Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Argonaut]

Why what?

Why have you and Tang chosen to censor access to your videos … This is a rhetorical question BTW

 

[morricab]

Vinyl. Peter says I have the re-issue version. It sounds brighter in my room -- and brighter still on the videos, especially on the MV88+ -- than it sounded on David's Bionors.



MV88+ on the tripod is literally only an inch or two behind where my ears would be.

When I handhold the iPhone I hold it a few inches below ear level and a few inches in front of my ears (just for handholding comfort and steadiness).

I will continue to use the IQ7…IMO it captures what I hear better than what I am hearing from your Shure recordings.

 

[Carlos269]

Here are a few videos from last night’s listening session for comparison:

Your sound has always impressed. But I'm also equally impressed (puzzled) how your videos are capturing a good dose of musicality with all that STUFF in the room. Especially since I'm a huge fan of careful speaker placement. Plus I prefer more of a symetrical and minimalist furnishings type of room. So perhaps your playback config(s) puzzle me more than they should?

At the very least, I suppose that's one way to get off the buy/sell merry-go-round. Just buy.

I routinely address the misguided myths and misinformation associated with room acoustics, room treatments, and acoustically engineered bespoke listening rooms. At the end of the day, the proof is in the resultant sound and there you have mine; where are the videos from the big custom room owners so that we can asses the sound quality of their rooms and systems? You figured that they would jump at the chance to show off their rooms and systems. It is all vanity without any real substance, most owners know very little about room acoustics and what permeates on these forums is simply a total lack of understanding and ignorance, for the most part. To properly do room acoustics the excitation sources’ attributes must be accounted for and any perturbations must be dealt with adaptive response if it’s to be implemented correctly, instead we have a static one size fits all approach that doesn’t even account for the original excitation sources’ acoustic profiles. I could go on but I have said what needs to be stated already.

 

[Rexp]

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

Ron using iPhone mic

Ron using MV88+

While 2 & 3 are more detailed (coz the system is) I prefer 1 as it has better flow due to, I'm guessing, a better mic. Also note Youtube and Vimeo may have different resolution.

 

[PeterA]

While 2 & 3 are more detailed (coz the system is) I prefer 1 as it has better flow due to, I'm guessing, a better mic. Also note Youtube and Vimeo may have different resolution.

I disagree that the system is more detailed. Certain attributes are emphasized in Ron‘s videos. This gives the impression of detail and excitement and dynamics. What I don’t hear is nuance and the subtleties and the sense of life that makes a presentation convincing. It’s a different type of sound and I understand that many people prefer it. To me it does not sound natural. I don’t know the cause.

i’m describing the videos 2& 3 in isolation and not in comparison to number one, which has its own issues but also positives.

 

[Rexp]

I disagree that the system is more detailed. Certain attributes are emphasized in Ron‘s videos. This gives the impression of detail and excitement and dynamics. What I don’t hear is nuance and the subtleties and the sense of life that makes a presentation convincing. It’s a different type of sound and I understand that many people prefer it. To me it does not sound natural. I don’t know the cause.

i’m describing the videos 2& 3 in isolation and not in comparison to number one, which has its own issues but also positives.

Yes the main thing that matters is which one sounds more natural, that's number 1 IMO and I am attributing the unnaturalness in 2 & 3 to the mics.

 

[PeterA]

Yes the main thing that matters is which one sounds more natural, that's number 1 IMO and I am attributing the unnaturalness in 2 & 3 to the mics.

One video is with the external Shure microphone and the other is with the built-in iPhone microphone. Do you have the same sense from Ron’s other videos that he made with the built-in iPhone mic or the Shure?

I do not know what is causing what with the presentation in his videos, but I do not think it is the mics. It is simply a different type of presentation based on the gear he has chosen and the set up and the room. It is a type of sound that appeals to a lot of audio files.

 

[Rexp]

One video is with the external Shure microphone and the other is with the built-in iPhone microphone. Do you have the same sense from Ron’s other videos that he made with the built-in iPhone mic or the Shure?

I do not know what is causing what with the presentation in his videos, but I do not think it is the mics. It is simply a different type of presentation based on the gear he has chosen and the set up and the room. It is a type of sound that appeals to a lot of audio files.

Well Ron has said his recordings have a digital glaze compared to what he hears in-room.
I'd be interested in your opinion on @morricab videos. He has recordings of digitally sourced and analog systems, the Zoom IQ7 mic used is quite good at revealing the differences:

https://youtube.com/@TheHighEnder-fk4sp

 

[tima]

In addition to sharing videos as a way to compare the same recording in different systems/rooms, are you guys also using these recordings as a way to a/b compare changes in your own system?

On first thought, this seems foolish for obvious reasons.

On second thought, I wonder if a video recording could offer a valuable, more detached, perspective particularly when there is a lengthy time gap between changing out one component to another. I can imagine the immediate a/b video comparison might be revealing and cut through the haze of the sometimes unreliable audio memory?

I do this.

And I get feedback on system changes from knowledgeable friends.

 

[tima]

Are these systems just world class at the bottom of their post, in the signature section? Or do these individuals lack the courage to let it all bare for others to judge? Just wondering why there is no participation, with video submissions, from others on this forum who like to come across as if they have something special and who are always talking about and parading their latest and greatest toys. It’s kind of like having a super sport car in the garage and taking pictures and showing it off online but lacking the courage to take it out to the track or to the drag strip to find out how it really performs compared to what else is out there. Time to take their pride in their signature line and put it to the test don’t you think? Surely all these owners of supposedly great systems cannot all lack the courage to be judged by others can they?

Seems like many (most?) won't even post what's in their systems.

 

[hopkins]

Yes the main thing that matters is which one sounds more natural, that's number 1 IMO and I am attributing the unnaturalness in 2 & 3 to the mics.

I think your judgement here is clouded by the idea you have of what the systems should sound like, and perhaps even by Ron's own comments on his video which need to be taken with a grain of salt as he is not - correct me if I am wrong - listening with headphones

Given the poor quality of the video 1, I don't see how you can say that it sounds more natural (unless you think colored sound is more natural).

 

[tima]

I think your judgement here is clouded by the idea you have of what the systems should sound like, and perhaps even by Ron's own comments on his video which need to be taken with a grain of salt as he is not - correct me if I am wrong - listening with headphones

Given the poor quality of the video 1, I don't see how you can say that it sounds more natural (unless you think colored sound is more natural).

So you read his thoughts, eh?
Make your own case, not some ad hominem BS about someone else's.

 

[hopkins]

So you read his thoughts, eh?
Make your own case, not some ad hominem BS about someone else's.

I did post my comments on the three videos. I don't see how one can conclude that video 1 is more "natural sounding" than 3. The sound quality of the recording of video 1 is bad, there is echo, coloration, etc.. comparing with the original track played from Qobuz makes it very clear.

I'm all for "natural sound" but video 1 is very far from natural sounding! I have no stakes in this, and I have not heard either system in person. I clearly pointed out that video 1 may not reflect at all what the actual system could sound like. I am just commenting on the end result.

P.S. you have to listen to these recordings with headphones. Listening to the recordings on a phone could give the exact opposite impression!

 

[tima]

I did post my comments on the three videos. I don't see how one can conclude that video 1 is more "natural sounding" than 3. The sound quality of the recording of video 1 is bad, there is echo, coloration, etc.. comparing with the original track played from Qobuz makes it very clear.

Knowing your reference for comparison streams from Qobuz is sufficient explanation.

 

[hopkins]

Knowing your reference for comparison streams from Qobuz is sufficient explanation.

Ouch, low blow
Sorry, I don't have the LP version!

 

[Rexp]

I think your judgement here is clouded by the idea you have of what the systems should sound like, and perhaps even by Ron's own comments on his video which need to be taken with a grain of salt as he is not - correct me if I am wrong - listening with headphones

Given the poor quality of the video 1, I don't see how you can say that it sounds more natural (unless you think colored sound is more natural).

Telling people they can't hear what they say they hear, isn't cool.

 

[hopkins]

Telling people they can't hear what they say they hear, isn't cool.

I was just trying to find explanations... My apologies if it came across differently, but my comments seemed fairly neutral - we can all be influenced by what we see and read - trust me I don't find the exercise (commenting on these videos) easy myself. If there were better recordings (confirmed also by adequate measurements of the microphones) things would be much easier!

 

[Scott Naylor]

Telling people they can't hear what they say they hear, isn't cool.

Even when it’s true? (Not saying it is in this case)

I wonder if we polled everyone here with solely unidentified audio only replay, how many would comment on video two or three as “lacking in nuance and the subtleties and the sense of life that makes a presentation convincing”, to paraphrase an earlier comment?

 

[morricab]

I did post my comments on the three videos. I don't see how one can conclude that video 1 is more "natural sounding" than 3. The sound quality of the recording of video 1 is bad, there is echo, coloration, etc.. comparing with the original track played from Qobuz makes it very clear.

I'm all for "natural sound" but video 1 is very far from natural sounding! I have no stakes in this, and I have not heard either system in person. I clearly pointed out that video 1 may not reflect at all what the actual system could sound like. I am just commenting on the end result.

P.S. you have to listen to these recordings with headphones. Listening to the recordings on a phone could give the exact opposite impression!

The question is not more or less natural the question is which one sounds like Ron’s system if you are sitting there in the room?

 

[Rexp]

Even when it’s true? (Not saying it is in this case)

I wonder if we polled everyone here with solely unidentified audio only replay, how many would comment on video two or three as “lacking in nuance and the subtleties and the sense of life that makes a presentation convincing”, to paraphrase an earlier comment?

Poll away if you like.