Speakers are least important

[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.

[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.

 

 

[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.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

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. 

 

 You are likely to find that the majority of the members are 50 or over, as most younger people aren't into HiFi as such these days.

 To audition speakers properly you need to do that in a well set up Audio dealer's show room, not that there are too many like that left these days. You may as well forget Demos at most Audio shows too, due to the noise level and the size of the typical room which is often just a hotel type room conscripted for the event.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

 

To properly evaluate speakers, set them up in your listening space. 

 

 You should only do that after narrowing down your choices, and not all dealers will let you do what you are suggesting unless the speakers are quite expensive.

 In fact, not all cities and towns even have Audio Dealers these days.

[sandyk]

48 minutes ago, STC said:

 

What better way you could do that before visiting the dealer?  Watch the pictures of the speakers? Read a third party opinion of the speakers sound. Listening to the speakers themselves?  

 

The Youtube is not the final arbiter of the SQ. It is just a small starting point and those who cared about reproduction by now would realize that room acoustics play a bigger part in the sound quality than the speakers themselves. 

 

Rubbish. The room acoustics do play an important part, but the quality and positioning of the speakers is more important.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I list the order of importance by what equipment is likely to be retained the longest (I'm ignoring room treatments, stands, cables, power supplies/conditioners, etc.):

1. Speakers/Headphones
2. Turntable (if applicable)
3. Phono preamp (if applicable)
4. Analog amp/preamp/integrated
5. Analog headphone amp (if applicable)
6. Disk Player
7. Digital amp (if applicable)
8. DAC (plain)
9. DAC (combination -- headphone amp and/or preamp and/or streamer)
10. Network Streamer (if applicable)

 Looks like the digital area of your system could do with an upgrade

 However, I do agree that Speakers/Headphones are most important.

[sandyk]

Just now, STC said:

 

Rearranged the words:-

 

Rubbish. The quality and positioning of the speakers do play an important part, but the room acoustics is more important.

 

 You are starting to sound like a member from the Lower Blue Mountains near Sydney.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Frank, I couldn't resist temptation

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, STC said:

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone could even hear the difference in my video. 

 

 

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone even bothered to listen for differences in your video.

 

 Of course there are VERY obvious differences between them, but they  still sound like crappy $100 speakers, and 128kbps .aac audio is useless for this kind of testing.. 

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

So far only 7 viewers today.  

 

 I guess that should send you a message given the number of members in the forum, as well as visitors !

In any event, you have already been there with this kind of thing in your own threads.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

This experts couldn’t even tell the diff between MP3 and SACD. One couldn’t hear anything above 10kHz and another at 12.  One suffers tinnitus and the other walked off.  That’s life. This is a crazy hobby where SQ based on not what you actually could hear.

 

 That's a real problem for many Audiophiles as they are mainly in the over 50 area, as younger people can't afford to be an audiophile or have other priorities.

 Surprisingly, you don't have to have a measurable ear response to >10kHz to hear the differences between many formats.

We still have a lot to learn about human hearing. Theoretically, I shouldn't be able to hear many of the things that I report, yet I have plenty of confirmation by others.

I suspect though that many more can be trained to recognise these differences, just like Paul and Miska can hear things well below the noise  level as needed by Sonar operators. IIRC, Miska trained people in this area.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

Unless the differences were so basic and glaring that they were indeed, totally different sounds.

Paul

 To me at least, they actually were glaringly obvious , but I don't agree with the premise that you can properly evaluate speaker or room differences using 128kbps .aac audio.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes the difference is obvious, don't think Paul has listened. Did you have a prefernce?

 

 I would need to listen to them both right through again to make worthwhile comments, but yes one did sound markedly more normal sounding.

Currently I am heavily involved in the creation of some comparisons with supposedly " impossible" differences if you want to try them OTR, as they are only a work in progress at the moment.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

The first one is bland all over and without punch in the (I suppose) snare while the second one is forward where forward should be; more emphasized mid. 

 

Agreed, but the sibilance in his voice annoyed me with the second one.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, acg said:

Second one sounds like pus on my computer monitor speakers...first one much better, though nowhere near ideal.  The second videos utter lack of texture in bass or mids means it would never make my 'audition list'.  It sounds to me like a space with lots of hard reflective surfaces... 

Anthony

 I would probably have liked the first one way more due to the lack of annoying voice sibilance if it hadn't been saved as crappy 128kbps .aac which made it sound dull and boring to me,  as the second one had excessive HF detail/rubbish and I didn't like it either.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, acg said:

Sure Alex, I reckon I could work with the first room to get the sound I like...not sure about the second room.

 I once had a room like that in a rented house.

 I had to use soft 50mm thick and 1M high foam directly behind each of the speakers and along the side walls.

 It had the benefit of also reducing the noise so the neighbours couldn't complain to the Estate Agents.

 

 Anyway, get back to that damn test bench, but don't race it  !

 

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Most of the audiophiles at one point of time would have captured their system via a mobile phone or dedicated microphones

 

 I don't personally know of a single Australian Audiophile who would even bother doing this.

They know that they will never be able to capture anything  that sounds as good as what they are able to hear directly from a well optimised system, sitting in " the sweet spot",   even if they had available very high performance A/D converters and microphones.

A few however may have experimented with something like trying to record a Thunderstorm back in the days of high performance Cassette decks such as a Nakamichi, or a DAT recorder.

As for using a mobile phone, they are fairly recent devices, and have major limitations in this area.

 Some may use one to try and make bootleg recordings of a Concert they attended, but very few will ever come remotely close to a proper recording of the session by experienced Recording Engineers.

[sandyk]

Unlike some, they know their limitations as amateurs in that area.

 Most Aussie Audiophiles would never even consider a mobile phone as a suitable tool for doing this either. 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

It is not about discernimg various sonic differences, it is about listening to two systems and finding one delivers the music and the other doesn't. 

  I repeat. It's NOT possible to do this using 128kbps .aac audio, and to do this properly you need to set up both lots of speakers correctly in the same room, as all speakers have their own special requirements for optimal performance, including distances from walls, toe in,  distances between them, tweeters roughly in line with the ears at listening chair  etc.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

Peter’s videos were made in mostly similar rooms. This is about how well a system sounds and not an individual component. And not surprising, most audio playback beginning to sound alike with slight difference in tonal, bass and treble because that’s the truth. After you reach a point with stereo setup there is practically very little difference between on system and another except the three factors I mentioned above and how loud a good system can go. 

 

Mostly similar rooms is not good enough and you have to set them up correctly as I mentioned.

Anybody that believes that there is practically very little difference between one system and another probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.

 I have heard quite a few systems in well optimised rooms, using in some cases gear worth >Au $100K, and there is usually marked differences even between  DACs valued at $8K or closer to $30K, (e.g. Bricasti M1 and a Gryphon Kalliope) and the same applies to speakers from $30K to $50K

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Fair enough. But what if I record 128kps playback with hirez mic?  

Still the same answer. 128kbps is NOT adequate with ANY microphone,  and it won't matter too much how wideband the microphone is at such a pathetically low bit rate.

Try for example recording a 0 to 20kHz tone sweep from suitable speakers and recording it at say 24/96  with both types of microphones, then convert it to  128kbps .aac and see what the measured level is when played back from both the original high res recording  and the 128kbps version.

( you may need to convert it back to .wav again to measure it with an audio editing program) .

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Don't have any thunderstorms.  Do have some kaytdid recordings from a couple years ago.  Outdoors, katydids, some other insects and the distant hum of air conditioners running.  Different mics and miking configuration in three different files.  

 

Oh, and you should drop your volume by about 10 db from your normal music listening levels for these to be about the right volume for how they sounded live.  

Katydids.zip 46.77 MB · 0 downloads

 Dennis

 I wouldn't know what Katydids sounded like to know if this sounded realistic or not..

We only have several varieties Cicadas here, which aren't the same insect, and they all sound a bit different.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Ok. I will do just that. I will record AAC, MP3 and CD  quality of Legal Illegal and you take the blind test. Not so hard right?

 I have far better things to do at present like generating more " impossible" comparison Video files.

 There appear to be only 2 participants in this thread that don't think the premise of this thread using 128kbps is totally flawed.

 I had hoped that the OP would have got this message long ago.

[sandyk]

STC

 I have already listened to the original files supplied in this thread and reported back with my findings which were similar to those of Anthony. One was dull and boring, and the other too HF detailed with excessive sibilance on his voice. I didn't much like either of them

I even refuse to save any material for later listening again, in either low bit rate .aac audio or .mp3, even though I may like the visual side.

 They both annoy the hell out of me due to my hearing damage, with the words of songs at 128kbps verging on unintelligible in quite a few instances. They can  sound terribly muffled.

Quote

I am always willing to give 24/96

Email the links to me and I will listen to them at another time, but PLEASE, no 128kbps or .MegaPoop 3.

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, esldude said:

At least you should recognize the natural sound of air conditioners. 

 

 When I was much younger I actually listened to the sound of the Telephone Exchange air conditioning via opamps 741 and 748.

 The 741 made the A/C sound like a dull roar.