thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,176
Where did the LLM summary fail in this case?
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
A video on testing the audibility of recording preamps
- Thread starter Phos
- Start date
I didn't say it failed, I said LLM's often fail at summarizing technical information. Point being that's why I avoid them. I think it's a generally bad thing that we see more and more AI generated (summarized or whatever) input on forums rather than human-composed.
I watched the video in its entire length and the summary looks fine for me.
Of course.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,176
Seems you got a bad example then which didn't help making your point. And exactly because most people do TLDR I rather post a LLM summary then commenting on something I didn't even read. I am not happy either with how AI replaces more and more human activities but in times where they can do astonishing complex things, a simple text summary is really not anymore an issue for them.
I didn't use that to prove the point that I find LLM summaries undesirable.
Do you have any disagreement with my actual objections to the video though?
After all, the thread is about the video and its topic.
Why would you juxtapose those two things? Not without some amount of irony I would probably have read most of that text if I thought you had done the summary. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the disclaimer.
Because your arguments showed that you haven't seen the whole video.
Ricardus
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I'm not really sure I know what you mean here. Please elaborate on this idea.
Ricardus
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I'm sure you all know this, but just like in the "audiophile" community, in the pro audio recording community there's just as many myths, and just as much religion. I've been doing this for more than 30 years, and in the beginning I had a mentor who really believed in the myths and magic of some of the gear. One day working in the studio he asked me to patch in a Pultec EQP-1A (famous for its "warmth) into the signal path, and I hadn't even done it, but he heard me making some noise and assumed I had, and suddenly he talked about how WARM it sounded. That was one of the moments where I realized that people who think they have golden ears probably don't, and the myths about some gear are exactly that.
When I'm doing a session I could give a crap if the preamps are Neve or something else. I happen to be a big DIY'er and have built myself about 8 channels of Neve clones and 8 channels of API clones, but more often than not I use the 16 channels of SSL 9000 pres that I built. They're clean, fast, have TONS of headroom (WAY more than anything else in my arsenal) and they sound great. They're transformerless and rely on the classic tried-and-true NE5534 and TL052 opamps and I love them.
Your preamps aren't going to give you the platinum record.
Last edited:
Pick one argument I made that is invalid and what the guy in the video says in the video that shows that.
An interesting consequence of the video was the variety of responses, possibly including from those who maybe didn't watch it in full!
Given all the testing that gets done here on ASR, it would be fun to see a rigorous critique of Jim Lill's test methods, or to see someone present their their own measured results of the type of equipment he is looking at. Armchair anecdotes, "what aboutery", internet cut & pastes, "the AI says", "what I did in 1978", and sly, implied dissing is surely not the ASR way?.... Ohh, hold on
Thanks to Phos for posting the video, BTW.
Given all the testing that gets done here on ASR, it would be fun to see a rigorous critique of Jim Lill's test methods, or to see someone present their their own measured results of the type of equipment he is looking at. Armchair anecdotes, "what aboutery", internet cut & pastes, "the AI says", "what I did in 1978", and sly, implied dissing is surely not the ASR way?.... Ohh, hold on
Thanks to Phos for posting the video, BTW.
Last edited:
And what makes you think that my experience is significantly different from what was expressed in that post?
I'm getting the feeling that you either didn't understand what I wrote (maybe I wrote it poorly) or didn't read it very well.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,176
You claimed you are saying nothing different than what is written in post #29, but your actual stance is completely different and heavily polemicized.
In post #29, @Ricardus shares a very measured, realistic take based on 30 years of experience: that the pro-audio world has its own myths, that a mentor fell for visual/placebo bias with a Pultec, and concluded with a perfectly reasonable summary: "Your preamps aren't going to give you the platinum record." Nobody disagrees with that.
Compare that to your own absolute claim:
You constructed a strawman to attack the video and anyone who doesn't agree with you. The video simply set out to test the actual audibility differences between a high-end preamp (Neve) and a standard one (Focusrite) using real music signals and null tests.
Dismissing the entire testing methodology and jumping to aggressive, absolute claims because people point out you skipped most of the video isn't "saying the same thing" as post #29. It's just being dismissive of the actual data presented.
It's more that you didn't watch the video, in which case the LLM summary would actually be helpful for you.
It's pretty clear from what you wrote.
Or maybe you would reject any evidence even if you did watch the video.
In any case, hard to have a discussion with someone who either doesn't want to take the time, or is already dug in on a position and won't accept evidence. Not sure which in your case. And I see what you did there...
Inverting the argument to create a strawman plus an appeals to authority for good measure.
So even more unlikely you could have a conversation about what actually matters in an electronic audio device.I don't know how to nest quotes in replies, so here is what you quoted me as saying: "I haven't heard a single engineer in my 25 years as a professional engineer attribute 'the great sound of classic records to their expensive preamps'. Not once. All of them have had a holistic view on it."
Now, look at what you quoted from #29, it boils down to:
1. the pro-audio world has its own myths
2. bias with a Pultec
2. Preamps won't give you a platinum record
What you quoted me as saying was: "I haven't heard a single engineer in my 25 years as a professional engineer attribute 'the great sound of classic records to their expensive preamps'. Not once. All of them have had a holistic view on it."
That does not contradict that there are OTHER myths around, it does not relate to the Pultec because it is an EQ, not a preamp, and I was stating a personal experience in that I've never heard a claim that preamps would make or break a record going platinum.
If you think about what's written, in what way did what you quoted me saying possibly contradict what you quoted from #29?
But again, if you actually read and think about what I wrote you'll see that I did NOT dismiss the entire testing methodology. I provided the caveat for why I skipped the rest of the video. Skipping it and being skeptical of what the potential methodology might be is not the same thing as dismissing it, it is just explaining why I skipped the rest of the video.
I find it fascinating that people like you get so seemingly emotional about this yet you fail to address my main point of contention, the YouTuber's assertion that effectively nobody ever did, does or will track with a preamp distorting because they all leave the output at unity.
How, on, earth could he possibly know this?
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,176
You are missing the forest for the trees. The contradiction isn't about whether a Pultec is an EQ or a preamp; it’s about the stance you took. The video and post #29 was a measured, reasonable take on audio myths. Your response, by contrast, was an absolute claim used as a strawman to dismiss the thread's discussion.
When you write that you "skipped the rest of the video" based purely on a skeptical assumption of its methodology, and then aggressively post about it, you are dismissing it. Commenting extensively on data you admittedly chose not to look at is the definition of dismissing it.
As for your "main point of contention" regarding the YouTuber's comment on unity gain:
The video creator was clearly speaking generally about standard, clean modern tracking workflows—not tracking for deliberate saturation. But even if you disagree with his wording there, it doesn't invalidate the actual null tests and level-matched comparisons he performed in the rest of the video.
If you want to debate the actual data and listening tests presented in the video, we can do that. But you have to actually watch the video first or read at least the whole summary of it.
When you write that you "skipped the rest of the video" based purely on a skeptical assumption of its methodology, and then aggressively post about it, you are dismissing it. Commenting extensively on data you admittedly chose not to look at is the definition of dismissing it.
As for your "main point of contention" regarding the YouTuber's comment on unity gain:
The video creator was clearly speaking generally about standard, clean modern tracking workflows—not tracking for deliberate saturation. But even if you disagree with his wording there, it doesn't invalidate the actual null tests and level-matched comparisons he performed in the rest of the video.
If you want to debate the actual data and listening tests presented in the video, we can do that. But you have to actually watch the video first or read at least the whole summary of it.
Mr. Swordfish
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2025
- Messages
- 286
- Likes
- 385
Yep. I've been out of the pro audio business for a while, but I've heard many, many pseudoscientific myths about sound from experienced professionals. And every single one of us has at some point adjusted a piece of gear not in the signal chain and thought we were making it sound better. The placebo effect is not limited to home audiophile enthusiasts.
I remember working at a jazz festival where we were live broadcasting from two different stages - different performers, different piano, different drum kit, different mics, a very different acoustic space, different on-stage monitors, different mix engineer, etc. And one of my colleagues opined that the main difference he heard between the two stages was due to the mic preamps of the different mixing consoles. Yeah, sure dude.
It's more that you didn't watch the video, in which case the LLM summary would actually be helpful for you.
It's pretty clear from what you wrote.
I watched part of the video. I prefer hearing your own words to an LLM summary.
I'm watching the rest of it now.
And I see what you did there...
Inverting the argument to create a strawman plus an appeals to authority for good measure.
I didn't invert the argument, I used the exact same category argument as the other person. That's the whole point.
If you think personal experience ("appeals to authority") is irrelevant and just want data then what I objected to you should object to as well. There is no difference between this guy saying "legendary producers and engineers have historically misattributed the great sound of classic records to their expensive preamps" and me saying " I haven't heard a single engineer in my 25 years as a professional engineer" do that. Both are statements without any evidence attached to them. Get it? He creates an unproven strawman, I do the same.
And it's only potentially correct in his case if we assume that his thesis is correct, because if it is true that these legendary engineers said this and his core thesis is wrong then it won't matter anyway.
Mr. Swordfish
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2025
- Messages
- 286
- Likes
- 385
There are lots of things recording engineers do that are not "clean, transparent amplification". Whomping the EQ around compression, distortion, artificial reverb, running the signal through vacuum tubes and transformers. Generally, this isn't done for reproduction at home if you claim to be an "audiophile", although there's no shortage of people using tone controls at home.
I think what he's trying to say is that just because the engineers who made your record used some technique that doesn't mean it's applicable to home stereo usage.
Yeah, the drums might sound "better" if you record them hot on analog tape to get the tape saturation compression/distortion that was common for a lot of classic rock, but that doesn't mean that you should have a reel to reel tape machine at home and run your CDs through it to get the same effect.
