Speakers are least important

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 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.

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

[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

[STC]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Still the same answer. 128kbps is NOT adequate with ANY microphone,  and it won't matter 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 , 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) .

 

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?

[esldude]

Just now, sandyk said:

 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

Come on Alex. You can give a listen anyway.  My recordings are so excellent, you'll know what USA katydids sound like without ever having heard them in person.

 

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

[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.

[Hugo9000]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Come on Alex. You can give a listen anyway.  My recordings are so excellent, you'll know what USA katydids sound like without ever having heard them in person.

 

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

OMG, curse you!  The first katydid of the year is now making racket outside my bedroom window.  I was free of their torment all last year, and hadn't heard any this year until now, right after you posted!

[STC]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 

I am sorry to have taken your valuable time to force you to respond to my posts. In any case, this is not about YouTube video but it is about audio recording of your system playback. I am always willing to give 24/96 but files used for my YT if you ever find the time. 

[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.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

I am sorry to have taken your valuable time to force you to respond to my posts. In any case, this is not about YouTube video but it is about audio recording of your system playback. I am always willing to give 24/96 but files used for my YT if you ever find the time. 

Yes please post a 24/96 and aac version of the audio from one your vids. Maybe in a new thread😬

[STC]

1 hour ago, Hugo9000 said:

OMG, curse you!  The first katydid of the year is now making racket outside my bedroom window.  I was free of their torment all last year, and hadn't heard any this year until now, right after you posted!

 

The last time I played his tracks, one cricket got into my living room and for three days I couldn’t watch TV. 

[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.

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 

I am actually addressing your remarks about the YT sound quality. And subsequent videos and posts are addressing those issues you raised thereafter. 

[STC]

38 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes please post a 24/96 and aac version of the audio from one your vids. Maybe in a new thread😬

 

Maybe, but I am losing interest as nobody listens to them. Even the new videos which i have not posted elsewhere which is on point to explain the OP gone unnoticed. 

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes please post a 24/96 and aac version of the audio from one your vids. Maybe in a new thread😬

 

128kbps .aac is crap which is why YouTube uses it. They want you to purchase the recordings based on watching  the video, but not save the Videos instead of purchasing the songs. 576kbps .aac audio doesn't sound too bad though.

[sandyk]

 

 

On the subject of low bit rate 128kbps .aac, does anybody have a preference with the audio of these 2 versions ?

 The .mp4 version is the original YouTube .mp4, and the other is a larger file size DVD format file with LPCM.

 The LPCM version was created by simply converting the ORIGINAL 127kbps .aac audio to .wav without any other processing.

 I will delete these videos in 24 hours. They can be played directly from DropBox.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c91wp17uq8ptvu3/Carly Simon - You're So Vain mp4.mp4?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jvvd9lu7t4qlbi/Carly Simon - You're So Vain.mpg?dl=0

[STC]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

On the subject of low bit rate 128kbps .aac, does anybody have a preference with the audio of these 2 versions ?

 The .mp4 version is the original YouTube .mp4, and the other is a larger file size DVD format file with LPCM.

 The LPCM version was created by simply converting the ORIGINAL 127kbps .aac audio to .wav without any other processing.

 I will delete these videos in 24 hours. They can be played directly from DropBox.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c91wp17uq8ptvu3/Carly Simon - You're So Vain mp4.mp4?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jvvd9lu7t4qlbi/Carly Simon - You're So Vain.mpg?dl=0

 

With iPhone using DB player. MPG is unlistenable with static noise. But I suppose now I must blame the phone. MP4 is normal. 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

With iPhone using DB player. MPG is unlistenable with static noise. But I suppose now I must blame the phone. MP4 is normal. 

 

Perhaps your phone doesn't like 1536kbps 48kHz LPCM?

It sounds very good here directly from the Dropbox player. (I just tried it again after seeing your post.)

[semente]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 

Most likely Maggie and Sound Lab will never make to your list.

 

Probaly not, but because they're not really suitable for these tiny UK sitting rooms.

But I've heard Maggies and MLs at shows and listened more attentively to Quad, Apogee and Sound Lab speakers in domestic conditions and wouldn't mind having a pair of some of them...if I had a large room.

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

The most important criteria for me is the tonal accuracy.

 

I agree. That is why I own a modern version of a BBC broadcast monitor.

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

The lows can be supplemented with subwoofers.

 

They can but at a cost and added complexity. This is true for both forward radiation as well as pannels or horns...

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

Freq response measurement can never tell the preferred tonal characteristic. 

 

This is not true for both forward radiation, not in my experience. I am getting reasonably good at correlating measurements of on- and -off axis response with listening.

[STC]

52 minutes ago, semente said:

This is not true for both forward radiation, not in my experience. I am getting reasonably good at correlating measurements of on- and -off axis response with listening.

 

You are missing the point on the coloration caused by the cone material. Drivers may measure the same but the coloration by the cones can make the sound very different from another. Anyway, this has gone off topic so I shall stop here. 

[semente]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

You are missing the point on the coloration caused by the cone material. Drivers may measure the same but the coloration by the cones can make the sound very different from another. Anyway, this has gone off topic so I shall stop here. 

 

The CSD will tell you a bit about cone and dome sound. Add your experience listening to other speakers using the same or similar cone and dome materials and you can go miles...

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

Perhaps your phone doesn't like 1536kbps 48kHz LPCM?

It sounds very good here directly from the Dropbox player. (I just tried it again after seeing your post.)

 

I used XS and DB player in the browser. So it looks like whatever format you suggest not going to work for me. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The CSD will tell you a bit about cone and dome sound. Add your experience listening to other speakers and you can go miles...

 

Old school here. Not that tech savvy. 😔

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I used XS and DB player in the browser. So it looks like whatever format you suggest not going to work for me. 

 

 It was a standard NTSC DVD format. 720 x 480 8,000kbps 29.97 FPS  1536 kbps Stereo 48kHz

 JRiver and VLC Media Player play it, as does the Dropbox player directly.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 It was a standard NTSC DVD format. 720 x 480 8,000kbps 29.97 FPS  1536 kbps Stereo 48kHz

 JRiver and VLC Media Player play it, as does the Dropbox player directly.

The mp4 sounds off, did you use this to exract the audio'

 https://www.onlinevideoconverter.com/

Maybe try aac instead.