Listening on my phone with in-ear headphones (Etymotic).
I see how one could appreciate some aspects of the tape playback.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Listening on my phone with in-ear headphones (Etymotic).
I see how one could appreciate some aspects of the tape playback.
The example - Kind of Blue - is a bit extreme as there are pretty significant differences between the various sources for this album. See for example some details here: https://www.analogplanet.com/conten...ic-reissue-sonylegacy-analog-planet-exclusive and reference in that article is this one as well: https://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/206fifth/
So what is the "official" release of "Kind of Blue" ?
Discogs references 518 different releases for that album: https://www.discogs.com/master/5460-Miles-Davis-Kind-Of-Blue
With a track like "Spinning Wheel" there is probably a unique source, and the various releases probably exhibit less sonic differences. (EDIT: I checked, there are also quite a lot of releases for that album: https://www.discogs.com/master/35401-Blood-Sweat-And-Tears-Blood-Sweat-And-Tears, but the point remains that "Kind of Blue" is fairly unique).
Last edited:
All of that may be true. The fact remains that some people prefer not to use a YT "official release" as a reference. Personally, I prefer live music. Recent YT official releases do not sound good to me, basically flat and thin. Others prefer their sound and might factor in some theory about them. IMO, people can do what they want. We have heard and discussed the reasons from both sides. It is a matter of opinion and choice or preference from what I can see.
I take issue with someone telling me that the digital "official release" of some analog recording is what my system should sound like when playing the original vinyl pressing.
I once compared a bunch of Kind of Blue recordings with two friends in one of their systems. The earlier the pressing, the more real/better it sounded. Forget the digital versions.
The fact there are different sounding 'releases' of the work floating around should tell us everything we need to know. There is no absolute reference for any of this, except the real deal acoustic event, in the case of acoustic or electro-acoustic music. We are hopelessly stuck in the circle of confusion when it comes to programme sources.
That said, considering youtube releases as a baseline for anything is not something I'd ever expect to have heard within this circle. I share the same anecdotal experience as @PeterA on this, the closer to the original the better, less processed and filtered and chopped up things tend to sound. I have an original Columbia Kind of Blue. I need to adjust the phono for a Columbia curve. It sounds Miles ahead of anything out there that I've ever heard. Of course I haven't heard everything.
That said, considering youtube releases as a baseline for anything is not something I'd ever expect to have heard within this circle. I share the same anecdotal experience as @PeterA on this, the closer to the original the better, less processed and filtered and chopped up things tend to sound. I have an original Columbia Kind of Blue. I need to adjust the phono for a Columbia curve. It sounds Miles ahead of anything out there that I've ever heard. Of course I haven't heard everything.
It's really a question of context. Many LP and digital versions of albums are similar, especially more recent ones.
On the "Spinning Wheel" track, the differences between the various videos are so large that it is natural to reach out to some kind of "reference" to compare. There is no harm in doing that. Those differences, I believe, cannot all be explained by differences in the source material.
Agreed, the systems and rooms and set ups are all very different. It is no surprise that the four videos sound so different. They all have horns, but very different sounding horns. Two are vintage with Lamm and turntables. After that, few similarities at all. We each choose what we want. The cool thing is that they were all shared and discussed. In terms of reference, we all know what music sounds like. There is that and then some digital YT "official" version. Pick the reference that works for you.
No 2 for me by some margin Peter … Your in trouble now
Yes, Argonaut, I had to make some decisions back then. Thank you for taking the time to compare the two St. James Infirmary videos on the two turntables in my system and for expressing your preference. What did you like about the second video more than the first?
I didn’t particularly rate either PeterA, altho both sounded pleasant enough … Having owned an early CN-191 in a dedicated mono system and then a shared vintage stereo setup driving CN-191 ‘s , most likely before Karmelli even heard them for the first time , most certainly you… I was merely being polite ,
Last edited:
Do you have any photographs of that system? Thank you for your continued interest in reading and posting in my system thread. I appreciate your candor and cordial behavior.
Yes of course I’m serious. People have all sorts of photographs. I was just asking you a simple question. I would love to see old photographs of the CN – 191 to see what version you had.
Here’s a photograph of my system from about 1993:
Last edited:
And you were so proud of your HiFi system 30+ years ago that you made a photo shoot of it ? Planning for the future of Audio HiFi forum life as we know it perhaps …did you record any audio captures of your system back then by any chance ?
Even had I such media there is also this :
18. All material posted becomes the property of the What's Best Forum. All postings and material contained in this site are copyrighted and may NOT be republished or reposted without express written consent of forum administrators.
Anyway … I would have thought that you would have been much more interested in my recollections of how the system sounded ?
Last edited:
YouTube video sound is not what anyone here is aiming for. However, it is a baseline in some respects, if something sounds harsh/distorted/unnatural on YouTube either the source material or system is at fault.
Agree 100% - which is unusual here - and thank you for writing your post.
I am interested in evolving my system largely for the enjoyment of listening to music in my home - as a hobby. I gauge my progress from the only reference I know, acoustic music performed live. I learned some time back that was the way to assess progress. I don't see roomless audio component videos as part of the hobby. I don't really see youtube as part of the hobby - many of us started before there was an internet. Sharing in-room system videos with others can be fun as a way for long distance social interaction and sometimes for diagnosis.
Perhaps it would be good practice to provide a reference to the recording played along with the videos.
For LPs, it could be a Discogs link. At least this way the viewer knows what release is being played.
I record mostly files, and that is why I generally include the link to the source, for ex. Qobuz or YouTube (if the right version is available).
For LPs, it could be a Discogs link. At least this way the viewer knows what release is being played.
I record mostly files, and that is why I generally include the link to the source, for ex. Qobuz or YouTube (if the right version is available).
Last edited:
I believe everyone here is interested in musical enjoyment.
Live music is a very vague reference, and does not take into account the recording. You may as well record your voice and play it back to compare.
The same musician, playing the same instrument, will probably sound different on different albums. Which is the reference ?
Plugging good quality headphones and listening to the source material (whether an LP, a file, or a stream) to compare how it sounds to your speakers is a valuable exercise, in my opinion. It can give an idea of the "tonal signature" of your speakers versus headphones. It can also give an idea of the precision of the sound in your room. Headphones and speakers obviously provide a different listening experience, and just as with speakers, there is no "reference" for headphones, but it is still valuable.
I'm always suggesting to provide a catalog number. Rarely found with youtube videos.
I posted the following in a different thread, but want it here as it reflects my thinking on the topic of natural sound:
Live music is my reference, and the reference for many here, but not all.
In my opinion, very precise, pinpoint imaging, usually with outlines, is an artifact, and to me it sounds artificial. Some gear and combinations of components and acoustic treatment set up in particular ways will create this effect. Sure, some people like that. It gives the illusion that someone is there in the room with you, but it sounds fake to me. When I close my eyes when listening to someone speak or when listening to live acoustic instruments, I do not hear this effect. Therefore, I do not want to recreate it in my listening room. My goal is a more natural presentation, reminding me of what I hear live.
I am talking about the origin of the sound, the location of the musician with his instrument as it is presented before me. My focus is the sound that the musician or singer makes with his or her instrument. The musician himself is not making a sound. We should not see/hear/imagine a pinpoint image of the musician or his instrument but rather the location from which the energy originates and then expands into the space. Is that precise? To me, it is about the spatial relationships between the instruments up on stage and how the energy moves outward and around and is reflected. I can tell that the violins are to the left of the piano and cello and that the timpani is further back in center and where the brass section and wind instruments are. The triangle may pierce through the mix and be on the left side, but where exactly is hard to tell, especially if you sit further back in the hall. Of course Ella is sitting there right next to Joe Pass in front of me in my room, but even then, it is not pinpoint and certainly not outlined. I hear her voice and his guitar. I hear the moment the sound is created and roughly where, but no pinpoint and no outline. The scale is believable and their relationship within the space is convincing. I can imagine them there singing and playing, but it is only the origin of the sound in space as captured by the recording and presented by the system in the room. Pinpoint imaging also implies to me at least a very small and precise point in space. Hearing a piano or cello or voice singing is nothing like that.
Yes, we all certainly have different approaches, observations, and goals.
Boston symphony hall last week just prior to the beginning of the program. When the musicians started to play, I could see pinpoint imaging. But when I closed my eyes, I did not hear it. The right most cello is 3 feet in front of the bass player. That is pinpoint imaging. There is no way I could discern that distance with my eyes closed. But I could hear a wave of low frequency energy coming from the left middle front of the stage and the two instrument sections playing very distinctly. The timbres were unique and the spatial relationship was clear but there was nothing pinpoint about it.
During Tchaikovsky’s piano Concerto, I could clearly see the pianist’s two arms rising above the keyboard, with fingers hidden. I could clearly hear 10 fingers on two hands playing different keys. Although I am certain the two hands attached to 10 fingers we’re only playing inches apart, I could not tell that by simply listening to the sound. What I heard was the energy leaving the soundboard to fill that great hall with beautiful music and the piano in the middle of the string sections and in front of the brass with the tympani even further back. There was an occasional triangle strike. Its energy pierced through the fabric, clear and high from somewhere behind the violins and to the left of the piano.
The sound from that orchestra simply did not have any pinpoint imaging.
Live music is my reference, and the reference for many here, but not all.
In my opinion, very precise, pinpoint imaging, usually with outlines, is an artifact, and to me it sounds artificial. Some gear and combinations of components and acoustic treatment set up in particular ways will create this effect. Sure, some people like that. It gives the illusion that someone is there in the room with you, but it sounds fake to me. When I close my eyes when listening to someone speak or when listening to live acoustic instruments, I do not hear this effect. Therefore, I do not want to recreate it in my listening room. My goal is a more natural presentation, reminding me of what I hear live.
I am talking about the origin of the sound, the location of the musician with his instrument as it is presented before me. My focus is the sound that the musician or singer makes with his or her instrument. The musician himself is not making a sound. We should not see/hear/imagine a pinpoint image of the musician or his instrument but rather the location from which the energy originates and then expands into the space. Is that precise? To me, it is about the spatial relationships between the instruments up on stage and how the energy moves outward and around and is reflected. I can tell that the violins are to the left of the piano and cello and that the timpani is further back in center and where the brass section and wind instruments are. The triangle may pierce through the mix and be on the left side, but where exactly is hard to tell, especially if you sit further back in the hall. Of course Ella is sitting there right next to Joe Pass in front of me in my room, but even then, it is not pinpoint and certainly not outlined. I hear her voice and his guitar. I hear the moment the sound is created and roughly where, but no pinpoint and no outline. The scale is believable and their relationship within the space is convincing. I can imagine them there singing and playing, but it is only the origin of the sound in space as captured by the recording and presented by the system in the room. Pinpoint imaging also implies to me at least a very small and precise point in space. Hearing a piano or cello or voice singing is nothing like that.
Yes, we all certainly have different approaches, observations, and goals.
Boston symphony hall last week just prior to the beginning of the program. When the musicians started to play, I could see pinpoint imaging. But when I closed my eyes, I did not hear it. The right most cello is 3 feet in front of the bass player. That is pinpoint imaging. There is no way I could discern that distance with my eyes closed. But I could hear a wave of low frequency energy coming from the left middle front of the stage and the two instrument sections playing very distinctly. The timbres were unique and the spatial relationship was clear but there was nothing pinpoint about it.
During Tchaikovsky’s piano Concerto, I could clearly see the pianist’s two arms rising above the keyboard, with fingers hidden. I could clearly hear 10 fingers on two hands playing different keys. Although I am certain the two hands attached to 10 fingers we’re only playing inches apart, I could not tell that by simply listening to the sound. What I heard was the energy leaving the soundboard to fill that great hall with beautiful music and the piano in the middle of the string sections and in front of the brass with the tympani even further back. There was an occasional triangle strike. Its energy pierced through the fabric, clear and high from somewhere behind the violins and to the left of the piano.
The sound from that orchestra simply did not have any pinpoint imaging.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |