Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Rexp]

Who actually knows what this Beautiful Life track is supposed to sound like?
At least if you use a well known track from an album like Rumours, we know what it should sound like (assuming one has the LP).

 

[Wavetouch]

Who actually knows what this Beautiful Life track is supposed to sound like?

The original music link is in my last post. Post #2,159

 

[Argonaut]

The original music link is in my last post. Post #2,159

Do you consider that this System recording is a true reflection of the artists soundtrack ?

 

[Argonaut]

How about this …

 

[Argonaut]

And this one …

 

[Wavetouch]

Do you consider that this System recording is a true reflection of the artists soundtrack ?

Yes. I believe the original music is a true reflection of real voice and sound.
The proof: You can repeat say "hello" while the original music is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in similar sound/space which makes them both natural/realistic sounds.

You can repeat say "hello" while WAAR system is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in different sound/space which makes WAAR's sound a less natural/realistic sound than the original music.

You can repeat say "hello" while the my system (below) is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in similar sound/space which makes my system sounds closer to a natural/realistic sound.

 

[Wavetouch]

And this one …

Bach live recording (Peter A) is match for below original music which is quieter and clean sound. Not the one you posted which has more diffused and louder sound.

This live recording is excellent and very natural which is almost impossible to find.
Peter can increase the Mic input volume level for louder recording.

 

[hopkins]

And again, even if there is nice sounding video you could probably make a comparably nice one from a $2,000 system because the video doesn't reflect the resolution etc. of a high end system anyway. So what's the point?

It would be fun to test this out. I have been curious about it myself. I have small desktop speakers (Vanatoo) and the sound on a recording is very different from my main speakers - the lack of transparency is obvious even with a phone recording. You may not hear the difference if you listen to videos on your phone, but with reasonably good headphones it is obvious.

 

[RCanelas]

Having a conversation about something sounding natural or convincing based on this beautiful life theme is hard for me to grasp. Musically, it is remarkably poor IMO. Just an endless sequence of elevator music grade, low hanging, basic cues. If someone tells me this was AI generated I won't check twice.

Sound wise, it is also very poor. The voice is unbearably overprocessed and bloated, to the edge of distortion, the shitty reverb they added doesn't match any other instrument, bass line is just tone, no texture, piano is just there, floating in ether, voice also floats but in a different ether. Nothing matches. This is not an acoustic event nor can it be translated into one, it sounds exactly as it is, just a forced mush of immiscible things. And all of this shows in all of the recordings of our systems. I guess that's a good thing. If something makes this sound good I'd have a serious issue with it. Some systems sound incredibly harsh, others very distant, others just lacking lows and highs, but they all sound bad.

 

[hopkins]

Having a conversation about something sounding natural or convincing based on this beautiful life theme is hard for me to grasp. Musically, it is remarkably poor IMO. Just an endless sequence of elevator music grade, low hanging, basic cues. If someone tells me this was AI generated I won't check twice.

Sound wise, it is also very poor. The voice is unbearably overprocessed and bloated, to the edge of distortion, the shitty reverb they added doesn't match any other instrument, bass line is just tone, no texture, piano is just there, floating in ether, voice also floats but in a different ether. Nothing matches. This is not an acoustic event nor can it be translated into one, it sounds exactly as it is, just a forced mush of immiscible things. And all of this shows in all of the recordings of our systems. I guess that's a good thing. If something makes this sound good I'd have a serious issue with it. Some systems sound incredibly harsh, others very distant, others just lacking lows and highs, but they all sound bad.

I guess you won't be making a video of this track

 

[RCanelas]

I guess you won't be making a video of this track

I see no interest at all. Are we making videos of everything we can find now? I don't have unlimited time, nor motivation. There are millions of tracks out there.

If driving this thread further is your jam, I humbly suggest raising the bar instead of taking our cues from anytime someone posts a video online with an expensive system and trying to compare our stuff. Otherwise, look at the last 2 pages. Everything posted sounds genuinely atrocious IMO, from the video the idea was taken from, to yours, and Carlos's several systems. Not a problem with your system, it's just a shitty, colored and corrupted comparison point. The fact we all share the same doesn't really matter much. What are we comparing? If the originally bloated, diffuse and processed voice sounds more or less bloated in your system? What is the end game like for something like this?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

What is the end game like for something like this?

...You Tube videos.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes. I believe the original music is a true reflection of real voice and sound.
The proof: You can repeat say "hello" while the original music is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in similar sound/space which makes them both natural/realistic sounds.

You can repeat say "hello" while WAAR system is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in different sound/space which makes WAAR's sound a less natural/realistic sound than the original music.

You can repeat say "hello" while the my system (below) is playing, then you can hear/feel your voice and the singer's voice are in similar sound/space which makes my system sounds closer to a natural/realistic sound.

I actually agree with you here. Your system on your system video sound more like the recording. This fares well for you as a speaker manufacturer. What the WAAR system with the Remastering process offers is more than a reproduction of the original recording. The WAAR system with the Remastering process provides an enhanced reproduction that meets my personal requirement for a more dimensional and detailed sound. It is obvious from the videos that the WAAR system’s sound has more definition & inner detail and a greater sense of scale and dynamics. Further more is you listen to the different videos the sound of the WAAR system with the Remastering process is more enjoyable and captivating to listen to than the reproduced original recording. As Brad “Morricab” quite accurately stated, the WAAR system with the Remastering process just sounds more “live” than a straight forward reproduction, and that was my goal.

 

[Carlos269]

I see no interest at all. Are we making videos of everything we can find now? I don't have unlimited time, nor motivation. There are millions of tracks out there.

If driving this thread further is your jam, I humbly suggest raising the bar instead of taking our cues from anytime someone posts a video online with an expensive system and trying to compare our stuff. Otherwise, look at the last 2 pages. Everything posted sounds genuinely atrocious IMO, from the video the idea was taken from, to yours, and Carlos's several systems. Not a problem with your system, it's just a shitty, colored and corrupted comparison point. The fact we all share the same doesn't really matter much. What are we comparing? If the originally bloated, diffuse and processed voice sounds more or less bloated in your system? What is the end game like for something like this?

Yes most of these audiophile demonstrations tracks are shitty and not worth listening to for any other reason than sound comparisons. If videos of music for musical enjoyment is the goal then all commonality will diverge and then the videos would serve less value as audiophile comparison tool and just be uploaded for the purpose of musical enjoyment or for private comparisons instead of public commentary. I see your point. Here are a couple of videos of music I actually enjoy:

 

[Ron Resnick]

Given that Ron's Vimeo vid of Roberta Flack sounded much better than his youtube vid, the mic is not the weakest link.

Really? Interesting!

I thought through the video that playback sounded a bit harsh, and thus unrepresentative compared to what I hear in the room on both vinyl and tape.

 

[hopkins]

I see no interest at all. Are we making videos of everything we can find now? I don't have unlimited time, nor motivation. There are millions of tracks out there.

If driving this thread further is your jam, I humbly suggest raising the bar instead of taking our cues from anytime someone posts a video online with an expensive system and trying to compare our stuff. Otherwise, look at the last 2 pages. Everything posted sounds genuinely atrocious IMO, from the video the idea was taken from, to yours, and Carlos's several systems. Not a problem with your system, it's just a shitty, colored and corrupted comparison point. The fact we all share the same doesn't really matter much. What are we comparing? If the originally bloated, diffuse and processed voice sounds more or less bloated in your system? What is the end game like for something like this?

Perfectly understand. I usually record things I listen to, but in this case, it is amusing to compare to a 500.000$ system! The point is not to demonstrate anything here, just to offer some diversity.

Jay's Audio Lab is never going to record anything else than this type of music.

 

[Ron Resnick]

1) Despite my theoretical skepticism about, and objections to, videos, I recorded and posted a bunch of them over a period of several weeks. During this process I discovered that an external microphone allowed me to achieve what I think is greater representativeness on the dimensions of tonal balance and perceived relative resolution than did the iPhone mic, but only on these two sonic attribute dimensions.

I don't believe that these two dimensions alone are sufficient to convey the subtle attributes and nuances of emotionally engaging music playback which cause us to put so much time and effort and expense into our systems. I agree with Al's point that we might be able to put together a simple, inexpensive system which synthesizes well through videos solely the attributes of tonal balance and perceived subjective resolution.

2) I'm not scared of posting videos, for the very simple reason that I really don't care what anybody thinks of the sound of my system. (Except I value and appreciate greatly the opinions and recommendations of friends whose sonic preferences I know and understand after they have listened to the system in the room.) Further I especially don't care what someone who naively (in my opinion) believes he/she can learn and understand the sound of a system from a video thinks of the sound of my system.

At least if somebody visits me in my room and leaves not liking the sound of the system then I think that, at least, is a rational, considered and valid subjective judgment.

3) Over the last several months I have learned that advocates of videos who record videos and post videos often disagree about the reproduction quality of systems based on videos. In other words I have observed that video believers can disagree strongly about something as seemingly simple as the sound of a violin. If the video believers -- who listen frequently to live, unamplified acoustic music, and who tout themselves as being experts on knowing what a real violin sounds like -- cannot agree whether a violin on a video sounds within the "range of correctness" what is the point of the video exercise? I don't think these disagreements would endure if these same people were together in the same room listening to a stereo system in real life.

Videos don't seem to me to accomplish much more than to move subjective preferences in this hobby to a different arena which is more artificial and less tethered to actual organic sounds than is in-the-room listening.

4) Finally, I personally learn less from videos than I do from the verbal or written report of a knowledgeable audiophile whose sonic preferences I understand and who has visited in person each of two systems. I learn more from that person's verbal or written description of what he or she heard in those rooms than I do from listening to videos recorded in those rooms. I am basing this on the reports of a friend who has heard the same speaker system in two different dedicated rooms, and on the videos which have been posted about those two rooms.

 

[bonzo75]

1) Despite my theoretical skepticism about, an objections to videos, I recorded and posted a bunch of them over a period of several weeks. During this process I discovered that an external microphone allowed me to achieve what I think is greater representativeness on the dimensions of tonal balance and perceived relative resolution than did the iPhone mic, but only on these two sonic attribute dimensions.

I don't believe that these two dimensions alone are sufficient to convey the subtle attributes and nuances of emotionally engaging music playback which cause us to put so much time and effort and expense into our systems. I agree with Al's point that we might be able to put together a simple, inexpensive system which synthesizes well through videos solely the attributes of total balance and perceived subjective resolution.

2) I'm not scared of posting videos, for the very simple reason that I really don't care what anybody thinks of the sound of my system. (Except I value and appreciate greatly the opinions and recommendations of friends whose sonic preferences I know and understand after they have listened to the system in the room.) Further I especially don't care what someone who naively (in my opinion) believes he/she can learn and understand the sound of a system from a video thinks of the sound of my system.

At least if somebody visits me in my room and leaves not liking the sound of the system then I think that, at least, is a rational, considered and valid subjective judgment.

3) Over the last several months I have learned that advocates of videos who record videos and post videos often disagree about the reproduction quality of systems based on videos. In other words I have observed that video believers can disagree strongly about something as seemingly simple as the sound of a violin. If the video believers -- who listen frequently to live, unamplified acoustic music, and who tout themselves as being experts on knowing what a real violin sounds like -- cannot agree whether a violin on a video sounds within the "range of correctness" what is the point of the video exercise? I don't think these disagreements would endure if these same people were together in the same room listening to a stereo system in real life.

Videos don't seem to me to accomplish much more than to move subjective preferences in this hobby to a different arena which is more artificial and last tethered to actual organic sounds than is in-the-room listening.

4) Finally, I personally learn less from videos than I do from the verbal or written report of a knowledgeable audiophile whose sonic preferences I understand and who has visited in person each of two systems. I learn more from that person's verbal or written description of what he or she heard in those rooms than I do from listening to videos recorded in those rooms. I am basing this on the reports of a friend who has heard the same speaker system in two different dedicated rooms, and on the videos which have been posted about those two rooms.

so you are saying, for example, people who listen to live and know what unamplified sounds like, always agree on written, verbal description, or at hifi shows, they only don’t agree on videos?

 

[Rexp]

Really? Interesting!

I thought through the video that playback sounded a bit harsh, and thus unrepresentative compared to what I hear in the room on both vinyl and tape.

Here are the two versions of the same recording for others to compare:

 

[hopkins]

I personally learn less from videos than I do from the verbal or written report of a knowledgeable audiophile whose sonic preferences I understand and who has visited in person each of two systems. I learn more from that person's verbal or written description of what he or she heard in those rooms than I do from listening to videos recorded in those rooms. I am basing this on the reports of a friend who has heard the same speaker system in two different dedicated rooms, and on the videos which have been posted about those two rooms.

My personal experience comparing written reviews of speakers (or even personal accounts) with my impressions when I get to listen to them is that written reviews of speakers are useless. We are sensitive to different aspects of sound reproduction, and those differences can be subtle but essential to us. Moreover, there are many speakers out there with few or no reviews, not to mention DIY...

This is frustrating. Videos are the next best thing to a live listening session, and I find them informative.

That is my conclusion, from years of reading reviews, attending audio shows, and listening to audiophiles' (or non audiophile) systems in their homes. I don't expect others will agree, and honestly it should not matter if we do or not. Written reviews will continue, so will videos.