Please, don't worry about it, it's a confusing format.. MQA is an interesting way of rearranging digital information, but not everyone thinks that it sounds better... Lary

Well, vinyl and tape are lossy formats too ;) Maybe sometimes the question is "which kind of lossy sounds best"? :)

@@jaydy71 in that sense all formats are lossy...

Everything is lossy as soon as the "sound" leaves the "source" and begins traveling through the air. It's already lossy before it even hits the microphone!

@@artkulak9802 TO KEEP SOUND GOING ONLY TO MICROFONE WE NEED A HELMET MADE FROM SOUND ISOLATION PARTICLES TO ALLOW AIR PRESSURE ONLY TO MICROFONE MADE UP OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO CONTROL THE SOUND..

Wadim Brzozowski could it be placebo taking effect? I really cannot hear a difference, even compared Spotify Very High quality to both

@@agoogleuser9025 Its not tried with ind test, and then I also asked my dad to do the same. You can tell the diffrence

@@wadimek116 Do you mean I should let another person hear the difference? Then I'm not trusting my ears if so?

@@agoogleuser9025 To make blind test you need to have someone that would choose for you flac and mp3 so you could hear and dont know original

Allen, what a nice and sincere comment. It gives me the strength to ho ahead! Thank you for your words. Very much appreciated.

Please answer me a short question: What is your favorite amplifier? :)

There are several, on the engineer side your right....very few...

Thanks for your comment. Hopefully I will be able to explain why that is a common misconception. First of all subaonics and ultrasonics greatly influence the audible spectrum also by creating new harmonics and making that part they way we hear it in reality. This is science not an opinion. Already this aspect is enough to make high-res and the use of high-res mics worthy. Finally, in was able to demonstrate with aid of scientific peer-reviewed papers that we can actually perseve audio beyond 20khz and that musical instruments act in that range: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNqeaJpjv6-naJ8.html

That is because I have already claimed this is several videos. For example here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJN4nat43K2shoE.html In any case I did underline this fact. Moreover, high-res mics are starting to become more and more available for example Sony released a whole line and also Sennheiser...thinks are changing slowly but I agree, and again I was one of the first to underline this, the mics are thi first step and they must be high-res!

​@@anadialog But that makes no sense. If you forget about digital for a second - almost all of the analog recordings in the past have used mics that are specced at 22k at best. So if you have a fantastic sounding analog recording, it can't be because of content above 22k.

Yes, of course, but we must remember not to confuse high-res recordings with high-res tape transfers. With all the last century recordings you will have a high resolution transfer and mastering that in most cases is much better than the normal CD versions available up till a few years ago. Who went and still goes analog never had any problem, just need to get the quality releases on vinyl or tape.

😂

Yes, you are correct and I got mixed up, again! Sorry about that.

Qui puoi farti un'idea, anche se ora molte cose sono diverse. Presto farò un altro tour: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bKqXnqyVvKy4YYk.html

Again I see a lot of prejudice. Certainly those are the numbers, of single sine waves. We don't hear that way, we listen with full spectrum. Watch the video I linked in the other comment and try reading the papers in the respective video description. Testing is good but we must make sure we use good recordings, rich in details and frequencies. If I could select a specific CD and it's version on DVD-Audio I am sure that over 80% would prefer the dvd-audio BUT this is valid in a certain number of cases, not all cases. The same reason why people don't believe in cables, first because they don't even try and second because sometimes they simply have no or very little impact on sound...it depends! I hope you tried dvd-audio or quality high-res with proper gear before throwing in data and numbers like that. SACD? Forget about. Native DSD is the way to go.

It does to squeeze every once of frequencies including distortion. All high quality cans are capable of dealing with high-rez music.

@ReaktorLeakIf you have a pure sine wave that fits inside the sample rate, nothing happens, the sine wave's frequency is still intact since it doesn't go above Nyquist, therefore no aliasing. Now, if you generate a 18KHz sine wave in a 32KHz sample rate audio file, in theory, it should have aliasing or audible sound because it goes above Nyquist.

I can only agree. I regard much of the compressed music as “two dimensional” (no loud / soft). Why bother?

Bluray can hold 192Khz/24bit. I did a video on the music format: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZ6qmcdml7jYgJ8.html

It doesnt becuase 99% of music listeners do not want to play music through there Bluray players and fiddle with a remote to select different versions. SACD was the only media that might have worked but we all know where its at now.

@@Albee213 SACD would have been the same exact thing, but it required a whole other player in order to play it. Even some computers, such as mine, has a Blu-ray drive. Hell, PS3s had Blu-ray players. The foundation was there. It's not that difficult to play Blu-rays... at all. Meanwhile Blu-ray players were in most people's homes at the time. Would've been smart to go with a disc format that most people already had the device to play them. You say people are going to be bothered by fiddling with their remotes, but I can tell you one thing that'll piss them off more... having to drop money on ANOTHER device for another disc format. I can play DVDs, Blu-ray, CDs all with one player. "Wanna experience the level of high quality audio playback with format whose audio is superior to CDs? Well, you most likely already have the device to play this new music format in your homes. Experience it yourself now." Boom. There's your marketing. Push the fact that most people already have the ability to play it. Or else the laymen is going to think they're going to have to drop more money to play it.

@@NEOREV_MUSIC That is all true, but most people want to put a disc in and have music come out. SACD was a CD with SACD as well. If you had an SACD player you just needed to have that option on. My mother is never going to want to listen to Patsy Cline on a DVD and flip thru menus to choose 5.1 or stereo and so on. If Blu-ray/DVD audio worked like a CD did, put in, push play music comes out, no menus to complicate things then these formats might have worked. People also dont have Bluray and DVD players in the car like they did with CDs. I wish one of these formats would have become the standard, but even myself I have a lot of DVD-A and Blu-ray audio and its not convenient as the CD or mp3.

I did a extremely detailed video on DSD with a test exactly as you suggested. Check it out! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m9tlfJCrnMyamac.html

Well of course that is rather obvious. I agree. :-) I will add that a good recording is even more important than a good mastering.

Di nulla grazie a te Lorenzo!

More high-res but always the same recording gear unfortunately

@@anadialog This is sad, it would be a huge market for sure. Greetings to Italy 🙂

Exactly!!

@John Holmes : Nope. That's not how audio works, unless you are referring to intermodulation distortion, which is a bad thing and should be filtered out.

Yes, I made a bad statement (rectified in the description and comments) because as we all know they declared it was lossless in the beginning and only AFTER admitted it was lossy.

It depends if you consider vinyl high-res! If the record is an original copy and well recorded, mastered and cut, a DSD conversion will be a great high-res digital version...of that record. The vinyl will always contain more information than a digital rip. I would also add that you need a very good DSD recorder.

Yes, because the MQA origami has multiple unfoldings. Only the full unfolding brings you close to a full high resolution file. In contrast with what I said in the video, I always get mixed up, MQA fully unfold is not lossless. I must admit that it does sound good but you are not getting the full package.

Actually we are surrounded by high-res software and hardware. Practically all smartphones, DACs and streamers are capable of handling this quality. Tidal and Qobuz are easily streaming this quality thanks to tye FLAC lossless compression and the 4G and 5g bandwidth. Perhaps, high-res headphones and speakers are a little more expensive and aiming at a higher market segment.

@@anadialog yes but still you need to record in 24/96 and streaming those files takes a lot of data bandwith. That is why MQA was brought in, to save bandwith. Not all have 1GB or even 500MB data subscriptions at home. Of course I can use a rasperry PI for that matter. But is not mass market like a CD format. Sonos and apple music, I think, will not play higher than 16/44. But all depends on how good the sound was recorded at 1st place , if then you listen at 16/44 (from DAC, sonos connect, apple music or whatever), LP or CD will sound great anyways :-) There are plenty of old records that will blow away moder recordings. Great channel by the way!

Caro Lorenzo, non volevo dare questa impressione così talebana dell'alta risoluzione. Sicuramente se non si hanno attrezzature con notevole estensione di frequenza si perde una parte del suono, ma questo, proprio per il problema microfoni, riguarda principalmente la musica contemporanea. Per quanto riguarda le riedizioni, talvolta sovracampionate e non propriamente ri-digitalizzate, il discorso dei microfoni è vero però dobbiamo ricordarci che un file high-resolution reale dovrebbe fornirci maggiore dettaglio e qualità generale a tutte le frequenze, quindi i 40Khz, soprattutto per il materiale del secolo scorso non ha senso ma, ripeto anche io resto dello spettro migliora se le cose sono fatte bene. Dunque non voglio assolutamente affossare le edizioni high-resolution, anzi ci sono ottime cose, ma è necessario tener presente anche questi aspetti di cui go accennato sopra. Tengo a precisare che il povero Kind of Blue non ha più i master originali ma solo copie di copie di copie e dunque non noterà grandi miglioramenti rispetto ad altre riedizioni dove abbiamo i master e/o i session tapes originali.

@@anadialog Grazie, per la risposta e, soprattutto, per l'onestà intellettuale dei suoi video 👍

It's not losses. It's lossy as I wrote in the comments and video description. They perpetrated a scam now widely known.

@Joe Al your kidding right?

Exactly!

MQA is lossless. They tried to hide it in a very shady way.

not really, any sound lost from the master recording can not be replaced, it would basically be an mp3 that takes up more disk space. If its from a CD you can rip it again in FLAC. If it was always in mp3 just leave it be. If you do decide to upgrade your favorite albums you could keep the mp3 and compare it with FLAC to see what the difference is for your hearing. I know this is an old comment but I thought I'd answer in case you were still wondering.

Can't, I had it made for the channel but nothing special.

@@anadialog Looks very cool. Thanks for the reply.

Check out this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gahjm5eBnpu-kZ8.html

Go analog! ;-)

You have to spend $5000 to beat low latency lossless streaming now days, I have the setup to prove it. Where are you streaming from and what are you listening (decoding) through.

What almost everyone that quotes Nyquist Theorem misses is that it's theoretical. They assume that it can be done in practise. This is not so. With the CD sample rate of 44.1kHz an output signal of 22kHz is not the same as 22kHz that is inputed into the system, the output has large attenuation and a phase shift but the theorem says it will be the same. The main reason and problem is the use of analogue low pass filters. For Nyquist Theorem to work in practise there has to be a perfect brick wall anti-aliasing low pass filter and this does not exist. Originally the CD format used a close to brick wall filter but this type of filter is far from perfect, these type of filter have nonlinearities in the pass band (audio frequencies). For high quality audio it is very important that the pass band be linear. For filter design and sample rate, what is sample rate that is needed fo a linear pass band? It is about 10 times the cutoff frequency which make the use of the 192kHz sample rate used in modern recording studios correct. The main reason modern recording are done at 192 kHz or higher sample rates is for the use of a more audio friendly anti-aliasing filter. So the modern record playback system is recorded and mixed at a high sample rate, then down sample for the file storage (CD) and when played back the modern DAC restores the high sample rate (oversampling) before the actual digital to analogue conversion. I would argue that for audio quality that debate about 44.1kHz being good enough was lost decades ago because modern ADC and DAC use lot higher sample rates.

I did talk about this, indicating a specific video I recently made. There you will find all your answers. Check it out: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNqeaJpjv6-naJ8.html

The high frequencies, if present, it depends from the type of music and as we have seen from the recording-mixing-mastering chain, will have an effect on your general perception, influencing also the audible frequencies. That is during the recording but also during playback in your environment, so I would some yes, but I don't know to which degree.

@@anadialog Thank you for your Answer

Big question! IMHO at least CD quality even though modern mastering does not use the full potential of this format. The higher bit depth and sampling rate, the better for PCM, in DSD higher sampling rates are also beneficial: here is a video I made on the topic: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m9tlfJCrnMyamac.html In any case, uncompressed PCM like WAV files are the best, also lossless formats like FLAC are great.

ANA[DIA]LOG Thanks for your valuable reply.

Indeed. I think you are right. The amount of information and the quality of the converters is just not at the level of a quality DAC IMO.

@@anadialog Random question but I thought this would be a good place to ask. With studio monitors right, how do professionals mix tracks on them if the frequency range is so narrow. Most studio monitors bottom out at around 50Hz. I understand why because it's just basic physics, you need a larger speaker size to produce those low frequencies and a speaker that size would make the monitors way to large. But do professionals usually pair it with a sub or something? (I never hear the term studio sub thrown around 😂) Or do they just stick with headphones. Surely most tracks have frequencies below 50Hz?

Well, first of all real studios use medium/large speaker monitors and in most cases these are powered. When powered in most cases they can go very low. Yes, quality earphones are also used and those can easily have the whole spectrum. In any case, pros are not that interested in obtaining/preserving the whole spectrum. They are just looking for a correct presentation and to emphasize specific aspects, NOT high-fidelity. Classical and jazz productions are different and also audiophile productions are different but also uncommon.

@@anadialog Right I see then, thanks!

Florence, yes, thanks! Its a little crazy here...

In most cases I might agree with you. It depends also what your system is and what you are looking for.

I can agree here. I think slipknot is in some hi res options. It sounds... weird.

Indeed!! Unless we are talking about analog recordings.

Thx for the

Rca to 3.5mm lead and a PC

Anyways no analog equipment is able to cleanly reproduce CD quality

It is useful because as in reality subsonics and ultrasonics influence the audible spectrum creating new harmonics. I did a video on the topic with some scientific proof of how we hear beyond 20khz...check it out: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNqeaJpjv6-naJ8.html

Yes, everything CD quality has a inherent 22Khz cutoff.

No...what do you mean?

I got mixed up in some of my videos because, as the video you cited clearly evidenced, they changed several times their statement. Yes, it is a lossy format and they claimed the opposite for a while. The two videos of GS are rather exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is a very good sounding format for being digital IMO.

Both!

320 kbps is the speed of your internet. You can have the same quality at 1 kbps it will just take longer to download it. So if you have 2 kbps and listen to 24bit-96khz or 1 gig per second it just how fast the file is streamed to your device, nothing else.

@@ranbymonkeys2384 no he means 320kbps most files not internet speed

Mouhammed24 Mouhammed you are blessed! No need to go out and spend a load of cash on new equipment and music, because you know you’re not missing out on anything. 😀

Don't mistaken the frequency response with sampling rate. High res, besides the certification, means high resolution audio with a higher sampling rate and bit depth. Meaning that you have much more information in a conversion of a recording or old master tape than that adopted for making a CD.

That is because DSD is not PCM and has different specifications. Plus DSD in any form is automatically high resolution though the analog specs still need to be met for input and output as explained in the video. Soon I will be doing a special video dedicated entirely to DSD.

Yurj stai confondendo le code. High-res non è solo una conversione con un campionamento e una risoluzione alta, ma è una catena che produce una registrazione di alta qualità.

@@anadialog mi scuso immensamente fermo restando che il mio pensiero sul formato audio è quello espresso

Anything above CD quality is high-res on Qobuz.

@@anadialog Ya because they just go by the sample rate not what recorded it or when or how, just the sample rate.

Lucien, unfortunately you are reporting mainstream prejudice and common mistakes. First of all, analog means 'proportional' absolutely not approximation. Already by changing the meaning of a word it is clear that you are not objective. Moreover, if we must discuss of dynamic range, please report info in the correct way. The average dynamic range is 60db, which is roughly 16bits not 12, but this analog-digital conversion does not make any sense. A good record can reach even 70db. Again, you are giving the correct and complete information. Finally, on this channel I have clearly showed that for example VHS tape can reach extremely high dynamics almost or as that of a CD, it depends from the tape. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mdR0kstmp7ywlZc.html Last but not least, something you completely forgot to mention, the frequency response of analog media, which defines for example a high resolution digital signal, not the dynamic range specs, can reach much much higher ranges that a standard CD, similar to to high-res media or even higher! For example they have demonstrated that we can record a 122Khz signal on a vinyl record: www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm

@@anadialog dear ANA[DIA]LOG, first please let me thank you for taking the time for your considerate and well thought intelligent reply. And also for pointing out some weaknesses in my arguments. I appreciate all discussions leading to an exchange of knowledge, as you obviously demonstrate here. While most would devolve a discussion into an argument (which IMHO is an exchange of ignorance) you chose to communicate your thoughts and beliefs. May I point out that my second language is French, third one being English, I actually still count in French, and then translate. Latin vs Germanic roots might lead to some potential forms of miscommunication and misunderstandings. Since we cannot (or I don't know how) attach images, I shall cut-and-paste with verifiable links the pertinent message I am attempting to share with you. www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy analogy noun, plural analogies 1) a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. 2) similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine. 3) Biology. An analogous relationship. 4) Linguistics. a) the process by which words or phrases are created or reformed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was reformed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet. b) a form resulting from such a process. 5) Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarities between the things in other respects. www.bing.com/search?q=analogy+definition NOUN A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies." ▪︎a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called dysgraphia because of its analogy to dyslexia" ▪︎ a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of the nature" ▪︎logic - a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects. Now I'd like to bring your attention to the "similarity" term. Vocabulary quiz (from that link above) Q. Which word has meaning similar to analogy? A. Similarity (72% got this right) And when searching for "analogue etymology" returns Analogue (n) 1826, "an analogous thing," from French analogue (adj. and n.), from Latin analogus (adj.), from Greek analogos "proportionate, according to due proportion" And my point is that proportions respects the geometry aspects (amplitude, frequency and phase) but are NOT identical, only similar to the original source signal being recorded, and subsequently reproduced. These recordings alas, are nowhere close to, but IMHO a mere approximations "similar to" or "analogous to" the original signal source. And this is the mantra of High-Fidelity. Not perfect, but with high similarity to the original. And the scientific methods utilized to process and transport this signal whether they be digital (numerical in French) or analogous via capturing any sound recording on say a groovy LP, are mere approximations of the original signal, due to physics of taking fluid dynamics (air) pressure waves hitting some microphone(s) membrane, modulating it to an electronic signal, for further down processing and transmission to the playback method envisioned typically preamps, poweramps and loudspeakers.

@@anadialog now I'd like to share the little I know regarding quantization bit depth pertaining to the SNR or "Dynamic Range". It is a well known fact that 70 dB of SNR approaches the theoretical limits of traditional master tape recording mechanisms. And that vinyl LP materials have been chosen due to the relatively practical virtues of that media in terms of mass production via a stamping master negative, and that it is more durable than a wax cylinder for comparisons. Also that vinyl provides a low noise substrate. 60 dB (a Bel being logarithmic and deci 1/10 hence decibel) implies the following mathematical formula: 10x log (P1/P2) and since power is a function of two variables, if we look at line levels into say 10K or 20K ohm loads, then we can deal with voltage signals represented by 20x log (base10) (V1/V2) do we agree on that fact? Based on the above, here is a table that correlates the ratio of V1/V2: 20 log (V1/V2) = 2^12 bits = 4096 quantization steps (or discrete amplitude metrics) And 20*log(4096) = 72.2472 dB 2^11 bits = 2048 thus 20*log(2^11) = 66.2266 dB You see, I love my vinyl LPs, especially the direct-to-disc from Sheffield Labs, which are irreplaceable since there is NO master recording, nor mastering into the equation (straight {not coiled} piece of wire with gain). With the unfortunate result, the performance is live with warts and all, and cannot be mass pressed either. Once the master press is worn out, that's it. But I digress. I happen to use a Technics SL1200MK2 with an Audio Technica LP152 with beryllium cantilever, nude Shibata diamond and Litz wire interconnects. And an analog phono preamp with RIAA tracking 0.3 dB with overload at 500 mv on a 1mv input since the phono preamp uses 108V center tapped rails, precision HFe matched discrete transistors, polystyrene and metal film resistors @1% tolerance again I digress my bad. Just to communicate I'm as serious as you are about Hi-Fi. Yet my collection of media in my physical library sits at 1506 albums (LP, Laser Disc 12", CD, SACD, DVD, and BluRay Ultra-HD 4K) I only own two Sheffield Labs specimens. I find streaming via Roon most enjoyable, and with over 70 million tracks, will never be able to discover and enjoy that music in my lifetime, alas. Still I respect the 16-bit 44.1 KHz specifications of the entry-level CD redbook specifications for the simple fact the SNR is @16 bit quantization depth corresponding to: 20*log(2^16=65536) = 96.3296 dB, a significant average of 30db over common LPs, without any of the artifacts such as rumble, wow-and-flutter, mistracking @1g, or wearing my media each and every time I listen to it. And now that everything is streaming, also implies backups bit-for-bit anywhere anytime. I find it difficult to bring my TT and a few LPs while mobile driving a vehicle, on a plane, or on the beach for instance. Yet my passion for music never ceases... Even while on the move or on vacation. Oh BTW at 24 bits, the ratio becomes 16,777,216 = SNR 144.4944 dB and at 32 bits (such as my ESS Ultra32 DAC) the SNR corresponds to a ratio of 4,294,967,296 and an SNR of 192.6592 dB. In reality we're limited by the studios purveyors of music limitations also known as ENOB (Effective Number Of Bits) in their studios, which translates to a real-world SNR of about -130 dB on superlative equipment. As for frequency response, well I also care about phase linearity or coherence, something unachievable via traditional analog filters phase shifts (DSP suffer no such artifacts) such as the RIAA pre and post emphasis curves. Perhaps suffice to say that my cartridge provides an outstanding separation of only 35 dB between stereophonic channels @ 1KHz. While I also enjoy the multi-channel SACD, DVD-audio, and BDs but that is another topic, point being it is also nice to have video, whose technical requirements are vastly superior to those of mere two channel audio. Hey, all the best, I enjoy your KZfaq channel, as I find it informative and pertinent. Cheers!

Music is not made up of a single sine wave. There's multiple harmonics involved in it that need to be captured and sampled individually simoultaneously. That's why huge sample rates (orders of magnitude higher than CD quality) are needed to capture the entire set of audible harmonics in a song. That's what ultra hi-res music does.

@ReaktorLeak You're not following me. Audible harmonics need more than a 44100 Hz sampling rate to be captured because you're not sampling a single sine wave. You're sampling many many sine waves at the same time. The only way to do that accurately is to use huge sampling rates (MHz like DSD does or even Ghz rates). As crazy as it sounds, one day, when technological capabilites will become available, it will become obvious that we needed this all along. The CD PCM 16 bit/44.1 kHz standard was a compromise between decent sound quality and a viable way to sell music. All the theoretical explanations of why we can't hear more than it can capture is pure bs and disinfo. But that's how life works. Edit: 44100 Hz, not kHz

@ReaktorLeak this is precisely the sort of disinfo, missdirections and half-truths I mean. CD PCM does not have enough room to capture all the audible harmonics in a song. Increasing sample rate is, in truth, not about, or not mainly about the ultrasonic frequencies. The main true benefit that ultra-high sample rates bring is to capture the audible harmonics (20Hz-20kHz) in more detail and with better separation of the sine waves.

Depends from the music. Compressed music like all mainstream and pop? No, jazz and classical music? Everyday!

Easy to comment that now that we know it is a scam! ;-) In any case, I never said that. Pay more attention next time. In any case I appreciated and still appreciate the "certification/authentication" concept. We need more of that, but done from a third party, not someone who is benefiting from it.

@@anadialog In any case, my comment wasn't intended to hurt anyone. And no one can justify all audiophile things with certification/authentication. There are some authentic but subjective things that can't be measurable at all.

Yeah Isiah, maybe, but you still come back and watch my videos since the first episodes...maybe not so boring after all! ;-)

@@anadialog in my sleep

@@anadialog didn't mean to insult but it was boring

There are mics that can reach even 100Khz for wildlife recordings. In any case fortunately we are slowly starting to implement high resolution mics like for example Sony has a new lineup as well as Sennheiser etc.. Before these were lacking and in fact it did not make any easy to talk about high-tes. I did a few videos on this topic. Only tape transfers could have been high res in the past.

@@anadialog Great information, thank you for that. I love your channel btw, fascinating material and your enthusiasm for the topic is a joy.

Some years ago visiting a italian HiFi show I witnessed a discussion between two famous music producer /engineers of two just as famous audiophile labels (maybe you've already guessed who they were 😊)... at a certain point they began talking about mikes mentioning some ribbon ones, among them some vintage ones too claiming to respond to frequencies up to almost 100 kHz... if I well remember, maybe Decca ? BTW, another excellent and very informative video 👏👏 ps: just seen the video footage you did in Japan... it was like being transported there for a few hours, THX a lot 😉 ps2: just say less 'obviously' 😜... sometimes you could switch to 'of course' maybe