As has been pointed out, this is not a cello but a double bass.
I didn't say the recording was perfect.
You're off to a good start, Al.
It is the most natural sounding of all the video recordings posted. A relative comparison. Yet I wouldn't want that sound for my in-person experience of my own system either.
Well, you were off to a good start but alas...
Actually, Ron's video does sound bath-tubby too, or as you suggest, "in a huge semi-empty coffee can". Videos tend to exaggerate room reverb. In addition, to my ears the voice has what Ron would call a "menthol" quality -- I cannot imagine that it sounds like that in-person on his system. His iPhone video posted earlier sounds nicer on the voice, by the way.
Actually, your video also sounds too bath-tubby, as do practically all of your videos.
So you already had an awareness of this rather blatant sonic shortcoming but kept mum until I pointed it out? Why the delay? I was going to point it out much earlier but wanted to see if anybody else might notice this serious shortcoming. And now that I've pointed it out, you claim all of my videos sound bath-tubby/empty coffee cannish just like or perhaps worse than others? But wait a minute. How might I be able to discern this shortcoming in others' videos if I'm just as blinded by my own videos and in-room presentations being guilty of the same/similar shortcoming? Your logic does not seem reasonable here.
Anyway, I'm guessing the easiest most surefire way to confirm anybody's claims would be be to find an "official" Youtube version and compare for themselves. Assuming one possessed even the most basic listening skills, I can all but guarantee that if they don't hear that sound in any "official" Youtube video, they won't hear it in my video either. Frankly, it should be impossible.
Regardless, we obviously have entirely different interpretations of what we're hearing.
There is way too much room reverb in your videos.
Interesting. Do you think you'd recognize the different between listening room reverb and recording hall reverb aka ambient info embedded in the recording? Based on your own words, I suspect you're not hearing any distinction between the two types. This potential truth may also substantiate my suspicion that most of our treasured audio memories ain't worth near as much as many of us think.
Morricab also accused one or more of my videos of essentially the same thing. As I said to morricab 6 or 8 months ago, the vast majority of this "way too much reverb" you think you hear is actually the ambient info embedded in the recording. To explain why that's possible and probable is irrelevant to this thread. And even though you and I clearly hear and/or interpret things differently, I still think I can demonstrate here whether you're hearing way too much reverb from my listening room or if what you hear in my videos is genuine ambient info embedded in the recording.
Crank up your computer's volume and put your best headphones on and just listen to the last 12 seconds to the very end when the music stops instantly. That should give good indication just how live/dead (think reverb) my room might be.
As I said to morricab, if this WAY too much reverb is coming from the room itself then logic dictates that it should be a constant 100% of the time for every note and every track. If for no other reason than my room changeth not between playback presentations nor has it changed since 2010. Again, logic should dictate this constant, right?
Now compare the amount of reverb from that last 12 seconds to the opening 12 seconds of this number. Surely you don't think my measely little listiening room or for that matter anybody elses room, is truly capable of generating this level of natural and musical reverb (ambient info) and be variable to boot, do you? If so, I'd love to hear your explanation. But hopefully, you can see/hear that that's exactly what it is (natural / musical) because it comes from the music info embedded in the recording and the end of the first video should substantiate my claim that my room isn't contributing much if any reverb at all. A direct contrast with your and others' claims.
IOW, should you notice the drastic differences between my two videos then shouldn't logic also dictate the bulk of this supposedly way too much reverb you claim MUST actually be coming from the recording itself? That's why I initially asked if you thought you could discern the difference between a listening room's reverb and the reverb/ambient info embedded in the recording.
IME, there most always is or should be a clear sonic distinction between the two reverb sources - provided one knows what to listen for. One source of reverb is cheap / "hi-fi" sounding and easy to achieve (think empty coffee can sound) while the other is actually quite natural / musical and more difficult/rare to achieve (think live music sound). If it were easy, everybody would be doing it, right? Yet, from my pespective you are incorrectly identifying / labeling sonic characteristics and attaching your allegience toward the more unnatural rather than more natural sound. The big question is why until now have you poo-poo'ed listening to a more natural/musical reverb embedded in a given recording? How can this seemingly obvious difference be so easily misinterpreted/overlooked?
But then, as I said, that may very well also be exaggeration by the video recording, as is typical for such recordings (even though not *all* such recordings sound that way).
Sure, it could be an exaggeration of sorts. But it could also be a few other things. Remember, the key considerations / differences between what we hear from an "official" Youtube version compared to an in-room video include...
1. An "official" youtube version is typically bit-streamed from the recording medium or other digital storage directly to a Youtube channel for our listening pleasure. In contrast, the music info of an in-room video first must pass thru two additional and substantial detours - our systems and our speaker/room interfaces. But those two additional detours are really two additional substantial noise floors and their thresholds. One noise floor is electrical having to do with electric current flow/input signal all the way from Hoover Dam to your speaker drivers' input and the other mechanical/acoustical noise floor starting at the speaker drivers and ending at the acoustical musical presentation influenced by the speaker/room interface. IOW, if we understand the severity of negative sonic impact these two noise floor thresholds induce, it really would be quite a feat when the musicality of an in-room video can get anywhere in the ballpark of an "official" Youtube video.
2. Though clearly part of the mechanical/acoustical-induced noise floor, the topic of distance / air between our speakers and the recording mic(s), this topic deserves special note. We may realize that speakers need certain room/space to breathe. But speakers don't really breathe, they actually broadcast and that broadcast is in some ways like a second live performance. IOW, the live performance is broadcast potentially throughout the entire recording hall as it's being captured at the recording mics and the in-room playback presentation is also broadcasting potentially throughout the entire listening room as it's being captured at our in-room recording mics.
That fact alone implies our recording mics' are gonna' capture some additional air / space not present in any live performance. IOW, we should not be surprised if our in-room videos sound a bit more airy / reverberant, thinner, lighter, a bit more distant, etc. And of course whenever there's greater perceived distances between our ears and the sound source, we should expect some loss of warmth, tonality, umph, jump, etc. That would be natural.
In summary, and given the above, it's rather amazing any in-room video's sound quality can get in the musical ballpark of an "official" youtube video. And in sharp contrast with your claims and interpretations, I think you'll find perhaps all of my published videos easily within the ballpark. And for good reason.
Listening mode disclosure on my part: laptop over headphones.
I'm confused and since we're talking different fruits already I need to ask.... Should I be thinking thinking eggs over easy or Miami Heat over the Celtics? Does this mean you're using laptop speakers instead of headphones? Or headphones via computer?
Gotta' ask because some claim to use their computer's built-in or desktop speakers. Why I've no clue. If one realized the excruciating pain and time it can take to achieve a superior speaker/room interface in their primary system, how much more potentially excruciating pain and time it must take to achieve a superior acoustic coupling between desktop speakers and room - which I doubt is even possible?
Seriously, where does one even begin to address some of this?
www.allmusic.com
