|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.15.62.81
If you visit Youtube, you can find reviews on any number of different
speakers. And the reviewer will of course demonstrate the speakers in
question by playing music thru them. Am I supposed to believe that I
can make a decision about the SQ of any speaker by listening to it via
a YT video on my PC or tablet or even my phone?? Aren't YT reviewers smart
enough to understand this? Hell, you can make any speaker sound killer -
or dead awful - on a YT video.
Whether or not you can observe a thing depends upon the theory you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed. - Albert Einstein
Follow Ups:
It's more obvious than recommended components lists which I believe would more likely trip someone up than a you tube video.
And yes with the audio engine loudspeakers at my workstation and lossless recordings I can id CD or vinyl (and cartridges and TTs I am familiar with) of rips I made. For lower resolution you tube videos there appears to be enough info for me to determine whether or not I like the "sound" of a system or not. Selecting music from youtube I can differentiate music I like from music I don't like - however because of the lower resolution I would reject some music I would have liked had I heard it on a higher resolution system. This is not a vice versa thing - I would not like some music at lower resolution but not like it at higher resolution. This holds with my justification for higher quality audio systems (as well as what a better system means to me) in the first place - expanding access to more music.
nope.
. I judge any sound system by how tiring it is to listen to.
Linkwitz
and have a system that's used for review purposes, all components assembled from so called time honored 'neutral' components, and then they can describe the result to their hearts content. Consistency is key as well as honesty. Too much to ask.
while you most certainly cannot hear the DUT itself, it is possible to hear certain characteristics if your speakers are neutrally voiced.
There's another audio board with a long post of speaker videos . You are able to determine that some have muffled midrange response or poor off axis performance.
You can hear the big problems with a system via a good quality audio capture, and most dedicated YouTube bloggers are using reasonably decent quality home studio equipment these days. Some are even making binaural recordings, so you can get some sense of the spatial presentation as well when listening through headphones.
The problems that usually stand out to me the most in these videos are with the room and/or placement. Sometimes it's hard to know whether the speaker is at fault or the room and setup, especially in the bass. But I've heard a video or two where there's an obvious suck-out in the crossover region off-axis. That's something unlikely to be coming from the room, and its mostly likely audible in all but the deadest rooms. I wish I could trust what I hear in the overall tonal balance of a speaker when it's playing a familiar track, but it could be the microphone response as well.
I participated in the four year old speaker video thread mentioned. It was made with an iPhone 8 as I walked around the room. The original video was reduced to a relatively low quality 240p when uploaded to YouTube.
One nice thing about the stats is they sound very similar regardless of listener position in the room. In front. Behind. Close. At some distance. Sitting. Standing. Doesn't matter much. One observed that it sounded like the mic was in a fixed position.
Did Youtube mung the video ?
Criminal !
Native video and audio resolution is far better.
nt
careful reading combined with experience auditioning gear can be very useful, certainly more than listening on a computer. But it takes time and work. You need to do a lot of reading looking for two things. One is a reviewer who agrees with you often and who you have found how to read between his words. The second is multiple reviews of a product that all seem to describe mostly the same things and come to the same final conclusion. It's not as good as listening to a product for real(which isn't as good as listening in your system). But with time and practice you will get real info this way and non from listening over the net.
how did you manage to post the same thing 3X?
careful reading combined with experience auditioning gear can be very useful, certainly more than listening on a computer. But it takes time and work. You need to do a lot of reading looking for two things. One is a reviewer who agrees with you often and who you have found how to read between his words. The second is multiple reviews of a product that all seem to describe mostly the same things and come to the same final conclusion. It's not as good as listening to a product for real(which isn't as good as listening in your system). But with time and practice you will get real info this way and non from listening onver the net.
careful reading combined with experience auditioning gear can be very useful, certainly more than listening on a computer. But it takes time and work. You need to do a lot of reading looking for two things. One is a reviewer who agrees with you often and who you have found how to read between his words. The second is multiple reviews of a product that all seem to describe mostly the same things and come to the same final conclusion. It's not as good as listening to a product for real(which isn't as good as listening in your system). But with time and practice you will get real info this way and non from listeing onver the net.
.... buy based on mere photos !
.
All of them mostly love anything they hear. Everything's wonderful. Run out and buy today; now.
Just as bad, none of them seem to have a clue about what imaging is. Most of them seem to hardly care, and just address it in passing. All of them seem to think that imaging is nothing more than getting a stable good center image.
Not once have I ever seen or heard them address whether speakers (or any audio equipment) can recreate a complete soundstage out to the corners behind and around the speakers, and place instruments within a sonic tableau with 3 dimensional realism, along with any air around the instruments that was there during recording.
None of them ever address anything such as that. "Cheap Audio Man" concretely thinks imaging consists of nothing more than reproducing silly sound effects from pop records. Zero Fidelity usually brushes past imaging qualities of audio equipment under review with barely a nod.
With all of the processing going on in recordings, we'd be lucky to find anything produced in the past 20 years that has any true semblance of "3D imaging"......
Most younger reviewers are often using recordings that I personally think wouldn't be adequate for evaluating high-end gear..... And these reviewers don't realize that.... (For example, a reviewer could be questioning the midrange performance of a product, not realizing that the Auto-Tune in the recording was causing the problem.) They often listen for things that may not necessarily equate to the live experience.....
It's almost a totally different paradigm in regard to what constitutes good sound from an audio system..... We should not really criticize these people (with terms like "asinine"), these reviews do not necessarily cater to those seeking the live experience on an absolute scale, the audience is just trying to attain satisfying sound, with what I think are those same less-than-ideal recordings.
All this imaging and soundstaging mumbo jumbo is an amusical parlor trick unrelated to the concert hall experience of music. It's just like going to the Louvre and commenting on the wallpaper.
Edits: 11/30/21 11/30/21
I agree that aural imaging in live concert halls is nothing like what we get in home audio. We get our imaging at the concert hall mostly from actual imaging. Seeing the artists. But that IS part of the live experience and the aural imaging we get in stereo playback compensates for the missing visual information.
So I agree that it isn't accurate. But I like it better than what I would get with greater accuracy to the actual live sound with all the smearing of the directionality and instrument placement that comes with actuallive sound minus the visual cues.
To supplement your comment, spatial perception in an acoustic venue comes mainly from direct sound from the instrument(s) on the stage w/o any delay except that of the speed of sound. Volume, strength, and impact comes from early reflections, mainly from the side walls. That is why wide rooms tend to sound bad compared to the traditional shoe box shaped halls. Warmth, richness, blend and fullness come from the millions of later reflections coming off of one or more surfaces and arriving at the listeners nano seconds apart for up to 2 to 3 seconds after the direct sound. Note: the reported "reverb time" of a hall is the time it takes the initial reflection to decay 60dB from the initial sound pressure level (1/64th the volume). Of course, the next series of notes are happening as the earlier notes decay. Coupled volumes to the main volume of the room, can be skillfully designed to increase reverb time without loss of clarity, but overly large, tunable reverb chambers can often lead to muddy sound and loss of speech intelligibility.
Now almost all modern recordings except those done in concert venues or simply mic'ed live recording have none of this going on. Most recording studios are made "dead" with absorption, and reverb is electronically added. Most recordings these days use either closely mic'ed instruments or musician not even in the recording studio at the same time. They are "placed" in the so-called soundstage by engineers. Singers often provide their own background vocals with these "singers" appearing behind and off center. It's sound effects, not music.
Home audio also lacks actual layering of reflections. We use room treatments to prevent strong reflections. The goal is direct sound from the speaker which create the illusion of space based on what has been recorded, not actual sound from elsewhere in the space. That is why some love the allure of horns if their rooms are large enough. There are almost no reasons why anyone would want to add diffusion to their listening rooms, yet diffusion is a major component of concert hall design.
That said, visual clues are part of "psycho-acoustics" which do impact how we perceive live music. How much wood is in the room finishes (warmth), the colors (warm v. cold), and even if the players are on risers on stage (increased visibility of the sound source(s)*) all contribute to the aural experience as interpreted by our pea brains. *Risers also have an actual sonic impact as well.
Ciao,
"Starting in the middle of a musical sentence and moving in both directions at once." - John Coltrane.
Cpwill
early reflections comprise more of the percieved sound of the instruments than the direct sound in a good concert hall. And as such the aural image is bigger than the instrument. And the tonal quality is completely different inside and outside the concert hall.
I agree that we can with our ears alone do a decent job of placing instruments when they are in close proximity even in a good concert hall. But even then it's not as straight forward as it seems without any visual cues.
What do French tables have to do with concert halls???
.
Freak out...Far out...In out....
Your stereo isn't reproducing a live event, that's a fantasy, it's reproducing a recording. That "mumbo jumbo" is frequently on the recording. If it's on the recording, I'd like to hear it.
See JA's editorial linked below. He is correct.
Jack
Edits: 12/01/21 12/01/21
As you point out, any playback system can only respond to the signal recorded on whatever medium is being played. The recording engineers are the ones who create/manipulate the imaging properties on a recording.
The "live event" is forever lost/interpreted at the point it hits the microphones.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
definitely not recorded in a classical music concert hall from mid hall.
I believe it was recorded in a recording studio.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"All this imaging and soundstaging mumbo jumbo is an amusical parlor trick unrelated to the concert hall experience of music. It's just like going to the Louvre and commenting on the wallpaper."
The objective to "soundstage" is to create the illusion of "seventh row center" in the concert hall....
I've often moved to prime seating locations after the intermission of classical concerts..... (During the concert prior to intermission, I look for empty seats to relocate to after the intermission.) In assuming the desired seat after the intermission, the result is the perception of a soundstage that could never be matched on a good stereo system...... (I sometimes close my eyes and pretend that I'm listening to the "world's greatest stereo system.") But the experience for 90 percent of the patrons, unfortunately, doesn't really capture that.
Your comment basically reflects that "90 percent".........
But in the realm of high-end audio, we try to create the illusion of how the "10 percent" in the best seats would take in the music.
With all due respect, any concert hall where the best sound is limited to 10% of the seats is a poorly design venue, and 10th row center is almost never the best sound. Give me front one or two rows, near center of the 3rd tier. Assuming Orchestra w/ or w/o rear parterre, box tier, dress circle and one or two balconies (or galleries) I will take the center of the dress circle.
See also my reply to Analog Scott, above.
Ciao,
"Starting in the middle of a musical sentence and moving in both directions at once." - John Coltrane.
Cpwill
"With all due respect, any concert hall where the best sound is limited to 10% of the seats is a poorly design venue, and 10th row center is almost never the best sound."
You are correct when it comes to the sound in general..... But I was referring specifically to "soundstage".....
There is still "soundstage" in better venues, in less-than-ideal seating locations..... It's just that it would be small (seated up high) and/or "unbalanced" (seated off-center)..... (If one is seated right at the stage, the presentation would be highlight the musicians closest in proximity to the listener, the back of the orchestra is often heard off the walls around the stage and the ceiling/stage shell.) The presentation provided by most recordings and systems are idealized to what one would hear seated at or near the center, from the fifth to tenth rows.
I don't disagree with you about the recording engineers objectives. It is still not where I would want to sit.
Ciao,
"Starting in the middle of a musical sentence and moving in both directions at once." - John Coltrane.
Cpwill
yeah....no. No such industry standard exists. It may be what *you like* but there is no way to know what the intent of the recording engineers and producers were unless they clearly state it.
And add to that the fact that the recording does not come with the visual cues that dominate our sense of imaging in a live concert.
surely you are joking. It's real, it's there, and it's dependent on the artistic abilities used in the mixdown. Like art it will vary all over the place
The system should present high contrast - recordings are a series of all kinds of effects. Some recordings will have a wider sounding stage or deeper but not all of them. Some speakers like the infamous Bose 901 create a huge stage but it always seems to create a huge stage. The speaker's design imparts a strong signature on the music. Now in itself, it may be pleasing - at a bar in South Korea they were really very effective because they sent sound all over the place and the sheer coverage of the speakers in a big space was quite impressive - and given it's there mainly as background music they're terrific in that application.
I have read a LOT of reviews of my speakers over the years where some have called the imaging and staging vague, small, and panoramic. Panoramic and small - huh? Well, it depends a lot on the recording, the room and the set-up. In the same review, they were called coloured and transparent. One guy said they can't rock another guy who is a metal drummer said they were awesome for heavy metal.
I generally prefer not to notice staging or imaging because I don't think either are the least bit important to music playback. I never watch a live event and say - gee look those violins are 7 feet to the left of the pianist - isn't that awesome? Who cares. I am listening to the sound of the piano and the sound of the violins and to the singer and to the overall music not where the musicians are located.
But in the end, each to their own bugaboos about music replay.
The best speakers can't reproduce reality from a great source. How can a copy of a poor copy be worth anything?
Nt
Well, I find the youtube speaker reviews with the person just talking and talking and no sound samples even more asinine.
... but any that purport to show audio/visual differences.
Youtube mungs sound and pictures
:(
Often people really have NO option to audition audio gear anywhere.
When the recording is done carefully and uploaded, then listened to on good speakers or headphones, it can be useful as one data point.
Weeding through crap still applies to Youtube, as it always applied to "print reviews."
"When the recording is done carefully and uploaded, then listened to on good speakers or headphones, it can be useful as one data point."
A buyer has no control over the YouTube recording quality of the reviewer, the associate equipment, and the compression to MP3 limited sound quality. Then their is the buyer's computer based playback, which no matter how good it may be, is not the speaker in question. It is a totally flawed and inaccurate data point to use your term.
Top Gear is very funny and entertaining show, but would you consider it a data point for buying a $1M+ "super car" without a test drive? "Not me," said the little red hen.
Ciao,
"Starting in the middle of a musical sentence and moving in both directions at once." - John Coltrane.
Cpwill
in the homes of the sellers. They all welcomed me and demo'ed the piece as much as I pleased.. I bought what I came for and it was a very enjoyable adventure. There are still three small hifi shops in this region but I haven't visited them in years. I guess what I found was as good as I'd care to have .
"Often people really have NO option to audition audio gear anywhere."
This is a good counter-point.....
If I were in the market for speakers, my only real outlet for audition in recent years has been audio shows.........
It's not just YouTube reviews...... It seems like every speaker and headphone review breaks the sound into "lows," "mids," and "highs"...... Instead of the overall presentation..... Soundstage, coherence, tonal balance, absence of resonances, peaks or suckouts, room response (for speakers), off-axis response, efficiency, power handling, amplifier or room compatibility, etc. ..... I don't think the reviews are as "complete" as they once were. Not enough mention of how well speakers would do with certain types of music, certain types of amplifiers, certain listening tastes, room interface, etc. ..... There are a lot of good speakers out there, the key is finding the optimal speaker for one's particular environment, electronics, and listening preferences.
between speakers when done as carefully as done here.
If interested, you be the judge.
However just because the speaker sounds the best to me in the comparison doesn't mean it would work for my purpose.
Short term snippet comparisons have proven highly unreliable for helping me chose a speaker that will provide long term musical satisfaction.
NO, you won't get a real idea of everything a speaker can do, however? You SHOULD readily be able to make certain comparisons between speakers.
It is a bit like people saying: My hearing has declined, so I don't need a good system anymore. NO - you may not have a full range of hearing, but the hearing you DO have will most certainly make a good system sound better that a crummy one.
"Am I supposed to believe that I can make a decision about the SQ of any speaker by listening to it via a YT video on my PC or tablet or even my phone?? Aren't YT reviewers smart enough to understand this? "
Yes. But to paraphrase neolith , it's the YouTube viewers who are the idiots in this case.
I'll watch YouTube reviews mainly to learn about features and specs but I don't actually "listen" in order to form an opinion on how a product sounds.
I've always thought it silly to listen to a product playing over YouTube. The sound quality is whatever comes from my iMac. But I agree with Abe that you can learn a lot about a product of interest from the content of the presentation. A review by Darko on YouTube was influential in my purchase of a pair of KEF KC62 subs.
I believe posting on Youtube is a way to make money. The more hits the more money. So the posters are not the idiots, it's those who open up the posts.
"Our head is round in order to allow our thougths to change direction." Francis Picabia
Whether or not you can observe a thing depends upon the theory you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed. - Albert Einstein
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: