If YouTube recordings sound good, why do commercial digital releases sound so bad.

[hopkins]

Well as mere mortals rather than record producers we can only guess what the problem is, @mtemur suggested too much processing, I'd agree with that. Did you compare the two versions of Grace Kelly's 'Swingin' and find significant differences?

You don't need to guess when the dynamic range calculation gives you the answer! By the way, compression is "processing". If a track is heavily compressed, it does not make sense to speculate about anything else, because it completely distorts the entire recording .

As for your other example, you don't see that it is in fact exactly the same track? The only difference is that you are seing the video in one case and not the other. But the sound is strictly identical!

You can check out her website to confirm. These are not two different versions...

You incorrectly conclude "A good example of the commercially released version sounding broken in comparison." This is a prime example of how perception can influence our (well, in this case, your) hearing.

 

[bonzo75]

These TAD speakers sound great ... should at £150,000.00 though.

The drums are too tight and suffocated.

 

[Amir]

Here's one I posted elsewhere, sounds way better than the streaming version :

TAD never used CD playback in MOC 2024 and they used file/stream playback.
I do not like file/stream playback.

CD is far better than file/stream

 

[hopkins]

TAD never used CD playback in MOC 2024 and they used file/stream playback.
I do not like file/stream playback.

CD is far better than file/stream

Are you implying that you can hear a difference between CD and streaming on these types of system videos? That would be a bold statement...

P.S. I have no issue with that system video - I was just pointing out that ALL system videos are always inferior to listening directly to the track (on quality headphones).

 

[Amir]

Are you implying that you can hear a difference between CD and streaming on these types of system videos? That would be a bold statement...

P.S. I have no issue with that system video - I was just pointing out that ALL system videos are always inferior to listening directly to the track (on quality headphones).

No I do not say that, I just say the file playback is not good

 

[hopkins]

No I do not say that, I just say the file playback is not good

OK, but if you can't hear the difference in a system video, then you may as well say that you don't like chocolate ice cream, it would be just as relevant to the discussion.

 

[Rensselaer]

The drums are too tight and suffocated.

Hard to tell, listening to it over my computer speakers, but I defer to your greater knowledge.

 

[Rexp]

Here's the same system playing Aaron Neville, doesn't have the soul of the LP playback below it. So it really doesn't matter how expensive your digital rig is, if the digital recording is poo:

 

[bonzo75]

Comments?

Most of Hifi Immersion videos sound better than normal, not sure what he does with his videos. So I don't use them as data points.

 

[Rexp]

Most of Hifi Immersion videos sound better than normal, not sure what he does with his videos. So I don't use them as data points.

Interesting, I find most of their stuff, which is primarily hi-end digital, to sound bad and was pleasantly surprised by the above video of 'You look good to me'. I believe they use a Zoom F8 and DPA mics.

 

[hopkins]

Here's the same system playing Aaron Neville, doesn't have the soul of the LP playback below it. So it really doesn't matter how expensive your digital rig is, if the digital recording is poo:

Don't take this personally, but I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on these two videos. Both sound good, for system videos, but they are a little different. The first one has a fuller sound than the second. Chances are this has strictly nothing to do with the source material. The two systems are very different. How one can reach the conclusion that LP versus digital explains the differences here is beyond me.

 

[Rexp]

Here's Aaron Janik getting into the groove promoting his album below which, sadly, has had most of the life sucked out of it:

 

[Rexp]

Thanks to @the sound of Tao for drawing my attention to this piece. There are moments in the 2nd movement (starts 16.30) that sweep me away, an effect I'm yet to experience from a streaming version but to be fair I've only heard a few so far.

 

[hopkins]

Thanks to @the sound of Tao for drawing my attention to this piece. There are moments in the 2nd movement (starts 16.30) that sweep me away, an effect I'm yet to experience from a streaming version but to be fair I've only heard a few so far.

How do you think the music was recorded in this video? With a microphone attached to the camera? No! It's a normal concert hall recording plus video, where the audio from the recording is mixed in to the video. So what conclusions can be drawn from watching this video other than simply the fact that you like the recording? None. It certainly does nothing to confirm or contradict the topic of your thread ("why do YouTube videos sound so good...?"), which to be honest is a very strange question anyway. There is no such thing as a YouTube video "sound"! You may always find examples of one recording sounding better than another, and you may also be influenced in your appreciation simply by the fact that you are seing the video along with hearing the sound (as was the case with that previous Grace Kelly video).

 

[hopkins]

Here's Aaron Janik getting into the groove promoting his album below which, sadly, has had most of the life sucked out of it:

The song title is the same, and I assume some of the performers are the same, but the comparison stops there. The music played is very different in both cases. There's a long alto saxophone solo in the album version, replaced by a flute in the "live" version. There is a synthesizer (I believe) in the studio version that fills the background, versus an electric piano in that live version. There is no vibraphone in the studio version. Etc... In the live version the soloists are heard more clearly because there is less going on in the background (the mixing is also very different). The volume level is also different. So the two have very different sound. Is your intention here to prove that studio recordings suck?

I personally enjoy live recordings a lot, but not really because of inherent differences in the recording "technology". I enjoy hearing the "small club" atmosphere (which in fact you sometimes also get in studio recordings when the players talk!), and I find that some musicians play differently when in a live setting. Anyway, YouTube has nothing to do with anything...

 

[hopkins]

Rexp, I'll add the following. I do think there is a lot of validity in what you and others have commented concerning "over-produced" recordings. They can, definitely, kill the sound. Keeping it simple can often result in better sound. Perhaps live recordings, especially in club settings, set some constraints which tend towards more simplicity in the recording. You'd have to ask recording engineers their opinion about that. But I find that there are a lot of high quality studio recordings as well. So I would not dismiss either outright.

When it comes to the music itself, I see studio and live recordings as two very different things. I'll take an example: Songs in The Key of Life, by Stevie Wonder. The studio recording is fascinating in the way he layers all these different sounds, which were all overdubbed (as he in fact plays many different instruments) and the result is something you could never get from a live recording. So even highly "produced" music can be well done. I guess what I am saying is you have to look at things a little more positively? Maybe you are just going through a phase ("audiophile depression")?

 

[Carlos269]

Rexp, I'll add the following. I do think there is a lot of validity in what you and others have commented concerning "over-produced" recordings. They can, definitely, kill the sound. Keeping it simple can often result in better sound. Perhaps live recordings, especially in club settings, set some constraints which tend towards more simplicity in the recording. You'd have to ask recording engineers their opinion about that. But I find that there are a lot of high quality studio recordings as well. So I would not dismiss either outright.

When it comes to the music itself, I see studio and live recordings as two very different things. I'll take an example: Songs in The Key of Life, by Stevie Wonder. The studio recording is fascinating in the way he layers all these different sounds, which were all overdubbed (as he in fact plays many different instruments) and the result is something you could never get from a live recording. So even highly "produced" music can be well done. I guess what I am saying is you have to look at things a little more positively? Maybe you are just going through a phase ("audiophile depression")?

When post processing is done correctly, it can help improve the clarity, low-level detail & inner detail, dynamics and texture of most commercial recordings. HQPLAYER is a good example of this, now more than ever.

 

[Rexp]

When post processing is done correctly, it can help improve the clarity, low-level detail & inner detail, dynamics and texture of most commercial recordings. HQPLAYER is a good example of this, now more than ever.

I do prefer some digital recordings on vinyl/tape so I guess post processing is beneficial in some cases.

 

[Rexp]

Here's a Michel Petrucciani video that shows his commercial releases are severely lacking:

 

[hopkins]

Here's a Michel Petrucciani video that shows his commercial releases are severely lacking:

Which commercial releases are you referring to? He's got over 30 albums, some studio, some live. Which ones have you listened to that you found "severely lacking"?

I hope recording engineers are not reading this forum and these types of posts!