Political posts removed plus collateral.
Some people insist on not respecting Forum Rules
diyAudio Rules
Could someone please explain to me how any attempt to evaluate speaker performance based on a YouTube video is NOT a complete waste of time for everyone involved? Am I missing something here?
So there is absolutely no YouTube video showing any measurement of speaker performance? I was not aware of this amazing fact.
Did we not have a well-known Blowtorch thread poster that claimed he could record and replay alleged subtle differences in cables with his Samsung smartphone and built-in speakers? 😀
There are folks who know the earth is flat. I could mention some political beliefs, but that violates the rules here.
You can pretty much find someone to say or post just about anything. Common sense is the best editor, except when the space aliens are shining their crazy rays at you! 😉
You can pretty much find someone to say or post just about anything. Common sense is the best editor, except when the space aliens are shining their crazy rays at you! 😉
Thank you Ed.
The most common sense based and the most positive thinking post of the year till now (you made a good start 🙂).
Yesterday I read this and I was shocked by the execution speed comparison (not that I understood anything deeper than that)
Researchers from China Demonstrate Quantum Supremacy Using an Optical Method
Then I tried to see who is behind the latest optics quantum computing achievements
Scott Aaronson - Wikipedia
I would suggest as a daily (or weekly) intellectual intermission, read his lecture notes
PHYS771 Quantum Computing Since Democritus
George
The most common sense based and the most positive thinking post of the year till now (you made a good start 🙂).
Yesterday I read this and I was shocked by the execution speed comparison (not that I understood anything deeper than that)
Researchers from China Demonstrate Quantum Supremacy Using an Optical Method
Then I tried to see who is behind the latest optics quantum computing achievements
Scott Aaronson - Wikipedia
I would suggest as a daily (or weekly) intellectual intermission, read his lecture notes
PHYS771 Quantum Computing Since Democritus
George
As usual here, a concert of brutal affirmations, without appeal and without any analysis of the question. An absence of open-mindedness, sense of nuance, a concert of definitive statements: As usual, i feel to be in front of the parade of pseudo experts in epidemiology that we have seen on the television news of the whole world for a year now, saying everything and its opposite in a definitive tone about the COVID pandemic. Apart here, it seems to go in an unique direction. So, more in front of a military tribunal.
First, what is a "you tube video", given the thousands of ways to make one to listen / judge speakers based on the soundtrack ?
So let me ask the question differently:
Is there any use in using a microphone by listening across it to help evaluate a pair of loudspeakers?
The answer is, in my opinion, yes, under certain conditions. And the answer can be assimilated in measurement VS listening questions.
May the listening space be acoustically good and the microphone properly placed for what we want to explore.
That the microphone is, him also, of good quality as well as all the system of listening of the sounds which cross it.
How can going through a microphone be useful?
Our brain does a lot of processing with regard to both sight and hearing. And notably it is able to eliminate a lot of reverberated sounds. What an omnidirectional mic doesn't.
The first thing we can notice is the big difference in rendering between horn and wave guides and direct radiating speakers. The first ones are more directional, and less exciting the reverberations and resonance modes of the listening room. It seems obvious the microphone clearly helps to highlight the acoustic problems of linearity in power. We go from an acoustic scene in 3D to a punctual scene that the brain will not be able to process.
Using a series of re-recordings of the same musical file across the listening channel that you want to evaluate is also useful: linearity accidents and distortion accumulate (and therefore become amplified) as the passages go.
I don't want to dwell on this, but I would point out that the same people who condemn this idea as "fake" will recommend the use of the same microphone for doing response curves and other measurements.
It's funny: in our case, it's quite the same thing, with the difference that the measuring device is the listener. We will make the same remarks on the listening room (anechoic chamber or listening room in a house), on the ways of making the measurements distances, position etc. and on the performance of the measuring equipment: the relevance of the conclusions that can be made. draw depending on the quality of our listening skills, experience and culture included.
To conclude, may-be for you no recording of the reproduction of loudspeakers is useful, for me, some of them, when well done, are very informative.
And those thoughts do not violate any real scientific rule or procedure, on the contrary. it is the first step of it: observation. Science IS NOT a religion.
Last edited:
I too find the youtube videos touting speaker performance to be just so ridiculous...
Perhaps if they were recorded using a hobbyist's version of the B&K TYPE 4100 Sound Quality Head and Torso Simulator - and intended for playback on headphones - then I'd believe you could virtualize your being there in the space the speakers were playing in.
Just using the 'phone's mic as-is? C'mon - waste of people's time. At least pipe a measurement mic into the audio channel instead. A pink noise verification of the setup response would lend more credence to the audio recording.
One would think you could add any stereo audio track to a video recording starting with two independent files, using something simple like "Shotcut". I've never done this, so I dont know. If it's just a pair of speakers on stands for the video part, sync wouldnt be much of an issue. Although if I did it, I'd want to walk in front of both speakers, one at a time, so the listener could hear that channel temporarily drop out of the stereo image.
I once made a convincing binaural mic out of a block of wood and two PZM mics. Recordings such as "highway cars passing underneath bridge", "train coming into station" and "two helicopters; one landing, one taking off simultaneously" came out pretty good on headphones. Cassette, 30+ years ago, probably long lost.
Perhaps if they were recorded using a hobbyist's version of the B&K TYPE 4100 Sound Quality Head and Torso Simulator - and intended for playback on headphones - then I'd believe you could virtualize your being there in the space the speakers were playing in.
Just using the 'phone's mic as-is? C'mon - waste of people's time. At least pipe a measurement mic into the audio channel instead. A pink noise verification of the setup response would lend more credence to the audio recording.
One would think you could add any stereo audio track to a video recording starting with two independent files, using something simple like "Shotcut". I've never done this, so I dont know. If it's just a pair of speakers on stands for the video part, sync wouldnt be much of an issue. Although if I did it, I'd want to walk in front of both speakers, one at a time, so the listener could hear that channel temporarily drop out of the stereo image.
I once made a convincing binaural mic out of a block of wood and two PZM mics. Recordings such as "highway cars passing underneath bridge", "train coming into station" and "two helicopters; one landing, one taking off simultaneously" came out pretty good on headphones. Cassette, 30+ years ago, probably long lost.
Last edited:
Headphones bring their own (huge) set of response curves, so we've got a huge convolution problem. That's the crux of anything that tries to record/replay the sound of a replay system.
Technical breakdown that looks at the response curves/evaluation of the hardware (fit and finish/etc). Great, go for it.
Technical breakdown that looks at the response curves/evaluation of the hardware (fit and finish/etc). Great, go for it.
Youtube will lossy compress any high resolution or even 16/44 audio. It is suggested by some to use 192kHz AAC encoding with the hopes that they will leave it alone. Some info on historical bitrate limits at youtube: YouTube Audio Quality Bitrate Used For 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p - H3XED
Yeahbut, after a certain point the bitrate is pretty far down on the list of problems with listening to speakers on YouTube. (Kinda like those 192K vinyl rips.) 🙄
You do understand that you are not allowed to mention our handlers, right?
As of now, your posts have been taken over...while others may believe it is Ed, it is not.
I may have exceeded my allowed scope, so I'm not sure I will be allowed to contin..............................................
Take my word for it......been done in spades already!
My wife is a RN who’s been certified in holistic healing, occasionally I read some of the stuff she has laying around (rocks or ‘gemstones’ for COVID).......let’s put it this way, if audio is anything like medicine then the positive reinforcement affects of the ‘snake oil’ do actually work, but only in your mind, which in turn makes for a happy body. Placebo effect I reckon!
My wife is a RN who’s been certified in holistic healing, occasionally I read some of the stuff she has laying around (rocks or ‘gemstones’ for COVID).......let’s put it this way, if audio is anything like medicine then the positive reinforcement affects of the ‘snake oil’ do actually work, but only in your mind, which in turn makes for a happy body. Placebo effect I reckon!
I use the rocks a bit differently. I prefer the small sedimentary well rounded ones that fit in your hand quite nicely. Just keep a pocket full of them. If you come across someone who refuses common sense precautions like wearing a mask, you share a few rocks with them. Preferably from at least 20 feet away. Really helps prevent the disease spread.