Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

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.

This famous Sonny Rollins is nicely recorded (although the stereo separation is excessive, not to my liking - mono version is probably better - and on some tracks the saxophone keeps drifting in and out as if Rollins was stepping back and forth or to the side all the time; so the "realism" is relative).

The recording is very transparent, and dynamic.

I heard a good pressing of an LP version a couple years ago on a system with a very good turntable and Audio Note speakers (I forget which ones) and it was impressive.

But when you listen to this album on lesser systems you still get the same impression of "live" sound.

The reason it is useful to compare a system recording of a track with the original on headphones (or even speakers if you insist) is to check that the tone of the instruments on the system video corresponds to (or is not too far off from) those of the recording (preferably using a neutral headphone or speaker - if you insist). You then know if you are dealing with a colored system recording, and you can do what you want with that information. That's all there is to it. It does not mean you cannot appreciate other aspects differently.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. It's not rocket science, an 8 year old could understand this.

 

[Argonaut]

lthough the stereo separation is excessive, not to my liking - mono version is probably better -

As with a number of contemporary mono recordings ..

 

[hopkins]

As with a number of contemporary mono recordings ..

Sometimes the saxophone even drifts from the right to the left speaker...weird.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

Thank you for explaining. I had no idea from Tim's post that he was referring only to YouTube videos.

 

[hopkins]

Vis a vis YouTube, I believe the max bitrate is 256kbs which is not bad at all. When listening with headphones and a good DAC/headphone amp you can get really good results, though the preferred method is listening lossless. I think some reference YouTube simply because it is accessible to everyone.

There are many ways to kill the sound, with complex speaker systems and bad acoustics, and on the contrary a simple headphone setup can be a good reference point on some aspects, especially for the purpose of listening to system videos.

 

[tima]

@PeterA -- thanks for clearing that up.

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

Maybe this is where part of your confusion comes in. I don't believe David teaches that, or I don't recall that lesson. You've spent time talking with David and hearing his rooms. Did he teach you to use videos to judge realism?

We use videos to share our systems with each other. I 've used them for getting advice on setup and progress. We use live acoustic music as a reference for goal setting and guidance. I use my experience playing and listening to live acoustic music to assess components/systems.

Other than that, sometimes I use videos to gauge if I am interested in a particular piece of music or performance.

 

[PeterA]

This famous Sonny Rollins is nicely recorded (although the stereo separation is excessive, not to my liking - mono version is probably better - and on some tracks the saxophone keeps drifting in and out as if Rollins was stepping back and forth or to the side all the time; so the "realism" is relative).

The recording is very transparent, and dynamic.

I heard a good pressing of an LP version a couple years ago on a system with a very good turntable and Audio Note speakers (I forget which ones) and it was impressive.

But when you listen to this album on lesser systems you still get the same impression of "live" sound.

The reason it is useful to compare a system recording of a track with the original on headphones (or even speakers if you insist) is to check that the tone of the instruments on the system video corresponds to (or is not too far off from) those of the recording (preferably using a neutral headphone or speaker - if you insist). You then know if you are dealing with a colored system recording, and you can do what you want with that information. That's all there is to it. It does not mean you cannot appreciate other aspects differently.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. It's not rocket science, an 8 year old could understand this.

When you are talking about an analog recording from the late 1950s, what do you mean by comparing a system video to the “original“ on YouTube? There is no digital original version of this recording. What does an original over YouTube mean especially when referring to an analog recording?

 

[PeterA]

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

I don’t know what you mean by this Ron. Realism in what sense? Recording technique to capture the in room system sound? These iPhone videos are recording audio systems. If we are told the video represents the sound of the system we can then get some sense of whether or not the system presents music naturally, that is like we hear live instruments by using memories of how instruments sound up on stage or in a room and comparing the two to each other.

I have discussed videos with David and we have shared our opinions about what we listen for and what videos can tell us about a system, but I have no idea what you mean by David teaching me how to judge realism.

 

[microstrip]

We use videos to share our systems with each other. I 've used them for getting advice on setup and progress. (...)

(...)

Other than that, sometimes I use videos to gauge if I am interested in a particular piece of music or performance.

Well, I think anyone can agree with such restricted use of videos - it has been done for years without any questioning. The current real discussion in WBF is centered around the use of videos to assess others system performance.

 

[Rexp]

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

Peter's video was far more realistic than yours tho....

 

[Rexp]

When you are talking about an analog recording from the late 1950s, what do you mean by comparing a system video to the “original“ on YouTube? There is no digital original version of this recording. What does an original over YouTube mean especially when referring to an analog recording?

Yes I think by 'original' he meant a digital copy on streaming services. Here's the three videos for reference:
Peter's video

A Youtubers video of vinyl playback

@stehno video of wav file playback

 

[PeterA]

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.

Ron, that is a very interesting comment. Can you identify an iPhone mic video by listening to it? And will you also discount a member’s opinion of a system videos if he did not listen to it through his main system?

Do you plan on recording member systems for your WBF feature interviews? What happened to that idea?

 

[PeterA]

Yes I think by 'original' he meant a digital copy on streaming services. Here's the three videos for reference:
Peter's video

A Youtubers video of vinyl playback

@stehno video of wav file playback

Interesting. That is with the vdH Colibrí before ddk came to fine tune the set up of my system. The room is now different and I am using my vintage Ortofon cartridge. It’s a nice document for how my system used to sound.

 

[Al M.]

Standard answer of a vid denier.
If its useless anyway and not representative why not post one for fun.
Its all about " sharing " these days

The basic idea of "sharing" for fun or information is fine. Yet if I have the choice between sharing a vastly degraded replica of the sound of a system, which is a subversion of the very idea of the High End, and sharing nothing, I choose to share nothing.

And so do many other posters on WBF, including a number of prominent ones. I am by far not the only one who makes that rational choice.

 

[Rexp]

The basic idea of "sharing" for fun or information is fine. Yet if I have the choice between sharing a vastly degraded replica of the sound of a system, which is a subversion of the very idea of the High End, and sharing nothing, I choose to share nothing.

And so do many other posters on WBF, including a number of prominent ones. I am by far not the only one who makes that rational choice.

Many digitally sourced high end systems sound like garbage and it comes across loud and clear via a decent Youtube video. Check out this channels videos, the good ones are in the small minority:

https://youtube.com/@HiFiImmersion

 

[Al M.]

Many digitally sourced high end systems sound like garbage and it comes across loud and clear via a decent Youtube video. Check out this channels videos, the good ones are in the small minority:

https://youtube.com/@HiFiImmersion

How do you know it's the system and not the video? How do you know it's a "decent" video? You just don't.

If a video sounds nice, fine. If it doesn't -- whatever.

And by the way, many analog sourced systems sound like garbage through video as well. It's not just digitally sourced systems.

 

[Rexp]

How do you know it's the system and not the video? How do you know it's a "decent" video? You just don't.

Because the Youtuber has a few videos that do sound good, recorded with the same high quality gear, that act as a reference point.

 

[stehno]

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

No need to get snarky. But I thought it cute when you said, "Okay. I don't use videos to judge realism." yet, there you are using your buddy's video to judge just how "very realistic" his video was - in your reviewer's opinion.

BTW, I find every last one of these in-room videos to be quite educational.

 

[tima]

No need to get snarky. But I thought it cute when you said, "Okay. I don't use videos to judge realism." yet, there you are using your buddy's video to judge just how "very realistic" his video was - in your reviewer's opinion.

This is where it gets kinda frustrating.

I used my judgement to comment on Peter's video. Unlike you did, I did not use some you tube or third party video as a compare to Peter's.

 

[hopkins]

When you are talking about an analog recording from the late 1950s, what do you mean by comparing a system video to the “original“ on YouTube? There is no digital original version of this recording. What does an original over YouTube mean especially when referring to an analog recording?

Hi,

First of all, before attempting to answer, I just want to say that I totally "get" what you are trying to accomplish (I read your thread about "Natural Sound") and in a sense I am trying to accomplish the same thing! In an ideal world, we would have speakers that offer very low level resolution, are highly dynamic, and with a perfectly flat frequency response. But that does not exist (not that I am aware of), so we have to make choices.

I love this video (possibly also because it reminds me of time spend in Japan) - a bunch of audiophiles in awe over a 1950s single driver speaker:

Apparent contradiction ? No.

But to get back to the subject matter...

There is no doubt that system recordings are never going to fully capture the in-room experience. So even if the author of a video claims that the sound is representative of what he/she experiences live (meaning, in the room), that cannot be the case. He/she is probably refering to one aspect of the sound, just as we may be focusing on one aspect when we watch the playback. Recordings, especially with the microphones used here (iPhone build-in mic, MV88+, my Superlux 502s...) do not have the resolution of our ears. Microphones, ADCs, introduce distortions (frequency response, dynamics..). Also, the way a microphone captures the sound is not how our ears and brain "hears" it.

Once that recording is made, whether you listen to it on headphones, or on speakers, this is not going to change any of the above. You cannot recreate what has been lost.

What will change is whether you are adding the reverb of the room or not, and the extent to which you are introducing more distortions (other than the rooms'). This has been covered before, and I don't think we need to go over it again.

So we are limited in what can be assessed from a video, and I doubt that in the video I included above, we can get a real feel of what it was like to be in that room. As a result, we can only use videos to evaluate some aspects. Whether people who watch and use these videos are aware of this, I don't know.

So to answer your question, provided the digital version is of reasonable quality, I don't think it is much of an issue to use it to compare with a vinyl playback in the original room, because the recording of the system itself is never really going to capture the in-room experience anyway, and those subtle differences between sources will probably be lost anyway. I know some people will disagree with this - I am exaggerating thins a little bit to get my point across, you can always find some examples to contradict all this, and it remains a point of view.