Youtube daily report Jul 25 2018

Have you ever noticed that a loudspeaker is the opposite of an eardrum?

Eh, probably not.

But it's true!

See our ears work by concentrating changes in air pressure onto a small diaphragm that

will move back and forth with the pressure changes.

This vibration causes stimulation in the heary bits of the ear which your brain can, assuming

you have normal hearing ability, turn into what we perceive as sound.

A loudspeaker does the opposite--its diaphragms (the driver cones) vibrate to create pressure

changes in the air.

This vibration gets transferred to our eardrums so we can hear it.

We're sticking to simple stuff today because the rabbit hole is just too deep.

All you need to know is that things vibrate, which causes air pressure to fluctuate, which

causes our eardrums to also vibrate, which stimulates the brain so that we can perceive

that vibration as sound.

This channel started as a series exploring the history of artificial sound, and it's

been over TWO YEARS since I last touched on it at all.

Finally we're finishing this up with the introduction of

DIGITAL SOUND (emphasis added with obnoxious reverb).

Since it's been forever, let's go over a brief history of sound recording technologies.

The first device which could reproduce a sound recording was the phonograph.

Thomas Edison's invention consisted of an artificial eardrum, which would vibrate along

with changes in sound pressure, and with the aid of a collecting horn, the vibration is

transferred into this stylus, creating an up-and-down motion.

This carves a groove into a wax cylinder, and the vibrating stylus creates an imprint

of the sound wave.

The depth of that groove becomes a literal analog of the original sound vibrations.

Then, when the stylus is run over the now bumpy groove, the bumps cause the diaphragm

to vibrate in the same way as it did when it first made the bumps, and the result is

that you hear the same sound as before.

Or at least, a barely passable imitation of that sound.

(sad sounding violin music)

Commercially produced discs and cylinders were molded from master

recordings, and wouldn't wear down like the original wax cylinders.

They were played back using devices like this.

This device is called a reproducer, and for decades all phonographs were based on

simple acoustic devices like this.

For nearly a century, this is how artificial sound recording technologies worked.

Something (like this horn) would collect sound waves, and recreate them onto a physical analog.

Then, that physical analog could recreate the original sound waves when played back.

While it all started with simple acoustic devices like this phonograph, eventually improvements

were made.

The development of the electronic microphone was perhaps the most important.

Now, sound waves cause a receiving diaphragm to move a coil of wire around a magnet, and

a voltage is produced in the wire as the diaphragm moves.

This time, sound waves are recreated as a voltage coming from the microphone, and by

amplifying this voltage and sending it into a new record cutting device which moves its

cutting stylus as a function of the voltage it receives, a more accurate carving of the

sound wave could be made into a disc or cylinder.

This greatly improved the fidelity of the recorded sound, even on acoustic reproduction

devices like this.

With the proliferation of radio--which I feel I must explain is a sound transmission technology,

not sound recording.

Just so we don't get confused too much here--

the loudspeaker became a big deal.

Loudspeakers are the opposite of microphones--instead of producing a voltage as a reaction to a

sound pressure wave moving its diaphragm, a loudspeaker will move its diaphragm and

create a pressure wave as a reaction to incoming voltage.

With loudspeakers all the rage, record players could now use a phonograph cartridge, which

acts like a microphone for records.

The movement of the stylus as the groove vibrates it generates a voltage which can be amplified

to drive a loudspeaker.

This gets very meta very quickly.

An artificial ear turns sounds into voltage, and a cutting stylus turns this voltage into

a groove on a record.

Then, a playback stylus playing the record generates a voltage as the stylus vibrates.

This voltage is then amplified to drive a loudspeaker, which causes pressure changes

in the air around the loudspeaker, which your ears concentrate down to your eardrums, and

now your real eardrums are vibrating in roughly the same way that the original artificial

eardrum moved in the microphone in the first place.

Yeah.

In essence, the record becomes a way to recreate the original pattern of voltage created by

the microphone, so that the sound can be heard again in a different place

at a different time.

Let's cut out the middle bit because that's what's most confusing.

A microphone like this creates an electrical signal of fluctuating intensity based on how

its diaphragm moves.

I can just amplify that signal and send it straight into a loudspeaker, which will reproduce

the sound in real time.

Radio accomplishes this wirelessly, but the sound isn't recorded.

To capture the sound coming from the microphone to be played back later, it has to be converted

into an analog of the signal.

And that's why it's called analog recording technology.

No matter if it's a record, a cassette tape, an open reel tape, or even a wax cylinder,

the sound information is recorded "doorectly"...

Doorectly.

Doorectly?

The sound information is recorded directly onto something, which can then be used to

recreate a copy of the original sound information.

That something is an analog of the original sound waves.

Improvements in sound technology were for many years simply incremental.

Wax cylinders became shellac discs.

Shellac became vinyl.

Magnetic recording wire allowed for a reusable, electronic recording medium.

This was improved into magnetic tape, allowing for a high fidelity, versatile recording medium

enabling multi-track recording and editing.

And to improve on the noise of magnetic tape, different particle formulations were developed,

and noise reduction technologies matured.

But we were still just taking some signal from a microphone, then slapping it basically

as is onto some sort of physical medium.

And that medium was never perfect.

Poorly made tape would cause signal dropouts.

Discs would be plagued by dust and scratches, and would slowly wear down with each play.

Because the analog medium contained the sound in its physical properties, it was inherently

prone to wear, damage, and distortion.

Which of course would wear down, damage, or distort the sound recording itself.

If only there were some way to encode the sound, perhaps a way to store sound logically

rather than analogously.

Maybe if the signal weren't the sound itself, but instead were a set of instructions on

how to recreate it, we could get lossless, near-perfect sound reproduction.

And thus, digital sound was born.

The heart of uncompressed digital sound is pulse-code modulation, or PCM.

PCM's roots can be traced back to the telegraph days, but its invention as we know it today

for sound came from British Engineer Alec Reeves.

I feel I must compliment Mr. Reeves on his given name, it's excellent.

Very good.

He first devised this digital method of transmitting and receiving voice communication in 1937,

though it required extremely complex circuitry for the time.

However, PCM transmission was used during World War 2 as a way to encrypt extremely

important voice conversations, such as those between Winston Churchill

and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This encryption system was called SIGSALY,

"SIGSALLY"?

"SIGSALIE"?

Or Project X, X System, Ciphony 1, or Green Hornet.

Anyway, Project Green Sally X System Hornet 1 was much more complicated than simple Pulse

Code Modulation, but PCM was a large part of its encryption.

So how does PCM work?

It's actually simpler than it might seem at first.

It's rather like a system for repeatedly asking what the instantaneous amplitude of

a signal is many thousands of times per second, then simply writing that down.

Let's look at a simple sine wave.

If this were to be encoded on a vinyl record, the groove of the record would start out straight

in the center, then move to the left as the signal intensity reached peak, then it would

start to move to the right, keep moving, keep moving, and then it would pull back to the

center.

When it's played back, the movement of the stylus as the walls of the groove wiggle it

back and forth will recreate this signal.

And audio tape does the same thing, except the intensity isn't recorded as a physical

movement, but as a degree of magnetization on the tape.

But with PCM, we aren't even trying to recreate the wave.

Instead, we want to quantify it and play connect-the-dots.

Let's say I want to take 20 samples of this waveform.

OK, I'll divide it up into 20 chunks.

Now I just need to define the detail I can have within each sample.

Let's put this on a scale of 0 to 15.

That's 4 bits of resolution.

Now, at each sampling point, we can take the closest value.

This sine wave can now be represented as the following string of numbers.

To get the sine wave back, we simply plot those numbers on a graph.

Then, connect the dots.

Tada! A sine…

wave?

Well, a sloppy sine wave.

But that's only because we weren't very specific.

We only took 20 samples, and each one could only be one of 16 values.

But now we know the two most crucial parts of digital sound--the sample rate and the

bit depth.

Perhaps the most common sample rate and bit depth of digital sound is 44.1 kilohertz,

16 bits.

This means that every second, 44,100 samples are taken, and each sample can be one of 65,536

values, or 2 to the power of 16.

And that's how devices like this, a Tascam DR-05, record sound.

It's looking at the voltage coming from the microphone, and taking precise measurements.

Every 44.1 thousandth of a second, it takes a voltage reading, and, well, writes it down.

It's furiously quantifying and logging the voltage it measures with 16 bits of accuracy,

and the result is a string of numbers that logically represent the shape of the sound

waves that exerted pressure on the microphone's diagram.

Pretty neat, huh?

And it can actually write down two numbers at a time, since this has two microphones

and records in stereo.

Inside this recorder is what's called an analog-to-digital converter, or ADC.

The "ADC" is the actual device responsible for creating the stream of samples.

It takes the analog signal coming from the microphones themselves and converts it into

a stream of discrete numbers.

If you open the files it makes in audacity, you see what looks like a waveform of the sound.

It is a waveform, but a waveform that's been plotted precisely on a graph.

Zoom way, way, way in on the waveform,

and eventually you can see the individual samples themselves.

And that's all digital sound is--

it's a huge list of numbers strung together in order.

To get these numbers back into sound we can hear, we need to use the opposite of an analog-to-digital

converter, or "ADC".

So, we'll use a DAC, or Digital-to-analog converter.

I like it when names make sense.

A DAC will read the string of numbers, and generate an analog voltage based upon their

values.

The DAC will smooth out the choppiness of the samples a bit to make the resulting sound

a little more natural, and now you've got an analog signal to send into an amplifier

and drive a loudspeaker.

The result is a near-perfect reproduction of the originally recorded sound.

Here's a very crude analogy to explain the difference between analog and digital sound.

A vinyl record's walls generate an analog signal by moving the stylus left and right...

as well as up and down.

It's diagonally moved for stereo, but just imagine for a moment that it's just left

and right.

A record directly creates the analog signal via the motion of the stylus.

But a digital sound source is instead sort of like a virtual stylus riding in a virtual groove.

The sound samples are snapshots in time of where the stylus was.

A DAC will then create an analog signal by running a virtual stylus through this virtual

groove and placing it at exactly the correct location--and thus generating the appropriate

voltage level--as defined by the samples.

By using a giant list of numbers to recreate sound, instead of the physical properties

of a plastic disc, the sound can be reproduced flawlessly and accurately with no reliance

on the record player's cartridge properties, the integrity of its stylus, it's motor,

the quality of the vinyl etc.

The biggest boon of digital sound was that it eliminated all of the little nuances that

might change how a recording sounds.

Digital sound is in a sense, absolute.

But getting digital sound into the hands of the average consumer took a long while.

DACs and "ADCs" were expensive components, and the amount of raw data generated by sound

recording was immense for the standards of the time.

Although 650 megabytes, the data equivalent of the first compact discs, is a paltry sum

of data in the 21st century, it was unimaginably huge in the early 1970's, when the first

commercial digital sound recording took place.

For context, the Commodore 64, released the same year as the compact disc, has 64 kilobytes

of ram, and that was considered huge for the time.

A compact disc held roughly ten thousands times as much data.

64 kilobtyes of CD quality audio lasts this long;

(clip)

That's not super helpful.

When we continue, we'll look at the methods that were used to store data from digital

recordings, and we'll discuss the rise of the compact disc as a robust, consumer-friendly

format for digital sound reproduction and distribution.

Thanks for watching, I hope you enjoyed the video!

If this is your first time coming across the channel and you liked what you saw, please

consider subscribing to Technology Connections.

Don't forget you can also follow me on Twitter @TechConnectify, and you might enjoy the second

channel, Technology Connection 2, where I talk about stuff and don't prepare for anything.

Also, thanks to Lord Telaneo on Twitter, there is also a Technology Connections Subreddit.

I really don't know reddit at all, but you will also find me there as TechConnectify.

As always, thank you to everyone who supports this channel on Patreon, especially the wonderful

folks that have been scrolling up your screen.

It is with the support of people like you that I'm able to make these videos.

Thank you.

If you'd like to you join these awesome people and support the channel too, why not

take a look at my Patreon page.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'll see you next time!

For more infomation >> Sound By Numbers: The Rise of Digital Sound - Duration: 14:12.

-------------------------------------------

Sound By Numbers: The Rise of Digital Sound - Duration: 14:12.

Have you ever noticed that a loudspeaker is the opposite of an eardrum?

Eh, probably not.

But it's true!

See our ears work by concentrating changes in air pressure onto a small diaphragm that

will move back and forth with the pressure changes.

This vibration causes stimulation in the heary bits of the ear which your brain can, assuming

you have normal hearing ability, turn into what we perceive as sound.

A loudspeaker does the opposite--its diaphragms (the driver cones) vibrate to create pressure

changes in the air.

This vibration gets transferred to our eardrums so we can hear it.

We're sticking to simple stuff today because the rabbit hole is just too deep.

All you need to know is that things vibrate, which causes air pressure to fluctuate, which

causes our eardrums to also vibrate, which stimulates the brain so that we can perceive

that vibration as sound.

This channel started as a series exploring the history of artificial sound, and it's

been over TWO YEARS since I last touched on it at all.

Finally we're finishing this up with the introduction of

DIGITAL SOUND (emphasis added with obnoxious reverb).

Since it's been forever, let's go over a brief history of sound recording technologies.

The first device which could reproduce a sound recording was the phonograph.

Thomas Edison's invention consisted of an artificial eardrum, which would vibrate along

with changes in sound pressure, and with the aid of a collecting horn, the vibration is

transferred into this stylus, creating an up-and-down motion.

This carves a groove into a wax cylinder, and the vibrating stylus creates an imprint

of the sound wave.

The depth of that groove becomes a literal analog of the original sound vibrations.

Then, when the stylus is run over the now bumpy groove, the bumps cause the diaphragm

to vibrate in the same way as it did when it first made the bumps, and the result is

that you hear the same sound as before.

Or at least, a barely passable imitation of that sound.

(sad sounding violin music)

Commercially produced discs and cylinders were molded from master

recordings, and wouldn't wear down like the original wax cylinders.

They were played back using devices like this.

This device is called a reproducer, and for decades all phonographs were based on

simple acoustic devices like this.

For nearly a century, this is how artificial sound recording technologies worked.

Something (like this horn) would collect sound waves, and recreate them onto a physical analog.

Then, that physical analog could recreate the original sound waves when played back.

While it all started with simple acoustic devices like this phonograph, eventually improvements

were made.

The development of the electronic microphone was perhaps the most important.

Now, sound waves cause a receiving diaphragm to move a coil of wire around a magnet, and

a voltage is produced in the wire as the diaphragm moves.

This time, sound waves are recreated as a voltage coming from the microphone, and by

amplifying this voltage and sending it into a new record cutting device which moves its

cutting stylus as a function of the voltage it receives, a more accurate carving of the

sound wave could be made into a disc or cylinder.

This greatly improved the fidelity of the recorded sound, even on acoustic reproduction

devices like this.

With the proliferation of radio--which I feel I must explain is a sound transmission technology,

not sound recording.

Just so we don't get confused too much here--

the loudspeaker became a big deal.

Loudspeakers are the opposite of microphones--instead of producing a voltage as a reaction to a

sound pressure wave moving its diaphragm, a loudspeaker will move its diaphragm and

create a pressure wave as a reaction to incoming voltage.

With loudspeakers all the rage, record players could now use a phonograph cartridge, which

acts like a microphone for records.

The movement of the stylus as the groove vibrates it generates a voltage which can be amplified

to drive a loudspeaker.

This gets very meta very quickly.

An artificial ear turns sounds into voltage, and a cutting stylus turns this voltage into

a groove on a record.

Then, a playback stylus playing the record generates a voltage as the stylus vibrates.

This voltage is then amplified to drive a loudspeaker, which causes pressure changes

in the air around the loudspeaker, which your ears concentrate down to your eardrums, and

now your real eardrums are vibrating in roughly the same way that the original artificial

eardrum moved in the microphone in the first place.

Yeah.

In essence, the record becomes a way to recreate the original pattern of voltage created by

the microphone, so that the sound can be heard again in a different place

at a different time.

Let's cut out the middle bit because that's what's most confusing.

A microphone like this creates an electrical signal of fluctuating intensity based on how

its diaphragm moves.

I can just amplify that signal and send it straight into a loudspeaker, which will reproduce

the sound in real time.

Radio accomplishes this wirelessly, but the sound isn't recorded.

To capture the sound coming from the microphone to be played back later, it has to be converted

into an analog of the signal.

And that's why it's called analog recording technology.

No matter if it's a record, a cassette tape, an open reel tape, or even a wax cylinder,

the sound information is recorded "doorectly"...

Doorectly.

Doorectly?

The sound information is recorded directly onto something, which can then be used to

recreate a copy of the original sound information.

That something is an analog of the original sound waves.

Improvements in sound technology were for many years simply incremental.

Wax cylinders became shellac discs.

Shellac became vinyl.

Magnetic recording wire allowed for a reusable, electronic recording medium.

This was improved into magnetic tape, allowing for a high fidelity, versatile recording medium

enabling multi-track recording and editing.

And to improve on the noise of magnetic tape, different particle formulations were developed,

and noise reduction technologies matured.

But we were still just taking some signal from a microphone, then slapping it basically

as is onto some sort of physical medium.

And that medium was never perfect.

Poorly made tape would cause signal dropouts.

Discs would be plagued by dust and scratches, and would slowly wear down with each play.

Because the analog medium contained the sound in its physical properties, it was inherently

prone to wear, damage, and distortion.

Which of course would wear down, damage, or distort the sound recording itself.

If only there were some way to encode the sound, perhaps a way to store sound logically

rather than analogously.

Maybe if the signal weren't the sound itself, but instead were a set of instructions on

how to recreate it, we could get lossless, near-perfect sound reproduction.

And thus, digital sound was born.

The heart of uncompressed digital sound is pulse-code modulation, or PCM.

PCM's roots can be traced back to the telegraph days, but its invention as we know it today

for sound came from British Engineer Alec Reeves.

I feel I must compliment Mr. Reeves on his given name, it's excellent.

Very good.

He first devised this digital method of transmitting and receiving voice communication in 1937,

though it required extremely complex circuitry for the time.

However, PCM transmission was used during World War 2 as a way to encrypt extremely

important voice conversations, such as those between Winston Churchill

and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This encryption system was called SIGSALY,

"SIGSALLY"?

"SIGSALIE"?

Or Project X, X System, Ciphony 1, or Green Hornet.

Anyway, Project Green Sally X System Hornet 1 was much more complicated than simple Pulse

Code Modulation, but PCM was a large part of its encryption.

So how does PCM work?

It's actually simpler than it might seem at first.

It's rather like a system for repeatedly asking what the instantaneous amplitude of

a signal is many thousands of times per second, then simply writing that down.

Let's look at a simple sine wave.

If this were to be encoded on a vinyl record, the groove of the record would start out straight

in the center, then move to the left as the signal intensity reached peak, then it would

start to move to the right, keep moving, keep moving, and then it would pull back to the

center.

When it's played back, the movement of the stylus as the walls of the groove wiggle it

back and forth will recreate this signal.

And audio tape does the same thing, except the intensity isn't recorded as a physical

movement, but as a degree of magnetization on the tape.

But with PCM, we aren't even trying to recreate the wave.

Instead, we want to quantify it and play connect-the-dots.

Let's say I want to take 20 samples of this waveform.

OK, I'll divide it up into 20 chunks.

Now I just need to define the detail I can have within each sample.

Let's put this on a scale of 0 to 15.

That's 4 bits of resolution.

Now, at each sampling point, we can take the closest value.

This sine wave can now be represented as the following string of numbers.

To get the sine wave back, we simply plot those numbers on a graph.

Then, connect the dots.

Tada! A sine…

wave?

Well, a sloppy sine wave.

But that's only because we weren't very specific.

We only took 20 samples, and each one could only be one of 16 values.

But now we know the two most crucial parts of digital sound--the sample rate and the

bit depth.

Perhaps the most common sample rate and bit depth of digital sound is 44.1 kilohertz,

16 bits.

This means that every second, 44,100 samples are taken, and each sample can be one of 65,536

values, or 2 to the power of 16.

And that's how devices like this, a Tascam DR-05, record sound.

It's looking at the voltage coming from the microphone, and taking precise measurements.

Every 44.1 thousandth of a second, it takes a voltage reading, and, well, writes it down.

It's furiously quantifying and logging the voltage it measures with 16 bits of accuracy,

and the result is a string of numbers that logically represent the shape of the sound

waves that exerted pressure on the microphone's diagram.

Pretty neat, huh?

And it can actually write down two numbers at a time, since this has two microphones

and records in stereo.

Inside this recorder is what's called an analog-to-digital converter, or ADC.

The "ADC" is the actual device responsible for creating the stream of samples.

It takes the analog signal coming from the microphones themselves and converts it into

a stream of discrete numbers.

If you open the files it makes in audacity, you see what looks like a waveform of the sound.

It is a waveform, but a waveform that's been plotted precisely on a graph.

Zoom way, way, way in on the waveform,

and eventually you can see the individual samples themselves.

And that's all digital sound is--

it's a huge list of numbers strung together in order.

To get these numbers back into sound we can hear, we need to use the opposite of an analog-to-digital

converter, or "ADC".

So, we'll use a DAC, or Digital-to-analog converter.

I like it when names make sense.

A DAC will read the string of numbers, and generate an analog voltage based upon their

values.

The DAC will smooth out the choppiness of the samples a bit to make the resulting sound

a little more natural, and now you've got an analog signal to send into an amplifier

and drive a loudspeaker.

The result is a near-perfect reproduction of the originally recorded sound.

Here's a very crude analogy to explain the difference between analog and digital sound.

A vinyl record's walls generate an analog signal by moving the stylus left and right...

as well as up and down.

It's diagonally moved for stereo, but just imagine for a moment that it's just left

and right.

A record directly creates the analog signal via the motion of the stylus.

But a digital sound source is instead sort of like a virtual stylus riding in a virtual groove.

The sound samples are snapshots in time of where the stylus was.

A DAC will then create an analog signal by running a virtual stylus through this virtual

groove and placing it at exactly the correct location--and thus generating the appropriate

voltage level--as defined by the samples.

By using a giant list of numbers to recreate sound, instead of the physical properties

of a plastic disc, the sound can be reproduced flawlessly and accurately with no reliance

on the record player's cartridge properties, the integrity of its stylus, it's motor,

the quality of the vinyl etc.

The biggest boon of digital sound was that it eliminated all of the little nuances that

might change how a recording sounds.

Digital sound is in a sense, absolute.

But getting digital sound into the hands of the average consumer took a long while.

DACs and "ADCs" were expensive components, and the amount of raw data generated by sound

recording was immense for the standards of the time.

Although 650 megabytes, the data equivalent of the first compact discs, is a paltry sum

of data in the 21st century, it was unimaginably huge in the early 1970's, when the first

commercial digital sound recording took place.

For context, the Commodore 64, released the same year as the compact disc, has 64 kilobytes

of ram, and that was considered huge for the time.

A compact disc held roughly ten thousands times as much data.

64 kilobtyes of CD quality audio lasts this long;

(clip)

That's not super helpful.

When we continue, we'll look at the methods that were used to store data from digital

recordings, and we'll discuss the rise of the compact disc as a robust, consumer-friendly

format for digital sound reproduction and distribution.

Thanks for watching, I hope you enjoyed the video!

If this is your first time coming across the channel and you liked what you saw, please

consider subscribing to Technology Connections.

Don't forget you can also follow me on Twitter @TechConnectify, and you might enjoy the second

channel, Technology Connection 2, where I talk about stuff and don't prepare for anything.

Also, thanks to Lord Telaneo on Twitter, there is also a Technology Connections Subreddit.

I really don't know reddit at all, but you will also find me there as TechConnectify.

As always, thank you to everyone who supports this channel on Patreon, especially the wonderful

folks that have been scrolling up your screen.

It is with the support of people like you that I'm able to make these videos.

Thank you.

If you'd like to you join these awesome people and support the channel too, why not

take a look at my Patreon page.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'll see you next time!

For more infomation >> Sound By Numbers: The Rise of Digital Sound - Duration: 14:12.

-------------------------------------------

Art, Art and Art ! - Duration: 5:10.

For more infomation >> Art, Art and Art ! - Duration: 5:10.

-------------------------------------------

Test High bitrate Sony A7III Slog2 Banding - Duration: 1:01.

For more infomation >> Test High bitrate Sony A7III Slog2 Banding - Duration: 1:01.

-------------------------------------------

Sound By Numbers: The Rise of Digital Sound - Duration: 14:12.

Have you ever noticed that a loudspeaker is the opposite of an eardrum?

Eh, probably not.

But it's true!

See our ears work by concentrating changes in air pressure onto a small diaphragm that

will move back and forth with the pressure changes.

This vibration causes stimulation in the heary bits of the ear which your brain can, assuming

you have normal hearing ability, turn into what we perceive as sound.

A loudspeaker does the opposite--its diaphragms (the driver cones) vibrate to create pressure

changes in the air.

This vibration gets transferred to our eardrums so we can hear it.

We're sticking to simple stuff today because the rabbit hole is just too deep.

All you need to know is that things vibrate, which causes air pressure to fluctuate, which

causes our eardrums to also vibrate, which stimulates the brain so that we can perceive

that vibration as sound.

This channel started as a series exploring the history of artificial sound, and it's

been over TWO YEARS since I last touched on it at all.

Finally we're finishing this up with the introduction of

DIGITAL SOUND (emphasis added with obnoxious reverb).

Since it's been forever, let's go over a brief history of sound recording technologies.

The first device which could reproduce a sound recording was the phonograph.

Thomas Edison's invention consisted of an artificial eardrum, which would vibrate along

with changes in sound pressure, and with the aid of a collecting horn, the vibration is

transferred into this stylus, creating an up-and-down motion.

This carves a groove into a wax cylinder, and the vibrating stylus creates an imprint

of the sound wave.

The depth of that groove becomes a literal analog of the original sound vibrations.

Then, when the stylus is run over the now bumpy groove, the bumps cause the diaphragm

to vibrate in the same way as it did when it first made the bumps, and the result is

that you hear the same sound as before.

Or at least, a barely passable imitation of that sound.

(sad sounding violin music)

Commercially produced discs and cylinders were molded from master

recordings, and wouldn't wear down like the original wax cylinders.

They were played back using devices like this.

This device is called a reproducer, and for decades all phonographs were based on

simple acoustic devices like this.

For nearly a century, this is how artificial sound recording technologies worked.

Something (like this horn) would collect sound waves, and recreate them onto a physical analog.

Then, that physical analog could recreate the original sound waves when played back.

While it all started with simple acoustic devices like this phonograph, eventually improvements

were made.

The development of the electronic microphone was perhaps the most important.

Now, sound waves cause a receiving diaphragm to move a coil of wire around a magnet, and

a voltage is produced in the wire as the diaphragm moves.

This time, sound waves are recreated as a voltage coming from the microphone, and by

amplifying this voltage and sending it into a new record cutting device which moves its

cutting stylus as a function of the voltage it receives, a more accurate carving of the

sound wave could be made into a disc or cylinder.

This greatly improved the fidelity of the recorded sound, even on acoustic reproduction

devices like this.

With the proliferation of radio--which I feel I must explain is a sound transmission technology,

not sound recording.

Just so we don't get confused too much here--

the loudspeaker became a big deal.

Loudspeakers are the opposite of microphones--instead of producing a voltage as a reaction to a

sound pressure wave moving its diaphragm, a loudspeaker will move its diaphragm and

create a pressure wave as a reaction to incoming voltage.

With loudspeakers all the rage, record players could now use a phonograph cartridge, which

acts like a microphone for records.

The movement of the stylus as the groove vibrates it generates a voltage which can be amplified

to drive a loudspeaker.

This gets very meta very quickly.

An artificial ear turns sounds into voltage, and a cutting stylus turns this voltage into

a groove on a record.

Then, a playback stylus playing the record generates a voltage as the stylus vibrates.

This voltage is then amplified to drive a loudspeaker, which causes pressure changes

in the air around the loudspeaker, which your ears concentrate down to your eardrums, and

now your real eardrums are vibrating in roughly the same way that the original artificial

eardrum moved in the microphone in the first place.

Yeah.

In essence, the record becomes a way to recreate the original pattern of voltage created by

the microphone, so that the sound can be heard again in a different place

at a different time.

Let's cut out the middle bit because that's what's most confusing.

A microphone like this creates an electrical signal of fluctuating intensity based on how

its diaphragm moves.

I can just amplify that signal and send it straight into a loudspeaker, which will reproduce

the sound in real time.

Radio accomplishes this wirelessly, but the sound isn't recorded.

To capture the sound coming from the microphone to be played back later, it has to be converted

into an analog of the signal.

And that's why it's called analog recording technology.

No matter if it's a record, a cassette tape, an open reel tape, or even a wax cylinder,

the sound information is recorded "doorectly"...

Doorectly.

Doorectly?

The sound information is recorded directly onto something, which can then be used to

recreate a copy of the original sound information.

That something is an analog of the original sound waves.

Improvements in sound technology were for many years simply incremental.

Wax cylinders became shellac discs.

Shellac became vinyl.

Magnetic recording wire allowed for a reusable, electronic recording medium.

This was improved into magnetic tape, allowing for a high fidelity, versatile recording medium

enabling multi-track recording and editing.

And to improve on the noise of magnetic tape, different particle formulations were developed,

and noise reduction technologies matured.

But we were still just taking some signal from a microphone, then slapping it basically

as is onto some sort of physical medium.

And that medium was never perfect.

Poorly made tape would cause signal dropouts.

Discs would be plagued by dust and scratches, and would slowly wear down with each play.

Because the analog medium contained the sound in its physical properties, it was inherently

prone to wear, damage, and distortion.

Which of course would wear down, damage, or distort the sound recording itself.

If only there were some way to encode the sound, perhaps a way to store sound logically

rather than analogously.

Maybe if the signal weren't the sound itself, but instead were a set of instructions on

how to recreate it, we could get lossless, near-perfect sound reproduction.

And thus, digital sound was born.

The heart of uncompressed digital sound is pulse-code modulation, or PCM.

PCM's roots can be traced back to the telegraph days, but its invention as we know it today

for sound came from British Engineer Alec Reeves.

I feel I must compliment Mr. Reeves on his given name, it's excellent.

Very good.

He first devised this digital method of transmitting and receiving voice communication in 1937,

though it required extremely complex circuitry for the time.

However, PCM transmission was used during World War 2 as a way to encrypt extremely

important voice conversations, such as those between Winston Churchill

and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This encryption system was called SIGSALY,

"SIGSALLY"?

"SIGSALIE"?

Or Project X, X System, Ciphony 1, or Green Hornet.

Anyway, Project Green Sally X System Hornet 1 was much more complicated than simple Pulse

Code Modulation, but PCM was a large part of its encryption.

So how does PCM work?

It's actually simpler than it might seem at first.

It's rather like a system for repeatedly asking what the instantaneous amplitude of

a signal is many thousands of times per second, then simply writing that down.

Let's look at a simple sine wave.

If this were to be encoded on a vinyl record, the groove of the record would start out straight

in the center, then move to the left as the signal intensity reached peak, then it would

start to move to the right, keep moving, keep moving, and then it would pull back to the

center.

When it's played back, the movement of the stylus as the walls of the groove wiggle it

back and forth will recreate this signal.

And audio tape does the same thing, except the intensity isn't recorded as a physical

movement, but as a degree of magnetization on the tape.

But with PCM, we aren't even trying to recreate the wave.

Instead, we want to quantify it and play connect-the-dots.

Let's say I want to take 20 samples of this waveform.

OK, I'll divide it up into 20 chunks.

Now I just need to define the detail I can have within each sample.

Let's put this on a scale of 0 to 15.

That's 4 bits of resolution.

Now, at each sampling point, we can take the closest value.

This sine wave can now be represented as the following string of numbers.

To get the sine wave back, we simply plot those numbers on a graph.

Then, connect the dots.

Tada! A sine…

wave?

Well, a sloppy sine wave.

But that's only because we weren't very specific.

We only took 20 samples, and each one could only be one of 16 values.

But now we know the two most crucial parts of digital sound--the sample rate and the

bit depth.

Perhaps the most common sample rate and bit depth of digital sound is 44.1 kilohertz,

16 bits.

This means that every second, 44,100 samples are taken, and each sample can be one of 65,536

values, or 2 to the power of 16.

And that's how devices like this, a Tascam DR-05, record sound.

It's looking at the voltage coming from the microphone, and taking precise measurements.

Every 44.1 thousandth of a second, it takes a voltage reading, and, well, writes it down.

It's furiously quantifying and logging the voltage it measures with 16 bits of accuracy,

and the result is a string of numbers that logically represent the shape of the sound

waves that exerted pressure on the microphone's diagram.

Pretty neat, huh?

And it can actually write down two numbers at a time, since this has two microphones

and records in stereo.

Inside this recorder is what's called an analog-to-digital converter, or ADC.

The "ADC" is the actual device responsible for creating the stream of samples.

It takes the analog signal coming from the microphones themselves and converts it into

a stream of discrete numbers.

If you open the files it makes in audacity, you see what looks like a waveform of the sound.

It is a waveform, but a waveform that's been plotted precisely on a graph.

Zoom way, way, way in on the waveform,

and eventually you can see the individual samples themselves.

And that's all digital sound is--

it's a huge list of numbers strung together in order.

To get these numbers back into sound we can hear, we need to use the opposite of an analog-to-digital

converter, or "ADC".

So, we'll use a DAC, or Digital-to-analog converter.

I like it when names make sense.

A DAC will read the string of numbers, and generate an analog voltage based upon their

values.

The DAC will smooth out the choppiness of the samples a bit to make the resulting sound

a little more natural, and now you've got an analog signal to send into an amplifier

and drive a loudspeaker.

The result is a near-perfect reproduction of the originally recorded sound.

Here's a very crude analogy to explain the difference between analog and digital sound.

A vinyl record's walls generate an analog signal by moving the stylus left and right...

as well as up and down.

It's diagonally moved for stereo, but just imagine for a moment that it's just left

and right.

A record directly creates the analog signal via the motion of the stylus.

But a digital sound source is instead sort of like a virtual stylus riding in a virtual groove.

The sound samples are snapshots in time of where the stylus was.

A DAC will then create an analog signal by running a virtual stylus through this virtual

groove and placing it at exactly the correct location--and thus generating the appropriate

voltage level--as defined by the samples.

By using a giant list of numbers to recreate sound, instead of the physical properties

of a plastic disc, the sound can be reproduced flawlessly and accurately with no reliance

on the record player's cartridge properties, the integrity of its stylus, it's motor,

the quality of the vinyl etc.

The biggest boon of digital sound was that it eliminated all of the little nuances that

might change how a recording sounds.

Digital sound is in a sense, absolute.

But getting digital sound into the hands of the average consumer took a long while.

DACs and "ADCs" were expensive components, and the amount of raw data generated by sound

recording was immense for the standards of the time.

Although 650 megabytes, the data equivalent of the first compact discs, is a paltry sum

of data in the 21st century, it was unimaginably huge in the early 1970's, when the first

commercial digital sound recording took place.

For context, the Commodore 64, released the same year as the compact disc, has 64 kilobytes

of ram, and that was considered huge for the time.

A compact disc held roughly ten thousands times as much data.

64 kilobtyes of CD quality audio lasts this long;

(clip)

That's not super helpful.

When we continue, we'll look at the methods that were used to store data from digital

recordings, and we'll discuss the rise of the compact disc as a robust, consumer-friendly

format for digital sound reproduction and distribution.

Thanks for watching, I hope you enjoyed the video!

If this is your first time coming across the channel and you liked what you saw, please

consider subscribing to Technology Connections.

Don't forget you can also follow me on Twitter @TechConnectify, and you might enjoy the second

channel, Technology Connection 2, where I talk about stuff and don't prepare for anything.

Also, thanks to Lord Telaneo on Twitter, there is also a Technology Connections Subreddit.

I really don't know reddit at all, but you will also find me there as TechConnectify.

As always, thank you to everyone who supports this channel on Patreon, especially the wonderful

folks that have been scrolling up your screen.

It is with the support of people like you that I'm able to make these videos.

Thank you.

If you'd like to you join these awesome people and support the channel too, why not

take a look at my Patreon page.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'll see you next time!

For more infomation >> Sound By Numbers: The Rise of Digital Sound - Duration: 14:12.

-------------------------------------------

Je n'ai jamais aussi bien dormi depuis que j'ai découvert cette astuce |MDSO - Duration: 5:58.

For more infomation >> Je n'ai jamais aussi bien dormi depuis que j'ai découvert cette astuce |MDSO - Duration: 5:58.

-------------------------------------------

PRINCE ROYCE en México Conferencia de prensa COMPLETA "El Clavo" + Reconocimientos // #EnPOPados - Duration: 29:56.

For more infomation >> PRINCE ROYCE en México Conferencia de prensa COMPLETA "El Clavo" + Reconocimientos // #EnPOPados - Duration: 29:56.

-------------------------------------------

You know I'm all about that Bayes: Crash Course Statistics #24 - Duration: 12:05.

Hi, I'm Adriene Hill, and Welcome back to Crash Course, Statistics.

We all have ideas about how the world works.

And even if we haven't ever used numbers to describe them, we see different beliefs

everywhere we go.

From whether it's healthier to be a vegetarian... to whether school uniforms are a good idea;

we all have slightly different "models" of how the world works.

And yet we all agree on a lot.

For example, we all believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning--or at least that it'll

come up eventually if you live at the poles.

And we all believe that the Oxygen atoms in the room won't all suddenly move to one

corner of the room, leaving us to suffocate.

And almost all our beliefs change based on our experience.

That's why your friend with a snake that he cuddles with all the time isn't as afraid

of snakes as you are...since your only exposure to snakes is that one time when you were hiking

and a rattlesnake almost bit your dog.

Our beliefs are numerous, sometimes complex, and consistently changing.

So it can be useful to have a way of doing statistical inference that reflects that.

INTRO

Bayes' Theorem--or Bayes Rule--tells us the that probability of A given B, is the

probability of B given A times the probability of A, all divided by the probability of B.

And remember that the numerator in this equation is just another--way of writing the probability of A and B.

For example, When you're out to lunch, your sister mentions that she have a friend who

has breast cancer, but doesn't say much else.

You recently saw a documentary about males with breast cancer.

Because it's so fresh in your mind, you wonder if your sister's friend is a male.

Your gut feeling is that it's not that likely they're male... but let's quantify that.

You want to know the probability that your sister's friend is male, given that you

know that friend has breast cancer.

Using Bayes' theorem, we can calculate this probability.

The probability of being male, given that you have breast cancer is equal to the probability

of having breast cancer given that you are male times the probability of being male,

divided by the probability of having breast cancer.

Thanks to government health agencies, we know many of these statistics.

The probability of getting breast cancer given that you're male is 0.001, and we will assume

the probability of being male is 0.5.

The overall probability of getting breast cancer is 0.063.

Armed with your facts you calculate that the probability that your sister's

friend is male is only about 0.79%...so...not very likely.

But maybe more likely than you would have anticipated.

If we rearrange Bayes' Theorem slightly you can see that it allows you to update your

beliefs based on new information:

When we used Bayes' Theorem what we were really doing was updating our belief that

a person was male (probably about 50/50 odds if you know nothing else about them) with

the new information that they had breast cancer.

This new information changed our belief; we went from a 50 percent chance to about a 0.79%

chance just by taking into account this new information.

This idea about updating beliefs is core to Bayesian statistics and can be used to test hypotheses.

We start with some idea or belief about how something works.

For example, you set your friend Maria up on a blind date.

Maria's excited, but nervous, and on her way to the coffee shop to meet her blind date

Jordan, she wonders whether he shares her love of Star Wars.

From her experience meeting people in the city, she believes that in general, there

are slightly more Star Wars fans than non fans.

She guesses there's a 60% chance that a given person is a Star Wars fan, and a 40%

chance they are not, which means that she thinks it's 1.5 times more likely that someone is a fan.

When Maria arrives at the coffee shop she and Jordan do the normal first date small talk.

He asks her what she did this last weekend, and she told him that she saw the new Star

Wars movie.

Jordan says he did too!

After hearing this, Maria feels like it's more likely that she might have met her Porg

loving soulmate.

She knows that not everyone who's seen Star Wars is a fan, but she can use the fact that

Jordan has seen it to update her belief about whether or not he is one… or she could ask!

Maria knows that the probability of having seen the last Star Wars movie given that you're

a fan is 0.99, since pretty much all the fans rushed to see the movie.

But not everyone who went to see the movie were fans.

Some were just curious, and others were dragged by family or friends to see it.

She thinks that the approximate probability of having seen the movie given that you're

not a fan is 0.5, since some but not all non-fans went to see it.

Maria can use the ratio of these two probabilities: To see which hypothesis is more probable given

that we know Jordan saw the movie.

Based on Maria's quick calculations, this new information means that it's now 1.98

times more likely that Jordan is a Star Wars fan than not.

Her heart starts beating a little faster!

This ratio of the probability of our information under one hypothesis--that he's a fan--compared

to another--that he's not a fan--is called a Bayes' Factor.

It represents the amount of information that we've learned about our hypotheses from the data.

Maria can use it to update her previous belief--or prior odds--that it's 1.5x more likely that

Jordan is a fellow Star Wars fan.

All she has to do is multiply her prior beliefs--the one's she held before she had any new information--by

the Bayes Factor which tells her how much to change her belief, now that she has gotten some evidence.

The resulting belief is called her posterior belief in this case 2.97.

And she can continue to incorporate new information.

When Jordan says that his dog is named Anakin, she can again update her beliefs.

Or just ask!

Mathematically, we took Maria's prior belief:

And updated it with our Bayes Factor, which told us how much our data--Jordan seeing the

new Star Wars movie--should change her beliefs about his fanhood.

This is a very simple example of how we can use Bayesian Hypothesis Testing to compare

the probabilities of different hypotheses based on data that we observe.

But this doesn't look exactly like the Bayes' Theorem that we saw at the beginning...

That's because instead of looking at the probability of one hypothesis given the data, we're

looking at the ratio of two hypotheses.

Instead of just calculating the probability that Jordan was a Star wars fan, given that

he'd seen the latest film, we compared the probabilities of the two hypotheses, given

that he'd seen the movie.

So we're really looking at the ratio of two calculations of Bayes' Theorem because

we're comparing two posterior probabilities.

Luckily, the probability of having seen the latest Star Wars movie is the same in both

equations, so it cancels out and we end up with this:

In Bayesian Statistics, these things are called:

the Prior--what you believed before you saw any evidence

the likelihood--a measure of how much your evidence should change your prior beliefs

And the Posterior--what you believe after you've seen the evidence

In a more general form we can say that after we see the data, how likely one hypothesis

is compared to the other is equal to the ratio of how likely we thought these hypotheses

were before we got any evidence, adjusted by the evidence with which the data provided us.

This reflects the core idea of Bayesian Hypothesis testing: Updating what you currently believe,

with new information.

But notice that I said that you update your belief.

Inherently, what we believe is subjective.

It depends on who we are, and what we've experienced.

While Maria initially believed that a star wars fan is 1.5 times more likely than an

non fan, you may believe something else.

Like that it's just as likely that someone is a fan and not a fan.

And since this is just a personal belief, it's okay that you and Maria believe something

different to begin with.

But we used Maria's prior beliefs in our calculations, if you were to do the same calculations,

you'd come up with a different number.

And this is one criticism that Bayesian statistical inference faces.

One of the main uses of statistics is science which is supposed to be relatively "objective"

and not influenced by opinion, and yet, here's a method that includes beliefs in its calculation.

For example, say a scientist bases her conclusion that Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) exists

on the posterior odds of her Bayesian calculation.

She concludes from her study that it is 5 times more likely that ESP exists than doesn't exist.

But upon reading her paper, you find that her prior beliefs about the probability of

ESP were way higher were way higher than yours.

She assumed that it was just as likely that ESP exists as it is that ESP doesn't exist.

And that just doesn't seem right to you.

You could find another scientist who has about the same prior beliefs about ESP as you do...

but that seems difficult and a bit inefficient…

There is a better solution.

Often studies that use Bayesian calculations will not just report their posterior odds,

but also the Bayes Factor that they calculated.

If you disagreed with a researcher's prior odds, you could use the reported Bayes Factor

to adjust your own, different beliefs about these two specific hypotheses.

For example, if you believed that it was 1,000 times more likely that ESP doesn't exist,

you could use the researcher's reported Bayes Factor, 5, and adjust your own beliefs:

Even though the evidence in the study makes you believe that ESP is more likely than before,

you still think it's relatively unlikely that ESP exists.

Even though Bayesian Hypothesis Testing includes subjective beliefs, the Bayes factor allows

you, and anyone else, to use the evidence from a study or analysis to update whatever

your prior beliefs about the two specified hypotheses!

Just like you and the ESP favoring researcher, sometimes evidence can lead two people to

very different conclusions.

But often, unless someone has already decided something has a 0% probability, when there's

sufficient evidence, two people with different prior odds will come to the same conclusion.

For example, you initially believe that sushi is pretty dangerous and has a high risk of

infecting you with parasites, and your co-worker thinks that the risk is low to moderate.

If you both see your boss and entire team go out to sushi every week for 2 years and

not have any issues with parasites, both of you, despite your initial differences, would

probably have updated your beliefs with this new information and concluded that sushi is

pretty safe after all.

If you had only seen your boss go out to sushi 4 times without getting a parasite, you may

have each come to different conclusions since that's not as much evidence.

You may still think sushi is pretty risky, but that may have been enough evidence to

convince your co-worker it's safe.

Your current beliefs would rely more on your prior beliefs than the new evidence.

But the huge amount of evidence provided by a group of healthy co-workers over 2 years

was enough to overwhelm your and your coworker's prior beliefs.

So your new, posterior beliefs are more affected by the evidence than your prior beliefs.

Bayesian hypothesis testing provides a structured way to quantify a logical process that we

do every day, incorporating new events into the way that we see the world.

It provides an explanation...or at least a hypothesis--about why two people can see the

same evidence and reach different conclusions.

In some situations, the logic of Bayesian methods similar to how we think naturally.

Like a doctor who uses patient symptoms like fever and fatigue to update the prior odds

that a patient has the flu compared to a cold so that they can prescribe the correct treatment.

Or the way that you updated your belief that your best friend is a kind, caring person

by continuously incorporating evidence of their kindness--like covering the cost of

your Starbucks when you lost your wallet, or helping you move.

In real life you don't ignore all previous pieces of evidence you saw as soon as you

get a new one, and Bayesian Inference allows for you to take your new updated beliefs and

update them again.

As some Bayesians say, "yesterday's posterior (your updated belief), is today's prior

(the beliefs to be updated)"

Thanks for Watching, I'll see you next time.

For more infomation >> You know I'm all about that Bayes: Crash Course Statistics #24 - Duration: 12:05.

-------------------------------------------

Pamatujete si Milana z Big Brother? Oženil se, vydělal balík a víme, čím se dnes živí - Duration: 3:37.

For more infomation >> Pamatujete si Milana z Big Brother? Oženil se, vydělal balík a víme, čím se dnes živí - Duration: 3:37.

-------------------------------------------

방탄Gayo Ep.7 [ENG/ESP Subbed] (BTS) - Duration: 11:59.

Time for K-pop with BTS.

Bangtan Gayo.

Bangtan Gayo. First time to Bangtan world?

How was the previous episode?

It was hilarious thanks to V.

V was so funny.

I felt strong commitment to make fans laugh.

Back to today's topic. Remember the 1st episode?

It was the girl group dance.

The 7th topic is about songs of male singers

based on dance.

Do you remember any special dance of male singers?

BTS.

If you say so.

Park Namjung's dance.

Good.

How to Avoid the Sun.

I wanted to avoid the sun.

This one. Rainism.

And Taemin's Danger.

[Feeling different]

Yes, there are a lot.

The house that you live in.

Really?

It goes like this.

I can't think of anything else but this.

Time is over.

[Jungkook repeats so many times]

Jang Woohyuk's song.

Decide teams by palm-up or palm-down.

- Fair. - We called it differently.

[Dialect speakers' protest over name]

Stop fighting.

Palm up or down.

Up.

Oh, done.

We win.

[Figuring out who teams up with who]

- New combination. - Never experienced.

Wait.

[Red alert]

You clothes.

Amazing.

Let's decide punishment.

Watching you guys hurts my eyes.

[Kiss on the cheek]

[Punishment decided quickly]

Let's get started with male singers' songs.

Let's go.

[Bangtan Gayo: Male singers' songs 1. Speed quiz between 2 teams]

[2. Explain the song and singer by dance and body language]

[3. Defeated team receive the punishment]

Are you ready?

[Bouncing bouncing]

Let's do this.

So easy.

Super Junior's Sorry Sorry.

Don't need to come forward and say.

Hurry up.

He's the black sheep.

G.Dragon's Heart-breaker.

What?

[Speedy progress]

Rain's Rainism.

Why are you so fast?

So easy.

Let's go.

We did this.

[Bad at dancing]

Deux!

No.

- He did it well. - Right.

Deux, Look At Me.

We did this on the stage.

Song of School Life.

HOT's.

I know this song.

Is this song with 'Where?'

Right.

Right, I remember.

Seo Taiji and Boys.

No.

No.

HOT's Dream.

No.

I have a dream that you can name this.

HOT's Name My Dream.

HOT's Anger.

HOT's.

Hilarious.

- Body language please. - Why got stuck here?

Gollum.

Son.

Ork.

I will give you this, son.

Thank you, father.

HOT's Prince's Descendant.

Warrior's Descendant.

I'll explain the title.

Title.

[Lim Changjeong Open the Door]

Trespass.

Lim Chanjeong's Open the Door.

Champion belt.

Similar.

Psy's Champion.

[Spaced out]

- Explain. - Do it.

We sang this song a lot at karaoke.

Mosquito? Fly?

Fly, fly.

What's that?

Fly?

Mosquito.

Bee.

[LOL]

Rice noodle?

How can I explain this singer?

[So difficult]

Sin and Punishment?

Park Jinyoung.

Honey.

Honey.

Hilarious.

Hit.

Hurt.

- Beaten. - Pass out.

Clout.

Yes, clout.

Shinee's Cool Night.

Now, I'm a beast.

Beast.

That's too much!

Tonight is...

Great weather.

Thanks for coming.

Ladies and gentlemen.

What's this? I don't know.

Beast's Starry Night.

Beast's Party.

Rap Monster's Fantastic.

What's this?

[Suga's giving hint]

Starry Night.

Saturday Night.

Saturday Night.

Starry and beautiful.

Beautiful Night!

Hurry up.

I'll explain the singer first.

What's that?

Energy power.

Dragon ball.

Don't you know this?

- What's that? - No idea.

This one is right? This is it.

Explain it differently.

Pain in the chest?

MC Mong.

[Almost there! Almost!]

Koo Junyeop.

[J-Hope's hurried sign]

Clone.

Me.

Similar.

Me.

[2nd excitement]

Clone's Me.

Me.

[3rd excitement]

Clone's Nan?

[Babbling of 24-year-old Jin]

- Seo Taiji and Boys. - Right.

Seo Taiji's.

I'll go by letter.

I.

Seo Taiji and Boys, I Know.

- Oh, got it. - Done.

[Record of this team?]

It's 11 minutes and 13 seconds.

Too hard.

Let's start.

One, two, three.

Too easy.

Bang, Bang, Bang. Bang Bang Bang.

Bigbang's Bang Bang Bang.

It's a bit hard.

EXO's Growl.

[Series of questions too easy to guess]

It's not fair.

2pm. Heartbeat.

- No kidding! - So easy.

It's too much.

It will be difficult.

No, it's easy.

TBXQ's Something.

Singer is.

[Moving shoulders]

Drive.

Shinee's Everybody.

No.

Name the singer first.

[Satisfied]

Bang Bang Bang.

Bang Bang Bang.

Ring Ding Dong.

Shinee's Ring Ding Dong.

[Too easy]

These are so easy.

Piece of cake.

Bang Bang Bang.

Shinhwa.

Shinhwa's what?

We lost.

We don't know the title.

Sing the melody.

[Black and White team starts disturbing]

- What's this? - Something love.

Shinhwa's This Love.

[Suga can't remember]

Lyrics.

Bigbang's Hurray.

Balloon.

[Keep disturbing]

Taeyang.

Hurrays for Korea's independence!

[Whispering]

Ringa Linga.

Is there this part in Ringa Linga dance?

[This part of Taeyang's Ringa Linga]

This one.

Beep Beep.

BTOB's Beep Beep.

Too easy.

This is it.

[My face is the answer]

Her.

Block.B's Her.

Oh my gosh.

This is too much.

It's a jackpot.

So easy. They can get it.

Beast's.

Bang Bang Bang.

[Everything is Bang Bang Bang]

The blood.

It's bleeding.

Oh, doll.

Doll.

- No. - Voodoo doll.

No, the next one.

Your computer crashed. You feel like this.

It goes like this.

[So charismatic]

Not explaining the dance. Guess the song.

VIXX's Bad Guy? No.

I'm Not Bad Guy.

Okay.

I gave you all. How can I do further?

[Whatever they do, they can't get the answer]

[Jungkook helps him]

Bang Bang Bang.

Computer power is off.

Charge.

Charge.

Bang Bang Bang.

They have no idea.

Name everything.

Mazinger Z.

[What are you doing..]

They have no idea. We will win.

I gave everything. I can't give any more clue.

[Getting lost despite clues]

- Okay. 3,2,1. Wrong. - Failed.

You failed!

Amazing.

- What's that? - Error.

[Enlightenment]

- Oh, my. - Awesome.

If you express an error,

I did it.

[He didn't get it]

[Bang Bang Bang + Error]

We won!

[B&W team's victory]

Thanks to Error, we won.

[Red team can't laugh]

Let me go.

We can't do that. We're one team.

We're one team.

Before we did VIXX's Error, we finished in 7 mins.

It took 7 minutes.

I just stood there and did this, beep beep.

Rock scissors paper

Guys, justice wins always.

Okay, here we go.

This is too bad.

Personally, this is too much.

[Where to go?]

[Nervous]

[This side?]

[Desperate eyes]

I picked.

Turn it upside.

[Nervous moment]

No way.

You may feel different when you do or receive.

People in Paris kiss on the cheek to say hi.

Next time, in Paris.

We're in Paris. Fashion week.

Bonjour, madam.

[Impossible to interpret]

We're here in France.

Let's do Rock scissors paper.

- Decide who will do. - Better to receive.

Right, better to receive.

- Do you like doing it? - No.

5,4,3,2,1. Rock scissors paper.

Damn.

Glad to meet you kiss, kiss, kiss.

Bye, see you again kiss, kiss, kiss.

Kiss, Kiss, Kiss friend.

Close your eyes.

Well. Now.

Kiss, Kiss, Kiss friend.

[Watch it on big screen]

Friend.

See you later.

Bye.

[See you next time]