Posted by Spex on 10/30/06 10:44

Martin Heffels wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:54:59 +0000, Spex <No.spam@ta.com> 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.
>
> Spex, we have talked this over to death. While the actual quality of the
> recording may be better due to better electronics, compressed audio is not
> the greatest thing to work with in post-production, as errors are stacked
> very quickly. And even more as when working with compressed video.
> Transcoding audio to an uncompressed format is a jiffy, and should be done
> at first convenience, if you plan to mix the audio decently. If all you do
> is "just" cutting an interview together, then it really won't make much
> difference to the tired and old ears of most of us.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-

Martin

I agree with everything you say but, there is a but coming, BUT when the
compressed audio is being edited all processing is done in the PCM
world. Internally a DAW like Logic works in PCM as do NLEs. In reality
the recompression errors do not stack up and holds up much better after
recompression than any of these self appointed audio experts will
honestly say.

The point is 384 kbps is plenty of resolution for recording the types of
audio regularly captured on camera i.e. the spoken word and wild track.

What I object to is the insinuation that if someone finds using MP2
audio perfectly adequate that in some way they have poor standards or
just don't give a shit. There seems to be an expectation,in some
quarters, that cameras should record in 24 bit/96kHz PCM and have the
cleanest pre-amps known to humanity as anything less is to be derided.
This is an utterly ludicrous proposition.

[Back to original message]