Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Carlos269]

Rather than losing faith in the industry

At its core, the audiophile doctrine is pure Scientology at its finest. Spend more money and you will get better sound. Anybody heard that philosophy before?

 

[Ron Resnick]

the audiophile doctrine is . . . Spend more money and you will get better sound.

The audiophile doctrine? I don't know which audiophiles or what doctrine you are talking about. That certainly is not my personal audiophile doctrine.

Where can I find this singular doctrine?

 

[Carlos269]

The audiophile doctrine? I don't know which audiophiles or what doctrine you are talking about. That certainly is not my personal audiophile doctrine.

Where can I find this singular doctrine?

Come on Ron. You are smarter than this. You very well know that a general belief or understanding does not need to be written or carved in anywhere to be acknowledged.

 

[hopkins]

IMO tonal balance and resolution are the easy part of sound reproduction - if it just what you want to transmit in videos you are forgetting the more important aspects of the high-end stereo sound reproduction. Recordings of sound reproduction can be of use to small groups of people who train themselves to look for some artifacts of sound reproduction, but can't be used to judge the global sound quality of an high-end system. irrespective of the quality of the recording system. Just IMO, YMMV.

I'll agree with most of the above. Yet I rather have the option of watching high quality videos of speakers then not. It is additional information.

Then again, perhaps it's a little like the Woody Allen joke at the beginning of Annie Hall?

"...a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs."

 

[Blue58]

“I will not be paying attention going forward to videos made with internal iPhone mics.”

I have now deleted my videos and will not be posting in the future.

 

[microstrip]

At its core, the audiophile doctrine is pure Scientology at its finest. Spend more money and you will get better sound. Anybody heard that philosophy before?

Well, as far as I know Scientology has nothing to do with money - I do not see its adherents as particularly wealthy, although we can be biased because some rich people are adherent to it.

Being essentially a subjective hobby, "audiophilia", as a good friend loves to call it, has surely many doctrines. WBF is surely the place to debate them - the religious ones, the objective ones, as well as the somewhat elitist perspective that only high knowledge and exceptional set-up can achieve "extraordinary results". IMO most of never ending debates or acrimony are due to an absence of knowledge of the basics of stereo standards and psychoacoustics associated to stereo, as well as to its intrinsic limitations, vagueness and mandatory individualism of its realizations.

Although it has exceptions, in general (I mean it in the broad statistical sense) more money means better quality.

 

[Ron Resnick]

“I will not be paying attention going forward to videos made with internal iPhone mics.”

I have now deleted my videos and will not be posting in the future.

I hope you're kidding!

What does it matter what I think?

 

[microstrip]

It would be good start , because i m really starting to loose faith in the industry .

I am sure I would feel the same if my audio life was mainly based on show experiences. I know I had great sound quality experiences in shows, but they were surely a minority.

 

[tima]

I agree with Tim that one reasonable philosophy (but by no means exclusive objective) here is to seek to maximize in the video the sonic representativeness of what is heard live in the room. It took some time to get on the paper, but, by evaluating different external microphones, by selecting one of them, and then by EQing that mic to get closer to what I hear in the room, I think I found a formula that at least resembles in terms of resolution and in terms of tonal balance what I hear in the room.

But this experimentation also taught me that I think the internal mic in the iPhone is not good for this purpose of audiophiles. I will not be paying attention going forward to videos made with internal iPhone mics.

I believe it is up to the person making the video to determine if it is sufficiently representative of what is heard in-room. He is authoratative in that regard.

I am interested in the system recorded and not particularly interested in the video itself other than knowing if it is representative of the in-room sound and how was it made. For me the video is a tool, not an end in itself. I am not interested in a competition over who can make the best video or who has the best recording equipment or which third party microphone parameters are best. Perhaps some are interested because of the forum name.

If you want to encourage making videos, keep it simple.

I do not believe playback through a phone or laptop speakers is sufficient to assess the system recorded. I do not believe a YouTube video is the reference or a reference for gauging system realism. I believe a system can sound realistic or natural without mimicking a video.

 

[bonzo75]

But this experimentation also taught me that I think the internal mic in the iPhone is not good for this purpose of audiophiles. I will not be paying attention going forward to videos made with internal iPhone mics.

this Is a very clueless post, your statement to not pay attention to videos posted by iPhone is only to show a false conviction in your philosophy. You didn’t pay attention before and lost out a lot, you will continue to lose further

 

[Ron Resnick]

this Is a very clueless post, your statement to not pay attention to videos posted by iPhone is only to show a false conviction in your philosophy.

I think each of us is allowed to define the standards each of us chooses to apply to our various activities. I have proven to my satisfaction that the internal iPhone mic is not as resolving as the MV88+.

If I choose to set the resolution of the MV88+ or greater as the hurdle for my personal interest in listening to videos, that is my perogative.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You didn’t pay attention before and lost out a lot, you will continue to lose further

Lost out? I have saved a lot by not beginning to waste time listening to videos until recently.

 

[tima]

While the in room video in the above link is full of life -- it is also capturing a great deal of room coloration. It sounds like the speakers are playing havoc with the room. (I assume it sounds much better in person!).

I prefer what I hear from the straight YouTube recording. I'm curious what @tima thinks. Does he think the in room recording is more lifelike? Maybe it is (partly because of the room interaction) but the YouTube is surely a more realistic rendition of the studio recording.

At the moment, WBF is showing me posts but not YouTube videos. I can say this: I know of the Rollins record but have not heard it. At the time I remarked that Peter's recording was realistic I was commenting on that alone and not looking for a comparator -- which normally I do not do. There were no subsequent messages until a month later. Apparently Peter's sounds different than a youtube video of the same tune. Okay. I don't use videos to judge realism.

 

[stehno]

Hard to tell about the digital source here, but the sound is nice. I notice they are using two microphones placed directly in front of each speaker. I wonder how that affects things (aside for giving more stereo effect, provided the microphones are fairly directive). But on some of their other videos, its a complete disaster, for example this one:

That track is a little challenging, but it sounds too metallic. A lot of expensive equipment for a disappointing result.

https://open.qobuz.com/track/176716602

Interesting about these two videos and some others too. Notice the in-room recording mics placement directly in front of the speakers maybe 4 or 5 ft out and barely toe'd in toward the center?

I just assumed in-room video producers intended to give the video listener a listening perspective at least somewhat from the "sweet spot" listening position so we might have a better opportunity to hear what the in-room listener might hear. Guess not.

Compared to listening at/near the "sweet spot", I've no clue what all might be compromised with mics positioned directly in front of the speakers but I suspect most everything to one degree or another. In fact, about the only potential value I can think of with mic's placed directly in front of speakers is maybe to demonstrate a speaker's level of resolution.

This is not to say the videos don't sound good, but what are we hearing if it's not remotely close to what the in-room listener should be hearing from the sweet spot?

Based on my limited experience, one thing for certain that's compromised is the bass' level of musicality will be different if not vastly different than if the mic's were placed at/near the "sweet spot". I know in my case the iPhone/Shure MV88 mic is centered maybe 3 ft in front of my ears in my chair. That 3 ft in my 21 ft deep room significantly compromises the quality of bass. And when the playback bass is potentially compromised so is the entire presentation's overall balance including tone, warmth, depth, etc.

I get that the concept of in-room videos is still in its infacy for many of us but maybe we're just not thinking reasonably with some of this stuff?

 

[stehno]

At the moment, WBF is showing me posts but not YouTube videos. I can say this: I know of the Rollins record but have not heard it. At the time I remarked that Peter's recording was realistic I was commenting on that alone and not looking for a comparator -- which normally I do not do. There were no subsequent messages until a month later. Apparently Peter's sounds different than a youtube video of the same tune. Okay. I don't use videos to judge realism.

Maybe you should. Cuz whatever else you were relying on to judge Peter's video as "very realistic" obviously wasn't working.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't use videos to judge realism.

I am honestly confused. I thought that David taught you and Peter and Tang how to use videos to judge realism.

Peter has posted that he doesn't need to ever have heard a recording before, and he does not need to ever have heard a system in person before, to evaluate if that system on the video "sounds natural based on our reference of live sound." I interpreted this to be judging realism.

What do you use videos to judge?

 

[tima]

Maybe you should. Cuz whatever else you were relying on to judge Peter's video as "very realistic" obviously wasn't working.

An administrator has asked you before not to be so obnoxious and sarcastic. Why don't you and Moon Unit go for a walk.

 

[Argonaut]

An administrator has asked you before not to be so obnoxious and sarcastic. Why don't you and Moon Unit go for a walk.

Awwww Bless …… How about addressing Rons direct query … or do you need to refer to back to Utah for instruction !

 

[PeterA]

I am honestly confused. I thought that David taught you and Peter and Tang how to use videos to judge realism.

Peter has posted that he doesn't need to ever have heard a recording before, and he does not need to ever have heard a system in person before, to evaluate if that system on the video "sounds natural based on our reference of live sound." I interpreted this to be judging realism.

What do you use videos to judge?

I think you missed Tim’s point completely. He is not referring to system videos but rather the digital YouTube video of the same song that some here use as a reference against which to judge a poster’s system video. That official video is not Tim’s reference. Actual music is his reference.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Interesting about these two videos and some others too. Notice the in-room recording mics placement directly in front of the speakers maybe 4 or 5 ft out and barely toe'd in toward the center?

I just assumed in-room video producers intended to give the video listener a listening perspective at least somewhat from the "sweet spot" listening position so we might have a better opportunity to hear what the in-room listener might hear. Guess not.

Compared to listening at/near the "sweet spot", I've no clue what all might be compromised with mics positioned directly in front of the speakers but I suspect most everything to one degree or another. In fact, about the only potential value I can think of with mic's placed directly in front of speakers is maybe to demonstrate a speaker's level of resolution.

This is not to say the videos don't sound good, but what are we hearing if it's not remotely close to what the in-room listener should be hearing from the sweet spot?

Based on my limited experience, one thing for certain that's compromised is the bass' level of musicality will be different if not vastly different than if the mic's were placed at/near the "sweet spot". I know in my case the iPhone/Shure MV88 mic is centered maybe 3 ft in front of my ears in my chair. That 3 ft in my 21 ft deep room significantly compromises the quality of bass. And when the playback bass is potentially compromised so is the entire presentation's overall balance including tone, warmth, depth, etc.

I get that the concept of in-room videos is still in its infacy for many of us but maybe we're just not thinking reasonably with some of this stuff?

I think more to test the quality of microphones or different recording media. first the exact level of the microphones are set with a test tone. example