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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:41:54 -0500, "David Ruether" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message ... [Excerpting things we either agree on, or are unlikely to...;-] Century old music recordings are still playable, and often sound better than the digital copies. Subjectively perhaps, but not when careful double-blind testing is done. Yes, but that is the point. I sit on both sides of this. When I play a recording that I have in both vinyl and digital, the digital sounds fine (and has some obvious advantages in freedom from "wow" [my damped tone arms take care of bump-induced flutter] and surface noise), but my limit for pleasurable listening seems to be consistently about two to three disks in a session. The LPs do not sound "better" short term, but I enjoy much longer listening sessions with them, being eager to pop on one after another, unlike with CDs. Anecdotal, perhaps, but this has been a consistent experience for me. Paper originals of documents or film copies of them have extremely long lives, unlike optical disks. Both paper and film degrade badly is not stored in ideal conditions, which is why people are now desperately working to restore them. Non-archival paper is particularly bad. And see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_preservation#Film_decay Yes, of course. And try putting a written CD/DVD in the sun for a couple of weeks. One assumes that good storage methods will be used for media that are intended for archiving, regardless of the media type. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print-through It is real, but generally not significant even in analogue music recordings, and it is insignificant in digital tape music recordings. I respectfully disagree -- you can't really have it both ways -- an analog recording with print-through sounds pretty bad. I agree - but I have many, decades old, that are fine. It may have to do with recorded levels, whether the tape is stored tail first or last, and whether a noise reduction system was used while recording and playing back the audio tape content. Then they were probably cheap junk in the first place or improperly written. Improperly stored, as an experiment. I dislike potentially fleeting media permanence. You'll have even more problems that way with tape, LPs, film and paper. Again, you can't have it both ways. Silly argument. One should assume (reasonably) ideal storage for all, but be willing to test all for fragility. No medium so far devised is permanent, but the standard is, "is it good enough for the purpose". Anything else is an exercise - but that may have some value if a particular medium that is convenient to use, likely to be playable long term, and inexpensive stands out well above the others for permanence (your point also, I know, but we may be "jiggling" the desired parameters differently in coming to conclusions...;-). I've already long since retired all of my LPs and tapes, digitizing and transferring to optical disc (high-grade CD-R and MO). Further degradation is no longer a concern. But some would argue that by digitizing these, you have at that point degraded the sound of the LPs and tapes. (Have you heard that LPs are making a minor comeback - and maybe this is for a reason...;-) See comment above about double-blind, and you're probably assuming I used consumer audio CD encoding, which I didn't. In that particular case, not likely easily available to most, then yes. The best audio recordings I have yet heard of any type are the very high definition digital ones - but these appear unfortunately to be dying out for lack of enough popularity to support disks and players. Darn! Please note that, unlike recordable CD and Blu-ray, I give only a qualified recommendation to the various recordable DVD formats, because they are based on a laminated technology that might lead to problems, as compared to the single polycarbonate layer in the other formats. Good information. I still wonder about the reliability of the MUCH higher density of the information on Blu-ray disks compared with CDs, though... The difference in laser frequency is comparable, and technology has improved considerably in the decades since the audio CD was invented. Blu-ray shouldn't be worse -- if anything, it should be better. -- Best regards, John OK, "sounds" good...! 8^) I hope this is right. I have all the "goodies" for writing and playing Blu-ray, but I don't like the prospect of writing even one $7 "coaster", so it will be a while before I write Blu-ray disks (other than rewritable ones). --DR |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:14 -0500, "David Ruether"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:41:54 -0500, "David Ruether" wrote in : [Excerpting things we either agree on, or are unlikely to...;-] Of course. Century old music recordings are still playable, and often sound better than the digital copies. Subjectively perhaps, but not when careful double-blind testing is done. Yes, but that is the point. I sit on both sides of this. When I play a recording that I have in both vinyl and digital, the digital sounds fine (and has some obvious advantages in freedom from "wow" [my damped tone arms take care of bump-induced flutter] and surface noise), but my limit for pleasurable listening seems to be consistently about two to three disks in a session. The LPs do not sound "better" short term, but I enjoy much longer listening sessions with them, being eager to pop on one after another, unlike with CDs. Anecdotal, perhaps, but this has been a consistent experience for me. 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 -- 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. [Print-through] It is real, but generally not significant even in analogue music recordings, and it is insignificant in digital tape music recordings. I respectfully disagree -- you can't really have it both ways -- an analog recording with print-through sounds pretty bad. I agree - but I have many, decades old, that are fine. It may have to do with recorded levels, whether the tape is stored tail first or last, and whether a noise reduction system was used while recording and playing back the audio tape content. It's partly due to the formulation and characteristics of the magnetic material, and partly due to poor storage -- stored magnetic tapes should be rewound end-to-end regularly. But some would argue that by digitizing these, you have at that point degraded the sound of the LPs and tapes. (Have you heard that LPs are making a minor comeback - and maybe this is for a reason...;-) See comment above about double-blind, and you're probably assuming I used consumer audio CD encoding, which I didn't. In that particular case, not likely easily available to most, then yes. The best audio recordings I have yet heard of any type are the very high definition digital ones - but these appear unfortunately to be dying out for lack of enough popularity to support disks and players. Darn! DVD Audio is supported by software and some DVD players (e.g., Technics DVD-A10) Audio DVD (DVD Video with just audio tracks, up to 24-bits/96 kHz PCM format, also AC-3) can be played on any DVD player. That's my recommendation for you. Professional audio recorders are available at not unreasonable prices to record high quality audio for DVD Audio and/or audio DVD, which can be authored on a personal computer. I personally have a video recorder that's also capable of high-resolution PCM audio recording. I then transferred the recordings to optical disc for archiving as data. -- Best regards, John [Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:14 -0500, "David Ruether" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:41:54 -0500, "David Ruether" wrote in : [Comparing LPs and CDs] When I play a recording that I have in both vinyl and digital, the digital sounds fine (and has some obvious advantages in freedom from "wow" [my damped tone arms take care of bump-induced flutter] and surface noise), but my limit for pleasurable listening seems to be consistently about two to three disks in a session. The LPs do not sound "better" short term, but I enjoy much longer listening sessions with them, being eager to pop on one after another, unlike with CDs. Anecdotal, perhaps, but this has been a consistent experience for me. 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... -- 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) [never] caught on. I agree. These formats appear to combine accuracy with pleasantness. [Print-through] [...] --an analog recording with print-through sounds pretty bad. I agree - but I have many, decades old, that are fine. It may have to do with recorded levels, whether the tape is stored tail first or last, and whether a noise reduction system was used while recording and playing back the audio tape content. It's partly due to the formulation and characteristics of the magnetic material, and partly due to poor storage -- stored magnetic tapes should be rewound end-to-end regularly. [...] and you're probably assuming I used consumer audio CD encoding, which I didn't. [...] DVD Audio is supported by software and some DVD players (e.g., Technics DVD-A10) Audio DVD (DVD Video with just audio tracks, up to 24-bits/96 kHz PCM format, also AC-3) can be played on any DVD player. That's my recommendation for you. Professional audio recorders are available at not unreasonable prices to record high quality audio for DVD Audio and/or audio DVD, which can be authored on a personal computer. I personally have a video recorder that's also capable of high-resolution PCM audio recording. I then transferred the recordings to optical disc for archiving as data. -- Best regards, John Thanks for the information. I do operate on a VERY tight budget these days, unfortunately, and my equipment purchases are mostly behind me. --DR |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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 [Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/] |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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 [Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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. of course you can. everyone *thinks* they can hear the difference but in actual tests they do no better than chance. and even if you can hear the difference, you would be a *tiny* minority. the vast majority of people can't hear any difference whatsoever and that's why it never caught on. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:43:14 -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. of course you can. everyone *thinks* they can hear the difference but in actual tests they do no better than chance. I can hear the difference in blind testing. and even if you can hear the difference, you would be a *tiny* minority. the vast majority of people can't hear any difference whatsoever and that's why it never caught on. The vast majority of people were happy with VHS in EP mode. Better audio never caught on because of the copy protection issue. -- Best regards, John [Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/] |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Capturing DV tape as MPEG-2
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:13:15 -0500, nospam wrote
in : 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. Apples and oranges. the reason exotic high end audio doesn't catch on and remains a niche is because most people can't tell the difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree. -- Best regards, John [Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/] |
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 |