Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Argonaut]

How can any technique extract an information that the original don't have?

Bingo !

 

[hopkins]

From my experience, mics and recorded video sounds are always correct. Your ears/brain are biased and customize your unnatural audio sounds the way you like. This explains why other people (wives, non-audiophiles) don't like your trusty audio music. Simply, video sounds are what regular people hear from your audio systems.

Which speaker sounds better? Left (unnatural sound) or right (natural)?

I don't see how the video relates to my point, not the rest of your post, to be honest. You cannot deny that different microphone placements give different results (hollow sound, lacking body, two dimensional, etc... ) There is nothing more to it. I was just suggesting that people experiment. If they are happy with the results as is, then so be it.

 

[Argonaut]

For me, Tima's has some more energy, clarity and presence without any apparent room distractions.

Are you serious wil …. There are room modes , interactions , first reflections etc throughout the whole recording …

 

[Wavetouch]

I don't see how the video relates to my point, not the rest of your post, to be honest. You cannot deny that different microphone placements give different results (hollow sound, lacking body, two dimensional, etc... ) There is nothing more to it. I was just suggesting that people experiment. If they are happy with the results as is, then so be it.

You are right about the different microphone location and quality will change the sound of recording. As you mentioned, people must experiment with mic's location for the best result.

I was just explaining why we don't hear like a microphone.

 

[tima]

I don't understand why you have an issue with anyone choosing to compare a system video to the same track being played directly from a CD/YouTube/whatever source.

It is not an issue for me with someone comparing whatever they want to compare. Hopefully that is clear enough. I have little to say about digital because I don't use it. I have my preferences and feel no need to defend them by attacking someone elses choices. Do as you choose though I prefer someone not try to convince me to do as they do.

For me personally I am somewhat resistant to virtualizing my hobby even further. Having a home stereo to play recorded performances is a step removed from hearing the performance itself, though I am happy to have it. Recording a system video and comparing that to another video, often of unknown origin, is another step removed. That is not why I am in this hobby. I am not interested it having contests with videos. I made some videos for friends to hear and offer advice on speaker positioning and other components based on their knowledge and experience. I am not trying to emulate the sound of a you tube video.

 

[hopkins]

It is not an issue for me with someone comparing whatever they want to compare. Hopefully that is clear enough. I have little to say about digital because I don't use it. I have my preferences and feel no need to defend them by attacking someone elses choices. Do as you choose though I prefer someone not try to convince me to do as they do.

For me personally I am somewhat resistant to virtualizing my hobby even further. Having a home stereo to play recorded performances is a step removed from hearing the performance itself, though I am happy to have it. Recording a system video and comparing that to another video, often of unknown origin, is another step removed. That is not why I am in this hobby. I am not interested it having contests with videos. I made some videos for friends to hear and offer advice on speaker positioning and other components based on their knowledge and experience. I am not trying to emulate the sound of a you tube video.

This all sounds very condescending. Your interpretations of my methods and motivations are ultimately irrelevant (to me). But I like your videos, they are I instructive. And that's the point - the videos are out there, people can choose to see them or not and if they can get something out of it, great.

 

[wil]

Are you serious wil …. There are room modes , interactions , first reflections etc throughout the whole recording …

Yes, I'm "serious." To my ears, whatever modes, reflections, etc are in the room are of no consequence because they are not distracting from the excellent music playback.

 

[tima]

This all sounds very condescending. Your interpretations of my methods and motivations are ultimately irrelevant (to me). But I like your videos, they are I instructive. And that's the point - the videos are out there, people can choose to see them or not and if they can get something out of it, great.

I wrote about myself. I say nothing about your methods much less your motivation. I do not criticize you. I am not here to validate your approach as that would truly be condescending. Thank you for listening to my video.

 

[hopkins]

Great.

Now for another take of that great symphony, to add to the collection. Some things I like, others less. I am going to take a break from videos for a month (holidays, then upgrade of my system).

It's digital...but it works differently than other digital sources. I'll post some comparisons in October - two different amps and two sources. I'll be curious to see if differences can be heard on system videos. Then maybe I'll try to record different speakers.

 

[PeterA]

How can any technique extract an information that the original don't have? It is made up information and is not always wanted.

Some sounds buried in the mix exist on the recording but are not, or are barely, perceived by the listener for a variety of reasons. If those subtle details are enhanced, then perceptions change. Remixing a recording (or system) can contribute to this effect.

This is about balance. Sometimes people prefer enhancement and spotlighting. This may result in a preferred but less natural presentation.

 

[Carlos269]

This is about balance. Sometimes people prefer enhancement and spotlighting. This may result in a preferred but less natural presentation.

In the case of my Remastering process, the enhancement of low level and inner detail makes the music sound more “real” to me. No sense in keeping things unchanged if they can be improved. The logic to leave things untouched does not make sense to me, as I’m al aye looking for ways to improve upon the status quo!

 

[PeterA]

In the case of my Remastering process, the enhancement of low level and inner detail makes the music sound more “real” to me. No sense in keeping things unchanged if they can be improved. The logic to leave things untouched does not make sense to me, as I’m al aye looking for ways to improve upon the status quo!

I understand that. You are remastering the sound to your preference. I wonder if your WAAR remastering system were suddenly available to every audio file for free for his own use, how many of them would change the sound away from how their chosen systems present their favorite recordings.

 

[Carlos269]

I understand that. You are remastering the sound to your preference. I wonder if your WAAR remastering system were suddenly available to every audio file for free for his own use, how many of them would change the sound away from how their chosen systems present their favorite recordings.

This one is an easy answer, judging by how many audiophiles are constantly changing or upgrading components & speakers or trying to make adjustments through magic fuses, grounding boxes, new cartridges, new arms, dedicated power lines and power conditioners, stands, shelves, footers, power cables, interconnects, speaker cables, room treatments……. I would say that every single audiophile would appreciate and be well served by the benefits of the Remastering process.

By the way, I answered your previous questions in my “There is a smarter way” thread:

There is a smarter way

 

[Rexp]

Since neither Wavetouch or anyone else is stepping up to the challenge, here are my two versions for evaluation:

Thanks Carlos! I prefer your 269 edition, has more life to it. Both are not as good as the Avshowrooms vid but I think that's coz they're using a server/file which is superior to the Tidal version.

 

[Carlos269]

Thanks Carlos! I prefer your 269 edition, has more life to it. Both are not as good as the Avshowrooms vid but I think that's coz they're using a server/file which is superior to the Tidal version.

That is interesting. To me, the Avshowtooms’ video sounds like you are listening to a recording, while my “Carlos269 Edition” sounds like you are listening to a live performance of the song. Just notice the differences in space and dimensionality between the sound of both videos.

 

[Al M.]

Some sounds buried in the mix exist on the recording but are not, or are barely, perceived by the listener for a variety of reasons. If those subtle details are enhanced, then perceptions change. Remixing a recording (or system) can contribute to this effect.

This is about balance. Sometimes people prefer enhancement and spotlighting. This may result in a preferred but less natural presentation.

Agreed. The much harder to achieve trick of a great high resolution system is to reproduce all the detail naturally as you would hear in a concert of unamplified music live, without the need to spotlight or "enhance". And without the need to pull detail into the foreground which naturally is more subtly in the background.

 

[Rexp]

Great.

Now for another take of that great symphony, to add to the collection. Some things I like, others less. I am going to take a break from videos for a month (holidays, then upgrade of my system).

It's digital...but it works differently than other digital sources. I'll post some comparisons in October - two different amps and two sources. I'll be curious to see if differences can be heard on system videos. Then maybe I'll try to record different speakers.

Doesn't sound as good as your usual vids, maybe re record it?

 

[Carlos269]

Agreed. The much harder to achieve trick of a great high resolution system is to reproduce all the detail naturally as you would hear in a concert of unamplified music live, without the need to spotlight or "enhance". And without the need to pull detail into the foreground which naturally is more subtly in the background.

Unfortunately it is not the system that dictates what details are reproduced and to what extend. That has been predetermined by the mastering engineer. I guess that you and Peter still don’t get the fact that the Mastering is more dominant on the final sound than the stereo system. I keep trying to explain it to you but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that the recordings go through low level amplitude filtering during the system playback process, while the mastering engineers made changes that are embedded in the recordings that have greater power factor than anything that happens during playback. This whole thing about “reproduce all the detail naturally as you would hear in a concert of unamplified music live” has been coded and no so called linear or neutral device during the playback will change that. The resolving power may be different from system to system but it can only resolve what the Mastering engineer has closed the final mix with. With HQPLAYER and the Remastering process you get to unlock the mix and make changes that are substantially more impactful than any system, no matter how resolving, stands a chance of affecting.

The tail doesn’t get to wag the dog!

 

[hopkins]

With HQPLAYER and the Remastering process you get to unlock the mix and make changes that are substantially more impactful than any system, no matter how resolving, stands a chance of affecting.

I have no doubt that your changes are "Impactful", but are they improvements?

You tell us that your process is unique, but without detailed explanations of what you are doing, which you refuse to disclose, we are left with broad statements, and your videos... Are the videos convincing?

 

[Carlos269]

I have no doubt that your changes are "Impactful", but are they improvements?

You tell us that your process is unique, but without detailed explanations of what you are doing, which you refuse to disclose, we are left with broad statements, and your videos... Are the videos convincing?

Are they an “improvement”? Of course they are and if you or anyone else had the Remastering process to use, you would use it in a way to make adjustments that “you” would considered an “improvement”. If your system playback is “perfect” then obviously there would be no changes required, but who here can claim that their playback is perfect and it’s 100% what they are after and will not make any further changes to their system?

“You tell us that your process is unique, but without detailed explanations of what you are doing, which you refuse to disclose” This is absolutely not true. In my “There is a smarter way” thread I walk you step-by-step on what I’m doing. I even numbered the steps. The only thing that I have not disclosed is the hardware that I used and how I sequence them, because frankly it’s irrelevant as I can do the same with other similar hardware, as I will be doing with a completely new set of components in my upcoming new Remastering process chain implementation.

“Are the videos convincing?”, why don’t you use your ears and listen to how much I was able to change the sound of my WAAR “system” with the “system” Remastering process. Brad said your system sound “thin” and lacks the weight and sound of the “Wood” cavity of the violin and piano, a couple of very minor adjustment to the Remastering process and the WAAR system was overflowing with Wood tones. That’s the power of the “system” Remastering process.

Think about it this way, if I were to come to your home and listen to your system and after a few minutes in the listening chair I tell you “it is lacking midbass slam”, there would be nothing you could do to add “midbass slam” to the musical presentation short of swapping speakers or the amplifier or something else that would be drastic and costly, and even more important there is no possible way that you could change anything to produce the “midbass slam” presentation that I wanted, but let’s just imagine for a minute that you had a very special amplifier in the room that you could swap in that actually produced the “midbass slam” that I want to hear and you swap that amp in, and a few minutes later I look back up at you again from the listening chair and tell you “yes, the amp improved the mid-bass slam but all the treble resolution and high-frequency detail heard with the original amp is now gone and the inner detail is now missing”. This is the typical life of an audiophile, you make improvements in one area at the expense of something else. With the “system” Remastering process I can surgically add “midbass slam” to my WAAR system without affecting the treble. The Remastering process also allows me to precisely dial in the level of midbass slam that I want.

You get the picture yet?