Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1321 times.

Mr. Big

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 375
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #20 on: 23 Sep 2022, 11:27 pm »
So we should hold audio YouTubers to a higher standard than politicians and world leaders… got it!

Or maybe people are taking this a tad too seriously… not trying to start a flame war here it is just that he has the right to post, people can watch and if they collect other data points they will make a good decision. Everyone is responsible for their actions… including purchase decisions.

Again let's all remember it's just speakers.
OK.
« Last Edit: 25 Sep 2022, 03:47 pm by Mr. Big »

speshal

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 36
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #21 on: 24 Sep 2022, 09:19 pm »
Since I did the videos, I figured it would be worthwhile to comment and answer questions. 

I appreciate others watching and giving feedback whether it's positive or negative.  Almost 100% liked the videos, and the weird thing is that I didn't even take sides in this comparison or say anything negative (unless the benchmark is saying anything less than "XYZ is the perfect speaker").  Thus, I'm pretty surprised this triggered a small minority people.

In fact, I found that each speaker picked up new fans...especially Spatial for easily winning on metrics such as price and features. 

Unless you were expecting me to say "Spatials killed the other speakers in all areas and for all tastes", I'm not sure how any realistic person could be triggered.

I haven't read all the comments, but it seems as if the criticism mainly revolves around the music clips video.  I actually think there is some merit to criticism about music clips on YouTube which is why I always put them in separate videos and have disclaimers about them being no substitute for an actual audition. 

I think a few people are conveniently ignoring those disclaimers and all the other stuff that wasn't music clips.  However, so be it...in and ideal world I would have made them close the store, setup an array of figure 8 mics with mastering boards, move everything into one room, and use the same gear on each speaker.  I apologize if the content didn't meet those standards. 

Ironically, I highlighted a channel in the past that does do this level of recordings with Aries Cerat each year in Munich, but frankly you're going to have a hard time finding many others that meet this standard.

Even then, I suspect a few would complain that the gear or room favored one speaker over the other so it's impossible to make everyone happy regardless of how reasonable/unreasonable the standard.

The bottom line is that I basically showed the same experience any customer would have had in that store with much MORE in depth analysis and video content.

Some hardcore fanboys of each brand may prefer if I just came on their forums to say "I auditioned XYZ speaker today and they are the best speakers I've ever heard." 

If I did that here, I doubt these same people critiquing in this thread would be making hyper critical assessments about how I came to that conclusion...What gear was used for each speaker you auditioned?...Was the room the same?  Did you volume match?...Did you play tons of songs to compare?  What was the noise floor each time each speaker played?...ETC

This actually highlights a more macro issue in the hobby.  Many people are simply looking for content that provides validation for their purchases.  They don't want other's honest opinions unless it suits their narratives 100%.  Even if you deviate in the slightest from giving them the 100% validation they want, then a hyper critical standard gets applied to discredit you.

Most know when they go on YouTube that there is also a "reasonableness" aspect of what can be done and heard.  Nevertheless, if the criticism is LEGITIMATELY motivated by consistent application of perfectionist standards in music clips, forum posts, and all other sources of audiophile media, then I acknowledge that deficiency from optimal in the video. 

I suspect your post history will be littered with constantly making critical assessments of everything people say.

If it's motivated by some strange perception of anything negative I said or something that doesn't suit a narrative, then I frankly understand that too...it's just the nature of social media.  The analogy some person made to politics was excellent.

The people that follow me know I'm not paid and bought by anyone.  They want my honest opinion.  People can decide to follow it or not.  There are plenty other options to follow if I'm not your type.

The only criticism I find ironic and devoid of self-awareness is "Anybody can create a YouTube account and be an expert".  That's super funny to read on an online forum where literally ANYBODY can create a profile and pretend to be an expert.

Bingenito

Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #22 on: 24 Sep 2022, 11:04 pm »
Cant make everyone happy but lets all go back to listening to music since thats what the hobby is about!

DaveWin88

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 73
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #23 on: 25 Sep 2022, 12:32 am »
Well everyone world wide is on edge :) so it's comes natural for us to come out with the pitch forks and torches over spilt milk nowadays. Thanks for the effort though.

Daryl Zero

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #24 on: 25 Sep 2022, 04:43 am »
Nobody was expecting you to say that the Spatial speakers are the best thing since sliced bread. Every site is different but I've found this site pretty knowledgeable and honest about the pluses and minuses of the speakers and equipment. I've learned a lot here.

There aren't a lot of reviews of the speakers and so when I saw your videos start, and I kept track of them, (1) you said from the beginning you weren't comparing what was best but instead would be discussing the types of set ups that would favor each speaker and (2) you thought all three were good speakers.

That's fine and I really didn't search for the sound clips until this thread came up but I guess the point is that if you were going to do them, there ought to be a reason such as having the same set up for each and showing the pluses and minuses. I was actually going to post this thread when I first saw your videos but then decided that it wasn't really enough to be of interest. Your reaction and defense of your sound clip video is a bit dramatic given what it was but that's fine and you put in the time and effort to do it.

I do appreciate hearing your opinion about the other speakers and the situations you think favors each one.

Bingenito

Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #25 on: 25 Sep 2022, 04:01 pm »
For context...

Shooting the videos takes a lot of time. The video editing can take many hours on top of that so it is likely safe to say that all in those 2 videos took the better part of 20hrs of work and then the time to upload and answer comments/ questions. Clearly not a lot of ROI here for the person posting and they do it out of love for the hobby and are sharing their experience.

When all of us comment about someone's work whether it be their videos or their speaker designs we need to keep in mind how much time and effort it took for them to produce that product. While nobody means harm we can inadvertently crush people with our comments... some more grounded and informed than others.


jnschneyer

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 81
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #26 on: 25 Sep 2022, 06:01 pm »
While in general I agree that civility, respect, and an informed outlook should be prerequisites in any piece of criticism (there are instances when a certain level of vitriol is appropriate), tempering one’s criticism (I include praise as something that occurs within a piece of criticism) based on considerations of the time or effort spent in creating the work is irrelevant. If it takes me days to craft a mediocre quatrain, while someone else knocks out a beautiful, inspired, timeless sonnet in half an hour, I deserve no sympathy or credit for my mediocre effort because I labored so arduously over it, nor should the writer of a great work be penalized because it came to fruition in one shot. These are the breaks of any creative endeavor and should form no part of our assessment of it.

Regarding remuneration, that, too, I believe, should have no part in our judgement of the merits of the work. I’m excluding outright advertising or salesmanship masquerading as genuine criticism, though that, too, is subject to literary and informative standards. No one is forced to write or video hifi or any other reviews. Whether they do it for love or money or both, it has no bearing on the reader’s or viewer’s assessment of the quality of the work. Any creative endeavor once released to the public has to stand on its own merits, completely separate from any of the factors that brought it into being.

Finally, any work, once published, is beyond the reach and defenses of its creator. If I write a book, compose a piece of music, paint a painting, make a video review of hifi gear, whatever the public has to say about my work is its prerogative. If I don’t like it, then I must lump it. Coming to my work’s defense is at best poor form, and often, when the defense includes snide comments about the critics of my work, especially if my injured feelings cause me to misrepresent that criticism, peevish and small-minded. If I write something and people don’t understand it, it’s very likely I haven’t been clear. If I make a video with technical problems, the fault is mine, not the viewers’, who are under no obligation to grant me latitude for logistical issues that may have contributed to my video’s shortcomings. If I think I’ve been clear in my writing and the reader is simply too dense to grasp what I’m saying, or my video is technically sound and the viewer’s criticism is unwarranted, nothing is gained by rushing to its defense. As much as it galls to be misunderstood or unjustly condemned, as authors there is nothing for it but to sit still and take it and hope for a better reception next time. And if the percentage of people objecting to some aspect of my work is small, then what am I complaining about anyway? All my protesting does is make me look petty.

Creating anything and serving it up to the public is a risk, and, like it or not, once it’s out for public consumption, it belongs to the consumer, not us. If our work, and we, can’t withstand criticism, we should do something in which outside assessment has no place. No reader, listener, or viewer owes us a favorable judgement of our work, regardless of how hard we worked on it, how sincere our intentions, or commercial-free our motives. Should we make an effort to be civil and well-informed when offering our criticism? In general, yes. But, when a work is great, it will be praised; when a work is laughable, it will be laughed at; and sometimes the public, for any number of reasons, just gets it wrong. These are hard truths all artists - and critics, as writers or videographers, are artists of a sort - come to terms with. Come hell or high water, the work must stand on its own.
« Last Edit: 25 Sep 2022, 11:12 pm by jnschneyer »

Daryl Zero

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #27 on: 25 Sep 2022, 11:27 pm »
Meh, there is a difference between criticism using facts and some of the vitriol (in the form of ad hominem attacks) I see on other forums. I haven't yet seen anything like that here other than one or two threads which haven't exactly emanated from Spatial Audio Labs Industry Circle.

jnschneyer

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 81
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #28 on: 25 Sep 2022, 11:53 pm »
Meh, there is a difference between criticism using facts and some of the vitriol (in the form of ad hominem attacks) I see on other forums. I haven't yet seen anything like that here other than one or two threads which haven't exactly emanated from Spatial Audio Labs Industry Circle.

I agree completely. The criticism doesn’t even have to be fact based. Much important and worthwhile criticism is subjective, a matter of interpretation or taste. The main thing is to have a well-reasoned argument supported by evidence, the ability to make coherent, rational distinctions. The justifiable vitriol I mentioned is more a matter of heated condemnation of a reprehensible argument or position, one that seems unlikely to occur in a discussion of hifi. Ad hominem attacks have no place in any sensible debate; they’re the last refuge of a bankrupt intellect. I haven’t been on AC that long, but, thankfully, I’ve never seen a discussion degenerate to that point.

Mr. Big

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 375
Re: Audiophile Junkie You Tube sound comparisons
« Reply #29 on: 26 Sep 2022, 02:57 pm »
While in general I agree that civility, respect, and an informed outlook should be prerequisites in any piece of criticism (there are instances when a certain level of vitriol is appropriate), tempering one’s criticism (I include praise as something that occurs within a piece of criticism) based on considerations of the time or effort spent in creating the work is irrelevant. If it takes me days to craft a mediocre quatrain, while someone else knocks out a beautiful, inspired, timeless sonnet in half an hour, I deserve no sympathy or credit for my mediocre effort because I labored so arduously over it, nor should the writer of a great work be penalized because it came to fruition in one shot. These are the breaks of any creative endeavor and should form no part of our assessment of it.

Regarding remuneration, that, too, I believe, should have no part in our judgement of the merits of the work. I’m excluding outright advertising or salesmanship masquerading as genuine criticism, though that, too, is subject to literary and informative standards. No one is forced to write or video hifi or any other reviews. Whether they do it for love or money or both, it has no bearing on the reader’s or viewer’s assessment of the quality of the work. Any creative endeavor once released to the public has to stand on its own merits, completely separate from any of the factors that brought it into being.

Finally, any work, once published, is beyond the reach and defenses of its creator. If I write a book, compose a piece of music, paint a painting, make a video review of hifi gear, whatever the public has to say about my work is its prerogative. If I don’t like it, then I must lump it. Coming to my work’s defense is at best poor form, and often, when the defense includes snide comments about the critics of my work, especially if my injured feelings cause me to misrepresent that criticism, peevish and small-minded. If I write something and people don’t understand it, it’s very likely I haven’t been clear. If I make a video with technical problems, the fault is mine, not the viewers’, who are under no obligation to grant me latitude for logistical issues that may have contributed to my video’s shortcomings. If I think I’ve been clear in my writing and the reader is simply too dense to grasp what I’m saying, or my video is technically sound and the viewer’s criticism is unwarranted, nothing is gained by rushing to its defense. As much as it galls to be misunderstood or unjustly condemned, as authors there is nothing for it but to sit still and take it and hope for a better reception next time. And if the percentage of people objecting to some aspect of my work is small, then what am I complaining about anyway? All my protesting does is make me look petty.

Creating anything and serving it up to the public is a risk, and, like it or not, once it’s out for public consumption, it belongs to the consumer, not us. If our work, and we, can’t withstand criticism, we should do something in which outside assessment has no place. No reader, listener, or viewer owes us a favorable judgement of our work, regardless of how hard we worked on it, how sincere our intentions, or commercial-free our motives. Should we make an effort to be civil and well-informed when offering our criticism? In general, yes. But, when a work is great, it will be praised; when a work is laughable, it will be laughed at; and sometimes the public, for any number of reasons, just gets it wrong. These are hard truths all artists - and critics, as writers or videographers, are artists of a sort - come to terms with. Come hell or high water, the work must stand on its own.

Thank you, very well said.