Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all. (Except from a
computer science or mathematical point of wiev).
An analog copy from the MD to the DAT, creates an uncompressed digital DAT
recording, as if it was made "out there". The only difference is that the MD
is providing the analog signal, instead of the microphone!
Let us be a bit philosofical and ask the question: How bad must a Sennheiser
MKH20 be made, in order to simulate the errors of an analog MD-DAT copy??
Not bad at all! It can be a perfect microphone working in 15 degrees C
instead of 20! Or just a little "normal" condensation! Or 25 meters of
cable, not the best. Or a windcover which cuts off some of the highest
frequencies just a few db! A high-class microphone will change radically if
you allow smoking in the studio, causing errors much bigger than the errors
of a analog MD-DAT copy!
And a boom which puts your microphone 5 meters above ground will cause a
revolution!
Gentlemen, please!
Klas.
a At 10:43 2002-07-12 +0100, you wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:15:41 -0700
>> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
>>Subject: Re: ATRAC compression
>>
>>KACastelein and DJLauten:
>>
>>> While it might be true that ATRAC is not a problem in "our" field,
>>> is it really not a problem in any other field?
>>
>>It is my understanding that it perceptually encoded material presents a
>>problem for broadcasters who perform perceptual encoding somewhere in the
>>broadcast chain, and that the broadcasters (the ones who care about quality)
>>complain. While one stage of perceptual encoding generally passes
>>unnoticed, especially something good like ATRAC or the AAC in MP4, cascading
>>codecs is a big no-no. That's all over the literature, it's not some crazy
>>theory.
>
>Thanks for the post, Marvin.
>
>That all makes sense to me. Considering getting an MD recorder as a
>convenient and light weight way of picking up chance stuff on walks.
>Write to CD as an AIFF for archiving.
>
>Otherwise I'll stick with DAT till solid state becomes affordable.
>
>Currently I don't use MD. But species recordings on MD that people have
>sent me for productions have always been very good and matched up to
>uncompressed DAT recordings very well. But for my own recordings, even
>when doing species work, I like to get some context of distant ambience
>to the 'soloist'. I've always been suspicious of a how a system like
>ATRAC would deal with it. How can it work out what's redundant in that
>low level mix of maybe a little wind/water, distant reverberations of
>calls, etc. that merges with the noise floor in the electronics?
>
>I use an MS set-up - I like the directional picture from this method. How
>will the system affect the directional information in the low level
>signal? Equally across the 2 stereo channels?
>
>Nice to hear a bit about entropy in nature recording.
>
>Regards, Geoff.
>
>
>Geoff Sample
>Northumberland
>..............
>
>www.wildsong.co.uk
>__________________
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
This outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses with Norton 2002
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
org. no SE440130067001
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|