Has the focus of the forum shifted? Is it the marketing, promotion and cheerleading arm of selected companies? Has advertising changed the landscape?

[Al M.]

And this could be my ignorance, but my background tells me the variables including recording equipment, the YT conversion + the listener's analog and digital gear and speakers/headphones put much in question and reduce any confidence of recording versus recording.

And even differences in recording volume can make processing through phone and YouTube different and result in different sound.

 

[Iamrael]

I’m folding.

 

[Iamrael]

….but I’m not the loser!

 

[Ron Resnick]

He has had the same amps for like 15 years and Wilsons for 35 years, until recently. Sure doesn't seem like a revolving door. He is enthusiastic about what he does have and shares his enthusiasm with us.

+1

 

[tima]

Agree and align on all other than the recording part. And this could be my ignorance, but my background tells me the variables including recording equipment, the YT conversion + the listener's analog and digital gear and speakers/headphones put much in question and reduce any confidence of recording versus recording.

I'm a bit unclear on how to parse your second sentence.

What if the maker of the recording tells you it is representative of what he hears in room? I will not post a video in a review unless I thought it was informative.

 

[tima]

This is why I very much appreciated @tima 's review of Ralph's Class D in which he included a system video using the reviewed amps. He then made some comparison comments with his Lamm amps and I was able to find a video with the Lamm amps playing the same music. The differences were easy to hear. The videos and written comments support and complement each other. Yes, reviews are usually positive, but in this case there was both a direct comparison to a reference and video support. The reader gets more information and some context in which to form a better judgement about the component under review.

Thank you Peter -- you spelled it out quite well.

I've gone back and forth with myself on whether to include a same-system same-music video of the compared-to product in a review. And I am of mixed mind on that question. Thus far I have chosen not to do that out of courtesy to both the manufacturer and the review itself -- the idea being to keep the focus on the review product and not turn the work into a two product review. However such a video can usually be found among my public YouTube videos.

 

[sbo6]

I'm a bit unclear on how to parse your second sentence.

What if the maker of the recording tells you it is representative of what he hears in room? I will not post a video in a review unless I thought it was informative.

I'm not questioning the owner's recording, I'm questioning the fact that instead of sitting and listening to the system in person, you're listening to it through a series of conversions, a condenser mic and whatever playback system the receiver uses, far from the actual listening experience.

 

[tima]

I'm not questioning the owner's recording, I'm questioning the fact that instead of sitting and listening to the system in person, you're listening to it through a series of conversions, a condenser mic and whatever playback system the receiver uses, far from the actual listening experience.

Not quite addressing my point which was: If the owner says the video is representative of his in-room sound, then it may not be far from his listening experience. Granted there are 'conversions', ie the digital capture plus whatever youtube does, and agreed the listener's playback equipment may not be the playback equipment the owner uses for his assessment. But the one that makes the video is in the position to say the video is representative.

I think the general rule here followed by those who post videos and the one I practice is the video must be representative of the in-room experience, otherwise it is of low value. Imo providing a representative video provides has legitimate information value given the small amount of tradeoff. I have enough confidence in the representative videos I make to include them in my reviews. No one claims the in-room and the video are indistiquishable.

If there are two videos , one with product A and one with product B with the system and music between them otherwise the same, then you can hear the relative difference. Which is what I think Peter was discribing.

Of course I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, it's a choice.

Out of curiosity, have you made a video of your own system with a phone and privately listened to it on youtube?

 

[Stereophonic]

As a paying member, an advertiser, a contributor, a dealer and a distributor I want to know when the forum became the marketing and cheerleading arm of certain selected companies? I have no issues with people talking about their products, their tech etc. but it seems more and more evident that there is more happening here. It seems to me and others I have talked with that the Forum is favoring certain companies and products over others. This is fine personally IMO , we all the right to like what we like, however when the Forum is used to market one product over others, I believe this is a bridge to far.

It is very easy. There are others that pay more than you....

 

[andromedaaudio]

It is very easy. There are others that pay more than you....

Its the USA.
Without being political , MMM ( more money matters )

 

[PeterA]

Agree and align on all other than the recording part. And this could be my ignorance, but my background tells me the variables including recording equipment, the YT conversion + the listener's analog and digital gear and speakers/headphones put much in question and reduce any confidence of recording versus recording.

That’s fine. I see them as two recordings of the same system with different amplifiers. The amplifiers were the two mentioned in the review and the differences discussed in the review are audible to me when I listen to the two videos using my replay system. So for me, the two videos complimented the written review and were simply additional information that I found useful. In other words, the videos provided further evidence of the contrast between the amplifiers. I would rather have the videos than not have them. Of course, I agree with Al that it would be even better to hear the two amplifiers directly compared in a system. One can choose to watch the videos or simply use his imagination and written text instead.

 

[PeterA]

He has had the same amps for like 15 years and Wilsons for 35 years, until recently. Sure doesn't seem like a revolving door. He is enthusiastic about what he does have and shares his enthusiasm with us. Some really like that. You don't have to pay attention to it.

Steve was a dealer for Lamm equipment.

 

[microstrip]

Not quite addressing my point which was: If the owner says the video is representative of his in-room sound, then it may not be far from his listening experience.

Tim,

For me the question now is not about owners, it is about a particular review being addressed. You carried the listening in the reviews. Are you saying that the youtube sound is representative of the sound differences you reported?

Granted there are 'conversions', ie the digital capture plus whatever youtube does, and agreed the listener's playback equipment may not be the playback equipment the owner uses for his assessment. But the one that makes the video is in the position to say the video is representative.

IMO you could have the best capture system in the world and the videos would still be misleading. You are capturing with stereo techniques just a limited part of an illusionary sound field, not a real sound field. The amount of supplied real information is so limited it will only be useful for entertaining or marketing. Surely it can show some very specific aspects, but globally it will be misleading for the general listener. Surely if we add enough bias listening people will agree with our opinions.

I think the general rule here followed by those who post videos and the one I practice is the video must be representative of the in-room experience, otherwise it is of low value. Imo providing a representative video provides has legitimate information value given the small amount of tradeoff. I have enough confidence in the representative videos I make to include them in my reviews. No one claims the in-room and the video are indistiquishable.

Ok, nice to know your opinion.

If there are two videos , one with product A and one with product B with the system and music between them otherwise the same, then you can hear the relative difference. Which is what I think Peter was discribing.

Two hamburgers made with different types of meat will taste differently. I do not find they represent the differences between the original meat.

Of course I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, it's a choice.

Surely. IMO you tube movies are great to promote the high end and are absolutely needed for promotion, accepting them to evaluate high quality systems is a Trojan in the high-end, as the videos do not represent correctly the very fine capabilities of the high-end systems. Nice for enjoyment of a small community of listeners, a nail in the coffin of the already weakened high-end reviewing system.

Out of curiosity, have you made a video of your own system with a phone and privately listened to it on youtube?

No, I know that in such extremely biased conditions I risk finding it better than my system.

 

[wil]

Its the USA.
Without being political , MMM ( more money matters )

Why don’t you just say what’s on your mind with regard to the thread topic instead of making vague and cynical smiley face comments that mean nothing?

 

[andromedaaudio]

making vague and cynical smiley face comments

I thought we live in a world of free expression .
This is the way i express myself ( ...without getting into trouble )

 

[sbo6]

Not quite addressing my point which was: If the owner says the video is representative of his in-room sound, then it may not be far from his listening experience. Granted there are 'conversions', ie the digital capture plus whatever youtube does, and agreed the listener's playback equipment may not be the playback equipment the owner uses for his assessment. But the one that makes the video is in the position to say the video is representative.

I think the general rule here followed by those who post videos and the one I practice is the video must be representative of the in-room experience, otherwise it is of low value. Imo providing a representative video provides has legitimate information value given the small amount of tradeoff. I have enough confidence in the representative videos I make to include them in my reviews. No one claims the in-room and the video are indistiquishable.

If there are two videos , one with product A and one with product B with the system and music between them otherwise the same, then you can hear the relative difference. Which is what I think Peter was discribing.

Of course I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, it's a choice.

Out of curiosity, have you made a video of your own system with a phone and privately listened to it on youtube?

We're talking about 2 different but related topics. I've been clear on the variables that dilute the value of a recording of an actual event from a sonic perspective, you're talking about the trust of the system owner and how representative a recording may be.

I have no issue with what one believes (or does not) what's representative of their system, the issue is - you glossed over the importance and impact of the playback chain, the recording device and conversions. Let's take it to an extreme - System owner has omni - directional MBL Extremes in a $2 million system, he records on his 6-year-old phone and purports the video is representative of his system. You, then listen on your 12-year-old budget laptop via its internal speakers. Can one truly assess the system's sound in that environment? Can one make compares with any semblance of value?

I've been in recording studios many times and listened from both sides of the glass. With studio equipment and virgin playback, I can tell you the sound is completely different versus the live event. Now take a recording and water the crap out of it via conversions, crappy condenser mics and sub - optimal budget home systems that add another flavor to the sound and you're fooling yourself.

 

[sbo6]

That’s fine. I see them as two recordings of the same system with different amplifiers. The amplifiers were the two mentioned in the review and the differences discussed in the review are audible to me when I listen to the two videos using my replay system. So for me, the two videos complimented the written review and were simply additional information that I found useful. In other words, the videos provided further evidence of the contrast between the amplifiers. I would rather have the videos than not have them. Of course, I agree with Al that it would be even better to hear the two amplifiers directly compared in a system. One can choose to watch the videos or simply use his imagination and written text instead.

And that is fine too, we can convince ourselves to find value in many things. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Anton D]

I thought we live in a world of free expression .
This is the way i express myself ( ...without getting into trouble )

You wipe that smirk off your face, right now, mister.

Oh, don't get me started.

 

[wil]

I thought we live in a world of free expression .
This is the way i express myself ( ...without getting into trouble )

What trouble are you worried about? Express freely!

 

[andromedaaudio]

What trouble are you worried about? Express freely!

Im taking the fith amendement i decline to answer the question