Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Al M.]

I think this a legitimate question (not an accusation). An equally legitimate question could be do videos actually reveal, or even exaggerate, in room distortions?

Yes, for example they can make a room sound more excessively reverberant than it actually is.

 

[bonzo75]

Ron, I think these Musica Nuda LPs where originally released in very limited quantities. I have not directly compared the original with the reissues that you mentioned are readily available today.

This should not matter much with this LP if original or reissue. From discogs:
There are (at least) two Signoricci Vinyl/Fonè editions of this record. They can be distinguished on the front cover, top right: Lp 106/1 Lp (2017 release), and this one, Lp 133 (2019 release). The logic behind two separate releases is that they both utilize the one-stage pressing process and are limited to 496 copies each.

 

[PeterA]

Would you mind posting a link to the other versions of that track? I would be curious to hear them. Thanks.

Tima’s videos are private and shared privately. Tangs’ are on his YouTube channel and early ones on his Tango Time system thread here. I can perhaps find the link to Tang’s‘s when I get home to my computer.

 

[Ron Resnick]

David playing Tang's speakers using iPhone mic (I believe)

Ron using iPhone mic

Ron using MV88+

 

[Ron Resnick]

Perhaps Tim will post his "Eleanor Rigby" here.

 

[Ron Resnick]

In Post #1,105, above, what differences do you hear
among the three videos?

 

[PeterA]

David playing Tang's speakers using iPhone mic (I believe)

Ron using iPhone mic

Ron using MV88+

I think my Eurodyn video is different. I will check next week. There are a few showing different development stages of the design. The one I like is on Tang’s thread posted before he left WBF.

 

[hopkins]

In Post #1,105, above, what differences do you hear
among the three videos?

I'll venture some comments on the difference between the first and third.
- more resolution in 3 than in 1 - probably due to the mic, but maybe also the system
- less reverb in 3 than in 1 - could be due to the mic placement & room
- instruments and voices seem more natural in 3 than in 1 - more colouring in 3
- more coherence in 3 than in 1 (in 1 the voice seems distant) - could be due to the mic placement
- bass in 3 is a little light (probably due to the mic)

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think my Eurodyn video is different. I will check next week. There are a few showing different development stages of the design. The one I like is on Tang’s thread posted before he left WBF.

I don't know. You were talking about David's video. This is David's video.

This shows Tang's system in David's room.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I'll venture some comments on the difference between the first and third.
- more resolution in 3 than in 1 - probably due to the mic, but maybe also the system
- less reverb in 3 than in 1 - could be due to the mic placement & room
- instruments and voices seem more natural in 3 than in 1 - more colouring in 3
- more coherence in 3 than in 1 (in 1 the voice seems distant) - could be due to the mic placement
- bass in 3 is a little light (probably due to the mic)

What do you hear in 1 versus 2?

 

[PeterA]

I don't know. You were talking about David's video. I think this is David's video.

This shows Tang's system in David's room.

Yes, but there are others. The one on Tang’s thread is now gone. I think most of his videos are now gone. No longer available. It is one way to control content. I deleted some of mine which I only share privately with links.

 

[Al M.]

I'll venture some comments on the difference between the first and third.
- more resolution in 3 than in 1 - probably due to the mic, but maybe also the system
- less reverb in 3 than in 1 - could be due to the mic placement & room
- instruments and voices seem more natural in 3 than in 1 - more colouring in 3
- more coherence in 3 than in 1 (in 1 the voice seems distant) - could be due to the mic placement
- bass in 3 is a little light (probably due to the mic)

Ok, I'll play as well.

Agree that bass is light on 3. Bass is best in 2, prefer it to bass in 1 also. Way better resolution than in 1, good strength, but a bit of mid-bass boominess.

Yes, in 1 the voice seems distant, and it also has a "hooded", veiled quality that is unattractive, even though I prefer the basic tonality in 1 over both 2 and 3. The two latter have a more open quality (3 the most), but there is upper midrange brightness and, especially in 3, a somewhat metallic, mechanical quality. 2 and 3 suffer from an excessively "essy" character on "s" sounds. That is not heard on 1, but could simply be an effect of the general "hooded", veiled quality of the sound which mitigates "s" sounds.

Overall, weighing all the pros and cons, 2 sounds nicest to me.

Listening on laptop with headphones.

How the sound quality of there videos relates to the actual system sound is hard to gauge.

 

[hopkins]

What do you hear in 1 versus 2?

I may be biased knowing that 2 and 3 are the same system with different mics, but this basically sums it up: same thing, with a more bloated sound in 2 than in 3, less resolution, and probably a little more bass.
Listening again to 1, it is very hard to make abstraction of what I think are room and mic placement issues.
3 is the closest to the recording played from Qobuz, IMO. There is more presence in the voice when listening to the Qobuz track, and that could be a mic placement issue (that you do not "hear" when listening to the system live).

 

[PeterA]

Even though this is just over the phone, it is clear this an early prototype of David’s final design. The baffle is different wood and the attachment to the frame is different. He discarded this baffle and continued to improve the design based on listening. This is a one of a kind design, and this video is of an early version. The sound is clearly different even over the phone at non live levels. It is not the same speaker that Tang now owns. It even looks different.

I do still like the nuance relative to Ron’s videos.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is not the same speaker that Tang now owns.

Tang knows he is more than welcome to post his videos here.

 

[hopkins]

Even though this is just over the phone, it is clear this an early prototype of David’s final design. The baffle is different wood and the attachment to the frame is different. He discarded this baffle and continued to improve the design based on listening. This is a one of a kind design, and this video is of an early version. The sound is clearly different even over the phone at non live levels. It is not the same speaker that Tang now owns. It even looks different.

I do still like the nuance relative to Ron’s videos.

The poor quality of the recording of that system (1) could mask its strengths!

 

[Scott Naylor]

In Post #1,105, above, what differences do you hear
among the three videos?

Lyric intelligibility. 3, 2, 1 - easiest to not quite as. All are at a very good level in hifi terms.

 

[Argonaut]

Yes, but there are others. The one on Tang’s thread is now gone. I think most of his videos are now gone. No longer available. It is one way to control content. I deleted some of mine which I only share privately with links.

Why ?

 

[PeterA]

Tang knows he is more than welcome to post his videos here.

Of course he does. He does not seem interested in doing so.

 

[PeterA]

Why ?

Why what?