How competitive are you with your system?
Do you try to rank your system with others’?
Or are you content with enjoying your rig for what it is?
In the YouTube listening exercise laid out in your above post, the recording of the Thiel 3.7 sounds closest to the Original, followed by the recording of the Avantgarde. For what it's worth. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I'm not sure it is worthwhile to compare lossy audio of different systems recorded in different rooms by different people with different recording devices and different recording skills; however, the sonic differences between the various videos are striking.
|
I gave these YouTube clips another listen, on my system this time. We all have different tastes but to me, the Thiel and Avantgarde systems are clear front-runners. I have little doubt the Montemar would sound fantastic in the right room, whereas the Focal seem confused and overwhelmed by theirs. The PMC's bass sounds surprisingly flabby, although they may have a physicality in real life that's absent from the video but might tip the scales in their favor.
|
You've been saying that your speakers are the best speakers in the world, but now you're offering someone else's speakers as reference?
|
As does mine, in its current state at least. It’s easy enough to throw money at a system, and if one has the good sense to hire a consultant the result might even sound quite good. But it’s not the same as putting in the time and effort to learn and research and source components and learn how to fix them as the case may be. Which makes you wonder, who’s the real audiophile here? |
Are you suggesting you capture audio then dub the video with it? I thought I’d ask, because I tried video-ing my system and the playback sounded like absolute trash, even played through the very same system. I just used the stock photo app on my Pixel. Apologies if this is an inane question. |
No one in their right mind disputes that sound can be accurately recorded in one's listening room. But even someone such as myself who has no recording experience comprehends that how it is recorded makes a very significant difference. Someone - maybe it was you - made the argument that a mere smartphone is all that's needed to produce a good-enough quality recording. My experience was this: with my smartphone, I recorded my system playing a piece I am well familiar with. Then I streamed my phone recording to the system that played it while I recorded it. Therefore, the original FLAC file, and the recording made with my phone were heard on the exact same system within seconds of one another. The difference was striking. The phone recording had less than half the SPL, no bass, severely rolled off highs, and no soundstage whatsoever. FM radio vs AM radio. My point is that evaluating system SQ via YouTube videos is inherently fraught, for we don't know how the sound was recorded and, more importantly, processed, in the first place. I have no doubt that a good sound engineer could make a middling system sound better on YouTube than that poor guy's with the model 911 hanging from the wall of his room. |
That’s easy. It’s either one or both of the following: 1. Divine intervention, or 2. You captured the sound of your system with quality recording equipment then you DSP’d the crap out of it. If I cared to guess, I’d say the latter. I’m not a clairvoyant, I just read your words:
That’s the way I would explain the exceptional, great and outstanding sound quality of the audio recordings of your systems and those of others. See Occam’s razor. I kinda have to say I’m not a fan of the aggro approach. Happy Listening! |
