Are you satisfied with your home Audio System?

[amirm]

There are two ways to ignore someone:

1. What I do. Simply skip over their responses.
2. Click on their alias under the avatar, and in the pop up select Ignore.

Frank, don't be known for someone many want to ignore. Pull back and read for a while instead of posting. Your general message is heard. Saying more is not good for you or the forum.

 

[amirm]

No, I'm not going to be putting anyone on Ignore, and I don't believe for a minute that anyone is "trolling". However, the fact remains that audio quality cannot be discerned over a phone recording (with clipping and AGC!!) made in a factory unit and listened to over YouTube - although, for clarity, I am prepared to drop the YouTube 'bottleneck' because it is the least of our problems.

The directivity of the microphone and the fact that it is either not stereo, or doesn't have the same distance and characteristics of one's two ears means what it records is not what you would hear if you were there. This is why all of these recordings sound different and immediately tell you it is a camcorder/phone recording.

 

[NorthSky]

Are we off topic?

1. We need a dedicated thread about the "Ignore List".
2. We need a personal thread about "Frank".
3. We need a dedicated thread about "Youtube" music videos and their level of value in assessing "sound quality".

I'm happy ok enough with my system, but I am also very very aware that it could be much much better. ...By spending more money on room acoustic treatments, by measurements, by quality DSP Room equalisation...parametric and infinite, by purchasing the perfect loudspeakers for my room and ears, by matching them with the perfect amps and preamp, by using the most highest resolution audio sources, by purchasing the very best music recordings of the music I love, by experimenting with wires, by tweaking every single day till totally and perfectly satisfied, by listening to all other's sound systems, by comparing to audio dealer's rooms, by reading ultra high end audio forums, by analyzing everything in life that is analyzable, by using my ears in more advanced ways, by cleaning them properly every morning, by making sure with my family doctor, by exercising because a healthy body inside a healthy/clear/clean mind is one of the best attributes for higher music listening, by purifying everything that is distorted and noise polluting, by taking a course in the mastering of sound quality, by reaching higher than the limited sky, ...brief by simply following the simple and logical rules of the Art of Audio Sound Reproduction.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I seem to have wandered into a parallel universe, where audiophiles are assessing the quality of gear using:
(a) Audio recorded at a distance with a phone that clips every time the sax starts, and then heavily AGCs the sound level while the sax is playing (i.e. dynamic compression)
(b) Undynamic 'cocktail lounge' music backing track
(c) A reverberant concrete and sheet metal factory unit
(d) Streaming over Youtube and therefore heavily data compressed

And after all that, we think there is some unspecifiable problem in "the electronics"...

I agree with all of that. I also have been rather critical of Frank's ideas about such things.

Yet in this case I must agree. It was obvious as the nose on your face while listening to this that a real sax was being recorded, the people sounded real and very clearly all the other music was coming from a hifi rig. Now I don't agree with Frank the problem is in the electronics, not from listening to this. But maybe it gives some idea where Frank is coming from whether I agree or not.

Also if you haven't looked this thread on ASR might be relevant.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/room-recordings-two.684/

I recorded playback of 3 bits of music two of which are higher than usual quality using at least decent mics and no compression. You can download and listen to it yourself.

I think it shows some of the limits of what Frank can do evaluating things over youtube and other sources, but he may disagree. Perhaps discussing that on either side is somewhat illuminating or interesting compared to simple bickering about "yes I can" vs "no you can't". I think it illustrates how mic directionality and position can make such big differences you couldn't tell much about the system quality otherwise.

Also you might be interested in Ray's thread where he recorded his system playing music.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/in-room-recording.677/

 

[NorthSky]

 

[NorthSky]

 

[Blumlein 88]

No, I'm not going to be putting anyone on Ignore, and I don't believe for a minute that anyone is "trolling". However, the fact remains that audio quality cannot be discerned over a phone recording (with clipping and AGC!!) made in a factory unit and listened to over YouTube - although, for clarity, I am prepared to drop the YouTube 'bottleneck' because it is the least of our problems.

I forget whom it was, but read in a music mag years ago about one of the big name rock mixers of the 1980's and 1990's. It was said once he got a rep he spent most of his time with girls and drugs at home. He had assistants handle his studio. At certain points they called him, and over a cordless phone usually by his pool he would listen to what they had done. He would give instructions to move this track in the mix or bring this up and that down etc etc. Yes even though listening to mono playback over a cordless phone. Usually his mix instructions worked better than those at the studio. Or so it was written. He apparently carried on this way for a decade and didn't lack for clients.

Now maybe it was his rep and everyone just believed, or maybe his results were good in spite of his method. I have always wondered if somehow he did manage to get results that way because of something he had learned to do with his hearing.

 

[fas42]

Yet in this case I must agree. It was obvious as the nose on your face while listening to this that a real sax was being recorded, the people sounded real and very clearly all the other music was coming from a hifi rig. Now I don't agree with Frank the problem is in the electronics, not from listening to this. But maybe it gives some idea where Frank is coming from whether I agree or not.

Yes. The point is that there are so many acoustic clues coming through which nail the elements which are "real", and those that are from a reproduction system. And what I'm after is to refine a system so that if one were to record it using a simple phone recorder, poor quality and all, that someone listening to just that clip would not be able to determine whether it was "real" or not. Why? Because, IME, that translates to audio playback which is convincing to listen to, in the flesh - people who have spent much time with audio gear have learned to compensate for the usual, audible behaviours, and literally don't hear that it doesn't sound all that brilliant. This produces the often repeated anecdote, "even my girlfriend thought it sounded good tonight!"

I recorded playback of 3 bits of music two of which are higher than usual quality using at least decent mics and no compression. You can download and listen to it yourself.

I think it shows some of the limits of what Frank can do evaluating things over youtube and other sources, but he may disagree. Perhaps discussing that on either side is somewhat illuminating or interesting compared to simple bickering about "yes I can" vs "no you can't". I think it illustrates how mic directionality and position can make such big differences you couldn't tell much about the system quality otherwise.

Also you might be interested in Ray's thread where he recorded his system playing music.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/in-room-recording.677/

I'm only interested in using clips to pick whether there is something intrinsically wrong with the sound, for whatever reasons. If I can't pick anything substantive I'm happy with that - it's a troubleshooting tool, not a judgment tool.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Are we off topic?

1. We need a dedicated thread about the "Ignore List".
2. We need a personal thread about "Frank".
3. We need a dedicated thread about "Youtube" music videos and their level of value in assessing "sound quality".

I'm impressed by your kindness and patience, though a thread dedicated to ignoring wouldn't be likely to stay kind for long. A thread about Frank? I think Frank has probably already drawn far more attention than he deserves. A thread about Youtube videos? That Frank thinks these are useful in evaluating systems is probably the strongest proof that his entire methodology is not based on perception, but on imagination. That would be a total waste of digits.

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

Lol Tim, if 7.35 billion of us would plant a tree tomorrow morning we would have an immense forest and it would contribute to the equilibrium of global warming.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Lol Tim, if 7.35 billion of us would plant a tree tomorrow morning we would have an immense forest and it would contribute to the equilibrium of global warming.

If 7.35 billion of us would commit suicide tomorrow the equilibrium will happen much sooner. Just saying,

 

[Sal1950]

Lol Tim, if 7.35 billion of us would plant a tree tomorrow morning we would have an immense forest and it would contribute to the equilibrium of global warming.

Are you off your meds again? You've filled this whole page saying nothing of worth and posting ridiculous videos that have contributed nothing to the topic.
Take two and call me in the morning, if you must.

 

[NorthSky]

Are you guys watching the Olympics in Rio?

 

[Thomas savage]

If 7.35 billion of us would commit suicide tomorrow the equilibrium will happen much sooner. Just saying,

Though despite that the planet is doomed to become unsuitable for sustaining life regardless of our behaviours. It will lose atmosphere and all the water will bugger off.. Killing ourselves won't change that though would give a chance for another sentient being to evolve.., ALL TOGETHER NOW

 

[NorthSky]

Where's that Olympian spirit. ...Be good sports.

 

[Sal1950]

Though despite that the planet is doomed to become unsuitable for sustaining life regardless of our behaviours. It will lose atmosphere and all the water will bugger off.. Killing ourselves won't change that though would give a chance for another sentient being to evolve.., ALL TOGETHER NOW

Could be the alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse will come first?

 

[Thomas savage]

Could be the alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse will come first?

One can dream of such a welcome break from our self sustaining ( and defeating) tedium

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where's that Olympian spirit. ...Be good sports.

It was robbed near a green pool of water. Currently in custody of police.

 

[FrantzM]

If 7.35 billion of us would commit suicide tomorrow the equilibrium will happen much sooner. Just saying,

We may well be doing it albeit slowly with our ways ...

 

[TBone]

Yes Frank, I use Disney WoW Blu-ray calibration disc for the picture parameters.

Yeah, I'm a bit embarrassed to chime that I purchased the WoW disk also ...

Still find it difficult to admit I needed Goofy to teach me the art of HDTV calibration.

Anyway, never really worked out for me, but it turns out not to be Goofy's fault.

No matter which settings, although attaining good results otherwise, something always looked wrong and visually a bit fatiguing. Didn't know why for quite some time, but after trying another method, I realized that while I could set my TV dead on spec, my Panny BRP was sending an over-sharp signal at it's default setting. Sharpness on my Panny is now scaled back to it's minimum value (-1) and this is something I now recommend to any videophile; unless you own an OPPO, based on evidence and measurements I've witnessed (no links) the vast majority of BRP (main manufacturers) are set -by default- to include a tad too high a sharpness level.

The WoW disk isn't much use to me anymore, it includes some nice features and serves a purpose, but it lacks far more useful test(s); one being color clipping ...