I do not get the argument, is there something in that detailed video description of the mass that is in error?

Voice over the Mass is the main ERROR here. The Mass is not like YT DIY content.

I have a Catholic Laity Manual of Prayers, complete with Mass english on one side and latin on the other dated 1889. Cardinal Gibbons.

I can see maybe those who can not read. And we did have in the US, in 1940, a book with picture of the new mass, in which the priest faced the people. That shocked me when I saw it. It was either in Minnesota, or Missouri.  My first guess would have been Minnesota.

They spend time on the Mass for the Powers of the Precious Blood are immense. There was also a movement from Europe to educate on the beauty and magnificence of the Mass. Liturgical movement.  It was a good movement and then someone got a hold of it and a slow destruction followed......
There was a Bishop, who saw this movement to be important.  Maybe he thought the people needed a stirring of the soul.  

I have never heard of a saint that converted people by his beautiful mass. All the great priests who brought the people back to live the faith did it by their example and their words, (the way they lived and preached). All of this "beauty" of the mass was non-existent for 95% of Catholics, for the high mass only existed on Sundays at the cathedral, and the rest of the world had a silent low mass. The peoples of the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Philippines, and Europe, were converted by the example of their priests and their word, while attending a silent Low Mass which has no pomp, no smells and bells. The modernists thinks all that is needed is a beautiful mass to convert people. I think it is an effeminate mind set, that thinks that way.  I do not know if all of the  SSPX chapels are like mine, but my chapel has a "beautiful" mass and zero teaching about how to live the faith. It is like perfect honey on top of a rock, instead of on top of nutritious bread. The way the priests live you'd thing they had a vow of luxury.  The mass, no matter how ornate and perfectly performed it is, does not by itself teach the faith or convert anyone to change their lives.

Andy, you're wrong.

You have to know some church history to understand the reason for this recording of Mass.
For 2000 years people attended Mass as spectators, for a lack of a better word.
They understood fully that the priest was offering Sacrifice on their behalf but they didn't really participate.
The common practice up to the 1950's was:
ADORE till the gospel
Give THANKS till the bell,
At Communion as PARDON
Then all your WANTS tell
 
Old prayer books prior to 1900 (if you even had one and could read) often didn't even have the Mass in them, only MANY prayers that could be said during the Mass. Or you prayed the Eucharistic Rosary.   Check out the 1904 Prayerbook for Religious which lists over 26 different methods/ways  of attending at Mass. https://archive.org/details/prayerbookreligi00lasauof\
And as this book was for religious, it included at the back, Epistles and Gospels only for Sundays.
 
 That is why the altar server rang the bells when something important was to happen, so people would pause their prayers and pay attention.
 
Then Pius X declared he wanted the faithful to participate and follow what was happening during the Mass.
So in the 1920's (my book is dated 1927) came the first daily missal called "The Missal".  It was later renamed the St. Andrew's Missal and more prayer books started including the actual Mass.  But the general population still really couldn't follow very well so they continued their old way of attending Mass.  (daily missals didn't really make an appearance until the 1950's)
 
In the 1940's each parish in North America was handing out newsprint type booklets explaining the Mass which included charts etc.
 
This beautiful Mass, narrated by +Fulton Sheen, was recorded and copies were sent to each diocese in the U.S. and Canada, and each parish church, on a rotating basis, would show it in the church basement on a projector.  This guaranteed all people were being taught how to participate.  This was the ONLY way to reach all the people and was quite an undertaking, after all there were no VCR's or DVD players or even TV back then.  It was a massive undertaking.
 

I'm just glad it's still available for viewing.  I haven't seen a church packed like that since I was a kid.

This had nothing to do with conditioning for the vernacular!

There were missals. I've a Regency missal (1806, inscription 1811). Incidentally it has a full Canon. A missal from 1920 claims missals used not to have the full translated Canon. Yet, most prayer books emphasise prayers for saying at various stages of the Mass. Prayer books seem not to have had the Ordinary, except perhaps an abbreviated form with directions for serving Mass.

It should be noted that a versus populum priest and other liturgical experimentation was something by then. There was a strong, and false, belief that this was after the habit of the primitive Church. Some basilicas will have the priest face the people in a certain way, but they are of a monumental scale and the priest is not really facing the people, as facing towards them, at a height.

At 59:20 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3560) we learn that "consubstantiation" (sic!) takes place at the alter. I also totally do not understand, the most important of the Mass is commented with such a passion and overshadows the Transubstantiation, where the explanation could take place a few minutes before.

At 1:06:40 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4000). 

"Before the food we eat and becomes a Sacrament which nourishes us" - a notion of a meal?

At 1:13:20 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4400)

"Thru the Holly Communion, the Celebrant and the People have consumed the Divine Victim". Is not a communion of a priest and people completely separate act?

At 1:18:00 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4670)

The commentator does not mention a single word about Last Gospel which is gone in NO.