Not the same recording. I already posted the direct recording from YouTube as reference.
Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Not the same recording. I already posted the direct recording from YouTube as reference.
Your reference is an mp3, why set your sights so low? Although my reference isn't the same recording one can hear what the guy and his guitar actually sounds like (via youtube).
Actually, aside from a rocky start his video ain't half bad as I've listened to videos with far less musicality in this very thread.
Very hard to tell here whether the issues are with the system or the recording, but I don't find the end results to be very convincing.
I checked out the other videos from this channel. On this one, of the same system, the alto saxophone sounds like a kazoo. What a shame...
As someone who listens to a lot of jazz, this is exactly the type of sound I try to avoid, and it only took me one note to figure that one out
Perhaps I am being a little harsh here, but I don't understand why someone would bother setting up a YouTube channel to showcase "high-end audio" (channel is modestly named: "The Audiophile's Pick High End Audio") and not invest a few hundred dollars in better recording equipment. Or it is the system being showcased that has the issues, and why then even bother showing it?
The original track:
Listen to Jeep's Blues by Arne Domnerus on Qobuz https://open.qobuz.com/track/5688758
Last edited:
Here is a video of the song on my big Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush system with the Remastering process, from tonight’s listening session:
Why anyone willingly listens to this horribly overplayed hifi show demo track is beyond me
.Well it does seem to be a good test for these Youtube videos, I particularly like the bit from 3.45 to 4.05 min, really sorts the men from the boys.Why anyone willingly listens to this horribly overplayed hifi show demo track is beyond me
You can find hundreds of recordings of speakers playing this song on YouTube, including this "fake":
Russians are now trying to sell Harbeth speakers to the world ? What next?...
Russians are now trying to sell Harbeth speakers to the world ? What next?...
Last edited:
I am well aware of the difference, thank you.
No, I don't think so. The video has been called sh*t by someone else as well, and also has been criticized by another.
If you start with lower standards to begin with, of course you tend to be more forgiving.
In any case, your video sounds much, much better. Congratulations!
This thread title is "Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings." It seems odd to me that some posts compare member's videos of their system to something the poster hears on youtube or quoboz or other sources while claiming those as a 'reference'. In virtue of what are they a reference and what is their provenance - are they made in a similar way to member's in-room videos?
There are quite a variety of playback methods employed for making comparisons between member videos and the third-party videos. Some use phones for playback; its tough to give credence to phone playback. Some use headphones -- by and large this forum is not oriented to headphones, most do not have familiarity or only have limited familiarity with headphones, and it hard to gauge assessments based on headphone listening with what we are familiar. That is not a comment against headphones.
I thought the whole idea behind members posting their videos taken in-room was to get/share some idea of how member's systems sound. It seems most comments about various videos lack any qualitative assessment, rather does it have some quantity of this or that audiophile attribute. More interesting to me is does the member system represented by the video sound realistic, does it sound believeable?
There are quite a variety of playback methods employed for making comparisons between member videos and the third-party videos. Some use phones for playback; its tough to give credence to phone playback. Some use headphones -- by and large this forum is not oriented to headphones, most do not have familiarity or only have limited familiarity with headphones, and it hard to gauge assessments based on headphone listening with what we are familiar. That is not a comment against headphones.
I thought the whole idea behind members posting their videos taken in-room was to get/share some idea of how member's systems sound. It seems most comments about various videos lack any qualitative assessment, rather does it have some quantity of this or that audiophile attribute. More interesting to me is does the member system represented by the video sound realistic, does it sound believeable?
I'm not sure there is a simple answer to that question, because we have to take into account the many limitations of video recordings, and be cautious as to how we use them.
Do we even need to have a common answer to that question, and to how we use these videos? I don't think so.
This is how I use them.
When a video of someone's system gets me curious, I like to compare the same track (and hopefully the same version), with the original track, and sometimes (but not always) with my system. For that I use Qobuz.
I listen to the video using headphone, and the Qobuz track using headphones, simply because anything else can be deceiving. You cannot get from a video an idea of what the sound is really like in the room, but with headphones you can identified particular aspects which could be positive or negative.
Here's a recent example of a video that sounds good on YouTube played on a phone, and you could agree with the reviewer that it's a kick ass system for a relatively low budget, but when listening with headphones it makes me dubious that I would personally be as enthusiastic:
I do the same with my system. When in doubt about a particular aspect (ex: is the bass too muddy, too light?) I use headphones to get a better idea of what that specific aspect should sound like.
This analytical approach is necessary but not sufficient, and I always make adjustments based on the overall pleasure I get from listening, and that could result in compromises, meaning that one aspect which could have been further optimized is sacrificed to achieve a more pleasant overall listening experience.
I keep an ongoing playlist in Qobuz of tracks that are used here or elsewhere (this playlist is also useful as some friends know the tracks so when we have listening sessions it serves as a reference point):
Open Qobuz
open.qobuz.com
But at the end of the day, those are not the tracks I use to confirm how pleasant my system is. Here's a sample of some of those tracks, but basically anything I have in my local collection (50000 tracks) is what I go back to (and keeps my sane in this crazy hobby!):
Open Qobuz
open.qobuz.com
On 99% of these tracks earth shattering bass is irrelevant, but someone with different musical tastes may make that their priority. Who is to judge what makes sound pleasurable or believable to any of us, when we always have to make compromises? But we can still have an objective assessment of some aspects...
I don't expect others to use a 1920s recording to assess how pleasureable it is on their system because I know that I may not get a real sense of that on a YouTube video anyway. But if there is a system that I want to audition I may bring it along, because it is fun (and quite challenging)!
We may all have different objectives, and that's fine!
Last edited:
We grant that videos are not typically equivalent to in-room listening and come with the limitations that they do. Videos made with better quality iPhone/Samsung phones have been a generally accepted standard for several years now.
If the poster says a video heard through speakers is representative of what he hears in-room, that is good enough for me to accept. If he says that, imo the video is not deceiving. I don't consider a headphone/earbud assessment as equal to a speaker assessment or vice versa -- the point being assessments are not comparable.
Does what I hear in reproduction sound like real music vs. does it sound accurate? I evaluate a system's sound in terms of live acoustic music.
Listening in any other ways than with headphones is not going to guarantee that your listening experience is in any way equivalent to the in-room experience, because you are adding the effect of your own system and room.
I understand that you like to evaluate a system against live acoustic music, and that's fine, but don't think that a system video listened to your own system is the same thing. I doubt you would want to record a band playing in your listening room from your listening position and then hear it again through your system... The art of recording is in a large part microphone placement, because our ears and microphones are very different, you cannot simply mistake one for the other.
And I am curious to understand why you make a distinction between sounding accurate and sounding like live music.
I feel that is just a figure of speech, and what you are referring to is the idea that some "audiophile" systems that are sold as being "accurate" lack that "je ne sais quoi" that makes them un-involving, un-emotional, artificial in some way.
Perhaps. I'm not going to argue over such generalizations. Who knows whether a system is accurate or not?
The point is: if you believe that your system reproduces live acoustic instruments to your liking AND you believe the video's author when he says that his recording sounds like what he is hearing in his room (perhaps on some aspects) THEN it does not automatically imply that you will get the same sound as he will... or that hearing it through your system will let you assess the "accurate to live" sound that you crave.
Anyways, it's a lot of "ifs"... There are too many variables in the equation.
I feel that is just a figure of speech, and what you are referring to is the idea that some "audiophile" systems that are sold as being "accurate" lack that "je ne sais quoi" that makes them un-involving, un-emotional, artificial in some way.
Perhaps. I'm not going to argue over such generalizations. Who knows whether a system is accurate or not?
The point is: if you believe that your system reproduces live acoustic instruments to your liking AND you believe the video's author when he says that his recording sounds like what he is hearing in his room (perhaps on some aspects) THEN it does not automatically imply that you will get the same sound as he will... or that hearing it through your system will let you assess the "accurate to live" sound that you crave.
Anyways, it's a lot of "ifs"... There are too many variables in the equation.
Last edited:
The oppo handy mic is a bit brighter then samsung tablet mic has more body. This version is 24bit /88khz have abit more air in real a matter of taste.
Yours sounds nice nothing to complain about.
P.S
I just love the variety. just connect other DACs and preamps and it sounds fuller with more body with same mic.
Or more air
Last edited:
As seen in the video posted previously (Haydn recording), a kind reminder of how acoustical instruments are recorded in small spaces, equivalent to our listening rooms...
Why anyone willingly listens to this horribly overplayed hifi show demo track is beyond me
Strictly for comparison purposes. But I agree that it is time to lead and not follow with the musical selections. The big system with the Remastering process sounds spectacular and it was hard to stop listening. The issue I have selecting music to post is that no one on this forum is familiar with the music I listen to, most unavailable on Qobuz for comparisons. But agree, there needs to be a higher standard on the music for these comparison videos. It all sounds great on my big WAAR system with the Remastering process and also superb on my various DHT/SET/HORN systems. I recently went to a concert and it would be nice to get a copy of the sound desk recording of the show to compare to a video that I made from center stage but that’s not going to happen. In my tape trading days I would get sound board copies of shows. Those days are gone.
Last edited:
Well sure, now you have some awareness since I showed you the error of your ways. And you're welcome. But honestly, I did it more for me than you as there's nothing worse than some bloke making half-cocked erroneous sound quality accusations about others' playback systems or their presentations / videos. Especially when some of us have spent years performing serious due diligence to address hopefully every significant performance aspect of a playback config.
I never said you were the only one prone to error.
I appreciate you sharing this strategy but bear in mind that others may have better more efficient ones.
Thanks, Al. But don't act too surprised as I posted that exact same video two years ago in the male video thread. IOW, that video's sound quality hasn't improved since then but maybe some of our perspectives have?
Anyway, glad you're finally coming around to the concept of in-room videos and some of the potential value they offer.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |