If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
"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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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] |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MPEG-4 for IPODs | GVT | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | June 22nd 07 03:49 AM |
1 hour of dv/mpeg is 13 gig. How much... | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | March 4th 07 10:04 PM |
mpeg slideshow info | mark_digital© | Digital Photography | 1 | December 15th 06 06:19 PM |
MPEG to JPEG | Steve Giannoni | Digital Photography | 6 | September 27th 06 08:33 PM |
MPEG-2 interlaced | RicercatoreSbadato | Digital Photography | 1 | November 21st 05 07:23 PM |