Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Ron Resnick]

you haven't recorded differences/changes with both iphone and Shure. If you prove that iphone does not pick up relevant things and the SHure does, I will accept.

I did post this direct comparison. Please see Post #1,066 and Post # 1,067.

 

[bonzo75]

I did post this direct comparison. Please see Post #1,066 and Post # 1,067.

Ron - are you not getting it at all despite repeated posts. Your 1066 and 1067 play back through iphone and Shure. In no way do they show that one is not capable of assessing the system with iphone. They show that Shure has higher resolution (AR Ref 10), not that iphone has less than sufficient resolution (as AR Ref 3 it is fine).

Please do a video, making some change. You will get iphone before and iphone after. You will also get Shure before and Shure after.

If we can understand the difference you hear in the room only through Shure and not through iphone, you have a case. If we can understand through both, despite Shure's higher resolution, then iphone is sufficient.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I speculate a greater sonic difference from the variety of playback devces than from phone or phone+mic.

+1

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

I have explained why in previous posts referring the physics of the processes. People should ask themselves why in real life musicians can move in their seats or in the stage and in stereo sound reproduction experts position the speakers with millimeter accuracy.

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.

IMO these details mainly bring confusion to the main subject - in fact a good microphone has more resolution than our ear. But the problem is elsewhere.

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.

Yes, what has been lost is a true vector sound field. We can't rebuild it with two point sources.

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.

No they are not aware of it. The majority (surely not everyone) try to use videos to prove (or market) their point of view.

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.

In fact, if the sound systems adds a significant amount of artifacts, recordings can be used to compare them. Please note that adding distortions and artifacts is the way sound engineers create the stereo illusion. Nothing pejorative with the terms - some people prefer saying they "manipulate the signal". Equalization is surely an artifact.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron - are you not getting it at all despite repeated posts. Your 1066 and 1067 play back through iphone and Shure. In no way do they show that one is not capable of assessing the system with iphone. They show that Shure has higher resolution (AR Ref 10), not that iphone has less than sufficient resolution (as AR Ref 3 it is fine).

I understand now. My original post was overbroad.

I edited my original post to remove the suggestion that the internal iPhone mic is not sufficient or adequate to make system comparisons:

But this experimentation also taught me that I think the internal mic in the iPhone is not as resolving as the Shure MV88+. I personally will pay more attention to videos of comparisons recorded with external microphones which are EQed for tonal balance representativeness of the in the room sound.

 

[bonzo75]

I understand now. My original post was overbroad.

I edited my original post to remove the suggestion that the internal iPhone mic is not sufficient or adequate to make system comparisons:

But this experimentation also taught me that I think the internal mic in the iPhone is not as resolving as the Shure MV88+. I personally will pay more attention to videos of comparisons recorded with external microphones which are EQed for tonal balance representativeness of the in the room sound.

Thanks. We have data over 4 years through various in room videos on iphone shared by one, evaluated by another, showing the evaluation was spot on. In fact the only places where I found the other person did not agree with my in room evaluation was when he played back through some poor medium like laptop speaker, but then it would be fine if moved to a good set of headphones. In my own case, most of what I played back through iphone 8+ I could never relate to, but iphone 11 seems pretty good. So playback matters, the recording did not.

And we discuss a lot of details. Identify which component loses energy, sounds laidback, lacks bass, is rolled off, is not emotional, is not showing space, etc. That day when I played 2 recordings, Bill asked me correctly if one of them was Analog Productions type reissue. Lack of space around instruments, bass bump or leaness, it all shows through. I am not saying it will not show more through Shure but to say iphone does not is putting your head in the sand.

The only place I have identified where people do not assess videos correctly is when they try to jump the gun as they do in shows, i.e. listen to a whole set up and try to pinpoint what the something in the chain is doing without isolation, e.g. source is doing X. This is them just being arrogant about their own ability and has nothing to do with their own in-room ears or the recording mic quality.

There are things that don't show through a recording, but I have not identified a pattern. That sort of thing will affect final buying decision if one chooses to go that route, but not shortlisting/rejecting decision.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I actually prefer the tonal balance over the iPhone mic

I do too. But I really think I have resolved that now by EQing the external mic to better approximate tonal balance representativeness of the in the room sound.

 

[Al M.]

Al, videos have never been a substitute for the hearing the actual system. My greater point was that you declared you would not be commenting on system videos. Now you are. I conclude that they must provide some value to you as you are spending your time now discussing them.

No, in general they don't have much value, even though there are some cases where they do, but only to some limited extent. I try to provide some pushback here -- as if that wasn't obvious -- and frankly, I find the whole thing entertaining.

 

[bonzo75]

I simply notice the change in both of you.

It is difficult for them to say they wuz wrong.

 

[Al M.]

It is difficult for them to say they wuz wrong.

Hilarious interpretation.

 

[hopkins]

Thank you for clearing that up Hopkins. I was distracted by your use of the term “original“. In the case of this Sonny Rollins recording, it is not “original“ in any sense. There’s nothing original about it. So it’s just some random recording you’re using as a reference to judge someone’s system video.

I’ve done numerous analog video comparisons and systems which have both sources. There are always many differences, and one can be the way the tone of the instruments is presented.

I know understand that you and others are simply using some YouTube video that is not of someone’s actual system as a reference against which you judge the sound of someone’s system.

People have all sorts of different approaches to how they assess what they are hearing from a system video. Using some random digital official YouTube video as the reference is a very different approach from the one that Tim and I use.

Thank you for explaining that in more detail.

Its all a question of common sense and proportions. I'm not going to disagree that some digital vs. lp versions sound very different, and I won't disagree either that you have to be cautious in which versions you listen to (as in: perhaps not just any random video on YouTube...).

 

[Rexp]

No, in general they don't have much value, even though there are some cases where they do, but only to some limited extent. I try to provide some pushback here -- as if that wasn't obvious -- and frankly, I find the whole thing entertaining.

Strange that you say this as you expressed a clear preference for the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus Rons system video.

 

[Al M.]

Strange that you say this as you expressed a clear preference for the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus Rons system video.

Did I not just say "even though there are some cases where they do, but only to some limited extent"? Why can't you actually read what I say? Yes, I expressed a clear preference for the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus Rons system video.

Yet here is the catch: I just don't believe that Ron's system sounds as badly "digital" in person as it does in the videos. So what does this tell us? That videos are mostly useless for system comparisons.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Strange that you say this as you expressed a clear preference for the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus Rons system video.

I, too, preferred, overall, the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus my system video playing Eleanor Rigby.

 

[hopkins]

Thanks. We have data over 4 years through various in room videos on iphone shared by one, evaluated by another, showing the evaluation was spot on. In fact the only places where I found the other person did not agree with my in room evaluation was when he played back through some poor medium like laptop speaker, but then it would be fine if moved to a good set of headphones. In my own case, most of what I played back through iphone 8+ I could never relate to, but iphone 11 seems pretty good. So playback matters, the recording did not.

And we discuss a lot of details. Identify which component loses energy, sounds laidback, lacks bass, is rolled off, is not emotional, is not showing space, etc. That day when I played 2 recordings, Bill asked me correctly if one of them was Analog Productions type reissue. Lack of space around instruments, bass bump or leaness, it all shows through. I am not saying it will not show more through Shure but to say iphone does not is putting your head in the sand.

The only place I have identified where people do not assess videos correctly is when they try to jump the gun as they do in shows, i.e. listen to a whole set up and try to pinpoint what the something in the chain is doing without isolation, e.g. source is doing X. This is them just being arrogant about their own ability and has nothing to do with their own in-room ears or the recording mic quality.

There are things that don't show through a recording, but I have not identified a pattern. That sort of thing will affect final buying decision if one chooses to go that route, but not shortlisting/rejecting decision.

It would be interesting to have more of these types of comparisons here. I'll admit being a little skeptical as to what changes can be discerned through videos, but open and curious.

Do you have any videos that illustrate some changes? If you do, don't tell us beforehand anything about the change...
(P.S. on my channel I posted a second version of "Keith Don't Go" after some changes to the room's acoustics, but I am biased and can't tell for sure whether they can be heard).

One thing that always surprises me is how some can watch a video and say that the result is good because of component x, without even having a comparison. But that's a little different.

 

[PeterA]

It is difficult for them to say they wuz wrong.

I would say their former posts took an absolutist stance and they were stubborn. With more exposure and experience and effort, and with the growing popularity of these videos, they and likely others, are reassessing their dogmatism in real time in front of us and changing their approach and respect for videos. They are no longer so dogmatic.

This will become a growing aspect of the hobby and supplement written descriptions. It is becoming a growing marketing trend as well.

Some people have quietly been using videos as tools for a quite a while. They are used in many different ways.

 

[bonzo75]

I would say their former posts took an absolutist stance and they were stubborn. With more exposure and experience and effort, and with the growing popularity of these videos, they and likely others, are reassessing their dogmatism in real time in front of us and changing their approach and respect for videos. They are no longer so dogmatic.

This will become a growing aspect of the hobby and supplement written descriptions. It is becoming a growing marketing trend as well.

Some people have quietly been using videos as tools for a quite a while. They are used in many different ways.

the best thing about this is the guys who bought the giant 300k plus speakers will no more be able to hide that sound behind an aura of exclusivity, with only the lucky few getting getting to hear it. They will become a laughing stock for paying high money for that. If not along their fanboys, at least along quite a few

It will become more evident who are those who get music and good sound out. Better music will be more on display as compared to audiophile stuff.

 

[PeterA]

Did I not just say "even though there are some cases where they do, but only to some limited extent"? Why can't you actually read what I say? Yes, I expressed a clear preference for the Tang system video playing Eleanor Rigby versus Rons system video.

Yet here is the catch: I just don't believe that Ron's system sounds as badly "digital" in person as it does in the videos. So what does this tell us? That videos are mostly useless for system comparisons.

And if you give that same degree of benefit of doubt to Tang’s system, because of the iPhone recording corruption , as you should to be fair, then the actual delta may still be relatively the same.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

This will become a growing aspect of the hobby and supplement written descriptions. It is becoming a growing marketing trend as well.

...and it would be interesting to see the magazines print QR codes in the reviews that link to videos of the reviewer's system in such cases as they exist. Fusion of print and online is an interesting facet the tech allows us. It would make it much easier to argue about the reviews, the reviewers, the prices, *and* hear the systems to pull that in too.

25 years ago, we worried about pulling eyeballs from the printed versions to bounce online, but I think that ship has sailed. People are online anyway, and providing a gateway you control is useful. Sorry if that went OT there. Carry on...

 

[Al M.]

I would say their former posts took an absolutist stance and they were stubborn. With more exposure and experience and effort, and with the growing popularity of these videos, they and likely others, are reassessing their dogmatism in real time in front of us and changing their approach and respect for videos. They are no longer so dogmatic.

This will become a growing aspect of the hobby and supplement written descriptions. It is becoming a growing marketing trend as well.

Some people have quietly been using videos as tools for a quite a while. They are used in many different ways.

Again you are misinterpreting my stance. It's the same as ever.

See my post #1494.

To quote myself from there:

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.

I could have said that 5 years ago.