SONY UNVEILS WORLD'S FIRST HDV 1080i CONSUMER CAMCORDER

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Case in point - I was at the local Future
> Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
> their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5
with
> 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid
who
> told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>
Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
people
could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the "monster
cables"
they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the welding
cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry the bass the
6'
it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers

I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to simulate
explosions.
I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer) driven
by
a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord, with a
consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect the welding
cable
wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could tell
the
difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested it.
I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

good info all.
"HighPeaksVideo" <highpeaksvideo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040910001721.25615.00000366@mb-m17.aol.com...
> Premiere can edit HDV now with a new Main Concept MPEG II TS codec.
Premiere
> pro forums show lots of problems for people using this setup. Some or all
of
> the issues might be from the JVC camera, as that's the only HDV unit in
use at
> this time. Future Adobe in-house solution could be better or worse.
> Vegas 5 can handle the HDV mpeg II TS (transport steam) files captured
with
> the KDDI Studio Pro LE software that ships with the JVC cameras. Vegas is
> considered a "native mpeg" editor when used this way. Vegas 5 can print
back to
> HDV tape all on its own just fine. It does require everything be rendered
from
> a 6 frame GOP to a 15 frame GOP mpeg ts file. That means a render hit for
cuts
> only projects. Steve Mullen has a Vegas 5 review in the aug. video
systems
> magazine. With a 3.2ghz P4 it took him 10 mins. to render a 4.5 min
project
> that had a few simple transitions. Adding a filter to every clip slipped
the
> render to 16 minutes. First project on the KDDI Edit Studio Pro LE showed
3
> minutes. It renders to a 6 frame GOP file.
> Steve didn't offer any info on how the end results LOOKED. That's the
info we
> are all waiting to hear. Will the new Sony handle high contrast areas
better
> than the JVC? As a reference, the 19Mb stream from the JVC is the same
data
> rate broadcasters use to transmit HDTV. The Sony is using 25Mb, might be
that
> much better.
> In the end, all these HDV cams also do DV so I guess it's a no brainer
where
> the market is heading. Kinda safe investment.
> Pinnacle might be THE HDV NLE. They have GOP MPEG in their blood and
the
> new Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6 has a new interface. Who knows at this
point?
> All I do know is that these are really heady times for video geeks. Get
to go
> play with a friends XL2 tomorrow. Whoohoo
>
> Craig Holtorf

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

david.mccall wrote:
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Case in point - I was at the local Future
>> Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a
>> component hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1
>> metre (3 ft.) piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the
>> price by saying this was their "premium" grade. When I told him I
>> could do it for less than $5 with 3 lengths of good coax, he refused
>> to believe me. This is the same kid who told me Monster Audio cable
>> was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>>
> Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
> people
> could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the
> "monster cables"
> they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the
> welding cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry
> the bass the 6'
> it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers
>
> I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to
> simulate explosions.
> I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer)
> driven by
> a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord,
> with a consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect
> the welding cable
> wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could
> tell the
> difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested
> it.
> I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.
>
> David


I'm reminded of a CBC study done years ago when Monster cable first came
out. They were considering it as their primary audio cable so they ran very
extensive tests comparng it to several other brands. Their conclusion -
lamp cord was just as good

Mike

 

[Five]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <tea0d.275508$8_6.11750@attbi_s04>,
david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net says...
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Case in point - I was at the local Future
> > Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> > hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> > piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
> > their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5
> with
> > 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid
> who
> > told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
> >
> Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
> people
> could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the "monster
> cables"
> they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the welding
> cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry the bass the
> 6'
> it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers
>
> I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to simulate
> explosions.
> I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer) driven
> by
> a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord, with a
> consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect the welding
> cable
> wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could tell
> the
> difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested it.
> I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.
>
> David
>
>
>

Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
Sound quality was also quite different with high end
speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
to tell the differences 99% of the time.

Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
persons.

When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
news:wVh0d.277452$8_6.183671@attbi_s04...
>
> Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
> types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
> larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
> In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
> standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
> Sound quality was also quite different with high end
> speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
> had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
> could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
> to tell the differences 99% of the time.
>
> Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
> did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
> persons.
>
> When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
> better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.
>
Very interesting.

I'll bet you can "see" the difference on a scope,
but I never look at scopes when listening to audio.
Nor do most people.

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

It is supposedly all about the 'skin' effect regarding high frequencies. Add
to that super low capacitance and resistance. Trouble is.. no one can tell
the difference. Except Monster Cable salesman, of course.

..
"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WXi0d.277651$8_6.263004@attbi_s04...
>
> "Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
> news:wVh0d.277452$8_6.183671@attbi_s04...
> >
> > Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
> > types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
> > larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
> > In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
> > standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
> > Sound quality was also quite different with high end
> > speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
> > had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
> > could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
> > to tell the differences 99% of the time.
> >
> > Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
> > did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
> > persons.
> >
> > When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
> > better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.
> >
> Very interesting.
>
> I'll bet you can "see" the difference on a scope,
> but I never look at scopes when listening to audio.
> Nor do most people.
>
> David
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:G5j0d.13869$QJ3.110@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> It is supposedly all about the 'skin' effect regarding high frequencies.
Add
> to that super low capacitance and resistance. Trouble is.. no one can
tell
> the difference. Except Monster Cable salesman, of course.
>
Well that was my first chuckle today. Thanks
David