Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2

"John Navas" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:56:09 -0500, "David Ruether"
wrote in :
"John Navas" wrote in message ...

I'm not surprised -- studies I've seen say that pressed LP has a
slightly warmer and blurrier "analog" sound, more and more as the LP
wears, whereas CD audio has a slightly crisper and harsher "digital"
sound, depending on the D-A conversion circuitry. This is why better CD
players really do sound a bit better, although the difference is small,
and why it can be more fatiguing to listen to CD than to LP. Audio CD
encoding is on the edge of not being good enough

This has been my experience, at least short-term. The ordinary commercial
CD may be slightly "flatter" in response, with a slightly wider frequency range
and more impressive sound short term, but for long term listening, the LP is
generally more satisfying and pleasing, likely for the reasons you gave. I
prefer the latter conditions for listening to music...

Different strokes and all that sort of thing -- LP surface noise drives
me crazy in short order -- I'd much rather have audio CD sound. True,
new premium virgin vinyl LP can sound very good indeed, but I can't
justify that kind of cost.
--
Best regards,
John

I've always been a "nut" about LP condition, sometimes returning
new disks a few times to get quieter ones - and I have taken
great care with my many disks. With originally-good disks, surface
noise is close to inaudible, or marred only occasionally by the slightest
of "ticks". Using a properly aligned cartridge and tone arm with no
significant resonances within the audible range (and no resulting
exaggerated high frequency roughness and peaking or bass flabbiness),
a speaker system that is similarly smooth (that means NOT HORNS! - I
use electrostatics or ribbons, but many dynamic types can also be good,
if less detailed), and good electronics (the cartridges, speakers, and
preamps vary widely in sound quality, amplifiers somewhat less, and
there are a few other variables - but I do not indulge in the common
audio nuttiness about those...;-), then my up to 40 year old LPs still
sound great (at least those that originally sounded that way - although
I do have some that for various reasons I still value that were never
sonically very good). Which is not to say that I will never opt for the
convenience of playing CDs (I have many), but they are noticeably
less satisfying and more fatiguing to listen to than most good LPs.
Again, in a "side-by-side" test, there may be very little difference, or
the CD may "win". It is in longer listening sessions that I want to quit
early when playing CDs, but want to just keep playing LPs. (My
anecdotal info - and it likely would not hold true if high definition
audio disks were added to the mix, since I would probably prefer
those...;-)
--DR

"John Navas" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:12:38 -0500, nospam wrote
in :
In article , John Navas
wrote:

it's a shame that
Super Audio CD (dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an
extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, somewhat comparable to PCM
format with bit depth of 20 bits and sampling frequency of 192 kHz)
and/or DVD Audio (up to 24 bits at up to 192 kHz) caught on.

it was a solution looking for a problem. the difference is inaudible
to just about everyone. what human can hear 50khz let alone 100khz? i
suppose it might matter if someone was buying a stereo for a dog or
cat. even people who spend ridiculous amounts of money on fancy
speaker cables couldn't tell the difference between their overpriced
lamp cord and a coat hangar.

I can hear the difference. It's not just a matter of frequency.
--
Best regards,
John

I agree. My thoughts about it were similar to "nospam's" before hearing
it, but the differences are easily audible ***THROUGHOUT*** the
audible range, as an increased sense of space, depth, image "firmness",
instrumental sound accuracy and "completeness", etc. The experience
was a real "ear opener". ;-) On good gear, even with hearing that cuts
off not much above 10kHz, the differences were not subtle. Having been
an audio nut for decades, and having designed and built gear (and having
done some testing regarding why some things sound different from others),
I can say that some of the "cheap tricks" for detail increase were not used.
HD audio just plain *is* better! Too bad MP3s rule, and the best lost...
--DR

"nospam" wrote in message ...
In article , John Navas
wrote:

Better audio never caught on because of the copy protection issue.

copy protection didn't stop apple's itunes music store from catching on
and becoming the largest music retailer in the usa, surpassing walmart.
the reason exotic high end audio doesn't catch on and remains a niche
is because most people can't tell the difference.

Possibly true, since most people don't really care about the quality
of their sound playback gear or its ideal placement in a room, thus
concealing the many potential advantages of having better sources.
Yet people will buy those dreadful five-tiny-speakers-plus-boom-box
systems for their TVs, or mistake the "Bozo" table radios for a decent
(even cheap) stereo system. Meanwhile, the remaining market for
decent sound quality (let alone for the highest quality audio) dries up
when most accept the trade-off of sound quality from MP3s that is
inferior to even standard CDs in favor of convenience (although there
is still some market for LPs, surprisingly - but I suspect that this may
be more fad than long-lasting...).
--DR

David Ruether wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:56:09 -0500, "David Ruether"
wrote in
:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...

I'm not surprised -- studies I've seen say that pressed LP has a
slightly warmer and blurrier "analog" sound, more and more as the
LP wears, whereas CD audio has a slightly crisper and harsher
"digital" sound, depending on the D-A conversion circuitry. This
is why better CD players really do sound a bit better, although
the difference is small, and why it can be more fatiguing to
listen to CD than to LP. Audio CD encoding is on the edge of not
being good enough

This has been my experience, at least short-term. The ordinary
commercial
CD may be slightly "flatter" in response, with a slightly wider
frequency range
and more impressive sound short term, but for long term listening,
the LP is
generally more satisfying and pleasing, likely for the reasons you
gave. I
prefer the latter conditions for listening to music...

Different strokes and all that sort of thing -- LP surface noise
drives me crazy in short order -- I'd much rather have audio CD
sound. True, new premium virgin vinyl LP can sound very good
indeed, but I can't justify that kind of cost.
--
Best regards,
John

I've always been a "nut" about LP condition, sometimes returning
new disks a few times to get quieter ones - and I have taken
great care with my many disks. With originally-good disks, surface
noise is close to inaudible, or marred only occasionally by the
slightest
of "ticks". Using a properly aligned cartridge and tone arm with no
significant resonances within the audible range (and no resulting
exaggerated high frequency roughness and peaking or bass
flabbiness),
a speaker system that is similarly smooth (that means NOT HORNS! - I
use electrostatics or ribbons, but many dynamic types can also be
good,
if less detailed), and good electronics (the cartridges, speakers,
and
preamps vary widely in sound quality, amplifiers somewhat less, and
there are a few other variables - but I do not indulge in the common
audio nuttiness about those...;-), then my up to 40 year old LPs
still
sound great (at least those that originally sounded that way -
although
I do have some that for various reasons I still value that were
never
sonically very good). Which is not to say that I will never opt for
the
convenience of playing CDs (I have many), but they are noticeably
less satisfying and more fatiguing to listen to than most good LPs.
Again, in a "side-by-side" test, there may be very little
difference,
or
the CD may "win". It is in longer listening sessions that I want to
quit
early when playing CDs, but want to just keep playing LPs. (My
anecdotal info - and it likely would not hold true if high
definition
audio disks were added to the mix, since I would probably prefer
those...;-)

It sounds to me like you really need to figure out what kind of
filtration to use on your CDs.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:44:29 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote in :

It sounds to me like you really need to figure out what kind of
filtration to use on your CDs.

Filtration?! What's that mean?

(Please prune your quotes down to the meaningful part. Thanks.)
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message ...

It sounds to me like you really need to figure out what kind of
filtration to use on your CDs.
--
--John

8^)
Point (kinda...) taken...;-)
--DR