@cleeds You may have thousands of posts here on Agon but as they say, it’s about quality not quantity. It is obvious that our understanding of audio recording, playback, and CODEC technologies are on different planes and what I’m stating is either not registering or you are simply not comprehending it. At this point we are in a circular argument going over the same information and you don’t seem to absorb it. My advice to you is to head over to WBF and join the herd there as they are of like minds and thinking. I have always loved learning from others that know more than I do, but obviously not everyone feels the same way. What more is there to be said on this subject between you and I? I post my audio recordings and let them speak for themselves, what more can I do to drive my point home to you? I’m getting tired of explaining things to you. If you don’t want to be clueless you need to realize that there is always room to learn.
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?
Hey Carlos. The difference between you and me and setting up systems is you weren’t in the studio producing /mixing/mastering the multi million selling and yes No1 records. I was. you THINK you know what sounds ‘right’ whereas I actually do. My wall of gold platinum and multi platinum discs attests. |
You can log-in YT with a Gmail. Or create a Gmail and login YT.
|
I understand that’s what you hear. I don’t dispute that at all.
You’re watching a video so what you see can influence what you think you hear. That’s "expectation bias" and it’s silly for you to think you’re absolutely immune.
YouTube is lossy - dynamically compressed, limited in high frequencies, and lacking in resolution. I understand if you think that's not substantive, but you'll have to accept that others think differently.
I have thousands of posts on A’gon. Please feel free to familiarize yourself. |
@cleeds It is obvious that you have not listened to the audio recordings of my systems. The biggest takeaway from listening to them is the inner detail, low level detail, nuance, and resolution of the system’s sound qualities. I have highly resolving systems and that comes through in the audio recordings. When I listen to the audio recordings embedded on videos I’m listening to the sound. If you notice, the image on the video doesn’t change throughout the recording and it isn’t all that interesting once you seen it. You seem to be argumentative without any logic or substance. I support and back up my point of view by submitting audio recordings of my systems. You want to just be a contrarian for the hell of it. Why don’t you tell us about your system and how it sounds, and contribute something constructive for a change! |
That's easy. It's either or both of the following: 1. You have a preference for lossy, compressed recordings. That is not at all uncommon - many prefer the SQ of sources such as Spotify and YouTube, which are inherently compromised by design so as to limit file size. 2. You're watching a video of an audio system, so what you see influences what you think you hear, a/k/a "confirmation bias." |
@devinplombier So how do you explain the exceptional, great and outstanding sound quality of the audio recordings of my systems and those of others? |
Acquiring a good sound system isn't easy and low cost. I heard many (almost all) unlistenable sounding >$500K audio systems. The better sound isn't equal to more money. It's finding the right people who can help you with the sound. They can help you many ways and YT is easiest way to get help. People, who are getting into audio or want to upgrade their audio, need some guides or reference to set their target sounds. YT lets them hear the glimpse of what they will get for their investment. I'm sure, if A system sounds better than B system in YT video, A system sounds better in real too. Alex/Wavetouch audio |
@devinplombier You should NOT do what you did. By playing the recording back through your system you are doubling up on the room contributions which will have constructive and destructive interference. You need to listen to the recording either in near-field or over headphones, not recommended. Your process of playback used for comparison is very flawed so I’m not surprised at all by the discrepancies between the native playback and recording playback through the same system, and listened to at the listening position. You should listen to the recording in near-field preferably than over headphones because by listening to it near-field you will incorporate the Head-Related Transfer Function (HRTF). When you listen with headphones you skip/omit the HRTF and that will make the audio recording sound different, than what you would hear if you were sitting in the room at the listening chair/position. To put yourself in the listening position as heard if you were there then listing to the recording in near-field is the only method. |
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. |
@ronboco If you are able to host, give the public access to your server, then you can post the native recording from your phone. The reason people use YouTube is for 1) security reasons as you are not giving strangers access to your server and 2) because if the recordings being compared go through the same YouTube process then you are putting them on an even playing field. |
@daveyf The audio recordings embedded in the videos should be playback and listen to in near-field. When you playback the audio recordings embedded in videos in near-field, it allows you listen to and hear what the microphone (s) captured at the listening position. That is key, to use the same playback chain and to playback in near-field to make the comparisons. Why don’t you post that audio recording of Miles Davis playing on your system that you received complements on? |
@vinylrestingplace There is a huge fallacy with that thinking. The variables between any two systems will NEVER be the same. All the systems that I have here at home are in different rooms and made up of different components. The reason that I’m able to compare them is because the ONLY thing that I care about is the resultant sound at the listening position and that is ALL that I care about and compare. NOTHING else matters to me, the ONLY think that matters and that should be compared is the resultant sound at the listening position. All of those other variables are inconsequential and fully baked into the resultant sound at the listening position. So don’t pay any attention to the room or any other variable, the ONLY thing that matters and that should be judged and compared is the resultant sound at the listening position. The variables will NEVER be all the same but that doesn’t matter as they are incorporated into the resultant sound and that sum of all variable sound is what one hears at the listening position and that resultant sound at the listening position is the only thing that should be judged and compared between systems. |
@carlos269 I don’t think the recording per se is the issue with listening on video. The problem is more likely due the reproduction equipment and what one is listening to it on. i have a fairly well liked video on YouTube from seven years ago with my Guarneri speakers playing Miles Davis…but while a lot of folks think it sounds really good, it pales in comparison to what it sounds like in my room. |
@isellgoodgear I have already shown you mine. I guess that you are too shy to show yours. All kidding aside, next time I’m in the UK I may send you a message to see if I can come over to listen to that “perfect” system. |
Listening to the systems of my audiophile friends is always interesting and I always try to get them to play records I’m familiar with, so I can compare their systems with mine. But our systems are never really comparable because our rooms are all so different. The listening room is always the biggest variable in audio!
|
@daveyf How many different systems have you done the in the room versus audio recording embedded in video comparisons on? Have you even done it with your own system? The interesting thing is that this entire hobby predicates on the concept of being able to capture sound on recordings accurately. I’m not sure how this can be true in the studio, outdoor venues, closets, backyards, and so on but not a reasonable expectation in our own listening rooms. Where does the audio recording of sound fall apart when it comes to capturing audio recordings accurately in our listening rooms but not anywhere else? Care to explain that to me????? You see, if we concede on the premise that sound can be recorded and playback accurately then this whole hobby of ours falls apart. In order to want to playback and reproduce sound accurately, one must first have a belief and accept that sound can be captured and recorded accurately otherwise this whole thing just caves in and falls apart. This isn’t some type of philosophical exercise. When you listen to a voicemail of a relative out in traffic or less optimal location can you still tell who that is on the recording. Some of the famous recordings were captured with a Shure SM-85 microphone in bathrooms and closets. What makes you discount all audio system in room recordings but accept the commercial recording you hear on the radio, those that you purchase or stream online, or the ones you listen to on your system? |
@isellgoodgear Google carlos269 and mastering systems and you will see pictures of my SADIE DSD8 and Weiss BW-102 modular Harmonia Mundi Mastering Digital Audio Workstations (DAW), my Ed Meitner hand-built DSD ADC and DSD DAC units that Ed built for Sony for the development SACD and original SACD releases. you will see pictures of my Fairman (Denmark) mastering equipment and my 18-bit DASH archiving decks that Sony developed for archiving their recordings at the old Sony Classical Studios in New York, You will also see my mastering equip,ent that came directly from Sterling Sound mastering studios. Some of my mastering equipment has been used on platinum selling recordings. Which brings me back to, if your system sounds so fabulous then why are you so afraid to share an audio recording of your system from the listening position that showcases how great your system sounds? |
As if my system isn't competing with me enough, my practically brand new computer just decided to pitch in. I have spent the better part of this afternoon getting it to function without throwing up bogus popups telling me I took it to a malicious website. I have been threatening it (my PC) and maybe that's why it is working popup free for the moment. |
@toddalin You are spot on on your description of how audio recordings embedded in videos can be used to assess the sound quality of audio systems recorded from the listening position. You get it when most don’t. You understand exactly how to use the audio recordings as a tool. By the way the $350K is just for the dCS Varese digital playback stack, that guy has sunk well over a million $USD into his room and stereo equipment. |
@cleeds You have taken. Y comments to the extreme. everyone knows that YouTube is a lossy media, but the sound conveys enough information to discern the quality of playback systems. |
When I go to dealers looking to buy new gear, I bought the previous gear for purposes of impressing future dealers I talk to. I don’t buy it to impress people coming into my home, because rarely do you bring people into your home who understand audio systems like you do or have appreciation for good quality and if it does happen I don’t wanna dwell on talking about the system. Aside from impressing dealers I speak to about what I own, I do it for purposes of feeling comfortable with what I’m listening to knowing that i’ll probably buy something nicer and spend more money in hopes that it’ll be a better product. Not interested in reselling because that’s a pain in the ass so I just keep it and create another listening room. Also I’m highly critical of what I do, and if I’m listening to something that could be better it needs to change otherwise it’ll continue to annoy the hell out of me. Presently I’m comfortable with everything I have with the exception of speakers which are really quite good but I think I might be able to do better. And if this did happen I’ll probably get rid of the current speakers simply because I’m running out of space and they are a pain in the ass to move if I ever relocate and I’m running out of space to keep all the boxes. I don’t view audio stuff as competitive because that’s sports. I don’t like to buy a really nice car for purposes of being showy when I drive down the street. I’d like to own a Porsche or a Ferrari but I’d be annoyed with all the views I get when I drove down the street and I have to talk about it every time I get out of my car and someone walks over to complement me. So I’ll buy an Audi or something else that’s not as flashy. |
I understand! Many people agree with you and I have no issue with that at all. As I've mentioned, there are some listeners who actually prefer lossy audio and I have no issue with that either. What's puzzling is that some who are enjoying lossy audio simply can't accommodate that others find it lacking. Preference being what it is there's really no need for anyone to justify his preference - it's purely subjective and there is no right or wrong, even when the preference is for something of provably inferior quality. |
‘Studio grade’ eh Carlos? Well I’ve produced and mixed multi million selling LPs and having worked at amongst others Abbey Road their playback system couldn’t hold a candle to mine. I once had to install decent loudspeaker cable in the evaluation system of an A&R man at EMI. He couldn’t believe the improvement. |
My SACD sound recording, Danny Boy - Jacintha WAV file (CD SQ) You Don't Know You're Born - Mark Knopfler Free YT downloaded. My Favorite Picture of You I think lossy media isn't that bad. Alex/Wavetouch audio |
That’s a subjective assessment and of course you’re entitled to it. In fact, the design of lossy audio software - such as used by YouTube, Sirius/XM, and mp3 files - is specifically designed to minimize the apparent loss of audio quality and it is very, very effective. It that sense it’s rather amazing that those sources don’t sound worse! It’s fine that you rely on those sources for evaluation, but it’s silly to suggest that the loss of fidelity is insignificant.
It's not a theory. YouTube uses lossy audio and for some listeners it is r-e-a-l-l-y obvious. |
@daveyf so what says you of systems that sound exceptional and great on audio recordings embedded in videos? |
@cleeds For your reference, I have two high-end studio grade mastering systems here at home so I’m quite intimately familiar with what goes on during the mastering process and the loss in audio quality suffer through the YouTube process is not that detrimental when you start with a highly resolving system and make a good quality recording of its sound at the listener’s sitting position. Let’s put your theory to the test and tell us how the audio recording embedded in the video is different than what you hear in the room. Use it to illustrate, highlight, and point out the differences in sound quality that you proclaim. |
@cleeds But the direct transfer undergoes the same transformation, so the two should be equivalent. No one is talking the ultimate in fidelity. I keep noting that there are qualities that cannot be conveyed (e.g., soundstage, imaging), but the general character and smoothness of the frequency balance, openness of the sound, etc. can be. We/I are/am only listening to hear if they sound the same and where the differences lie. If the direct cut is rich in bass and the system is not, accounting for some floor bounce, we got a problem. If the system shows a peak or resonance that is not in the direct transfer..., we got a problem. If the system sounds muffled or devoid of harmonics (heavily veiled), and the direct transfer doesn’t..., we got a problem. The list goes on. As I said, nearfield monitoring is best for this exercise.
|
@cleeds have you listen to the audio recordings of my OKTAN6 system that I shared with the group? How lossy do those sound, and if you extrapolate the level of compression & lossyness that you think is happening because of the YouTube encoding process the where does that land them or put them in terms of sound quality? |
Several years back I attended an audio demo wherein the system did sound excellent. The dealer asked the attendants how the system compared to real ’live’ music. Some folks came out and stated this system sounded better than live to their ears! I thought this reply was not correct and showed that those who made the point were perhaps not listening enough to live music, even though it was probably in the top 5% of systems I had heard. Now, if we took a canned version of this system and listened to it via video online, i believe that a few things would be evident. 1) the system would sound only a fraction as good as when heard live and 2) the ability to really determine its quality would be severely diminished. Therefore, personally i give very little credence to the SQ on videos on the web as to how any particular product or system sounds. |
Of course. But if you use lossy media (YouTube, Spotify, mp3 files), the recording will not be "original" at all. Rather, it will have discarded data for the purpose of reducing file size. Fidelity is also lost in the process - even though many will find the result pleasing. Making a truly high-fidelity recording is not as easy as some here believe. |
@cleeds If you make a recording, it should be true to the original direct transfer, regardless of what you are listening on. This is your point of reference and you are not comparing it to ANYTHING else. This is also what your recording should sound like.
So, it doesn’t really matter what you listen back on, as long as it is of good quality and "full range" so as to be able to capture the nuance of the original direct transfer. In fact, you really want to be using nearfield monitors. |
They don’t sound like trash to you because many people actually prefer the sound of compressed lossy files, which is what you get from YouTube, Spotify, and mp3s. And you are watching a video of the system as you listen, so confirmation bias creeps in. It's pretty simple. |
@devinplombier Why do think or speculate that the system audio recordings of my systems and of others don’t sound like trash? What makes our simple videos/audio recordings different than yours or anyone else’s? I assume that you have a current cell phone, but you can also use an external microphone with it if you want to. the BelieveInHifi guy uses expensive high-end professional studio microphones and equipment to make his system videos and to be honest to me the better equipment doesn’t tell me much more than the iPhone videos he posts first for comparison. We will never be able to make all variables equals so recording devices do not need to be, and usually never are, the same. The only thing that is crucial is that the audio recording/video be captured/shot from the listening position, or otherwise all comparisons and assessments are off. |
@devinplombier I just talking about shooting a video from the listening position but the minute you say “video” everyone gets dismissive really quick so I refer to them as “audio recordings embedded in the video”, because that is exactly what they are. |
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. |
Mihorn, ever seen one of these? It’s a Wavetouch modified Oppo-95. This one is available locally.