OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Lurking courtesy of Eternal Sunshine.org, I see the vinyl storm blow out
only to reveal an odd little You Tube mention which prompts me to post a
poser. (Wot new?)

I have been posting some crappy little vids to You Tube by way of practice
with the ultimate aim of posting clips of Swim Bo's efforts with her
newly-acquired alto saxophone - prompted and inspired, I might add, by
Iain's sterling progress on the tenor!

Anyway, I record this on either my Neumann or Samson USB (no idea now):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/AhSoPure.wav


And use it to create this in Windows Movie Maker:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Ducks.wmv (not small: 50 Meg)


So far, so good - sounds fairly OK to my 'cloth ears'?

(Ignore the video, I'm short of decent footage from my even more recently
acquired pocket digital video camera and am using anything about the right
length in preference to still shots which stink IMO after 20 seconds or so!)


And then upload it to You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uZxv...eature=channel


Where it has been virtually scrambled!

Anyone got any clues as to where I'm going wrong? I mean how do you get the
fab 'HD' sound I'm hearing on some of these clips - I'm uploading at 'HD'
(720) levels...??

Baffled, but still *link rich* you will notice....

;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote


And then upload it to You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uZxv...eature=channel


Where it has been virtually scrambled!

Anyone got any clues as to where I'm going wrong? I mean how do you get
the fab 'HD' sound I'm hearing on some of these clips - I'm uploading at
'HD' (720) levels...??

Baffled, but still *link rich* you will notice....




Not exactly bowled over by any response here but information is starting to
come in offlist:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...a2f80d18&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...46b30ffa&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...240f80be&hl=en


Looking awfully like I've got to try and get smart enough to juggle
bitrates....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


And then upload it to You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uZxv...eature=channel


Where it has been virtually scrambled!

No it hasn't been scrambled, it plays back fine.
If you're having problems with the audio then it is at your end,
probably just requires you update Adobe Flash player.
Or update your sound card drivers.

Anyone got any clues as to where I'm going wrong? I mean how do you get
the fab 'HD' sound I'm hearing on some of these clips - I'm uploading at
'HD' (720) levels...??


HD and "720" refers to image resolution. Not to the audio.

Baffled, but still *link rich* you will notice....




Not exactly bowled over by any response here but information is starting
to come in offlist:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...a2f80d18&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...46b30ffa&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...240f80be&hl=en


Looking awfully like I've got to try and get smart enough to juggle
bitrates....


Forget all that codswallop, format C drive.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


And then upload it to You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uZxv...eature=channel


Where it has been virtually scrambled!

No it hasn't been scrambled, it plays back fine.
If you're having problems with the audio then it is at your end,
probably just requires you update Adobe Flash player.
Or update your sound card drivers.

Anyone got any clues as to where I'm going wrong? I mean how do you get
the fab 'HD' sound I'm hearing on some of these clips - I'm uploading at
'HD' (720) levels...??


HD and "720" refers to image resolution. Not to the audio.



Not entirely - drop 'hd audio' into YT for a search.

Try this one (for instance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFYRyI8yxOE


Where I suspect the bitrates of anything are way short of 320...???





Baffled, but still *link rich* you will notice....




Not exactly bowled over by any response here but information is starting
to come in offlist:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...a2f80d18&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...46b30ffa&hl=en

http://www.google.com/support/forum/...240f80be&hl=en


Looking awfully like I've got to try and get smart enough to juggle
bitrates....


Forget all that codswallop,


I already have - typical waster of time forum fodder: all round the houses
only end up back where you started and none the wiser....



format C drive.


Did that. It didn't solve it....

Silly thing is one of my clips with a loopy amount of reverb on seems to
have got through relatively unscathed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU4_k...eature=channel


??

Unless I'm not hearing summat?


Still baffled, but still *link rich* you will notice....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote

HD and "720" refers to image resolution. Not to the audio.



Not entirely - drop 'hd audio' into YT for a search.

Try this one (for instance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFYRyI8yxOE



Listen to that compression! (dynamic, not bitrate). Nothing remotely "HD"
about that clip :-(

This use of the term "HD" to refer to audio is a new and unwelcome
phenomenon, a BBB (Bull**** Baffles Brains) ploy on the part of companies
who should know better. It seems to refer to the use of lossless coding, but
wouldn't it be so much more accurate (and informative) to say "lossless"
rather than "HD"?

"720", of course, is a reference to the pixel height of the image, and very
clearly bugger-all to do with the audio.

David.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote

HD and "720" refers to image resolution. Not to the audio.



Not entirely - drop 'hd audio' into YT for a search.

Try this one (for instance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFYRyI8yxOE



Listen to that compression! (dynamic, not bitrate). Nothing remotely "HD"
about that clip :-(

This use of the term "HD" to refer to audio is a new and unwelcome
phenomenon, a BBB (Bull**** Baffles Brains) ploy on the part of companies
who should know better.


I know. See below.



It seems to refer to the use of lossless coding, but
wouldn't it be so much more accurate (and informative) to say "lossless"
rather than "HD"?

"720", of course, is a reference to the pixel height of the image, and
very clearly bugger-all to do with the audio.

David.



Calm down, dear....

I'm fully aware of the 'HD' definitions for image sizes/pixel count and
have/had been wondering if the video quality (pixel count) is in some way
connected to the audio quality - BY THE YOU TUBE SETUP, not by me or anyone
else in this instance...OK?? The 380 video claiming (and sounding) to have
'HD Audio' I linked above appears to infer that you can have 'HD Audio' (in
YT terms) on an SD video, so then perhaps it doesn't...

FYI, I have been working with '2K' (1920 x 1080) movie media for probably 18
months or more and have progressed through 480, 576, 720 'HD' and 1080
'Fully HD' digital projectors in my own home. But that's as far as I will
go - have a read of this to catch me up before you continue with your usual
trick of trying to pounce on erroneously perceived errors:

http://hometheaterreview.com/five-ti...nema-standard/


If 2K is 'Fully HD' WTF is 4K? - 'Overstuffed HD'...???

Oh, and before anyone else starts of the notion of 'HD Audio' not being
better than uncompressed LPCM, let them do their own Googling to see who
exactly sets what bitrate as 'HD' and where (we know why) they do it....

Rock on....

;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote

Calm down, dear....

OK sweetie!


FYI, I have been working with '2K' (1920 x 1080) movie media for probably
18 months or more and have progressed through 480, 576, 720 'HD' and 1080
'Fully HD' digital projectors in my own home. But that's as far as I will
go - have a read of this to catch me up before you continue with your
usual trick of trying to pounce on erroneously perceived errors:

I don't have such a "usual trick". I respond to what you write, not what
you may or may not have meant to write.

http://hometheaterreview.com/five-ti...nema-standard/


If 2K is 'Fully HD' WTF is 4K? - 'Overstuffed HD'...???


As that article correctly stated, "2K" and "4K" refer to professional cinema
systems, not domestic systems such as BD. "2K" is 1080 x 2048, not 1080 x
1920. OTOH the terms "HD" and "Full HD" are never used in the world of
D-Cinema but only in the domestic area. So what you have been playing with
is 1080p FullHD, not "2K".


David.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

Calm down, dear....

OK sweetie!



Mine was a 'Michael Winner' - yours was a what?

;-P





FYI, I have been working with '2K' (1920 x 1080) movie media for probably
18 months or more and have progressed through 480, 576, 720 'HD' and 1080
'Fully HD' digital projectors in my own home. But that's as far as I will
go - have a read of this to catch me up before you continue with your
usual trick of trying to pounce on erroneously perceived errors:

I don't have such a "usual trick". I respond to what you write, not what
you may or may not have meant to write.

http://hometheaterreview.com/five-ti...nema-standard/


If 2K is 'Fully HD' WTF is 4K? - 'Overstuffed HD'...???


As that article correctly stated, "2K" and "4K" refer to professional
cinema systems, not domestic systems such as BD. "2K" is 1080 x 2048, not
1080 x 1920. OTOH the terms "HD" and "Full HD" are never used in the
world of D-Cinema but only in the domestic area. So what you have been
playing with is 1080p FullHD, not "2K".



You are right, it's 'Full HD' not 'Fully' (says so on my PJ) otherwise,
stoppit David, you're busking. Try this:

http://www.myce.com/news/youtube-4k-...g-video-31768/


And, it seems, bristling for an argument which you won't win (you never do)
and I'll get it in the neck for not letting you!!

:-)

Anyway I'm only interested in the *heavily on-topic* audio aspect here and
the only thing I have discovered so far is that video HD appears to be not a
requirement...??

Savvy?

Peace and Love
Ben and Jerry.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Keith G said...

Where I suspect the bitrates of anything are way short of 320...???

Have you tried Vimeo instead of utoob?

http://vimeo.com/12630017

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote

You are right, it's 'Full HD' not 'Fully' (says so on my PJ) otherwise,
stoppit David, you're busking. Try this:

http://www.myce.com/news/youtube-4k-...g-video-31768/


And, it seems, bristling for an argument which you won't win (you never
do) and I'll get it in the neck for not letting you!!


The difference between us is that I don't believe everything I read on the
internet!

There are so many errors of fact on that page that it's hard to know where
to start. Firstly 4K pictures are 4096 pixels wide, 4096p would be 4096
pixels *high*. IMAX is a film format - 70mm film run sideways so that each
frame is 15 perfs long. Two 2K digital projectors would come nowhere near
equalling the definition of that!

I'm currently in the process of buying a 2K projector, not for me you
understand but for a cinema. Which is just as well as the £35k + VAT price
tag is not something I'd want to pay out of my own pocket. :-) ( 4K
projectors are, of course, a hell of a lot more expensive. But only needed
for really big screens).

So, unlike you, I do know what I am talking about.

David.