Thank you sir Jonathan for that info.
* When re-watching the video I noticed a big console near the rear corner, left rear corner when sitting @ the main spot.
Yes, I would agree that is what is likely the case - so, why? The sound in the clip is poor, for some reason - and it won't be the recording device, the person holding it then moves on to other rooms, and the sound in those is far more agreeable, is showing decent qualities, any problems are far less evident. The camera phone is doing its job, allowing one to compare sound in different rooms, at that precise moment.
This is one reason why I place no cred in those individuals that are so biased against digital and are so pro analogue.
IMHO, It's very similar to religious fanatics who simply drink the cool aid without reservation.
That was me video bombing Mike. I could not help myself.
BTW, the glasses I was wearing were made out of recycled records.
...Great sense of humor.
Steve, I've had to correct that advice so many times now I've lost count - why YouTube are doing this I don't know, but the quality at 720p, and only 720p, is much better - 192 kbps in fact is what you get, almost "twice the quality". This is trivially easy to confirm for most people, just try switching from 480p to 720p and back to 480p on a good quality clip, and the difference should be obvious, the treble and level of detail will change very markedly, unless one's playback setup is very poor.
Purely because Peter asked why the sound may have had problems - he suggested that it may be because it was digital source, and IME that is often the case; when some aspect of a system is not right, disturbingly so, then often it's because there is digital circuitry operating in the area, not necessarily actually being the source at that moment!
Steve, the only thing that concerns me with a system is how close the sound is to being convincing, or believable, which is what this thread is about - what david, ddk, calls natural. Anything that detracts from that happening concerns me, irrespective of how competent the rig may be in other aspects - I would much rather listen to a well sorted, low cost setup, than an expensive, ambitious rig with clearly audible issues. Hence my priority is to evaluate whether any particular system is capable of working at a high level at that particular moment, and if it can't then do what is necessary to solve that .Frank
I think all of us now are beginning to wonder if indeed you really get it.
Which is a good point. My first, very poor attempts at recording the sound I was getting suffered badly from the recorder having a terrible ALC - it overloaded with obvious clipping at the slightest provocation, and then suffered with poor noise levels if one used distance to get the dynamic range to register cleanly. More recent devices are vastly better it appears, and I now have a decent microphone to pick up what is going on, with a good correlation with what I hear.
thread - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP5x259kTwE. Same main equipment, vastly better sound from the rig this time - again, switch from 480p to 720p, to 480p; should be trivially clear what is lost if not listening at 720p.
...And I learn in the process too; like it was a tape playing (R-2-R). And the video recording was shot with an android. :b I take the best side of it...the relaxed humor...and not the seriousness.
Peter asked Frank this: "Frank, what do you think accounts for this? I wonder if it had anything to do with the digital source, which I did not notice the name of. The TT was not playing."
Frank's reply: "Yes, most likely the digital source - ambitious systems can highlight all the negatives of digital playback so easily, and are then impossible to listen to for any length of time."
_________
If it would have been an analog source (which in fact was, tape), it wouldn't have made much difference, I believe, from Frank's reply.
Listen, this ain't the end of the world; we are commenting on comments made from a video. We know that it ain't the real deal but only a very small illusion.
If Frank can see in it something that not everyone see, purely video sound speaking...forget about being there because it's different, it is an analysis from a different perspective, in comparison to other rooms and their own sound from always the Nexus 6's microphone.
To me it's not about even the most remotely illusive music reproduction; it's a simple correlation heard from a phone's mic with one of the guy's own interpretation/analysis.
In that methodology, I would venture (and I did couple times in the past) to have an interpretation too, and by being fully aware, on my overall impression from the sound of a video camera...but not from the Nexus 6 android, more like from Peter's own video camera and microphone(s). And this, purely on the level of a guy watching a video/audio recording of a showroom @ an audio show where music is playing through the speakers in that room and with the source (music recording...analog or digital or both), and the preamp and amp.
This is in no way like being there, but it is permissible to analyse, evaluate, comment, giving a tentative of our overall impression/illusion, and by being fully aware that in real life in our own room @ home, prepared for it...it will always sound totally different than even being there in real life in a dealer room.
When I auditioned speakers in the past @ audio dealer rooms/stores, and that I demo the same speakers in my own various rooms, they always sounded different. Plus! The gear was never exact the same, and neither the audio cables for that matter. :b ...But the room, and the speakers in the room...that's the main sound signature...big big time.
Anyway, I see it as an exercise, not an exorcism.
Additionally, it feels better to have my mind talking about that stuff than all the bad news recently and the very distorted reality of some of our politicians...
Amen. :b
