FUNKTION ONE ~ Tony Andrews Interview ~ Tech Talk

[@michaelhicks8603]

His blue boxes (turbo sound flashlite) were incredible. I wish it was possible to buy them again, audiences today would be shocked if they heard it.

[@mynameisHOPKIRK]

Legend, big respect to you Tony for being a true sound warrior...long may you continue.Wise words indeed. People, take note!

[@vidkid303]

Tony, you are now MY HERO!!!! Im sharing this like crazy!

[@ivikansostudio]

icon, lead, spiritual guide, inspiration. true maestro

[@JonathanJanis]

This is just so good.

[@GeorgeMcCauley]

I'd love to know their opinion of Martin Audio

[@conraddavison4199]

Yep Martin is band oriented system

[@michaelhicks8603]

Man, this guy is preaching!!!!! He’s right about everything.

[@quaad_heavy_sounds]

This is incredible in every way.

[@woxta]

But he's RIGHT. mp3s, even with 320kbps, still are compressed. try it out, compare a 320 to a wav file and pay attention how clear the hi hat lines (for example) are. There IS a difference. He just has higher standards than you have.

[@mosesbullrush8051]

7:37 High Definition Compact Discs (HDCD) were released in 1995 and a total of 4000 titles (mostly Jazz and Orchestral) were produced but four years later the HDCD system was abandoned because in blind tests audio experts could not tell the difference.

[@Reticuli]

It wasn't abandoned. Microsoft bought Pacific Microsonics, integrated the technology into Media Player, and liquidated all of PM's physical assets and fired their employees. Microsoft also bought the first social network and liquidated that; now they complain about "missing the boat". They actually owned the boat and took it apart years.

[@fishybishbash]

I listened to Mr.Jams set on Funktion 1 in one of the dance tents at Glasto last year and it sounded brilliant, big and sweet. They're great systems.

[@jgardner808]

Tony Andrews ! Love you man ! ~peace~

[@rachitballer]

He nailed it on the spot. Analog over digital anytime. Analog compressors to analog synthesizers.

[@Vork81]

It simply is the best. In Holland parties promote themselves by mentioning they have a funktion one soundsystem, next to the line up

[@flowinsounds]

awesome. i love thee way your mind works, the way you can express complex stuff really simply. if i ever come to the UK i would love to work with you.

[@averylucas5880]

i guess I'm kinda randomly asking but do anybody know a good site to watch newly released series online?

[@TimpBizkit]

Funktion One get the fidelity of individual cabs spot on, but mounting speakers side by side can cause comb filtering off axis. I know there is an angle between cabs to minimise interference but it can still have effect in the less directional frequencies.

[@RoteKampfSocke]

I couldn't agree more - my neck hurts from nodding.

[@illkidkusti]

No no mate, I am aware of it that. The thing is that there are way too many nightclubs out there who advertise themselves, with the fact alone, that they have Funktion1 speakers. And a lot of cases it has been awful. I'm not saying the system is bad, but it feels like a lot of people are in the craze of 'brand name speakers' and not understanding that the speaker itself doesn't create heavenly sound, it depends on other equipment and not to mention, the man running the system.

[@olivierfrombruges]

Whats the name of the track used in the video?

[@ThePlagueGameing]

B O O M!!!!!!!!. he nails it!. this is what i've been waiting to "hear" for a long time!!. does the company build commercial systems?.

[@cob1965]

brilliant!

[@enisylo]

Blatantly a Line-Array fan. Most people that like point-source sound systems have respect and love for F1 I find...

[@CTSProductionsUK]

@soundprosound All my tech riders state "Funktion One is not an acceptable speaker system" Has everyone already forgotten the mess they made of Glasto on main stage, then Martin Audio took over the year after and won praise at the best sounding Glasto year on year since.

[@fishybishbash]

That's true, but what you're saying is, given ideal identical sets of circumstances, you'd choose Turbosound over F1 which is crazy, because F1 is a development of the Turbosound concept - necessarily, because they are designed by the same bloke. F1 systems run properly have an unequalled 'power to pain' ratio. They sound fucking amazing.

[@TimpBizkit]

By the time it's bounced around an echoey room, has many people talking over it, it resembles 240p youtube audio. I have heard good quality live sound sure there are a lot of great systems around but the barely perceptible increase in crispness that needs an anechoic listening environment to truly appreciate is not worth the 6-10 x increase in disk space (for a song than probably spent part of its life as an mp3 anyway.) I'm not against using the original WAV for recording studio use.

[@TimpBizkit]

If we are to thrive for better sound I believe the so-called 'Loudness War' has done more damage to the sound quality of CDs than any file format. The tendency of record companies to try and get most of their songs to play near the limit lines - resulting in 'mushy' sound, drums that sound like cardboard boxes and vocals that are mixed way too loud!

[@TimpBizkit]

I was using a pair of SoundMagic E10 in ear headphones (not top of the range but far from cheap) and A Toshiba Satellite ProA200 Laptop (good soundcard) on Windows Media Player. Honestly I notice more quality difference between music players than file format. I can notice a slight difference between 128k and 192k, but anyone older or with worse hearing would be hard pressed to notice this. I can't comment on 'spatial positioning' Audiophile HiFi, but this is PA - Loudness over perfect fidelity.

[@The305Garage]

I have mad respect for Funktion One systems, but locally (Miami, FL) a good number of Funktion One systems have been replaced with Dynacord systems in top local clubs. Just saying.

[@TimpBizkit]

Call me cynical but I still don't think there's much audible difference between WAV and mp3 on all but the best home stereo audio equipment which I CANNOT comment on as I haven't heard. I can get some damn good audio quality as long as I stay above 128k and preferably 192k. I have a pair of SoundMagic E10 earphones so feel free to tell me they are lacking in >15khz information. Heck I could have damaged my hearing slightly and not hear borderline ultrasound frequencies anyway!

[@Reticuli]

He's right there is a utility to having high sensitivity speakers, and it's not because of distortion from amps running at high power. Amps have relatively low distortion levels compared to speakers, and this in the last few years has been pushed to the point that it's starting to get difficult to even measure distortion in some new amp technologies running very close to their max design output -- GaN Class D and THX AAA H/A/B amps come to mind. All speakers go way up in distortion the higher they are pushed. You ALWAYS get lower distortion from speakers running at a lower power level than they are designed & rated for. The irony, though, is that you rarely hear Funktion One systems being run at a fraction of their maximum capability, and you frequently hear them pushing at the edge of their non-linearity range (or beyond) and they get blown drivers like everyone does. So, basically the outcome from their efforts is just very loud, super-dynamic systems in practice. This somewhat parallels the Loudness Wars: digital is superior, and as a result it's been abused by marketing people influencing the mastering people for years. Oh, and the stuff about the speed of sound in materials mattering and in paper in particular was totally bogus. The speed of sound in paper is not particularly close to that of air. Wood is anti-resonant in spite of the speed of sound through it being so different than that of air. He is absolutely correct on the importance of the acoustic properties and necessity of treatments for the room/venue. While bad sound and distortion is cumulative and each link in the chain matters, the room itself is probably at least a hundred times more influencing of the perceived sound than the mixer. Ditto with sound systems that are so loud they cause your ear/brain harmonic distortion to skyrocket!

[@cjporto23]

Glad someone said it about the speed of sound in the material. The Young's modulus in the material has no reason to produce a speed of sound in the material close to air. His comment about the speed of sound in the diaphragm material totally ignores how loudspeakers actually produce sound waves. It is not that it does not matter as the young's modulus is very important in transducer design. But there is no reason the material needs to have a speed of sound close to the speed of sound in air. And it sounded like pseudo-science non-sense. But yes he is spot on about venue acoustics. They have only gotten worse in the past decade as the whole stripped down industrial look of restaurants and venues has become in fashion.

[@Frequncyfrenzy]

@CTSProductionsUK Misinformed comment from a Martin Audio user.

[@MrMaxadax]

it becomes way more noticeable on pa systems. theres a huge difference, trust me.

[@conraddavison4199]

Ben Duncan is the wizard of sound systems

[@TimpBizkit]

BTW even the highest quality youtube is definitely lacking in sparkly top HF before I am considered to be another average cloth ears.

[@overmindeticsilence]

Please.. I really want to buy that track.

[@alistairobrien8845]

what remix of 'Something for your mind' is that at the start!!?

[@tropicalbeachbums]

I wanted to know as well. Hunted high & low.. Chris de Luca - Something For Your Mind (Remix) soundcloud.com/chrisdeluca/chris-de-luca-something-for-your-mind-remix

[@siinxx7656]

You sir, deserve a free ticket to a two-way-travel to the most beautiful planet in the galaxy

[@JBLisbetter]

Yea but surely that's still a rig failure? If there was too much off-site noise then surely the system was either set-up badly or it is simply incapable of directing the sound efficiently to where it needs to go. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive F1 fan, but point source does have it's limitations, and I know I'm going back to the age old argument about line arrays, but in some very long throw situations a line array is a better system to use, and in this case I think Glasto is one of them.

[@JBLisbetter]

I love Tony and Funktion one, but it's fairly contradictory how F1 use XTA Digital processing on all their systems, while Tony can't stand to use anything other than an analogue Midas desk, and DJ's are often forced to use Formula sound over pioneer because of they're both analogue. I genuinely don't think there are many people in this world that can tell 16 bit 44.1K from 24 bit 96........ I sure can't, and I was standing next Tony in front of a 10x Res 5 system when he showed me.

[@Reticuli]

They use XTA Digital processing? I think they have way too much hate for digital mixers. I'd rather go CDJ to digital mixer to DSP all digitally than run DA to analog to AD/DA with the FF6000 in the middle there.

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

Some of the midas desks sound fully amazing. Some digital desks can sound pretty excellent also, but the best Midas stuff puts a smile on your face every time.

[@fishybishbash]

?? Tony founded and designed Turbosound! You don't know what you're talking about mate

[@TheMikedub88]

who the fuck disliked this?

[@TimpBizkit]

BTW I did manage to detect a very small reduction in crispness in 128k on a Vengaboys track (not quite a fair test as there were a few minor CD scratches) but I had to concentrate hard. I tried 128kbps WMA ripped from CD vs spotify 192kbps mp3. Then I tried playing direct off CD vs 192kbps mp3. 192k Spotify and CD sounded the same. I'm also going to try inverting an mp3's sound and combining it with the original WAV - the null test. This will show exactly what's added or taken away.

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

Tim Lewis it's pretty frightening doing the null test. Bob katz did a good talk on that to the AES.

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

NB: my benchmark of quality sound is *not* the vengaboys.

[@TimpBizkit]

Though I do have to no what I'm listening for - high frequency extension and 'crispness' or separation/mush of instruments? We Like To Party by the Vengaboys had very a slight increase in crispness going from 128k to 192k. Honestly for DJ - ing anything over 128k is a waste - unless you want to perfectly treat the room - use ONE pair of speakers so no phase errors, and tape the mouths of the crowd shut!! Maybe these speakers (and Danleys) could play the difference but it would be drowned out!

[@Reticuli]

Distortion is cumulative, so while I agree the room is more important than if the file is MP3 or WAV, the file format is certainly important. I would put it all in this order of importance: Room > File Dynamics Compression > House System > File Format > Source/Mixer/House Setup & Connections > Mixer Model. Removing the mixer entirely from the system and playing strait off a good DAC with a WAV file will sound better in any room than an MP3 into a DJM800, but just treating that untreated room will make an even bigger difference. True. So the bottom three have less influence combined than the top issue. As DJs, we don't have much control usually over Room or House System, and often we are stuck with MP3s and can't get the vinyl or a lossless & dynamically uncompressed digital version. I suppose I could put Volume as out in front ahead of Room, as I think most systems are turned up too loud. It's often difficult to judge these systems objectively with how crazy loud they are. Your ears will distort and compress more than any sound system or room will when your ears are over driven.

[@illkidkusti]

I didn't get if Tony was joking or serious saying that Funktion One is the absolute best in the world and everything else is shit. I have worked with it and seen other venues where they have them and it was ok, although on some occasions it was really bad, like really really bad at Fortune Sound Club, which was bit ironical considering all the 'tech fuzz'. They're not bad, but too much sales talk. I would still go with Turbosound or Martin Audio.

[@SDoh9]

Mala sent me here!

[@Rwecosher]

What a great guy. Telling it like it is. Everything goes from good to shit, usually because money is involved along with hype and bullshit. I hate wankers who get their ego game on in a shit club playing shit music on a shit system with no recognition that everything around them that they're indulging in is shit and so are they. Where is quality anymore? It's all pop pish.

[@TimpBizkit]

I never agree with the make speakers that can't reproduce a certain frequency well and then boost the shit out of that frequency - ESPECIALLY on PA where we're trying to get these speakers LOUD. Remember +10dB EQ is 10 x the power! = Stressed speakers when loud. It seems to be what Bose have done on certain designs - like the 802. A multitude of 4" paper cones it's surprising what they'll do but they'll always be lacking above 10khz and below 100hz.

[@illkidkusti]

I'd say that given ideal identical sets (i would use LAB Gruppen amps though) the sound is pretty much the same, at least as far as the audience can reckon. I guess I have never heard the 'dream set of F1' so yea in that case my argument is invalid. But I have a feeling that there are not many places where they can pull it off with F1, not yet at least. Maybe in few years. Overall my point is that by welding the Rolls Royce hood angel onto Lada wont make the car better, if you catch my drift.

[@soundprosound]

I wasn't on the Glasto main then, but i've heard the horror from my fellow engineers that had the misfortune. My riders state NO Behringer, en NO F.O. and i rather not see Floodlight!

[@lazerrazor7905]

I have Led Zeppelins Mothership 4 Album set and i go to Club Cielo i would love to hear how Stairway to Heaven would sound on their sound system their. That's my dream anyone with me.

[@axmMusic]

You misspelled 'truth'...

[@lexomsb]

funny how the soundtrack is horrendous, obviously the producer paid no attention to what the guy was talking about....

[@TimpBizkit]

Vinyl starts off good but scratches easily - just my £0.02

[@aarata9002]

I agree with most of it except for the fact that he says 44.1k is not enough good quality! Some talkers should study theory, in this case Nyquist's. 44.1k is the sampling rate of the maximum frequency to be sampled. I don't know any person who can hear more than 20kHz, unless he has some canine powers or 'of course' he can feel 30 or 40k harmonics through pores after smoking some pot. I understand oversampling if you want to preserve more the original signal but again I don't see many conversions or deterioration of the signal just by playing it back in a club or concert.

[@tomstokn]

But with 44.1 you only get two samples in a 20khz tone.. Not a complete sinewave.. by far...

[@aarata9002]

Tom Erik Stokness That's why I'm saying learn some actual physics (Nyquist theorem in particular). Human ear can't find any difference between an analogue waveform and a digital with 40000 samples per second, no matter what. It's like putting more pixels in a screen than the human eye could distinguish, even if you can fit more you wouldn't tell the difference. Man 2+2 is 4, simple as that.

[@woobilicious.]

Tom Erik Stokness a sample rate of 44.1kHz represents all frequencies (as in all sinewaves) perfectly up to 22.05kHz its the job of the DAC to produce that sinewave, you don't need a higher sample rate, you need a better DAC nothing more, The Nyquist theorem is mathematical proof of this, it is absolutely true in every possible sense. His whole spiel about mp3s not being high quality is pretty much bullshit too, 320kbps LAME is indistinguishable from source material (if you're using something like BladeEnc, sure it'll sound crap), there are a few specific "killer"-samples that needs higher bitrate, but that is what AAC, Vorbis and the New Opus codec fix. xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

[@brynhendry2899]

Tom Erik Stokness wrong, watch this. xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

[@woobilicious.]

Bryn Hendry Did you see my comment? I already sent it to him 9 days ago.

[@Frequncyfrenzy]

@FunktionOneNation

[@jamiesmart9016]

I need lots of money so i can get myself a function 1 stack😢

[@Cammycucumber]

To be honest, I believe he is being very unprofessional in this interview, especially stating that non musical people cant produce music, in my opinion no person has the right to tell somebody they cant produce a piece of music simply because they are not musically talented, I here 13-16 year old's on here producing music that could easily rival famous music producers, the last thing they need is somebody to put them down.

[@tangofizz77]

I think he's saying that if you can't understand music, you can't produce it.

[@brynhendry2899]

plebian that's such an elitist stance to take though, all artists started somewhere.

[@tangofizz77]

Bryn Hendry True, but I mean at the end of the day, musicians in some way "understand" the music they make.

[@TimpBizkit]

+Cammycucumber well the 13-16 year olds would be regarded as musically talented/

[@tangofizz77]

You know now a year later after commenting on this, I think I figured out my stance. I believe he's mocking the people behind today's EDM/Pop, and the idiots who believe that loudness is the best method to making your music sound huge, where as it just eliminates your dynamic range, and sounds like garbage. These people don't understand music, they just hear money.

[@TF23lliot]

get them in Ministry of sound then

[@vidkid303]

@HunterVaughanMusic even a small system deserves wav.....

[@slipknotmoealbin]

arsene wenger, is it you?

[@dannyninhio]

vinyl..

[@SpeshDJ]

@thenamesdave BOSE systems are utter wank!!

[@kevinbeckenham3872]

Tony Andrewa stop moaning about audio standard C.D's; Kick the ass of philips, they will listen to you but not me. The more people like you Andrew,who have clout will wake philips up, One day ?

[@soundprosound]

Both not true!

[@inthemix68]

In other words pioneer mixers are shit

[@Reticuli]

DJM800-2000 range all measure better than any analog mixers ever made that also have things like per-channel EQs built in. Empirical evidence. There are other digital DJ mixers just as good or better. Going digital in and digital out to a digital crossover is even better.

[@AmbientWanderer]

@@Reticuli dude that is complete BS. I'm sorry, but i don't even know where to start. I've played on those DJM 800's and they're sound like absolute horse shit.

[@Reticuli]

@@AmbientWanderer You're probably thinking of the DJ500/600, were using a DJM800 that either wasn't operated or connected optimally, or you just like the sound of inaccurate mud. And by the way, there are some mixers now that test better than many digital mixers, but they are extremely expensive and are made in factories that manufacture professional laboratory test equipment. They also don't have per-channel EQs but rather use master or shared EQs between channel groups, so they are minimalist in design to make achieving audiophile measurements easier. Still, these newer, super high-end analog mixers are struggling to do what a high-end digital mixer that doesn't have to skimp on features can already do pretty easily. So like an Isonoe 420 costs a thousand bucks more than a Rane MP2015 that it struggles to measure as well as. And yet, a DJM800 or DJM1000 or even an old PPD 9000 sounds fairly close to an MP2015 in many respects at an even lower price. Try a Xone 62 or Rane Empath, though, and they're way less transparent and measure much worse than even the less expensive digital mixers... and that's with switching the EQs off on the analog boards to help cheat them in the comparison. Now consider a sound system with digital processing, and suddenly any of those digital mixers with full digital in and digital outs into the house processor becomes even more appealing. By the way, Funktion One for the last several years has moved to digital processors.

[@AmbientWanderer]

@@Reticuli it's interesting to hear your thoughts man, but I would like to know, is there any data our there to show that these modern digital mixers are more transparent compared compared with the likes of a xone 62 or any other analog mixers? I'm not asking you this to try and come across as a smart ass, but I'm rather genuinely interested to know. Anyway, thanks for replying to such an old post from several years ago.

[@Reticuli]

@@AmbientWanderer LONG POST WARNING. First off, many of the analog boutique mixers don't test that well. New Bozak, E&S, Omnitronics (E&S clones 'designed' in Germany and made by Hanpin in Asia), etc. Some of the guys on the rotary groups have analyzer tested them and come to some surprising conclusions. So let's just ignore most of those because they're more an acquired taste and feel thing. I will return to the various cheaper boutique stuff at the end of this. You can test mixers yourself pretty easily if you have them, an interface of known quality (you subtract the simple passthrough), and some time on your hands. I have done so with Numark/PPD, Biamp, Denon, Pioneer, A&H, and Rane... probably forgetting some. I've had them side by side with audio analyzer software like RMAA and TrueRTA. Even old, cheap digital mixers like a PPD 9000 or DJM 800 way out measure a Xone 62 mixer even with analog line-level sources. I've seen people online doing tests showing the opposite and I could disprove them and explain how they errored in test methods. With CDJs it's an even bigger gap since the full digital boards have SPDIF inputs. The old Biamp/Advantage line got pretty close to the older digitals comparing line ins, though. Even Formula Sound starts to have issues getting much better than that, and they're not cheap and we're comparing new analogs to some old digitals. Any of the full digital Denons or newest digital Pioneers are even better. Isonoe, though, went all out to accept the challenge when they spent a ton of money to develop an analog mixer that could out-measure these now-ubiquitous quality digital mixers like the old Denons or new Pioneer NXS2, but it hardly had any features and you had to mount it in a rack. Then in 2011 A&H did the DB4 with nearly that Isonoe top dog sound but a crazy number of digital features and customization. It's a freak. Rane one-upped the DB4 digital sound and old Isonoe analog sound quality with the MP2015 a few years after which easily achieved new feats of insane bench measurements not only for less price than Isonoe, but allowing many features, even if not quite the DB4's still-unparalleled feature set. The DB4's feature set can be overwhelming and excessive, though, and the MP2015 does certain sound stuff even better than the DB4, anyway. Rane does not appear to have been lying when they said they were incapable of making an analog mixer that tested that well. So then Isonoe countered with the 420 tabletop unit, which became one of the most expensive mixers ever made up to that point at nearly US$3,800 and apparently gets close to the measurements of the MP2015. Isonoe claimed the 420 beats every analog mixer on the test bench they could compare, including their own older designs. The 420 is the one built in a place that makes analog test equipment. The 420, while having more features on it than the old rack Isonoe, still lacks the features of the latest uber digital mixers or even analog mixers' features like the FS FF6000 or old Xone 62. So, if you wanted to stay analog, you still had to sacrifice some features to get top dog sound quality from Isonoe. A year or two after the MP2015, the resurrected STP Vestax of Japan announced their prototype for the analog Pheonix, which they claim to be in this sound league, too, though like the 420 I haven't measured it either and have to take their word for it. It has the sort of mondo feature set of a Xone 62, which is a feat of engineering if they indeed pulled off top quality sound with that stuff crammed on it and all analog. It's huge, though, and costs something like US$10,000 pre-COVID. It's mostly discrete analog, I believe, and with hand-matched parts. I'm not even sure if the Phoenix ever went into regular production. You might have to get on a list or have them build one to order. Looks like Rane really lit a fire under the analog mixer companies' asses. Digital was already very good very easily, but Rane took it to the next level. If you have digital sources, like CDJs, and are going to a digital sound system processor, I'd choose a Denon DN-X1700, Xone DB4, Rane MP2015, or even Pioneer DJM-900NXS2, and then just go SPDIF to SPDIF compared to using the 420 or the Phoenix if quality sound was the number one priority... not that I wouldn't be tempted to put these top two analog mixers in just for cred factor. Staying digital is better, though. As far as the old DJM-800 measuring better than a Xone 62, while I can prove it, that doesn't mean on a pure analog sound system playing vinyl I wouldn't prefer the Xone 62 just for peace of mind. However, I'd still choose one of those four aforementioned higher-end digital mixers in that same analog situation over the Xone 62 if I had the option, as the analog Xones are a little long in the tooth even with vinyl compared to the top digital mixers. I'd definitely welcome a chance to play on a minty 420 or Phoenix in such an analog purist situation if the opportunity arose. I'd be lying if I said I'd pass up that chance. I should add that Alpha Recording System and PlayDifferently have tried to do what Isonoe has been doing, though not quite to the level of strict manufacturing standards of the 420. After the MP2015 and 420, there was certainly a market for rotaries that were analog but not being built in a test equipment facility or requiring you get on a waiting list. So Phoenix and Isonoe are still apparently at the top for analog, but Alpha, PlayDifferently fill in a price bracket below them. MasterSounds follows these and are in a similar category to the highest end stuff from Formula Sound, which is itself like a new (not old stock) Biamp. There are some refurbed original Bozaks that also come very close to these, but, again, we're talking sparse features. There is also an old mixer that had a very limited run, I should mention, that supposedly did close to what the 420 attempted at an insane price. There was one next door to my residency of sorts. We shared a firewall with that club. It was called Foundation Precision Instrument mixer. Extremely rare. I never got to touch it or measure it, in fact the DJs at that club weren't even playing on it. It was basically their Funktion One system's master volume control. So it's not like prior to the MP2015, 420, or Pheonix such crazy-measuring DJ mixers didn't exist, but they were very rare.

[@hoah]

darude - sandstorm

[@TheOfficialDjTetris]

Sure, all this talk is nice if money isn't an issue. However, in the real world, money and convenience actually ARE an issue. This guy seems like he lives in a bubble.

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

Tristan Hivon the acoustic efficency argument is driven by this thinking.