What do you think of this video

What do you think of this video. And this is not directed to those who think every mobile phone video is trash, thanks. Please listen to the end for the brass and the woodwinds

 

New attempt using Leica M for recording.

 

Same track, but with different pick up system. The difference is not just subtile.

 

 

Very realistic. I wonder how it was mic'd. Oodles of resonance from inside the tom-tom. You can tell when Manne is playing the center of its skin and when he plays the edge.

 

Very realistic. ...

Very realistic? I didn’t get that at all from PeterA’s video.

Could it be that we’re listening to entirely different aspects of the playback presentation to derive at different conclusions? If so, might this imply that some aspects are more important to focus on than other aspects?

Anyway, the good news is these days we’ve some means to validate or confirm the accuracy of our perceptions. Below is purportedly the unadulterated official LP version for the same track as reference. This video is already queued to start at the 36:47 min mark.

 

The track Peter A. recorded sounds superb to me. I tried it myself, it's not that easy to record from home audio system in that quality. With an ordinary smartphone with external mic it was impossible for me. So this record he made sounds as natural as I can imagine from such a system at home. It's not far away from the original source, which is easy to link for replay on a computer, the knowledge lies in the method and hardware to record it in a given room right from the speakers. The amps, the speakers, all sounds top notch quality here. Thanks for sharing this video!

 

Very realistic? I didn’t get that at all from PeterA’s video.

Could it be that we’re listening to entirely different aspects of the playback presentation to derive at different conclusions? If so, might this imply that some aspects are more important to focus on than other aspects?

Anyway, the good news is these days we’ve some means to validate or confirm the accuracy of our perceptions. Below is purportedly the unadulterated official LP version for the same track as reference. This video is already queued to start at the 36:47 min mark.

Yes, very different from Peter's playback. Of course the room is playing an important role in what I hear as differences but one thing that seems more system related is that on Peter's the sax is more prominent and the other instruments more in the background and on the actual LP the bass and drums are quite forward and prominent as well.

However, one has to consider that your "unadulterated" LP version is still having to be played by a turntable with arm, cart and phonostage being totally different from Peter's. This alone will account for significant differences.

 

Yes, very different from Peter's playback. Of course the room is playing an important role in what I hear as differences but one thing that seems more system related is that on Peter's the sax is more prominent and the other instruments more in the background and on the actual LP the bass and drums are quite forward and prominent as well.

However, one has to consider that your "unadulterated" LP version is still having to be played by a turntable with arm, cart and phonostage being totally different from Peter's. This alone will account for significant differences.

Just different? What about accurate? Not sure how an analog LP version might translate to become some "official" or unadulterated version on youtube. But in the "unadulterated" version I do not hear any of Peter's room nor do I hear shouty / shallow / nasally horns, etc. Additionally, I hear tremendous amounts of warm rich tones, separation, depth, 3-dimensional soundstage, etc. and overall more detail (more music info) in the "unadulterated" youtube version.

I've no idea how this "unadulterated" (my word) came about on youtube but I noticed they said it was the LP version and since Peter's is the LP version, well, I figured it was / is a somewhat apples to apples comparision. If I were able to locate the "official" version on youtube, I'd hope it would sound perhaps exactly like this "unadulerated" version rather than Peter's.

Regardless, I'm not here to slam anybody's in-room recordings but it's troubling when a reviewer claims it's "very realistic" when it's anything but. Clearly we (all of us) are listening for and hearing vastly different sonic characteristics.

What i find interesting in general is how it seems some have become so accustomed to hearing this type of "house" or "listening room" sound from their playback systems even to the point where if we can't hear the listening room's acoustics / anomalies, it's almost a foreign type of sound and deemed unrealistic.

Anyway, I've suspected for a long time that our listening skills are our weakest link in high-end audio and I suspect this is a significant contributor as to why so many posts and even so many subjects are so all over the map.

I always think people are serious when they say "make the room disappear" and if so, I'd think the last thing any of us would want to hear is the music interacting with the listening room's acoustics.

For example. Below is my in-room recording and perhaps the "official" youtube version. And though any in-room recording will potentially induce at least some in-room sound (since there is a space between the speakers and the in-room recording mic) it should be absolutely minimalized and certainly should not be predominant. IOW, why shouldn't the in-room version still sound very much in the same ballpark as the "official" version? Likewise of course for all other sonic characteristics regardless which sonic characteristics we may cherish.

Obviously, my version falls short of the "official" version as it should but I'm confident it's still very much in the same ballpark. But reading others' perspectives on what they hear here and elsewhere, I'm guessing our listening skills are all over the map much like everything else.

 

Just different? What about accurate? Not sure how an analog LP version might translate to become some "official" or unadulterated version on youtube. But in the "unadulterated" version I do not hear any of Peter's room nor do I hear shouty / shallow / nasally horns, etc. Additionally, I hear tremendous amounts of warm rich tones, separation, depth, 3-dimensional soundstage, etc. and overall more detail (more music info) in the "unadulterated" youtube version.

I've no idea how this "unadulterated" (my word) came about on youtube but I noticed they said it was the LP version and since Peter's is the LP version, well, I figured it was / is a somewhat apples to apples comparision. If I were able to locate the "official" version on youtube, I'd hope it would sound perhaps exactly like this "unadulerated" version rather than Peter's.

Regardless, I'm not here to slam anybody's in-room recordings but it's troubling when a reviewer claims it's "very realistic" when it's anything but. Clearly we (all of us) are listening for and hearing vastly different sonic characteristics.

What i find interesting in general is how it seems some have become so accustomed to hearing this type of "house" or "listening room" sound from their playback systems even to the point where if we can't hear the listening room's acoustics / anomalies, it's almost a foreign type of sound and deemed unrealistic.

Anyway, I've suspected for a long time that our listening skills are our weakest link in high-end audio and I suspect this is a significant contributor as to why so many posts and even so many subjects are so all over the map.

I always think people are serious when they say "make the room disappear" and if so, I'd think the last thing any of us would want to hear is the music interacting with the listening room's acoustics.

For example. Below is my in-room recording and perhaps the "official" youtube version. And though any in-room recording will potentially induce at least some in-room sound (since there is a space between the speakers and the in-room recording mic) it should be absolutely minimalized and certainly should not be predominant. IOW, why shouldn't the in-room version still sound very much in the same ballpark as the "official" version? Likewise of course for all other sonic characteristics regardless which sonic characteristics we may cherish.

Obviously, my version falls short of the "official" version as it should but I'm confident it's still very much in the same ballpark. But reading others' perspectives on what they hear here and elsewhere, I'm guessing our listening skills are all over the map much like everything else.

Yes your recording is closer to the "official" recording than the "Way out West" example, but I hear more reverb on your playback than on the recording (I mentioned that about many of your recordings that there seemed to be excessive reverb). Your tone and the balance of presence in the trumpet is quite good but the guitar is much less audible and clear. Still, it is not as glaringly off from the recording and that is commendable.

 

Anyway, I've suspected for a long time that our listening skills are our weakest link in high-end audio and I suspect this is a significant contributor as to why so many posts and even so many subjects are so all over the map.

I always think people are serious when they say "make the room disappear" and if so, I'd think the last thing any of us would want to hear is the music interacting with the listening room's acoustics.

I totally agree with this.

 

Regardless, I'm not here to slam anybody's in-room recordings but it's troubling when a reviewer claims it's "very realistic" when it's anything but. Clearly we (all of us) are listening for and hearing vastly different sonic characteristics.

I always think people are serious when they say "make the room disappear" and if so, I'd think the last thing any of us would want to hear is the music interacting with the listening room's acoustics.

. And though any in-room recording will potentially induce at least some in-room sound (since there is a space between the speakers and the in-room recording mic) it should be absolutely minimalized and certainly should not be predominant.

The differences between the Rollins in-room recording and the other recording are huge.

It may come down to personal preference.

I prefer to hear into the recording without a lot of distracting accentuation from walls and ceiling. If I’m going to hear a room I want it to be the room the music was recorded in.

Acoustic treatments can be a good thing!

 

Just different? What about accurate? Not sure how an analog LP version might translate to become some "official" or unadulterated version on youtube. But in the "unadulterated" version I do not hear any of Peter's room nor do I hear shouty / shallow / nasally horns, etc. Additionally, I hear tremendous amounts of warm rich tones, separation, depth, 3-dimensional soundstage, etc. and overall more detail (more music info) in the "unadulterated" youtube version.

I've no idea how this "unadulterated" (my word) came about on youtube but I noticed they said it was the LP version and since Peter's is the LP version, well, I figured it was / is a somewhat apples to apples comparision. If I were able to locate the "official" version on youtube, I'd hope it would sound perhaps exactly like this "unadulerated" version rather than Peter's.

Regardless, I'm not here to slam anybody's in-room recordings but it's troubling when a reviewer claims it's "very realistic" when it's anything but. Clearly we (all of us) are listening for and hearing vastly different sonic characteristics.

What i find interesting in general is how it seems some have become so accustomed to hearing this type of "house" or "listening room" sound from their playback systems even to the point where if we can't hear the listening room's acoustics / anomalies, it's almost a foreign type of sound and deemed unrealistic.

Anyway, I've suspected for a long time that our listening skills are our weakest link in high-end audio and I suspect this is a significant contributor as to why so many posts and even so many subjects are so all over the map.

I always think people are serious when they say "make the room disappear" and if so, I'd think the last thing any of us would want to hear is the music interacting with the listening room's acoustics.

For example. Below is my in-room recording and perhaps the "official" youtube version. And though any in-room recording will potentially induce at least some in-room sound (since there is a space between the speakers and the in-room recording mic) it should be absolutely minimalized and certainly should not be predominant. IOW, why shouldn't the in-room version still sound very much in the same ballpark as the "official" version? Likewise of course for all other sonic characteristics regardless which sonic characteristics we may cherish.

Obviously, my version falls short of the "official" version as it should but I'm confident it's still very much in the same ballpark. But reading others' perspectives on what they hear here and elsewhere, I'm guessing our listening skills are all over the map much like everything else.

That's why I immensely enjoyed hearing the $1+ million Von Schweikert audio show room of the Ultra 11 and 9 I heard. I heard the room/soundstage/mics/mixers, etc. of the recorded performance rather than the listening room. Extremely impressive. I hope to own an upper end VS speaker sooner or later.

 

Yes your recording is closer to the "official" recording than the "Way out West" example, but I hear more reverb on your playback than on the recording (I mentioned that about many of your recordings that there seemed to be excessive reverb). Your tone and the balance of presence in the trumpet is quite good but the guitar is much less audible and clear. Still, it is not as glaringly off from the recording and that is commendable.

Thanks, morricab. Yes, my room is slightly on the live side of life, but not by much. Regarding my in-room recordings and your hearing "excessive reverb", I would attest that for the most part what you're hearing is the recording hall's volumes of ambient info embedded in most any given recording that was captured from the live performance.

Though my assertion is a bit more difficult to demonstrate with unamplified performances, it's relatively easy to demonstrate with some amplified performances in the recording hall where the engineers might play around a bit more with the reverb.

For example. Here's an 80's piece that at a moment in time the engineers seem to cut off any/all reverb just for this single 3-second a cappella vocal clip at the 2:30 mark. If you push play, it should start at the 2:27 mark just before the rather localized (zero-reverb almost vacuum chamber-like) vocals. But then the song wraps up with another a cappella vocal at the 2:57 mark but this time the vocals not localized as it seems the engineers either re-engaged the reverb or it's just the natural reverb of the recording hall.

IOW, if my room was the cause of or inducing excessive reverb, then it should be a continuous and constant excessive reverb for all sounds all the time, right? But I think this 3-second piece demonstrates it's not a constant implying much of the "reverb" or ambient info you're hearing is actually from the recording itself. Anyway, hopefully this should substantiate just how much or how little reverb is induced by my listening room.

Also, we should bear in mind when comparing an in-room video to hopefully the "official" youtube release, there is air/space i.e. sound travel that blossoms and blooms a bit between in this case my speakers and my tiny stereo mic about 9 or 10 ft away and will impact things just a tad. In fact, the more resolving a playback system the greater the blossoming and blooming, right? Not to mention that any "official" youtube version completely by-passes all of our playback system's anomalies as well as all of our room's acoustic anomalies.

Maybe you still insist it's excessive reverb but, I'm gonna' stick to my guns and insist my room's reverb impact is little just based on this single 3-second demo.

As for the less-emphasized guitar, that most likely is the result of a design shortcoming of my source, amps, speakers, cables, etc and probably a combination of every potential system shortcoming as It's an imperfect world, right? But good catch.

 

The differences between the Rollins in-room recording and the other recording are huge.

It may come down to personal preference.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with preferences. But since when should preferences ever take precedence over accuracy?

I prefer to hear into the recording without a lot of distracting accentuation from walls and ceiling. If I’m going to hear a room I want it to be the room the music was recorded in.

Exactly the right perspective I think. Even if that perspective is somewhere near the restroom, we're still there somewhere.

Acoustic treatments can be a good thing!

Shouldn't this be in its own thread?

 

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with preferences. But since when should preferences ever take precedence over accuracy?


Exactly the right perspective I think. Even if that perspective is somewhere near the restroom, we're still there somewhere.


Shouldn't this be in its own thread?

I have a custom designed, expensive dedicated listening room with built-in walls activated carbon bass traps (50% of the walls). The result in my smallish room 20X15X10 is no bass overload with 6-12" woofers. External, surface mounted acoustic treatments for mids and highs only, absorption and diffusion. I like the INXS recording here done from your room mikes. Impressive!

 

I have a custom designed, expensive dedicated listening room with built-in walls activated carbon bass traps (50% of the walls). The result in my smallish room 20X15X10 is no bass overload with 6-12" woofers. External, surface mounted acoustic treatments for mids and highs only, absorption and diffusion. I like the INXS recording here done from your room mikes. Impressive!

Thanks, Leo. Smallish room? I'd actually consider your room's dimensions as fairly ideal as I imagine your speakers have just enough room to breathe in every direction. My previous listening room was 13.5'x'21'x10.5' and I got this brain fart 15 years ago to have some remodeling done. As such my current room is a former kitchen and is 12' x 21'x 8' - a difficult-to-work-with shoebox if you will and narrow enough such that my speakers are suffocating a bit from the narrowed 12' width and 8' ceiling height. Not sure what I was thinking at the time.

Anyway, no aftermarket acoustic treatments. Just carpeting/pad, several bookcases, 3 ottomans, and a leather chair - all items one might consider minimum acoustic treatment requirements.

Beyond this, I'm a huge believer in speaker/subwoofer placement/tuning to ensure a superior acoustic coupling between a speaker/sub and its room. My take is that if I've done my part to greatly lower my system's electric-current-induced noise floor threshold, then the now audible volumes of ambient info embedded in most any recording should ensure that the recording hall's ambient info / recording hall's acoustics will completely overshadow perhaps all of my room's many acoustic anomalies. At least that's my goal.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback.

Back on topic and MOST important. I think it's clear that our collective listening skills are all over the map and this is not a good thing for these forums nor for the industry.

 

Thanks, Leo. Smallish room? I'd actually consider your room's dimensions as fairly ideal as I imagine your speakers have just enough room to breathe in every direction. My previous listening room was 13.5'x'21'x10.5' and I got this brain fart 15 years ago to have some remodeling done. As such my current room is a former kitchen and is 12' x 21'x 8' - a difficult-to-work-with shoebox if you will and narrow enough such that my speakers are suffocating a bit from the narrowed 12' width and 8' ceiling height. Not sure what I was thinking at the time.

Anyway, no aftermarket acoustic treatments. Just carpeting/pad, several bookcases, 3 ottomans, and a leather chair - all items one might consider minimum acoustic treatment requirements.

Beyond this, I'm a huge believer in speaker/subwoofer placement/tuning to ensure a superior acoustic coupling between a speaker/sub and its room. My take is that if I've done my part to greatly lower my system's electric-current-induced noise floor threshold, then the now audible volumes of ambient info embedded in most any recording should ensure that the recording hall's ambient info / recording hall's acoustics will completely overshadow perhaps all of my room's many acoustic anomalies. At least that's my goal.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback.

Back on topic and MOST important. I think it's clear that our collective listening skills are all over the map and this is not a good thing for these forums nor for the industry.

I have to mention that my former home (40% smaller) had a dedicated listening room 25X20X11 w/6X8 equipment area behind it but had my music collection and was much inferior in acoustic quality.

As to listening skills, the worst site/forum of all I've seen is Audio Science Research where alternative opinions go to die. It's the owner, Amir, who dictates who shall be approved of and who shall be stricken from the site for utterly their alternative opinions which are not based on ABX blind testing and testing for every difference in equipment used. I posted a forum at Audiogon and it had 2130 responses including Amir lecturing us on how to choose equipment. Amir was reportedly involved in the beginning of What's Best Audio. Glad he left, or you and I wouldn't be here.

As to your current listening room, my former home's second system was in a living room 28X13X8 angled up to 10 at rear. It had great natural acoustics, a shoe box design comparable to the finest old orchestral halls. Apparently, you are able to make your room sound great too.

P.S. I'm Seagoat, my wife is Leo. Funny?

 

I have to mention that my former home (40% smaller) had a dedicated listening room 25X20X11 w/6X8 equipment area behind it but had my music collection and was much inferior in acoustic quality.

As to listening skills, the worst site/forum of all I've seen is Audio Science Research where alternative opinions go to die. It's the owner, Amir, who dictates who shall be approved of and who shall be stricken from the site for utterly their alternative opinions which are not based on ABX blind testing and testing for every difference in equipment used. I posted a forum at Audiogon and it had 2130 responses including Amir lecturing us on how to choose equipment. Amir was reportedly involved in the beginning of What's Best Audio. Glad he left, or you and I wouldn't be here.

As to your current listening room, my former home's second system was in a living room 28X13X8 angled up to 10 at rear. It had great natural acoustics, a shoe box design comparable to the finest old orchestral halls. Apparently, you are able to make your room sound great too.

P.S. I'm Seagoat, my wife is Leo. Funny?

LOL, Seagoat. Yes, I am or was all too familiar with Amir the person / psuedo-scientist. But more importantly, there are various types and derivatives of Amirs that abound. Sure they may have different methods, strategies, intentions, etc but usually similar psuedo-intellecutual dogmatism that are alive and well throughout the industry and forums, if you know what I mean. And these types can seemingly be a dime a dozen and often times it's these same types that kinda' take the wind out of the sails of what is intended to be and should be a tremondously enjoyable hobby / pasttime for everybody.

 

Just to follow up on the topic of different listening perspectives / preferences vs fidelity / accuracy, this morning I downloaded about 5 different formats of this same Sonny Rollins piece including the flac, wav, aiff, etc. All for $1.29. Here’s the website. bandcamp.com

The MP3 file weighed in at 12.5MB total whereas the WAV file weighed in at 213MB and the FLAC file around 140MB.

Here is the MP3 version. When compared to the “unadulterated” version on youtube, I’d call this fairly realistic. Relatively speaking of course.

 

Just to follow up on the topic of different listening perspectives / preferences vs fidelity / accuracy, this morning I downloaded about 5 different formats of this same Sonny Rollins piece including the flac, wav, aiff, etc. All for $1.29. Here’s the website. bandcamp.com

The MP3 file weighed in at 12.5MB total whereas the WAV file weighed in at 213MB and the FLAC file around 140MB.

Here is the MP3 version. When compared to the “unadulterated” version on youtube, I’d call this fairly realistic. Relatively speaking of course.

Much more upper midrange on the sax than the unadulterated vinyl rip above and the sax sounds less 3D. Sounds almost like a different size saxophone. Can you try a higher res recording than MP3?