|
|
Posted by Nappy on 01/11/06 22:14
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:5padnSmVA6Vn4FjeRVn-jA@adelphia.com...
> Nappy,
>
> I am glad to continue the technical discussion regarding the ability of
HDV
> sound to be excellent. It was your contention that HDV sound was
inherently
> poor since the sample(s) you heard from some camcorder(s) sounded poor. It
> was my reply that the camcorder was most likely the culprit, since HDV
audio
> is encoded at a sample size (12 or 16 bit) and at a sampling rate (384
> Kb/sec) which has been totally capable of handling Digital Dolby 5.1
channel
> sound, and virtually all DVDs, HD television cable and satellite
> broadcasting, etc. use this (or a lesser format) to handle 5.1 channels
> extremely well. It was thus my observation that HDV should therefore
> ***NOT** be inherently limited in terms of quality, particularly since it
> only needs to encode 2 stereo channels and fit them into the bandwidth
> otherwise occupied by 5.1.
I am sorry but everything you have said here is irrelevant. I do not care
what delivery formats are encoded with.
I clipped the rest of your response because you are still stubbornly trying
to relate delivery formats and aquisition formats. Your argument is based on
some arbitrary value you call "Excellent Quality". Good luck defining that ,
Smarty. Kinda like "broadcast quality"
Here.. go do this.
Grab a copy of the hottest CD you have. Your favorite. Preferably with high
harmonic content and dynamics. But I don't think it will matter if you have
a discerning ear.
Open a HDV project in your favorite editor.
Place one of the CD tracks on the timeline and render it to HDV format. No
filters, no editing, nothing.
Now, this is where I went off to master the job in an expensive finishing
room with a digibeta but a decent pair of monitors should suffice.
Playback the HDV audio track from the HDV deck. .
Switch to the PCM audio track from any source.
In my case we did the transfers to digibeta.
In my case the hdv track lacked spatial information. Transients were also
muted.. Separation was nothing like the PCM file. And of course one would
not expect it to be.
If your argument is that a 384k MP3 file is sonically equivalent to an
uncompressed PCM file then I can't help ya.
I thought I made that clear. That is my opinion. In part it is based on
simple science. But I made the decision based on what I heard.
I am certainly not going to debate what 'excellent quality' is. But I can be
reasonably sure that an uncompressed audio file can not be improved on by
compression.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|