Videos: Cessaro Zeta, Dava, turntables, Alieno, Thrax phono

It never is an exact sound, when are say representative it need not be 100 percent, but good enough to accompany with comments and let people know it is a good system/component worth auditioning or not
Some seem to interpret representation more as replication… others (myself included) look to it more as an informative indication of the character of the sound, the tonal balance, the spirit, nature and energy, and points towards capability and resolution… so less than exact but valuably as an indicative reflection of the essential character of the system.
 
Some seem to interpret representation more as replication… others (myself included) look to it more as an informative indication of the character of the sound, the tonal balance, the spirit, nature and energy, and points towards capability and resolution… so less than exact but valuably as an indicative reflection of the essential characters of the system.

Very well written
 
Aside from the obvious fact that people are critiquing what are in theory very high fidelity systems from recordings using cheap Chinese sourced Apple mics in iPhones (myself included), one thing that’s become apparent to me (having gone from a fully treated room to one with virtually no treatment) is that these iPhone mics are obviously much better than my ears at picking up the room echo.

In the recordings I’ve made since moving to the untreated place, the sound is vastly different (and better) being heard live than what I myself hear in recordings. There is a very negative “distantness” of sound and room coloration that’s just not there for me when I listen live. I heard way less of that disparity when recording in the previous treated space.

And so, mics love a studio environment a lot more than our ears do. Ergo, you hear way more of it in YT recordings than psychoacoustics would allow you to pick up live.

My 2c at least.
One further thing just occurred to me. When the microphone picks up all the room reflections, this now becomes part of the recording. Why we hear so much more echo and room effects on these recordings is because now all that extraneous stuff that is filtered by your ear/brain is now a part of the recording and therefore coming at you as direct sound, which your brain won’t filter. Live it is additional to the recording and time delayed so processing in your mind can filter but in the recording of the playback in the room it is now part of the recording and not delayed…so you hear it clearly.
 
I would say then that a recording can only really be representative of what is heard in the room if A) the room is well treated or very big with speakers far from walls or ceiling and/or B) A directional microphone (cardioid or hyper cardioid etc.) is used to reduce room effects being captured on the recording as this will dramatically color the captured recording compared to what is heard live in that room.

An Omni mic and/or untreated and/or small room will result in something not representative of what one hears in that room live.
 
So you are saying that your telephone recordings that you make of your own system do not represent the sound you hear from your listening seat, right?
Yes.
 
I would say then that a recording can only really be representative of what is heard in the room if A) the room is well treated or very big with speakers far from walls or ceiling and/or B) A directional microphone (cardioid or hyper cardioid etc.) is used to reduce room effects being captured on the recording as this will dramatically color the captured recording compared to what is heard live in that room.

An Omni mic and/or untreated and/or small room will result in something not representative of what one hears in that room live.
I think all three of your posts very well articulate and further explain what I was getting at. Thanks.
 
If that is true, then the recording might be more representative of the actual sound in the room but not representative of what you heard in the room.

Seems safer to say the recording might be more representative of what the iPhone microphone hears than representative of what a person hears.

Bishop Berkely would substitute 'God' for 'the iPhone microphone'.
 
so less than exact but valuably as an indicative reflection of the essential character of the system.

Which by their very nature might prove to be something of a Double Edged Sword .
 
Last edited:
As for @the sound of Tao and @bonzo75 arguments, I agree that with recordings we get some insights into the system. In fact, I have found some observations from the members here of the videos of my system very helpful in identifying some issues that I’ve either learned to live with or haven’t picked up on at all. Consequently, I will continue to make them with some adjustments taking into account my points below.

But one glaring example of the “video gone wrong” is Ron’s video showing off the new components in his system where Fleetwood Mac was playing in the background. I am 100% sure the majority of unenthusiastic comments came from the fact that the mic was positioned such that music only served as a background to the actual purpose of the video and thus the mic was picking up way more room modes and way less direct sound — hence sounding distant and lacking body. I am 100% sure that live and in one of the listening positions the sound was way, way better. Incomparable in fact. And so:

1.) The sound of the video is only as good as the recording equipment. Which type of mic will serve best to reproduce the psychoacoustic effect of what we hear when we sit down to listen?
2.) The skill of the “sound engineer” — meaning positioning the mic so that you get the most of the live sound and the least of the room signature.
3.) Reproduction in the sense that some folks may forget YouTube videos may “Auto” to a lower resolution than the one the video was recoded in and thus the audio will be more compressed. Make sure you default to the highest quality video.
4.) The most obvious one — reproduction device. I visit this forum on my iPad Pro and that’s what I use to reproduce 90% of the system videos. Is that right or wrong — well of course it’s not right but it’s convenient and I bet I am not the only one.

Still, I don’t mind the videos as they are fun to watch and as Tao and bonzo say give me some indication of “where the system is heading.” But they hardly lend themselves to some more elaborate critiquing that I see happening in this thread here and there.
 
Last edited:
It never is an exact sound, when are say representative it need not be 100 percent, but good enough to accompany with comments and let people know it is a good system/component worth auditioning or not

Right. I never said anything about 100%. That would make it a perfect copy of what you hear. I think of it as close enough to get the point across. Sure, a written description adds information and is useful too.
 
Last edited:
An Omni mic and/or untreated and/or small room will result in something not representative of what one hears in that room live.

When the microphone picks up all the room reflections, this now becomes part of the recording. Why we hear so much more echo and room effects on these recordings is because now all that extraneous stuff that is filtered by your ear/brain is now a part of the recording and therefore coming at you as direct sound, which your brain won’t filter. Live it is additional to the recording and time delayed so processing in your mind can filter but in the recording of the playback in the room it is now part of the recording and not delayed…so you hear it clearly.

This indicts the great majority of video recordings of audio systems which have been posted on WBF.

Thank you, Brad, for coming up with a theory as to why at least most video recordings are not representative* of in-the-room sound. This theory might help explain why one is deluding oneself that one can understand the sound of an unfamiliar analog recording in an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room solely through a digital video.

Your theory also suggests an explanation for why horn loudspeakers systems may sound relatively better on videos than non-horn loudspeaker systems. Horn speakers typically are up against or are close to the front wall, and, being more directional, may propagate fewer room acoustic effects and reflection effects which are emphasized by the iPhone microphone on non-horn loudspeakers.

*People can disagree about the definition of "representative." If we establish a list of 10 elements of representativeness (tonal balance, sound-staging, dynamics, etc.) people will have different opinions as to whether two elements or eight elements or all 10 elements are necessary to satisfy the definition of "representative."
 
This indicts the great majority of video recordings of audio systems which have been posted on WBF.

Thank you, Brad, for coming up with a theory as to why at least most video recordings are not representative* of in-the-room sound. This theory might help explain why one is deluding oneself that one can understand the sound of an unfamiliar analog recording in an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room through a digital video.

Your theory also suggests an explanation for why horn loudspeakers systems may sound relatively better on videos than non-horn loudspeaker systems. Horn speakers typically are up against or are close to the front wall, and, being more directional, may propagate fewer room acoustic effects and reflection effects which are emphasized by the iPhone microphone on non-horn loudspeakers.

*People can disagree about the definition of "representative." If we establish a list of 10 elements of representativeness (tonal balance, sound-staging, dynamics, etc.) people will have different opinions as to whether two elements or eight elements or all 10 elements are necessary to satisfy the definition of "representative."

Don’t we have enough threads on this topic instead of ruining one more?
 
Don’t we have enough threads on this topic instead of ruining one more?
I agree. I didn't start this here. Why are you addressing this only to me? And you have been posting and responding to comments and questions about videos on this thread yourself.

I responded to Brad's question directly to me; I responded to Peter's questions directly to me (Peter snarkily accused people in his post to me of not answering his questions, so I did not want to be one of those people); and I commented on Brad's post on the video topic.
 
Have been visiting audioquattr for around 7 years, since he had Magico M3 then moved to Cessaro zeta. His system finally is sounding so good that I started listening at 9 am and sat intensely till 7:30 pm fatigue free save some quick breaks. If all of you tight I liked the Dava before, my recommendation for Dava has gone up exponentially

But, without further ado…this is going to be my biggest video report. Will carry on

First, let’s challenge the myth. Panels do female vocals best.


Ron, from this opening post, it is clear to me that Bonzo is talking about sharing videos of audioqhattr's system based on sound impressions. This strongly implies that Bonzo thinks his videos represent the sound of the system as heard in the room, though he does not explicitly state this. He presents the videos, this time with few supportive comments, and lets the videos do the convincing. Members then commented on their impressions of the system based on what they hear from the videos. Nothing about other reasons for sharing the videos.

So, let us get to it. Bonzo, what do you like about these videos and how do they convey the character of the Dava cartridge? What are the strengths of the system for you, and the weaknesses, if any?

And I am most intrigued by your final comment about panels doing female vocals the best. This of course reminds me of Ron's often repeated reason for his love of panels, the girl with guitar pop genre, the seeming basis for his development of the audiophile goals and speakers for music genre theories. We could pull up videos of Ron's panels and the Cessaro's both doing female vocals for comparison, but that might just lead us right back to the discussion about representation. You and Ron seem completely at odds about that.

Tell us more about why you think the Cessaros, and perhaps horns with certain amps in general, portray female vocals better than do panels. Let's get this thread back on track (apologies for violating the TOS and trying to moderate) and perhaps demonstrate your point by posting some videos for comparison. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
Ron, from this opening post, it is clear to me that Bonzo is talking about sharing videos of audioqhattr's system based on sound impressions. This strongly implies that Bonzo thinks his videos represent the sound of the system as heard in the room, though he does not explicitly state this. He presents the videos, this time with few supportive comments, and lets the videos do the convincing. Members then commented on their impressions of the system based on what they hear from the videos. Nothing about other reasons for sharing the videos.

So, let us get to it. Bonzo, what do you like about these videos and how do they convey the character of the Dava cartridge? What are the strengths of the system for you, and the weaknesses, if any?

And I am most intrigued by your final comment about panels doing female vocals the best. This of course reminds me of Ron's often repeated reason for his love of panels, the girl with guitar pop genre, the seeming basis for his development of the audiophile goals and speakers for music genre theories. We could pull up videos of Ron's panels and the Cessaro's both doing female vocals for comparison, but that might just lead us right back to the discussion about representation. You and Ron seem completely at odds about that.

Tell us more about why you think the Cessaros, and perhaps horns with certain amps in general, portray female vocals better than do panels. Let's get this thread back on track (apologies for violating the TOS and trying to moderate) and perhaps demonstrate your point by posting some videos for comparison. Thank you.

Thanks. As someone who has heard 3 sets of Alsyvox, many of apogees, Analysis audio, Martin Logans, quads, soundlabs, Audio exklusiv , etc, my first exposure to horns was when I bought the Lampi. My Lampi distributor was Polish and he, Lukasz of Lampi, Lukasz of hORNS pl, were deep in the DIY scene before going commercial. So he owned his own made TAD 2001 with an Altec woofer that he ran with 2w 45 valve amps, and I always wondered how they did better on vocals than the Martin Logans and other stats I heard. I kept my interest in horns and then moved on to liking ribbons (in fact I used to goad Ron who then wanted to get Martin Logan Neolith to go listen to Analysis Audio and Henk's Apogee grands. He soon moved off electrostats to ribbons).

Fast forward now, I still feel beryllium horns which are more electrostats in terms of upper mids, highs, and see throughness, do vocals better than electrostats. Other horns can too as they team up with low watt valves which have great inflections in female vocals. If you head to the Vocals videos thread, difficult to beat the horns on there, even the small lower priced ones.

I therefore take objection to people saying panels or ribbon speakers do vocals best - yes, they do them damn well but not best. And if people do want to say it, they should post videos to indicate that. Ron has to be fair to him posted videos of his system playing vocals to showcase how ribbon is at female vocals, so he is free to listen to mine and compare, or if he does not believe in videos he can post videos of his system playing Carmen for others.

Which brings me to the next topic - whether its vocals or violin or piano, it is the passage of music you play and the recording that matters both in room and on video to judge a system. I doubt the Carmen type operas can be matched by music like fields of gold, for instance.

To your other points, yes I do think the videos are representative with the caveats I have added on the first page of this thread on the metallicness and then on the Brahms double. I think where Dava is instrumental is the dynamic range and jumps and the energy of the music come from the Dava, it can be much flatter on other music. There is an intensity to the performances that credits to Dava, Both Dava and the TADs excel at nuances/inflections of the music.

Dava has great highs, more than vdh strad, and on the female vocals I cannot detect any harshness which is Ron's key worry about carts with highs.

The system is also great that it plays various types of music thrown at it, differently, letting the performances show. Yes it has some differences to the videos of other systems posted but I personally would be happy to have any of these mixes.
 
Last edited:
And you have been posting and responding to comments and questions about videos on this thread yourself.
Just as you were grammar and hyperbole police, I am the Video Enforcer, so got carried away. Keep in mind to your objection horns do videos better, I think my Wilson XVX videos are representative of what I heard in the room, and if you think I am biased, Fremer said his Wilson videos are representative, and I have Avalon Compass Diamonds and Sigma Maat Vector with Kondo sounding great. It is strange that people forget this the moment they are on a Cessaro thread. And the Bionors are part panel with their rear waves
 
Audioquattr's reaction the day he had got the first Dava was posted on the Dava thread "
Less than two hours, still getting it right: “This is the best cartridge I have ever heard!
Excellent tone, crazy detail and unbelievable dynamic !!”

he has had many and still does for direct compare vdh master signature, Grand Cru, Opus, Vyger red sparrow, Grado Epoch 3, etc"

Nothing has changed since, except he now has two Davas and both and he and I are even more thrilled with Dava and as a visitor my takeaway is recordings first, Dava second, and then the rest of the system should reflect the recordings and the performance. Dava also injects a lot of life into dead recordings, will put up an example.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crosswind
This was not a Tascam. It is on the acoustically coupled videos thread
he created the confusion since he also posts files directly from his phono (or preamp) to a Tascam. few do that. and also he has a more capable video recorder than a phone. so there are lots of reasons for some erroneous assumptions.

i'm sure whatever he posted he was specific (i don't pay attention so have no idea, but he typically is quite specific). but casual readers will think what they think.
It’s Lynx Hilo. He records directly from the output of phono (formerly it was CH P1 and now CH P10). Mostly 96kHz/24bit.

On some rare occasions, like the one you both referring to, sound in his room is recorded by someone professional by a video camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Lavigne
It’s Lynx Hilo. He records directly from the output of phono (formerly it was CH P1 and now CH P10). Mostly 96kHz/24bit.

On some rare occasions, like the one you both referring to, sound in his room is recorded by someone professional by a video camera.
No you are talking of his usual drops. This was a specific video we are referring to that was not from the phono
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu