... and we can transmit morse code over the walkie talkies simultaneously too for electronics effect.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
YouTube Loudspeaker Demo Videos - Yes No Maybe?
- Thread starter Rednaxela
- Start date
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,703
- Likes
- 2,859
I guess B&W are bad at reproducing irony too. That may be on the 11hz or around 30Khz, who knows...Borderline Strawman fallacy. Why not demo the B&W over a blown out walkie-talkie.
I pointed out at those cases to ilustrate how untrustworthy is anything that does not involve the actual speakers and live. Even in those cases, I´d rather take a look at data from Amir or Erin because I know I am super biased.
- Thread Starter
- #63
If I had to choose, I really don’t know what I’d rather have. Someone else’s written impression from a live demo or my own conclusions from a video.
Luckily we don’t have to choose.
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,703
- Likes
- 2,859
Amir or Erin´s tests. And your own ears. The second me be harder as logistics for a test listen are not always easy.
audiomaestro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2022
- Messages
- 35
- Likes
- 28
The prices are in renminbi, not yen. They share the same symbol. He's speaking Chinese.I'm pretty sure that is Cantonese. It has many SHHH... HSShhh.. sounds just like Cantonese does.
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,703
- Likes
- 2,859
See? I played the video on my rig and they all sound like KEF IQ´s!!!! How can that be???
Again, my gear is quite old, third (or forth) hand and works reasonably well for music, films and games. But to critically discern differences between a speaker and another (and I´m not even considering the recording conditions), it´s a waste of time. I´d rather find spinoramas...
Again, my gear is quite old, third (or forth) hand and works reasonably well for music, films and games. But to critically discern differences between a speaker and another (and I´m not even considering the recording conditions), it´s a waste of time. I´d rather find spinoramas...
That recording is beaucoup boomy. Sounds like it is coming out of a big culvert.
My adventures in stereo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2022
- Messages
- 305
- Likes
- 296
the numbers did not tally in yen, did not know they shared a common symbol
audiomaestro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2022
- Messages
- 35
- Likes
- 28
This has got to be either trolling or you didn't bother to read the entire thread.
That recording is beaucoup boomy. Sounds like it is coming out of a big culvert.
It sounds like my portable bluetooth speaker in the bathroom.
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 5,271
- Likes
- 5,521
Hell yes
They give an indication of the sound and its impossible to demo every speaker on the planet, so why not
They give an indication of the sound and its impossible to demo every speaker on the planet, so why not
MaxwellsEq
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,787
- Likes
- 2,719
A story: a person has spent $50k on their installation. They record a YouTube video showing before and after impacts of swapping their $1k cables for $3k cables. When an engineer argues that (unless faulty) there should be little difference between the $1k and $3k cables, the owner tells the engineer that the difference is only obvious on a really high-quality system and that the difference is obvious on the YouTube video...
It's the synergy man... the synergy!A story: a person has spent $50k on their installation. They record a YouTube video showing before and after impacts of swapping their $1k cables for $3k cables. When an engineer argues that (unless faulty) there should be little difference between the $1k and $3k cables, the owner tells the engineer that the difference is only obvious on a really high-quality system and that the difference is obvious on the YouTube video...
When seeing disagreement on the internet, I often wonder how much of it is because many people don't read what is written, more so they react to it. I feel that there is something of a mantra being recited when people say nothing of value can be ascertained from these videos.
It wouldn't take much thinking to see that isn't correct. Nobody is claiming perfect resolution in these videos (this is the reaction, rather than reading) and nobody suggests that the qualms raised don't have value (different rooms to yours, mic response and so on), but to say that videos, especially well executed comparisons between different speakers (yes, even when played back through your own speakers or headphones) don't give an impression of how a speaker will sound, is logically false.
If it wasn't false, you'd just get wildly different characters for the same speakers in differing videos, and in almost all videos, save those with appalling setup quality, this is not true.
A telephone call has nothing hi-fidelity about it, yet you can still recognise a voice you know quite easily, the audible character remains the same. This can only happen if valid information is being transferred through a flawed medium.
The suggestion that all kinds of crazy, discombobulating things are happening to audio recorded in a less than perfect setting, that completely ruins our perception, seems debunked by our ability to recognise familiar voices over the telephone. The telephone is far lower audio quality than almost anything on Youtube.
There is enough bandwidth (information), all flaws considered, to transfer with some degree of useful accuracy, the general character of a speaker over a medium such as Youtube.
It wouldn't take much thinking to see that isn't correct. Nobody is claiming perfect resolution in these videos (this is the reaction, rather than reading) and nobody suggests that the qualms raised don't have value (different rooms to yours, mic response and so on), but to say that videos, especially well executed comparisons between different speakers (yes, even when played back through your own speakers or headphones) don't give an impression of how a speaker will sound, is logically false.
If it wasn't false, you'd just get wildly different characters for the same speakers in differing videos, and in almost all videos, save those with appalling setup quality, this is not true.
A telephone call has nothing hi-fidelity about it, yet you can still recognise a voice you know quite easily, the audible character remains the same. This can only happen if valid information is being transferred through a flawed medium.
The suggestion that all kinds of crazy, discombobulating things are happening to audio recorded in a less than perfect setting, that completely ruins our perception, seems debunked by our ability to recognise familiar voices over the telephone. The telephone is far lower audio quality than almost anything on Youtube.
There is enough bandwidth (information), all flaws considered, to transfer with some degree of useful accuracy, the general character of a speaker over a medium such as Youtube.
My biggest issue with youtube speaker reviews is not the sound but the user interface! If you are going to present an AB test of two speakers, I like to have the two audio files in hand so I can compare them as I like to. Trying to use a video player and jump from one to the other inside a clip is downright frustrating. Comparisons of speakers must occur quickly or your memory fades (and adapts). You can't listen to 1 or more minutes of one speaker, and then another. This will not be a proper comparison.
If these people were interested in proper evaluation, they would provide the audio files. Alas, that doesn't get monetized so they show them using video.
Research also tells us that stereo listening is not very effective in showing flaws in speakers. And content matters. You want tracks that have consistent content to make AB testing easier. Grabbing some free content from youtube library, or some random audiophile track doesn't do it.
On top of the other issues brought up, I just don't see any value in doing such tests.
If these people were interested in proper evaluation, they would provide the audio files. Alas, that doesn't get monetized so they show them using video.
Research also tells us that stereo listening is not very effective in showing flaws in speakers. And content matters. You want tracks that have consistent content to make AB testing easier. Grabbing some free content from youtube library, or some random audiophile track doesn't do it.
On top of the other issues brought up, I just don't see any value in doing such tests.
I can think of a potential use in establishing correlation between spin data and subjective sound impression.
There have been times when you have been presented with data that left you unhappy, only to listen to the speaker and find it pleasant enough. The data looked more objectionable than it was to the ear.
A recording of the sound character of different speakers (alongside the measurements) might provide some data as to how things translate from measurement to listening.
This could be interesting and useful, given few people have as much access to speakers & NFS as you do. It may identify trends and patterns previously unknown or not well understood.
Using identical music demos for each test? At identical levels too. That's what you mean?
But it won't and it is a lot of work and expense to host them. On the former, if your headphone is already a bass heavy, you may like a speaker with less bass using them which is not correct. And at any rate, everyone will have a different headphone so disagreements would continue.
Similar threads
