Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[bonzo75]

QED

My point is that does not mean I did not criticize them. If he thought otherwise, he must be smoking. It is very easy to know if someone likes your stuff or not, is meh about it, or dislikes it. If they are openly critical on that component and have not told you you are specifically the only one who got it to sing, and now they love it in your system, assume they are still critical of it.

 

[stehno]

A great list of attributes of a more artificial “hi-fi”ish kind of sound that some seem to approve of when apparent in some system videos… for me though this type of system sound can just be more a musical gestalt shipwreck… a big showcase of sonic sensory over-feasting and a spectral noise-fest but ultimately with much of the music mostly dead on arrival.

“Big sounding overt” hifi systems are not hard to achieve, I’m sure most of us have heard plenty over the years (and these can occur at any reasonable price and well beyond). But not all express anywhere near as well the inherent context and spirit of the music being played… and I figure that some need to play their systems super loud just to feel anything at all from the music. The array of sounds is present and at times highly detailed yet the way the musicians had organised the sounds into a musical whole and the perspective of the music as a gestalt can easily have gone missing in action.

Where systems seem to vary so much is in their various abilities to let the music (the relative organisation and the structure and fine arrangement of the sounds and dynamic accents) come together to form the meaningful breath and pulse of the music and to flow through truthfully in a relatively unimpeded way that makes an easier and deeper connection with the music quite immediate.

I find stock iPhone recordings for me seem to fairly easily have the potential to demonstrate if a system is just full of sound and fury but ultimately a road block to letting great quality music performance through in an appropriately natural and musically expressive way. That quality is one of the first things I find apparent in system videos and can be a pointer to systems that allow the music’s artistry express just the way it can in great music performance.

This little entertaining piece is yours, right? If so, I’d say at times you hit the nail right on the head.

If philosophy isn't your cup of tea, have you ever considered putting your eloquent writing skills to good use by becoming a reviewer?

 

[hopkins]

A great list of attributes of a more artificial “hi-fi”ish kind of sound that some seem to approve of when apparent in some system videos… for me though this type of system sound can just be more a musical gestalt shipwreck… a big showcase of sonic sensory over-feasting and a spectral noise-fest but ultimately with much of the music mostly dead on arrival.

“Big sounding overt” hifi systems are not hard to achieve, I’m sure most of us have heard plenty over the years (and these can occur at any reasonable price and well beyond). But not all express anywhere near as well the inherent context and spirit of the music being played… and I figure that some need to play their systems super loud just to feel anything at all from the music. The array of sounds is present and at times highly detailed yet the way the musicians had organised the sounds into a musical whole and the perspective of the music as a gestalt can easily have gone missing in action.

Where systems seem to vary so much is in their various abilities to let the music (the relative organisation and the structure and fine arrangement of the sounds and dynamic accents) come together to form the meaningful breath and pulse of the music and to flow through truthfully in a relatively unimpeded way that makes an easier and deeper connection with the music quite immediate.

I find stock iPhone recordings for me seem to fairly easily have the potential to demonstrate if a system is just full of sound and fury but ultimately a road block to letting great quality music performance through in an appropriately natural and musically expressive way. That quality is one of the first things I find apparent in system videos and can be a pointer to systems that allow the music’s artistry express just the way it can in great music performance.

One caveat: great musical performance does not require a great system to shine.

How many people have cried listening on their phones to this boy sing?

Let's be honest with ourselves, we don't need hifi to be touched by music.

We don't need hifi to evaluate a musical performance from a critical point of view either.

(What do we actually need hifi for, one could ask?)

Our assessment of a system can be tainted by the choice of music used, and whether it speaks to some of us (ex here: a recording of an acoustical instrument performance - the Sonny Rollins track) or not (ex here: the more modern Danny Boy).

Here's a good point of view on the subject:

Performance vs. Sound

www.hifizine.com

It is one point of view, others may decide they are not willing to make the same choices.

Every system has its limitations, so I find it best to understand what those are, and be as honest as we can in our assessments, rather than speak about the result from an "emotional" standpoint.

So while I may agree with your assessment of some gear, I'd like to see it expressed in a different way, in a way that may ultimately lead to less debate and controversies (and possibly less resentment).

What is it that really distinguishes some of these systems? Dynamics, resolution, frequency response, etc...

 

[tima]

It is very easy to know if someone likes your stuff or not, is meh about it, or dislikes it.

Unless they lie to you. To your face.

Many different motives behind criticism here in the salon. Criticism is a fact. Discerning genuine criticism from the other sh*t is the trick.

For myself I knew Wilson was not where I would end up so criticism did not bother me. The question was where to go.

 

[the sound of Tao]

One caveat: great musical performance does not require a great system to shine.

How many people have cried listening on their phones to this boy sing?

Let's be honest, we don't need hifi to be touched by music.

Our assessment of a system can be tainted by the choice of music used, and whether it speaks to us (ex here: a recording of an acoustical instrument performance - the Sonny Rollins track) or not (ex here: the more modern Danny Boy).

Here's a good point of view on the subject:

Performance vs. Sound

www.hifizine.com

It is one point of view, others may decide they are not willing to make the same choices.

Every system has its limitations, so I find it best to understand what those are, and be as honest as we can in our assessments, rather than speak about the result from an "emotional" standpoint.

I’ve always had a fairly diverse appreciation of music. It’s been an interesting year for me as I’ve focussed much more deeply on defining for myself some of the better performances of the areas of the classical repertoire I listen to most… it takes a lot of time and a vast access to music and spending endless hours listening to the same recordings is completely counter intuitive to this level of broad and intensive research.

I’ve come to appreciate music reviewers who have spent their lives listening to near countless performance of whole cycles of composers works in various mediums to determine the most right and most whole performances available… it’s a fantastic adventure for a music lover. I use three layers to broadly research initially via reading music reviews and initially listening to new releases on iPhone with headphones and while commuting in the car as well as the main system just to initially shortlist new performances to then listen to more seriously on the main system at night for final comparisons.

After 5 decades of listening to classical and jazz as well as the contemporary music of each of those decades I’ve come to appreciate just how much commitment is needed to more fully research a set of performances for various pieces of the music that I love the most.

Ultimately the main system does tell me more about the artistry of the performances but great music can come through far simpler systems as well. But for me it doesn’t matter how great the system a rubbish performance of music is just rubbish no matter how well it is recorded or replayed.

 

[tima]

What is it that really distinguishes some of these systems? Dynamics, resolution, frequency response, etc...

What you hear using them to listen to music distinquishes them. You can try to explain what you hear by audiophile analysis (resolution, frequency response) as well as sonic assessment (tonality, dynamics and timing -- what the score tells you.) But it only takes a moment or two to gauge if the sound is realistic.

 

[the sound of Tao]

What you hear using them to listen to music distinquishes them. You can try to explain what you hear by audiophile analysis (resolution, frequency response) as well as sonic assessment (tonality, dynamics and timing -- what the score tells you.) But it only takes a moment or two to gauge if the sound is realistic.

In design you spend a lot of time in functional analysis and design development but seeing the ultimate rightness in a responding design is very immediate… the totality of flow form and fit is easily recognisable if you have experience.

 

[bonzo75]

In design you spend a lot of time in functional analysis and design development but seeing the ultimate rightness in a responding design is very immediate… the totality of flow form and fit is easily recognisable if you have experience.

But just the flow form will not make something good. Everything needs to be at a minimum level to strike balance. There is an aspect of wholeness. So you could, for example, have a natural first note timbre, and then lack weight, badly integrated subs, etc. Sometimes it could be a wood colour (which first note sounds natural), but then resonates throughout. Lack of coherence could be another example.

 

[Rexp]

This little entertaining piece is yours, right? If so, I’d say at times you hit the nail right on the head.

If philosophy isn't your cup of tea, have you ever considered putting your eloquent writing skills to good use by becoming a reviewer?

Thanks for posting this, nice live sound!
@the sound of Tao is this streaming service playback?

 

[the sound of Tao]

Thanks for posting this, nice live sound!
@the sound of Tao is this streaming service playback?

Thanks Rexp… was played via qobuz. I buy the hi res files of the music that I love enough to play more often and will live with as references over the longer term.

 

[hopkins]

After 5 decades of listening to classical and jazz as well as the contemporary music of each of those decades I’ve come to appreciate just how much commitment is needed to more fully research a set of performances for various pieces of the music that I love the most.

I do a lot of listening at my computer, with small desktop speakers or headphones and this is how I "discover" and "research" music. I don't find it practical to do this from my couch with a phone or tablet. Once I have found performances I appreciate, I will listen to them on my main system (add to that also the test tracks which are used to evaluate specific aspects of the system). If in doubt, I will also sometimes use my main system to compare the recording quality of various versions of the same album.

Ultimately the main system does tell me more about the artistry of the performances but great music can come through far simpler systems as well.

My main system provides a more "immersive" experience, with fuller sound, than headphones and my small desktop monitors. In some aspects, however, headphones are more accurate than my speakers - I guess this is specific to each of our systems.

When it comes to the artistry of the performance, this added transparency into the recording does enhance things (for example: the tone of a Ben Webster comes through fully, or the intricacy of Ellington's orchestra arrangements, to name some I am familiar with), but these are already apparent otherwise. It is all about training your ears to listen to things, and being attentive, not so much about having the best equipment.

But the added transparency can be a curse (for us "audiophiles"). This can be due to specific aspects of the system, or also to the interaction with the room. Perhaps we have higher expectations from a "main system" and are more attentive to the negatives. Once we find the right system/room treatment that negates those irritating aspects (which can be personal, not necessarily universal), even if the system will not be perfect for everyone, it may be perfect for us and we can relax and enjoy the music We can probably only really enjoy a hi-fi system when we can forget that we are listening to hi-fi.

 

[the sound of Tao]

But just the flow form will not make something good. Everything needs to be at a minimum level to strike balance. There is an aspect of wholeness. So you could, for example, have a natural first note timbre, and then lack weight, badly integrated subs, etc. Sometimes it could be a wood colour (which first note sounds natural), but then resonates throughout. Lack of coherence could be another example.

Agree fully Ked, flow form fit was more a design shorthand for the total gestalt of a plan for landscape or for architecture… great music composition and performance I experience as a space as well. I find I can totally inhabit a great piece of music and that it can totally inhabit me. With some performances of music the awareness strays and one of us ultimately then has to move out .

 

[hopkins]

What you hear using them to listen to music distinquishes them. You can try to explain what you hear by audiophile analysis (resolution, frequency response) as well as sonic assessment (tonality, dynamics and timing -- what the score tells you.) But it only takes a moment or two to gauge if the sound is realistic.

It probably does only take a moment, but once you've reached that conclusion, it seems to me that it is a worthwhile excercise to try and "objectively" (and here I do not mean using measurements) and honestly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system, rather than just use an umbrella term like "realistic".

How "realistic" can a system ever be anyway? We can only be fooled into thinking it is.

 

[Rexp]

Thanks Rexp… was played via qobuz. I buy the hi res files of the music that I love enough to play more often and will live with as references over the longer term.

Thanks! Care to record the Keith Don't Go track or So What, posted earlier? They seem particularly hard to get right.

 

[PeterA]

At least he was honest in his assessment.

If I asked a dealer what was the weak link in my system I'd appreciate his honest opinion rather than the 'politeness' of dishonesty. An honest opinion even one not positive is not the same as denigrating.

This is exactly right. After months of experiments with that old system, I thought I had taken it as far as I could in terms of set up. I then asked David where I could go from there to improve the sound. I thought I had exhausted everything but actual component upgrades.

He never denigrated my gear. He told me given where I was then the next step would be to improve my source component. I started reading the beyond turntable thread and doing some research and then I reached out to him to try to find the Micro Seiki Turntables for me. Never once did he try to sell me anything I approached him. My only requirement was condition and price.

When it arrived in Utah, I traveled out to look at the new turntable and hear the rest of his system. I also wanted to meet the man who had given me so much free advice. He was becoming my friend. There was no intent to buy anything and there was no attempt to sell me anything. Everything was driven by my interest after being exposed to this level of gear and what was possible.

 

[tima]

It probably does only take a moment, but once you've reached that conclusion, it seems to me that it is a worthwhile excercise to try and "objectively" (and here I do not mean using measurements) and honestly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system, rather than just use an umbrella term like "realistic".

How "realistic" can a system ever be anyway? We can only be fooled into thinking it is.

If you believe that distinguishing how relatively realistic a system is, or one system is from another, is a product of imagination, then my suggestion is to gain more experience listening to live music -- perhaps sit next to musicians as they play -- and gain more experience listening to other systems directly, in-room.

Please feel free to think it is a 'worthwhile exercise' to assess objectively strengths and weaknesses without using measurements. (It is great for generating posts on audio forums.) How will you do that? Against what reference(s) do you make your assessments? What are your standards? What makes your exercise objective?

Since this is a thread about videos, maybe you can start a new thread so it does not get buried here. Something like "Objectively assessing Strengths and Weaknesses of Audio Systems." It might be really interesting, especially if it is not simple Component X vs Component Y. You could lay out your methodology and see where it goes from there. You might get responses from Mike Lavigne - he has had many many different components. Or from bonzo who has visited many different systems.

 

[PeterA]

A great list of attributes of a more artificial “hi-fi”ish kind of sound that some seem to approve of when apparent in some system videos… for me though this type of system sound can just be more a musical gestalt shipwreck… a big showcase of sonic sensory over-feasting and a spectral noise-fest but ultimately with much of the music mostly dead on arrival.

“Big sounding overt” hifi systems are not hard to achieve, I’m sure most of us have heard plenty over the years (and these can occur at any reasonable price and well beyond). But not all express anywhere near as well the inherent context and spirit of the music being played… and I figure that some need to play their systems super loud just to feel anything at all from the music. The array of sounds is present and at times highly detailed yet the way the musicians had organised the sounds into a musical whole and the perspective of the music as a gestalt can easily have gone missing in action.

Where systems seem to vary so much is in their various abilities to let the music (the relative organisation and the structure and fine arrangement of the sounds and dynamic accents) come together to form the meaningful breath and pulse of the music and to flow through truthfully in a relatively unimpeded way that makes an easier and deeper connection with the music quite immediate.

I find stock iPhone recordings for me seem to fairly easily have the potential to demonstrate if a system is just full of sound and fury but ultimately a road block to letting great quality music performance through in an appropriately natural and musically expressive way. That quality is one of the first things I find apparent in system videos and can be a pointer to systems that allow the music’s artistry express just the way it can in great music performance.

Excellent.

 

[hopkins]

If you believe that distinguishing how relatively realistic one system is from another is a product of imagination, then my suggestion is to gain more experience listening to live music -- perhaps sit next to musicians as they play -- and gain more experience listening to other systems directly, in-room.

Please feel free to think it is a 'worthwhile exercise' to assess objectively strengths and weaknesses without using measurements. (It is great for generating posts on audio forums.) How will you do that? Against what reference(s) do you make your assessments? What are your standards? What makes your exercise objective?

Since this is a thread about videos, maybe you can start a new thread so it does not get buried here. Something like "Objectively assessing Strengths and Weaknesses of Audio Systems." It might be really interesting, especially if it is not simple Component X vs Component Y. You could lay out your methodology and see where it goes from there. You might get responses from Mike Lavigne - he has had many many different components. Or from bonzo who has visited many different systems.

Here you go again with that condescending attitude!

I did not say "realistic" is a product of one's imagination. As systems are imperfect, so is their "realism". Isn't that obvious ?

As for my capacity to evaluate the degree of realism, I don't need your suggestions, and have plenty of experience playing (acoustic) instruments (piano, but dabbled with guitar, trumpet, and french horn as a teen), listening to live music (classical, jazz mostly), and listening to systems in-room - I just don't brag about it every other post.

This thread is about system videos, but obviously it is also about people providing comments on those videos, and more generally on hi-fi sound.

 

[Al M.]

Here you go again with that condescending attitude!

Yup, it's unfortunate.

 

[PeterA]

David thinks the Monaco sounds like a 100 quid Tesco CD Player.

Hands up those who think David likes Wilson Alexia, Magico, Pass labs, SME tables.

He does not like Beryllium drivers in horns and of Tang's cartridge stable he only liked vdh. He mentioned Opus was the best of the Japanese cartridges but that you can still make out it is a Japanese cartridge. He did not like Cessaro at all though after visiting Tang he appreciated his to probably be the best Cessaro.

Does he like audiophile cables, racks, etc.

Not saying these are sales tricks, as there are many non-dealers who do not like all those above components. But to say he did not criticise my components is just not correct. If I have a streamer feeding a dac, I don't need to ask David to specifically criticise it.

I was responding to Rex‘s comment that David is a typical dealer denigrating other peoples equipment. When I say he did not denigrate my gear, it is implicit that he did not denigrate my gear to me to make some sale in the context of what Rex was promoting. My experience with David is completely different. He is not like the typical dealer in my experience, far from it.

When asked, he shares his opinions about the quality of gear based on his experience. He does this candidly and honestly. And with me, he did it only when I asked him about specific components or brands.

Perhaps David’s critics should try to find all of his dissatisfied customers out there who could share horror stories about David’s services and level of professionalism. Ask Steve Williams about how David flew to California to set up a turntable he bought from a different dealer, all the times he went out there to set up cartridges and adjust things, and improve his room acoustics. Ask Tang about the service he received with cartridges where they were all tested before being shipped to Bangkok and immediately replaced when there was an issue.

It is easy to attack someone who can’t defend himself because he’s been shut out of the conversation. Where are all the dissatisfied customers?