I would totally discount the youTube ones, as this is Peters thread about his system, and the video he posted was of his system playing a record.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
In this case, the “official recording of a track” is the original vinyl record release. You can take that record around and play it on different systems and hear differences which are revealing of the systems. You can also listen to that record system in isolation referencing your memory of live music.
In either case, the comparison makes a lot more sense to me than comparing a vinyl record played over system via a phone recording to an uploaded digital stream over some replay system.
As I asked earlier, does anyone compare a vinyl record on his system to a downloaded digital stream, when judging the quality of various system changes or during the system set up process?
When Jim Smith was visiting me to work on my old system, he only listened to the files on his DAC And used as his reference for comparison his memory of live music. Even when he adjusted my VTA, he never referenced his digital files for comparison.
When I make a change to my system, I listen before, and after, and the only thing I am asking myself is which sounds more similar to my memory of live music.
I understand that people have a wide variety of approaches and methods.
Last edited:
Yes. I was not talking about our "big stereos" - most people, I assume, listen to these videos on their phones, or at best on a computer with headphones (of varying quality), and in that situation I doubt the differences are that pronounced between the different sources (Qobuz, local file, YouTube).
I put together a playlist of system recordings of "Birds" (not a favorite, but a popular choice):
There are over 40 different recordings. If you have the courage to listen to them, you will notice how different they all sound (that's obvious), but also that none of them really correspond to the sound you get listening to the original file (once again, whether through Qobuz, CD, whatever...) Even the "better ones" get some things wrong, and you would not know that if you did not compare the videos to the original version. In that sense, the comparison can be useful.
What I suspect @PeterA refers to, however, is the difference between analog and digital. Once again, there is no doubt that in some cases a good LP with a good vinyl rig is going to sound different (better) than the digital version. If that were not the case, then why would we bother with analog? Would a vinyl rip inform us of some of these differences? Probably. All this has been discussed before.
In which case , where is the base line ‘control’ with which to compare whether the latest system reproduction is closer or further away from said control ?
I would propose that the YouTube file representing the live show performance, originally recorded to analog tape and later digitised to enable it to be submitted to youtube would qualify as such a ‘control’ which is why I submitted it !
Last edited:
Just to hitchhike on some other comments because this discussion is interesting. Full disclosure I don't typically listen to the posted videos or YouTube for that matter.
The comparison clearly illustrates that each video sounds different. A question might be so what, I wouldn't expect them to sound the same.
Peter's first video of "Fever" sounded very nice and dare I say natural to me. Lots of room effect I could imagine myself walking into a club and hearing Peggy upfront singing. The YouTube "Fever" sounded just fine too, her voice being more forward and the bass line stronger. It made me think of listening on headphones or near field as the room characteristics were absent.
Except that in the case of the analog source system vid recording of Fever and any of the other versions posted via YouTube , regardless of the source medium , quite patently is not “better”
This whole discussion about videos is complicated because we, as audiophiles, are complicated
Last edited:
I remember you thinking one of Stenho's vids sounded good in the umph thread when even Stenho had to admit it wasn't great. Maybe try a different playback device,
The issue of a “control“ came up to validate comparisons. When I listen to my system, or any system for that matter, it is in isolation without comparing to other recordings and presentations. My control is the listening experience and my emotional connection to the music.
Even when I am comparing two components in the system chain to each other, I am asking myself which one sounds more like music. The control is the sound of music not the other component. It is the same with overall system tuning.
Even when I am comparing two components in the system chain to each other, I am asking myself which one sounds more like music. The control is the sound of music not the other component. It is the same with overall system tuning.
Last edited:
Oooohhh La La … Are you capable of staying with the thread topic …. or are you merely looking for a confrontation ?
Last edited:
Not at all, this thread is about natural sound, if your playback device isn't good, you'll not hear how natural Peter's video sounds compared to the 'official' YouTube versions that you posted.
Oh My , Do please cease and desist from embarrassing yourself any further …
This is a silly comment Peter, because I have been for a long time a champion of using live unamplified music as a reference on this forum. How then can I take your “analysis “ in good faith. However, when you use a recording like Peggy Lee either digital or analog then the comparison is no longer against live, because a studio recording is far from that, and against the file or record itself without the contribution from a system or room.
The answer to your other question is, it depends: on the type of music, if it is a live or studio recording and how it was produced.
A memory of someone singing live or an upright bass playing live won’t get you very far with a recording of unknown provenance.
I have live recordings of my ex playing in Tonehalle as well as digital rips from analog tape (R2R tape) recordings I made myself. I know very well what violin is supposed to sound like and can hear immediately when it is off.
In addition, I have a very accurate recording of Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet that was made with a single ribbon microphone and minimal processing (sent to me by the engineer who made it).
I have a live reference of this same ballet performed at Tonhalle, where my seating position was about the same distance from the stage as the microphone used in the recording. With a very good system it sounds very much like I heard live but most systems cry for mercy because the dynamic range is so large.
As I noted, your earlier recording to me sounds closer to what I would expect from this recording, whether you think it’s more natural or not. How would you explain the difference?
Finally, I would say simply that if I heard a sound at a club live that sounded like your system I would wonder what was wrong (nearly all clubs are amplified and Peggy would be no different). At least here in Switzerland, good jazz clubs have excellent sound systems and classical concerts are all unamplified.
Ok, make a digital rip of it directly off your phonostage or preamp and post that via YT. Then we can hear what your vinyl front end is doing vs. amp, speakers and room.
You have already demonstrated two turntable setups with very different sound. A lot of the softness I heard seems to come from the TT/ phono setup it seems.
I think comparing in-room system videos to YouTube videos for assessment of the system is methodological video madness. Making a video of one's system to share with friends is not.
I’m fairly middle path on the value of videos and never see them as absolute references or exact replicas of a system’s sound. But am also among those that find in-room videos of people’s systems can give some insights as to the character of a system and sound character shifts during changes to a system and that can build on an owners subjective evidencing on their setups... especially when confirmed as being fairly reflective and qualified in the specific ways it is indicative from whoever recorded it.
But yes! analysing offical YouTube videos is a bridge too far for me. Only a handful really seem caught up in this dazzling new trend and as always each to their own and vive la difference I say.
Last edited:
Why? It's the logical thing to do to use them as reference for comparison. It's the original recording processed through the same digital YouTube pathway as the system video.
There is this weird tendency, where some members spend a lot of time and energy taking apart Peters and for that matter also Ron's posts in their system threads. Why ? It is almost like you are trying to suck out all the fun and happiness being displayed in these threads. They are documenting and sharing their audio journeys, and i for one find these threads really interesting. I am amazed at your perseverance Ron and Peter, i would have given up long time ago. Kudos to you guys !
Al, with videos (for me atleast) there’s a fine line between pleasure and pain. I enjoy some and not so much others… if I don’t like the music I’m usually out after the opening credits. I see their meaningful use to be quite specific for me which I covered lightly in the post. I get the diversity in perceptions though and just figure others perceive differently with them.
But to qualify as an ultimate reference guide in sound for me they’d need to be more exact as recordings or as official direct copies. I don’t find videos to be an exact copy or rendering of absolute reference for anything… system videos hint at certain things for me in certain circumstances and sometimes I just enjoy the gear and the spirit of the music being played.
Similar threads
