What's the point of you tube comparisons.
Comments
Headphones.
I can tell the difference and have made many decisions based on content such as you described. It absolutely serves a purpose.
It annoys me when the "back to back" sounds are 60 seconds+ part ! I need to hear them as the same 5 second riffs alternating between the two speakers- I cant remember slight detail differences when the audio is minutes apart and theyve played a different riff style in the middle! grrrr!!!
On the one hand where things do sound different it can show it quite well.
On the other it does highlight that a lot of gear sounds the same. Danish Pete playing through loads of variants of overdrive pedals some of which cost ten times as much as others highlights that very well.
On the other it does highlight that a lot of gear sounds the same. Danish Pete playing through loads of variants of overdrive pedals some of which cost ten times as much as others highlights that very well.
I love hearing some nice pentatonics and classic rock licks on jazzmasters, dirty fuzzes and ring modulators on YT gear reviews.
Agree. Does anyone do this better than JHS?monquixote said:On the one hand where things do sound different it can show it quite well.
On the other it does highlight that a lot of gear sounds the same. Danish Pete playing through loads of variants of overdrive pedals some of which cost ten times as much as others highlights that very well.
If a you tubers playing style matches your style, and you trust their opinion, then when they perform A B testing if they prefer A because it's best for their style which is also your style, you may feel inclined to accept that as a good recommendation.
I think this is a good point. We know gear will sound different in “real life” but you can work out whether the review is relevant to you or not and take from it what you will. We all know who the sponsored “everything is awesome” ones are.fastonebaz said:If a you tubers playing style matches your style, and you trust their opinion, then when they perform A B testing if they prefer A because it's best for their style which is also your style, you may feel inclined to accept that as a good recommendation.
Sometimes I find that after watching enough comparisons I decide I don't really want anything, which is good.
Same!Jono111 said:Sometimes I find that after watching enough comparisons I decide I don't really want anything, which is good.
I spent more time than I really should listening to amp speaker reviews yesterday. It was only when I connected up a Chord Mojo and Grado headphones to the laptop that I could discern the differences in various speakers. Listening through the TV or Laptop speakers is a complete waste of time. I've still not bought anything but think I'll take a punt on a Fane.Jono111 said:Sometimes I find that after watching enough comparisons I decide I don't really want anything, which is good.
I agree that sometimes a comparison video can seem unresolved where the presenter doesn't offer an opinion or preference and just says "let me know in the comments". I can see the reasoning behind not wanting to influence people that might buy a speaker they have touted and it not sounding remotely what it sounded like in the video, or (if they have been provided with the speakers by manufacturers) not wanting to take a side and cut off a potential source of sponsorship revenue, but I would sometimes like to know a reasoned preference so that I can disregard it or agree with it based on what I heard. The problem is always going to be describing why? If somebody says "midrangey" or "sparkling" or "boomy" or "punchy", their descriptions can differ from what others might take those descriptors to mean. Conversely if a presenter blabbers on about the specifications and shows various graphs, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to make an informed opinion or even form a rough idea of how the speakers might sound.
I've got studio monitors so I can hear differences easily.
It's a bit weird blaming the video maker for a viewer not listening with adequate kit.
It's a bit weird blaming the video maker for a viewer not listening with adequate kit.
Wizzzzzzzzfretmeister said:I've got studio monitors so I can hear differences easily.
It's a bit weird blaming the video maker for a viewer not listening with adequate kit.
I agree and disagree. Yes, it's not really possible to get a complete picture from a YT video. All else aside, you are hearing a different player with (probably) a different style in a different room. You often don't know what microphone was used and even if you do you probably don't know quite what that means for the sound, and you usually don't know what FX were applied. Throw in the final factor that I play acoustic and every wooden acoustic guitar is different to every other acoustic guitar anyway, and there is an argument for saying that watching the video is useless.(And I haven't even touched on my own speakers as a factor.)
On the other hand, it does at least give a rough idea.
Sum up: I'd much rather have a rough idea than no idea.
On the other hand, it does at least give a rough idea.
Sum up: I'd much rather have a rough idea than no idea.
PS: "let me know in the comments" is a You-tube thing. Channels get bumped up to the top of your YT feed because they have likes, subscribers and comments. For this reason, every You-tuber tries to get you to comment.
I didn't.fretmeister said:I've got studio monitors so I can hear differences easily.
It's a bit weird blaming the video maker for a viewer not listening with adequate kit.
This is roughly what I'm saying.Tannin said:I agree and disagree. Yes, it's not really possible to get a complete picture from a YT video. All else aside, you are hearing a different player with (probably) a different style in a different room. You often don't know what microphone was used and even if you do you probably don't know quite what that means for the sound, and you usually don't know what FX were applied. Throw in the final factor that I play acoustic and every wooden acoustic guitar is different to every other acoustic guitar anyway, and there is an argument for saying that watching the video is useless.(And I haven't even touched on my own speakers as a factor.)
On the other hand, it does at least give a rough idea.
Sum up: I'd much rather have a rough idea than no idea.
And this it the usual 'end credits', which you can't blame them for doing to be fair.Tannin said:PS: "let me know in the comments" is a You-tube thing. Channels get bumped up to the top of your YT feed because they have likes, subscribers and comments. For this reason, every You-tuber tries to get you to comment.
As an aside if they have been provided with the product for free or for review or are sponsored for it then it is a legal requirement to declare this in the video. Some admit they have but say their review is not influenced by that sweetener and is an honest review. Read into that what you will but I'm not convinced on the impartiality if they rave about it.
Anyway, the Fane F70 sits here with me in a box. It'll be going in the Blues Junior either Friday evening or Saturday morning but I'll have to run it in to give a fair review of it.
YouTube is good for feature demonstrations, but signal chains are highly interactive so beyond broad strokes you really have to experiment and try things. I've ended up using lots of gear that in my head I wouldn't have thought would work. Stuff that I was excited about turned out to be unsuitable
Yes, this @roberty. It's better than nothing but in an ideal world you audition it "in person" but that's neither possible nor feasible for the most part, as you've found out. I'm the same. Works the other way too of course. Bought some good stuff that I expected might be not so good.roberty said:YouTube is good for feature demonstrations, but signal chains are highly interactive so beyond broad strokes you really have to experiment and try things. I've ended up using lots of gear that in my head I wouldn't have thought would work. Stuff that I was excited about turned out to be unsuitable
I know this is true here in Australia, and from what you say also in the UK (I didn't know that, though I would have guessed), but I'll bet it isn't so in the States, where a lot of these videos come from. Over there they seem to take the view that any way a business can make more money is a good way and screw the poor bloody consumer.Devil#20 said:
As an aside if they have been provided with the product for free or for review or are sponsored for it then it is a legal requirement to declare this in the video. Some admit they have but say their review is not influenced by that sweetener and is an honest review. Read into that what you will but I'm not convinced on the impartiality if they rave about it.
Mind you, having a law and actually enforcing said law are two different things. I noticed a couple of months ago this matter of undisclosed sponsorships hit the headlines here for a few days. Enforcement from the ACCC
(fair trade and consumer body) was (as bloody usual) dilly-dallying about and more bark than bite. And (also as usual) enforcement from the ATO (tax office) going after people who were getting a benefit (e.g., free restaurant meals in exchange for "reviews" on Facebook) without declaring it as income was much more effective and direct.
Devil#20 said:Like the title says. You can't decide whether you want to buy speaker A or speaker B or even C so you watch a few videos on yt of somebody doing back to back comparisons playing a series of clean and crunched tones on all contenders. Finishes by not offering their own opinions but asking you which you preferred and why and if you like the video then click and subscribe?
All well and good but the sound has come out via your TV or computer speaker so I can't tell the difference between any of them. They all sound exactly the same (as you would expect). Am I missing something here?
I'm a bit late to this, but speaker comparisons can be quite useful.
They pretty much always have some speakers that I've owned as part of the comparison. That gives me a reference point.
They probably aren't as much use if you don't have that reference.
Devil#20 said:Like the title says. You can't decide whether you want to buy speaker A or speaker B or even C so you watch a few videos on yt of somebody doing back to back comparisons playing a series of clean and crunched tones on all contenders. Finishes by not offering their own opinions but asking you which you preferred and why and if you like the video then click and subscribe?
All well and good but the sound has come out via your TV or computer speaker so I can't tell the difference between any of them. They all sound exactly the same (as you would expect). Am I missing something here?
Disagree with the premise. Back in the 50s and 60s when many players with great touch and tone were making their reputation, the vast majority of music was listened to on fairly primitive systems with mediocre to poor speakers. Old radios and radiograms, transistors, Dansette record players, old TVs. Record producers of the era often admit that their goal was a recording that sounded good on a cheap radio.
If your premise was correct, the subtleties that made these players what they are would have been obliterated by the poor speakers they were usually being heard on. Because there's no reason why a subtle tonal difference caused by a different guitar, or a different player, or a different amp should have a better chance of surviving than a subtle differences caused by the different speakers.
But all our experience tells us this isn't true. People listening to Fleetwood Mac on Top of The Pops on their parents crappy telly knew that Peter Green had great touch and tone. You'd pick up more of the subtlety on a decent hi-fi, but you'd still hear it on the TV.
By the time I was 15 I knew I preferred the sound of a Les Paul to a Strat. I didn't work that out by playing these unattainable guitars, or even listening to other people playing them live. I worked that out by what I was hearing on the very basic record player I had in my bedroom. Later on I changed my mind, or at least things got more complicated, but that's because my taste changed, not because I didn't have a fairly accurate idea of how the sound of a Les Paul differed from a Strat.
I just think it's false that subtle tonal differences can't survive being heard on basic speakers. Of course I'm not arguing that the differences you hear on your computer are exactly the same as you'd have heard if you'd been in the room when the recording was made. But you don't need to hear them live to know whether you prefer the timbre of John Lennon's voice to Paul McCartney's: hearing The Beatles on your tiny transistor radio will do the job.
I really like the Fane drivers in my Thornton “Fastback” 2x12Devil#20 said:I spent more time than I really should listening to amp speaker reviews yesterday. It was only when I connected up a Chord Mojo and Grado headphones to the laptop that I could discern the differences in various speakers. Listening through the TV or Laptop speakers is a complete waste of time. I've still not bought anything but think I'll take a punt on a Fane.Jono111 said:Sometimes I find that after watching enough comparisons I decide I don't really want anything, which is good.
It's marketing. Not science.
Something I didn't mention before is the benefit where you have the same reviewer in the same session comparing two or three instruments. Sure, you don't know the room acoustics or the microphone and you may or may not be told about FX in post, but you are still hearing two or three guitars played by the same person, in the same room, with the same microphones, and the same FX (on the best channels, that's none).
Particularly where one of the guitars is familiar to you, or at least something close to familiar, the comparison is really valuable.
Example: one where the player has three guitars by the same builder, identical except for top timber. What does American Plane sound like? (They call it "sycamore", which it certainly isn't, but Yanks are like that.) Because one of the three guitars in spruce (unspecified but it would be Sitka) you can "calibrate your ears" to a known, standard sound, and from there you can get the best idea of what American Plane sounds like you are ever going to get short of actually flying 15,000 kilometres and playing one yourself.
Another example: the chap demoing Emerald alongside his Martin and Taylor instruments, doing his best to play the same way and sit in the same place. Again, really useful.
HAVING said all of that - most You-tube gear demos are barely worth the paper they are written on. But there are good ones.
Particularly where one of the guitars is familiar to you, or at least something close to familiar, the comparison is really valuable.
Example: one where the player has three guitars by the same builder, identical except for top timber. What does American Plane sound like? (They call it "sycamore", which it certainly isn't, but Yanks are like that.) Because one of the three guitars in spruce (unspecified but it would be Sitka) you can "calibrate your ears" to a known, standard sound, and from there you can get the best idea of what American Plane sounds like you are ever going to get short of actually flying 15,000 kilometres and playing one yourself.
Another example: the chap demoing Emerald alongside his Martin and Taylor instruments, doing his best to play the same way and sit in the same place. Again, really useful.
HAVING said all of that - most You-tube gear demos are barely worth the paper they are written on. But there are good ones.
They are really just a rough guide and the only way to know if something is right for you is to try it yourself.
All well and good but the sound has come out via your TV or computer speaker so I can't tell the difference between any of them. They all sound exactly the same (as you would expect). Am I missing something here?