Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[andromedaaudio]

And then what ??
Lets say somebody is the absolute GOAT of system video recordings , is there a prize attached to it ?
Or is 1 day fame on WBF all you get ?

 

[Ron Resnick]

i think he is asking you why don’t you take at face value the people including MF who say the sound of the video is representative of that system

Ohhh. I understand your reformulation of the question. Thank you.

I don't take it at face value because of my dogma, on this particular topic, that one cannot meaningfully and accurately represent the sound of an original analog recording by recording digitally a video using a generic ADC in a cellphone and then playing back digitally the video through a generic DAC on a smartphone or a computer.

 

[andromedaaudio]

System videos are about 25 % representative i reckon.
You can differentiate what you absolute dont like but thats about it .

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron is basically saying that he discredits Michael‘s comment about his own video being representative of the sound of his system. I’m asking Ron on what basis he can make such a judgment?

Judgement sounds way too strong. The basis for this scurrilous opinion based on the above-described dogma is merely very weak logic:

1) I am sure I would like in person in Michael's room the sound of Michael's system. (Why? because Michael is vastly experienced and absolutely knows what he's doing, and I love the Wilson XVX and I like very much darTZeel amplifiers).

2) I don't care for the sound of the video Michael posted.

Therefore:

3) The sound of the video must not accurately represent the sound of Michael's system.

I concede that it simply may be the case that my digitalitis condition makes me more sensitive to rough-sounding generic ADCs and DACs in smart phones and computers than most other people.

 

[PeterA]

Ron states his recently posted system video of his new system is not representative of the sound of the system but it still sounds better than other versions of this song he has heard live at audio shows.

MF is simply stating that his video is representative of the sound of his system.

Those descriptions are very useful to others who want to listen to the system videos. I have no idea if either of their videos sounds like their systems but their comments go along way to giving value to their video from their point of view, and I appreciate that.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I only post vids from my own system that i like , same goes for show vids that i post
If i think a system sounds crap i dont bother making / uploading a vid .
If somebody doesnt like my vid , he can just press stop / delete it

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron states his recently posted system video of his new system is not representative of the sound of the system but it still sounds better than other versions of this song he has heard live at audio shows.

Actually I regret posting that the recently posted system video of Liberty still sounds better than other playbacks of that song I have heard live at audio shows. That statement is analytically defective, and way too easy to attack, and way too difficult to defend.

 

[bonzo75]

Judgement sounds way too strong. The basis for this scurrilous opinion based on the above-described dogma is merely very weak logic:

1) I am sure I would like in person in Michael's room the sound of Michael's system. (Why? because Michael is vastly experienced and absolutely knows what he's doing, and I love the Wilson XVX and I like very much darTZeel amplifiers).

2) I don't care for the sound of the video Michael posted.

Therefore:

3) The sound of the video must not accurately represent the sound of Michael's system.

I concede that it simply may be the case that my digitalitis condition makes me more sensitive to rough-sounding generic ADCs and DACs than most other people.

to be representative it need not sound like you like. So you can often in video identify analog Vs digital even though both are playing through ADC

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, we are talking about two different things. One is what Michael and others hear from their videos and their own judgment about whether or not it is representative. They are making a comparison between two things. How different people choose to describe the sound they hear, from the video or the system live, is a different subject entirely.

disagree. videos are ambiguous. how we describe a video varies, maybe mostly based on how often we compare notes about them with serious intent. and whether we made the video or not.

our minds cannot unlearn what we know about how our system sounds when we view a video of our system. that we made, and heard live. we are prone to connect dots, that others would not. compared to how someone who is not intimately familiar with our system views that video who was not there. but who views lots of videos.

who is right?

too many variables to be described the same way by a wide spectrum of listeners. but i can see a group of video watchers who might align and maybe agree mostly.

videos are a tool, and like any tool, they can be used or misused.

 

[Al M.]

our minds cannot unlearn what we know about how our system sounds when we view a video of our system. that we made, and heard live. we are prone to connect dots, that others would not.

Bingo.

This, I think, is a large part of the issue as well.

 

[Ron Resnick]

to be representative it need not sound like you like. So you can often in video identify analog Vs digital even though both are playing through ADC

I hear you, but I am having a lot of trouble with this. Very often it is impossible to determine accurately if a vinyl record has a analog or a digital origin when played back in a system in front of you.

I have a lot of trouble believing that that determination gets easier after the sound goes through multiple ADC and DAC conversions during smart phone video recording and smartphone or computer digital playback.

 

[bonzo75]

I hear you, but I am having a lot of trouble with this. Very often it is impossible to determine accurately if a vinyl record has a analog or a digital origin when played back in a system in front of you.

Sure. I said often. And I am under 50

 

[PeterA]

disagree. videos are ambiguous. how we describe a video varies, maybe mostly based on how often we compare notes about them with serious intent. and whether we made the video or not.

our minds cannot unlearn what we know about how our system sounds when we view a video of our system. that we made, and heard live. we are prone to connect dots, that others would not. compared to how someone who is not intimately familiar with our system views that video who was not there. but who views lots of videos.

who is right?

too many variables to be described the same way by a wide spectrum of listeners. but i can see a group of video watchers who might align and maybe agree mostly.

videos are a tool, and like any tool, they can be used or misused.

So, are you saying that Michael Fremer is so used to the sound of his system that he is biased and his judgment about his system video representing the sound of his system live to him as the listener of both, is somehow not reliable or dependable?

How do you then explain that someone could make a video of a system and believably say that it does not represent the sound of his system? Is he now turning off his bias? Can one have it both ways? How can one reconcile a new visitor to the system stating his opinion that a video he makes represents the sound of that system the way Bonzo does? Supposedly, he would have no bias clouding his judgment.

I understand what you are trying to explain, but I have questions about it. What Ron is saying is that he is dismissing outright Michael’s own statement because he cannot fathom a digital video through YouTube representing what “must“ be an incredible sounding system. To me that is faulty logic based on my own experience with recording systems.

I would have to watch the video again to see if MF uses the words “accurately represents“ or simply “represents“ the sound of his system. Ron is using the words “accurately represents“ and arguing against those words.

Questioning a reviewer‘s comment about the video he just made of his own system, essentially not believing what the reviewer states, seems to me to be akin to not believing what the reviewer writes about the sound of his system. He either can hear things and make judgments about what he hears or he cannot. Bias for preferences is presumed but it should be applied consistently.

I have read Michael Fremer’s reviews and I have an idea based on reading those reviews and seeing the equipment that he likes in his system, the type of sound he prefers. When I listen to his video I hear what I think is that type of sound. When MF states that his video represents what he hears live from the system, I put all of that together and place a value on that. To me, his video sounds like how he describes various components in his reviews. I see consistency when putting all of this stuff - The video, the reviews, his statements, and the list of gear -together to form my opinion. Ron sees the same information and reaches a completely different conclusion. he describes his own dogmatism. I find that fascinating.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Do you know how I think we could bridge a lot of this divide? It's expensive but it would probably close a lot of the gap.

We all could buy a matched pair of the same flat frequency response Earthworks QTC40MP professional microphones; we could collectively select a high quality but not crazy expensive "prosumer" digital recorder; we could collectively agree on a recording protocol in terms of SPL and distance between the microphones and the speakers; and all record systems using the same equipment and the same recording protocol.

Then, we agree to play the resulting digital recording files back through our big stereo systems.

This would moot most of the ideological objections to recording systems and, I suspect, greatly elevate the accuracy and predictability of what we are talking about. It would also make it much much easier to hear particular things in recordings.

In this proposal we would be forfeiting the video, but that really is superfluous anyway.

 

[bonzo75]

Do you know how I think we could bridge a lot of this divide? It's expensive but it would probably close a lot of the gap.

We all could buy a matched pair of the same flat frequency response Earthworks QTC40MP professional microphones; we could collectively select a high quality but not crazy expensive "prosumer" digital recorder; we could collectively agree on a recording protocol in terms of SPL and distance between the microphones and the speakers; and all record systems using the same equipment and the same recording protocol.

Then, we agree to play the resulting digital recording files back through our big stereo systems.

This would moot most of the ideological objections to recording systems and, I suspect, greatly elevate the accuracy and predictability of what we are talking about. It would also make it much much easier to hear particular things in recordings.

In this proposal we would be forfeiting the video, but that really is superfluous anyway.

it’s very important to play it back through the same speaker if you want to align that way

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, are you saying that Michael Fremer is so used to the sound of his system that he is biased and his judgment about his system video representing the sound of his system live to him as the listener of both, is somehow not reliable or dependable?

How do you then explain that someone could make a video of a system and believably say that it does not represent the sound of his system? Is he now turning off his bias? Can one have it both ways? How can one reconcile a new visitor to the system stating his opinion that a video he makes represents the sound of that system the way Bonzo does? Supposedly, he would have no bias clouding his judgment.

I understand what you are trying to explain, but I have questions about it. What Ron is saying is that he is dismissing outright Michael’s own statement because he cannot fathom a digital video through YouTube representing what “must“ be an incredible sounding system. To me that is faulty logic based on my own experience with recording systems.

I would have to watch the video again to see if MF uses the words “accurately represents“ or simply “represents“ the sound of his system. Ron is using the words “accurately represents“ and arguing against those words.

Questioning a reviewer‘s comment about the video he just made of his own system, essentially not believing what the reviewer states, seems to me to be akin to not believing what the reviewer writes about the sound of his system. He either can hear things and make judgments about what he hears or he cannot. Bias for preferences is presumed but it should be applied consistently.

I have read Michael Fremer’s reviews and I have an idea based on reading those reviews and seeing the equipment that he likes in his system, the type of sound he prefers. When I listen to his video I hear what I think is that type of sound. When MF states that his video represents what he hears live from the system, I put all of that together and place a value on that. To me, his video sounds like how he describes various components in his reviews. I see consistency when putting all of this stuff - The video, the reviews, his statements, and the list of gear -together to form my opinion. Ron sees the same information and reaches a completely different conclusion. he describes his own dogmatism. I find that fascinating.

Peter, for the avoidance of doubt and confusion, please know that I think you have the better argument here, and I think you have the better logic here.

 

[Ron Resnick]

it’s very important to play it back through the same speaker if you want to align that way

Well, we all have different speaker systems, so I was not trying to make it quite as uniform as that, as that would be impossible to implement.

I tried to come up with a protocol that would be vastly superior to iPhones, but not some thing so rigid as to be impossible to implement.

 

[bonzo75]

Well, we all have different speaker systems, so I was not trying to make it quite as uniform as that, as that would be impossible to implement.

I tried to come up with a protocol that would be vastly superior to iPhones, but not some thing so rigid as to be impossible to implement.

everyone has an iPhone. Or Samsung. This is easy and works

 

[Ron Resnick]

everyone has an iPhone. Or Samsung. This is easy and works

Well, "works" is the highly debatable part.

I tried to come up with something that is maybe twice as difficult, but probably five times better.

The intermediate step, which I have proposed formally before in a prior post, is for everybody to play the videos by connecting their iPhone or computer to a line level input on the line stage preamp and playing the videos through our big stereo systems. That alone would be a gigantic increase (probably at least 50%) in mutual understanding and valid video representation of the audio systems.

I became a big fan of this idea when you twisted my arm to compare two videos of the same track through the big stereo. Instantly, I could hear easily what you were talking about and how you were comparing sonically those two videos. And you were actually correct, and the people who were comparing those two videos through their iPhone or computer were wrong, this exercise proved to me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So, are you saying that Michael Fremer is so used to the sound of his system that he is biased and his judgment about his system video representing the sound of his system live to him as the listener of both, is somehow not reliable or dependable?

How do you then explain that someone could make a video of a system and believably say that it does not represent the sound of his system? Is he now turning off his bias? Can one have it both ways? How can one reconcile a new visitor to the system stating his opinion that a video he makes represents the sound of that system the way Bonzo does? Supposedly, he would have no bias clouding his judgment.

i'm saying that Michael Fremer can agree his video represents what he hears, and posters here can denigrate his system based on the video, and both can be right....according to their perceptions. it's an opinion.

and everyone has some bias. we can only control it and adjust for it. in Ked's case, he repeatedly acknowledges his bias and we celebrate it. and his bias against some type systems. no problem. he key's in on certain non musical things in his experience. but maybe Michael does not hear those things in his system, and maybe the video relates those things do exist to Ked, but Michael knows they are not there and so filters them out? we just don't know. it's a damn MP4 video from a cell phone (or whatever low rez drek it might be).

Michael saying the video represents his system is not proof for other listener's perceptions of that video are valid.

and Michael is in a better position to know how his system actually sounds.

the realities of perceptions of each are different. based on their different experiences and practice at system video listening.

and if they were talking face to face, unlikely they would agree on what they heard from that particular video. maybe if they talked it over for a bit, and had a chance to share viewpoints, maybe they might find common ground.

and that is just my opinion.

I understand what you are trying to explain, but I have questions about it. What Ron is saying is that he is dismissing outright Michael’s own statement because he cannot fathom a digital video through YouTube representing what “must“ be an incredible sounding system. To me that is faulty logic based on my own experience with recording systems.

Ron has to defend that part. i don't dismiss anyone's statement, i try to understand them. i expect that they spoke what they felt was true as they knew it.

I would have to watch the video again to see if MF uses the words “accurately represents“ or simply “represents“ the sound of his system. Ron is using the words “accurately represents“ and arguing against those words.

Questioning a reviewer‘s comment about the video he just made of his own system, essentially not believing what the reviewer states, seems to me to be akin to not believing what the reviewer writes about the sound of his system. He either can hear things and make judgments about what he hears or he cannot. Bias for preferences is presumed but it should be applied consistently.

I have read Michael Fremer’s reviews and I have an idea based on reading those reviews and seeing the equipment that he likes in his system, the type of sound he prefers. When I listen to his video I hear what I think is that type of sound. When MF states that his video represents what he hears live from the system, I put all of that together and place a value on that. To me, his video sounds like how he describes various components in his reviews. I see consistency when putting all of this stuff - The video, the reviews, his statements, and the list of gear -together to form my opinion. Ron sees the same information and reaches a completely different conclusion. he describes his own dogmatism. I find that fascinating.

i would cite my above logic, for whatever that might be worth.