Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[PeterA]

It is hard to comment on a system video in a vacuum without knowing the music, and these videos don't tell us everything about the system.

No one is claiming this system videos sound like the system in the room. That is a strawman argument that detractors always bring up. System videos of simply supplementary information complementing what the owner me share in a written description. They are simply additional information.

 

[PeterA]

I'm saying the digital version isn't great, I'm sure the vinyl's good. How do you rate it @PeterA ?

How do I read what specifically?

 

[Rexp]

How do I read what specifically?

How do you rate the overall sound quality of your LP?

 

[PeterA]

How do you rate the overall sound quality of your LP?

Fair. It’s the only record I have of Beethoven’s fifth that I could find and I wanted to comply with Carlos’s request so I made a quick recording and posted it. The music is excellent.

 

[Al M.]

Al, it is not the original recording if the original recording was made in the 1960s in analog.

Everything processed through YouTube is a digital recording, regardless if the analog recording was previously mastered in digital or not.

Also the sound of a system playing vinyl through a YouTube video is a digital recording.

That is the background of what I was saying in the post you replied to:

"I don't understand the resistance of some against this commonsense reference. After all, it's the original recording, processed through the same YouTube path as the system video."

 

[PeterA]

Everything processed through YouTube is a digital recording, regardless if the analog recording was previously mastered in digital or not.

Also the sound of a system playing vinyl through a YouTube video is a digital recording.

That is the background of what I was saying in the post you replied to:

"I don't understand the resistance of some against this commonsense reference. After all, it's the original recording, processed through the same YouTube path as the system video."

I chose my gear and set it up in my room to sound like my memory of live acoustic music played in a real space. The result will not sound like a digital YouTube file.

if you want to post a YouTube file for comparison and then point out that they sound different, that’s your choice. Have fun.

 

[Al M.]

I chose my gear and set it up in my room to sound like my memory of live acoustic music played in a real space. The result will not sound like a digital YouTube file.

The latter of which is any system video on YouTube as well, including yours.

So yes, it is legit to compare it with the original recording, equally processed as a digital YouTube file.

 

[hopkins]

I chose my gear and set it up in my room to sound like my memory of live acoustic music played in a real space.

That "live" quality is also something I enjoy. That is why I particularly appreciate the sound of my Altec 755C, for example, even though on many aspects it is clearly inferior to my other speakers (who are also far from perfect).

I can't say that I look for specific memories of live acoustic music - but I don't doubt that the experience of listening and playing instruments has been "formative" in some ways. Perhaps this is more a topic for a discussion with a psychoanalyst than on an audio forum?

Does that quality really come through in system videos? It is hard to tell. To some degree, it must, but I cannot say for sure. I think I can hear it in others' videos, but I am not objective when it comes to my own videos, so I am always curious to see what others have to say about them. It is sometimes frustrating when you get comments that seem to miss what we "hear" ourselves in our systems and think transcribes in our videos, but it does not mean that these comments are not valid either, as we all focus on different aspects.

 

[Wavetouch]

My live recording is playing YT downloaded file (MP4).

 

[PeterA]

If we are going to compare videos and submit a reference, I would suggest a video of a live performance such as the one below. Others seem to want a YouTube file for reference against which they compare people's shared system videos. A live system in a room recorded and then processed through YouTube, if the system owner uses live music as his reference, should be compared to live music recorded and then processed through YouTube, in my opinion.

I like this and other live recordings. I prefer to use live music as my reference to guide my decisions.

Here is another one. I much prefer these to "official" YouTube files.

 

[hopkins]

Here is another one. I much prefer these to "official" YouTube files.

That recording has a ton of reverb (at least it sounds like that to me). Something is "off". I like a drier sound like this (random example):

 

[morricab]

If we are going to compare videos and submit a reference, I would suggest a video of a live performance such as the one below. Others seem to want a YouTube file for reference against which they compare people's shared system videos. A live system in a room recorded and then processed through YouTube, if the system owner uses live music as his reference, should be compared to live music recorded and then processed through YouTube, in my opinion.

I like this and other live recordings. I prefer to use live music as my reference to guide my decisions.

Here is another one. I much prefer these to "official" YouTube files.

The only problem is then how do you compare this to totally different recordings if you only play Analog? A digital system could play the live YouTube video through their stereo and record that and THEN run that back through YouTube…but that seems a bit unfair.

 

[Argonaut]

That recording has a ton of reverb (at least it sounds like that to me). Something is "off". I like a drier sound like this (random example):

Oh My … If that recording is how ‘some ‘would equate to ‘Natural Sound ‘

 

[PeterA]

The only problem is then how do you compare this to totally different recordings if you only play Analog? A digital system could play the live YouTube video through their stereo and record that and THEN run that back through YouTube…but that seems a bit unfair.

I don’t like this whole system video in room competition that’s going on. I think people should share videos if they want to as supplementary information to what they share through writing. If they want comments they can solicit them

I object to a few members instantly posting official YouTube files after every system video that gets posted. An alternative that I find less objectionable, is an actual live recording over YouTube. At least that is of live music and not some digital file.

apples to apples comparisons are difficult. I’m just offering up what I think is a decent YouTube reference by which to judge peoples system videos if that’s what people are going to insist on doing.

 

[Rexp]

If we are going to compare videos and submit a reference, I would suggest a video of a live performance such as the one below. Others seem to want a YouTube file for reference against which they compare people's shared system videos. A live system in a room recorded and then processed through YouTube, if the system owner uses live music as his reference, should be compared to live music recorded and then processed through YouTube, in my opinion.

I like this and other live recordings. I prefer to use live music as my reference to guide my decisions.

Here is another one. I much prefer these to "official" YouTube files.

Agreed, what is the point of having a mediocre file posted on YouTube as your reference. This is a nice live sounding recording (3rd movement starts at 19.15)

 

[morricab]

I don’t like this whole system video in room competition that’s going on. I think people should share videos if they want to as supplementary information to what they share through writing. If they want comments they can solicit them

I object to a few members instantly posting official YouTube files after every system video that gets posted. An alternative that I find less objectionable, is an actual live recording over YouTube. At least that is of live music and not some digital file.

apples to apples comparisons are difficult. I’m just offering up what I think is a decent YouTube reference by which to judge peoples system videos if that’s what people are going to insist on doing.

Hi Peter, I got all that, you are repeating yourself. My point is simple, you can’t really compare the sound in your room to a random live performance other than in the broadest strokes. If all you want to say is your sound “evokes” in you the feeling of live music then no need to compare.

However, if you want to say your system really sounds close to live, then you need a live performance that you can play through your system that is also available to be played through headphones to get a reasonable comparison. So, live YouTube is ok but needs to be played somehow through your system and recorded.

 

[tima]

"I don't understand the resistance of some against this commonsense reference. After all, it's the original recording, processed through the same YouTube path as the system video."

If we are going to compare videos and submit a reference, I would suggest a video of a live performance such as the one below. Others seem to want a YouTube file for reference against which they compare people's shared system videos. A live system in a room recorded and then processed through YouTube, if the system owner uses live music as his reference, should be compared to live music recorded and then processed through YouTube, in my opinion.

The only problem is then how do you compare this to totally different recordings if you only play Analog?

I see a kinda confused discussion over the last few pages. Surely others will argue with that.

I ask myself what is the purpose of an in-room system video and to what should it be compared.

Imo, the in-room recording of a stereo playing a piece of music is to give an idea of how that system sounds. (Yes, yes, we know it is processed/played through Youtube, but that is a leveling field for any video played through Youtube, making it a non-factor.) So you have a recording of a stereo. As such it can be used in a variety of ways. People will use or abuse it how they choose.

When I started making videos of my stereo I had two goals: a) capture my system's sound at a certain point in time with its then configuration, and b) share it with friends to give me feedback on how they assess it and make suggestions if they have those. That, to me, is the primary value of an in-room system video.

What I found over time is that my friends and I did the above and we also shared in-room videos of our systems playing the same record. That proved a fun and useful exercise as we share a common vision on the type of both sound and music that we like and we share a common reference for assessing our systems against. That became a significant part of the value equation -- that is also why we did this.

Now once a video is made public, via Youtube or WTF, it becomes available for others to do with it what they choose. One thing others do is change the nature of the comparison by putting an end-user's in-room system video against other videos that are not in-room recordings of stereo systems. Some go so far to claim the not in-room recording is a reference.

I reject the notion that a not-in room recording has value to me relative to my own system. Such a recording may sound different, it may sound 'better'. I'm not interested in comparing the sound of differently made recordings (sometimes of unknown provenance) but rather comparing similarly made recordings. I reject the notion of a not-in-room recording -- a speaker-less recording -- as a reference. My reference is the sound of live acoustic music, not a recording.

 

[morricab]

I see a kinda confused discussion over the last few pages. Surely others will argue with that.

I ask myself what is the purpose of an in-room system video and to what should it be compared.

Imo, the in-room recording of a stereo playing a piece of music is to give an idea of how that system sounds. (Yes, yes, we know it is processed/played through Youtube, but that is a leveling field for any video played through Youtube, making it a non-factor.) So you have a recording of a stereo. As such it can be used in a variety of ways. People will use or abuse it how they choose.

When I started making videos of my stereo I had two goals: a) capture my system's sound at a certain point in time with its then configuration, and b) share it with friends to give me feedback on how they assess it and make suggestions if they have those. That, to me, is the primary value of an in-room system video.

What I found over time is that my friends and I did the above and we also shared in-room videos of our systems playing the same record. That proved a fun and useful exercise as we share a common vision on the type of both sound and music that we like and we share a common reference for assessing our systems against. That became a significant part of the value equation -- that is also why we did this.

Now once a video is made public, via Youtube or WTF, it becomes available for others to do with it what they choose. One thing others do is change the nature of the comparison by putting an end-user's in-room system video against other videos that are not in-room recordings of stereo systems. Some go so far to claim the not in-room recording is a reference.

I reject the notion that a not-in room recording has value to me relative to my own system. Such a recording may sound different, it may sound 'better'. I'm not interested in comparing the sound of differently made recordings (sometimes of unknown provenance) but rather comparing similarly made recordings. I reject the notion of a not-in-room recording -- a speaker-less recording -- as a reference. My reference is the sound of live acoustic music, not a recording.

For me the value is one hears how much the system/room is changing things from the "original" recording. Some modification is of course expected but some are quite radically different from the recording itself. Does that mean the owner of that system needs to do something about it? Of course not if they enjoy the modified sound. It is possible to get used to and like a wide range of modifications to the original sound. Some might even prefer that...particularly if the recording is so-so. You might be able to have more richness and perhaps even more perceived dynamics or space than the original and that might give you a better reminder of "live". But it will be a superposition that affects all recordings in the same way and this is were some problems can be observed.

Let's do a thought experiment though. Let's take a VERY good live recording. In that case, fidelity to that recording SHOULD give you a more realistic sound from your system; however, if your system is strongly modifying the recording, it will also modify this great live recording to be something else that probably won't sound more like live as a result...maybe it could but there are many more ways that it would be less like a live performance.

 

[tima]

For me the value is one hears how much the system/room is changing things from the "original" recording. ... Let's do a thought experiment though. Let's take a VERY good live recording. In that case, fidelity to that recording SHOULD give you a more realistic sound from your system; however, if your system is strongly modifying the recording, it will also modify this great live recording to be something else that probably won't sound more like live as a result...maybe it could but there are many more ways that it would be less like a live performance.

Okay. Presumably the thought experiment has that recording played back on one's own system. So, yes, one's own system and its room will influence the sound. We can never hear that very good live recording without those influences. How do we tell how much a system is changing things from the'original' recording as we can never hear it but through a specific system?

 

[hopkins]

How do we tell how much a system is changing things from the 'original' recording as we can never hear it but through a specific system?

We can tell because we are familiar with the sounds that are being played either from hearing them "live" or played in a variety of systems. We find "patterns" and recognize deviations from these patterns, provided they are not too subtle.

I would suspect that most of the comments that relate to the "coloration" of the sound in a video, or the frequency extension, would be confirmed by running measurements of the system (basic frequency response). There is more to sound reproduction than frequency response - we all know that.

Once you get past these obvious shortcomings, there are certainly other aspects for which it is very difficult to establish what comes from the performance (the performer, the instrument used...), the recording (microphones and other recording equipment), the system/room.

In that sense, simply saying that we tune our system to match the memories we have of live performance is both obvious and insufficient. We are surrounded by "natural sounds" in our lives, even if we don't spend our days in concert halls. Comparing how different systems reveal different aspects of recordings is very useful... I think we all know that.