The HDV format...Compressed audio?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>
>> Camera audio is horrific and
>> only useful in emergency ENG situations, IMHO.
>
> I'd like to hear more on this. I was under the impression that if a DV
> camera was provided with an excellent sound source, as opposed to the
> built-in mics, that the sound on most camcorders is actually quite good,
> at least at 16 bit.

The DV audio track is capable of storing 16-bit 48k sound, but the typical analog electronics and ADC on camcorders is nowhere near up to the task. *If* they would give us an AES3 input, it could indeed be serviceable for many more tasks.

The better DV cameras, when properly setup and paired with an external mixer in competent hands are adequate for dialog work.





> I can't believe I'm going to have to start hauling a Nagra around
> with me....

If the scarcity of good tape doesn't get you, the weight and the bulk of the overall package probably will.

How many tracks do you need? Do you need timecode? How much do you want to spend?
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

In article <-_WdnaB8bKqYto_fRVn-3w@golden.net>,
trashtrash@christian-horizons.org wrote:

> I'd like to hear more on this. I was under the impression that if a DV
> camera was provided with an excellent sound source, as opposed to the
> built-in mics, that the sound on most camcorders is actually quite good,
> at least at 16 bit.

I've done s/n, distortion, and freq sweeps on a bunch of DV cameras over
the past few years, measuring from analog in (both mic and line) to what's
actually printed on tape. Quality ranges from awful (even in some 'pro'
cameras with XLRs) to adequate for broadcast dialog. None are as good as
decent 16-bit audio-only recorders. Most of these tech specs have been
published in DV Magazine, and are archived at DV.com.

This is not to say that using a good mic, properly placed, isn't a vast
improvement over the built-in mic.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

It's true. The field measured s/n ratio on many 3-chip DV cams is nowhere
near the theoretical limit of 16 bits. In practice, it's around ~50dB,
mostly worse.
One typical cause of the noise is digital hash running throughout the camera
and mixing with the audio.
Another problem is that the frequency response is not flat. It's typically
similar to a voice quality PA system, rolling below 100Hz and above 5KHz.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-




> I'd like to hear more on this. I was under the impression that if a DV
> camera was provided with an excellent sound source, as opposed to the
> built-in mics, that the sound on most camcorders is actually quite good,
> at least at 16 bit.
>
> I can't believe I'm going to have to start hauling a Nagra around with
> me....
>
> Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> >>Given the traditional level of importance that camcorder makers
>
> > stereo mix from alternate locations on-stage. Camera audio is horrific
and
> > only useful in emergency ENG situations, IMHO.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
> > www.mwcomms.com
> > -
> >
> >
> >
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Well, I'D like to hear any tech eval. of the HDV cameras, because I'm
convinced that I'll be recording with them soon whether I like them or
not.

Philip Perkins CAS
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Philip Perkins wrote:
> Well, I'D like to hear any tech eval. of the HDV cameras, because I'm
> convinced that I'll be recording with them soon whether I like them
or
> not.
>
> Philip Perkins CAS

I'm with Philip on this, the calls to use this camera are coming in.
They are cheap enough that LOTS of projects are abandoning the
DVX-100A and opting to purchase them flat out.

I sent sound to one the other night at a pro sporting event, no
critical evaluations possible (other than finding a predictably weak
headphone output level) , nor was I able to "take some sound home" on
my laptop and see what a few passes in Protools (EQ, DINR, DVerb, for
ex.) would sound like. I have my hunches though, and I think a
unified front on this camera with sound files to support our results to
producers is important PDQ.

The DP on my next long documentary is mulling camera purchase options,
and aside from a lot of hearsay I haven't been able to provide any
reason to him or the producer as to why a DVX-100a is a better choice
(if they are dead set on a toy camera). Trying to support a double
system argument to the producer who would mount a production on a
5500.00 camera is bound to be an uphill battle for all of us.

Can we form a consensus and design a good/practical real world chain of
events with the goal of seeing if this audio holds up? I think Jay
Rose could have some good ideas for this. For me as an editor, I would
expect a documentary track to undergo normalization, some low end roll
off, and perhaps broadband noise reduction, before I deliver it to a
mix - not to mention lots of unpredictable crossfades and cuts. What
about decoding m/s tracks? Normally we would work at 48k 16bit, with
BWAV files. I would expect to import this audio into protools after an
OMF from a picture editor who has ideally loaded everything digitally
into a FCP or AVID system.

Should I just go ahead and try these processes with a 320kb minidisc
track? Is there anybody in NYC with access to a HDV camera that would
like to help me perform this test? You can email me if you've got any
interest in getting this done this week.

Brad
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
>
> I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am fairly
> convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old ears.
> I just have no idea how to quantify it,

I am sure that won't stop you from publishing something about it.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

What a cheap shot.



"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:MfKSd.10389$DC6.3752@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
> >
> > I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am
fairly
> > convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> > compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old
ears.
> > I just have no idea how to quantify it,
>
> I am sure that won't stop you from publishing something about it.
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

No biggie. So far Millimeter, Videography, Videomaker, TV Technology, a
bunch of knowledgeable folks like Wolf Seeberg and Dave Moulton, and
college film courses in at least 6 different countires have said you can
rely on the stuff I write. Nappy is the only one who has a problem with
it, and he doesn't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is
(other than my existance).

J

> What a cheap shot.
>
>
>
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:MfKSd.10389$DC6.3752@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
> > >
> > > I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am
> fairly
> > > convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> > > compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old
> ears.
> > > I just have no idea how to quantify it,
> >
> > I am sure that won't stop you from publishing something about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

The wedding photographers have won. Two RF mics and a boom cost more than
the camera.

People are talking to me about video engineering six of these on a switched
HD show. With enough black boxes you can, but you get what you pay for.

Darrell


in article 1109115166.361234.4020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, Philip
Perkins at spamiser@yahoo.com wrote on 2/22/05 5:32 PM:

> Well, I'D like to hear any tech eval. of the HDV cameras, because I'm
> convinced that I'll be recording with them soon whether I like them or
> not.
>
> Philip Perkins CAS
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-2202051658310001@192.168.1.101...
> No biggie. So far Millimeter, Videography, Videomaker, TV Technology, a
> bunch of knowledgeable folks like Wolf Seeberg and Dave Moulton, and
> college film courses in at least 6 different countires have said you can
> rely on the stuff I write. Nappy is the only one who has a problem with
> it, and he doesn't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is
> (other than my existance).


Cheap shot? Oh I don't know.. Anyone who claims that they can discern
missing elements of an MP3 compression with their ears is not someone I
trust making evaluations of any hardware whatsoever. I think Jay is the
consumate hobbyist. I do not consider Videomaker or Videography well made
publications and would never rely on them for critical data.

Asserting that Nappy is the only one who thinks that way is another
indication that Jay is world famous in his own mind.

now.. if you can skip the emotion you might entitle me to my opinion. Don't
know Jay, saw a picture once of him in a clown suit.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:a0PSd.6313$OU1.3625@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:SEE-SIGFILE-2202051658310001@192.168.1.101...
>> No biggie. So far Millimeter, Videography, Videomaker, TV Technology, a
>> bunch of knowledgeable folks like Wolf Seeberg and Dave Moulton, and
>> college film courses in at least 6 different countires have said you can
>> rely on the stuff I write. Nappy is the only one who has a problem with
>> it, and he doesn't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is
>> (other than my existance).
>
>
> Cheap shot? Oh I don't know.. Anyone who claims that they can discern
> missing elements of an MP3 compression with their ears is not someone I
> trust making evaluations of any hardware whatsoever. I think Jay is the
> consumate hobbyist. I do not consider Videomaker or Videography well made
> publications and would never rely on them for critical data.
>
> Asserting that Nappy is the only one who thinks that way is another
> indication that Jay is world famous in his own mind.
>
> now.. if you can skip the emotion you might entitle me to my opinion.
> Don't know Jay, saw a picture once of him in a clown suit.


It's safe to say that while all of our skills and knowledge on this
newsgroup can at times be inconsistent, you Nappy, on the other hand,
consistently have the singular ability to offend.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

> Cheap shot? Oh I don't know.. Anyone who claims that they can discern
> missing elements of an MP3 compression with their ears is not someone I
> trust making evaluations of any hardware whatsoever.

[I'm going to assume Nappy is talking about me here. He seems to like to.]

When did I ever say that I could discern what's missing in an mp3 by ear?
Unless, of course, you're referring to when I recently said that with all
my training and work with lossy compression, I _couldn't_ tell what was
missing by ear. That must be what you meant...

> I think Jay is the
> consumate hobbyist.

Thank you. I enjoy my work and have made elements of it a hobby. I also
make a pretty good living at it.


> I do not consider Videomaker or Videography well made
> publications and would never rely on them for critical data.

Which is why I mentioned Millimeter first, which you don't seem to have a
problem with. Videography is pretty good for a controlled-circ magazine,
in my opinion. Videomaker is for hobbyists but seems to have at least some
fact-checking going on. You don't seem to have much comment on the other
endorsements in my original paragraph...


> Don't know Jay, saw a picture once of him in a clown suit.

Aha! Taunting me with a picture from my own website! That'll learn me!
(Lurkers, it's at http://www.dplay.com/funny/tofu.html)

Actually, my clown training was with a fellow named Wavy Gravy, who seemed
to think I was pretty good. I guess that was one of my consumate
hobbies...

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Darrell- you can say the same about Toyota when it hit the states 30 years
ago - small cur that only good for the "help"
it would take time until you get hdv Lexus 🙂

you get much more then ( except the lance )what you got from 30000$ bvw
200 in 85
I wish that every musician guy would buy some deva - which may bring it to
the ridicules price of fostex multytrack 🙂

--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland



"Darrell Henke" <darrellhenkenospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE415614.2D09B%darrellhenkenospam@comcast.net...
> The wedding photographers have won. Two RF mics and a boom cost more than
> the camera.
>
> People are talking to me about video engineering six of these on a
> switched
> HD show. With enough black boxes you can, but you get what you pay for.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> in article 1109115166.361234.4020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, Philip
> Perkins at spamiser@yahoo.com wrote on 2/22/05 5:32 PM:
>
>> Well, I'D like to hear any tech eval. of the HDV cameras, because I'm
>> convinced that I'll be recording with them soon whether I like them or
>> not.
>>
>> Philip Perkins CAS
>>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

nap wrote:

> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:SEE-SIGFILE-2202051658310001@192.168.1.101...
>
>>No biggie. So far Millimeter, Videography, Videomaker, TV Technology, a
>>bunch of knowledgeable folks like Wolf Seeberg and Dave Moulton, and
>>college film courses in at least 6 different countires have said you can
>>rely on the stuff I write. Nappy is the only one who has a problem with
>>it, and he doesn't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is
>>(other than my existance).
>
>
>
> Cheap shot? Oh I don't know.. Anyone who claims that they can discern
> missing elements of an MP3 compression with their ears is not someone I
> trust making evaluations of any hardware whatsoever.

Never taken any critical listening education, have you?


I think Jay is the
> consumate hobbyist.

Yes, its a shame he loves what he does. His "hobby" has bought him a really nice
house and studio, and not in the cheap part of town, and earned him more awards
than your hobby, which seems to be trolling.

I do not consider Videomaker or Videography well made
> publications and would never rely on them for critical data.

Get back to us when you make a better-made publication.
>
> Asserting that Nappy is the only one who thinks that way is another
> indication that Jay is world famous in his own mind.
>
> now.. if you can skip the emotion you might entitle me to my opinion. Don't
> know Jay, saw a picture once of him in a clown suit.


You can share your opinion with us until it becomes ad hominem. Then you can
keep them to yourself. I should have killfiled you last month when you were
doing this.

John
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:3rWdnUQje9xeQ4bfRVn-qg@comcast.com...

>
> It's safe to say that while all of our skills and knowledge on this
> newsgroup can at times be inconsistent, you Nappy, on the other hand,
> consistently have the singular ability to offend.

Can't help your emotional responses. Sorry. Don't be so offended. I disagree
with Jay's tactics and I have the right to say so. I don't think Jay is the
last word on camera audio quality and I am sick of him hawking his books
here and elsewhere.

Now if you are going to take my responses personally and whimper away... I
can't help that.


>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Philip Perkins" <spamiser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109115166.361234.4020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I'D like to hear any tech eval. of the HDV cameras, because I'm
> convinced that I'll be recording with them soon whether I like them or
> not.
>
> Philip Perkins CAS
>

As would I but from a more analytical, reputable source. Not from the hip.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

nap wrote:

>
>>You can share your opinion with us until it becomes ad hominem. Then you
>>can keep them to yourself. I should have killfiled you last month when you
>>were doing this.
>
>
> By all means killfile me! Then I won't have to go through this with you
> everytime I post an opposing opinion to yours. OK ?
>

I wasn't looking for your permission, but at least we agree on one thing.

John
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

> > Never taken any critical listening education, have you?
> >
>
> Exactly what are you talking about? I am an engineer. I have written code
> for MP3 systems, about to work on another, and I can tell you that NO
ONE'S
> ears can differentiate the finer points of MP3 compression. Anyone who
> thinks they can use their ears to 'review' a product is.... a joker.

This is a fact that people just don't seem to understand. In a true
double-blind listening test, almost _no_ one can differentiate between a 160
and a 320 encode. The same goes for various encoders, even though you'll
frequently hear LAME or the various incarnations of the FhG encoders are the
best.

Back in 99 in the absmd ng, we had various blind tests comparing bitrates
and encoders and there was only _one_ person who could consistently tell the
difference. Many suspected that his accuracy was not the result of actually
hearing differences in the mp3's but a knowledgeable use of either Sound
Forge or Cool Edit Pro for frequency analysis.

I'm not saying no one can tell the difference but damn few actually can.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley wrote:
>>> Never taken any critical listening education, have you?
>>
>>
>> Exactly what are you talking about? I am an engineer. I have written code
>> for MP3 systems, about to work on another, and I can tell you that NO
>> ONE'S ears can differentiate the finer points of MP3 compression. Anyone
>> who thinks they can use their ears to 'review' a product is.... a joker.
>
>
> This is a fact that people just don't seem to understand. In a true
> double-blind listening test, almost _no_ one can differentiate between a 160
> and a 320 encode. The same goes for various encoders, even though you'll
> frequently hear LAME or the various incarnations of the FhG encoders are the
> best.

At low bitrates the Fraunhofer encoders perform noticeably better than LAME does.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley wrote:

>>>Never taken any critical listening education, have you?
>>>
>>
>>Exactly what are you talking about? I am an engineer. I have written code
>>for MP3 systems, about to work on another, and I can tell you that NO
>
> ONE'S
>
>>ears can differentiate the finer points of MP3 compression. Anyone who
>>thinks they can use their ears to 'review' a product is.... a joker.
>
>
> This is a fact that people just don't seem to understand. In a true
> double-blind listening test, almost _no_ one can differentiate between a 160
> and a 320 encode. The same goes for various encoders, even though you'll
> frequently hear LAME or the various incarnations of the FhG encoders are the
> best.
>
> Back in 99 in the absmd ng, we had various blind tests comparing bitrates
> and encoders and there was only _one_ person who could consistently tell the
> difference. Many suspected that his accuracy was not the result of actually
> hearing differences in the mp3's but a knowledgeable use of either Sound
> Forge or Cool Edit Pro for frequency analysis.
>
> I'm not saying no one can tell the difference but damn few actually can.

In the same way Jimmy Buffet says, "There's a thin line 'tween Saturday night
and Sunday mornin'," there are no doubt some people who can. Of course nobody in
this thread has claimed to be one of em ;-p

John
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"G. John Garrett, C.A.S" <jg@soundcartREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:y-udnWHAJ5tXZIHfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> nap wrote:
>
>>
>>>You can share your opinion with us until it becomes ad hominem. Then you
>>>can keep them to yourself. I should have killfiled you last month when
>>>you were doing this.
>>
>>
>> By all means killfile me! Then I won't have to go through this with you
>> everytime I post an opposing opinion to yours. OK ?
>>
>
> I wasn't looking for your permission, but at least we agree on one thing.
>
> John

so? Killfile already.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:19:07 GMT) it happened "nap"
<gospam@yourself.com> wrote in
<fr6Td.8717$Pz7.8474@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:

>
>Exactly what are you talking about? I am an engineer. I have written code
>for MP3 systems, about to work on another, and I can tell you that NO ONE'S
>ears can differentiate the finer points of MP3 compression. Anyone who
>thinks they can use their ears to 'review' a product is.... a joker.
Hehe, I am electronics enineer with > 35 years experience, many of it in
broacasting, many of it in design.
I have been reading all this, and listen test can reveal a lot (to trained
people especially).
Already in the sixties I learned to listen to the sound people in the studio.
You can learn.
In fact I would not have lasted a week if I had not!
It is team work.
So, what mp3 system did you design? What about psychoacoustic models? I can
hear differences there myself, and WTF is a 'finer point', please be specific.
At least respect the profesional experience of others.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109196242.1687a51bc44b20524ddcbe0c618ecb70@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:19:07 GMT) it happened "nap"
> <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in
> <fr6Td.8717$Pz7.8474@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>>
>>Exactly what are you talking about? I am an engineer. I have written code
>>for MP3 systems, about to work on another, and I can tell you that NO
>>ONE'S
>>ears can differentiate the finer points of MP3 compression. Anyone who
>>thinks they can use their ears to 'review' a product is.... a joker.
> Hehe, I am electronics enineer with > 35 years experience, many of it in
> broacasting, many of it in design.
> I have been reading all this, and listen test can reveal a lot (to trained
> people especially).
> Already in the sixties I learned to listen to the sound people in the
> studio.
> You can learn.
> In fact I would not have lasted a week if I had not!
> It is team work.
> So, what mp3 system did you design? What about psychoacoustic models? I
> can
> hear differences there myself, and WTF is a 'finer point', please be
> specific.
> At least respect the profesional experience of others.


Nappy doesn't even have enough respect for the people in this newsgroup to
use his real name. This isn't an erotic binaries group Nap, come on, stand
up and be counted.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

> At low bitrates the Fraunhofer encoders perform noticeably better than
LAME does.

Personally, I still use mp3enc 3.1@ 160.

In the "old" days I would have encoded a file with Xing, Blade and mp3enc @
128, posted them in abt and have you tell me which one was "best". And you
_wouldn't_ have been able to tell which one was which. But these days, with
EncSpot and spectral analysis, it's now a moot point. Besides, who cares?