough time and money and I might feel differently- but that is a hypotnetical I may never reach.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 5:01:29 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 5:07:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 4:53:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> > > On Monday, 12 June 2023 at 02:55:47 UTC+1, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The audio on Youtube i adequate for a lot of purposes.
> > Yes, but you are painting with too broad a brush.
> > One should not generalize to "adequate". There
> > is plenty of hgh quality 24/192 content on YT
> > if one knows how to find it.
> >
> > > You aren't going to miss the nuance of a performance
> > > because of sub-optimal audio quality, even if what is
> > > there is measurably inferior to many other options out
> > > there. I listen a lot to YT and have no complaints. If I
> > > want the last bit of quality I might buy the CD or
> > > download, but that rarely happens.
> >
> > What makes you think "the last bit of quality" is not
> > available on YT? Again, there is plenty of 24/192
> > material. It won't play through one's browser but
> > it can be downloaded by offline downloaders
> > such as YouTube-DL or 4kdownloader.
>
> Happy to be corrected. I just know that I don't place
> any particular value on value on 24/192- certainly not
> enough to pay for it. Give me enough time and money
> and I might feel differently- but that is a hypotnetical I
> may never reach.

My point was simply that there is plenty of high (by the
textbook) audio quality content available on YouTube.

Whether it makes sense for one to listen to it, or pay to
do so, is an entirely personal choice. Incidentally, a lot
of it is actually "free" on YouTube.

Here is an example: https://youtu.be/zBFSI-x2ETY

Is the recording quality good enough for your ears?

dk