|
Posted by Spex on 10/30/06 10:18
carlmart wrote:
> Spex wrote:
>
>> Prove your point. All you have done is spout exactly what the other
>> loons do on the subject without giving detailed information as to why
>> MP2 is inadequate. If you are to be taken seriously you have to do
>> better than glib statements.
>
> But my point has been proven!
>
> It's not masturbation or measurebation or whatever you want to call it.
> A compressed and non-compressed audio or video CAN be identified. But
> people accept it. Even MP3 was accepted by listeners. But there are
> limits to what people will PAY and for what.
>
> Perhaps what we are discussing here is whether compression is alright
> or not. I think it's fine as long as you don't make it show its teeth.
> If we are in the recording business (and I think this group intends to
> be) we should be looking for the best quality money can buy.
But my point is that I have yet to hear the point that the compression
does show its teeth. I'd like to hear a sample of MP2 falling apart.
Do the group a favour and make two recordings with the HDV camera you
have/or going to use. Record a section of spoken word in HDV then
switch the camera over to DV/DVCAM mode and record the same phrase or
whatever in PCM. Upload those two clips to a website so we can download
and compare. Choose a situation where you believe MP2 audio is
inadequate and again make a recording in MP2 and PCM on the same camera
and mic. Upload these files somewhere that any interested party can
access and compare.
Would you be able to do that? I am sure it would be a valuable exercise
that many people would find a useful reference.
Ty Ford was asked to demonstrate how appalling MP2 audio was but was to
tied up listening to condenser mic noise to take part in the experiment.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|