Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[hopkins]

the noise level in the room is not the determining factor. the inherent noise of the microphone in connection with the sensitivity is the problem. cheap microphones are already at 40db-55db noise. Do you still have a sensitivity of more -40dbv at 1khz 94db test tone, there will be guaranteed noise.View attachment 111760
I think you will still hear how much better it sounds than with a standard microphone. it's about fun and not a professional recording. if you want it professional you have to use bruel&kjaer microphone these are the best in 60 years. there is nothing better but I don't spend 900-2000€ for microphone + preamp to make a youtube video.
Specs bruel &kjaer

Type 4189-A-021 ½-inch Free-field Microphone | Brüel & Kjær

Low-noise TEDS microphone with single-core cables designed for environmental, product noise, and building acoustics measuring.

www.bksv.com

The inherent noise of the microphone is also one aspect, for sure.

I understand it's about fun, I am not saying everyone should record with professional equipment! I certainly don't consider my own recordings as "professional" (either from the point of view of the equipment used or the end result) and you can get much better quality than what I use (which did not cost that much, by the way - used Tascam is cheap, and mics are only 100€ - but it's not only about cost, some people just don't want to bother with any of this, and that's fine).

I just wanted to point out the limitations of these phone recordings, and the fact that it is not all about FR... Whether you are ok with those or not, I don't know. To me they limit our ability to interpret the results. Phone recordings leave too many "unknowns". But I think as the interest for videos expand we will see more reviewers using better equipment.

 

[PeterA]

But I think as the interest for videos expand we will see more reviewers using better equipment.

Do you really think we will see more reviewers making videos? That would be great as it opens the doors for us to make comparisons of gear, or at least systems. Are there any reviewers who post videos to supplement their written reviews now? I am not aware of any. Has TAS or Stereophile posted any videos of gear under review?

 

[hopkins]

Do you really think we will see more reviewers making videos? That would be great as it opens the doors for us to make comparisons of gear, or at least systems. Are there any reviewers who post videos to supplement their written reviews now? I am not aware of any. Has TAS or Stereophile posted any videos of gear under review?

I guess I was using the term "reviewer" too loosely. There are a lot of reviewers popping up on YouTube - so those, I assume they would, though some don't today (ex: Audiophiliac). For the traditional press that have web or other media channels, your guess is as good as mine!

 

[PeterA]

I guess I was using the term "reviewer" too loosely. There are a lot of reviewers popping up on YouTube - so those, I assume they would, though some don't today (ex: Audiophiliac). For the traditional press that have web or other media channels, your guess is as good as mine!

My guess is that we will not see videos from traditional reviewers to supplement their written reviews. I would like to see them because it’s more information, but it invites comparisons that would over time become available on YouTube. I hope I am wrong.

The YouTube reviewers are independent and do not have conflicts. I should’ve made a video of the vdH Holy grail, Pass Labs XP 27, and both Lamm phono stages to supplement my written descriptions. I could’ve done the same with the Micro Seiki turntable, the AS 1000, and the AS 2000 turntables.

These videos capturing system changes are quite interesting in members system threads. Just look at Tang’s Cessarro speakers versus his Eurodyns. In some cases, they tell us more than what someone can write about what he hears.

 

[Ron Resnick]

That would be great as it opens the doors for us to make comparisons of gear, or at least systems.

I think it would open the door only to greater confusion about mics versus EQ versus recording device positioning versus recording device versus digitization of analog playback versus recording protocol, layered on top of the morass we already face when trying to understand from the reviewer the sonic characteristics of a single component with which we are unfamiliar in a system with which we are unfamiliar and in a room with which we are unfamiliar.

 

[PeterA]

I think it would open the door only to greater confusion about mics versus EQ versus recording device positioning versus recording device versus digitization of analog playback versus recording protocol, layered on top of the morass we already face when trying to understand from the reviewer the sonic characteristics of a single component with which we are unfamiliar in a system with which we are unfamiliar and in a room with which we are unfamiliar.

Mainstream reviewers from the mainstream audio press would presumably use good equipment to augment the written reviews if they had interest in doing so. I suspect they do not.

as an alternative, just look how popular YouTube video reports are of systems at shows or in audio file systems and from people like Jay audio lab. The public seems interested in this and it will be interesting how the main stream industry responds.

For instance, to supplement your wonderful interview with the designer of Steve Williams’ Lampizator Horizon DAC, how cool would it have been for you to include a video with your good recording equipment of what that DAC sounds like in Steve’s system?

I see this as an opportunity, but I’m just an interested audio file. The main stream press may see it differently.

 

[hopkins]

I think it would open the door only to greater confusion about mics versus EQ versus recording device positioning versus recording device versus digitization of analog playback versus recording protocol, layered on top of the morass we already face when trying to understand from the reviewer the sonic characteristics of a single component with which we are unfamiliar in a system with which we are unfamiliar and in a room with which we are unfamiliar.

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.

 

[microstrip]

Do you really think we will see more reviewers making videos? That would be great as it opens the doors for us to make comparisons of gear, or at least systems. (...)

You are hitting the critical point. As far as videos are information and enjoyment we will all be happy. But the ranking spirit of many audiophiles will immediately start comparing apples with oranges using the processed concentrate ...

 

[bonzo75]

You are hitting the critical point. As far as videos are information and enjoyment we will all be happy. But the ranking spirit of many audiophiles will immediately start comparing apples with oranges using the processed concentrate ...

how is that different from text reviews

 

[microstrip]

how is that different from text reviews

Text reviews carry the opinion of a reviewer that listened to the equipment in the expected conditions, not misleading flawed pseudo stereo sound recordings.

 

[bonzo75]

Text reviews carry the opinion of a reviewer that listened to the equipment in the expected conditions, not misleading flawed pseudo stereo sound recordings.

so if the reviewer writes I listened to this and felt x y z which this video demonstrates, and others listeners agree with what he says is reflected in the video, the process is flawed?

 

[bonzo75]

Plus keeps out the fraud of a guy boosting his friend and saying he had a great system, or claiming his own system finally now has reached where everyone wants theirs to be

 

[microstrip]

so if the reviewer writes I listened to this and felt x y z which this video demonstrates, and others listeners agree with what he says is reflected in the video, the process is flawed?

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.

 

[Rensselaer]

Plus keeps out the fraud of a guy boosting his friend and saying he had a great system, or claiming his own system finally now has reached where everyone wants theirs to be

Again, unless all videos are made with the similar stock smart phone microphones, and without extraneous processing, the videos tell us nothing. The best sounding system will always be the one that was done with the most expensive recording equipment.

 

[PeterA]

You are hitting the critical point. As far as videos are information and enjoyment we will all be happy. But the ranking spirit of many audiophiles will immediately start comparing apples with oranges using the processed concentrate ...

every audio file who wants to improve his system and who is 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 mainstream industry is all about ranking, but now they control the ranking lists because they make them.

At the same time, they do not want to make comparisons and these videos would enable viewers to compare, and they would be additional information that the readers could use to help them make decisions. The videos could confirm and supplement and support opinions that the reviewer reaches when evaluating the equipment.

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

 

[bonzo75]

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.

you should change your handle to microtwister

 

[microstrip]

you should change your handle to microtwister

Yes, we know that as usual, when you have no arguments you try moving to personnel conflicts. Bye.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, we know that as usual, when you have no arguments you try moving to personnel conflicts. Bye.

You twisted what I said. It is quite apparent

 

[PeterA]

Again, unless all videos are made with the similar stock smart phone microphones, and without extraneous processing, the videos tell us nothing. The best sounding system will always be the one that was done with the most expensive recording equipment.

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 always sound the best. Some of Bonzo's and Tang's videos sound better than the fancy systems with fancy recording equipment. An awful lot has to do with the quality of the system, the room, and the set up, and those things come through even on an iPhone.

 

[hopkins]

The best sounding system will always be the one that was done with the most expensive recording equipment.

Or the best equipment will reveal the worst speakers