For those interested in cartridge differences, I installed my vdH Colibri Grand Cru cartridge yesterday and thought it might be fun to compare how it sounds compared to my Ortofon SL15 on the clarinet and piano recording. The presentations are slightly different. Listening to the system in the room, I hear a bit more mass (weight, body) with the Ortofon. There is good energy with both, perhaps slightly more extension in the highs with the Colibri. I enjoy them both, but I am slightly more drawn into the music with the Ortofon. I think the differences hold pretty well over the videos.
I also made two videos of "Fever", one with each cartridge. It is interesting. There was a comment up thread from someone who thought Peggy Lee's voice is well served by the treble energy of my older video with the Micro Seiki and Colibri, so I thought I would try the Colibri on the AS 2000. Here, I think the Colibri is nice on her voice and the AS 2000 adds the weight body on the bass for a nice balance. Interestingly, the video seems to accentuate the bass a bit, so it sounds slightly heavier on the video than it does in the room. Otherwise, the videos are fairly good and representative of the in room sound, at least in broad strokes, to give some idea of the sound.
We could also find some contradictions in some of your (and others' similar) comments. If analog is a prerequisite to achieve "live" sound, what is the point in publishing and commenting on "digitally recorded" system videos listened to on basic digital playback systems (such as a phone)?
For those interested in cartridge differences, I installed my vdH Colibri Grand Cru cartridge yesterday and thought it might be fun to compare how it sounds compared to my Ortofon SL15 on the clarinet and piano recording. The presentations are slightly different. Listening to the system in the room, I hear a bit more mass (weight, body) with the Ortofon. There is good energy with both, perhaps slightly more extension in the highs with the Colibri. I enjoy them both, but I am slightly more drawn into the music with the Ortofon. I think the differences hold pretty well over the videos.
There is so much more resolution and tonal color palette with the VdH cartridge. I am struggling to understand what you like about the other one. With the VdH, I think it sounds much closer to what I know from hearing these instruments up close...as they were recorded. A recording like this should never sound mid-hall as for sure the microphones were placed up close.
I recently heard Vikingur Olafsson (great modern piano recordings on DG, btw...) at Tonhalle in Zurich sitting right up front and almost center. You really hear the attack and the function of the piano when you are that close...that kind of information is coming through much better with the VdH cart on your TT. With the Ortofon cart it is not clear at all that the piano is both a percussive and string instrument. With the VdH, the distinctiveness of this with clear strikes on the strings and their distinct resonances are clearly delineated. If you are close to a piano then you will hear this live. If you are mid-hall or back-hall in a big orchestral hall then those things will blend more together over the distance. This recording is clearly made up close and so should sound like it.
The majority of classical recordings are recorded up close and so very few of them should give you a "mid-hall" perspective. Even ones that are multi-mic'd and then space mixed in will have the instruments tonally like you are up close even when the space tells your brain it's mid-hall.
A truly mid-hall recording will sound softer and more rounded with a slight downward tonal shift as high frequencies are absorbed.
Especially for small ensembles, the recordings are nearly all up close. There might be space, natural or otherwise, but there will be distinct presence of the instruments up front and they will sound tonally as if you are hearing them live in the front few rows.
I also made two videos of "Fever", one with each cartridge. It is interesting. There was a comment up thread from someone who thought Peggy Lee's voice is well served by the treble energy of my older video with the Micro Seiki and Colibri, so I thought I would try the Colibri on the AS 2000. Here, I think the Colibri is nice on her voice and the AS 2000 adds the weight body on the bass for a nice balance. Interestingly, the video seems to accentuate the bass a bit, so it sounds slightly heavier on the video than it does in the room. Otherwise, the videos are fairly good and representative of the in room sound, at least in broad strokes, to give some idea of the sound.
As with the classical piece, way more info with the VdH. I know you don't like hearing this, but the VdH also clearly sounds more in the direction of the digital YT files (NOT the live one) than the playback with the Ortofon. IMO, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water as you are deliberately hampering the resolution of the rest of your system, in order to get some twisted notion of "natural", by using the Ortofon cartridge. IMO, it is not an improvement in your system.
If the VdH is still somehow not to your liking, then there are plenty of other very good cartridges from the likes of ZYX (you might like their presentation better as they tend to be less analytical than some other high end carts) or Top Wing, which has become one of the top. I am not at all convinced about vintage cartridges, now having heard a few and SPUs in particular sound relatively low res to me.
As with the classical piece, way more info with the VdH. I know you don't like hearing this, but the VdH also clearly sounds more in the direction of the digital YT files (NOT the live one) than the playback with the Ortofon. IMO, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water as you are deliberately hampering the resolution of the rest of your system, in order to get some twisted notion of "natural", by using the Ortofon cartridge. IMO, it is not an improvement in your system.
If the VdH is still somehow not to your liking, then there are plenty of other very good cartridges from the likes of ZYX (you might like their presentation better as they tend to be less analytical than some other high end carts) or Top Wing, which has become one of the top. I am not at all convinced about vintage cartridges, now having heard a few and SPUs in particular sound relatively low res to me.
Listening with my phone with Etymotyc in-ear headphones (er4sr) and a small bluetooth external dac/amp (Qudelix)... If you listen to the videos using your phone's small build in speakers, your impressions may be very different!
The volume level seems to be lower on the Ortofon video. I find the sound to be a little softer. The sound is too aggressive in the second video.
In terms of comparison with the digital track, we lose resolution with an iphone recording, that's normal. The track is "bass intensive" and the bass in Peter's system is not as full - could be partly due to the iphone recording. Also, with headphones you can get really clean bass, something that is really challenging to do with speakers in a room...
As for the voice, I can't compare because there is too much reverb in Peter's video, so you lose a lot of focus and intimacy. This may not be how the sound is perceived in the room, I don't know.
These comparisons are rarely in favor of system videos, but they are still informative, and can trigger questions.
As with the classical piece, way more info with the VdH. I know you don't like hearing this, but the VdH also clearly sounds more in the direction of the digital YT files (NOT the live one) than the playback with the Ortofon. IMO, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water as you are deliberately hampering the resolution of the rest of your system, in order to get some twisted notion of "natural", by using the Ortofon cartridge. IMO, it is not an improvement in your system.
If the VdH is still somehow not to your liking, then there are plenty of other very good cartridges from the likes of ZYX (you might like their presentation better as they tend to be less analytical than some other high end carts) or Top Wing, which has become one of the top. I am not at all convinced about vintage cartridges, now having heard a few and SPUs in particular sound relatively low res to me.
I agree with your comments regarding resolution and leading edge. But for all the things they do less well I love the weight and force that many of the Ortofon Spu / SL15 style cartridges have. In particular the way they convey force and weight all through the frequency range they represent. It reminds me (and seems to be a great synergy with) of what are some of the things I love best about a really good (and well implemented) horn system.
It's something i've noticed many more conventional "high end" systems often struggle with as often the focus will be on ever more detail and a more pinpoint soundstage. Perfect for a recording booth monitor but not something that i personally want as main focus in any of my systems. I've found it's a real balancing act between more resolution and maintaining weight and force in the sound. The Shindo SPU which I love seems to do a pretty good job of having a fair portion of both (but not quite the greatest resolution or weight of both of these camps as much as I think its a fabulous cart).
I'm not criticising any other approach and think they are all valid. We are all on our own journey finding what we like and what moves us.
I'm loving your thread Peter and am thankful that you are happy to share your journey with us. I very much look forward to each of your posts and they remind me in some ways of what I used to love when reading the really extensive essays of Harry Pearson and the early TAS which I read when I was a kid. He was so good in his best writings of being able to really help me imagine the type of sound he was getting and the emotional impact of the music. Something sadly lacking in most audio reviews these days.
I realize you like YouTube videos and like to compare them to other videos including home system videos.
Some us do not consider non-system Youtube videos -- typically of unknowm provenance -- as a reference or as an accepted comparator. That is not the hobby we are in. Don't worry, that's been the case pre-dating the YouTube video insurgency and not a comment on your views.
Some of us who post our own system videos and who hold the above view are not the ones introducing non-system videos when we post one of our own videos. For me such a comparison has no value. What am I supposed to do with such a comparison? Saying it is interesting is likely saying that to someone other than the person who posted the system video.
it might be more interesting to read a comparison of a non-system Youtube video to the sound of live acoustic music.
There is so much more resolution and tonal color palette with the VdH cartridge. I am struggling to understand what you like about the other one. With the VdH, I think it sounds much closer to what I know from hearing these instruments up close...as they were recorded. A recording like this should never sound mid-hall as for sure the microphones were placed up close.
I recently heard Vikingur Olafsson (great modern piano recordings on DG, btw...) at Tonhalle in Zurich sitting right up front and almost center. You really hear the attack and the function of the piano when you are that close...that kind of information is coming through much better with the VdH cart on your TT.
As with your previous comments, Brad, I appreciate and respect your perspective. There have always been criticisms about my videos being overly characterized by room sound. It is clear from the contrast between the cartridges that there’s more going on.
I have two tone arms for a reason. I generally have an Ortofon on one and a Colibri on the other. I prefer the mass from the Ortofon presentation but it gives up a little bit in terms of resolution. The Colibrí has more resolution, but sounds thin in the room. The iPhone recording adds weight do the presentation through YouTube.
I listen to the vintage cartridge about 60% of the time and the Colibri the remaining 40%. I enjoy both and have three versions of each. This latest series of video pairings demonstrates the differences. I’m glad I have choices. I might get two more tone arms with two more cartridges someday but I’m quite happy with what I’ve got.
Whether one presentation is more like some official YouTube video does not matter to me at all. The YouTube official video is not the standard nor is it my reference.
I agree with your comments regarding resolution and leading edge. But for all the things they do less well I love the weight and force that many of the Ortofon Spu / SL15 style cartridges have. In particular the way they convey force and weight all through the frequency range they represent. It reminds me (and seems to be a great synergy with) of what are some of the things I love best about a really good (and well implemented) horn system.
It's something i've noticed many more conventional "high end" systems often struggle with as often the focus will be on ever more detail and a more pinpoint soundstage. Perfect for a recording booth monitor but not something that i personally want as main focus in any of my systems. I've found it's a real balancing act between more resolution and maintaining weight and force in the sound. The Shindo SPU which I love seems to do a pretty good job of having a fair portion of both (but not quite the greatest resolution or weight of both of these camps as much as I think its a fabulous cart).
I'm not criticising any other approach and think they are all valid. We are all on our own journey finding what we like and what moves us.
I'm loving your thread Peter and am thankful that you are happy to share your journey with us. I very much look forward to each of your posts and they remind me in some ways of what I used to love when reading the really extensive essays of Harry Pearson and the early TAS which I read when I was a kid. He was so good in his best writings of being able to really help me imagine the type of sound he was getting and the emotional impact of the music. Something sadly lacking in most audio reviews these days.
I’m glad you are enjoying the thread. I listen more to the vintage Ortofon because it just sounds more convincing to me, though I do appreciate the resolution of the Colibri. Lately I’ve been listening to choral music with the Colibri and some large scale, classical music. Jazz and small scale, classical and rock gets the Ortofon. And sometimes I just listen to one or the other for the whole evening on a variety of music.
I am not sure what you mean by that, but I sense some condescendance in your comment!
I like to listen to music, whether live, on my speakers, or on my phone.
Youtube is a great ressource, having a lot of music available that you cannot find elsewhere.
I subscribe to a few music channels. I also subscribe to newsletters, for example Marc Myer's daily Jazz Wax, which have links to music on YouTube. Here's an example:
Some music critics/scholars (like you?) have their own channels on YouTube. Loren Schoenberg, for example, publishes interesting videos on occasion - there are others.
Some us do not consider non-system Youtube videos -- typically of unknown provenance -- as a reference or as an accepted comparator. That is not the hobby we are in. Don't worry, that's been the case pre-dating the YouTube video insurgency and not a comment on your views.
Some of us who post our own system videos and who hold the above view are not the ones introducing non-system videos when we post one of our own videos. For me such a comparison has no value. What am I supposed to do with such a comparison? Saying it is interesting is likely saying that to someone other than the person who posted the system video.
The value of my comments on Peter's video are limited by the fact that it is "only a system video". Are they less relevant than DK commenting that he is impressed by the clarity and dynamics? Frankly, I could not care less. PeterA can decide for himself.
Are you asking me to offer a comment on the recording quality of a Peggy Lee studio recording? Or to tell you whether it sounds like a live performance, which it isn't?
Or are you asking me whether the sound heard on Peter's video of Peggy Lee sounds like a live performance by Peggy Lee? Really? Then I would say it could imagine it may sound like hearing Peggy Lee in a cave with a very poor synth instead of a bass and a drum kit, but that is certainly not how PeterA experiences it in his room (at least I hope not)... He has more pleasant recordings.
in an effort of good will to tell you that I understand where you're coming from and to assuage those possible feelings in advance of further comments. Guess that didn't work.
My post laid out my and others view on the use of non-system Youtube videos. You called those views absurd -- goodness knows how you'd feel if I said that about your view. I even went further toward assuaging your sensitivity when I wrote
to tell you that my post was not about you as the notion of rejecting non-system Youtube videos as a reference has been held before your arrival at this forum. My post was about using non-system Youtube videos for comparison to system videos -- it was not about you.
As I said that is not the hobby I am in. I do not ask you to accept that but to understand where I and others are coming from when we do not accept non-system Youtube videos as a reference. I'm not concerned about your belief that your own views are relevant -- have the views you want; acceptance comes from those who accept them but don't expect that from everyone. Life in the salon and all that.
Are you asking me to offer a comment on the recording quality of a Peggy Lee studio recording? Or to tell you whether it sounds like a live performance, which it isn't?
I'm not asking you to do anything, simply noting that comparison of a non-system Youtube video to live music might be an interesting comparison to that reference given this thread's topic.
Being aware that you are sensitive to what you might believe to be the slightest disagreement with you as an attack on you personally, I wrote
in an effort of good will to tell you that I understand where you're coming from and to assuage those possible feelings in advance of further comments. Guess that didn't work.
My post laid out my and others view on the use of non-system Youtube videos. You called those views absurd -- goodness knows how you'd feel if I said that about your view. I even went further toward assuaging your sensitivity when I wrote
to tell you that my post was not about you as the notion of rejecting non-system Youtube videos as a reference has been held before your arrival at this forum. My post was about using non-system Youtube videos for comparison to system videos -- it was not about you.
As I said that is not the hobby I am in. I do not ask you to accept that but to understand where I and others are coming from when we do not accept non-system Youtube videos as a reference. I'm not concerned about your belief that your own views are relevant -- have the views you want; acceptance comes from those who accept them but don't expect that from everyone. Life in the salon and all that.
I'm not asking you to do anything, simply noting that comparison of a non-system Youtube video to live music might be an interesting comparison to that reference given this thread's topic.
The first is a stereo version with a wide sound. The second is a mono version. On my speakers, I prefer listening to the mono version. With the stereo version I get a muddier sound (this is due to issues with my system). Her voice is a little softer (drier, less reverb) on the stereo version, but it's also presented further away. There are pros and cons to each.
How can I compare either to "live music"? This is difficult, especially with this track. In both cases I hear "artefacts" in the recording which don't seem to be very natural to me.
Ask the same question about a system video and I'll give you the same answer as before - they are a pale copy of what we hear in our rooms, so the comparison to live music is even more tenuous. Go to a concert, record it with your phone, and listen to it after...
Can I compare either to "live music"? This is difficult. In both cases I hear "artefacts" in the recording which don't seem to be very natural to me. How about you?
I don't have Quobuz for my system. I did listen to those links over my computer speakers. I thought the mono version was more realistic though it was through stereo speakers for me. Finger snaps on both seemed a bit tighter and higher pitched than my own finger snap. I would like to hear a bit more resonance from the sounding chamber of the stand-up bass. Decay on the tom-tom seemed a bit longish. There may have been some electronic enhancement during or after recording on both. I don't have sufficient experience with live vocals beyond choral music. I do know what the female voice sounds like. Peter's Fever video sounded electronically enhanced with reverb though enjoyable. I thought his Piano/Clarinet recording sounded startingly realistic in spots although live probably is even more dynamic.
I don't have Quobuz for my system. I did listen to those links over my computer speakers. I thought the mono version was more realistic though it was through stereo speakers for me. Finger snaps on both seemed a bit tighter and higher pitched than my own finger snap. I would like to hear a bit more resonance from the sounding chamber of the stand-up bass. Decay on the tom-tom seemed a bit longish. There may have been some electronic enhancement during or after recording on both. I don't have sufficient experience with live vocals beyond choral music. I do know what the female voice sounds like. Peter's Fever video sounded electronically enhanced with reverb though enjoyable. I thought his Piano/Clarinet recording sounded startingly realistic in spots although live probably is even more dynamic.
I listened to both versions in stereo (two speakers, and headphones). The reverb you hear in Peter's video is really pronounced - but I like a drier sound - this is what I try to achieve in my room. Once again, videos are really tricky because they can add reverb as well.
I've heard better female voice recordings than on this track.
The first is a stereo version with a wide sound. The second is a mono version. On my speakers, I prefer listening to the mono version. With the stereo version I get a muddier sound (this is due to issues with my system). Her voice is a little softer (drier, less reverb) on the stereo version, but it's also presented further away. There are pros and cons to each.
How can I compare either to "live music"? This is difficult, especially with this track. In both cases I hear "artefacts" in the recording which don't seem to be very natural to me.
Thank you Hopkins. This is a clearly written explanation of why I do not use official YouTube videos as a reference. There is no standard and they of variable quality and unknown origin. Sounding live is my target. It is admittedly a distant target and difficult to achieve, but it is known and based on real and repeatable exposure. It is therefore a more reliable reference against which to judge progress.
Those who post official YT videos next to a member’s system video for reference and the basis for comparison and expectations of how the system video should sound, clearly seem to have different values and targets.
That is fine, but it is not my approach to the hobby and not something I value.
I agree. We can all find more realistic sounding vocal tracks in our collections or in the ether. I chose it simply because I like the music and I recorded this track when I visited David Karmeli the first time and that recording became for me a kind of benchmark system video of how this track could sound over a stereo system recorded on a phone. It is fun music, and I happen to prefer it to some of the other popular pop female vocal tracks that people use for such system videos. I also like Dusty in Memphis singing “Windmills of your Mind” for processed female pop music.
