Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Not sure. But digital videos I recorded have rarely been as representative as in room. Analog videos are quite representative. That’s why I have rarely uploaded digital videos. Maybe it’s just that reducing quality across the board takes digital below an acceptable level, while in room the delta is not an issue.
also, on video we are more sensitive to spikes than we are in room (which should not be read as we are not sensitive to spikes in room, the two sentences are different)
IMO, there must be other conflating factors. The sound from the speakers is analog regardless of the source. How then can then can a digital source sound worse recorded than live relative to analog recorded to live? The recorder is simply picking up sounds as they come into the room. Maybe levels are different and overload the microphone/recorder because one is playing the digital sources louder, for example?
We're talking about whether one format is more representative of in-room listening than the other format. RR says a digital source is more representative than an analog source. Bonzo's experience is the opposite. I don't know how or why.
We are putting out theories about Ron’s comment about why analog and digital recordings sound different. IMO this gives too much credence to Ron’s statement. We do not know it is even true. We do not know if this is the way Ron hears it or if it is another one of his theories or feelings or hunches. I find the whole discussion silly.
about a month ago just for fun I inserted an old CD player into my system and an old amplifier to see how each compares to its alternative. I made recordings and they all have the same degree of representation of the in- room sound.
That is vinyl versus digital, and tube versus solid-state. All the videos captured the nature of the system seemingly equally based on my listening.
Last edited:
Exactly the source doesn’t matter for representation of in-room sound
I agree with this. But the comparison I am trying to draw is between the sound on video of the digital I hear in the room versus the sound on video of the analog I hear in the room. I agree that once they both are digitized, both have a sonic signature of digital.
The digitally-recorded track I hear in the room is natively digital. The analog-recorded track I hear in the room is not digital until it is ADCed by the iPhone.
Nothing to be sorry about, Brad. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong!
Last edited:
No, the digitally recorded track you hear in room is ANALOG. The DAC has made it analog so that it is possible for your speakers to actually make a sound out of it that resembles music. You are recording the output of your speakers not a signal from you Macbook into the phone and something straight off the phonostage. Both digital sourced and analog sourced signals are being recorded from your speakers, which are again, analog. Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that the digital is more representative of what you hear in the room than the analog, which I guess is somehow to your ears, sounding more degraded from the video than the digital. The phone doesn't care what the source is, it is picking up the direct and reflected sound from the speakers...that's it.I agree with this. But the comparison I am trying to draw is between the sound on video of the digital I hear in the room versus the sound on video of the analog I hear in the room. I agree that once they both are digitized, both have a sonic signature of digital.
The digitally-recorded track I hear in the room is natively digital. The analog-recorded track I hear in the room is not digital until it is ADCed by the iPhone.
Nothing to be sorry about it, Brad. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong!
Very interesting. So we are writing the exact opposite thing.
Is it possible to reconcile them if I am referring to "representive" with respect only to the slight dryness or coolness I hear on both Vimeo playback of digital tracks and analog tracks, and which I hear in the room from digital tracks but which I do not hear in the room from analog tracks, whereas you are referring to overall believability, the gestalt and flow of the music (and not merely one single sonic characteristic)?
You have much, much more experience with this in practice than I do. I think what I am suggesting I hear in practice, but I am suggesting primarily a hypothesis, and it's entirely possible that my anti-digital bias is driving my theory. It's also possible that my anti-digital bias is driving my practical report of in room representativeness.
Last edited:
They are both wrong. The representativeness of the recording depends on the quality of the recorder making the recording...it doesn't know what source is playing. Actually the "source" to the recorder is the speakers as all formats come out of them in the same manner. Do the formats sound different? Absolutely. Does the recorder capture them somehow differently? Absolutely not.
I understand this, and I agree with you. But the analog musical information on the digitally-recorded track I am playing in the room experienced its digital conversion at the recording step. The analog track I am playing in the room has yet to experience its first digital conversion.
This is very interesting. So on the video recordings you could hear the recording of a digital track being representative of the sound of digital, as distinguished from the recording of an analog track being representative of the sound of analog?
of course you can hear the sound of digital and analog. Not only by tone, but also style of noise, flow, style of soundstage, etc. But my point was digital in videos is seldom anywhere as enjoyable as digital can be in room, so system sounds quite bad on video. It is not that way in room. Analog videos on the other hand sound good on video or in room (provided system is good in room, or course, not otherwise)
If we consider analog system videos that sound good on YouTube but not in the room then we will have covered all possibilities!
If we consider analog system videos that sound good on YouTube but not in the room then we will have covered all possibilities!
Then were just getting started , you forget the most important variable afaik .
Subjective listening preference which apparently is different for everybody , iow all bets are off / anything goes / whatever is fine
If it makes you happy its okay .....and so on.
Last edited:
yes of course Ron. Brad is correct that the recording device simply records was coming out of the speakers. Look, I’ve never heard digital sound as natural as my analog. Frankly I don’t like most digital. It sounds less good in room and it sounds less good over video. In both cases the videos more or less represent what I hear in the room.
I still can’t quite tell if you’re talking about what you actually hear or some idea you’ve made up in your mind.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |