EarSpace!!!!

[fas42]

Hmmm ... what I note is that the SQ of that "perfect capture" is a complete and utter mess - Jeez, is that the standard that people are after ... help!!

[fas42]

The recording would be fine - but what we are listening to here is a capture of an audio system playback, of that recording. Let's say we captured the playback of a cheap PA at high volume, from a suitable distance - what chances then of having good insight into the contents of the recording itself?

 

I have zero complaints about Jana is trying to do here - and it's showing the shortcomings of the particular rig, very clearly.

 

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

And what are these shortcomings?

 

The original:

 

 

Starting at 6:09, the playback:

 

 

How many things would you like me to point out?

[fas42]

As an example of what high quality sound reinforcement is capable of, compared with the usual rubbishy efforts, I present:

 

 

Home audio should be able to at least match this ...

[fas42]

So, you would find it almost impossible to separate those in an AB comparison, say focusing on the tonality of the instruments, and sense of original recording space?

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Nice deflect. 

 

I ask the question again.

 

What "shortcomings of the particular rig" are being shown "very clearly" and how do you know these are shortcomings of the rig and not shortcomings of Jana's recording equipment or recording method?

 

 And the classic deflect by all those who refuse to accept that the playback can be at fault, by claiming that any deviation must be the fault of the recording technique and equipment - umm, isn't it amazing how YouTube clips of live music recorded on the most "rubbishy" phones still captures the essence of liveness that was present; but always seems to fail to do this with captures of playback rigs operating - must be a conspiracy goin' on ...

[fas42]

The conspiracy extended to the video,

 

 

They changed the microphones, between the two sections, you see ... .

 

On a serious "note", I had a look at the waveforms of key sections here, and the differences were enormous.

[fas42]

You'll play the game of dancing so fast that your feet are a blur, no matter what or how I present something - "There are none so blind as those who will not see" ...

[fas42]

Sorry, was catching with a local car race, and other things ... .

 

The section in the original starting at 11:36 appears to be the match with what has been recorded by Jana - what stands out is loss of string tone quality, and a sense of the recording space - the presentation is 'small'. There is an instrument that comes in at one point that sounds vaguely like a piano; referring to the original, it's a wind instrument.

 

Just prior to the start of the classical is a climax to a section of jazz - this is very messy. Note that the tonality of that piece matches that of the following classical.

 

Overall, there is a grinding, wearisome aspect to the sound; you can't wait for it to finish, because there's no enjoyment in the listening. This is a typical manifestation of much audio playback - it's drained of life ... and it's the sort of distortion that I work towards excising.

[fas42]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

As an example of what high quality sound reinforcement is capable of, compared with the usual rubbishy efforts, I present:

 

 

Home audio should be able to at least match this ...

 

I didn't realise that Don had posted this earlier - I had Javascript disabled while scanning the posts, and missed the duplication ... sorry 'bout that!

[fas42]

All the research referenced always only deals with the most simplistic situations; where's the work that Investigates how hearing reacts when there are two conflicting acoustic environments being presented at the same time - which takes precedence? And why? 

 

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

You can tell what he playback sounds like from a YOUTUBE recording? Are you for real? How do you know that it isn't the microphones used to capture that video's audio? The recording electronics? The room acoustics? You have no way of knowing. Just because the original recording you she was playing doesn't sound like the recording of her playback THROUGH ANOTHER ROUND TRIP of recording/playback MEANS NOTHING. I find it very telling that you can't see that without being told!

 

I say, Help! ... again ...

 

If you haven't the ability to pick up the classic, signature sound of a playback system being recorded I feel sorry for you. They even deliberately overcook these qualities in movies, say, just to make sure the audience knows it's meant to be a hifi, rather than live music ...

 

The closer the capture mimics all the key qualities in the sound of the actual recording, direct, the more likely that playback sound in the flesh will be an accurate copy of the recording itself. I find it very telling that you can't see that without being told!

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's right Frank. I can't 'see" the impossible; that which doesn't exist. A recording of speakers made with the microphone in a video camera? And you're surprised that the lousy recording doesn't sound like the original music???!!!! Frank, your grasp on reality is slipping further, every day!

 

I suggest you try a little experiment - find half a dozen YouTube clips made by ordinary people, using the "lousy microphone in a video camera" of real world, live acoustic events; and another half dozen similarly made by audio enthusiasts of their "brilliant hifis" in action - and play these at random, with video not seen, to people who have little interest in audio. The game is: name the type of source - speakers, or 'real' sound?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

How would this experiment prove that you have the ability to "listen through" Jana's recording to evaluate what the rig actually sounds like?

 

I'm not interested in what the rig "actually sounds like" - rather, whether the information is audible that the setup has some problems or not. That is, I'm not looking at the big picture, but if there are key, 'signature' giveaways in what I hear that signal some issue. This is particularly important, because it is exactly those sort of anomalies that prevent a full illusion occurring - if I can hear faults via a less than perfect capture, then those aspects will be extremely obvious in the flesh.

[fas42]

 

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

In this case, you have no way of knowing if the faults that you are hearing are faults in the rig itself or faults introduced by Jana's equipment or recording methodology.

 

In an absolute sense, no. However, I have been doing this type of thing for a long, long time, and the chances of the particular microphone or recording chain being the cause of the particular quality of the faults I would put at in the 0.000..x % level - just going by experience, .

[fas42]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

But you're out of your mind if you think that, for example, the acoustic bass on this recording sounds anything like it would or should sound when heard directly from those speakers, or when heard indoors in a room, played back by a high quality, well set-up audio system.

 

The lower the frequency, the more likely the subjective qualities will vary depending upon the environment. But everything above the low bass should render per the subjective impression that is given in this clip. IMO.

 

A key listening memory is a pavilion at an expo in the '80s, which had a video presentation of a humorous take  of the country's "interests", in a very large auditorium - the SQ was outstanding, equivalent to that in the Danley clip; I couldn't fault it. Every other sound system in pavilions of other countries was of the usual crappy standard - reinforcing how superior that particular one had been. Which showed that there were at least one or two people around even then who knew what was needed - when I heard ambitious home audio rigs nowhere near the standard of that 'commercial' setup I could only shake my head ...

 

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

You're confusing some subjective characteristics that you find pleasant on the one hand, with fidelity on the other. Of course what each of us like is more important than an abstract standard of fidelity - but the problem with equating our likes with fidelity is that not everyone likes the same kind of sound, and not everyone prioritizes the same sonic aspects when assessing the pluses and minuses of any playback system.

 

I know people like variants of what's on the recording - repeated listening of particular albums on systems, in  optimised or close to such states, inform one as to what the intrinsic sound of the recording is, to a large degree. If an unknown rig only conveys a small portion of what you know is there, in a quite twisted form, then I don't see any value in that presentation.

 

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, the only thing in an audio playback and capture setup that's as inaccurate and colored as the speakers, is the other transducer in the equation, the microphone(s). So literally half of what we're hearing in these YT videos is the coloration introduced by the recording/capturing system itself. 

 

If all the YT videos used the same microphone in the same room, then we could make comparisons between the rigs being recorded. But they don't.

 

A key giveaway on clips is where natural sounds also occur - people talking, incidental noises, etc. Your hearing can 'calibrate' to those sounds, and when the playback starts, the 'unnatural' qualities of the latter stand in contrast to the other.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Based on the apparent lack of critical listening skills you've demonstrated in recent posts, I have a very hard time believing this to be true. 

 

Such as the Ormandy?

[fas42]

Part of problem is that most people require playback to sound like it's "coming from speakers" - in the flesh, that's exactly what one gets, and the boxes are ticked - "it sounds better!". On a recording of the same, there is no place to hide for the sound, and you hear exactly what the microphones picked up - which is very frequently disappointing - so many cues are missing from what one would look for in the usual audiophile setting.

 

Good playback doesn't sound like playback - which is the point - there is no need to compensate, mentally, for the limitations which are clearly present; this compensating is performed with ease by audiophiles who have done this for years, when in the presence of the reputedly "right stuff".

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

He already has one, firmly attached.

 

Yes, it's only dummies who believe that if you record music coming from an audio system that it should sound something like the actual recording. Sharp headed individuals know that all sorts of special measures have to be taken to realise this, because audio sound is such a weird thing ...

[fas42]

Well, there's a poor imitation of such at

 

 

This is via cheap Sharp boombox speakers, through the only partially optimised NAD rig - strangely, it sounds somewhat like the source ... .

 

Also, other clips at my YouTube channel, to give a bit more of a flavour, .

[fas42]

Note how incredibly messy this all becomes when one tries to mechanically compensate - one is swamped by contradictory requirements - best solution: let that marvellous DSP inside one's skull do it all - it's had a lifetime of practice getting it right ... .

[fas42]

Or stand down-wind from a capable sound system. That and the acoustic performance will "sound the same" ... IME .

[fas42]

Haven't you heard the term, "down under"? We're hanging upside down, the blood rushes to our heads - job done!

[fas42]

Objectivists may require sensitivity implants, of course ...

[fas42]

Nothing more scary than an enthusiastic "expert" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Jackson_Freeman_II