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

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/]

"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

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/]

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.

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/]

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.

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/]

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.

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/]