Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Ron Resnick]

Carlos269 responds to AudioHR:

I will try to be more direct this time. For me, system videos offer two distinct functions:

1) Aural memory is fleeting and when you are trying to hear differences between two different set-ups or to compare and contrast before and after a change, I find the system video playbacks more informative than relying on aural memory for relative comparisons.

2) For comparison analysis I find system videos an invaluable tool. At the end of the day, any and all systems should be judged by one and only one thing only, and that is the resultant sound. It is very difficult or should I say impossible to hear the latest, greatest, and most praised component’s and systems in your own home. Even if you could bring them into your own house any comparison with your current system would again rely on aural memory. As I’m the type of person who is extremely competitive and likes to assemble the best systems in the world, I must measure my system’s performance against what others believe are truly great systems. I don’t do this just for ego, but also to implement corrective action in my own systems when deficiencies are observed. I cannot leave well enough alone, I’m always striving for improvements. Because of the logistics involved and quite honestly lack of access to these systems, the most efficient way to compare the resultant sound of my systems to the resultant sound of other so called “world class systems” is over system videos. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully aware of the numerous and different variables involved but as I said previously at the end of the day none of that matters and the only thing that needs to be judged, in my view, is the resultant sound. Over YouTube all videos undergo the same processing so that is common and levels the playing field for the videos. I realize that the sound quality takes a hit going through YouTube but that is normalized as all videos take the same hit in quality. Furthermore, as I explained to Ron, Bonzo and others earlier, because of the microphones, typically used for these system videos, there are low frequency capture limitations that give the sound a slight high frequency tilt but again for the most part this is also normalized as most of us are not using professional recording level microphones for this videos. Even with the Magico M9 video that was professionally recorded, it didn’t make a difference

As you can see, to me these system videos serve as a great tool for relative comparisons of changes in the system but also the videos allow us to benchmark the relative sound quality of our systems against other systems.

In summary, 1) system videos are a better tool to rely on than aural memories, and 2) system videos are the most accessible way to step up and make comparisons to the sound quality of other systems using a common yardstick.

Let me know if any of the above requires further clarification.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear AudioHR:

June 17, 2019, Post #1 hereof:

Acoustically-coupled cell phone recordings of high-end audio systems make no sense to me personally (except in the narrow and limited scenario where an iPhone is fixed in position in a single system and the same track of music is played at the same volume and one thing (and one thing only) in that same system is changed for an A/B comparison; in this case the recording might be able to illuminate the difference).

I just don’t see how recording the acoustic output of high-end audio systems using the ADC in an iPhone, and then playing back that low quality and low resolution digital recording through the tiny, tinny iPhone speaker, bears any high-fidelity relation to the original analog stereo sound created by a meticulously assembled stereo system with carefully positioned loudspeakers.


September 4, 2020, Post #1,583 of "Sublime Sound":

[t]hat does not make the video useful for any comparative purpose, except possibly for two identical videos with only one component changed or adjustment made with everything else held constant. And even then I don't think it is worth very much.


Other posts:

-- I think it is nonsensical to hear through a cheap ADC and then a cheap DAC a digital recording of audio emitted by a system you have never heard in person composed of components you have never heard playing an analog recording you have never heard of a performance you have never heard and are not familiar with and conclude from the video that the analog audio components in the room are "bright and a bit thin sounding" and that the system "lacks resolution."

How do you know that that is not exactly how the recording sounds? (How do you know that you're not falsely attributing those sonic characteristics to the system when, in fact, that may be exactly how the recording sounds?)


-- On digital videos of digital recordings of analog playback systems: I continue to believe very firmly that literally nothing intellectually honest can be learned from comparing videos of different systems recorded different ways with different smartphones. Listening to digital videos of digital recordings of different analog playback systems to learn the sound of those high-end audio systems and to compare the sound of different high-end audio systems makes no sense to me whatsoever. (Why don’t we just play other peoples’ videos through our big stereo systems? That way each of us can experience accurately each other’s systems and never have to leave the comfort of our own listening room. We could save a lot of money on airplane tickets and gasoline.)

-- I used to think that at least with an external microphone the tonal balance of the videos of my room is representative of the tonal balance heard actually in the room. While I think the tonal balance representativeness may be directionally correct it still does not sound like what I and everyone else hears in the room. It's definitely not accurate enough or representative enough to base upon it the various speculations about cable capacitance and acoustic room treatments and high frequency energy being discussed from afar by people who have never listened to music in the room.

After my good faith foray into digital video recordings I remain of the view that with respect to unfamiliar recordings in unfamiliar systems in unfamiliar rooms ("unfamiliar" meaning you have not listened to familiar music on that system in that room yourself) videos are useful only for comparing a single change in an otherwise constant system. As a way to understand the sound of a system in a room in which you have not been present I think videos generate more confusion and heat than understanding and light.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Responding to Carlos269's points I copied and pasted in #2,821 above from his post on my system thread:

1) Aural memory is fleeting

True; but at least actual in-the-room listening in person is an authentic and valid experience and reference point.

2) For comparison analysis I find system videos an invaluable tool. At the end of the day, any and all systems should be judged by one and only one thing only, and that is the resultant sound. It is very difficult or should I say impossible to hear the latest, greatest, and most praised component’s and systems in your own home.

Because of the logistics involved and quite honestly lack of access to these systems, the most efficient way to compare the resultant sound of my systems to the resultant sound of other so called “world class systems” is over system videos.

The fact that sitting at home and listening to digital videos of other peoples' systems may b "efficient" is wholly irrelevant to whether it is valid.

I’m fully aware of the numerous and different variables involved but as I said previously at the end of the day none of that matters

This is ludicrous on its face. It makes no sense to understand and to appreciate the "numerous and different variables involved" and then to pretend that "none of that matters."

and the only thing that needs to be judged, in my view, is the resultant sound.

The resultant sound has been both corrupted and homogenized by all of the cheap ADC and DAC conversions.

because of the microphones, typically used for these system videos, there are low frequency capture limitations that give the sound a slight high frequency tilt

Yes, I agree this is one of the sources of corruption and homogenization.

to me these system videos serve as a great tool for relative comparisons of changes in the system

I agree this is the only use to which these digital videos can legitimately be put: one single change in the same system.

but also the videos allow us to benchmark the relative sound quality of our systems against other systems.

I disagree. With respect to unfamiliar recordings in unfamiliar systems in unfamiliar rooms ("unfamiliar" meaning you have not listened to familiar music on that system in that room yourself) videos are useful only for comparing a single change in an otherwise constant system. As a way to understand the sound of a system in a room in which you have not been present I think videos make no sense -- except maybe for a sense of relative tonal balance and a sense of relative transparency -- and only delude oneself into thinking you understand the in-the-room sound of the system on the video.

In summary, 1) system videos are a better tool to rely on than aural memories

I disagree, because digital videos -- except maybe for a sense of relative tonal balance and a sense of relative transparency -- are not worth relying on in the first place.

and 2) system videos are the most accessible way to step up and make comparisons to the sound quality of other systems using a common yardstick.

Accessibility does not translate into legitimacy.

 

[Argonaut]

Ron … You are making a right Dogs Dinner of this … Just reply to the points in Carlos’s post Where it was posted by him originally .

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron … You are making a right Dogs Dinner of this … Just reply to the points in Carlos’s post Where it was posted by him originally .

This is another English colloquialism of yours with which I am unfamiliar.

I understand it's a bit messy, but I really don't want to have this never-ending discussion continued on my system thread. I think it's clear enough that I am responding to Carlos269's post.

 

[Argonaut]

I understand it's a bit messy, but I really don't want to have this never-ending discussion continued on my system thread. I think it's clear enough that I am responding to Carlos269's post.

To us currently reading yes … what about a new joiner trying to make sence of this in 6 months time .

 

[Carlos269]

True; but at least actual in-the-room listening in person is an authentic and valid experience and reference point.

Absolutely, in room listening is valid. No one would dispute this.

The fact that sitting at home and listening to digital videos of other peoples' systems may b "efficient" is wholly irrelevant to whether it is valid.

It is valid and relevant to me.

This is ludicrous on its face. It makes no sense to understand and to appreciate the "numerous and different variables involved" and then to pretend that "none of that matters."

Let me be quite clear, the ONLY thing that matters is the resultant sound. How you achieve it are details and inconsequential for benchmarking and comparison purposes.

The resultant sound has been both corrupted and homogenized by all of the cheap ADC and DAC conversions.

You can put up as many excuses. Obstacles are what losers see when they lose sight of the goal. There are no trophies here, this is for personal curiosity and satisfaction. If you fear competition, just sit it out.

Yes, I agree this is one of the sources of corruption and homogenization.


I agree this is the only use to which these digital videos can legitimately be put: one single change in the same system.


I disagree. With respect to unfamiliar recordings in unfamiliar systems in unfamiliar rooms ("unfamiliar" meaning you have not listened to familiar music on that system in that room yourself) videos are useful only for comparing a single change in an otherwise constant system. As a way to understand the sound of a system in a room in which you have not been present I think videos make no sense -- except maybe for a sense of relative tonal balance and a sense of relative transparency -- and only delude oneself into thinking you understand the in-the-room sound of the system on the video.

Listen this is not for you. Some of us have an alpha personality and want to have fun comparing videos of expensive systems. Like in sports there is always a place for a water boy.

I disagree, because digital videos -- except maybe for a sense of relative tonal balance and a sense of relative transparency -- are not worth relying on in the first place.

This is where having a firm understanding of science and technology comes into play. We trust videos to convey images but you want to pretend that we cannot trust videos to convey sound. Time to flex your head and put that brain to work. We cannot pretend that technology works in all facets of our lives except for playing simple audio frequencies back embedded on videos. You are doing the whole recording industry a disservice with this type of mentality. Think about that for a minute. Recordings are the foundation of this hobby. But let me guess, recordings work on all formats except on audio embedded on videos????

Accessibility does not translate into legitimacy.

Accessibility is a valid reason. Resources are used by those that can make use of them.

 

[bonzo75]

I like Ron talking to himself on this thread on videos in post 2283. Exactly how it should be. Ron, Ron, Al and Al should be given a video subforum to reply to themselves and like each other's posts

 

[Carlos269]

The resultant sound has been both corrupted and homogenized by all of the cheap ADC and DAC conversions.

This is an example of how the audiophile world reeks of ignorance. Care to guess the cost of the Texas Instrument dac IC used in the WADAX Reference dac? There is a lot of swindling that goes on behind fancy & shiny aluminum billet plates in the high-end audio world.

 

[Rexp]

Youtube can even reveal differences between the sample rate at which the video was recorded (video title is wrong btw):

 

[Wavetouch]

Youtube can even reveal differences between the sample rate at which the video was recorded

My live recording is 192kHz (modded Oppo BDP-95).

 

[PeterA]

Okay since you don’t want to play along with your own song then here is a video of a multi-million dollar system in a custom built and well treated room:

Here is my humble version, from tonight’s listening session:

This is an interesting comparison. I find the Magico video sounds closest to no acoustically coupled system/room presentation. Perhaps that is because the two mics are separated and right in front of each channel. It is like a recording made directly from the phono stage output with no room/speaker interaction. The presentation from the listing seat would sound different.

Carlos' video presentation has a bit more life and energy, and is more dynamic, but I find it bright and a bit fatiguing. It is initially engaging but then is too much, while the Magico is dull and sterile by comparison. I do not know which one I could live with long term. I do not think this is the best music with which to judge a system performance. It is so processed that it could sound like anything. Who knows what it should sound like? The best one can say is: "I like it".

 

[Carlos269]

This is an interesting comparison. I find the Magico video sounds closest to no acoustically coupled system/room presentation. Perhaps that is because the two mics are separated and right in front of each channel. It is like a recording made directly from the phono stage output with no room/speaker interaction. The presentation from the listing seat would sound different.

Carlos' video presentation has a bit more life and energy, and is more dynamic, but I find it bright and a bit fatiguing. It is initially engaging but then is too much, while the Magico is dull and sterile by comparison. I do not know which one I could live with long term. I do not think this is the best music with which to judge a system performance. It is so processed that it could sound like anything. Who knows what it should sound like? The best one can say is: "I like it".

Peter, here is a video that you can participate in also. Please post your system video of this recording for comparison:

 

[bonzo75]

I do not think this is the best music with which to judge a system performance. It is so processed that it could sound like anything. Who knows what it should sound like? The best one can say is: "I like it".

completely agree. And then swap diffusers with absorbers so the sound changes sideways, with no progress as long as this type of track is used to judge the sound, and be under the impression this is part of an elaborate system set up

 

[PeterA]

Peter, here is a video that you can participate in also. Please post your system video of this recording for comparison:

Carlos, I appreciate you constantly challenging others with your system videos. Does this one employ your WAAR treatment? What performance and recording is this of Beethoven's Fifth? I will have to see which ones I have and will see about getting around to recording a system video for you. Don't know when.

 

[Al M.]

Carlos' video presentation has a bit more life and energy, and is more dynamic, but I find it bright and a bit fatiguing. It is initially engaging but then is too much, while the Magico is dull and sterile by comparison. I do not know which one I could live with long term. I do not think this is the best music with which to judge a system performance. It is so processed that it could sound like anything. Who knows what it should sound like? The best one can say is: "I like it".

Carlos likes, in my view unnaturally, bright sound, as is also obvious from the Beethoven video he posted here, and from other videos in the past as well.

It is dangerous to associate bright upper midrange and HF response with "life and energy". I think the trick is to get life, dynamics and energy at a more normal tonal balance which sounds more like live music, without excess upper midrange and HF energy.

This is much more difficult to achieve, but I think I have that in my system, as do you in yours, but it is likely that Carlos would find my system sound endlessly boring, as he might find yours.

Everyone has their own taste I guess.

 

[PeterA]

Carlos likes, in my view unnaturally, bright sound, as is also obvious from the Beethoven video he posted here, and from other videos in the past as well.

It is dangerous to associate bright upper midrange and HF response with "life and energy". I think the trick is to get life, dynamics and energy at a more normal tonal balance which sounds more like live music, without excess upper midrange and HF energy.

This is much more difficult to achieve, but I think I have that in my system, as do you in yours, but it is likely that Carlos would find my system sound endlessly boring, as he might find yours.

Everyone has their own taste I guess.

I agree Al. I think Carlos' video has more life and energy at all frequencies than does the Magico video. I also find, in addition to that, there is excessive brightness on both his Adelle and Beethoven 5th. He explained in another post that that is a product of phone recording and that we should discount that. Sophisticated listeners get that and make accommidations for video brightness. I am not sure I agree with that. I think videos actually capture tonal balance pretty well.

I attribute the life and energy I hear from Carlos' videos to the system, ie, horn/set, versus the Magico system in this case, but maybe the rest of the gear and room or other factors. I have no idea. It might also be his preference with his tuning device to create exactly the sound he wants. It seems like a very powerful tool. I do not know it's influence on the overall sound of these latest videos.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Peter, here is a video that you can participate in also. Please post your system video of this recording for comparison:

I am hearing the sound in this video as bright and fatiguing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree Al. I think Carlos' video has more life and energy at all frequencies than does the Magico video. I also find, in addition to that, there is excessive brightness on both his Adelle and Beethoven 5th. He explained in another post that that is a product of phone recording and that we should discount that. Sophisticated listeners get that and make accommidations for video brightness. I am not sure I agree with that. I think videos actually capture tonal balance pretty well.

I attribute the life and energy I hear from Carlos' videos to the system, ie, horn/set, versus the Magico system in this case, but maybe the rest of the gear and room or other factors. I have no idea.

How do you distinguish what is "life and energy" from what is "brightness"?

 

[Carlos269]

How do you distinguish what is "life and energy" from what is "brightness"?

You have to know the sound of live music to make that determination.