Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

Absent relying on our memories of live music, I understand why people post digital tracks from YouTube as the basis for comparisons. However, I do not think most sound much like what I hear live, so as a reference, I tend not to rely on them.

So anyone using digital as a source is doomed to have bad sound?

 

[PeterA]

So anyone using digital as a source is doomed to have bad sound?

No. I’m talking about the standard YouTube tracks that are not system videos. They do not often sound like live music which for me is the reference. I’m not saying anything about vinyl versus digital sources. I’ve heard some very good system videos using digital sources. I don’t understand how you possibly reached that conclusion.

 

[hopkins]

No. I’m talking about the standard YouTube tracks that are not system videos. They do not often sound like live music which for me is the reference. I’m not saying anything about final versus digital sources. I’ve heard some very good system videos using digital sources. I don’t understand how you possibly reached that conclusion.

I thought that was what you were implying.

There is a lot you can learn by comparing a system recording to a YouTube track.

It would be a mistake to think a phone recording of a speaker in a room is going to "best" hearing the track on YouTube.

Tima's recording of that Shotakovich track sounds good, as you mentioned, but it does not sound better than the track on YouTube... None of our recordings do.

 

[Rexp]

I thought that was what you were implying.

There is a lot you can learn by comparing a system recording to a YouTube track.

It would be a mistake to think a phone recording of a speaker in a room is going to "best" hearing the track on YouTube.

Tima's recording of that Shotakovich track sounds good, as you mentioned, but it does not sound better than the track on YouTube... None of our recordings do.

Are you serious?
This, for example, sounds better than any youtube version AND any Qobuz version:

 

[microstrip]

Well if 100 blindfolded violinists in a room can guess correctly whether a violin or a viola is being played, I will take their judgement as truth.

Well, this is an ambiguous example that adds little to what is being debated. What is the argument being discussed? That all existing violinists can guess blind if a violin or a viola is beings played?

 

[Carlos269]

 

[tima]

There is a lot you can learn by comparing a system recording to a YouTube track.

It would be a mistake to think a phone recording of a speaker in a room is going to "best" hearing the track on YouTube.

If modeling your system based on what you hear from a youTube video gives you the sound you prefer, then good for you on having a reference. Many people don't have a reference. I can imagine someone building a playback system that is designed around you tube as a source.

My reference is live acoustic music. That has a provenance I understand.

While I don't use it maybe others do. Would you explain what you can learn by comparing a system recording with a (presumably non-system recording) from you tube.

 

[Ron Resnick]

My reference is live acoustic music. That has a provenance I understand.

+1

Do you think it makes any sense to think in terms of having a reference for multi-track pop music, where elements of the final mixed song are recorded in different locations and by different recording systems?

 

[Ron Resnick]

The answer to your question is quite simple, and I have mentioned it a number of times in past, my personalized Remastering process settings are optimized for the music that I listen to for “enjoyment” and not for system evaluations. I listen to extremely fast music and it benefits from my settings. I don’t listen to classical music, but I can obviously appreciate how the extra wood is beneficial there.

Regarding the Remastering process, yes there are a number of great high-end mastering analog hardware tools out there that can be used to achieve similar results, but don’t be mistaken these results came about because of my knowledge and not the tools. I’m planning to develop a second Remastering process chain and will be using completely different analog mastering tools. The tools are actionable but without the knowledge it is a mess waiting to happen.

Here is something else on my Remastering process to think about, I timed myself and it only took me a total of four (4) minutes to adjust the Remastering process settings to develop and achieve the “Wood Edition” settings. The Remastering process is the greatest thing for “system” sound shaping that I know of. I had done this with my large mastering systems in the past but never with such a small and concise chain and solution. Again, I must give partial credit to HQPLAYER for providing the best sounding source to the Remastering process.

Just like I was able to add “Wood”, I can custom tailor a solution for other systems, if they are capable of the desired outcome, and system owners.

The Remastering process is truly powerful and something very special. To get that wood sound cost me four (4) minutes of my time and no new components or cables, grounding boxes, special cartridges, arms, time-aligned speakers, special stands, bases & shelves, exotic materials, bespoke engineered acoustically treated room, no tube rolling, no magic fuses, no magnetic drives, no active suspensions, special electrical power installation & conditioning……… you get the picture!

With my Remastering process, you can make your system sound the way that you always wanted it to sound like or dreamed of! And it has the flexibility to adjust if your ideal sound objectives change!

Hi Carlos,

If you had to choose from this list which objective do you think is closest to how you think about what you are trying to achieve with your audio systems:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

 

[microstrip]

(...) My reference is live acoustic music.

I would say my reference is my very subjective perception of live acoustic music.

That has a provenance I understand.

Than you should realize that live acoustic music is much more than the sound of instruments - it an holistic experience that never repeats. Successful sound reproduction needs much more than just comparing with souvenirs of life music - it implies triggering the extra emotional or intellectual aspects that create an enjoyable experience. These aspects can be very different for different types of listeners.

I doubt that listening to youtube videos can help people picking a successful system - assembling an high-end system usually implies education and I can't see how we can educate our listening using such low quality media.

 

[PeterA]

I thought that was what you were implying.

You are mistaken.

There is a lot you can learn by comparing a system recording to a YouTube track.

I agree. I never wrote that you can not learn anything comparing a system recording to a YouTube track.

It would be a mistake to think a phone recording of a speaker in a room is going to "best" hearing the track on YouTube.

I am not so sure. Sometimes analog recordings sound better than digital versions of them. And if it is played back on a superb system, the system video may retain enough quality to still be better than a YouTube digital version.

Tima's recording of that Shotakovich track sounds good, as you mentioned, but it does not sound better than the track on YouTube... None of our recordings do.

It does not sound better than the live concert footage someone posted, but it might well sound as good or better than a YouTube digital version of that recording. It depends in large part on the quality of the LP recording and the quality of the digital recording and the system quality.

 

[Carlos269]

Hi Carlos,

If you had to choose from this list which objective do you think is closest to how you think about what you are trying to achieve with your audio systems:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Great question Ron! In order of objective priority, and reason why:

4) create a sound that seems live. - This objective to me brings the most enjoyment and return on investment from the system. Hearing the singer’s presence in the room scare you or as you say, “suspension of disbelief “. Hearing a bass line that mesmerizes you, the power and speed of the drum kit. To hear the fire, energy and passion of the performance, that to me is what is all about. To transcend time and space and become one with the audience of a live performance. To hear an electric guitar that bites and roars. To hear the love, the pain, joy, outrage, indignation, to feel the sense of loss or desire, anguish, despair, jubilation or sorrow in the singer’s voice. This to me is what a truly great world class system is all about. The intimacy and the rawness of the music is what I’m after. I want to listen to MUSIC in its full artistic expression.To evoke a STRONG emotion, that’s what MUSIC is all about!

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, - Everyone wants to listen to something that sounds good or great to them. I don’t listen to or enjoy audiophile recordings but I can see why they are used for demonstrations and also as we do here, on this thread for benchmarking the relative performance of our different systems.

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played, - This is impossible to do without electrical measurements and correction, like the the Remastering process, as there are too many filters between the source medium and the listener’s ear. By the time we hear what was on the source medium it has been altered and modified by every interface along the way. I delve into this subject in my response to PeterA’s question of why every system sounds different.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event, - This is an ideal that can never be truly validated. Without validation, what’s the point?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Great question Ron! In order of objective priority, and reason why:

4) create a sound that seems live. - This objective to me brings the most enjoyment and return on investment from the system. Hearing the singer’s presence in the room scare you or as you say, “suspension of disbelief “. Hearing a bass line that mesmerizes you, the power and speed of the drum kit. To hear the fire and passion of the performance, that to me is what is all about. To transcend time and space and become one with the audience of a live performance. To hear an electric guitar that bites and roars. To feel, the love, pain, joy, pain, outrage, indignation, since of loss or desire, or sorrow in the singer’s voice. This to me is what a truly great world class system is all about. The intimacy and the rawness of the music is what I’m after. I want to listen to MUSIC in its full artistic expression.To evoke a STRONG emotion, that’s what MUSIC is all about!

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, - Everyone wants to listen to something that sounds good or great to them. I don’t listen to or enjoy audiophile recordings but I can see why they are used for demonstrations and also as we do here, on this thread for benchmarking the relative performance of our different systems.

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played, - This is impossible to do without electrical measurements and correction, like the the Remastering process, as there are too many filters between the source medium and the listener’s ear. By the time we hear what was on the source medium it has been altered and modified by every interface along the way. I delve into this subject in my response to PeterA’s question of why every system sounds different.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event, - This is an ideal that can never be truly validated. Without validation, what’s the point?

Thank you, Carlos!

 

[Carlos269]

Thank you, Carlos!

Read the updated post as I corrected many of the grammatical errors in the original post, done quickly and stream of consciousness.

 

[hopkins]

If modeling your system based on what you hear from a youTube video gives you the sound you prefer, then good for you on having a reference. Many people don't have a reference. I can imagine someone building a playback system that is designed around you tube as a source.

My reference is live acoustic music. That has a provenance I understand.

While I don't use it maybe others do. Would you explain what you can learn by comparing a system recording with a (presumably non-system recording) from you tube.

Where did say that I was "modelling" the sound of my system based on YouTube videos?

Comparing a system video to the original track (whether on YouTube, CD, lossless streaming) can tell us a lot:
- overall tonal balance
- instrument placement
- level of transparency
...

As for system tuning, obviously we compare the sound coming out of our speakers with the idea we have of live sound. But that is only a part of it.

 

[tima]

Do you think it makes any sense to think in terms of having a reference for multi-track pop music, where elements of the final mixed song are recorded in different locations and by different recording systems?

I don't know what reference that could be.

 

[Wavetouch]

I am not sure if my record is better, but let's have a fun.

Carlos269- If you have a better sounding video of this track, please post it, I would love to hear it:​

 

[bonzo75]

Are you serious?
This, for example, sounds better than any youtube version AND any Qobuz version:

this mono is so much better

 

[tima]

Where did say that I was "modelling" the sound of my system based on YouTube videos?

I don't know where you said that or if you did. This is the tedium of forum life. Please note the if-then structure of the conditional sentence I wrote. "If modeling your system based on what you hear from a youTube video gives you the sound you prefer, then good for you on having a reference." Presumably something you wrote somewhere led me to speculate, but I wouldn't worry about it.

Comparing a system video to the original track (whether on YouTube, CD, lossless streaming) can tell us a lot:
- overall tonal balance
- instrument placement
- level of transparency
...

Perhaps. You tube videos are for me a way to communicate a representation of how a piece of music sounds through my system. I won't post a video if I think it does not represent that sound reasonably well, knowing that the video does not sound identical to what I hear in-room.

As regards a you tube video posted by another, if it is a system video recorded through a phone I may very well have an interest either for the music or the sound or for other reasons. Apparently, to me, how I use you tube videos is different from how you use them. I kinda think we have different views on the use and value of such videos and I think that was clear from the outset of this thread about phone videos.

I was an audiophile before 2005 when youtube started. Maybe that explains it.

 

[tima]

I would say my reference is my very subjective perception of live acoustic music.

Micro, do you think your sentence is different in meaning from this sentence: "I would say my reference is my perception of live acoustic music."