Posted by Nappy on 01/11/06 23:48

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:4OudncA8mNulFVjenZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> 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.

Doesn't really matter what you listen on. We have Genelec, the new JBLs and
M-Audio studio monitors here..I do not have an audiophile-type room. Serves
no purpose in a studio.

I do not listen to MP3's all the time. Thankfully. Probably why the crappy
audio jumped out at me.

>
> The Digital Dolby 5.1 which I hear from my DVDs and HD feeds, if directly
> compared, would indeed sound inferior.

irrelevant. Not aquisition.


>
> 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"..........

Read "to my ears" over and over if you wish..

>
> I guess I won't attempt to ask you to quantify "crappy" if you don't ask
me
> to quantify "excellent".

I can't quantify crappy any better than you can quantify excellent. Suffice
it to say that 'crappy' is the opposite of '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.

man.. .what part of irrelevant is so problematic? these are DELIVERY formats
man!
>
> And in the process.........leave the HDV camcorders out of the
> bashing.......

Why? Because you take exception? Smarty.. I think it is high time to change
your nickname.

[Back to original message]