Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

I prefer some videos made with simple iPhones compared to the videos with all sorts of fancy recording equipment. I don’t think it is always the case that the Systems recorded with the best equipment will always sound the best. An awful lot has to do with the quality of the system, the room, and the set up.

Yes, just like in shows, or even at dealers'.

 

[microstrip]

every audio file who wants to improve his system and he’s considering purchase decisions engages in ranking. The magazines engage in ranking with their best of lists which I get in my email every week for a different category from TAS. The main stream industry is all about ranking.

Thanks for confirming my feelings about the ranking problem. These lists are very popular but they are mainly magazine index/price lists. We addressed it many times in WBF.

But they do not want to make comparisons and these videos would be additional information that the readers could use to help them make decisions.

Yes, some audiophiles buy equipment based on looks. The main objective of high-end marketing is getting buyer attention - I like videos where the camera scans the whole system with detail, cables included. Just for the video, not the sound.

The videos could confirm and supplement and support opinions that the reviewer reaches when evaluating the equipment.

No, we disagree, they would not .

are you suggesting that readers do not want additional information? Why the resistance to providing additional information for the engaged reader and customer?

No, just saying that this information has no sound quality value and will probably be misused and will mislead consumers.

 

[Rensselaer]

I prefer some videos made with simple iPhones compared to the videos with all sorts of fancy recording equipment. I don’t think it is always the case that the Systems recorded with the best equipment will always sound the best. An awful lot has to do with the quality of the system, the room, and the set up.

Yea, but better recording equipment certainly helps.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, intrinsically flawed. Thanks for making my point. The same way that if he uses a basic measurement that has little correlation with sound quality to confirm his opinion.

I do not agree with your premise Fransisco. Why would a reputable reviewer use a basic measurement that has little correlation with sound quality to confirm his opinion? Bonzo is describing a scenario where a reviewer gives an opinion based on listening evaluations and then also adds a video that he has made and heard, and confirms to his readers that it does in fact support his written opinion. In other words, the two have a correlation to sound quality as confirmed by the reviewer's own opinion. It is simply supplemental information which I would think would be welcomed by his/her readers. I can not image interested readers not wanting this additional information, especially if it is endorsed by their favorite reviewers.

Imagine JR supplementing his instruction videos with actual audio videos demonstrating how proper or improved alignment improves the sound of his system. A video would easily confirm his lessons, as long as he confirms that the video correlates to what he writes and hears. This would be an invaluable demonstration of his services, in my opinion.

Same with Michael Framer and his 92 degrees. Fremer writes a lot about record cleaning machines and different vinyl pressings. Imagine if he supplemented these written opinions with videos that actually provide evidence of that which he is trying to convince his readers. "The OMA 3 sounds better than the SAT or different in the following ways: X, Y, and Z. Here is a digital file. Listen and hear for yourself".... He already does this with files of some comparisons, blind and asks readers to vote on which they prefer.

I see this as a great opportunity to get readers more information and grow viewership. Of course, the interests of the readers/hobbyists may not align with the interests of the advertisers who pay the bills.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks for confirming my feelings about the ranking problem. These lists are very popular but they are mainly magazine index/price lists. We addressed it many times in WBF.

Your argument was that videos from reviewers would allow audiophiles to rank. My point is that audiophiles already rank, they want to rank, and it is inherent to the process of choosing the right component for them. Ranking is part of the hobby. Who says it is flawed? If I compare three phono stages or turntables in my own system under fair conditions, and I evaluate how they sound in the system, I will rank them and choose my favorite. What is wrong with that? I did the same at shows and at dealer auditions. I did the same in Utah when hearing four different speakers.

Yes, some audiophiles buy equipment based on looks. The main objective of high-end marketing is getting buyer attention - I like videos where the camera scans the whole system with detail, cables included. Just for the video, not the sound.

You call it getting buyer attention. I think it is about sales, more than just awareness.

No, just saying that this information has no sound quality value and will probably be misused and will mislead consumers.

It is just further information that we have to judge on the merits, just like with anything else. The key is that it is additional information. That helps the consumer. The evidence is clear on YouTube and the popularity of some of those channels. The mainstream press will either adapt or not. We will see.

I have not heard of any audiophiles who would not have welcomed and watched Ron's video of Steve's Horizon DAC after that well publicized launching party.

 

[PeterA]

Yea, but better recording equipment certainly helps.

Yes it does help, of course. But a bad system will still sound bad, on a good or poor mic. That is different from the claim that the system recorded on the best gear will sound best.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Yes it does help, of course. But a bad system will still sound bad, on a good or poor mic. That is different from the claim that the system recorded on the best gear will sound best.

There are still 2 unknowns in the equation, how does the cell phone process the recorded microphone signal.every manufacturer cooks his own soup.
and how does youtube process your sent file as far as I know someone with a lot of followers has completely different edits and quality options.
Since we are sending private video, the difference will be small.
P.S a iphone have a good equalizer

 

[bonzo75]

P.S a iphone have a good equalizer

this seems correct - doesn’t change we get a fair understanding. Privately I even write to my friends to let them know when something is very well balanced in iPhone and not in real, but that is very rare

 

[DasguteOhr]

this seems correct - doesn’t change we get a fair understanding. Privately I even write to my friends to let them know when something is very well balanced in iPhone and not in real, but that is very rare

i don't own an iphone, i don't want to have an iphone too expensive. I'd rather buy more lp's and a microphone for 24 €. and for all iphone owners who want to improve their recordings with the built-in microphone. one word "riverside"

 

[PeterA]

There are still 2 unknowns in the equation, how does the cell phone process the recorded microphone signal.every manufacturer cooks his own soup.
and how does youtube process your sent file as far as I know someone with a lot of followers has completely different edits and quality options.
Since we are sending private video, the difference will be small.
P.S a iphone have a good equalizer

Details can be worked out. Reviewers can list recording gear used. This gear adds a character to the videos, just like the reviewer's own biases. Remember, he says the video represents what he hears in the following ways. If it does not, he would not include it. This is by choice and only if the reviewer thinks it adds good information. I think readers will like it.

 

[hopkins]

There are so many different aspects to consider. Reviewers are probably going to be very cautious.

Let's say a reviewer gives high praise to a component (ex: a DAC), but a comparative recording does not reveal any differences. Is it due to the limitations of the recording, or does it demonstrate that a reviewer's claims are exaggerated? If a component is said to have a significant impact on the sound quality, you should be able to hear some differences, no?

 

[DasguteOhr]

Details can be worked out. Reviewers can list recording gear used. This gear adds a character to the videos, just like the reviewer's own biases. Remember, he says the video represents what he hears in the following ways. If it does not, he would not include it. This is by choice and only if the reviewer thinks it adds good information. I think readers will like it.

Done in post 1793 exactly
False number 1788 sorry

 

[PeterA]

There are so many different aspects to consider. Reviewers are probably going to be very cautious.

Let's say a reviewer gives high praise to a component (ex: a DAC), but a comparative recording does not reveal any differences. Is it due to the limitations of the recording, or does it demonstrate that a reviewer's claims are exaggerated? If a component is said to have a significant impact on the sound quality, you should be able to hear some differences, no?

A few friends and I use iPhone videos to detect and compare and share opinions about some pretty subtle stuff. If a reviewer raves about how good the latest DAC is, and he hears it, it will come through clearly in a video. If not, he should not add the video, but then readers will wonder why. Of course there are many things to consider.

Posting videos comes with risks, as I, and others, know quite well. We post them voluntarily and knowingly. Ron posts them simply because people asked for them to get some level of exposure to his new system after the detailed system and installation thread. People were curious, and he accommodated them. He deserves respect for doing so.

 

[Rensselaer]

Yes it does help, of course. But a bad system will still sound bad, on a good or poor mic. That is different from the claim that the system recorded on the best gear will sound best.

Unless we are talking about the comparison of comparable systems, then, which is recorded on better equipment will sound better, no?

 

[PeterA]

Unless we are talking about the comparison of comparable systems, then, which is recorded on better equipment will sound better, no?

I missed that qualification in the earlier claim. I think we will agree that if all else is equal, the one recorded with the better equipment will likely sound better. It all depends on what the goal is.

Bonzo made a good argument for not needing the best equipment to detect certain things from recordings. An iPhone can be perfectly adequate. It depends on what the goal is.

I use videos to share and as a tool to learn. I mostly do this in private with friends off the forum. For my purposes, the iPhone is adequate. If I were interested in marketing or having the best sounding system videos out there, then I might consider better recording equipment.

 

[tima]

Unless we are talking about the comparison of comparable systems, then, which is recorded on better equipment will sound better, no?

You lead me to ask question. Better equipment is better in terms of what? If it is better equipment because it has better sound, then yes, better equipment will sound better, by definition. If better equipment is better because it is more expensive, then no, more expensive equipment may or may not sound better.

 

[stehno]

That is definitely the risk. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I mentioned Greg Weaver publishing a recording on his channel (though not of a speaker he reviewed):

Perhaps someone here who knows him can ask him why he did this and what his plans are?

I would assume recordings would be more relevant for speakers, and that reviewers would simply record the speakers with the components they used to review them. As for the quality of the recordings, it would be in their interest to provide good quality recordings, and I think some of them are just as confused as us as to what equipment is adequate to do that.

Of course, results could easily be manipulated, but opinions can also be dishonest. Some level of trust is required regardless of the type of content.

I suspect we’re all potentially looking for different things with these in-room videos.

I look at this reasonable video of Weaver’s and I think, progress! Bear in mind that up until maybe 6 months ago, Greg used maybe 10 or 11 of the most lame excuses under the sun for giving in-room videos no credence whatsoever. Then came one video and now this one. I’m guessing more will follow in time.

Then there’s Mikey’s video where he even claims his latest video is a reasonable representation of what he hears in the listening room. Then there are some here who are now in the beginning phases of engaging and accepting videos to some degree.

Think about all the playback systems you’ve heard over the years, including those at any shows you may have attended, many of which may not be worth listening to. Aren’t in-room videos much the same?

What I think is quite telling about an in-room video is whether or not the one creating / sharing the in-room video is performing any sort of genuine due diligence as well possessing any sort of basic understanding of what they are doing.

If they publish a video that is rather unmusical, what is that potentially telling us?

More than anything, published videos give me a very good idea who may be heading in the right direction, who may be out to lunch, and who maybe has only learned the nomenclature / buzz words to speak intelligently but as evidenced by their videos or comments on others’ videos, hasn’t much of a clue of what they’re talking about.

Most importantly, these videos give me a good indication who is / isn’t performing reasonable due diligence in their pursuits.

As I said at the top here, I see progress. Ultimately, I think in-room videos provide a means of accountability to our often times cheap and/or parroted words. IOW, I think the potential of in-room videos will eventually cause many to step up their game and if so, the entire industry wins.

For example. Imagine the potential grief and time saved by an entire industry if in-room videos were fairly common place / well-enough understood when starting in 2014 two editors-in-chief tried to convince the world that the performance of MQA formatted recordings was roughly the equivalent to cows jumping over the moon?

 

[hopkins]

You lead me to ask question. Better equipment is better in terms of what? If it is better equipment because it has better sound, then yes, better equipment will sound better, by definition. If better equipment is better because it is more expensive, then no, more expensive equipment may or may not sound better.

Do any of us here have the expertise to answer that question?

 

[microstrip]

I do not agree with your premise Fransisco. Why would a reputable reviewer use a basic measurement that has little correlation with sound quality to confirm his opinion?

Unfortunately they did for many long years in the past. It is why I referred it as a comparison.

Bonzo is describing a scenario where a reviewer gives an opinion based on listening evaluations and then also adds a video that he has made and heard, and confirms to his readers that it does in fact support his written opinion. In other words, the two have a correlation to sound quality as confirmed by the reviewer's own opinion. It is simply supplemental information which I would think would be welcomed by his/her readers. I can not image interested readers not wanting this additional information, especially if it is endorsed by their favorite reviewers.

As usual you just read one third of the posts, ignoring the more relevant part of the debate.

Imagine JR supplementing his instruction videos with actual audio videos demonstrating how proper or improved alignment improves the sound of his system. A video would easily confirm his lessons, as long as he confirms that the video correlates to what he writes and hears. This would be an invaluable demonstration of his services, in my opinion.

Same with Michael Framer and his 92 degrees. Fremer writes a lot about record cleaning machines and different vinyl pressings. Imagine if he supplemented these written opinions with videos that actually provide evidence of that which he is trying to convince his readers. "The OMA 3 sounds better than the SAT or different in the following ways: X, Y, and Z. Here is a digital file. Listen and hear for yourself".... He already does this with files of some comparisons, blind and asks readers to vote on which they prefer.

Again you are using the premise that the videos have correlation with real general sound quality for ranking in stereo already proved by the audiophile community. This is false.

M. Fremer has submitted electrically recorded sound tracks in different conditions to his readers. As he is knowledge person he did it blindly, and only after people have posted opinions told which was which. An interesting exercise using a known methodology, not a flawed process.

I see this as a great opportunity to get readers more information and grow viewership. Of course, the interests of the readers/hobbyists may not align with the interests of the advertisers who pay the bills.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Bonzo made a good argument for not needing the best equipment to detect certain things from recordings. An iPhone can be perfectly adequate. It depends on what the goal is.

I use videos to share and as a tool to learn. I mostly do this in private with friends off the forum. For my purposes, the iPhone is adequate. If I were interested in marketing or having the best sounding system videos out there, then I might consider better recording equipment.

Nice to know. My points were on the use of iPhone videos to rank sound performance of high-end equipment. It was a direct answer to a Ked answer to a post of mine.