Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

Hi, Wavetouch. If you're playing back youtube video on your system and then recording to share the video here along with your system playing the full version for comparisions, I'm failing to see the point in doing so. The Youtube version is already compromised and counterfeited enough, don't you think?

In contrast to your strategy, above is my in-room presentation video compared to perhaps an "official" Youtube flavor NOT being run through my system. This seems to be a far more appropriate standard to measure our pleyback performance against. Don't you think? IOW, does my in-room video rise up to be somewhere in the ballpark of the unadulterated Youtube version?

Nice, but the sound, at least through the recording, is a tad metallic ? Noticeable especially on the sax.

 

[Wavetouch]

Hi, Wavetouch. ~~Youtube is already compromised and counterfeited enough, don't you think?

I agree YT music is fuzzier than CD and FLAC. YT music is still pretty good and very convenient. ** Danny Boy/Jacintha you posted isn't official video. Below is which I downloaded and playing 2nd half of my live recording. 1st half is CD.

 

[bonzo75]

Adding the thoughts of two loudspeaker designers to this thread.

Thanks for doing this Ron. It is much appreciated as I didn't find time to get out of my room at all.

One thing I've learned over the years is that the phone processes the sound during recording AND during playback, and you actually get great fidelity if the recording and playback are on cellphones. Samsung, Apple, etc. all have large teams of engineers (smarter than I am) to deliver this sound quality - and listening to the videos on a phone rather than on a PC gives me much better an idea of what each room sounded like.

The fidelity is good enough for me to use in loudspeaker design as I will record different iterations of crossover changes, and this helps me tremendously in design and development. Not as good as a proper recording set-up, but far better than you would think just using a cellphone.

I agree here completely, and I have done the same. When all things are equal, there are elements of how the phone records and plays back that really illustrate design changes and their effect. Critical aural memory is actually quite short, so often by the time you have changed a piece of equipment its already been too long. The phone allows for very fast A/B. It doesnt sound enjoyable, and Id never use to to judge different systems in different locations, but as a tweaking tool, it can be highly effective.

 

[bonzo75]

Also this

Once you understand the difference between precision and tolerance, and the difference between absolute and relative, then these cell phone recordings have great utility.

 

[stehno]

Nice, but the sound, at least through the recording, is a tad metallic ? Noticeable especially on the sax.

Thanks, I think. But do you not find it interesting that you're able to easily discern a tad of a metallic sound, especially on the sax, yet you're unable to discern a predominant empty-coffee-can-like sound so prevalient in many of the other videos posted in this thread and elsewhere?

Nieither do I.

 

[garylkoh]

Adding the thoughts of two loudspeaker designers to this thread.

Oh boy..... off to the races again.

 

[hopkins]

Thanks, I think. But do you not find it interesting that you're able to easily discern a tad of a metallic sound, especially on the sax, yet you're unable to discern a predominant empty-coffee-can-like sound so prevalient in many of the other videos posted in this thread and elsewhere?

Nieither do I.

I don't comment on all videos! I did say yours was nice... What are your thoughts about your system and how it sounds on the video ?

 

[Rexp]

Adding the thoughts of two loudspeaker designers to this thread.

As Gary said, it's important to use a phone/headphones to playback these phone recordings, I would also recommend not using wifi. PC playback sucks in comparison, at least for me.

 

[Rexp]

Not the best recording quality but this sounds good:

 

[hopkins]

Something different... Not "high fidelity" but so seductive

Not that it matters, but this is Qobuz streaming (to PowerDAC-SX).

 

[PeterA]

I would never enjoy sitting in that chair so close to two speakers. What is the point of this video? Does anyone listen like that?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Something different... Not "high fidelity" but so seductive

I will interpret seductive as "emotional engagement." High fidelity ("reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital file being played") is one possible objective of this hobby. Maximizing emotional engagement is another possible objective of this hobby.

The video sounds pretty darn good to me!

 

[hopkins]

I would never enjoy sitting in that chair so close to two speakers. What is the point of this video? Does anyone listen like that?

It's called nearfield listening. You can Google it

Or you can read this interesting thread:

Near-Field Listening: Acquired Taste or Proper Paradigm?

Those who have followed my comments for awhile may know that I'm a huge fan of near-field listening. Occasionally I've listened as far away as 80" from the plane of the speakers. Now, for some people, that would be "near field." Usually, however, I listen much closer than that. Some folks...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[hopkins]

I will interpret seductive as "emotional engagement." High fidelity ("reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital file being played") is one possible objective of this hobby. Maximizing emotional engagement is another possible objective of this hobby.

The video sounds pretty darn good to me!

One thing is certain, is that I enjoy playing around with different solutions.

 

[DasguteOhr]

It's called nearfield listening. You can Google it

Or you can read this interesting thread:

Near-Field Listening: Acquired Taste or Proper Paradigm?

Those who have followed my comments for awhile may know that I'm a huge fan of near-field listening. Occasionally I've listened as far away as 80" from the plane of the speakers. Now, for some people, that would be "near field." Usually, however, I listen much closer than that. Some folks...

www.whatsbestforum.com

if you want to know what a speaker sounds like without the influence of the room. Very good if you build speakers yourself.

 

[PeterA]

It's called nearfield listening. You can Google it

Or you can read this interesting thread:

Near-Field Listening: Acquired Taste or Proper Paradigm?

Those who have followed my comments for awhile may know that I'm a huge fan of near-field listening. Occasionally I've listened as far away as 80" from the plane of the speakers. Now, for some people, that would be "near field." Usually, however, I listen much closer than that. Some folks...

www.whatsbestforum.com

I know what near field listening is. This looks extreme. Not commenting on the sound but on what it would be like sitting in that chair and having to move the speakers out of the way to get up. Perhaps better than headphones, but not as convenient.

It's a great song and I think it sounds pretty good. I enjoy listening to CDs in my truck too.

 

[hopkins]

It's a great song and I think it sounds pretty good. I enjoy listening to CDs in my truck too.

Then you may enjoy - in your truck or otherwise - Shirley Horn's version on the CD "Live at Monterey" (not available on streaming services or on LP):

Shirley Horn - Live At The 1994 Monterey Jazz Festival

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2008 CD release of "Live At The 1994 Monterey Jazz Festival" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

Her "definitive" version IMO, and a fabulous CD all around.

 

[PeterA]

Then you may enjoy - in your truck or otherwise - Shirley Horn's version on the CD "Live at Monterey" (not available on streaming services or on LP):

Shirley Horn - Live At The 1994 Monterey Jazz Festival

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2008 CD release of "Live At The 1994 Monterey Jazz Festival" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

Her "definitive" version IMO, and a fabulous CD all around.

Shirley Horn is excellent. I like "A Lazy Afternoon". I have that on both LP and on CD. I friend and his boyfriend introduced me to her music years ago.

 

[hopkins]

Here's the AllMusic review of that Monterey CD, with which I agree completely:

"Shirley Horn's sole appearance at the Monterey Jazz Festival took place in 1994 and it is one of her most compelling performances of her career.

The often raucous Monterey audience is captivated by her infectious vocals and swinging piano, accompanied by her long time bassist Charles Ables and drummer Steve Williams. Horn's vocal phrasing is devoid of the gimmickry, focusing on bringing the lyrics to life, including a mix of standards, ballads, and modern pop. Horn's mastery of ballads includes her dramatic take of Leon Russell's "A Song for You" with its shimmering piano and a spacious, dreamy setting of "Here's to Life," both songs readily identified with her, along with a sublime "The Look of Love." But she also shows of her considerable piano chops with a jaunty take of "I've Got the World on a String," her playful arrangement of "Foolin' Myself," a driving interpretation of "Hard Hearted Hannah" and a swinging rendition of Oscar Peterson's "Blues for Big Scotia," the sole instrumental of the set. Highly recommended"

Here's another good concert on YouTube (but the Monterey is really special, and well recorded):

 

[Rexp]

I will interpret seductive as "emotional engagement." High fidelity ("reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital file being played") is one possible objective of this hobby. Maximizing emotional engagement is another possible objective of this hobby.

The video sounds pretty darn good to me!

Can't agree, subtle detail in the recording can trigger an emotional response, if a system doesn't reproduce these details (is not hi fi) you won't get the intended (by the artist) emotional response. The opening piano of this track is a good test for this (analogue versions):