What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[KostasP.]

Warm greetings from Melbourne Frank,

Your persisting obfuscations and deflections are in vain! Just admit that it was a gross "faux pas" and - strength of ego permitting- just apologise for this lapse of judgment. Your credibility will not be diminished.

Judge the system DIRECTLY and then you are entitled to express ANY opinions you want. The manner by which you judged the system Frank, was incongruous and (no pun intended) quite frankly ludicrous.

I am sorry for my sharp language. Kind regards, Kostas.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I think Franks argument is this : even if the scale is not nearly accurate on your exact weight , it will still tell you whether you lost or gained.

 

[bonzo75]

I think Franks argument is this : even if the scale is not nearly accurate on your exact weight , it will still tell you whether you lost or gained.

And our argument is, that is too much of a simplification of the auditioning exercise to pass judgement on certain rooms especially when people who have been there claim the contrary experience. A better statement would have been "look guys on this youtube video does not seem right but guess since you guys were there and liked it, the speakers/components are worth checking out. "

 

[PeterA]

I apologize for not imagining the possibility that the source for this video was an analog tape. I was disappointed that the Wave Kinetics DD turntable with Durand arm was not playing in the video and had incorrectly assumed we were thus listening to a digital source which I thought was the second box in the rack below the turntable. I still don't know what that component is. Perhaps jtinn could explain. It just shows how susceptible I am, and I suppose many others are, to the power of a video image.

Frantz is correct: not that my legs are being pulled by Frank, because I think he is expressing his serious opinion and I think his observation is worthy of at least discussing, but by my religiously fanatical bias toward analog. That was amusing. Or was it the audiodude who made that comment? It would have been cool if the guy making the video had actually recorded the tape machine spinning.

I think this has been an interesting discussion. Does it mean now that anyone commenting on the sound of a system through a Youtube video will be criticized for expressing his opinion? What about all of those polls we are asked to take demonstrating the sonic differences between various digital resolution rates, or Fremer's digital recordings of different cartridges that are listened to over a computer at home. Are these valid tests? Can we actually learn anything from them? They certainly do not sound like they would if we were there in person making the comparisons rather than over our computer screens andt tiny speakers. Do Frank's critics think that nothing at all can be learned from these Youtube videos regarding the sound of the system? Can they be more useful than just pretty pictures or show documentation? AVS/Peter's business model seems to think videos with audio can tell us something about how the system sounds.

And for those who actually heard this system at the show, how was its level of "believability of the reproduced illusion"? Did the system sound convincing or believable? Does "Best of Show" mean that it sounds like real music? It seems to me that Frank made a serious observation and wanted to start a discussion in line with the topic of this thread. Instead, his post was highly criticized and the discussion turned to: what was the source, analog fanaticism, and whether or not he was pulling our legs.

I think Frank has something to offer this forum and am surprised by how easily we are to criticize and dismiss his opinions, some even mock and ask for his degree credentials, in what is a discussion forum.

 

[bonzo75]

Do Frank's critics think that nothing at all can be learned from these Youtube videos regarding the sound of the system?

Yes.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I think this has been an interesting discussion. Does it mean now that anyone commenting on the sound of a system through a Youtube video will be criticized for expressing his opinion? What about all of those polls we are asked to take demonstrating the sonic differences between various digital resolution rates, or Fremer's digital recordings of different cartridges that are listened to over a computer at home. Are these valid tests? Can we actually learn anything from them? They certainly do not sound like they would if we were there in person making the comparisons rather than over our computer screens andt tiny speakers. Do Frank's critics think that nothing at all can be learned from these Youtube videos regarding the sound of the system? Can they be more useful than just pretty pictures or show documentation? AVS/Peter's business model seems to think videos with audio can tell us something about how the system sounds.

And for those who actually heard this system at the show, how was its level of "believability of the reproduced illusion"? Did the system sound convincing or believable? Does "Best of Show" mean that it sounds like real music? It seems to me that Frank made a serious observation and wanted to start a discussion in line with the topic of this thread. Instead, his post was highly criticized and the discussion turned what was the source, analog fanaticism, and whether or not he was pulling our legs.

I think Frank has something to offer this forum and am surprised by how easily we are to criticize and dismiss his opinions, some even mock and ask for his degree credentials, in what is a discussion forum.

The main subject is very interesting, as I have already referred. Unfortunately Frank negative and too wordy comments about a system he has not listened to poisoned the discussion. It is very hard to debate a subject in such conditions.

 

[Robh3606]

AVS/Peter's business model seems to think videos with audio can tell us something about how the system sounds.

When I first saw that I felt it was odd. I think they are interesting but not useful as far as determining what a system really sounds like. So we play a source to record a system and then playback that on computer speakers?? Granted I have some very nice computer speakers but even then nothing like hearing the real deal.

Rob

 

[Steve williams]

When I first saw that I felt it was odd. I think they are interesting but not useful as far as determining what a system really sounds like. So we play a source to record a system and then playback that on computer speakers?? Granted I have some very nice computer speakers but even then nothing like hearing the real deal.

Rob

IMO Rob. Those are my feelings exactly and regardless of what others say, this is what caused my knee jerk reaction. I was in that room and either I was delusional about what I and so many others heard or we need to pay attention to the sound quality of a You Tube video taken on a smart phone. Like others I find Frank's comments to be somewhat interesting but this one just made no sense to me whatsoever

 

[DaveC]

When I first saw that I felt it was odd. I think they are interesting but not useful as far as determining what a system really sounds like. So we play a source to record a system and then playback that on computer speakers?? Granted I have some very nice computer speakers but even then nothing like hearing the real deal.

Rob

+1

 

[PeterA]

When I first saw that I felt it was odd. I think they are interesting but not useful as far as determining what a system really sounds like. So we play a source to record a system and then playback that on computer speakers?? Granted I have some very nice computer speakers but even then nothing like hearing the real deal.

Rob

Agreed. I don't think anyone is claiming that these videos sound like the "real deal". Are you talking about real music or the system captured on the video? That is why I think they are meant to tell us only "something" about how the system sounds. It is certainly not meant to be a substitute for actually hearing the system live, or so I would think. Perhaps I am mistaken and they are only meant to illustrate what the system looks like. But we have all seen/read how people respond to these videos, and it is something more than just looking a pictures. Many do in fact comment on the sound. I guess, most hear think that is invalid.

The broader topic I brought up was this: is making evaluations or determinations about a sound over one's computer through an audio file like in Fremer's analog cartridge or phono stage polls or through audio/video files on Youtube. What value do these efforts provide the listener? One can find these polls all over the net?

People send around audio files asking for opinions about differences between them. Does this make sense?

 

[marty]

Assessing audio quality through a Youtube video recorded with an iPhone? Gimme a break. Everyone knows there's a much better way to do this. I was at Steve Williams' home and Mike Lavigne's homes not that long ago and I closed the door to their listening rooms and asked them to hold up a Dixie cup and a string to the door while I walked about 100 ft and put the other end of the Dixie cup and string to my ear. In both cases, while their fancy uber systems played joyously, the sound I heard was just terrible. No bass, no highs, no midrange articulation and no imaging. I can only conclude their systems are crap.

This reminds me of a famous anecdote we used to tell all the novice scientists that came into my lab long ago about how to evaluate the results of experiments using the scientific method:

A researcher wanted to evaluate the effects of a frogs ability to jump when it was missing one or more limbs. It put the frog on a line and said "jump, frog, jump!". The frog jumped nicely and he recorded the results on his paper "normal frog jumped 5 feet". Next, he cut off one leg, put the frog down and said "jump, frog, jump!' The frog jumped and he recorded the result "frog with 3 legs jumped 4 feet". As you can guess, he then removed another leg and said "jump, frog, jump!" He recorded the result as "frog with 2 legs jumped 2 feet". Another leg was then removed and he noted "frog with 1 leg jumped 8 inches". He then cut off the final limb, put the frog down, and said "jump, frog, jump! Nothing happened. He yelled at the frog "jump frog, jump!" And again nothing. He did this one more time and still, nothing. He thus recorded the result accordingly. "Frog with no legs- frog is deaf".

Makes you wonder if we are dealing with a deaf frog here?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I apologize for not imagining the possibility that the source for this video was an analog tape. . . . I

. . . Does it mean now that anyone commenting on the sound of a system through a Youtube video will be criticized for expressing his opinion?

What about . . . Fremer's digital recordings of different cartridges that are listened to over a computer at home. Are these valid tests? Can we actually learn anything from them?

. . . AVS/Peter's business model seems to think videos with audio can tell us something about how the system sounds.

. . .

Peter, I do not see anything to apologize for. Even if the cell phone was listening to and making a recording of the sound of an analog tape the audio clip became digital in the cell phone.

Didn't we always criticize someone for commenting on the sound of a system from a YouTube.com video?

Listening to Fremer's digital recordings of different cartridges on a computer at home might allow the listener to decide if one cartridge is brighter than another cartridge or if one cartridge is more detailed than another cartridge, but I think such a recording arrangement and such a listening arrangement cannot provide accurate insight into what the original analog set-up sounds like.

I understand Peter's AVS business model, but I don't think the AVS videos provide any insight into how anything actually sounds.

PS: I understand Peter's business model partly because I heard it in action in Irvine. In the Von Schweikert Audio room Peter wanted to take a photo with one or more VSA representatives. One or more VSA representatives began to move to the middle of the room so the photo could include the speakers and the associated equipment, including a Constellation amplifier. Peter demurred, saying that he wanted to take the photo in the hallway so the Constellation amp would not be in the photo since "Constellation is not supporting AVShowrooms."

 

[PeterA]

Thanks Marty. That was pretty funny.

I guess we can conclude from that video and the discussion that followed this: The images of the system are very pretty and it sounded different from the other systems in the video. The turntable was not used as a source for the video. The sound was considered by some who heard it to be a contender for Best of Show. We do not know if there were any audible flaws to the sound of the system or if it rose to a level of "believability of the reproduced illusion." There have been few if any specific comments about the sound of this system.

 

[Steve williams]

Thanks Marty. That was pretty funny.

I guess we can conclude from that video and the discussion that followed this: The images of the system are very pretty and it sounded different from the other systems in the video. The turntable was not used as a source for the video. The sound was considered by some who heard it to be a contender for Best of Show. We do not know if there were any audible flaws to the sound of the system or if it rose to a level of "believability of the reproduced illusion." There have been few if any specific comments about the sound of this system.

I believe that both Ron and I commented about the sound of this system. I was there for about an hour in the sweet spot and it was truly wonderful, totally effortless sound with a huge soundstage. The second box Peter that you were questioning is the new tube DAC, Talia from Joel Durand. If there were any issues I found that on some of the louder passages there might have been some bass overload but nothing that drew my ear to it continuously while I listened. For my ears it did rise to a level of believability and I was totally drawn in and engaged to the music. I heard tape, vinyl and digital as sources and each was wonderful. The new tube DAC is most interesting to me as it will be coming to market very soon

 

[morricab]

Hello Frank


Why are you making judgements about the sound of the system using a Youtube Video?? I am seeing this more and more of this on forums and frankly I don't get it.

Rob

And yet... you can really hear when a system nails it on a youtube video oddly enough. If it sucks it could simply be a crappy video camera causing the problem. I tried to take videos at Munich but they didn't sound good...even the great rooms so I gave up with them.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I believe that both Ron and I commented about the sound of this system. I was there for about an hour in the sweet spot and it was truly wonderful, totally effortless sound with a huge soundstage. . . .

+1

 

[DaveC]

And yet... you can really hear when a system nails it on a youtube video oddly enough. If it sucks it could simply be a crappy video camera causing the problem. I tried to take videos at Munich but they didn't sound good...even the great rooms so I gave up with them.

Sure, it's more than possible to make a good recording and I'm sure some people do, even so the only thing you can really get across is tone/timbre, obviously the soundstage and other things will be impossible to gauge no matter how good the recording... It's just not possible to judge anything with a smartphone video.

 

[morricab]

Sure, it's more than possible to make a good recording and I'm sure some people do, even so the only thing you can really get across is tone/timbre, obviously the soundstage and other things will be impossible to gauge no matter how good the recording... It's just not possible to judge anything with a smartphone video.

I would have to disagree with this. You can tell the size of the soundstage and its flatness from youtube video recordings. Again, it might ONLY be judging the recording but then again if it is multiple recordings from the same person (like AV Showrooms where the recorder is the same every time) then I agree with Frank you can tell something. Maybe not with a smartphone though...

For example, check out the Aries Cerat videos...they are pretty much all excellent sounding through headphones. Different people, different recorders, different shows but always one of the best sounding youtube videos I have heard. I have heard a full Aries Cerat system live and it is right up there with the best I have ever heard and the videos, while of course not sounding as good as when I was there (I am actually "in" one of the videos from 2014 Munich in the background...didn't make the video though) they do convey sense of "rightness" to the quality of sound being delivered and that is what is amazing about the human brain...

I think people here are being far to dismissive of Frank's idea of compare and contrast between rooms that were recorded with the same equipment.

 

[bonzo75]

You are comparing the sound of an youtube video of gear you know - so you can relate to the youtube video. Same like if I read about gear I am familiar with, I know what the guy is talking about much more easily. Listen to something you don't know, then try listening to it live.

 

[DaveC]

I think people here are being far to dismissive of Frank's idea of compare and contrast between rooms that were recorded with the same equipment.

We will all have to judge for ourselves, for me I know the answer and trying to judge a system and make any sort of criticism based on a smartphone video is, imo, a huge fantasy. It's also not fair to the folks being judged. For people to rent out a room for a show and present a system with little time for setup is difficult and stressful, then to have people criticize it based on a smartphone video in public is simply offensive.