MD: MD for recording sound for film?
I have been in film and tv production sound for over 30 yrs. and although I've use DATs and 8trk. hard disk exclusively for several years, I have often used MD as a backup on smaller projects. I have used them with no failures to date for both recording and set playback. I do place SMPTE Time Code on one trk. and a program mix on the other. Since the vast majority of camera setups involve the use of a single boom mic, generally single track is OK. I have never personally had a situation where the back up was needed but do know of it being used on other shows with perfectly acceptable results- the backup being certainly better than no track at all! Don't forget two things: 1) the final product will have music, snd. effects etc. mixed in and by the time all is said and done virtually any recording medium will work. 2) Few if any speaker systems use in film reproduction (much less the listeners who hear this stuff) would ever be able to tell the difference between recordings made with the current 16/24 bit prof. recorders digital we use and a MD recording. Most people even with well trained hearing, need headphones to really ear the difference and it has to be a pristine music track at that. This is especially true in the freq. range of the human voice that we dialog mixers work with. Most of the arguments I've heard regarding MD are purely academic and serve no useful purpose in the real (or reel) world. It really all gets down to MIC PLACEMENT in the end. As far as "sounding like shit that..." the original post referred to, that is utter nonsense. A well mic'd shot using the proper mic for that particular set-up will sound just great. Granted MD is not going to sound as good as a 96/128k/48bit professional unit but it is an excellent recording medium for anyone making a film on a tight budget or where getting an HHB or Fostek portable time code DAT unit is not feasible. And MD is a excellent choice for radio broadcast. Again, I can't stress enough that mic choice and placement are the absolute paramount (no pun intended) concerns for production sound recording. With millions of $$$ of the best recording equipment in the world, your tracks will still sound like shit if the mic is in the wrong place! I hope this helps in your choice. Cheers, DK - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when I began to notice that the MDs I'd recorded on my Sharp didn't actually sound very good at all. You know about MP3 encoding, right? It sounded like a 96kbps MP3 file, or perhaps a badly encoded 128kbps MP3 file (like you get with the "8HZ" encoder). I was kinda expecting MD to sound 'as good as' (note the apostrophes) CD, and I had already experienced MP3 and surmised that low bitrate MP3 files don't actually hold their own against CDs very well. When I discovered that the MDs recorded on the Sharp didn't sound much better than (substandard quality) MP3 files I began to investigate further. Like I already said. You have other problems then. There is simply no way that digital MDs off a Sharp unit will sound as bad as "substandard quality MP3" files. If they do, you have a problem somewhere in the recording process. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
* "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 | Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. I thought it was pretty obvious | what I was comparing: | 1) The original CD Played on what? Sony equipment? | 2) MD recorded on my Sharp 831 | - obvious because I was commenting on CLEARLY audible artifacts in the MD | audio that weren't in the original. Feh. The only time I've heard "CLEARLY audible" aritifacts on a Sharp MD recorder was when I had a defective CD to begin with, and in that case both Sharp *AND* Sony recorders exhibited those artifacts. This is on both a 702 and 722, w/ Koss headphones and an AirHead amp. Similar goes for the half-dozen other Sharp owners I know. You are blowing smoke out your derrier, Mr. Hooper. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 | I am not! This is the only piece of Sony equipment which I own ... which I | have EVER owned! Huh? Are you saying that the Sharp recorder was the very first MD recorder you ever listened to? If so, then what were you comparing it against to say that it "sounds like shit"? Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was comparing: 1) The original CD 2) MD recorded on my Sharp 831 - obvious because I was commenting on CLEARLY audible artifacts in the MD audio that weren't in the original. I later added into the comparison 3) MDs recorded on a friends Sony deck when I began to notice that the MDs I'd recorded on my Sharp didn't actually sound very good at all. You know about MP3 encoding, right? It sounded like a 96kbps MP3 file, or perhaps a badly encoded 128kbps MP3 file (like you get with the "8HZ" encoder). I was kinda expecting MD to sound 'as good as' (note the apostrophes) CD, and I had already experienced MP3 and surmised that low bitrate MP3 files don't actually hold their own against CDs very well. When I discovered that the MDs recorded on the Sharp didn't sound much better than (substandard quality) MP3 files I began to investigate further. Like I already said. dave - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
| 1) The original CD Played on what? Sony equipment? G... are you trying to wind me up now, or what? "I DON'T OWN ANY SONY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT MY NEW MZR90", which bit of that sentence don't you understand? The original CD was played through a digital output (I have used both a CD-ROM to SBLive via SPDIF and then optical SPDIF out of the LiveDriveII, and a Marantz CD6000OSE with optical SPDIF out) and then I LISTENED to this through the minidisc itself WHILST I recorded onto the minidisc. I then played back the track and it sounded noticeably worse. I can hear artifacts. Let me rephrase that, **I** can hear artifacts. So I suspect that Sharp's psychoacoustic model used in their ATRAC encoder isn't quite as generous as Sony's, in that Sharp ATRAC throws away stuff that is actually important to my ear/brain combination. Let me rephrase that, **my** ear/brain combination. Feh. The only time I've heard "CLEARLY audible" aritifacts on a Sharp MD recorder was when I had a defective CD to begin with, and in that case both Sharp *AND* Sony recorders exhibited those artifacts. Then they aren't ATRAC artifacts, are they. If you have a defective CD, then the artifacts are on the CD, aren't they. And the whole point of psychoacoustics relies on an averaged impirical model of human sound responses, so it's perfectly possible that I would be able to hear the artifiacts I was talking about and you couldn't if the model wasn't quite right for me. "Feh" right back at you. I am not alone, I did a search at altavista and found a couple complaints about Sharp ATRAC just like mine. I already *KNOW* that some people can hear the artifacts and some people can't. I suspect some of the people that can't are the sort of people who don't really see (well, hear...) the advantage of 160kbps MP3s over 96kbps MP3s. This is on both a 702 and 722, w/ Koss headphones and an AirHead amp. Similar goes for the half-dozen other Sharp owners I know. You are blowing smoke out your derrier, Mr. Hooper. So, let me get this straight: I report some observations backed up by some experimental details, you report that you know 7 people (yourself included) who listen to tracks recorded on Sharp MiniDisc portables and none of you have yet observed anything similar, and therefore I AM WRONG and making it up? What's up with you? It's not like I have a personal vendetta against Sharp, because I happen to very much like Sharp equipment (just not their ATRAC encoder). For everyone else who still cares about this thread at all, I will close it with a couple of simple statements that ought to shut everyone up and end it now: Some people don't like Sharp ATRAC recordings because they sound artificial and 'compressed', whereas some people don't like Sony ATRAC recordings for whatever other personal reasons they may have. This is a completely different issue to playing back those recordings. If you're going to use MD for master recordings take a few try outs on various manufacturer's equipment before settling on what you're going to use for recording and playback. dave - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
When synch'ing sound and picture, there are two things that must be considered: 1) The sound recorder and the picture must run "at the same speed" to maintain synch. This, the most basic requirement, was often handled in movies by recording sound on sprocketted magnetic film using a synchronous AC motor in the drive system that was excited from the same source as the camera's drive motor. Now servo controlled drive systems are used in the recorders, and they are syncronized to a master timing source. 2) The sound and picture must not be "offset" from each other. This was originally accomplised by the clapboard, which placed a precise marker on both the picture (when the two parts made contact) and the sound (when the "clap" was heard) allowing the sound and picture to be started simultaneously at a common event on the separate mediums. Now timecode is used, and the "slave" machines chase the master to acquire lock. Consumer MD recorders have no provision for locking the record or play sample rate to an external source (video or film). So they only way things can work is to record timecode on one track of the MD from a timing source to which the camera is locked. The on playback, the MD would have to be the timing master, with the picture playback locked to the time code recovered from the MD. This is not really a good solution, that is, having the MD be the timecode master during playback. It would work in a pinch, but it would be much better if the video frame rate of the camera and the sample rate of the sound recorder had been locked in the first place. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
* "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 | I am not! This is the only piece of Sony equipment which I own ... which I | have EVER owned! Huh? Are you saying that the Sharp recorder was the very first MD recorder you ever listened to? If so, then what were you comparing it against to say that it "sounds like shit"? -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
* "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 | It's impossible to OBJECTIVELY say what 'sounds better' by definition. Not true. The subject of a truely blind A/B test can be objective. You are used to Sony equipment, which has weak amplifiers and crappy headphones and all kinds of Weird Digital Processing Shit(tm) supposedly to compensate. That is your baseline from which you make comparisons. Sharp headphone amps are more powerful and they don't have all the stupid cruft tacked on, so they sound different. I think that you have made the connection that "different" equals "bad". You have convinced yourself of this -- as have many listeners -- so that is what you hear. Sharp players with a good set of not Sony headphones, and especially with an AirHead amp, do not sound like shit, no matter what you or anyone else has read. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Hahaha. That's a joke, right? It's impossible to OBJECTIVELY say what 'sounds better' by definition. Anyway, semantics aside, that wasn't my point, which was that the person who said in conversation that MiniDisc is just lo-fi trash could simply have stumbled across the same reports that I have read on the Internet saying Sharp ATRAC **sounds** bad compared to the original CD (which I just happen to agree with, and which I read after I had happened to form exactly the same opinion on my own) - Original Message - From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "MD-L" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:01 AM Subject: Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film? There are detectable differences between the two encoders. You know what those differences are, you know how to pick them out. Therefore, I think it is impossible for you to be objective no matter what you do, because you will subconsciously or consciously invalidate any tests you might try. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
You are used to Sony equipment, I am not! This is the only piece of Sony equipment which I own ... which I have EVER owned! [...snipped stuff about crappy Sony amp electronics and signalling processing which is totally irrelevant...] Sharp players with a good set of not Sony headphones, and especially with an AirHead amp, do not sound like shit, no matter what you or anyone else has read. ... which is completely irrelevant because I wasn't talking about playback quality, I was talking about recording quality, which is why I brought up the whole thing about playing discs recorded on both units - the one RECORDED on the Sharp would sound worse on BOTH players. And the 'you or anyone else has read' is also irrelevant - it's not like I was quoting from a random posting on some message board, I was recounting personal experience. Anyway, doesn't matter. Forget it. I'm happy. (now) dave - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
ORIGINAL MESSAGE From: Liquid Review [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, November 10, 2000 I use my portable unit for recording interviews, and then broadcast them off of it to air on radio... and no one's ever said it sounded anything but crystal clear. I am confused - who can set me straight? As others have mentioned, this person will most likely ill informed or part of an anti-MD faction (yes, we ARE at war). If MD was truly so inadequate, I would not wish for an all-MD music collection. Yes, technically, it may not be as good as CD; but there are incredibly few people that can audibly discern a difference between MD and CD. And even then, the differences are so subtle or inexact (e.g. MD is slightly brighter-sounding), who cares? Quality is very important to me, but MD suits all of my needs, and well! J. C. R. Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Evening, all. Look, just a quick question - I was at a meeting tonight, and a fellow there wanted to make short films, and was looking for a portable sound recording source. I offered to lend him my Sony MZ-R37, and he said that "MD sounds like shit, it's no good for recording audio for film work"... is this the case? I use my portable unit for recording interviews, and then broadcast them off of it to air on radio... and no one's ever said it sounded anything but crystal clear. I am confused - who can set me straight? Cheers, Stuart - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Mike Burger wrote: Sounds like he's been spewed at by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I'd come back with "Have you ever actually listened to MD?" and then place my headphones on his head. Did you ever get the feeling that there is actually an "anti MD" faction in among Hi Fi journalists? Like that idiot Ken Pohmann (or how ever he spells his name). I have a friend that is a certified computer engineer. I was talking to him last night and he made an interesting point. On occasion his is asked to teach certification courses. The "normal" instructors are hacks who read books and attended labs, but have no field experience! He is out there every day straightening out companies networks that someone else was clueless about. He knows first hand the troubles that you run into in the real world. I'll bet that many of these Hi Fi Journalists, have very limited field experience. The have degrees from the University of Miami (like Pohmann). I don't know if the U of M has become a respected university, but when I was in high school, we used to joke about it being the college where all of the boxers and athletes graduate from. The used to tell me that you could take the diploma from there and make a paper airplane out of it. Again, this was a very long time ago. The university might be a well respected institution today. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
I agree with Mike. MD is perfect as a portable digital recording device for many applications. My wife and I use ours for Family History work. 1000% better than analog cassette tape. -- Original Message -- From: Mike Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sounds like he's been spewed at by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I'd come back with "Have you ever actually listened to MD?" and then place my headphones on his head. I suppose the bozo would rather use plain cassette...or the mic on his minicam. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Do you remember my (admittedly hideously subjective) comment about how Sharp ATRAC sounds very different to Sony ATRAC? Well, I recently listened to a whole bunch of other Sharp MD players (7xx, 8xx) and decided they sounded very very similar to my 831. Then I took my 831 back to the store in disgust and complained about some other petty problem so that they'd exchange it in the store. I asked for a Sony MZR90, and the sound quality is, guess what, SO MUCH BETTER. Same setup, same hifi stuff, same headphones (same ears!). And I would happily use Sony MD for film recording dave - Original Message - From: "Mike Burger" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:19 PM Subject: Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film? Sounds like he's been spewed at by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I'd come back with "Have you ever actually listened to MD?" and then place my headphones on his head. I suppose the bozo would rather use plain cassette...or the mic on his minicam. On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Liquid Review wrote: Evening, all. Look, just a quick question - I was at a meeting tonight, and a fellow there wanted to make short films, and was looking for a portable sound recording source. I offered to lend him my Sony MZ-R37, and he said that "MD sounds like shit, it's no good for recording audio for film work"... is this the case? I use my portable unit for recording interviews, and then broadcast them off of it to air on radio... and no one's ever said it sounded anything but crystal clear. I am confused - who can set me straight? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
* "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 09 Nov 2000 | Anyway - I'm not alone here. I recently found a whole bunch of reports | saying similar stuff about Sharp ATRAC. Let's talk. You have a bias against Sharp. There are detectable differences between the two encoders. You know what those differences are, you know how to pick them out. Therefore, I think it is impossible for you to be objective no matter what you do, because you will subconsciously or consciously invalidate any tests you might try. Oh, well. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Odd...I use my Sharp MT15 to record my CDs and such all the time, and I find the quality to be great. Of course, I am using the digital output on my sound card to do so. On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Dave Hooper wrote: Do you remember my (admittedly hideously subjective) comment about how Sharp ATRAC sounds very different to Sony ATRAC? Well, I recently listened to a whole bunch of other Sharp MD players (7xx, 8xx) and decided they sounded very very similar to my 831. Then I took my 831 back to the store in disgust and complained about some other petty problem so that they'd exchange it in the store. I asked for a Sony MZR90, and the sound quality is, guess what, SO MUCH BETTER. Same setup, same hifi stuff, same headphones (same ears!). And I would happily use Sony MD for film recording - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Liquid Review wrote: Look, just a quick question - I was at a meeting tonight, and a fellow there wanted to make short films, and was looking for a portable sound recording source. I offered to lend him my Sony MZ-R37, and he said that "MD sounds like shit, it's no good for recording audio for film work"... is this the case? He must be on of the people that reads "What Hi Fi" or whatever that magazine is. I know for a fact that more than one music CD has been made using tracks from a Minidisc recorder. If you are using a Minidisc recorder that was made in about the last 5 years or so, no one will be the wiser. However, if you record a certain French horn solo with a Sharp recorder, he might be able to tell. With your Sony R37, the only way he will be able to tell is if after he records something, he opens the recorder, or listens to what he just recorded and then starts recording again, forgetting to press END SEARCH. In that case, he will be really upset, and may just smash the hell out of your recorder. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film?
Hmm... you'd think. I've done a blind test using two MDs, one I recorded using the old Sharp MT-MD831 and one recorded using the Sony MZ-R90. The same source CD, played (digitally, optically) from the same Marantz CD6000OSE player. The Sharp recording (as I've said so many times before) has noticeably lower quality in the high frequencies, unlike the Sony. It's like things recorded on the Sharp have some kind of (utterly pointless) treble boost when recording; either that or the Sharp just has a really poor bit allocation scheme (or psychoacoustic model?) meaning it thinks I won't notice dropped high end. Weird. Anyway - I'm not alone here. I recently found a whole bunch of reports saying similar stuff about Sharp ATRAC. Let's talk. dave - Original Message - From: "Stainless Steel Rat" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "MD-L" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:46 PM Subject: Re: MD: MD for recording sound for film? * "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 09 Nov 2000 | Same setup, same hifi stuff, same headphones (same ears!). Your state of mind has changed. You are happy to have a new toy in your hands. You subconsciously perceive it to be superior because of that. When you do a true blind test, then we'll talk. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
