|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/11/06 22:35
Nappy,
I listen to mp3's all the time on a pair of Martin Logan Request
electrostatics, a Velodyne subwoofer, and a very fine amp from Krell. And
yup, the mp3 sound is not as good as uncompressed LPCM.
The Digital Dolby 5.1 which I hear from my DVDs and HD feeds, if directly
compared, would indeed sound inferior.
But I still don't agree with your January 3rd post, where your original
comment said that HDV has: "crappy audio.. to my ears the audio from HDV
cameras is very very poor"..........
I guess I won't attempt to ask you to quantify "crappy" if you don't ask me
to quantify "excellent".
Since ***ALL OF US*** ultimately listen to ***ALL OF OUR DVDs, HDTV cable
and satellite programming" in this 384/kbit or lesser formats all of the
time..............I guess we can each decide for ourselves whether it is
crappy, excellent, or someplace in between.
And in the process.........leave the HDV camcorders out of the
bashing.......
Smarty
"Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:Pqfxf.76$H71.24@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "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]
|