If DV is raw audio then how come sound guys absolutely dislike 12k Recording but find 16K acceptable?

More sampling, less compression, sounds logical to me, unless the size of the sampling can be altered.

I've heard that the HI-8's used in DA-88's are not considered long term. Could have more to do with the machines being out of spec but because the tapes are "interchanged" with other decks to verify their
integrity it could actually be that the recordings were flawed to begin with but it was only discovered years later when the tape is put into a machine with a different tape path alignment.

12 bit, 32K audio means the audio is sampled LESS frequently than 16 bit/48K audio. The fewer the bits, the smaller the sample size and therefore the less detail is found. For the human speaking voice, 12 bit is about as far as you can dumb down the audio and still maintain decent integrity.

Have a peek at http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guid...ages/wave2.gif for a visual explanation. It's the same with video.

Regarding the DA88's, I'm not worried about them at all. We're pulling tapes from 8 years ago that are still fine, playing back just fine. I've had as many as 16 DA88's running at once, and always have owned at least 3 at one shot. I've got one for backwards compatibility with a DA 98 still in a box in case of bad things. There is a lot of speculation and talk about the Hi8 tapes being bad, but since we don't move the machines around, and since we don't change machines, it's never been a problem, and we're pulling stuff at least once a week.

Sampling aint the same as compression. It may "give" a smaller file size which to you or me may suggest "compression" but it isn't. Would you say that 8mm film was a compressed version of 16mm film. I guess you could argue, philosophically, it is compressed. But again compression implies that the "same" information is compressed to give a smaller file size that on delivery to a decoder - TV or PC screen - we see it back again in all its glory. The same cannot be said the same of 8mm to 16mm film. Put 8mm on the same size screen as the 16mm .. yeah? Point taken? Now can one "compress" 44 or 48 sampled audio and thence onto something that will decode it in effcient way? Don't know . .But apart from FX-ing audio OR getting a file size down .. don't really see the need for using compression if it is for file size . . . ok, yes I can .. but not in the philosphical way we are talking about . .

Sampling IS a very clever way of taking humungous amounts of digital info - "1"s and "0"s - but it is still Digital. Now here I'm on shaky ground - and I'm sure Spot will "correct" me, but as speeds get faster and demands are made on greater and greater clarity it will "approach" that of analogue media . . eg film. You want the clarity of 16mm film? Then use it.

Interesting thread . .

Grazie

Sampling is the technique which allows digital representation of an analog signal. Increasing the sampling rate increases the fidelity of the approximation. Similarly for increasing the bit depth. The truth is a bit more complicated, but this is the shortened version.

Eloquently put, but I think the question is whether sampling rates =compression rates or artifacts. It's easier to visually display than to demonstrate with words. Or at least it is for me.
Grazie, you are dead on, except the mag stripe on 16mm can't do what we can do with 24/48...just simply because of the format and mechanics. I guess a pristine, never been played, one shot of a 16mm might be in good shape, but play it thru a few times...you'll have dropouts. If you'd fly over here for a VASST, you'd hear an 8 mm, 16mm, and 35mm soundtrack after a few plays compared to the original.
These days, digital is the only way for those that work in the biz for money, and even more or less for those who are true artists, simply because we've got so many emulations, tube interfaces, and more...you can get GREAT sound from dig these days. We've come a long way....baby. (you guys are probably too young to remember Virginia Slims)

Grazie thinks too much . . . .
 

No, no no SPOT .. Arggh .. my mistake.

Spot I wasn't referring to the Audio but the Video/Picture quality, using the comparison of 8mm to that of 16mm. Meaning bigger format more "chemical" information, more quality. I was comparing something I do know about. The Mag thing I aint a clue, it was my way of giving a "pictorial" comparison, that is . ., "The same cannot be said the same of 8mm to 16mm film. Put 8mm on the same size screen as the 16mm .. yeah? .. " see what I meant Spot.. ?

Grazie

Digital for me is the only way. It's cheap, upgradable and it is becoming better and better.

So why do profesional musicians (it is better to talk about musicians than moviemakers,cause musicians or recording studios are all about sound) prefer to record their sound onto analog decks? It is all about noise. Do you really think that noise is not-wanted. Not true. Noise sometimes tells a story. Sound coming from analog decks sound warm, rough and true. Sound coming from your labtob sounds cold, rough and SUPERTRUE. Movies are seen as wam and TRUE. AMATEUR VHS footage is seen as cold and SUPERTRUE.
Do you want the real representation of sound/image or do you prefer to have fantasy-look kind of sound/image? I prefer both. So digital is for me the way to go. Besides that digital solutions are becoming cheaper and cheaper and let's be honoust.....evrybody has a pc or mac. Does evrybody have a DAT recorder nowadays? I don't think so. So go with the flow and the flow is heading towards digital recording and plug-ins.

What did I mean with real-time recording through soundcards? Well, let me tell you. Record it, see the wavefoms being shaped on screen, sto recording and you can instantly move sounds around, delete sounds, reverse sounds....you can even PRODUCE your movie on field, like the newsguy do. Look at photographers...labtobs are used there like marsmallows!

And are labtobs heavy??? no. Are they portable. YEp! Are they cheap?? Depends. DO they give good results on the long run. I bet ya. It is so easy to change a soundcard. YOu can attach mididevices to it or other hardware mixers (firewire). Awrrggg. I wish I had a analog tape machine from 1970 worth 30.000 dollars. I love the sound of it. It doesn't give the real representation of sound, cause it is warmed-up version. But it is warm as hell. BUt liek most of you people....we are poor and digital is the only way sometimes. And I love it.

I wish I had a analog tape machine from 1970 worth 30.000 dollars.

I've got an old Stevens 24 machine that needs head relapping you can have for 5K and shipping. Head relapping will likely be 2-3K, I've not looked for the cost in years.
You can't GIVE these things away in LA or Nashville. They show up on Ebay regularly.

I understand that some artists want to imbue their work with feeling, rather than merely reproducing reality. However, I feel that such alterations should be done in post, where one has most flexibility. If you do everything at the capturing stage, there is no going back. I simply do not like to limit my options. Others may feel that tying their hands behind their backs gives them a creative challenge.

Emre,
you are right in this. Some folks apply compression for instance, at the point of recording. I rarely do. But, sometimes these practices are part of the actual instrument "sound". For instance, getting the famous Hugh Padgham 'crack' you have to use compression at the record stage.

In other words, it's entirely dependent on how the art is being created. Another example, based on doing EVERYTHING in post, would be to record a non-distored electric guitar, and add the "right" distortion in post. Unfortunately, neither the musician, the band, nor the engineer would be in a good space creatively if this was the practice.

So, it goes both ways, sometimes done in post, sometimes done in practice.

I don't agree that digital captures real sound better than analog simply because digital capture quality continues to improve. If it keeps improving I very much doubt that the earlier digital versions were better than the best of the analog versions.

VHS/S-VHS-HI-FI is wonderful for recording opera.

BetaCam SP audio is excellent for dialogue.

S-VHS HI-FI can be a decent compromise for live events IF one uses the top of the line playback equipment and remasters the footage to either digital or BetaCam SP.

Analog's biggest drawback is not the quality, it's that it costs more money to make available all of those user friendly knobs and dials. Digital video decks tend to be more automatic with less control over useful features and therefore cheaper to mass market.

However, a digital video deck in conjunction with the right computer can be a wonderful thing.

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : 12 bit, 32K audio means the audio is sampled LESS frequently than 16 bit/48K audio. The fewer the bits, the smaller the sample size and therefore the less detail is found. For the human speaking voice, 12 bit is about as far as you can dumb down the audio and still maintain decent integrity.
week. -->>>

But are you saying that 12k mini-dv audio is "raw" and uncompressed? It seems to me that less sampling could be called a form of compression since the result is the same, less data used to create the signal.

>>>>Analog's biggest drawback is not the quality,<<<<<

Here, I have to disagree with you. Analog's biggest drawback is the noise. If we could have the signal to noise of digital with the saturation of analog....damn but we'd have a great thing.
Digital boards can actually cost more to manufacture than analog, depending on the structure and features of the console.
Even the new Euphonix MC is VERY much more than a Mackie Onyx, and the Mackie Onyx will sound better overall. But it will be much, much noisier.

If you ever get a chance to play around with a professional level S-VHS deck like a Panasonic 7350 or a JVC-BRS822 you might be surprised at how good the HI-FI out is.

the Dolby linear Stereo tracks sound a heck of lot better than the 43DB they are rated at.

Alessandro, many years ago, before the advent of DAT, that's what we used to MASTER audio to was SVHS. Read thru the thread, I STILL own a Stevens machine, and only recently got rrid of a boatload (24 channels) of Dolby 361's. (361's are dual Dolby A and SR units, still used for many film soundtracks to allow for quiet to roar without inherent signal to noise) Thank heaven for Ebay.
Believe me, I'm waaaayyyy past the age of remembering mastering to SVHS. Probably older than you'd think I am. But I'm still younger than Bryan.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alessandro Machi : But are you saying that 12k mini-dv audio is "raw" and uncompressed? It seems to me that less sampling could be called a form of compression since the result is the same, less data used to create the signal. -->>>

In that light everything is compressed, including analog since it
will still not sound as if you where there.

Spot was talking about that the signal is not futher compressed
after the A->D conversion. So the data is sampled at either
16 bit / 48 kHz (2 channel audio) or 12 bit / 32 kHz (4 channel
audio) and is then STORED INSIDE THE DV STREAM AS IS.

So it is not (futher, in your mindset) compressed, which is
what things like MP3, AC3, dts do for example.

The signal coming from DV is as it was "recorded" by your camera.

p.s. if you want to have it described in numbers:

48 kHz x 16 bit x 2 channels = 192000 bytes per second (or 11 MB/min.)
32 kHz x 12 bit x 4 channels = 192000 bytes per second (or 11 MB/min.)

So they have the exact same bitrate. And this is also the exact
same bitrate you get inside a DV stream (thus it is uncompressed!)

Ok.

So after it is somewhat compressed going from the initial analog (the environment) to digital stage, it is then recorded as is in the digital domain.

Is the quality of the 16K completely dependent on the head end of the camera that converts the audio signal to digital?

Is a standalone digital 16k recorder "better" than a 16K camcorder digital recording signal, in other words if one could go line in to both a stand alone 16 digital recorder and a camcorder, would the audio quality be the same for both methods?

How "close" in quality is HI-FI analog to either of the two methods described above?

It depends ENTIRELY on the quality of signal being fed to the DAC, and then the quality of conversion that the DAC provides. This is what you pay for, the qualtiy of the DAC.
That's what makes the total difference between a Creative Sound Labs card and an Apogee 2k.
So, good heads are important, but by the time the audio hits the tape head, it's already been converted by the camera's DAC. Personally, I've yet to hear a digital camera that blew me away for quality of conversion.
On the other hand, when you're buying a 5K camera, compare that to the 1K of a VERY good multichannel sound card, or the 3K cost of an amazing 2 channel sound card.
The front end of a digital system is critical, where the backend isn't so important once you have dig audio. In the analog world, front end, back end, middle....all are critical. All the time.

That's fine, but mics and preamps are different.

On the third hand, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter!

Regards,

Ty

Ty ford,

Exactly!! I f you can't hear which analog mixers or 10000 dollar digital workstations are used, then why PAY for them?

Digital has improved. Soundcards nowadays are soo good, almost perfect. The only thing that should happen is dropping of the prices. Look at firewire nowadays. That is inovation!

Alessandri is right as well, cause for me Digital sound is true sound and you can better add effects after you have recorded everything.

BUT, if you add compression while you record, you have a lower noise-to-signal ratio, thus having more BITS and SPice. Too much and you will end up with ricky martin compressed stuff. Don't! Compression plugins are so sexy today.

so basically you can make a ME66 microphone sound like a expensive one. IF you don't hear the difference, people won't notice it. I can fool people easily with my vocals. reallly I do. YOu don't hear the DIfference.

Jose, all due respect intended, just because YOU don't hear the difference doesn't mean that others can't either. Nuances, inflections, and overall attitude of the mic and performance combine to create a special feeling and presentation that simply can't be created with plugins. Otherwise, we'd all be buying Shure SM 58's and using the Antares Mic Modeler. It sounds great, and even does a very good job of approximating the sound of various microphones.
It's kind of like a fine wine; some people can tell the difference between a well-aged and bottled Shiraz and a boxed wine, and others can't. that doesn't make either person right or wrong, it simply means one has more experience and training than the other.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jose di Cani : Ty ford,

Exactly!! I f you can't hear which analog mixers or 10000 dollar digital workstations are used, then why PAY for them?

++OK. Playing Devil's Advoate; Many people can't hear the difference at first. Over time as they work more with audio and get better gear, they begin to be able to hear the difference. The huge growth of the semi-pro market has made this segment of the population larger than the pre-existing professional segment.-++

Digital has improved. Soundcards nowadays are soo good, almost perfect. The only thing that should happen is dropping of the prices. Look at firewire nowadays. That is inovation!

Alessandri is right as well, cause for me Digital sound is true sound and you can better add effects after you have recorded everything.

++ I don't know what, "Digital sound is true sound" means. Here's what I know; Good digital is better than bad analog and good analog is better than bad digital.++

BUT, if you add compression while you record, you have a lower noise-to-signal ratio, thus having more BITS and SPice. Too much and you will end up with ricky martin compressed stuff. Don't! Compression plugins are so sexy today.

++ I will disagree. Using a compressor at a high ratio to catch the peaks while recording is a very useful. You don't find the quality of circuits at the low end, but SOME of the better stuff makes a difference. ++

so basically you can make a ME66 microphone sound like a expensive one. IF you don't hear the difference, people won't notice it. I can fool people easily with my vocals. reallly I do. YOu don't hear the DIfference. -->>>

++There are definitely different design differences between an ME66 and a 416. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter.

Regards,

Ty Ford

And how many people DO hear the difference? YOu guessed it. THe pro's! Why is it when you watch a movie, you don't hear the background music. At the end you are focusing on what you see. The rest is too increase tension and exitement. SOUND In movies is different from SOUND of music you listen to in bed or on a sunny day. NOWWW...close your eyes while watching a movie and you will hear some differences but it will be hard to notice them. That is why you dont need expensive audio hardware for movies.

TY ford said: 'If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter'

and I agree with him.

Jose, your broad generalizations are only going to impede your growth as an artist. Film music is indeed mostly subliminal, but it does not have to be so. Do whatever the situation dictates.

Finally, an artist whose standards are only equal to those of the lay audience is not going to go far. Work to exceed everyone's expectations, budget in mind.

Jose, I only regret now that I've spent roughly 3 million bucks on gear in the past few years while making music for films like "Last Samurai" "Black Hawk Down" "Finding Nemo" and many, many other films. If I'd have known so many years ago that I could create audio like my flute lead line heard in "Titanic" with an ME 66 and a 50.00 preamp because moviegoers couldn't hear the difference, I'd be stinkin' rich because I wouldn't have spent all my hard earned money on gear. But I'd probably still be married to my first wife, so I guess there is a silk lining to the mistakes I've made spending all my money and time learning so much, only to find out I've been cheating myself all these years.
I'm off to Best Buy, I need a new set of speaker monitors in our D studio room. We've got Hothouse, Genelec, and Mackie in rooms A, B, and C.
Whew!! Thanks for saving me so much cash!

Seriously though....as Ty commented...."just because YOU can't hear the difference doesn't mean others can't."

Ouch! . . Spot be candid . . say what you mean. Don't hold back.

What a resume . .I'm in total awe of your body of work . . . How do I strike a balance between making stuff and being satisfied? Or should I just throw up my hands and say, "Well, I know I can do better - I just can't get the cash together to get there - so I might as well not bother - and take up another pursuit?" . . a very interesting thread . . . I'm serious! I do really appreciate the very strong and informed points you make from "hard-won" experience.

So, how do I make a balanced view for myself? Please don't read this as me "whinging" about the little time I have left to myself to get to a higher ground of satisfaction with my work. I'm truly concerned as to how to balance the "real" need for quality versus my internal need for expression. Perhaps there is another book to be written and some "other" workshops to be done - "A Higher Ground - Expression and Quality for the Indie Filmmaker" .. . my title . . . .

BTW, love your book! Love the DVD and the samples and Loops . .already made some looped music projects . . well I like 'em . . . :)

Best regards,

Graham Bernard

Grazie, my favorite saying about myself is that I've failed FAR more than most dare try. I'm good at what I do because if there are 10 ways to try something before finding the one way to do it right, I'll try 15 ways just cuz I'm dense.

Even a rock aspires to be a brick or a wall, or a chimney, or something more/different/better/special other than being a rock. It's nature, I think. That's evolution at it's best.

I've also learned to not be nearly as pigheaded or opinionated. As life has taught me a lot, I've now come to the conclusion that I shouldn't be selfish; EVERYONE is entitled to my opinion. :-)

I've been lucky. Damn lucky. I'm a tall man in a very small field of grass. There aren't but maybe 5-6 people who do what I do, and that's only because others haven't tried. Thank heaven for that.

There is no "too late to getting to a higher ground" thing.
I walked away from touring full time and recording full time after a personal tragedy a few years ago. I swore I'd never step foot on a stage again. Now, I'm climbing my way back to the biz, and even though I've got a recording contract with Virgin, I'm being treated like a new artist. At my age and with my past experiences, it's VERY humbling. Believe me.
Keep at it. Nothing breeds success better than several failures or runs at the target from the wrong angle. But when that first success comes, it makes all the hard failures seem petty, stupid, and small.

distressor
 

I played around with the Empirical Labs units (distressor 2 and fatso) for a very enjoyable afternoon last week on some of my recordings.

Wow.

For those searching for the "saturation without the noise" euphoria, this might be it as close as it gets.

I'm cursed, I can hear the difference and I can hear it in blind tests. Ask Matt Gettemeier about that one.

?
 

The difference between ME66 and MHK416, plug-ins or no? Me too. Sorry - topic has been so derailed it's hard to know if that's what you are referring to.