Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

Something I have done before, but since we are on the topic, here are different versions of a recording:

Google Pixel 6a

iPhone 10 S

Tascam DR-100MK3 (build in microphones)

The recordings were all done simultaneously and at pretty much the same distance from the speaker.

There is a little bit of static on the left side of the Tascam recording at several points, which may be due to the proximity of the phones - those recorders tend to pick up interferences from other electronic devices (especially phones).

The track was probably sourced from a 78 (the original lacquers may have not been available, I don't know). There is a lot of "surface noise" in the recording, which the Tascam picks up more clearly, along with everything else.

I have external microphones for the Tascam as well, but one of the XLR plugs is broken and I have not fixed it. The external microphones are better (but not "studio-grade").

You may not like the music and/or the speakers - but it serves as a reminder of what a better microphone/ADC brings to the table.

I cannot see how different versions of the iPhone would make a significant difference, compared to what you get with a recorder like the Tascam (which can be found on ebay for 250$, the MK2 version even less).

I posted the recording initially in my thread, with some details about the track and the source, if you are interested to check it out: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/hopkins-system.35850/post-943453

Note: the recordings are made "near field" with a single speaker (track is mono). That's how I like to listen to the Altec. Little room interaction, no speaker cross-talk...

 

[hopkins]

Also matters which iphone, here is iphone 11 recording sounding not bad:

I hope you can see from my example above that the phone model does not make a huge difference when compared to dedicated recorders. That video may sound better for a number of reasons.

It's a shame that most "YouTubers" don't bother to use better recording equipment. I would think that price is not really the issue. You can also easily synchronize the sound to video cameras.

The idea of "levelling the playing field" is nice, but if the objective is to get viewers to grasp how a system performs, compare different components or changes, then a better recorder is the way to go.

Jay's Audio Lab, for example, puts out videos comparing the sound of different components (ex: DAC comparisons), but the "transparency" offered by phones, or even cheap microphone add-ons, is pretty poor. I don't see the point. Even with good microphones, these types of subtle differences may be hard to grasp, so with an iPhone, forget it.

 

[hopkins]

Some get the point of using better gear. NewRecordDay, for example, uses a Neumann KU 100 binaural dummy head. That's a 9000$ piece of equipment.

Neumann KU 100 Binaural Dummy Head Condenser Microphone

The KU 100 is a dummy head microphone for a truly immersive binaural listening experience with headphones.

www.soundpro.com

Not everyone is going to want to spend this kind of money, obviously.

 

[hopkins]

In addition to my previous posts, if you want to check how YouTube compression affects the sound, here is the recording made with the Tascam recorder:

https://storage.googleapis.com/cloudplayer/samples/Esquire.wav

I think you can download from that link.
Some processing is also done when the video is created from the wav track. There are also different quality settings in YouTube for video playback, which affect the sound.

 

[hopkins]

Also matters which iphone, here is iphone 11 recording sounding not bad:

By the way, that room is not doing the system any favors. Maybe in this case, it is better to stick to an iPhone

The digital version ("remastered from the original analog master tapes by Joe Tarantino") of this album is very good (as heard on Qobuz), even though it is not perfectly "quiet" (some background hiss). If there are any benefits to the vinyl version, it is impossible to know from this video. If you are interested in comparing CD versus LP, there are many LP rips on the Internet Archive, and you can play 30 sec excerpts, or even sometimes the entire tracks. Here is the LP: https://archive.org/details/lp_how-long-has-this-been-going-on_sarah-vaughan/disc1/01.04.+You're+Blase.mp3

The vinyl rip sounds nice as well.

The downside of the Internet Archive is that they don't always say what equipment was used, and it may not be the best, but it certainly beats listening to that video! Judging from the excerpt, it sounds like the LP could be worth buying if you had the choice between the two (analog or digital) but it is hard to tell for sure, and it does not seem to have been re-issued, so that means having to hunt down a "mint" copy, and that can get expensive.

 

[wil]

I had the exact same thought. Too much irrelevant noise here.

Perhaps one persons "irrelevant" might be another's relevant. I don't want to make assumptions, so could you explain specifically what irrelevant noise you're referring to? Thanks

 

[wil]

Something I have done before, but since we are on the topic, here are different versions of a recording:

Google Pixel 6a

iPhone 10 S

Tascam DR-100MK3 (build in microphones)

The recordings were all done simultaneously and at pretty much the same distance from the speaker.

There is a little bit of static on the left side of the Tascam recording at several points, which may be due to the proximity of the phones - those recorders tend to pick up interferences from other electronic devices (especially phones).

The track was probably sourced from a 78 (the original lacquers may have not been available, I don't know). There is a lot of "surface noise" in the recording, which the Tascam picks up more clearly, along with everything else.

I have external microphones for the Tascam as well, but one of the XLR plugs is broken and I have not fixed it. The external microphones are better (but not "studio-grade").

You may not like the music and/or the speakers - but it serves as a reminder of what a better microphone/ADC brings to the table.

I cannot see how different versions of the iPhone would make a significant difference, compared to what you get with a recorder like the Tascam (which can be found on ebay for 250$, the MK2 version even less).

I posted the recording initially in my thread, with some details about the track and the source, if you are interested to check it out: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/hopkins-system.35850/post-943453

Note: the recordings are made "near field" with a single speaker (track is mono). That's how I like to listen to the Altec. Little room interaction, no speaker cross-talk...

The Tascam certainly shows the deficiencies of the iPhone!

 

[hopkins]

The Tascam certainly shows the deficiencies of the iPhone!

The iphone is not as sensitive and accurate. You hear a lot more with the Tascam, but it is still a little different than listening to the speaker. I would be curious to use a really good microphone and recorder, just to understand how close it gets to the "in room" experience with a single speaker in near-field. There are very few good recordings out there of these types of speakers, so it could be interesting to some.

 

[Rexp]

Also matters which iphone, here is iphone 11 recording sounding not bad:

Gotta say if anyone thinks this video doesn't blow away the mediocre digital version, well represented in the official YouTube version below, their hardware or hearing is faulty:

 

[hopkins]

Gotta say if anyone thinks this video doesn't blow away the mediocre digital version, well represented in the official YouTube version below, their hardware or hearing is faulty:

It only takes listening to the first few seconds of the system video to notice that the sound is completely "off" in terms of frequency response (bloated, muddy midrange) and there is way too much reverb from the room. The system video is criminally mis-representing Sarah Vaughan's voice!

One issue with the digital version is that there is some audible tape hiss, which is in fact noted in the liner notes to the Japanese CD: "This recording is taken from the original analog 1970s source material and therefore contains inherent tape flaws, such as hiss, distortion, and analog dropouts. These tape flaws became more evident on low level passages and on most fades". You can probably hear some of this as well in the original LPs, unless the tapes deteriorated after the original pressings.

Perhaps the LP version is better, but there is no way to tell from the system video.

Is the recording perfect? No, but it is sure to satisfy anyone who enjoys Sarah Vaughan. It would have been nice if the recording had been issued in mono.

So maybe my hardware and/or hearing is faulty, but I would be curious to understand what it is that you like in the system video and why you think the digital version is "mediocre"? Though none of this is of any consequence, since you seem "fixated" on digital sounding bad, I am very curious to understand why, in the case of this album which does not seem offensive to me.

 

[wil]

Gotta say if anyone thinks this video doesn't blow away the mediocre digital version, well represented in the official YouTube version below, their hardware or hearing is faulty:

After reading your reaction, (and knowing that my hearing is not faulty), I was fully expecting to hear it the same. But the "official YouTube" is, to my ears, far better in really every respect.

The in-room sounds pleasant enough but is murky and congested. The bass sounds like it's underwater.

The "mediocre digital," as you like to put it, has clarity and space. It sounds far more interesting, realistic, natural and relatively closer to what I expect from good recorded or live music. There's simply more content available to hear.

Maybe the vinyl sounds good in person, but you wouldn't know from this.

 

[hopkins]

@Rexp This is getting off topic, but what is it that bothers you with the CD version?

 

[Rexp]

After reading your reaction, (and knowing that my hearing is not faulty), I was fully expecting to hear it the same. But the "official YouTube" is, to my ears, far better in really every respect.

The in-room sounds pleasant enough but is murky and congested. The bass sounds like it's underwater.

The "mediocre digital," as you like to put it, has clarity and space. It sounds far more interesting, realistic, natural and relatively closer to what I expect from good recorded or live music. There's simply more content available to hear.

Maybe the vinyl sounds good in person, but you wouldn't know from this.

Interesting, what are you listening on?

 

[hopkins]

Gotta say if anyone thinks this video doesn't blow away the mediocre digital version, well represented in the official YouTube version below, their hardware or hearing is faulty

Are you going to ask people for their audiograms as well?

 

[wil]

Interesting, what are you listening on?

MacBook with Sennheiser hd 400 pro. Also Mac ear buds. The delta is the same.

 

[Rexp]

MacBook with Sennheiser hd 400 pro. Also Mac ear buds. The delta is the same.

I tried listening on the wifes Macbook today, I can see why you didn't hear the superiority of the vinyl playback. Both my HP laptop and Vivo Android phone (less good) let the vinyl magic shine through.

 

[hopkins]

I tried listening on the wifes Macbook today, I can see why you didn't hear the superiority of the vinyl playback. Both my HP laptop and Vivo Android phone (less good) let the vinyl magic shine through.

I hope someday you will realize the absurdity of this discussion. What practical conclusions are you going to reach here? That Macbooks suck versus your HP laptop and Vivo Android phone to reveal the supposed superiority of a given vinyl played back from a system recording with an iphone? This is preposterous.

 

[Rexp]

Here's one where the official YouTube version sounds similar to the in-room version, indicating that, unlike the Sarah Vaughan track above, this is a well done digital release.

 

[hopkins]

Here's one where the official YouTube version sounds similar to the in-room version, indicating that, unlike the Sarah Vaughan track above, this is a well done digital release.

The track is not available on most streaming services. I found it on Apple Music:

and on YouTube:

The difference between those versions and the in-room video you link to is similar to the differences heard on the Sarah Vaughan track.

Regardless, if you want to evaluate a digital release compared to a vinyl release, rather than do it through a system video, you could just get the album and listen to it. You can also find vinyl rips on the Internet Archive.

What are you trying to achieve? Why don't you explain it for us?

 

[hopkins]

For a change of pace, here is an "in-room" recording of a special type - an "in head" recording: it is a recording of a headphone. A musician is recorded (using professional microphones), then the sound is fed to a headphone, whose sound is recording using a Neumann KU100 dummy head.

This could probably be an interesting way to compare gear (source, amps...), probably better than by recording speakers.