Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Ron Resnick]

Highly processed and artificial sounding.

Are you referring here to the recording itself? It is a typically mediocre, multi-track pop recording . . .

Are you aware that a lot of rock and pop sounds pretty awful in general? (Welcome to my world of congealed, thin, bright, multi-track pop recordings!)

The kind of . . . sound that would drive me out of the room within seconds. Pity anyone who has sound like this at home. Like ceiling speakers in a tiled bathroom.

I definitely have heard much worse, and much brighter and thinner, from some other videos on this thread.

 

[PeterA]

Are you referring here to the recording itself? It is a typically mediocre, multi-track pop recording . . .

Are you aware that a lot of rock and pop sounds pretty awful in general? (Welcome to my world of congealed, thin, bright, multi-track pop recordings!)




I definitely have heard much worse, and much brighter and thinner, from some other videos on this thread.

Ron, I am referring to what I hear when listening to the video in the post. What else could I possibly be referring to? The music and the sound are simply atrocious.

 

[acousticsguru]

Are you guys serious? First of all, the song is from Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, have they made a more famous one? Secondly, it's a pretty good recording sonically. But yes, if anything, one would expect it to be on the bright and certainly not the dull side of the spectrum.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I am referring to what I hear when listening to the video in the post. What else could I possibly be referring to?

I assumed you were referring to the video, yes. But if, for example, you have never heard the track on your own system then how could you know whether you are listening to poor reproduction via the video or the sad sonic results of a poor original recording?

In other words I have the impression you are criticizing Jay's system, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me if you are totally unfamiliar with what the original recording sounds like on a familiar system.

The music . . . simply atrocious.

I totally respect that (I love Fleetwood Mac, but I don't happen to care for this particular song myself), but that's musical preference -- not bad recording, and not bad playback.

 

[PeterA]

I assumed you were referring to the video, yes. But if, for example, you have never heard the track on your own system then how could you know whether you are listening to poor reproduction via the video or the sad sonic results of a poor original recording?

In other words I have the impression you are criticizing Jay's system, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me if you are totally unfamiliar with what the original recording sounds like on a familiar system.




I totally respect that (I love Fleetwood Mac, but I don't happen to care for this particular song myself), but that's musical preference -- not bad recording, and not bad playback.

Why do you argue about this stuff? Someone posted a video and asked for opinions. I listened to the video and shared my opinion.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Why do you argue about this stuff?

I inquired about your Post #2,049 to understand it better. Then you asked me what I am referring to. And I responded.

We are discussing a topic. That's what we do here.

I am not seeing an argument.

 

[Wavetouch]

There is some sharp sibilance on this playback...kind of the reason I got rid of my HDTs many years ago...

Thank you for your comment! It helps me a lot.
I've fine-tuned speakers and I think this video sounds bit better.

The original music

 

[microstrip]

Are you guys serious? First of all, the song is from Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, have they made a more famous one? Secondly, it's a pretty good recording sonically. But yes, if anything, one would expect it to be on the bright and certainly not the dull side of the spectrum.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Rumours is one of the rock albums I keep - as I said before, it is part of my single shelve of nostalgic rock. As far as I recall it, it is a very nice sounding album.

 

[tima]

I assumed you were referring to the video, yes. But if, for example, you have never heard the track on your own system then how could you know whether you are listening to poor reproduction via the video or the sad sonic results of a poor original recording?

In other words I have the impression you are criticizing Jay's system, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me if you are totally unfamiliar with what the original recording sounds like on a familiar system.

This is way too anal. What the 'music' sounds like on a familiar system is irrelevant to the video sounding like it does.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What the 'music' sounds like on a familiar system is irrelevant to the video sounding like it does.

I strongly disagree. Remember, this is multi-track, EQed, pop music. These are not unamplified acoustic instruments. There is no "absolute sound" here. There is no "natural sound" here.

If you have no idea what the recording sounds like on a familiar system, then you have no idea what the recording sounds like at all, and thus any attempt at judging the sound on an unfamiliar system via digital video playback is delusional.

Of course you can have an in-a-vacuum opinion about what the digital video recording sounds like coming out of the speakers or headphones on which you are listening to it, but it has almost no meaning in terms of understanding what the playback system is doing.

 

[tima]

If you have no idea what the recording sounds like on a familiar system, then you have no idea what the recording sounds like at all, and thus any attempt at judging the sound on an unfamiliar system via digital video playback is delusional.

As if the recording has a sound apart from its instances of reproduction?

Play the video. The video sounds poor. It is that simple.

 

[PeterA]

If you have no idea what the recording sounds like on a familiar system, then you have no idea what the recording sounds like at all, and thus any attempt at judging the sound on an unfamiliar system via digital video playback is delusional.

I am not that familiar with Mahler symphonies, and certainly not specific recordings. But when I see videos of Tim’s new system playing those symphonies, I can instantly judge whether or not they sound like real music, or sound natural. It is very easy to assess differences with changes in speaker location or cartridge set up on these videos with unfamiliar music. Of course it helps if the system owner shares his opinion about how representative the video is of what he hears from the listening seat.

In my opinion, one does not need to be familiar with the recording to judge whether or not a system video over YouTube sounds natural. Just listen to the video and ask yourself if it sounds natural.

 

[hopkins]

In my opinion, one does not need to be familiar with the recording to judge whether or not a system video over YouTube sounds natural. Just listen to the video and ask yourself if it sounds natural.

...and you can do that even with amplified music!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Curious what people think of this one:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

I just played this song on the big stereo. I definitely prefer how it sounds in the room here.

Here it does not sound as poorly recorded and as bright and thin as the video suggests.

PS: For our classical music aficionados who routinely denigrate re-issues, my 45RPM re-issue of Rumours sounds better than (I cannot say sounds "more natural" than because in a multi-track, EQed, pop recording there is no "natural" or original musical event to be faithful to) any of my original pressings.

 

[Rexp]

I just played this song on the big stereo. I definitely prefer how it sounds in the room here.

Here it does not sound as poorly recorded and as bright and thin as the video suggests.

PS: For our classical music aficionados who routinely denigrate re-issues, my 45RPM re-issue of Rumours sounds better than (I cannot say sounds "more natural" than because in a multi-track, EQed, pop recording there is no "natural" or original musical event to be faithful to) any of my original pressings.

Perhaps you can post a streaming v lp video.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Perhaps you can post a streaming v lp video.

Do you think that will tell you anything -- once the LP playback version itself gets converted to a digital stream?

 

[morricab]

Do you think that will tell you anything -- once the LP playback version itself gets converted to a digital stream?

Yes it will tell you something.

 

[PeterA]

Do you think that will tell you anything -- once the LP playback version itself gets converted to a digital stream?

Yes. I think you said you can hear a difference between your turntable/arm/cartridge and streaming/DAC from your listening seat. If that is the case, it will be captured on an iPhone video.

 

[PeterA]

I just played this song on the big stereo. I definitely prefer how it sounds in the room here.

Here it does not sound as poorly recorded and as bright and thin as the video suggests.

PS: For our classical music aficionados who routinely denigrate re-issues, my 45RPM re-issue of Rumours sounds better than (I cannot say sounds "more natural" than because in a multi-track, EQed, pop recording there is no "natural" or original musical event to be faithful to) any of my original pressings.

I listen to classical, jazz, and classic rock. Each time I have compared a reissue to an original in my own system, I have preferred the original. The problem is that some originals are extremely rare, very expensive, or both, so I buy a reissue and sometimes a 45 RPM. I would rather own the original. I enjoy some 45s and reissues when that is all I own. IMO, the thick heavy vinyl often sounds dead in comparison to older vinyl, and the remasters are sometimes not to my liking.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I listen to classical, jazz, and classic rock. Each time I have compared a reissue to an original in my own system, I have preferred the original. The problem is that some originals are extremely rare, very expensive, or both, so I buy a reissue and sometimes a 45 RPM. I would rather own the original. I enjoy some 45s and reissues when that is all I own. IMO, the thick heavy vinyl often sounds dead in comparison to older vinyl, and the remasters are sometimes not to my liking.

Yes, I understand that. All fair enough. I am in no position to judge originals versus re-issues on classical, jazz or classic rock.

I am of the opinion that on 1970s and 1980s (and later) pop most of my re-issues (DCC Compact Classics and Classic Records) sound better to my ears than the originals. This is especially true with DCC Compact Classics re-issues.

Like with everything else, it's subjective, and each of us prefers different things and each of us is sensitive to different things. For example, you might value the original EQ balance of an original, and I might value the quieter vinyl or slightly fuller sound of a re-issue.

Very generally, and excluding Mobile Fidelity re-issues which typically sounded a bit bright to me even in its early eras, I like the quieter vinyl, and generally slightly fuller sound, of the pop re-issues. In general the re-issues make often poorly-recorded, multi-track, compressed pop sound just a little bit less of a sonic mess.