Speakers are least important

[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... 🤪✌️

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, STC said:

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. 

 

 

Play the videos with just the sound, no visual cues. 

 

Alex is quite right here, videos  like this are not valid ways to judge a speaker system - especially when the sound is being reproduced over a third speaker system, which just colors the heck out of the video anyway. You buy speakers off a video of those speakers playing something, and I need to talk to you about this little bridge that is up for sale...  Only driven on by a little old lady from Pasadena on Sunday afternoons after church. Cheap!

[Paul R]

37 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Be very afraid to post the recordings of your system. If it didn’t sound better than a cheap systems sound you have to come up with an explanation. It is still the same no matter what you smoke. 

 

So the best excuse is criticizing others who dare to do instead of posting your own systems sound. 

 

And again I repeat, your understanding of reproduction of reverbs is flawed. I discovered that what are saying is somewhat similar as in the reference text book on recordings. 

 

 

Or, more simply, video recordings of systems done in living rooms and such are just pretty useless, since they are all pretty much going to sound the same. (shrug)

 

That isn't to say that the speakers or systems sound the same, just the most often low quality poorly recorded video. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Get some sleep as you are saying things which I didn’t. 

 

Stop being insulting and think. Do as I asked and report back if you still are able to tell the differences, or whatever. 

 

[Paul R]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 Paul, to be insulted one should have self respect in the first place. Just like your bs about speech recognition being binaural, you are again bs’ing here. This is an area where you offer no real value except to be seen knowledgable by side tracking the topic . 

 

I have no problem hearing the difference and stated clearly in the post. Check your eyes too .  

 

You continually show your ignorance and worse, refusal to learn anything, and continue to flaunt ridiculous insults behind an impenetrable armor of internet born arrogance.  

 

You rather obviously have no real understanding about human hearing, or even how sound propagates. Not even as correct an understanding as one might gain by diligent and careful study from internet available sources available to anyone who really wants to learn. Fortunate for all you do not control the subject. 

 

I do do not have any problem with people who can hear imaginary differences, or claim to have golden ears, or even being wrong that people might be able to distinguish differences off of you tube. I suspect those differences would vanish if the video was played back with volume matched sound and as sound only, with the video monitor turned off.  

 

Unless the differences were so basic and glaring that they were indeed, totally different sounds. That may be the case with the video Peter referenced. It is not going to be the case with two competent amps, and probably not the case with two well matched speaker systems. 

 

 Another internet troll. 

 

On the permanent ignore list with your unjustifiably arrogant insulting self you go. 

[Paul R]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Not true at all. I your theories that would be. But try it (in a no smoking area). 

 

Tried it this morning. Yes, I could tell the difference between two speaker systems when a sound recording was played back from you tube. Because I knew what to listen for, I could even hear specific differences. It was much much harder to do when I could not see the video, and played both of then in a loop. 

 

It was much much much easier when I played the recordings back locally, in high res through the same system. It was amusing to hear that the Maggie’s played back the Harbeths better than the Harbeths, and vice versa! Headphones tended to amplify the differences too. Not suggesting why, just reporting the results. 

 

[Paul R]

On 7/6/2019 at 8:10 PM, Rexp said:

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

 

Well, lets just consider the recordings at say, 10:29 for the top one, and 3:49 (or roughly thereabouts) for the bottom one.  Besides having vastly different levels, different rooms, different electronics, and different speakers, exactly what conclusions would you expect to draw from these recordings? Would you expect to be able to decide which system to go and review based upon the sound you heard?  

 

Umm- my own personal opinion. While both systems are interesting, the audio on the recordings is simply lousy and that audio to draw conclusions about what either system sounds like is a fool's errand indeed. There are things you can learn from the recordings - for example you can decide if you like the look of both systems. But being able to pin down and say how the speakers sound radically different? No. 

 

Just bebopping through the recordings Dennis uploaded is a lot more fun to me.  

 

Apologies to the recordist, I was not commenting on your work, merely the audio reproduction possible from those recordings. Try level matching them as closely as possible then listening to them with the video not being visible. Its a trick someone here taught me years and years ago. It can really be a fun exercise!

[Paul R]

32 minutes ago, Rexp said:

So you personaly couldn't draw any worthwhile conclusions from the comparison. You don't need to advise others on what they hear. 

 

Not what I said.

 

I said that reasonable conclusions as to how those speakers sound can not be drawn from the videos. In specific conclusions used to make purchasing decisions.  I gave reasons why that is so. I did not tell anyone what they hear. If you don't agree, don't try to make out I am bullying anyone by vague comments like that. At least I am not trying to lead them down a path to bankruptcy.

 

That is my opinion yes, but one based upon years of audio research and listening. You can heed it or not, just as you will. But it is at least as valid as your opinion, and much more likely to avoid someone missing out on a speaker system they may really like or worse, buying one they think they will like but is really not to their taste at all. 

 

You are welcome to hear what you hear, and spend your money how you see fit. My Mom used to say that a fool and his money were soon parted. That saying would probably prove out true for someone who makes expensive speaker purchasing decisions based upon a you tube video like those two.  And yes, that is *also* my opinion. 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, Rexp said:

You can't audition speakers via youtube, not sure why you're stating the obvious. 

 

Then what is your reason for listening to speakers and trying to discern sonic differences between them on you tube?

[Paul R]

2 hours 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 · 2 downloads

 

I have an accidental thunderstorm recording from 1979 that is just awesome. Totally by accident, and it happened just as the band ended a song.

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, Abtr said:

Are you saying that cabinet resonances don't show up in FR measurements?

 

Turn that around - are you are saying that any tonal difference between speakers  (bright, soft, forward, reserved, any adjective you choose to use...) must be a result of differences in frequency response? 

 

While I would expect that to be mostly true,  would say it is far from true in all cases.

 

In other words, frequency response is not the only thing that defines the quality of what we hear. 

 

Do you disagree? 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, marce said:

If you need a high end system to hear the emotion in music then your not listening to the music! In fact your probably in the wrong hobby/pastime.

 

You can replace any component in that high end system and still hear the emotion in the music. But, within reason, the speakers are always going to have the most effect on the sound. ✌️

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

White noise is a random signal having equal intensity at all frequencies. So the intensity of any harmonic frequency produced by a speaker will be added to the intensity of that frequency already present in the white noise, thus showing a peak at that frequency in the FFT spectrum.

 

I must say that I never encountered such peaks; IME a white noise + FFT based FR generally looks identical to a sine sweep based FR. So I don't have example screen shots of that.

 

I am am wondering if it is not a matter of detail? At the micro level you are correct in saying that the FR will show any differences. However at the macro level two different speakers both rated as flat between 20-20hz are are going to sound different. The difference between say, an electrostatic and cone speaker will dominate, even if the differences will show in a more detailed or more exact measurement of frequency response. Assuming matched SPLs and so on of course. The efficiency f a speaker may dominate the “sound” as well.

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Thats just not true, have you heard or owned a high end system? 

 

It is absolutely true, and the answer is yes.  

Have you? 

 

You can hear the emotion in music over an elevator speaker. 

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Well yes, I even owned a high end audio store for a few years. Used to stock your Harbeth speakers which I do consider to be high end. 

 

But you think you can only hear the emotion in music on a very well crafted high end system?  Perhaps I simply misunderstood you? 

 

We often don't agree on things, such as RAM in a music server having an audible effect, but this is rather basic and I was surprised to see any disagreement at all. 

 

-Paul 

 

P.S. I do love my little Harbeths. But I also love the Maggies. And the ancient Advents.

 

 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

I think what they are getting at is not the emotion in the standard sense, but the micro-dynamic ebb and flow that are often referred to as PRaT, swing or toe tapping-ness. It has been my experience that this is hard to get and easy to lose, and most average systems do not have it all. I mean no offense Paul, and I am not trying to put airs on, but I tend to agree with their take.

 

No problem, to each their own and on top of that, there is a huge spectrum of audiophiles. PRaT to me is rather a synergy thing more than the result of gear being high end. You can get plenty of PRaT from very modest gear I think, if the components are well designed to work with other. Also, it is at least partly environmental, as in a listening room vs at a Barbecue party. 

 

I do think that PRaT is totally a different thing than the emotion in the music however. The emotion in music is art, not tech. At least, it is to me from where I am at on the Audiophile spectrum. 🙄

 

I am quite sure it will be different for other people though, and that is quite okay with me too.