--- In "jpbeale" <> wrote:
>
> My Sony FX1 HDV camera records audio in MPEG 1 layer 2 at 384
kbps.
> see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV
hmmm, that would be near-CD quality, theoretically.
my A1 has similar audio to the FX1, I believe.
>
> I would not lump all DV and HDV cameras together. I previously
owned
> several Sony DV cameras and the sound quality on the FX1 HDV
camera is
> definitely better, even though DV audio is uncompressed at
> 16bits/48kHz. The mic preamp in the Sony TRV900 and VX2000 was not
> great. To me, the audio on the FX1 is clearly a step up.
>
> It's hard to argue against linear PCM if you want the best possible
> quality, but I believe some compressed formats, including
> later-generation ATRAC (MiniDisc) and HDV audio really can be
adequate
> for many purposes. The recording location, the mic, and the preamp
> make a difference most people can hear.
yes, this is why I was asking about the quality of mic
I should be considering as appropriate.
I believe that MiniDisc or HDV
> or linear PCM encoding make a difference many, or perhaps most
people
> don't hear.
>
IME, it's an acquired skill (to hear differences at the highest
level) and many never bother to learn the skills, prefering instead
to trust the ears of others, or the marketing brochure touting
the latest technology, although conversely, many can't (don't try
to) hear a difference becuase they believe that it cannot exist
based on their beliefs about the 'technology'.
of course, most of my comments apply to those listening during
playback, and perhaps are not true for recording.
and certainly I suspect that those on a list such as this have
highly developed listening skills.
thanks,
clay
|