Bingo !How can any technique extract an information that the original don't have?
Bingo !How can any technique extract an information that the original don't have?
From my experience, mics and recorded video sounds are always correct. Your ears/brain are biased and customize your unnatural audio sounds the way you like. This explains why other people (wives, non-audiophiles) don't like your trusty audio music. Simply, video sounds are what regular people hear from your audio systems.
Which speaker sounds better? Left (unnatural sound) or right (natural)?
Are you serious wil …. There are room modes , interactions , first reflections etc throughout the whole recording …For me, Tima's has some more energy, clarity and presence without any apparent room distractions.
You are right about the different microphone location and quality will change the sound of recording. As you mentioned, people must experiment with mic's location for the best result.I don't see how the video relates to my point, not the rest of your post, to be honest. You cannot deny that different microphone placements give different results (hollow sound, lacking body, two dimensional, etc... ) There is nothing more to it. I was just suggesting that people experiment. If they are happy with the results as is, then so be it.
I don't understand why you have an issue with anyone choosing to compare a system video to the same track being played directly from a CD/YouTube/whatever source.
It is not an issue for me with someone comparing whatever they want to compare. Hopefully that is clear enough. I have little to say about digital because I don't use it. I have my preferences and feel no need to defend them by attacking someone elses choices. Do as you choose though I prefer someone not try to convince me to do as they do.
For me personally I am somewhat resistant to virtualizing my hobby even further. Having a home stereo to play recorded performances is a step removed from hearing the performance itself, though I am happy to have it. Recording a system video and comparing that to another video, often of unknown origin, is another step removed. That is not why I am in this hobby. I am not interested it having contests with videos. I made some videos for friends to hear and offer advice on speaker positioning and other components based on their knowledge and experience. I am not trying to emulate the sound of a you tube video.
Yes, I'm "serious." To my ears, whatever modes, reflections, etc are in the room are of no consequence because they are not distracting from the excellent music playback.Are you serious wil …. There are room modes , interactions , first reflections etc throughout the whole recording …
This all sounds very condescending. Your interpretations of my methods and motivations are ultimately irrelevant (to me). But I like your videos, they are I instructive. And that's the point - the videos are out there, people can choose to see them or not and if they can get something out of it, great.
How can any technique extract an information that the original don't have? It is made up information and is not always wanted.
This is about balance. Sometimes people prefer enhancement and spotlighting. This may result in a preferred but less natural presentation.
In the case of my Remastering process, the enhancement of low level and inner detail makes the music sound more “real” to me. No sense in keeping things unchanged if they can be improved. The logic to leave things untouched does not make sense to me, as I’m al aye looking for ways to improve upon the status quo!
I understand that. You are remastering the sound to your preference. I wonder if your WAAR remastering system were suddenly available to every audio file for free for his own use, how many of them would change the sound away from how their chosen systems present their favorite recordings.
Thanks Carlos! I prefer your 269 edition, has more life to it. Both are not as good as the Avshowrooms vid but I think that's coz they're using a server/file which is superior to the Tidal version.Since neither Wavetouch or anyone else is stepping up to the challenge, here are my two versions for evaluation:
Thanks Carlos! I prefer your 269 edition, has more life to it. Both are not as good as the Avshowrooms vid but I think that's coz they're using a server/file which is superior to the Tidal version.
Some sounds buried in the mix exist on the recording but are not, or are barely, perceived by the listener for a variety of reasons. If those subtle details are enhanced, then perceptions change. Remixing a recording (or system) can contribute to this effect.
This is about balance. Sometimes people prefer enhancement and spotlighting. This may result in a preferred but less natural presentation.
Doesn't sound as good as your usual vids, maybe re record it?Great.
Now for another take of that great symphony, to add to the collection. Some things I like, others less. I am going to take a break from videos for a month (holidays, then upgrade of my system).
It's digital...but it works differently than other digital sources. I'll post some comparisons in October - two different amps and two sources. I'll be curious to see if differences can be heard on system videos. Then maybe I'll try to record different speakers.
Agreed. The much harder to achieve trick of a great high resolution system is to reproduce all the detail naturally as you would hear in a concert of unamplified music live, without the need to spotlight or "enhance". And without the need to pull detail into the foreground which naturally is more subtly in the background.
With HQPLAYER and the Remastering process you get to unlock the mix and make changes that are substantially more impactful than any system, no matter how resolving, stands a chance of affecting.
I have no doubt that your changes are "Impactful", but are they improvements?
You tell us that your process is unique, but without detailed explanations of what you are doing, which you refuse to disclose, we are left with broad statements, and your videos... Are the videos convincing?