HDV's compressed audio/

Ty Ford · June 24th, 2008, 08:21 PM

What seldom gets talked about in this fray is what a side by side comparison of non-compressed audio to compressed audio reveals and what do you intend to do with the audio.

So you record on HDV....really, really well. At the same time you also record to 16-bit, 48 kHz uncompressed. Then you get in the two together in a good studio with good monitors and you may or may not be able to tell the difference. Why? What mic did you use? What preamp did you use? Where was the mic? So the gear you use can so compromise the audio that a little 5:1 compression reduction is barely noticeable.

Almost the entire music production community IN THE WORLD, years ago said 16-bit, 44.1 kHz digital audio in CDs, was lacking. When the bit rate was upped to 24-bit, 44.1 kHz, most of those complaints were silenced. From that, we can learn that those folks who make a living with their audio can tell the difference. They are going the other way; higher bit rate, 50% more data, not 80% less data.

What do you want to do with the audio? If it's going to be compressed again by some other process, like maybe making DVDs for your final product, well now you're compressing an already compressed audio stream. What does THAT audio sound like compared to the original, uncompressed audio.

You want to keep turning this chestnut? Go ahead. Every time I get the opportunity to toss in, I will. Here it comes. If you can't tell the difference, good for you. The world is full of compromises. You want to make this one? Go for it.

When I took it upon myself to find an applications engineer at Sony and pressed him for a response about HDV audio, he said, "Of course, if you want the best audio you'd double record if you were shooting HDV."

Hey, HDV video also as limitations. Pan a shot of tree leaves, water or a sporting event audience and watch it break up. HDV is not HD. It's that simple.

I know the math and I can't ignore it. Plus, I know what it sounds like. I'd rather "err" on the side of fidelity. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford

Terwingen Niels · June 25th, 2008, 05:22 AM

thanks Ty for your response ,

the decision of taking a recorder is bin taken. now the quest of finding something that really fits my productionneeds can start. but thats going to be a new thread..

greetz

June 24th, 2008, 08:21 PM	#16
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	What seldom gets talked about in this fray is what a side by side comparison of non-compressed audio to compressed audio reveals and what do you intend to do with the audio. So you record on HDV....really, really well. At the same time you also record to 16-bit, 48 kHz uncompressed. Then you get in the two together in a good studio with good monitors and you may or may not be able to tell the difference. Why? What mic did you use? What preamp did you use? Where was the mic? So the gear you use can so compromise the audio that a little 5:1 compression reduction is barely noticeable. Almost the entire music production community IN THE WORLD, years ago said 16-bit, 44.1 kHz digital audio in CDs, was lacking. When the bit rate was upped to 24-bit, 44.1 kHz, most of those complaints were silenced. From that, we can learn that those folks who make a living with their audio can tell the difference. They are going the other way; higher bit rate, 50% more data, not 80% less data. What do you want to do with the audio? If it's going to be compressed again by some other process, like maybe making DVDs for your final product, well now you're compressing an already compressed audio stream. What does THAT audio sound like compared to the original, uncompressed audio. You want to keep turning this chestnut? Go ahead. Every time I get the opportunity to toss in, I will. Here it comes. If you can't tell the difference, good for you. The world is full of compromises. You want to make this one? Go for it. When I took it upon myself to find an applications engineer at Sony and pressed him for a response about HDV audio, he said, "Of course, if you want the best audio you'd double record if you were shooting HDV." Hey, HDV video also as limitations. Pan a shot of tree leaves, water or a sporting event audience and watch it break up. HDV is not HD. It's that simple. I know the math and I can't ignore it. Plus, I know what it sounds like. I'd rather "err" on the side of fidelity. :) Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

June 25th, 2008, 05:22 AM	#17
Terwingen Niels Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Belgium Posts: 57	thanks Ty for your response , the decision of taking a recorder is bin taken. now the quest of finding something that really fits my productionneeds can start. but thats going to be a new thread.. greetz