# Determining SQ via Internet Videos



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

In my experience, I am able to discern variations in Sound Quality using the right tools and internet videos. 

Others have contested my findings, and stated their opinion, which contradicts mine. 

It is my opinion that if one has the proper tools, and has critical listening skills, then one can hear differences and thus make determinations of varying degrees of the quality of sound.

The tools needed to discern differences need to be of quality high enough with enough resolution to disclose said differences in the first place.

I have a Macbook Pro and a set of Audio-technica ATH-ANC7B headphones.

Obviously, if one just uses computer speakers, or a cheap $15 set of ear-buds the resolution will not be high enough to hear differences.

Here are 4 links to internet videos using the same equipment in the same room recorded with the same recording device. The only variable is the speakers. 

There is one brand of speakers that, to me, stands out apart from the rest in regards to tonality and the sound stage they throw. 

So my questions, for those of you that have a good set of headphones is:


1. Can you actually hear differences via internet videos.

2. Can you form an opinion of Sound Quality via listening via internet videos.

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, how would you rank the following 4 pairs of speakers in terms of SQ (1 being the highest and 4 being the lowest.) 

To me there is one brand of speaker that clearly and obviously stands out above the rest. I'm curious to see if others can tell as well?



A.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfgBMWiuMTg

B.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9RElCONZ8

C.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N09BLycQhGI

D.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w96zTrIVRIQ


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

I was so hoping you were joking when saying you 'critically listened' to soundsystems via internet videos.......

WOW.. 

I cannot believe You think you can tell the difference in a speaker or system's quality while Listening to it through a completely different set of speakers and amps?(yes, headphones are speakers and amps)

I believe I could record the same speakers 10 different times and you would think they were 10 different speakers.. There are just too many variables in the recording..........

ref: I use Grado SR225e with Schiit Asgard 2, so I think that part is covered..


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

I can even hear a big difference with just my Mac Book Pro speakers. 

I's surprised no one has taken the time to chime in....


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

felix509 said:


> I was so hoping you were joking when saying you 'critically listened' to soundsystems via internet videos.......
> 
> WOW..
> 
> ...


Everything will be relative.........have you listened to all 4 videos? Can you hear differences? Or are you just going to make a blanket statement which adds nothing but your opinion and your theory.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Of course anyone can hear differences, but related those differences to being the speaker or system and not some other variable would be impossible. 

Plus, when evaluating a car system, there are many other aspects than just tonal quality. It would be impossible, IMHO, to tell anything properly regarding the stage height, width, depth, dynamics, center image, spacing of instruments, etc. via a recording.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> Of course anyone can hear differences, but related those differences to being the speaker or system and not some other variable would be impossible.
> 
> Plus, when evaluating a car system, there are many other aspects than just tonal quality. It would be impossible, IMHO, to tell anything properly regarding the stage height, width, depth, dynamics, center image, spacing of instruments, etc. via a recording.


So did you listen to the videos? Can you hear differences?

Does one stand out to having better SQ than the others?

Do you really only believe that the only differences are tonal?

Because I can hear way more than just tonality differences. Maybe you can't.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Just off the top of my head, here are some variables you can't account for in a recording, and these items would effect just the frequency response, little lone not being able to tell anything I stated above about a system from a recording:

- Accuracy of recording mic
- placement of mic (RTA your car and then move the mic 3 inches, the Frequency responce will be different)
- quality of source music
- amount of file compression in said video
- any EQ Implemented (if trying to evaluate speakers alone)
- enclosure size and effect of said size (if trying to evaluate speakers alone)
- "The Room" and it's effects on said speakers (if trying to evaluate speakers alone)
- Playback Speakers/amp/headphones/eq/etc. used to listen to recording (a person could use the same for everything they listen too, but the Frequency Response would have to be perfectly flat

And I'm sure I'm forgetting other variables.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> So did you listen to the videos? Can you hear differences? Yes
> 
> Does one stand out to having better SQ than the others? Unable to tell due to too many variables. Differences could be attributed to (see post above)
> 
> ...


Answers in red

The fact that there is a thread on this and I am even engaging you in this discussion is just plain sad.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

There are no golden ears, just trained and untrained ears.

Trained ears will hear a huge difference between a 2ch in a room and an average car, untrained ears won't. Trained ears will tell a musician when the instrument is off by a few cents, untrained ears won't notice this. Trained ears are good at using an eq based on what they they are hearing, untrained ears use the eq with an RTA, on and on.


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

I can absolutely here differences in the videos.. What does that prove?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> Just off the top of my head, here are some variables you can't account for in a recording, and these items would effect just the frequency response, little lone not being able to tell anything I stated above about a system from a recording:
> 
> - Accuracy of recording mic
> - placement of mic (RTA your car and then move the mic 3 inches, the Frequency responce will be different)
> ...


Your above answers are based upon theory and not fact. Address the four videos and talk about the differences in those. Stop skirting the issue.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Here are 4 links to internet videos using the same equipment in the same room recorded with the same recording device. The only variable is the speakers.


WRONG:

1) They are all playing different tracts (no clue about quality in recording differences alone between the tracts) 
2) and at the very least, videos C & D are from a different distance than A & B. 
3) Video B has a set of speakers now on the table right next to one of the new speakers playing, no doubt this has some effect on the frequency response.
4) Video D is using a different amp
5) Speakers in Video C are spaced way differently and sitting next to other speakers would would change the response
6) No way to tell the differences in the playback volume

Do you know for a fact that all the videos have the exact same compression, or are you guessing they due based on the fact they are from the same person? 

How is the only variable the speakers?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> Answers in red
> 
> The fact that there is a thread on this and I am even engaging you in this discussion is just plain sad.


In the 4 videos, I can hear unique differences in the sound stage they throw on top of the tonality differences. I'm sorry that you can't.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In the 4 videos, I can hear unique differences in the sound stage they throw on top of the tonality differences. I'm sorry that you can't.


Don't be sorry. I am smart enough to understand that what I am hearing through a video may have nothing to do with the speakers and everything to due with unknown variables and differences. I'm sorry you aren't.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Gerald, everyone hears the difference between the four videos, even on cheap laptop speakers, BUT there are just too many variables that could account for it including the recordings themselves. It's just not possible to qualify those differences as one speaker being better than an another.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> WRONG:
> 
> 1) They are all playing different tracts (no clue about quality in recording differences alone between the tracts)
> 2) and at the very least, videos C & D are from a different distance than A & B.
> ...


There is no way in hell you could get the first pair of speakers (A) to sound like the third. I don't care at what volume level, where you move the microphone, or what you do. It is clear that the speakers in the third video (C) have a higher SQ with both tonality and the stage they throw. If you don't recognize that, then I was right about your critical listening skills.


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In the 4 videos, I can hear unique differences in the sound stage they throw on top of the tonality differences. I'm sorry that you can't.


11111111


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> In the 4 videos, I can hear unique differences in the sound stage they throw on top of the tonality differences. I'm sorry that you can't.


If you listen to the videos with cans, just know that cans are horrible at imaging and staging, the only cues you get from cans are tonal cues. Zip for imaging and the stage is squished in your head, between your ears.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> There is no way in hell you could get the first pair of speakers (A) to sound like the third. I don't care at what volume level, where you move the microphone, or what you do. It is clear that the speakers in the third video (C) have a higher SQ with both tonality and the stage they throw. If you don't recognize that, then I was right about your critical listening skills.


And I bet that has nothing at all to do with the mic being much closer to the speakers on Video C, does it? Or maybe the recording of the song being played? 

At the closer distance, the room has a different effect.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> And I bet that has nothing at all to do with the mic being much closer to the speakers on Video C, does it? Or maybe the recording of the song being played?
> 
> At the closer distance, the room has a different effect.


I bet if you take all 4 sets of speakers and put them in the same room, on the very same stands and angle them at the listening position, play the same track, at the same volume level, and keep every other variable you come up with in real life, the third speakers ( video C) will out preform all of the others. 

If you have to do that test to prove it to yourself, then go for it. I don't have to because I can hear.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

How do you explain the Benny Z results, If what I am saying is not true?

Would you attribute it to a lucky guess?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I bet if you take all 4 sets of speakers and put them in the same room, on the very same stands and angle them at the listening position, play the same track, at the same volume level, and keep every other variable you come up with in real life, the third speakers ( video C) will out preform all of the others.
> 
> If you have to do that test to prove it to yourself, then go for it. I don't have to because I can hear.


And you know this because??? Doesn't sound like fact to me....sounds like a complete guess. Not even an educated one.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> How do you explain the Benny Z results, If what I am saying is not true?
> 
> Would you attribute it to a lucky guess?


No, the fact that BennyZ has a good sounding car and does competitions. 

You listened to only his car over the internet and *guessed* he would do good at competitions. 

I can one up you. I have never personally heard a single car Steve Head or Scott Buwalda have built and I bet their next car, not even built yet and maybe not even a thought in their mind yet, will do good at competitions.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> And you know this because??? Doesn't sound like fact to me....sounds like a complete guess. Not even an educated one.


Like I said in the previous post. How do you explain me listening to Benny Z demo video and saying it was the best I have heard and I have listened to hundreds. He placed in the top three in the finals. How do you account for this? Lucky Guess?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

^^^Exactly. A lucky guess. Glad you finally admit it.

And Stop Skirting the issue.....the Videos you posted all have differences that would change the sound, and this is fact.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> No, the fact that BennyZ has a good sounding car and does competitions.
> 
> You listened to only his car over the internet and *guessed* he would do good at competitions.
> 
> I can one up you. I have never personally heard a single car Steve Head or Scott Buwalda have built and I bet their next car, not even built yet and maybe not even a thought in their mind yet, will do good at competitions.


So I'm guessing not actually hearing. O.K. then. I found a vehicle that sounds better than Benny Z in my opinion.

If you read my on line evaluation, written by listening only over head phones, if you read my comments, and then read Benny Z's opinion, ( he actually sat in the car ) You will find that they are congruent. 

Another lucky guess?
How do you explain this one, recorded with an I phone 5

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1488277138148937/


Gerald J. Costa: Very good quality recording. The Cello sounded real, and the guitar sounded live. The voice seemed uncolored and natural. There was some sibilance on the top end. It sounds as if the sound-stage is large and expansive. I would give it an 9.5.

Benny Z: This is one of the most magical cars I have ever experienced. The speakers literally disappear. You see them, but they aren't there. The music does not originate from them, you'd swear.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> No, the fact that BennyZ has a good sounding car and does competitions.
> 
> You listened to only his car over the internet and *guessed* he would do good at competitions.
> 
> I can one up you. I have never personally heard a single car Steve Head or Scott Buwalda have built and I bet their next car, not even built yet and maybe not even a thought in their mind yet, will do good at competitions.


A year or so ago, I didn't know who Benny Z was nor did I know who Scott Buwalda was either. But that is not a good comparison because I based my opinion on what I heard. 

Your statement is based upon a known reputation. Big difference here.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I can't tell if you're being serious or just having some fun with us with this post.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> I can't tell if you're being serious or just having some fun with us with this post.


That's what makes Gerald adorable, he's dead serious .


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

captainobvious said:


> I can't tell if you're being serious or just having some fun with us with this post.


He has to be joking around...


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

I'm having trouble tuning my stereo, can someone tell me what settings I need to achieve maximum sound quality?


----------



## brumledb (Feb 2, 2015)

captainobvious said:


> I can't tell if you're being serious or just having some fun with us with this post.


He is definitely not joking. I have seen him mention believing this in several threads. He also believes that he can demo speakers via internet videos to determine their quality.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

ca90ss said:


> I'm having trouble tuning my stereo, can someone tell me what settings I need to achieve maximum sound quality?


I do not understand tuning, but I have a pretty good ear. 

With that recording, I hear the bass a little overpowering. So I would cut back that a little.

The mid-range is pretty good. Except for the voice. Seems a tad hollow. Not sure how to fix that. 

The high end is spot on. You have that nailed.


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

Love this thread..........................


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Has anyone listened to the videos ? 

Does everyone just believe it to be a joke?

Dead serious here.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

captainobvious said:


> I can't tell if you're being serious or just having some fun with us with this post.


I can describe the sound in your car, from listening to it in person in Syracuse. I have a photographic memory and ear.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I can describe the sound in your car, from listening to it in person in Syracuse. I have a photographic memory and ear.




You are kidding right?
This entire thread HAS TO BE A TROLL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Has anyone listened to the videos ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I listened to the videos and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to determine stage or imaging via a recoding of a recoding thru the internet on your computer into your headphones NO ****ING WAY!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

chefhow said:


> You are kidding right?
> This entire thread HAS TO BE A TROLL.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I give up.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

May I test you hearing ability? Later, I will go to my car, and make 2 videos. I will make changes and I want you to tell me what I changed. If you are right, I will give you props and never challenge you on the topic again.

New Thread.......Gerald vs Gerald (Jerry)


----------



## felix509 (Dec 17, 2006)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I give up.


Well, Seeing as it is physically impossibly do determine the quality of a speaker by listening to them through a second set of speakers, headway has been made...

Next we shall address the photographic memory of sound......... Another physically impossible feat.......

Best Regards
L


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> How do you explain the Benny Z results, If what I am saying is not true?
> 
> Would you attribute it to a lucky guess?


as someone whos heard bens car, i can assure you it sounded nothing like his video that you loved so much

this thread is beyond sad


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ca90ss said:


> I'm having trouble tuning my stereo, can someone tell me what settings I need to achieve maximum sound quality?


post a video of it playing and we can help :laugh:


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> May I test you hearing ability? Later, I will go to my car, and make 2 videos. I will make changes and I want you to tell me what I changed. If you are right, I will give you props and never challenge you on the topic again.
> 
> New Thread.......Gerald vs Gerald (Jerry)


I'm up for the challenge. But you don't have to start a new thread. You can do it here.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

felix509 said:


> Well, Seeing as it is physically impossibly do determine the quality of a speaker by listening to them through a second set of speakers, headway has been made...
> 
> Next we shall address the photographic memory of sound......... Another physically impossible feat.......
> 
> ...


Not true, but I gave up trying to convince the doubters.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

SkizeR said:


> post a video of it playing and we can help :laugh:


Click on the picture.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Not true, but I gave up trying to convince the doubters.


gerald, im sorry but you are delusional


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

chefhow said:


> I listened to the videos and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to determine stage or imaging via a recoding of a recoding thru the internet on your computer into your headphones NO ****ING WAY!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


video's A and B throw more of a two dimensional stage

videos C and D are more 3 dimensional

I's sorry that you don't have the skills to hear the differences.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

we need to get this guy to a meca/iasca judge training asap


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> video's A and B throw more of a two dimensional stage
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> we need to get this guy to a meca/iasca judge training asap




Waste of time, he so far beyond those of us who do judging 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Waste of time, he so far beyond those of us who do judging
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


thats kinda what im saying. we need to get him certified so we have the best results possible :laugh:


----------



## bnae38 (Oct 3, 2015)

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:



:rolleyes2:


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> thats kinda what im saying. we need to get him certified so we have the best results possible :laugh:




Maybe he could do the training via internet 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

I find it interesting that not one person commented on the 4 videos themselves.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

I went on YouTube to audition subwoofers and the all sounded awful.  I still bought the one I was looking for. The videos did nothing to influence my opinion because listening to a speaker recorded on a phone or camera and then played through a MacBooks "amazing" DAC means nothing.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't know even know why we have meets anymore.

HRA on DIYMA...


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I find it interesting that not one person commented on the 4 videos themselves.


because theres no point..


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

In all honesty...I like HRA and his continued good will towards the community. I definitely don't agree but I hate to bag on such a nice guy. 

It's like this Dave Chapelle skits... When keeping it real goes wrong

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Locomotive Tech (May 23, 2016)

OK so I did listen to all four videos, 3 times, from three separate sources. My laptop, my headphones connected to my laptop. Headphones obviously sounded the best so on the third pass I connected same headphones to my cell phone.

All four videos sounded different on the first pass. I will not comment on what I heard except that it seems to me that video #3 sounded the best in all three passes. 

The headphones connected to the laptop sounded best on all four songs. I noticed some minute pops here and there and noted the times in the recordings and found that they were not there in all of my listening scenario's which tells me the ability to determine sound quality of any of those speaker/amp combo's. 

The cell phone was generally the poorest sounding of them, I suspect because it is wireless and my Laptop is High speed. 

I will never get the past hour of my life back. I feel foolish for even giving this a chance.


But wait a second!!!!! I just noticed the internet coax is sitting on the floor! and is the standard Verizon issue........Wait for it........

I am going to get some ceramic isolators, some $8,900 twisted, shielded, bonded, conditioned, balanced and blueprinted, harmonically dampened coax internet cables and re-try.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Locomotive Tech said:


> All four videos sounded different on the first pass. I will not comment on what I heard except that it seems to me that video #3 sounded the best in all three passes.
> .


now heres something that gerald doesnt get.. those speakers are placed in different locations than the ones in the other videos, as well as the recording device. that alone completely invalidates it from the rest


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

As mentioned, different recordings, different speaker set ups, mike positioning etc, unless all were recorded in the same studio by the same engineer, even then, it is just not not a good a idea. 



Here is what I heard, with iPad mini

1. Too far lacks too much midrange 

2. Flat no character, the worst

3. Too close, too much midrange and upper midrange 

4. A bit far, but better than all, the cello is barried deep in the stage, the best of them.


----------



## Locomotive Tech (May 23, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> now heres something that gerald doesnt get.. those speakers are placed in different locations than the ones in the other videos, as well as the recording device. that alone completely invalidates it from the rest


And this is what I think I was hearing, not to mention, for me I would like to hear the same song, same speaker placement, and same recording location. 

I did notice the sound stage was best in in video #2 it sounded soo much wider


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

You can never get a total idea of the actual sound because you arent listening to the actual speakers but if you have an excellent Headphone/Dac amp combo listen to some of the Kenrick youtubes- of JBL and others playing music and you can definitely get a sense of the different speakers attributes as well as the Kenrick demo rooms character. After a while you will even begin to tell some of the customers homes characters as you know the speakers themselves well from KEnricks


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Locomotive Tech said:


> I did notice the sound stage was best in in video #2 it sounded soo much wider



and again.. different songs = different stages. 100% invalid


----------



## Locomotive Tech (May 23, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> and again.. different songs = different stages. 100% invalid


No way Man!!! I can hear it! In fact I am going to but a set of those speakers, they are so good, they sound great over a Youtube video!!!! 

Just pulling your chain Nick, the only stage one could hear would be on the final listening equipment.

So the thread title is completely inaccurate, Should be "here are some pretty good quality Youtube recordings"


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I find it interesting that not one person commented on the 4 videos themselves.


I find it interesting that I pointed out all the real issues/differences with the videos and you won't acknowledge what I pointed out. I pointed out all facts.



I800C0LLECT said:


> In all honesty...I like HRA and his continued good will towards the community. I definitely don't agree but I hate to bag on such a nice guy.
> 
> It's like this Dave Chapelle skits... When keeping it real goes wrong
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I agree and I don't want people to think the point of this is to attack HRA. At least he loves audio.....and it shows. I really don't care how he spends his time. I just wish he would stop stating this stuff as fact. We all know it is ********, but others don't. 

IDK, maybe this idea has some merit. Maybe I should set up videos of speakers that I sell so if a customer is in another state or just curious about a brand, they can click on a link and play a video to demo them to just get a basic idea what they sound like, especially if there isn't a dealer of the brand for hundreds of miles. Will this tell them anything about what they will sound like in a car......hell no, but neither does a sound board at a shop. This wouldn't be a whole lot different and possibly better in some ways. Maybe add an on-axis and off-axis response of the set with a demo at 2 volume levels or something. Thoughts?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

I800C0LLECT said:


> In all honesty...I like HRA and his continued good will towards the community. I definitely don't agree but I hate to bag on such a nice guy.
> 
> It's like this Dave Chapelle skits... When keeping it real goes wrong
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Agreed that HRA is a nice guy and an audio fanatic. He has some fixed but fallacious opinions, he often ignores logic and reason, but at least he doesn't brag about his $4K amps and $7K speakers and $13K cables....and just for that I don't like to bag on him.....well most of the time.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> IDK, maybe this idea has some merit. Maybe I should set up videos of speakers that I sell so if a customer is in another state or just curious about a brand, they can click on a link and play a video to demo them to just get a basic idea what they sound like, especially if there isn't a dealer of the brand for hundreds of miles. Will this tell them anything about what they will sound like in a car......hell no, but neither does a sound board at a shop. This wouldn't be a whole lot different and possibly better in some ways. Maybe add an on-axis and off-axis response of the set with a demo at 2 volume levels or something. Thoughts?


Just as a teaser, make a couple of vids and put them on your website, see how many hits you get. I find that in general, folks with more $$ are more gullible than those with less.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Just as a teaser, make a couple of vids and put them on your website, see how many hits you get. I find that in general, folks with more $$ are more gullible than those with less.


I just might try this. Who knows.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Just to clarify newer Apple and other more expensive earbuds were used when listening to the YouTube videos


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Alrojoca said:


> Just to clarify newer Apple and other more expensive earbuds were used when listening to the YouTube videos


doesnt really matter what you use. the videos mean nothing either way


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> doesnt really matter what you use. the videos mean nothing either way


I definitely did not hear any 3 dimensional stage, 

Just different speakers at different distances, and different tracks, either far or close


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

i took a video of the hi res sony prius, and it actually sounded better in the video than in person. lol


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Locomotive Tech said:


> OK so I did listen to all four videos, 3 times, from three separate sources. My laptop, my headphones connected to my laptop. Headphones obviously sounded the best so on the third pass I connected same headphones to my cell phone.
> 
> All four videos sounded different on the first pass. I will not comment on what I heard except that it seems to me that video #3 sounded the best in all three passes.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to actually do a real comparison and post your opinion.

I agree with you 100% that the speakers in video C third video stand out from all the rest. 

To me, I hear clarity, lack of muddiness in the bass region, and a huge sound stage. 

They just sound natural and transparent as if there were no speakers, but musicians playing. 

I'm sorry if it really took a whole hour. My fiancee' and I were both able to notice the difference almost immediately.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Alrojoca said:


> As mentioned, different recordings, different speaker set ups, mike positioning etc, unless all were recorded in the same studio by the same engineer, even then, it is just not not a good a idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting your findings, and your opinion. It shows perspective. I was surprised by your findings. 

My fiance' and I found:

1. Too tinny sounding, worst of all. 

2. A little better than 1, but more flat. No depth.

3. By far the best by leaps and bounds. Speakers were gone as if live musicians were playing. Huge stage. Deep and wide. Perfect tonality.

4. Not bad as far as the stage they threw, but the bass was so muddy which made them unlistenable IMHO.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> now heres something that gerald doesnt get.. those speakers are placed in different locations than the ones in the other videos, as well as the recording device. that alone completely invalidates it from the rest


You could test the 4 pairs of speakers 1000 ways from Sunday in person, and the third set of speakers would outshine the rest by leaps and bounds. I'm so surprised that you cannot recognize this?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

dcfis said:


> You can never get a total idea of the actual sound because you arent listening to the actual speakers but if you have an excellent Headphone/Dac amp combo listen to some of the Kenrick youtubes- of JBL and others playing music and you can definitely get a sense of the different speakers attributes as well as the Kenrick demo rooms character. After a while you will even begin to tell some of the customers homes characters as you know the speakers themselves well from KEnricks



The Kenrick JBLs, yes! He does an awesome job restoring those speakers. Man, I love his work. There is nothing that sounds more warm than 15" woofers filling the room with that pleasing bass, IMHO.

They have a sound that 12" woofers just cannot reproduce!


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Gerald, everyone hears the difference between the four videos, even on cheap laptop speakers, BUT there are just too many variables that could account for it including the recordings themselves. It's just not possible to qualify those differences as one speaker being better than an another.


I disagree with you 100%. In my experience, I have auditioned speakers via internet videos and then confirmed my findings in person. What I hear over the videos is very close to what I hear in real life. A good sounding speaker or system, will sound good in person or on a video. As long as the recording device is of good quality. 

With that said, there will be differences that can be only heard in person. As far as tonality, and stage. But my point is, and I can't stress this enough.

A Great sounding system or speakers is going to sound great when recorded from a decent quality recording device. Period.

There is no way you will find that if one records a system or speakers with a decent recording devise and it sounds ****ty on the recording that its going to sound good in person.

But the opposite is true. A system or speakers that sound great via a recording are going to sound great in person. 

Why people cannot recognize this is beyond me.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> I find it interesting that I pointed out all the real issues/differences with the videos and you won't acknowledge what I pointed out. I pointed out all facts.
> 
> 
> 
> I did on post #20


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Agreed that HRA is a nice guy and an audio fanatic. He has some fixed but fallacious opinions, he often ignores logic and reason, but at least he doesn't brag about his $4K amps and $7K speakers and $13K cables....and just for that I don't like to bag on him.....well most of the time.


That's because I do not find that spending more $$$ Equates to better sound quality. 

Sometimes it does.


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> May I test you hearing ability? Later, I will go to my car, and make 2 videos. I will make changes and I want you to tell me what I changed. If you are right, I will give you props and never challenge you on the topic again.
> 
> New Thread.......Gerald vs Gerald (Jerry)


 You Gotta make this happen!


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

RRizz said:


> You Gotta make this happen!


Yes, I agree. I've been waiting for the challenge.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Slow down champ and just answer my questions, don't wander off in telling us what you heard stuff. I'm asking logical questions, please try and answer them. For a moment, just forget what you heard.



High Resolution Audio said:


> I disagree with you 100%. In my experience, I have auditioned speakers via internet videos and then confirmed my findings in person. What I hear over the videos is very close to what I hear in real life. A good sounding speaker or system, will sound good in person or on a video. As long as the recording device is of good quality.


1. Gerald, apart from all the other issues that have already been mentioned, has it crossed your mind that most of these recordings are with a cell phone, i.e. one mic recording stereo information.....you're essentially hearing a mono recording. How is a mono recording throwing a stage?

2. Since you listen with cans / buds, you must know that cans and buds CANT throw a stage, period. A stage comes from cross talk from hard boundaries. There is no cross talk with cans and buds and hence no stage. The room here is the space between your ears, in your head. Describing a stage through cans is like saying you can see the big dipper during the day, an oxymoron for sure.

3. You're saying the speakers on the net vids sound very close to the speakers in real life? Really? The fact is that even the crappiest speaker will sound 100x better in real life than on a vid. First of all, how can you discount all the the signal degradation possibilities from the speaker to the vid and secondly, have you even considered the fact that, if you're not hearing the real speakers as much, much better, it's simply because you're not hearing that difference? You're listening to it but you're not hearing it.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Let alone the fact that YouTube audio is also heavily compressed 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Where's Ashton Kutcher and the film crew


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Slow down champ and just answer my questions, don't wander off in telling us what you heard stuff. I'm asking logical questions, please try and answer them. For a moment, just forget what you heard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. In my opinion, I can hear sound stage depth through the recorded reflections ( i guess) , even be it mono. There is no possible way for me to determine if a center image was in center or off center. That would be impossible. 

But for me, I can hear a general type of stage. Open and expansive (deep and wide) vs shallow and two dimensional. I don't know how to explain using words the differences I hear, but I hear them. 

2. I understand that, but if there is a deep wide stage present during a recording, I can hear differences verses a recording of a shallow two dimensional stage. Even though the recording be in mono. 

3. All speakers are going to sound better in person. But like I stated earlier, if it sounds ****ty over a recording its not going to sound great no matter what. If one sounds great in a recording, it will sound phenomenal in person.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

The results so far of this thread lead me to believe that listening skills vary from person to person.

Harmon did research on this. When consumer reports rated their speakers lower on the list than others, they couldn't understand why.

After doing extensive research using control groups and such, they found that people most people cannot recognize SQ without being trained first.

After training, and testing their results showed that recognizing sound quality is a learned trait. 

It is obvious to me that the speakers in video 3 are some of the best sounding speakers that I have ever heard. ( not yet in person ) 

They are made by Aerial Acoustics and are called the 5T.

If one takes further initiative and searches Youtube for that model and listens to as many videos as possible, one may come up with the same findings as I have. 

This speaker sounds amazing on almost all videos because it is an amazing sounding speaker. If I were in the market for a set of home speakers, these would be my choice. Of course, I would have to demo them in person to confirm, but I'm 90+% sure that I wouldn't change my mind.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> 1. In my opinion, I can hear sound stage depth through the recorded reflections ( i guess) , even be it mono. There is no possible way for me to determine if a center image was in center or off center. That would be impossible.
> 
> But for me, I can hear a general type of stage. Open and expansive (deep and wide) vs shallow and two dimensional. I don't know how to explain using words the differences I hear, but I hear them.
> 
> ...


I won't argue facts with you. 

I will leave you with one thought, your real issue is that the TM *is* your ref sound, but it's only a WIP. How will you improve the TM if that already is your ref? The TM cannot be a world class experience unless you _allow_ yourself to have a ref sound, that is at least a couple of levels above, where the TM is now. You have to hear the difference between the TM and something better, so that you can then come back and improve the TM. Step by step by step.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gerald, were all here because we all know at least the basics of what to listen for. otherwise we would all have deck and 4 installs. you are just delusional. im sorry to put it so bluntly, but there really is no other way to put it.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

If my claims are not true, then how does one explain away post #26?

No one has yet commented on that post, or given a reasonable explanation:

Me listening to a video of said system,

and Benny Zs first hand description of said system

and how the two are congruent.

I have no idea of who the person is, to whom this system belongs. I just listened and gave my impressions. 

What say you?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> If my claims are not true, then how does one explain away post #26?
> 
> No one has yet commented on that post, or given a reasonable explanation:
> 
> ...


jerry has already said it. guesses at best.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> gerald, were all here because we all know at least the basics of what to listen for. otherwise we would all have deck and 4 installs. you are just delusional. im sorry to put it so bluntly, but there really is no other way to put it.



You have learned how to place center where it suppose to be and tune for tonality. You may have learned how to strive to make the stage high and horizontal. You may even know the theory behind making a system to have depth and width. And proper image and focus.......

But obviously, you do not have the skills to recognize a great sounding pair of speakers when you listen to one. 

But knowing you, and how lazy you are, and how you like to post opinions without doing research just to make yourself feel like an authority, I bet you haven't even listened to the 4 videos to begin with.

Your comments indicate that there is no point anyway. And even if you did listen to the 4 videos and could recognize that the Aerials are the best sounding of the bunch, you would not admit it.

Your college education has made programmed to not accept fact for fact, but yet challenge everything. You're the type of person who if I put your hand in a fire, and you got burned, you wouldn't believe it was the fire that burned you. You would make up excuses and come up with a thousand different ways to try and disprove that it not actually the fire, but some other variable or coincidence. That is the type of person you are.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> 3. By far the best by leaps and bounds. Speakers were gone as if live musicians were playing. Huge stage. Deep and wide. Perfect tonality.


How can you hear a stage from a set of cans? 
How can you hear depth and width from a set of cans?
How can you hear PERFECT TONALITY from an iphone recording played thru Youtube to a set of cans?
How can you not be trolling?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> You have learned how to place center where it suppose to be and tune for tonality. You may have learned how to strive to make the stage high and horizontal. You may even know the theory behind making a system to have depth and width. And proper image and focus.......
> 
> But obviously, you do not have the skills to recognize a great sounding pair of speakers when you listen to one.


so your saying i know how to make a car sound good and the theory behind it, but i dont know good sound? interesting




High Resolution Audio said:


> But knowing you, and how lazy you are, and how you like to post opinions without doing research just to make yourself feel like an authority, I bet you haven't even listened to the 4 videos to begin with.


i actually did before i even posted anything. then again a few different times after various posts. how would you know if im lazy or not? here are a couple of my posts that should have indicated otherwise..



SkizeR said:


> now heres something that gerald doesnt get.. those speakers are placed in different locations than the ones in the other videos, as well as the recording device. that alone completely invalidates it from the rest





SkizeR said:


> and again.. different songs = different stages. 100% invalid






High Resolution Audio said:


> Your comments indicate that there is no point anyway. And even if you did listen to the 4 videos and could recognize that the Aerials are the best sounding of the bunch, you would not admit it.


your right, i wouldnt. i havent heard them in person. even if the videos did play the same song with the same positions and same recording position, i would just say "this VIDEO sounds better" (not "these speakers sound better")



High Resolution Audio said:


> Your college education has made programmed to not accept fact for fact, but yet challenge everything. You're the type of person who if I put your hand in a fire, and you got burned, you wouldn't believe it was the fire that burned you. You would make up excuses and come up with a thousand different ways to try and disprove that it not actually the fire, but some other variable or coincidence. That is the type of person you are.


interesting, i never went to college so idk what programming your talking about. and the only fact that came out of this thread is that you really are delusional. truly 100% delusional. your last analogy also doesnt make much sense. 

ps, i would say the fire burned me then say **** you for forcing my hand in it.. just like any other rational person


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> How can you not be trolling?


because hes delusional and actually believes himself. 

he reminds me of a guy i met on the chairlift at the local mountain the other day.. guy was spouting off about how all computers and devices are one "being" named samantha and she wants us to obey her wishes. and also there are giant heads in the sky that can shape shift back into planes when "non messengers" look at them. pure. ****ing. insanity... just like this thread


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sqnut said:


> I won't argue facts with you.
> 
> I will leave you with one thought, your real issue is that the TM *is* your ref sound, but it's only a WIP. How will you improve the TM if that already is your ref? The TM cannot be a world class experience unless you _allow_ yourself to have a ref sound, that is at least a couple of levels above, where the TM is now. You have to hear the difference between the TM and something better, so that you can then come back and improve the TM. Step by step by step.


I have listened to hundreds of reference systems. As I said before, I have flown across my country to California to listen to the Magic Bus and over a hundred two channel systems at one of the biggest home audio shows in the United States, T.H.E. Show in Newport Beach. I went in every room and listened to every system. One particular system cost about $750,000. ( not that price is a determining factor in all cases )

I went to the New York Audio show and heard many many more systems. I've listened to speakers from other countries. My experience with good sounding two channels is enough. I have demoed the best sounding two channel systems on the planet. 

And I can remember what they sound like and the experiences. There are a few stand outs in my mind that I cannot forget.

Cabasse La Sphere which featured concentric time aligned three way with a time aligned sub-woofer enclosed behind.

and Quad ESL electrostatic system which sound stage went down my left and right sides like I was in the middle of a hallway and the sound was the left and right walls. 

Some Gamut Audio speakers that featured Scan drivers.

and of course some Wilson Audio Sasha Series 2

and Vivid Giya whose designer worked for Bowers and Wilkins and designed the famous Nautilus speakers 

and of course Bowers and Wilkins Diamond series speakers whose stage was the furthest away out of any system I have ever heard. The stage was about 12-13' away from where the speakers were placed. A very disturbing system to listen to. It was hard to wrap my brain around it. 

And some small bookshelf speakers made by Focus Audio a manufacturer in Canada. The stage that these two little speakers threw filled up a whole motel room. I was dumbfounded as my eyes and ears did not paint the same picture. Still scratching my head to this day.

But the most incredible sounding speakers I have ever heard in my life were the Aerial Acoustics 20T. They feature a ribbon tweeter and Scanspeak 7" custom mid range. They design their enclosures with a box inside of a box with vibration dampers in between. Some of the best sounding speakers in the world. They are not well known, because they do no advertising and the factory is here in my home state of Massachusetts. 

So I do have many references to refer back to. And my goal is to make the TM sound as close to, as good, or better than those reference systems if possible but not probable due to the room limitations.


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

I think "Samantha" wants Gerald to buy some ariels......


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

chefhow said:


> How can you hear a stage from a set of cans?
> How can you hear depth and width from a set of cans?
> How can you hear PERFECT TONALITY from an iphone recording played thru Youtube to a set of cans?
> How can you not be trolling?


Want to be blown away? Find a set of the Aerial Acoustics 5T speakers and demo them. I have not heard them in person, but I bet you will agree with me that they sound incredible.

I can hear how well they sound on videos. Maybe you should open your mind up to the possibility.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

claydo said:


> I think "Samantha" wants Gerald to buy some ariels......


lol Gotta love your humor and perspective on everything. You have some of the most reasonable posts on this forum. You and ErinH. Gotta love ya!


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

I'd like to demo some of these, good price.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Alrojoca said:


> I'd like to demo some of these, good price.


.25 cents? How can you go wrong?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

gerald, you skipped over my reply..


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> so your saying i know how to make a car sound good and the theory behind it, but i dont know good sound? interesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then just say the speakers in video three sound best. It's that simple. Same as the above analogy^^^


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Then just say the speakers in video three sound best. It's that simple. Same as the above analogy^^^


how can i say which ones sound the best when they all play different songs? songs that im unfamiliar with as well.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Want to be blown away? Find a set of the Aerial Acoustics 5T speakers and demo them. I have not heard them in person, but I bet you will agree with me that they sound incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> I can hear how well they sound on videos. Maybe you should open your mind up to the possibility.




Listening to a set of drivers in a controlled environment vs on a recording of a recoding thru a computer to a set of cans isn't a logical way to evaluate a set of drivers, even you have to know that. If you don't then everything you have ever typed and everything going forward is a troll and I as well as many others will probably be done.

As to having an opened mind if you k ew me you'd know how invalid and ridiculous that statement is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

chefhow said:


> Where's Ashton Kutcher and the film crew
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i've been waiting for them to pop out in a number of threads, and they haven't.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Listening to a set of drivers in a controlled environment vs on a recording of a recoding thru a computer to a set of cans isn't a logical way to evaluate a set of drivers, even you have to know that. If you don't then everything you have ever typed and everything going forward is a troll and I as well as many others will probably be done.
> 
> As to having an opened mind if you k ew me you'd know how invalid and ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> ...


its not trolling if its not done on purpose for self amusement. this isnt for self amusement for him. remember, he truly believes this stuff. just like he truly believed that the lower frequencies in his truck sounded better during a full moon.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> its not trolling if its not done on purpose for self amusement. this isnt for self amusement for him. remember, he truly believes this stuff. just like he truly believed that the lower frequencies in his truck sounded better during a full moon.




That's just it, I think he does know the difference and he's just stirring the pot.

Never heard the full moon theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> its not trolling if its not done on purpose for self amusement. this isnt for self amusement for him. remember, he truly believes this stuff. just like he truly believed that the lower frequencies in his truck sounded better during a full moon.


The following is your quote:

"your right, i wouldnt. i havent heard them in person. even if the videos did play the same song with the same positions and same recording position, i would just say "this VIDEO sounds better" (not "these speakers sound better")"

IT IS MY POINT ALL ALONG, THAT KEEPS FALLING ON DEAF EARS, THAT IF THE VIDEO OF SPEAKERS PLAYING SOUNDS BETTER, THEN MORE THAN LIKELY IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE SPEAKERS WILL SOUND BETTER IN PERSON!

It has nothing to do with trolling, it has to do with making a simple point.

For those of you who don't believe my theory to be true, so be it. It would be my opinion that you are close minded, and are not open to different perspectives.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm glad I'm not the only one waiting to find out we've been punk'd. 

If a hillbilly farts in the woods on a full moon, can Gerald hear it through his subs?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Yes, I agree. I've been waiting for the challenge.


Here you go. I haven't even listened to them myself, but I do know what I changed between the 2 recordings. Tell me what you hear and I'll divulge what I changed. If it makes sense, you will have proved a pretty incredible ability.











This last video I found on my phone when uploading these above. Science experiment I helped set up for my daughter. It's definitely been done before and even on TV (Big Band Theory), but still quite fun. We tested from 120hz to 20hz in 10hz increments and she wrote a paper on the findings.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Never heard the full moon theory.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


when he was over my place when i was tuning his truck, he went on for a bit about how and why he thinks his lower frequencies sound better during a full moon. i thought he was kidding. turns out he, in his own mind, was dead serious


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> Here you go. I haven't even listened to them myself, but I do know what I changed between the 2 recordings. Tell me what you hear and I'll divulge what I changed. If it makes sense, you will have proved a pretty incredible ability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I quickly listened to the first two videos........

The first one was recorded perfectly

The second was recorded with some drivers out of phase. That was easy.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> The following is your quote:
> 
> "your right, i wouldnt. i havent heard them in person. even if the videos did play the same song with the same positions and same recording position, i would just say "this VIDEO sounds better" (not "these speakers sound better")"
> 
> ...


yes but you fail to realize that this is no way to listen to speakers or get an idea of how they sound. as a matter of fact, your doing a disservice to the community by posting this ****. a "customer" of mine whos truck i tune called me the other day after reading your youtube **** and said he wants to go three way because the 3 way systems on youtube sound better than the 2 way systems on youtube. i asked him where he got the idea that this was a good way to get an idea.. sure enough.. "that high res guy". i had to spend over an hour on the phone with him explaining to him why he shouldnt be listening to "that high res guy"


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Regarding niebur3 videos

Without giving specific details like out of phase etc.


1. First 45 secs, perfect the rest sound sounded horrible until maybe the last minute where, there was lack of bass, not balanced.


2. Same as the last part of 1, for a bit, then, totally distorted high frequencies was the most distraction in he last part, really bad


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

I only listened to the first few seconds of each video, as said he was going to make two videos with one change.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I only listened to the first few seconds of each video, as said he was going to make two videos with one change.


No excuse,  being 2 min videos, you should have listened to the whole thing.
Let's see what others have to say including niebur

My guess EQ cutting and boosting was done to make the differences


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Alrojoca said:


> No excuse,  being 2 min videos, you should have listened to the whole thing.
> Let's see what others have to say including niebur
> 
> My guess EQ cutting and boosting was done to make the differences


First off I have a strong dislike for country music so it was difficult to listen.

Second he said he was going to make two videos with one change. So he lied. And was trying to trick me.

First time around, I listened to the first few seconds of each video.

Then I listened to the first video in its entirety. 

First 58 seconds or so the recording sounds perfect. Then from 58-2:22 it sounds unclear and unfocused. Then from 2:22 on it sounds perfect again.

At this point in time, I got sick of listening to that country song and did not want to focus knowing that he was trying to trick me anyway. 

Second video sounds like the whole video is out of phase. I gave up listening to the entire thing.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

The first video is from the drivers seat and the second from the passenger seat. Phase was one thing effected but the change in the vehicle was obviously much more than phase, since the car was tuned for the drivers seat. The imaging was horrid, the width was completely messed up....the difference is night and day. I listened to the videos after reading some comments above and the input of the mic was greatly overdriven, causing distortion. I know Gerald got the phasing part right, which was pretty easy, but he missed the largest differences that were the easiest to hear in person.

After listening in my car vs listening to the videos of my car, I am even more convinced this is complete BS. There is no way to tell how one set of speakers would sound compared to a different set using internet videos. I had made a couple other videos I didn't post with just the mic held in varying spots and there were noticeable differences. Just a simple thing as hold the mic up or down just a few inches causes the sound to change drastically. And there are easily 10-20 more variables not account for in these videos.

Don't believe me Gerald? Here are a couple more videos. Same song, different cars. Compare them to the first one I posted above (linked again here) and tell me your thoughts about the 3 systems.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> First off I have a strong dislike for country music so it was difficult to listen.
> 
> Second he said he was going to make two videos with one change. So he lied. And was trying to trick me.
> 
> ...


That wasn't country. And I like how you call me a liar when I hadn't even posted what the change was yet.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm not a fan of 100% country music either, except for some rock country pop that some may consider country, but I don't, that track was not country music, maybe 10% country 70% soft rock, 10% pop.


In real life, how is the sound on the passenger side? This tells me recoding just makes it worse, unless the car's acoustics and reflections enhance the bad sound, although the phone position has also to do with it.

In my car, sitting on he passenger side, the stage is just shifted to center right side with the voice being closer to the pillar than the center of the car, again a phone recording experiment may totally entirely totally destroy the sound


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Besides phasing and everything shifted extreme right, sounds similar. Slight phasing issues, be more of what is heard in the video is the amplitude difference whereas the drivers side is way lower compared with the passenger side. Makes me kinda sad for the passengers in my vehicle. The Subbass is also snappier from the drivers side (phase).

This just shows how bad recordings can be and I was holding the mic straight forward, eye height.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> The first video is from the drivers seat and the second from the passenger seat. Phase was one thing effected but the change in the vehicle was obviously much more than phase, since the car was tuned for the drivers seat. The imaging was horrid, the width was completely messed up....the difference is night and day. I listened to the videos after reading some comments above and the input of the mic was greatly overdriven, causing distortion. I know Gerald got the phasing part right, which was pretty easy, but he missed the largest differences that were the easiest to hear in person.
> 
> After listening in my car vs listening to the videos of my car, I am even more convinced this is complete BS. There is no way to tell how one set of speakers would sound compared to a different set using internet videos. I had made a couple other videos I didn't post with just the mic held in varying spots and there were noticeable differences. Just a simple thing as hold the mic up or down just a few inches causes the sound to change drastically. And there are easily 10-20 more variables not account for in these videos.
> 
> Don't believe me Gerald? Here are a couple more videos. Same song, different cars. Compare them to the first one I posted above (linked again here) and tell me your thoughts about the 3 systems.


Jerry, thank you for taking the time to do this. I appreciate it a lot as it gives me a chance to prove my theory. 

Obviously if the microphone is moved around the tonality is going to change. We are talking sweet spot comparison to sweet spot here. 

Both second set of videos depict that the sound quality is very, very good in both vehicles. They are both tuned well and are great sounding systems. My point here is in both of those videos the SQ is high. So we are comparing a Fugi apple to a Macintosh. 

With both vehicles sounding this close the only real way to compare would be to sit in them. I agree with you. 

But let me do my best to try and make a comparison via video.

With the TL video the microphone was held too far to the right. I could hear the imbalance. When you moved the microphone to the left during your sweep, for a split second, the system sounded balanced. The system in the TL sounded small. Compressed in a way. Maybe there was a lot of deadening installed in that vehicle. Maybe the width in that install was not quite as wide, but the focus in the center was razor sharp. 

With the van video, I found the stage to be wider for sure. Where you were holding the microphone didn't matter as much, the system sounded better to me, personally, but I prefer width over a compressed center image with extreme focus, but that is a personal preference. 

All three systems have good depth. 

Back to the very first video. What did you do from :58 seconds to 2:22? In the meat of the song the high end and sharpness dropped out, so it was hard to judge. 

All three cars do sound amazing. And it's obvious to me that the all three cars will sound better in person. With the very first video, I can hear distortion in the bass, but I know its not the system and the microphone in the phone being over driven. 

So I would have to agree with you on one point. With cars this high up in SQ the only way to compare and contrast would be in person. 

But I would also have to agree that I am right as well. Because these cars sound great with a video recording via the internet, the cars will sound amazing in person.


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

You made the phase part easy by sampling the same track, unlike the ops original post....


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> That wasn't country. And I like how you call me a liar when I hadn't even posted what the change was yet.


Because you said you were going to make just one change from video 1 to video 2

But in the very first video something changes from from :58 seconds to 2:22 seconds. 

So in the first video there was two changes one at :58 and you switched back at 2:22.

So I was tricked. 

Video 1 wasn't the same from the beginning to the end.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, since you thought jerry tried to trick you, here are mine. no tricks. first one is reference, the others are very simple and are obvious in person


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

someone else wanted to try the test too..


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

This is an analysis for Nick.

Honestly the differences are slight. It takes careful listening to hear some of the changes, but here are my impressions. 

In video 1 it seems like reference. Everything sounds balanced and in tune.


In the video 5, it seems as if the microphone is placed closer to the woofer.

In video 3 it seems as the microphone is placed closer to the tweeters.

In video 2 it seems as if microphone is placed left of center.

In video 4 it seems as if lows and highs are boosted...can barely hear mid range.

It's very subtle details. I hope I got a few right.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> someone else wanted to try the test too..


The dog is cute!


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

curious what anyone else thinks


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Jerry, thank you for taking the time to do this. I appreciate it a lot as it gives me a chance to prove my theory.
> 
> Obviously if the microphone is moved around the tonality is going to change. We are talking sweet spot comparison to sweet spot here.
> 
> ...


Like I said from the beginning, this gives you a chance to either prove or disprove what you are hearing. I am not trying to trick you. Did I think about it....yes....and I decided that if what I did proved to be a trick, then the point of this all would get lost.

Now, on the first video, between :58 and 2:22, I did nothing. I would guess that the dynamics of the song raised some and the mic had an issue with it.

As far as the TL vs Video 1 vs the Van......*I gotcha here.* 

No tricks, but the system in Video 1 is my demo car, TSX, build log on this forum. 

The TL is my previous demo car. Honestly, I know what each did good and bad, but that isn't where you failed.

The Van is a 2005 Honda Odyssey EX with the base factory system. No amp, no replacement speakers and one of the worst factory systems I have heard. I am being 100% honest here. 

So, you can't hear near enough in a video to determine just how bad a system can sound. This should be a revelation for you, but I assume you will come back with some other excuse.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

eh screw it..

video 1: reference
video 2: 5db Q2 cut at 5k
video 3: same as reference
video 4: same as reference but with a shotgun mic
video 5: shotgun mic with -10db Q2 cut at 5k

all mics in the same spot. jerrys TSX vs van switch is a much better indicator that you clearly are full of it with this one, but its still safe to say that you cant even point out differences properly in the same system. the two mics (one of which records in mono) also should tell you that again, you have no idea whats on the other side of that video and your full of **** if you truly think you can get a good idea by demoing youtube


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> Like I said from the beginning, this gives you a chance to either prove or disprove what you are hearing. I am not trying to trick you. Did I think about it....yes....and I decided that if what I did proved to be a trick, then the point of this all would get lost.
> 
> Now, on the first video, between :58 and 2:22, I did nothing. I would guess that the dynamics of the song raised some and the mic had an issue with it.
> 
> ...


Ok if you play back the first video and listen you will hear that all the highs cut and detail cut out from :58 - 2:22. After 2:22 the sound goes back to normal. 

First, I apologize if I accused you of doing something you didn't. But the sound does change for sure.

Second, 
You did get me for sure. I thought that the sound stage in the van was more open and airey. And it didn't seem to matter as much that the recording device was off to the right in the van. Which makes sense now, because nothing is tuned. 

But I did think that the two were both great sounding. And If you think it sounds horrible in person, then I would have to believe you. However, horrible sounding is all relative. I have a stock bose sound system in my personal vehicle. I think that it sounds pretty good. Some people claim that the bose systems sound horrible.

All right I concede. You are right and I am wrong.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> You did get me for sure. I thought that the sound stage in the van was more open and airey. And it didn't seem to matter as much that the recording device was off to the right in the van. Which makes sense now, because nothing is tuned.
> 
> But I did think that the two were both great sounding. And If you think it sounds horrible in person, then I would have to believe you. However, horrible sounding is all relative. I have a stock bose sound system in my personal vehicle. I think that it sounds pretty good. Some people claim that the bose systems sound horrible.


The van had the most base factory system you can get. There wasn't an amp, sub or anything and it was not pretty at all. Honda make some good cars, but their base system in most vehicles is just plain horrible. 

If you are wondering why I made the video of the van, there was a fun thread about 4 years where people submitted demo videos of their cars and people would comment on them. I don't remember if I ever posted the van, but I was going to so I could see if people could pick out how bad it was over the internet. I found the video of the Van and TL when I uploaded the ones I did today in my youtube account.



High Resolution Audio said:


> All right I concede. You are right and I am wrong.


I do accept your apology. Now can you tell me how I get my wife to say that I am right once in a while???? hahahahahaha


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> All right I concede. You are right and I am wrong.


FINALLY...Thank you!!! 

Actually, Jerry, thank YOU!!! LOL


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

The problem, as Jerry has laid out in his early response is that this is not an exercise in a controlled and valid comparison of speakers, it's a comparison of *recordings*. 

There is no real consistency to anything with each of the recordings as there are different orientations and angles of the speakers, different source/preamps/amps, different room object interferences, different distances from both the listening position and the room boundaries (back wall, side walls and floor- which have a very real effect on the response), different measuring inconsistencies, etc. Hell, we don't even know the quality of the mic and how that is picking up the response. Imagine a microphone that had very poor and non-linear response in recording and no calibration to correct... What you'd hearing in the recording would be substantially different than what you would hear in the actual room. That's why video's like these offer little info to make any valid conclusions, but they do offer plenty of entertainment.

Therefore, you cannot make any valid conclusions about the sound of the speakers themselves- only about which recording you prefer.

I liked the 3rd recording the best. But sitting in a room and controlling the variables to make an actual evaluation between the 4, I may draw a very different conclusion.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> I do accept your apology. *Now can you tell me how I get my wife to say that I am right once in a while????* hahahahahaha



If he solves that friggin Rubik's Cube I will never again question him. :laugh::laugh:


----------



## Unsecured_WiFi (Jul 27, 2009)

As far as I am concerned you just really cant do it but it sure as hell is fun to watch them lol.


----------

