Roger C Boughton wrote:
>
> Walter,
>
> Lets face it you just like Minidisc, and nothing is going to persuade you
> different. There are a lot of variables in recording as you clearly state,
> why add another with compression of any variety?
Let's face it there are those that like DAT, cassette, reel to reel,
video recorders or whatever, and nothing is going to persuade them
different. They ignore the real problems with their system while
attacking MD. That's exactly my point. I like Minidisc now. If tomorrow
something that was overall better for actual field recording came out I
might like it better.
One theory I have as to why MD is attacked is that those using other
forms actually do know how poorly their systems stack up and are
desperate to shoot down MD to justify their choice.
There are a lot of variables in recording as you know, why add another
using a unreliable medium like magnetic tape? I value reliability and
storability of recordings highly. I don't find that in DAT. The chances
of DAT not even getting the recording are greater than that MD's
compression matters.
A number of the likely successors to our current recorders use various
forms of tricks to get the material on disk. Many of those tricks would
be defined as compression. DAT even uses compression with it's limited
number of samples of the infinite number possible. The future is not
going to be analog, it's going to be some form of processed digital
sound that only stores part of the information. As it stands now it
could very well be highly compressed mp3's. It's possible the future
might hold a reliable, rugged medium that records uncompressed. But the
trend is the opposite, to far lower quality than even cassette. mp3,
MDLP4, that's where it's headed very fast. The trend to higher sampling
rates and bit depth means it's even more likely that hidden compression
will be used. The move to surround sound, if it takes hold also puts
more pressure on the storage space.
I can use wire recorders, reel to reel tape, cassette, DAT and so on and
have. If it records, I can use it. I can get good recordings with any of
them. Well, maybe not the wire recorder anymore, hard to find a working
one and the wire. And they were never portable, at least the ones I
used. I know the problems of these different formats, which is exactly
how I ended up recording with MD. It has the least problems for field
recording of what's currently available.
My point is that the argument and continual attack on MD is pointless.
Those who are against keep trying to argue that they find something,
even though most have quite clearly never used MD for any period of
time, if they have even seen one. In blind tests they cannot find these
differences they describe. Every time someone describes another
difference I can think of lots of examples I've recorded personally that
say they don't know what they are talking about, so can most experienced
MD recordists. It's arguing trivia and often not even factual trivia.
Fine by me, just don't think it's important, it's not. Actually using MD
for many years as I have, and subjecting it to all the standard analysis
will be the way for everyone who thinks they know what's going on to get
a big education. You have no idea how stupid some of the anti MD
arguments sound to those of us experienced with the recorder. Since we
are continually attacked for our choice, we mostly do a lot more
thinking about it. We understand what we are getting very well.
Being a mac user I am used to this sort of thing. There it's windows or
unix folks trying to tell me all the work I'm getting done so rapidly on
my mac did not happen. Do they think I'm totally dumb? I know exactly
what I'm getting, what I've done.
While everyone is busy arguing if it's ok to record, if it will record
quality, I'm out recording quality with it. My sound quality problems
are exactly where I've pointed, to the mics, the environment, my own
skill at setting up to record, the cooperation of the animals, etc. The
recorder, it just records high quality, period. I don't have to think
about it, every recording I've ever made out in the field still plays at
full quality. I've never had a media failure, never had a MD recorder
fail to record when I pushed the button. It's very very hard to
understand just what part of the perfection of my recorder's method
needs improvement. Arguing that it does not sample the full extent of
the sound does not cut it since clearly it samples enough. Try finding
real concrete examples of unresponsive animals that respond to other
recorders. Or someone who can actually reliably hear a difference that's
due to the compression in blind tests. Theory is fun, but actual use is reality.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|