Speakers are least important

[Rexp]

Contrary to some members thinking, speakers are actually the least important part of an average hi-end system ($30k). Take a listen to David Bowie's Lazarus track on these two videos, one system speakers cost double the other. Which performance do you prefer? 

7.40 in:

 

1.40 in:

 

 

[STC]

Listen to Peter’s voice. IMO, the speakers in the bigger room would have sound better heard in situ. 

 

1) Room acoustic. Followed by 2) speakers. ( which means spl and the power to drive them without distortion) 

 

 

[kravi4ka]

Uhmmm, what is exactly the purpose of this post? 

 

Why does everybody want to be the ultimate judge? Diesel is better than petrol. Really? Which diesel, which petrol? Nooooo, diesel is better. 

You came to the conclusion by listening to two you tube songs? Speakers ary by far the least technologically advanced part of the audio chain and when you factor in the room it gets crazy. No meaning to offend you but that post simply does not have any reasonable information in it. 

[MetalNuts]

Freedom of thought, one believes what he/she believed, it will not bother me as long as he/she does not compel me to submit to his belief.   🤣

[4est]

2 hours ago, kravi4ka said:

Uhmmm, what is exactly the purpose of this post? 

 

Why does everybody want to be the ultimate judge? Diesel is better than petrol. Really? Which diesel, which petrol? Nooooo, diesel is better. 

You came to the conclusion by listening to two you tube songs? Speakers ary by far the least technologically advanced part of the audio chain and when you factor in the room it gets crazy. No meaning to offend you but that post simply does not have any reasonable information in it. 

Nooooo, diesel IS better!

[STC]

I am astounded, to say the least, that despite years of being audiophiles, many do not know the difference between direct and room sound in the Youtubes' audio.

I have made many recordings of system playback and while it is impossible to judge from the videos of the speakers or other equipment quality but it is always possible to roughly know how well the overall sound of the system is. Is the room is too bright or is it too dead? Does the music got lows and highs and a little info about the transient and attack. 

I am glad I made recordings of my system and often use them to compare the progress I made over the years. In fact, I would have made much progress without my own collection of the recording of the system to analyze the difference and necessary steps to take for improvements.

 

Of course, you need a lot of practice and samples to distinguish. Practice and practice and if you train hard enough you may even hear the grooves without playing them.

 

AVshowroom videos are a good place to listen for the difference although he doesn't level match them before recording. 

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, STC said:

although he doesn't level match them before recording. 

And that is all ye need to know.

[HIFI]

2 hours ago, 4est said:

Nooooo, diesel IS better!

Spark plugs are for girls 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

And that is all ye need to know.

 

IMHO, I think level matching is wrong if it involves different system. Level matching is only relevant if you are only comparing one variable. However, in a different venue and system, the optimum sound loudness level is very much dependent on how good it sounds to your ears. 

 

About a decade ago, I wanted to start a blog  for the recordings of audiophiles over here. During the process, we learned level matching didn’t represent the true SQ of the system. 

 

In the case of AVshowroom videos, they are usually made during AV shows and most rooms are somewhat similar. Occasionally, I do not agree to the best sounding system award tagging as to my ears based on the YouTube sound other rooms fared better but then listening live  involves sound from every direction unlike the microphone and a stereo recording of the playback is like imposing another layer of the same delayed sound to the original recording. 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

And that is all ye need to know.

 

Well, you could also mention that the electronics and source appear to be different as well, but without level matching in the first place... 🤪✌️

[sphinxsix]

9 hours ago, kravi4ka said:

Diesel is better than petrol.

 

7 hours ago, 4est said:

Nooooo, diesel IS better!

 

The engine is least important. Contrary to some people believes the color is what matters and the best cars are red. Have a look at these two cars. Which one do you prefer.? 

(unfortunately it's not cheaper than the white one) 

 

[esldude]

Dumbest post of the year.

 

Dumb on multiple levels.

 

I would like to think that you don't believe this.

 

I would like to think that you understand using the videos as evidence for the idea is really dumb.

[Rexp]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Dumbest post of the year.

 

Dumb on multiple levels.

 

I would like to think that you don't believe this.

 

I would like to think that you understand using the videos as evidence for the idea is really dumb.

What is dumb, really dumb is comenting on a sound comparison having not listened to it. 

[STC]

20 hours ago, Rexp said:

Which performance do you prefer? 

 

Here is a video of sound from Sharp MiniCombo speakers. Only two main speakers used. The price of the minicombo was about$400. My estimate for the speakers prices should be less than $100. The other speakers were Electrostatics Sound Lab was about $15000.

 

Both sound were recorded from my listening spot. The original purpose of the video was to show how to make any system to sound better and  room response but for this thread you will see that the difference is not so obvious in a room with good acoustics.

 

Both speakers were driven by Supratek pre and Classe Audio Amp. IIRC, the source was Marantz SA11S2. You be the judge. You can say speakers are least important. Then it means the room acoustics is important. BTW, the Sharp speakers were combined with a subwoofer. No subwoofer was used for the Sound Lab.

 

 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Dumbest post of the year.

 

Dumb on multiple levels.

 

I would like to think that you don't believe this.

 

I would like to think that you understand using the videos as evidence for the idea is really dumb.

Anybody who thinks that you can properly judge a RECORDING of pairs of speakers using YouTube 128kbps 44.1kHZ Audio is having themselves on.

[PeterSt]

 

Clearly, bigger fish are better. This is not related to spark plugs or other plugs for women. This is about egos. And egos are for men. 

Get that car, sell the other, buy the biggest house and hide the car inside. 

Be assured that there's a car stereo in the car. 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Anybody who thinks that you can properly judge a RECORDING of pairs of speakers using YouTube 128kbps 44.1kHZ Audio is having themselves on.

 

This is a matter of getting used to. 

I am even serious... 

[STC]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Anybody who thinks that you can properly judge a RECORDING of pairs of speakers using YouTube 128kbps 44.1kHZ Audio is having themselves on.

 

Looks like at 128 bitrate both videos in OP sounds alike without any distinction to you.  

[PeterSt]

There was Alex's emphasis on RECORDING. As in: for the purpose of comparison

With different rooms that never can work if it is about speakers... 

[STC]

You hear not only the speakers but also the room. So why can’t videos show the difference? I am suspecting there are many couldn’t distinguish room acoustics and the direct sound in the recording. A recording is a recording. It doesn’t matter if the person is singing live or speakers reproduction. 

 

Generally, in a good system, the sound will be okay but in a bad room the recording would reveal how bad they actually sound. 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Looks like at 128 bitrate both videos in OP sounds alike without any distinction to you.  

 

 There is far more to the performance of a speaker than 128kbps is capable of revealing.

  Not all speakers are created equal in all areas either. We don't even know if the speakers are set up optimally in the room either.

 

 I didn't say anything about them sounding alike, as I couldn't be bothered even listening to such poor source material from unknown quality recordings,  to even attempt to judge the quality of ANY piece of equipment.

 

 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I didn't say anything about them sounding alike,

 

You didn’t but I don’t see how a YouTube recording can give a false  representation of the difference in varying degrees of a different system. 

 

There will be difference and within the difference the will be different level of SQ. 

 

In in my attempts to record my friends audiophile system, it fizzled out pretty quickly when difference became obvious. How some super expensive system muddled the bass and so on which became evident in the recordings much to their embarrassment .  

 

Okay lets say I agree with you that posting recording of your system’s recorded at LP is stupid and dumb. If that’s the case, why not we use the recording to learn from the the difference and why?  

 

All my recording were made in 24/96 format.  The same difference you hear in the YouTube’s of mine also heard in the lossless version although the SQ differs slightly but none of the blind-tests gave different opinion in both formats. So how do you explain the 128 bitrate weakness?  What it is actually making it to be wrong in terms of SQ?

 

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You didn’t but I don’t see how a YouTube recording can give a false  representation of the difference in varying degrees of a different system. 

 

There will be difference and within the difference the will be different level of SQ. 

 

In in my attempts to record my friends audiophile system, it fizzled out pretty quickly when difference became obvious. How some super expensive system muddled the bass and so on which became evident in the recordings much to their embarrassment .  

 

Okay lets say I agree with you that posting recording of your system’s recorded at LP is stupid and dumb. If that’s the case, why not we use the recording to learn from the the difference and why?  

 

All my recording were made in 24/96 format.  The same difference you hear in the YouTube’s of mine also heard in the lossless version although the SQ differs slightly but none of the blind-tests gave different opinion in both formats. So how do you explain the 128 bitrate weakness?  What it is actually making it to be wrong in terms of SQ?

 

 

  They should Upload high res versions to somewhere such as DropBox instead.

 Perhaps they did this before realising what YouTube does to them with their accent on Video quality only these days?

 I refuse to even take 128kbps audio seriously, as partly due to age and hearing damage, to me  it's mainly dull, boring and Lifeless.

 Sometimes though, upscaling low Bit Rate .aac up to 576kbps does make a small but worthwhile improvement, where I really like the Video side of it, and can be bothered going to the trouble.

[Rexp]

58 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Anybody who thinks that you can properly judge a RECORDING of pairs of speakers using YouTube 128kbps 44.1kHZ Audio is having themselves on.

Ofcourse you can't judge a speakers performance via youtube, it is a comparison of system performance. For me, one delivers the musical message, the other doesn't and that is down to the source and amp not the speakers. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I refuse to even take 128kbps audio seriously, as partly due to age and hearing damage, to me  it's mainly dull, boring and Lifeless.

 

That’s perfectly alright. But there are other members who are young and with undamaged hearing. You are criticizing something based on your weakness which didn’t reflect the actual position of the 128 bitrate. 

 

BTW, I also offered 24/96 bitrate to those who asked.