Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[tima]

You use video recordings as a tool to help judge changes in your system?

Im interested to experiment with this. I can imagine it would at least be revealing to whether the change actually changes anything. I think qualitative judgments can follow after listening direct over time.

Yes.

Having had 3 different Wilson speakers over many years, I was unsure where to put a pair of JBL M9500s in my room. Very different speakers from Wilson. After some initial advice and trying different placements, I made videos, one to capture sound at a given placement, and two, to get feedback from friends whose ears I trust. I heard differences between the videos and so did they. Iterating across prior placements and suggestions based on video 'evidence' proved very helpful in coming to a satisfying arrangement.

 

[Al M.]

There was some question about the video version of Tang's Eurodyns at David's. I don't know if this is the same as posted earlier, but I asked David for it and he sent me this link.

edit: I don't think this is the same as the one Ron posted. The cords on the floor behind the speakers are different. Why does it matter? There were several videos made as the system was put together. I believe the one here is a final.

This is by far the best, most natural sounding of all the video recordings of this music on this thread. Full, open sounding, good tonal balance, good resolution, relatively minimal problems on "s" sounds that have proven problematic on other recordings. Very little, if any, of the thinness on the voice heard elsewhere.

It is obvious that this system must be good. If it is better than other systems playing the same music is unknown as long as in-person comparison is lacking. Too much potential variability of video recording quality.

In any case, this sounds far superior to a much earlier iteration of these speakers posted earlier.

 

[PeterA]

This is by far the best, most natural sounding of all the video recordings of this music on this thread. Full, open sounding, good tonal balance, good resolution, relatively minimal problems on "s" sounds that have proven problematic on other recordings. Very little, if any, of the thinness on the voice heard elsewhere.

It is obvious that this system must be good. If it is better than other systems playing the same music is unknown as long as in-person comparison is lacking. Too much potential variability of video recording quality.

In any case, this sounds far superior to a much earlier iteration of these speakers posted earlier.

I appreciate these comments Al. I was really quite persistent in my comments about the various Eurodyn videos. I’m glad someone else hears it like I do. Keep in mind everything feeding the signal to the speakers in this video is superlative.

this video to me is a benchmark in what is possible from a YouTube video and an audio system. The qualities you describe come through clearly even on my iPhone speakers, as ridiculous as that sounds. People insist on blasting the music to live levels and listening to headphones or through the main system, but I contend it is not necessary to get a sense of what a system is doing even when recorded by a standard iPhone. A decent desktop system helps and of course headphones are good also, I’m just saying they’re not absolutely necessary to judge the superiority of a video like this.

The contrast between this and the first one and this and Ron‘s is quite interesting. Do people really think this system is not highly resolving?

I think Ron has heard this LP in David‘s system live and he might be able to comment on how it differs from this video.

 

[Rexp]

The question remains, why does Ron's system sound more digital? Perhaps @Ron Resnick can post his iphone recording of Eleanor Rigby on Youtube to eliminate the Youtube v Vimeo variable?

 

[hopkins]

I appreciate these comments Al. I was really quite persistent in my comments about the various Eurodyn videos. I’m glad someone else hears it like I do. Keep in mind everything feeding the signal to the speakers in this video is superlative.

this video to me is a benchmark in what is possible from a YouTube video and an audio system. The qualities you describe come through clearly even on my iPhone speakers, as ridiculous as that sounds. People insist on blasting the music to live levels and listening to headphones or through the main system, but I contend it is not necessary to get a sense of what a system is doing even when recorded by a standard iPhone. A decent desktop system helps and of course headphones are good also, I’m just saying they’re not absolutely necessary to judge the superiority of a video like this.

The contrast between this and the first one and this and Ron‘s is quite interesting. Do people really think this system is not highly resolving?

I think Ron has heard this LP in David‘s system live and he might be able to comment on how it differs from this video.

Well, I'll post a dissenting voice, at the risk of being flamed (again). I cannot tell from this video if the tone of the instruments are colored due to the speaker or due to the recording, but they do not sound quite right (comparing to the original track). You do not need to "blast" this to come to this conclusion, but I do believe you do need headphones (otherwise you may simply miss something important).

While this does not mean that the system has other great attributes, but for me that is the first thing a system should get right, and it is a "show stopper" in a sense. So is this system superior to all others, and superlative ? I don't know. Perhaps, but I cannot tell from the video. You have heard it in person, perhaps that affects your perception of the video.

I'll agree that this last version is better than the first, but the bar was not set too high.

 

[Ron Resnick]

In any case, this sounds far superior to a much earlier iteration of these speakers posted earlier.

+1

 

[microstrip]

This is by far the best, most natural sounding of all the video recordings of this music on this thread. (...)

Al. M,
Although I can't imagine how it sounds, a simple peak spectral analysis will show why you preferred this video - the others were extremely poor ... Guess which you preferred!

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is very interesting, but to what are you drawing our attention here, Francisco? I'm seeing a huge emphasis in the 100Hz to 500Hz range. Or is this just showing peak frequency at a moment in time during playback (the initial low frequency violin stroke perhaps)?

Believable reproduction of an acoustic instrument in this frequency range is, in my opinion, the raison d'être of Bionors, Vitavoxes and David's custom speakers for Tang. I would love to see a carefully made frequency response chart of the foregoing loudspeakers.

 

[PeterA]

 

[PeterA]

 

[PeterA]

This is very interesting, but to what are you drawing our attention here, Francisco? I'm seeing a huge emphasis in the 100Hz to 500Hz range. Or is this just showing peak frequency at a moment in time during playback?

Believable reproduction of an acoustic instrument in this frequency range is, in my opinion, the raison d'être of Bionors, Vitavoxes and David's custom speakers for Tang. I would love to see a carefully made frequency response chart of the foregoing loudspeakers.

I do not understand this comment, Ron. 500 Hz is the crossover point between my drivers. Why do you say this range is so important in those three specific speakers? In my speakers, I want great performance from Mid 30s to 15k.

 

[microstrip]

This is very interesting, but to what are you drawing our attention here, Francisco? I'm seeing a huge emphasis in the 100Hz to 500Hz range.

Particular emphasis is meaningless when comparing the graphs - they were taken in different conditions with different uncalibrated tools.

Believable reproduction of an acoustic instrument in this frequency range is, in my opinion, the raison d'être of Bionors, Vitavoxes and David's custom speakers for Tang. I would love to see a carefully made frequency response chart of the foregoing loudspeakers.

I think that you need a lot more to explain your preference. BTW, if interested in this subject try listening to music using a system with variable cutoff filters to see what frequency ranges really mean in sound reproduction - just looking at the chart of spectra of musical instruments can be very misleading.

 

[stehno]

mm

This is by far the best, most natural sounding of all the video recordings of this music on this thread. Full, open sounding, good tonal balance, good resolution, relatively minimal problems on "s" sounds that have proven problematic on other recordings. Very little, if any, of the thinness on the voice heard elsewhere.

It is obvious that this system must be good. If it is better than other systems playing the same music is unknown as long as in-person comparison is lacking. Too much potential variability of video recording quality.

In any case, this sounds far superior to a much earlier iteration of these speakers posted earlier.

Tang's video

Ron's video

By far the best most natural sounding of all the videos in this thread, eh?

Tang's video seems rather heavy / thick to me starting with the opening cello. I suppose that's a good thing if one prefers sitting inside the cello during a live performance. But I'm guessing most of us enjoy listening from a bit more of a concert hall perspective with our ears planted firmly in the audience and all the music up on the soundstage where it belongs.

Yes, the negative sibilance in Tang's video appears to be sufficiently-enough addressed which is always a good sign too.

But how is it that you (and others) are able to ignore/overlook that overwhelmingly blatant sonic signature that makes vocalists and instruments sound like they're performing in a huge semi-empty coffee can? This negative sonic characteristic seems predominatnt in perhaps 75% of the videos I've listened to in this thread. There ain't nothing high-end about that. Why is it that nobody seems to notice something that so blatantly stands out like this?

In comparison to Tang's video, a diligent listener should notice that Ron's video above contains no such blatant sonic signature. None of my videos ever do or will (see video below) - unless on the rare occasion it's actually part of the recording. And no I'm not saying that Ron's video is perfect but his playback presentation via his video should be much more desireable if for no other reason that Ron's presentation lacks this negative sonic signature.

BTW, I think every in-room videos is extremely educational. But this is obviously one of the downsides of publishing in-room videos. IOW, If enough people claim a video that includes this empty coffee can-like sound is by far the best most musical sounding then the potential exists for others to strive to achieve that same type of sound when instead they should be running away from that type of sound.

Oh yeah, what's that annoying snap, crackle, pop I hear in both Tang's and Ron's videos above?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I do not understand this comment, Ron. 500 Hz is the crossover point between my drivers. Why do you say this range is so important in those three specific speakers? In my speakers, I want great performance from Mid 30s to 15k.

I believe that tonal density in the range of 100Hz to 1000Hz, and, especially, in the range of 100Hz to 500Hz, is critical to believability for acoustic instruments. I believe that these three loudspeakers are particularly good at manifesting tonal density in that frequency range. I think this is one important reason why the people who own these speakers love them.

Putting it another way I think this frequency range is the raison d'être of these kinds of loudspeakers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Particular emphasis is meaningless when comparing the graphs - they were taken in different conditions with different uncalibrated tools.



I think that you need a lot more to explain your preference. BTW, if interested in this subject try listening to music using a system with variable cutoff filters to see what frequency ranges really mean in sound reproduction - just looking at the chart of spectra of musical instruments can be very misleading.

Forget my post asking you those questions. Why don't you just tell us what your charts show?

 

[Ron Resnick]

In my speakers, I want great performance from Mid 30s to 15k.

I think it would be great if you posted a carefully made in-room pink noise frequency response chart of your system to see if you are getting the performance you seek.

 

[microstrip]

Forget my post asking you those questions. Why don't you just tell us what your charts show?

I am waiting for Al. M response and do not want to introduce bias in people first comments - once we know which is which we always find many correlations. We can listen sighted, but measurements should be analyzed blind.

 

[PeterA]

mm

Tang's video

Ron's video

By far the best most natural sounding of all the videos in this thread, eh?

Tang's video seems rather heavy / thick to me starting with the opening cello. I suppose that's a good thing if one prefers sitting inside the cello during a live performance. But I'm guessing most of us enjoy listening from a bit more of a concert hall perspective with our ears planted firmly in the audience and all the music up on the soundstage where it belongs.

Yes, the negative sibilance in Tang's video appears to be sufficiently-enough addressed which is always a good sign too.

But how is it that you (and others) are able to ignore/overlook that overwhelmingly blatant sonic signature that makes vocalists and instruments sound like they're performing in a huge semi-empty coffee can? This negative sonic characteristic seems predominatnt in perhaps 75% of the videos I've listened to in this thread. There ain't nothing high-end about that. Why is it that nobody seems to notice something that so blatantly stands out like this?

In comparison to Tang's video, a diligent listener should notice that Ron's video above contains no such blatant sonic signature. None of my videos ever do or will (see video below) - unless on the rare occasion it's actually part of the recording. And no I'm not saying that Ron's video is perfect but his playback presentation via his video should be much more desireable if for no other reason that Ron's presentation lacks this negative sonic signature.

BTW, I think every in-room videos is extremely educational. But this is obviously one of the downsides of publishing in-room videos. IOW, If enough people claim a video that includes this empty coffee can-like sound is by far the best most musical sounding then the potential exists for others to strive to achieve that same type of sound when instead they should be running away from that type of sound.

Oh yeah, what's that annoying snap, crackle, pop I hear in both Tang's and Ron's videos above?

It is NOT a cello

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is NOT a cello

Thank goodness! I was seconds away from falling on my sword, mortified that I called it a violin!

 

[Rexp]

mm

Tang's video

Ron's video

By far the best most natural sounding of all the videos in this thread, eh?

Tang's video seems rather heavy / thick to me starting with the opening cello. I suppose that's a good thing if one prefers sitting inside the cello during a live performance. But I'm guessing most of us enjoy listening from a bit more of a concert hall perspective with our ears planted firmly in the audience and all the music up on the soundstage where it belongs.

Yes, the negative sibilance in Tang's video appears to be sufficiently-enough addressed which is always a good sign too.

But how is it that you (and others) are able to ignore/overlook that overwhelmingly blatant sonic signature that makes vocalists and instruments sound like they're performing in a huge semi-empty coffee can? This negative sonic characteristic seems predominatnt in perhaps 75% of the videos I've listened to in this thread. There ain't nothing high-end about that. Why is it that nobody seems to notice something that so blatantly stands out like this?

In comparison to Tang's video, a diligent listener should notice that Ron's video above contains no such blatant sonic signature. None of my videos ever do or will (see video below) - unless on the rare occasion it's actually part of the recording. And no I'm not saying that Ron's video is perfect but his playback presentation via his video should be much more desireable if for no other reason that Ron's presentation lacks this negative sonic signature.

BTW, I think every in-room videos is extremely educational. But this is obviously one of the downsides of publishing in-room videos. IOW, If enough people claim a video that includes this empty coffee can-like sound is by far the best most musical sounding then the potential exists for others to strive to achieve that same type of sound when instead they should be running away from that type of sound.

Oh yeah, what's that annoying snap, crackle, pop I hear in both Tang's and Ron's videos above?

It's a shame the crackles and pops annoy you so much, prevents you from enjoying many great recordings that sound poor on digital.