YouTube for audio comparisons?

[Cybermynd]

The one thing that seems to be missing among audio lovers is a way to actually audition different people's systems. I know you can't really compare between different systems due to inconsistent recording, compression and distribution technologies but I was wondering if it wouldn't be quite possible to compare different components within an isolated test environment.

In other words - could I do a video (really a sound recording) using a fixed recording setup while just changing the audio components. It might be possible then to create a soundscape that switches back and forth between say a CD of Steely Dan and an LP of the same song snippet. You could also swap speakers and then cut the video together to showcase the difference in sound if not the ultimate quality.

I did my own very quick and dirty test with my Canon S3 recording a video of my system playing a Billy Joel LP (why? - because it was what was on at the time!). I didn't take any care as to positioning the camera microphones. Normally I think you would tripod mount the mics or recorder and position it for best capture. I'm going to play with the concept a bit more but my test is available (and I know there are other ones out there...).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huXYXk5sAgw

If anyone wants to give me some feedback on the idea please do so. I believe this is one thing missing from online resources for the hobby.

 

[rulerboyz]

For what it is, your Canon S3, it does a fairly decent job of capturing the song you are playing in that room. I've thought about this type of issue quite a bit, and have done my own experiments which I have posted on AK in the past. I've tried to tackle the following questions:

Can any improvement in sound be measured through sound recordings after audio tweaks involving switching interconnect cable? How about after a full recap of an amplifier or the incorporation of audiophile components such as blackgate capacitors, audio grade resistors or internal silver wiring?

Can certain differences be best heard with headphones rather than by listening to the speakers in your listening room?

My audio samples have all been taken directly from the amplifier, either from the headphones jack or the tape out jacks. Therefore what I captured would probably be more reflective of the headphones experience. Your approach appears to be more aimed at capturing the acoustic sound in your listening room. It is similar to what tapers do at live concerts. The quality of their tapes is greatly influenced by the quality of their own recording equipment, the PA equipment at the venue as well as the venue's acoustics.

I think that in order to get a more faithful image of what's going on in your listening room, you would need very high quality recording setup with nice quality microphones positioned in specific locations. The music would then have to be played back to the listener with only one type of system that is neutral enough to not impart anything that would color the sound you tried to capture.

Since everyone is going to listen to this with their own PC system, what they will hear will vary quite a bit. So I'd say it's pretty tough to capture the difference between very good and great. Although you can easily capture poor setups resulting in hum or distortion.

 

[Cybermynd]

Ruler, you make excellent points. I guess my only comment is that we could probably exclude room acoustics and recording differences in most cases because we are really looking at the differences between systems within that environment. If nothing else changes then you can probably say - this speaker seems more forward than another within the constraints of that environment. As long as certain things stay the same we can, with some reliability make a judgement about how the things that differ compare to each other.

Heck, it might even be an advantage because nobody could really say 'My Martin Logans are better than your Quads!' because the recording venue and equipment would be too different... unless they were in the same room and owned by the same person and recorded on the same equipment and then I hate that guy anyway!!!!

I think the same would go for the quality of the recorder (as long as it's reasonable). As long as you can exclude the room and the recorder all that is left should be the things you are comparing?

I'm going to formalize my test a bit tonight and see if I'm totally out to lunch...

For what it's worth, it should be noted that my original AVI file is 67mb whereas the WMV version I just did with the video part pretty much blacked out is only 8mb with the same audio quality (I think).

I'm thinking if you create a comparison between say MLs and Quads you just do the recording and then get rid of any video and substitute still images of the items being tested. That would compress down a lot better than something like my turntable spinning around. How's that for excitement eh?