Of course he or she can. Just listen to the system. Record it on an iPhone, and then listen over YouTube. Compare the two and simply judge whether or not the video is representative.
So just anybody with the microphones in their iPhone can . . . make recordings, and capture something which is representative of a complex system of electronics, the room acoustics, and the source material? . . . these system videos - makes one system sound much like any other
not one bit of the subtleties would come through
I feel badly discussing video recordings of audio systems yet again, especially on a thread which is not primarily this topic, but these two posts place the controversy in high relief.
My view is that video recordings of audio systems can be representative of the in-the-room sound of the audio system only (maybe primarily?) as to
frequency balance and as to
resolution (meaning, here, mainly "details).(I am still not sure about representativeness as to transparency.) I agree with Ampexed that room acoustics are largely stripped away, and that nuances and subtleties are lost. (Ampexed, I wonder if you agree with me that the recordings can be representative of the in-the-room sound as to frequency balance and resolution?)
This is why I believe that video recordings of audio systems can reveal a
solitary change in an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room, but cannot be used to compare two unfamiliar systems, and cannot convey generally the in-the-room sound of an unfamiliar system.
Peter, Tim, Kedar and others believe that video recordings are representative
generally (including room acoustics and soundstage and depth and nuance and subtleties) of the in-the-room sound of the system, and that that representativeness is not limited to frequency balance and resolution.
*The Shure MV88+ microphone, for one, with EQ determined for in-the-room tonal balance and resolution representativeness, and then fixed (held constant across recordings) was a necessary condition to get me even this far on videos.