Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Ron Resnick]

so you accept that the Ron of 2014 would find it difficult to judge a natural system given limited classical and jazz experience/audition material?

Absolutely! I believe philosophically that live acoustic music is the correct reference for this hobby. (However, this doesn't mean that you necessarily need that reference to get to where you want to be. But I do think it's the best compass.)

 

[PeterA]

Ron, you claimed no one objected to the title of my thread. They did object and you have been given examples of their objections.

 

[bonzo75]

@Al M., you're welcome to call your thread whatever the hell you want not your place to define boundaries for others because you don't measure up.

david

This should be made a sticky for every videos thread that Al makes it his sole goal to derail…given the time and passion he consistently spends on video threads resulting in the most boring non value added posts for 4 years running

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, you claimed no one objected to the title of my thread. They did object and you have been given examples of their objections.

Literally speaking, you are correct. But, again, it was not the title initially to which anybody objected. The objections were to the meaning you later assigned to the title, compounded by the objectivist overlay you placed on that meaning.

 

[PeterA]

Literally speaking, you are correct. But, again, it was not the title initially to which anybody objected. It was the meaning you later assigned to the title.

I am leaving this discussion about my system thread because it has drifted way too far from the purpose of this thread on videos.

 

[PeterA]

This should be made a sticky for every videos thread that Al makes it his sole goal to derail…given the time and passion he consistently spends on video threads resulting in the most boring non value added posts for 4 years running

DDK had a way to cut right to the point. The brevity and candor of his posts was truly unique. I am sorry he is not here to share his opinion about videos and their value.

 

[bonzo75]

it has drifted way too far from the purpose of this thread on videos.

Partly Ron is responsible (though I respect him joining the game by posting his videos), and the biggest culprit as always for this thread as always is Al.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am leaving this discussion about my system thread because it has drifted way too far from the purpose of this thread on videos.

You can thank Tim for the drift to your system thread, courtesy of his Post #771.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am sorry he is not here to share his opinion about videos and their value.

I agree. I wish David had never left.

 

[tima]

You can thank Tim for the drift to your system thread, courtesy of his Post #771.

Your rationalizations are not becoming.

The conversation was between Francisco and I. You interjected yourself into that conversation, swerving it with a false assertion and personal attack. You were proved wrong about Peter's thread title and looked foolish with your statements about video verisimilitude tied to source format. Now you are frustrated and need someone to blame for something. If you don't want your posts questioned stop making stuff up.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Your rationalizations are not becoming.

The conversation was between Francisco and I. You interjected yourself into that conversation, swerving it with a false assertion and personal attack. You were proved wrong about Peter's thread title and looked foolish with your statements about video verisimilitude tied to source format. Now you are frustrated and need someone to blame for something. If you don't want your posts questioned stop making stuff up.

Are you feeling okay?

If you went to psychology school over the weekend you should ask for your money back.

Given the broad use you describe, doesn't it seem odd that so many people objected to the title of Peter's thread?

I simply reminded Peter that it was your post that drifted us to Peter's system thread.

 

[bonzo75]

If you went to psychology school over the weekend you should ask for your money back.

By this logic most of the forum members should also ask back for the money they paid through their hifi journey.

 

[bonzo75]

Does anyone use ratings to shortlist movies or TV series? I have found that those below 7 are really bad. 7 to 8, especially movies, make for decent kill-time movies, or watch on flight types. Those above 8 are not always good, but if you watch those rated above 8, chances of finding a good movie//show is much higher, and the shows I end up liking are in the above 8 range, though that range might have some shows I do not like too. But the ones below 7...never.

Videos are the same. There are many videos that if there had been a rating, would be below 4. Many would be above 8. No one is saying you should watch all episodes of that show in one go, but you should audition/give at least 1 or 2 episodes a try, because the ones you end up liking will be above 8/have good videos

 

[Ron Resnick]

Does anyone use ratings to shortlist movies or TV series? I have found that those below 7 are really bad. 7 to 8, especially movies, make for decent kill-time movies, or watch on flight types. Those above 8 are not always good, but if you watch those rated above 8, chances of finding a good movie//show is much higher, and the shows I end up liking are in the above 8 range, though that range might have some shows I do not like too. But the ones below 7...never.

Amazon Prime has a rating scale of one to five stars. I have been going through dozens of movies to pass the time doing exercise on a cardio machine.

I have found that 3.5 stars is the minimum for the movie to be worth even the kill-time level. Less than 3.5 stars and I find generally that the movie makes me annoyed that I wasted even kill-time on it.

I find 4.5 stars always yields a good movie, and that 4.0 stars almost always yields a good movie.

 

[morricab]

I think most, if not all, of the digital videos of analog recordings I have posted sound more digital through Vimeo after digitization then they sounded to me in the room before digitization.

Wait, what have you done with our all-analog Peter Ayer? Are you asking why digitized analog (AAD) sounds more digital than pure analog (AAA)?

Are we back to 1983? Is this a belated April fool's joke?

Seriously, I think we must be having a misunderstanding here.

Sorry Ron but what is leaving the speakers is being captured and processed the same by the phone and by Vimeo. This means what is being captured should be equally representative for whatever source you are using.

 

[hopkins]

Sorry Ron but what is leaving the speakers is being captured and processed the same by the phone and by Vimeo. This means what is being captured should be equally representative for whatever source you are using.

Some of the limitations of recordings are:
- distortions on a "macro" level due to the the imperfect frequency response of the microphone at the listening point, essentially (but perhaps to some lesser extent to the quality of the ADC)
- distortions on a "micro level" - "noise floor" of the recording is higher than that of our system, linked also to microphone sensitivity, ADC quality, compression, etc...

There are obviously limitations also linked to the system (DAC/amplification/headphone...) used to listen to the recordings.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe it may be easier to get a relatively flat frequency response using entry level recording equipment, but that you really need to invest in pretty high quality equipment (essentially, what is being used for professional recordings) to improve sensitivity.

So you could conceivably capture the overall sound of a system "faithfully" with a recording, but miss out on the subtleties ?
Not sure if any of this makes sense!

I guess Ron is assuming that there are more "subtleties" with vinyl than with digital ? IMO the entire system determines this, not just the source, but that's really a topic for another discussion.

 

[the sound of Tao]

By this logic most of the forum members should also ask back for the money they paid through their hifi journey.

Or at least fined for serial offences against music selection.

Little wonder Tchaikovsky was manically depressed… imagine getting your biggest royalty cheques from Telarc for the 1812 overture

 

[tima]

The expressions "natural sound" or "sounding natural" have been used ad nausea in audiophile writings.

Some of us describe our systems as sounding natural and reminding us of what we hear when listening to live music.

I would say most not some of us.

To Francisco

Given the broad use you describe, doesn't it seem odd that so many people objected to the title of Peter's thread?

here's where you interjected yourself, making things up and startng the contention

To me:

This is disingenuous. No one objected to the title of Peter's thread.

and you got called on it

You should do your homework, Ron, before casting aspersions.

For me it's the title " Natural Sound " which can be seen as elitist BS.

It seems to imply exclusivity vs inclusivity.

Would " Realistic Vintage Sound " create such a stir? No

Ron, that is completely false. People posted in the thread suggesting different titles because they did not like it. The title became quite contentious.

Anyway, Tim was making a point to Fransisco that a common term like natural sound should not have upset people the way it did in my thread given the popularity of the term when describing the sound of gear.

@tima is correct and I thank him for providing just a few examples of the many that were posted.

more stubborn misdirection ...

I disagree.

"The title became quite contentious." (Emphasis added) This is true, and it kind of proves my point that there was nothing inherently contentious about "natural sound" from the title. Natural, as I and others have said, has been an audio sound descriptor since the beginning.

I am leaving this discussion about my system thread because it has drifted way too far from the purpose of this thread on videos.

Partly Ron is responsible (though I respect him joining the game by posting his videos), and the biggest culprit as always for this thread as always is Al.

but Ron could not leave it alone ...

You can thank Tim for the drift to your system thread, courtesy of his Post #771.

To Ron:

The conversation was between Francisco and I. You interjected yourself into that conversation, swerving it with a false assertion and personal attack. You were proved wrong about Peter's thread title and looked foolish with your statements about video verisimilitude tied to source format. Now you are frustrated and need someone to blame for something. If you don't want your posts questioned stop making stuff up.

frustration

Are you feeling okay?

If you went to psychology school over the weekend you should ask for your money back.

I simply reminded Peter that it was your post that drifted us to Peter's system thread.

oh so simply

 

[bonzo75]

Ime digital through video sounds below an acceptable level, and analog videos sound much better. However, in room digital is much more enjoyable than it comes through in videos. Based on videos I would not audition most digital.

Which is why the Vietnamese videos surprise me because they consistently have good digital videos. They have a lot of flow and musical energy. Yes you can hear the digital and SS tone which is not to my liking, but their digital videos are good. Here’s random one that came up today. You need to click watch on Facebook below

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=155443947212651

 

[tima]

Little wonder Tchaikovsky was manically depressed… imagine getting your biggest royalty cheques from Telarc for the 1812 overture

You could make a video of that and send him another one!