GlenRasmussen Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Hi all, What is the general consensus of YouTube audio/video content. A 30 year owner of Klipschorns, Just back listening again full time with Tidal MQA, but I find lesser bandwidth productions via the net, do not sound very good with my Khorns. I know they are not very forgiving. But I am a my bud with a full blown B$W setup. $30g plus, and his system can make shit music, even mp3 sound acceptable? My Khorns show any defect and I listen with a nearfield Aiwa Exos 9. Sounds better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitrofan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 To me that is an indication that his system is coloring the sound, not reproducing it faithfully 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossidian Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, GlenRasmussen said: Hi all, What is the general consensus of YouTube audio/video content. A 30 year owner of Klipschorns, Just back listening again full time with Tidal MQA, but I find lesser bandwidth productions via the net, do not sound very good with my Khorns. I know they are not very forgiving. But I am a my bud with a full blown B$W setup. $30g plus, and his system can make shit music, even mp3 sound acceptable? My Khorns show any defect and I listen with a nearfield Aiwa Exos 9. Sounds better. His system may be extracting a little more from the recording but as nitrofan stated your system is most likely more faithful to the recording. Personally I find 16/44 are great if well mastered, the mastering is more important than numbers in my experience. But a good system can reveal weakness in poor quality 320 mbps and under. Edited January 10, 2019 by Ossidian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron167 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 His system may be extracting a little more from the recording but as nitrofan stated your system is most likely more faithful to the recording. Personally I find 16/44 are great if well mastered, the mastering is more important than numbers in my experience. But a good system can reveal weakness in poor quality 320 mbps and under.NoSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossidian Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, baron167 said: No Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Care to explain your insightful reply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codewritinfool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Depends on the recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossidian Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) On 1/9/2019 at 8:33 PM, codewritinfool said: Depends on the recording. Absolutely. David Chesky (Chesky Records), Mark Waldrep (AIX Records), Professor Keith Johnson (Reference Recordings), Kevin Grey and I can go on have gone on the record (no pun intended) as mastering is the most important process of the "final product". Proper mic technique and the whole recording process is also very instrumental in creating a great product. If the recording is not well recorded or mastered the "numbers" like 24/192 will not change anything nor will putting it into a larger bit bucket from my experience and many others. You simply cannot polish a turd. Edited January 13, 2019 by Ossidian 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Would absiolutely get yourself a decent ...read in expensive outboard DAC. A lot, not all of the content there can greatly benefit from doing so...cheers And welcome to the forum... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I have made mp3s that arevery hard to tell from CDs. Start with leaving the dynamics, leave level so peaks are about -18dbfs. This will let your encoder have more room to work and give you a cleaner mp3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoparBob Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 TRY SOME hI rez sites like https://onkyomusic.com/US/home as there low rez stuff is the same as a CD. I have down loaded a few albums from them and the sound great. There are other sites out there also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 On 1/9/2019 at 5:05 PM, GlenRasmussen said: ...What is the general consensus of YouTube audio/video content. A 30 year owner of Klipschorns, just back listening again full time with Tidal MQA, but I find lesser bandwidth productions via the net do not sound very good with my Khorns. I know they are not very forgiving. Yes--that's true of any hi-fi loudspeakers. The better the reproduction accuracy--the more revealing of the recordings played on them. On 1/9/2019 at 5:05 PM, GlenRasmussen said: ...with a full blown B$W setup...his system can make shit music, even mp3 sound acceptable... So the reverse comment is also true: the less hi-fi the loudspeakers, the less revealing they are. This is true of direct radiating B&W loudspeakers--which have defects, not the least of which is compression distortion, power response irregularities (i.e., polar coverage not constant vs. frequency), and the loudspeakers are subsequently "voiced" to hide these faults with a "house curve" that reduces the high frequency response where the audibility of the non-constant polars becomes quite evident. I find with the dialed in Jubilees, the audibility of all tracks become more prominent. Does that make me want to find worse loudspeakers to play the music tracks? Not on your life. Playing badly done music tracks usually causes me to spend a little time demastering the tracks in order to extract the most out of them that's possible while playing them on the Jubs. It seems to me obvious: fix the problem at its source--rather than blaming the components at the end of the line (which many people apparently are preconditioned to do). Chris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 On 1/10/2019 at 12:55 AM, Ossidian said: Absolutely. David Chesky (Chesky Records), Mark Waldrep (AIX Records), Professor Keith Johnson (Reference Recordings), Kevin Grey and I can go on have gone on the record (no pun intended) as mastering is the most important process of the "final product". Proper mic technique and the whole recording process is also very instrumental in creating a great product. If the recording is not well recorded or mastered the "numbers" like 24/196 will not change anything nor will putting it into a larger bit bucket from my experience and many others. You simply cannot polish a turd. Been saying this even before I met Mr. Waldrup 5 years ago. All true. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiva Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Was listening to some Steve Wilson last night from Youtube, sounded pretty good on my mains. Had the lights on my Crown K2 shining brightly. He as many know, cares a lot about the quality of the recordings he does. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 I saw Steve live in December with my son and a friend, a good show but not one of his better shows. I guess I always hope that the next show I see will eclipse all the others and sometime I am left less than thrilled. I enjoyed the performance never the less. Steve was a little bent out of shape by the comments of a reviewer in Edmonton who had complained about Steve playing covers of Porcupine Tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiva Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 21 minutes ago, moray james said: I saw Steve live in December with my son and a friend, a good show but not one of his better shows. I guess I always hope that the next show I see will eclipse all the others and sometime I am left less than thrilled. I enjoyed the performance never the less. Steve was a little bent out of shape by the comments of a reviewer in Edmonton who had complained about Steve playing covers of Porcupine Tree. I have Porcupine Tree's blue ray concert, Anesthetize. As usual, a very well recorded and dynamic disc. Lol, expectation can quite easily diminish experience. He probably wrote those songs he played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moray james Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, Shiva said: I have Porcupine Tree's blue ray concert, Anesthetize. As usual, a very well recorded and dynamic disc. Lol, expectation can quite easily diminish experience. He probably wrote those songs he played. He did that was why he was pissed off about the comment. I agree though he builds a good recording. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codewritinfool Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Steven’s music is consistently well-recorded. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlenRasmussen Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 On 1/12/2019 at 2:16 PM, Chris A said: Yes--that's true of any hi-fi loudspeakers. The better the reproduction accuracy--the more revealing of the recordings played on them. So the reverse comment is also true: the less hi-fi the loudspeakers, the less revealing they are. This is true of direct radiating B&W loudspeakers--which have defects, not the least of which is compression distortion, power response irregularities (i.e., polar coverage not constant vs. frequency), and the loudspeakers are subsequently "voiced" to hide these faults with a "house curve" that reduces the high frequency response where the audibility of the non-constant polars becomes quite evident. I find with the dialed in Jubilees, the audibility of all tracks become more prominent. Does that make me want to find worse loudspeakers to play the music tracks? Not on your life. Playing badly done music tracks usually causes me to spend a little time demastering the tracks in order to extract the most out of them that's possible while playing them on the Jubs. It seems to me obvious: fix the problem at its source--rather than blaming the components at the end of the line (which many people apparently are preconditioned to do). Chris Well my Bud's On 1/9/2019 at 6:05 PM, GlenRasmussen said: Hi all, What is the general consensus of YouTube audio/video content. A 30 year owner of Klipschorns, Just back listening again full time with Tidal MQA, but I find lesser bandwidth productions via the net, do not sound very good with my Khorns. I know they are not very forgiving. But I am a my bud with a full blown B$W setup. $30g plus, and his system can make shit music, even mp3 sound acceptable? My Khorns show any defect and I listen with a nearfield Aiwa Exos 9. Sounds better. YouTube Music currently serves up tracks at a lowly 128kbps, which doesn't look (or sound) great when compared to rivals, such as Spotify (320kbps) or Tidal, which streams in CD quality (1411kbps) and even boasts hi-res via Tidal Masters.Aug 2, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.