Posted by doc on 09/20/05 03:51

thanks Ty. r u pleased with both the quality of video and sound with the
XL2? and r u doing TV broadcast production with it?

doc

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c5mdnTyg1db1VLPeRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:10:26 -0400, doc wrote
> (in article <m4iXe.5027$e_4.2226@trndny08>):
>
>> not from personal exprience as you indicate but from reviews written by
>> pros
>> in magazines and online for videography concerns. one who was a fan of
>> sony
>> cameras (as am i) and who was shocked at the output.
>>
>> i have been very hopeful that the sony would work for me because as i've
>> already indicated i'm a big fan of sony products. in fact, if one were
>> to
>> come to my house they would think that i work for sony because of the 42
>> different sony products from big screen lcd to walkman (men actually)
>> and
>> the shock is the same for me. however, in the defense of the writers,
>> when
>> i see an 1/8" jack i'm thinking as someone has already instructed me, "it
>> dosen't belong in the studio - - xlr does" i have a audio recording
>> business and we don't have a single 1/8" jack in the place other than in
>> our
>> gadget bag in case we were to run into someone who wanted us to capture
>> some
>> sound that's only available on 1/8" output.
>>
>> if these writers are wrong and you have some sample clips that can be
>> seen/heard i'd love to hear them to help solve this delima. one might
>> say,
>> well why believe the folks who have said otherwise having not heard their
>> result? simple. better safe to agree that it sux and go some other
>> route
>> than to avoid the suggestion, buying the product, and then learning they
>> were right!
>>
>> btw, thanks for the input and hoping to hear response, sample, or more
>> input. gotta get this thing resolved or i'm gonna be in a lot of hot
>> water
>
> I'm a mugwump on the balanced vs. unbalanced issue. I've seen too many
> unbalanced patchbays in studios.
>
> As for SUX, that's not what I'm saying either. Audibly compromised after a
> full run through post and output to DVD? Let me hear the exact same audio
> recorded at 48 kHz, 16-bit and maintained at that until the compression to
> MPEG for DVD. Who knows, maybe that final dump to DVD (with its mpeg audio
> will compromise the un-messed with audio enough so the two sound pretty
> similar.
>
> Using a video analogy, I've already seen some amazing video compression
> artifacts on broadcast TV; NTSC and HDTV broadcast over the air (which are
> also compressed). It's obvious that the bar is being lowered.
>
> It's interesting the "broadcast quality" originally meant "better."
> Somewhere
> along the line it became "not as good as." I know Steve King remembers
> this
> because he was around before 2" video and "Winky Dink."
>
> Who bends over, or where we bend over just because the price is right is a
> personal decision each of us has to deal with. I made mine recently when I
> ordered an XL2 rather than an HDV camcorder. Your mileage may vary
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
> audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>

[Back to original message]