@carlos269 I just reread your passage quoted in @atmasphere’s recent post that says:
how do you explain that I’m able to achieve great sound on my audio recordings of my systems shared on YouTube and you cannot achieve even good audio quality on your system’s audio recordings? What do you think accounts for those differences
Whoa - who said anything about my “system’s audio recordings”? What I said was this:
Listening to the YouTube recordings in either my main listening room at home (‘good’ room acoustics) or in the office (‘bad’ acoustics) provided little insight and certainly less than through either pair headphones I tried. Compared to how I know my systems sound with good source material, I was left feeling “why bother”. And the combination of the room acoustics picked up in the recording, the compression of YouTube, and the flavors of my systems and the acoustics of my listening environments was too much for any reliable diagnostics, and certainly less enjoyable than playing from my own sources. YMMV.
To be clear, I don’t record my system. I have never posted any claims about my system based on recordings. The YouTube recordings I was referring to are your recordings. And when I listen to your recordings including your room effects on my system with my room effects combined with crappy YouTube compression there is no way that it’s useful to determine anything. Furthermore, if I listen to those very same cuts played through my system in my room directly from source material, they sound good with involving soundstage, detail, dynamics, timbre and good tone. In contrast, your recordings of those cuts don’t sound as good to me. At least headphones limit one of those variables, my in-room effects, but even that‘s not diagnostic, and I would not base any final judgements on precisely how good one system or another sounds based on YouTubeTo be clear. Differences, sure. Better? No way. And better than YouTube recordings of other systems? Are you even kidding me??
kn

