Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Many possibilities...I am just commenting on what I hear...not why it's happening.
If by standard audiophile systems you mean band limited single drivers and similar, then yes, we don't have anything that does that. In a normal, run of the mill multi-way loudspeaker setup I can't see how bass and tremble quality are orthogonal.
Your WAAR videos always sound very weird to me. The sound is diffuse, clearly extended and detailed but almost ethereal, there is no body or dimension to anything, ironically removing a lot of the end detail. The higher harmonics on the voices sound either sibilant or ashy, can't really tell. Cymbals sound like a child with a triangle in a kids orchestra. Drums sound like they are on the next room, separated by a single sheet of drywall. Compared to your other set-up, it always sounds like a joke of the music, a caricature.
Now, I'm not criticizing the sound of the system, never heard it, but the videos sound bad. Especially when you always provide the comparison with your other system, that sounds good. I'm going to propose that perhaps the recording technique is far from ideal. You seem to be very close to the loudspeakers for example. If you have a near or quasi-near field setup, recording with a phone and it's omnidirectional microphone is the last thing you want to do, it can never be representative of the sound you hear.
Obviously all IMO.
Listen also carefully to the opening trumpet. Your system subtly thins and sharpens the trumpet. The recording is very present and your system gets the presence on the trumpet pretty good (strange then that the voices step back...transition between drivers? Is the mid wired in reverse phase?) but even when he is blatting out on a high note at high level on the recording there is the under character of the horn that is lower in tone...a deeper resonance that is missing from the playback.
As a speaker designer you should know better about the competing interest between the balance of bass articulation and treble resolution. You just have told me everything I need to know about your level of knowledge. What is your technical background again?
Obviously , the best way to demonstrate is by comparison and that is why I include the “dry” track played back on my DHT/SET system. If it is sounds weird to you it is because you have never heard anything like what I have done with this system, which is to give the bass reproduction the elements of sound that I enjoy while at the same time giving the vocals that “ethereal” airy, spatial, and dimensional characteristics in a bass heavy presentation. This is far from a typical stereo reproduction. I have almost 40 top quality systems doing that at this time and none doing what this system is doing. The drum next door and the child cymbals is the “live” that I was after. The feel that instruments are in the room and not the basic reproduction of a recording though a medium. Again, you and Brad have not heard this before. It is unique. When compared to the original, is it a caricature or is it what everyone is after? Even through the YouTube videos it is the most enjoyable version of the track to “me”. I got tired of generic sound reproduction and have moved on to personalized sound. You know the old saying, “think outside the box”? Well you know what, some of us who are capable actually do!
Last edited:
You know this is interesting commentary coming from the same guy that said similar things about the WAAR system without the Remastering process. For the second or third time, my aim was not for my system to sound like the reproduced “original” track. You need to wrap your head around that and get past that. The only whole point of the Remastering process is to give the system attributes that I found lacking or desired. It is as simple as that. Everyone can be an armchair critic, that’s okay. No, I’m not butt hurt, just the opposite, I’m thoroughly enjoying the only system in the world that can be adjusted to sound exactly like I, you, or anyone else wants it to sound. And that is the takeaway. I have developed a process to change the inherent sound of my system to match my personal preferences. You don’t have to like my personal preferences, but you cannot dispute the power of what I have accomplished.
Last edited:
You can describe what you like but it doesn't sound like anything you are describing...sorry it just doesn't.
I am with RCanelas on this, the unaltered DHT/SET system simply sounds better than the WAAR system on pretty much everything you have posted. I hear issues with it as well but not nearly to the same extent.
Last edited:
No one has trouble wrapping their head around what you are doing, Carlos. It's simply not that complicated. it might be a lot of trial and error in practice but the concept is not hard to grasp. As I also said many times...if that is what you think is good sounding then I have no issues with that. It is not a prescription for everyone though.
What is baffling to me is why you would want it to sound like it does on the videos (I think this is RCaelas's issue as well)...unless you tell me the recordings are not representative of what you hear in the room. I hear no presence (especially on Morrissey's voice) and just wrong tonality and timbre of instruments. I guess if you could change the sound of live unamplified instruments, in situ, you probably would and then say "See, I made it better sounding than the real thing (to me)". Probably wouldn't be appreciated by the majority of those at the concert though
.No one has trouble wrapping their head around what you are doing, Carlos. It's simply not that complicated. it might be a lot of trial and error in practice but the concept is not hard to grasp. As I also said many times...if that is what you think is good sounding then I have no issues with that. It is not a prescription for everyone though.
What is baffling to me is why you would want it to sound like it does on the videos (I think this is RCaelas's issue as well)...unless you tell me the recordings are not representative of what you hear in the room. I hear no presence (especially on Morrissey's voice) and just wrong tonality and timbre of instruments. I guess if you could change the sound of live unamplified instruments, in situ, you probably would and then say "See, I made it better sounding than the real thing (to me)". Probably wouldn't be appreciated by the majority of those at the concert though
I could take the easy way out and say that the videos don’t truly capture the essence of the sound in the room, but I will not. The videos are representative of the sound character of the system. The biggest sign of that is that I enjoy the sound of the WAAR YouTube videos. As I go back and forth between the video of the “dry” version on my DHT/SET and the “wet” version on my WAAR system, I always get stuck listening to the WAAR system video to the end as I find it more enjoyable. Wavestouch made a good point, about pre-biasing the brain. That’s why I did not include the DHT/SET version of “Karma Police” the second time. Just listen to it in isolation and without trying to comparing it to the original track and you will hear what I hear is so great about it. If you are dead set in accepting the original mastering engineer’s version as gospel then there will be nothing achieved. In my world, I’m now my own God when it comes to the sound of my music and I no longer accept someone else’s vision. It is a very powerful step, to step away from the herd, but sorry we can’t all be sheep!
Last edited:
Do you have 40 different rooms?! You are the luckiest audiophile in the world! Very envious. Can you post pictures of the 40 rooms?
Thanks in advance,
Aziz
If that's what you think you are doing...
Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to your cause if: A) what I heard in the videos sounded better than the DHT/SET system and/or the original file...but it doesn't to me. If you made an obvious improvement rather than unusual shifts in tonality...I could say, yes you have made it more like what I hear live. B) you didn't think of yourself as an audio god just because you have 40 systems...one really good one would suffice
. Pretty much anyone with DSP can also make their system sound how they want...including dynamic expansion in discrete frequency bands etc. You have done it in analog...a much tougher feat but that doesn't mean it can't be done digitally.However, when you use songs from the Smiths and from Radiohead I can only compare to the original recording as these are heavily processed studio recordings. It this case, the original sounds better to me, so, yes I stand with the recording engineer over you...
The reason why something like the Perlman piece is important to me. The recording, while perhaps not the top of the top, captures the tone, timbre, shading and dynamics of a real violin very well (AND I know the sound of live violin VERY well), the piano is also pretty good but clearly subservient to the violin in the mix. So, I can compare not only what my playback sounds like compared to the recording, I can gauge what it is doing compared to the real thing (I also have many recordings of live violin I made myself). My ex had a Strad in house (as well as a Guarneri del Gesu, an Amati and a Guadagnini ), so how they all sound different is interesting and educational to hear how a system can capture differences and how close it can get to the essence of the live sound.
Last edited:
I'm aware of the need to balance and voice a system, but I don't share your opinion that bass and tremble have any orthogonality between them. Neither from the electro-acoustic standpoint nor the psychoacoustic domain. Fortunately, otherwise life would be unbearable I guess.
Not agreeing with you on this point says nothing about my level of knowledge, technical background, or how you'd be able to derive any information about those. I'm having a conversation, meaning I'm open to change my mind. You just haven't produced anything that would make me do so, that's all. Keep things light and positive, don't assume things about and attack other people just because you don't agree with a sentence on a forum somewhere. There is open discussion and there are mud fights. If you want to mud fight, you'll play in the mud alone. This is to say: if you throw another ad-hominem somewhere, my interest in the conversation just drops to zero and you won't even get a reply.
If you tell me that your smaller system's videos are representative of what you hear in room and that similarly your WAAR systems are also representative, in the same terms, and they can be compared directly, I'll believe you. I have nothing else to go on.
Assuming this is true, my comments remain unchanged. If your recording of the WAAR system is not problematic in your view, then all I can say is that I really, truly, don't think it is a good sound. It doesn't sound like high-fidelity at all, not to the recording, nor the music. I'm guessing that should easily come across in acoustic and directly recorded music with a mix of keyed, stringed and wind instruments. Either the system approaches the absolute reference or it deviates from it. I know which one I'd aim for.
I understand the remastering chain upstream allows you to decompose, dynamically modify and tailor the sound to your preference across several dimensions. Our preferences and goals just seem to be very distant, to a point where I'd find the differences extreme. And that's ok as far as I'm concerned.
If that's what you think you are doing...
Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to your cause if: A) what I heard in the videos sounded better than the DHT/SET system and/or the original file...but it doesn't to me. If you made an obvious improvement rather than unusual shifts in tonality...I could say, yes you have made it more like what I hear live. B) you didn't think of yourself as an audio god just because you have 40 systems...one really good one would suffice
However, when you use songs from the Smiths and from Radiohead I can only compare to the original recording as these are heavily processed studio recordings. It this case, the original sounds better to me, so, yes I stand with the recording engineer over you...
The reason why something like the Perlman piece is important to me. The recording, while perhaps not the top of the top, captures the tone, timbre, shading and dynamics of a real violin very well (AND I know the sound of live violin VERY well), the piano is also pretty good but clearly subservient to the violin in the mix. So, I can compare not only what my playback sounds like compared to the recording, I can gauge what it is doing compared to the real thing (I also have many recordings of live violin I made myself). My ex had a Strad in house (as well as a Guarneri del Gesu, an Amati and a Guadagnini ), so how they all sound different is interesting and educational to hear how a system can capture differences and how close it can get to the essence of the live sound.
I own perhaps the worlds greatest collection of DHT/SET amplifiers and preamplifiers, along with the greatest true 1-bit chipless DSD dacs and DSD ADC’s, along with numerous one of a kind and custom made audio and high-end studio equipment. I can listen to whatever I want at home. It is as simple as that. I have developed a system that lets me adjust the system parameters to suit my liking. DSP will not do this on its own, you actually have to have knowledge and know what you are doing. You can’t get there with a press of a button. I have never wanted to be like everyone else and I guess that my preference are way out there, a true reflection of me. If you are ever lucky enough to be liberated you will know what a great feeling it is to not be constrained by convention.
Last edited:
You never did answer the question on your technical background.
Here are some horns, strings and wood instruments for you, like you never heard before:
Well you know Carlos it is not just the gear...it's how it's put together to get what you want. You want something that likely changes with your age and taste.
I am a bit of a radical on this forum as well because I am adamant that the only true reference is live, unamplified acoustic music. The closest proxy then for attending live and making your own recordings is VERY good acoustic recordings with minimal manipulation. I judge gear based on this philosophy...nothing else.
I am well aware that DSP alone is not the answer...you need to have knowledge and skill to use it correctly...or not if you are just tailoring to a personal preference. IMO, you can tinker until you get what you find to be more pleasing. That is not the same as skill. Knowing how to get it to sound like a real live instrument is skill.
IMO, you should just sell everything you have (most of which from the photos I can see the brands and know that most don't sound very good) and get one REALLY good system (like a Living Voice Vox Olympian or Aries Cerat Contendo Reference 2). Just a thought...but you clearly like to tinker...
Not only do I like to thinker, I know that I can do better than that, because I already have!
Here is a sneak peak of my new horn speaker system that I’m working on. I’m still waiting on delivery of the massive midbass horns:
Far beyond Living Voice Vox Olympian or Aries Cerat Contendo Reference 2! A true monster in the making. The drivers in both of those systems are pedestrian compared to what I’m using. The best of the best.
Last edited:
And you think your recording sounds natural? Please, follow the first comment “III. Allegro non troppo” to jump to the same piece.
It most definitely sounds more refined than the YouTube video that you posted. My recording has more resolution and articulation. The YouTube video of the original sounds muted by comparison. Just imagine what my WAAR systems sounds like in the room.
Let’s hear a video of your system playing this in your room so we can have a basis for your comments.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |