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.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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!



Imputation noted.



There are so many errors of fact on that page that it's hard to know where
to start.



Dunno, I never read it - scanned it only.



Firstly 4K pictures are 4096 pixels wide, 4096p would be 4096
pixels *high*. IMAX is a film format



*beep* - irrelevant



- 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).


Rubbish. I believe even 60s James Bond movies are being digitally remastered
at 4K these days.



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


What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

I've got two here already but 'domestically priced' (resolution doesn't go
up with the price tag), so I'm sorry to say I disagree - looks to me like
you've been Googling like a mad thing!

Anyway, I'm not getting anything very *constructive* from your posts, so
I'll speak to Ken now, if that's OK with you!

;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
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



Thanks for that, Ken - asitappens I've been putting off looking at Vimeo
despite my camera software (ArcSoft MediaImpressions For Kodak - comes on
the camera, infects your computer when you hook it up) has instant 'ready to
go' uploaders to Vimeo, as well as You Tube (and Facebook and Twitter) and I
really wanted to get the YT to work, but you have made me wonder now!

On this machine that vid stuuttered a bit, but the audio was fine. It
actually was a good example of the sort of thing I want to do - a dopey vid
fronting a good audio clip like this, but with much better sound quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Btn...eature=channel


You know - just a *hint* of Federico Fellini....

;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote


Thanks for that, Ken - asitappens I've been putting off looking at Vimeo
despite my camera software (ArcSoft MediaImpressions For Kodak - comes on
the camera, infects your computer when you hook it up) has instant 'ready
to go' uploaders to Vimeo, as well as You Tube (and Facebook and Twitter)
and I really wanted to get the YT to work, but you have made me wonder
now!




Actually, I think this crappy You Choob sound is an *issue* - listen to
this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK6I5...eature=related



(Which could be Iain and Swim Bo sometime soon, if he hasn't been abducted
by aliens! :-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"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.


I didn't bother conducting that search....

Try this one (for instance):

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

I didn't bother clicking on that link....


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

"320" is indeed a bitrate, of what you're referring to is unknown?
In all audio encoding software is a whole heap of factors to discern
the "supposed" end result quality - bandwidth dictated by sampling rates-
44.1/ 48/96/192 etc, then there is the number of binary digits, 16/24 etc.
You're using the limited WMM to edit/compose from your source recording,
I am not aware of WMM versatility with anything that could be discerned
as High Definition.
In your case there is unknown factors, such as the format/file type of
your source recordings? WMM is severely restricted with what formats
it can work with, but none can be termed "HD".
I suspect you are using WMM to compose a WMV, the soundtrack will
be either a WAV or a WMA, all perfectly acceptable but certainly not
what could be termed "HD".
You are then uploading the WMV to YT, your upload undergoes a process
of encoding to a .flv for streaming.
What exactly is it you feel is missing in the streaming YT version of
your uploaded clip?
You could try more versatile software then WMM to compose your clip,
this is a very obvious one, but there are others. All these are freeware,
all are more capable then WMM, you can then convert your source recording
to any format/file type at any bandwidth you choose, as many binary digits
as you desire and at a bitrate you perceive to be sooper dooper!
It will still undergo YT's .flv compression.
http://www.koyotesoft.com/indexEn.html



,snipped
Unless I'm not hearing summat?


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


You must only read links that originated from caps locked nutters
who spend the day shouting at lamp posts.
Now format your C drive.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Try this one (for instance):

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


I know I shouldn't be baited, but I just clicked on that link.
It is dire!
You've based your woes on an uploader including in the title
the meaningless and inaccurate phrase: (HD 320 Audio)

There is nothing "HD" in that clip of which the uploader was
inferring the pic of a red mouses head was "HD" and the audio
was at a compression rate of 320, and compression is all too
obvious with a peaked bass in region 50hz to 100hz and a
dramatic mid range roll off, the track is crap also.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"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.


I didn't bother conducting that search....

Try this one (for instance):

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

I didn't bother clicking on that link....


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

"320" is indeed a bitrate, of what you're referring to is unknown?
In all audio encoding software is a whole heap of factors to discern
the "supposed" end result quality - bandwidth dictated by sampling rates-
44.1/ 48/96/192 etc, then there is the number of binary digits, 16/24 etc.
You're using the limited WMM to edit/compose from your source recording,
I am not aware of WMM versatility with anything that could be discerned
as High Definition.
In your case there is unknown factors, such as the format/file type of
your source recordings? WMM is severely restricted with what formats
it can work with, but none can be termed "HD".
I suspect you are using WMM to compose a WMV, the soundtrack will
be either a WAV or a WMA, all perfectly acceptable but certainly not
what could be termed "HD".
You are then uploading the WMV to YT, your upload undergoes a process
of encoding to a .flv for streaming.
What exactly is it you feel is missing in the streaming YT version of
your uploaded clip?
You could try more versatile software then WMM to compose your clip,
this is a very obvious one, but there are others. All these are freeware,
all are more capable then WMM, you can then convert your source recording
to any format/file type at any bandwidth you choose, as many binary digits
as you desire and at a bitrate you perceive to be sooper dooper!
It will still undergo YT's .flv compression.
http://www.koyotesoft.com/indexEn.html



,snipped
Unless I'm not hearing summat?


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


You must only read links that originated from caps locked nutters
who spend the day shouting at lamp posts.
Now format your C drive.


Told you: I already done that!

Anyway, you funnny ole fing - you were on to it from the off!

I just got this in an email from my son who has been here today tidying up a
few of my computers and he has just emailed: "I forgot about updating adobe
flash. The new version should help with 720p and 1080p HD youtube on the
Revo's. Can you do 720p ok on youtube?"

So, for the first time ever, with your words ringing in my ears, I tried a
couple of the 'troublesome' clips on another machine (all of 40cm away) and
guess what....???

Thanks for the good advice you gave in your first reply - right at the
beginning, that I managed to skate right over!!

I know - format....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...


Try this one (for instance):

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


I know I shouldn't be baited, but I just clicked on that link.


:-)



It is dire!


Best of a pretty bad bunch in the first few 'hd audio' results! Do the
search - maybe the first result is the best?



You've based your woes on an uploader including in the title
the meaningless and inaccurate phrase: (HD 320 Audio)

There is nothing "HD" in that clip of which the uploader was
inferring the pic of a red mouses head was "HD" and the audio
was at a compression rate of 320, and compression is all too
obvious with a peaked bass in region 50hz to 100hz and a
dramatic mid range roll off,



I think we've establish that in audio terms HD is a moveable feast at best;
that clip was actually picked for the visual!


the track is crap also.



No argument from me....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Keith G said...

On this machine that vid stuuttered a bit, but the audio was fine. It
actually was a good example of the sort of thing I want to do - a dopey vid
fronting a good audio clip like this, but with much better sound quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Btn...eature=channel


You know - just a *hint* of Federico Fellini....

;-)

Ah yes, the famous deckchair scene from Satyricon.


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

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


I think we've establish that in audio terms HD is a moveable feast at
best; that clip was actually picked for the visual!


No, we haven't established anything of the sort!
What is long established is there is no such thing as "Hi-Def audio".
There is SACD and once there was also DVD-Audio, both were
marketed as the ultimate but niether were that special, and were
only ultra-wide bandwidth at 24 bits, and multi channel. But none
could be termed "HD".
You really are very sweet, and it is rather cute that you misguidely
thought that a higher bitrate (which only means "less compression")
was a Hi-def incarnation.


the track is crap also.



No argument from me....




If you bell cash Converters, give the store manager the specs of your
out-of-date computer, he will give you a fair price he is willing to pay for
it.
Then you can get on with your life.
What do you reckon in the 2.30 at Ascot tomorrow?

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


I think we've establish that in audio terms HD is a moveable feast at
best; that clip was actually picked for the visual!


No, we haven't established anything of the sort!
What is long established is there is no such thing as "Hi-Def audio".



Tell that to the 'trade', I didn't invent the term.

To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good needle on
good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this clip which was
recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ng-...eature=channel


Which is leading up to a 'wot mic?' question, possibly later on this
morning.



There is SACD and once there was also DVD-Audio, both were
marketed as the ultimate but niether were that special, and were
only ultra-wide bandwidth at 24 bits, and multi channel. But none
could be termed "HD".


Sez who?



You really are very sweet, and it is rather cute that you misguidely
thought that a higher bitrate (which only means "less compression")
was a Hi-def incarnation.


I'm only using the terms employed by You Tube in the context of You Tube -
if you want to pedantise about compression every time the sound quality of a
You Tube video clip is mentioned please feel free to go ahead.

(In the real world, everybody with half a brain or better knew
'sticky-backed plastic' was *Sellotape*.... ;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

On this machine that vid stuuttered a bit, but the audio was fine. It
actually was a good example of the sort of thing I want to do - a dopey
vid
fronting a good audio clip like this, but with much better sound quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Btn...eature=channel


You know - just a *hint* of Federico Fellini....

;-)

Ah yes, the famous deckchair scene from Satyricon.




That *is* a 40 foot high deckchair, Ken...

Bevete piu' latte!

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good
needle on good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this
clip which was recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

So you've learned nothing on your break from posting here?

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:53:23 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good needle on
good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this clip which was
recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ng-...eature=channel

Why just a static shot of the turntable? If you're proud of your
listening setup, why not show us the rest of the gear, including the
room and speaker placement (which probably makes much more difference
to the sound than whether you amplify using valves or transistors.)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good
needle on good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this
clip which was recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

So you've


'So you'?


learned nothing on your break from posting here?


Oh, I'm afraid I have....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:53:23 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good needle
on
good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this clip which was
recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ng-...eature=channel

Why just a static shot of the turntable?



It's a standard You Tube thing: frequently the shot of the turntable is a
still photo while the track plays out but that is too unsatisfactory for
many, including me - you don't see the label going round for a start...!!



If you're proud of your
listening setup,



'Proud of'...???

Try 'pleased with' - it's got less juice dripping from it.


why not show us the rest of the gear, including the
room and speaker placement (which probably makes much more difference
to the sound than whether you amplify using valves or transistors.)


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already the

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


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

snip


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already the

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


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....



If it works for you Keith then that's what counts.

But that's not my cup of tea, especially the aesthetics.
The equipment rack that the T/T is atop, it has the
look of one of those racks at the checkout in an M+S
foodhall, you know the type, a rack where one could
get a croissant or packet of peanuts as one queued
to pay for a bottle Chilean Merlot, is it one of those racks?
And you seem to have really bought into the "analogous
sound" mythology. Hiss, cackle and pop, misallignment
mistracking, at the mercy of the RIAA, and of course
the mastering and pressing process. All is not equal.
But if it works for you then thats bliss.

I'm not a fan of newsgroups, mainly because I always
feel compelled to react impatiently, and there is some
total codswallop spewed up in these groups.
And you must stop reading caps locked nutters who
have got you to fall for the nonsense of "HD audio".

As for YouTube, emm.. I may upload a few clips for
viewing of some hardware I'm working on. I'm trying to
get a tech journo's attention for some real world articles
he should write, maybe YT might get his attention....

I have to leave this thread now. An established pattern
leads me to guess that the American amateur will be reading,
he will have done some frantic googling, then cut'n'paste
and pass off as his words. My tolerence levels have a limit.
Have a safe Bon Jovi.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

(In the real world, everybody with half a brain or better knew
'sticky-backed plastic' was *Sellotape*.... ;-)


Fablon, actually.

GMacK

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

snip


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already
the

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


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....



If it works for you Keith then that's what counts.


Sure, but those that have heard the setup have generally been favourably
impressed by it.



But that's not my cup of tea, especially the aesthetics.



Fairy nuff.



The equipment rack that the T/T is atop, it has the
look of one of those racks at the checkout in an M+S
foodhall, you know the type, a rack where one could
get a croissant or packet of peanuts as one queued
to pay for a bottle Chilean Merlot, is it one of those racks?



These racks even appear as fixtures in submarines in movies - they are every
where! When I bought mine from Argos (I have several for equipment and
record storage) I hadn't seen them before. That rack is holding up two heavy
valve amps, a painted paving slab and a very heay record deck; poncey 'hifi
furniture' couldn't be trusted with it. Also those racks cost about one
tenth of the price of aforeamentioned poncey stuff.

We had some Chilean Merlot once; I used it to clean a motorcycle chain and
it disappeared - the chain, that is...




And you seem to have really bought into the "analogous
sound" mythology. Hiss, cackle and pop, misallignment
mistracking, at the mercy of the RIAA, and of course
the mastering and pressing process. All is not equal.
But if it works for you then thats bliss.



Indeed.



I'm not a fan of newsgroups, mainly because I always
feel compelled to react impatiently, and there is some
total codswallop spewed up in these groups.



Forums are worse - absolute waste of time and so kludgy to use!!



And you must stop reading caps locked nutters who
have got you to fall for the nonsense of "HD audio".



No, you got me there...???



As for YouTube, emm.. I may upload a few clips for
viewing of some hardware I'm working on. I'm trying to
get a tech journo's attention for some real world articles
he should write, maybe YT might get his attention....



You Tube is second only to eBay as the Internet's finest search engines.



I have to leave this thread now. An established pattern
leads me to guess that the American amateur will be reading,
he will have done some frantic googling, then cut'n'paste
and pass off as his words. My tolerence levels have a limit.
Have a safe Bon Jovi.


Off for a nice bike ride, I shouldn't wonder - nothing like it to blow the
fluff out of one's head, except I have to have an engine on mine!

:-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Geoff Mackenzie" wrote in message
...



(In the real world, everybody with half a brain or better knew
'sticky-backed plastic' was *Sellotape*.... ;-)


Fablon, actually.

GMacK




Hmm, so it seems:

"The programme maintains its long-standing practice of avoiding using
commercial names on air. Most famously, this policy led to the invention of
the phrase "sticky-backed plastic" back in the 1970s for the products
marketed under the trade names Fablon and Coverlon. Sellotape was often
referred to by the term "sticky tape", barring one incident in which John
Noakes used the trade name and remarked as an aside "I'll get shot for
that". Similarly, many makes called for the use of a Velcro type material,
which was referred to as "self sticking material". An extreme example of
avoiding criticism occurred in February 2005, when the show ran a feature on
how Nestlé Smarties are made, without once mentioning the name of the
product"

But I retain high residual levels of dubiety....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message



What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

Because its a good tool for the purpose?

I've got two here already but 'domestically priced'
(resolution doesn't go up with the price tag), so I'm
sorry to say I disagree - looks to me like you've been
Googling like a mad thing!

I could write quite a bit about the difference between home/boardroom
projectors and large venue projectors. But someone who is into 2K wide
projectors could probably do it even better.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Keith G said...

Most famously, this policy led to the invention of
the phrase "sticky-backed plastic" back in the 1970s

Usual Wiki rubbish, they were using that phrase in the early 60's.

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

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

In article ,
UnsteadyKen wrote:
Keith G said...

Most famously, this policy led to the invention of
the phrase "sticky-backed plastic" back in the 1970s

Usual Wiki rubbish, they were using that phrase in the early 60's.


Indeed. It came from Blue Peter - in those days the BBC didn't use trade
names. They used to have special packaging made up for in shot drama use -
cornflakes would be branded Acme rather than Kellogg. A TV etc would have
the name taped over.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good
needle on good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this
clip which was recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

So you've


'So you'?


learned nothing on your break from posting here?


Oh, I'm afraid I have....

Perhaps. Not as regards audio, though.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message



What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

Because its a good tool for the purpose?



WTF has that got to do with anything....???




I've got two here already but 'domestically priced'
(resolution doesn't go up with the price tag), so I'm
sorry to say I disagree - looks to me like you've been
Googling like a mad thing!

I could write quite a bit about the difference between home/boardroom
projectors and large venue projectors.



Based on what personal experience of either one - of what use would be what
you wrote, if you had none?



But someone who is into 2K wide
projectors could probably do it even better.


You mean with personal experience? Of Course!

My own experience is with only the following 'Home Theatre' PJs which I have
personally bought:


2 x 480p Panasonic AE100
2 x 480p BenQ W100
1 x 480p Infocus IN72
1 x 576 Hewlett Packard EPsummat or other
2 x 720p Optoma HD700
2 x 1080p Optoma HD200 ('2K wide' as you call it)
1 x 1080p Optoma HD800 ('2K wide' as you call it)


(You know - 'dirty hands' and all that! ;-)

No personal experience of commercial Cinema/Theatre PJs whatsoever (no
access), but I would be interested to hear where you think the 'magical
differences' between them come in - other than contruction differences and
optimisation for contunual operation, naturally....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
To me, 'high definition' audio is a good record played with a good
needle on good kit (preferably vinyl, triodes and Lowthers) like this
clip which was recorded with the camera's built-in mic:

So you've


'So you'?


learned nothing on your break from posting here?


Oh, I'm afraid I have....

Perhaps. Not as regards audio, though.



Gone a little early with the snot-flicking, haven't you?





*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

Most famously, this policy led to the invention of
the phrase "sticky-backed plastic" back in the 1970s

Usual Wiki rubbish, they were using that phrase in the early 60's.



My understanding is that it meant Sellotape - I don't recall seeing that
much Fablon in that programme (??) but then I didn't watch it!!

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
UnsteadyKen wrote:
Keith G said...

Most famously, this policy led to the invention of
the phrase "sticky-backed plastic" back in the 1970s

Usual Wiki rubbish, they were using that phrase in the early 60's.


Indeed. It came from Blue Peter - in those days the BBC didn't use trade
names. They used to have special packaging made up for in shot drama use -
cornflakes would be branded Acme rather than Kellogg. A TV etc would have
the name taped over.



I think if I go back to monitoring the fornight-long silences here (before
the recent vinyl storm) we'd be seeing a lot less from any number of posters
here? Am I not right?

I like also that 'on and off topic' posts seem to be randomly *on and off*
the menu....??

;-)



*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote

No personal experience of commercial Cinema/Theatre PJs whatsoever (no
access), but I would be interested to hear where you think the 'magical
differences' between them come in - other than contruction differences and
optimisation for contunual operation, naturally....

Build quality, reliability, light output, etc. are all far better on the
commercial unit. But also, crucially, these projectors have "DCI
conformance". "DCI" stands for "Digital Cinema Initiative" and *only* DCI
conforming projectors can be used for digital cinema. Other projectors,
however good, simply will not work with a digital cinema server and thus
cannot be used to show digital cinema product.

David.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

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

No personal experience of commercial Cinema/Theatre PJs whatsoever (no
access), but I would be interested to hear where you think the 'magical
differences' between them come in - other than contruction differences
and optimisation for contunual operation, naturally....

Build quality, reliability, light output, etc. are all far better on the
commercial unit.



Yes, of course - wouldn't have expected anything else.



But also, crucially, these projectors have "DCI
conformance". "DCI" stands for "Digital Cinema Initiative" and *only* DCI
conforming projectors can be used for digital cinema. Other projectors,
however good, simply will not work with a digital cinema server and thus
cannot be used to show digital cinema product.



There ya go - now I have learned something, albeit a tad out of my 'need to
know' zone. but thank you for that!

Loosely connected, you may be interested to know that I recent saw a passing
mention that the 4K 'Red' digital movie cameras are not all they are/were
cracked up to be - poor colour control being one major gripe, I recall:

http://www.red.com/


Cutting edge, this commercial gigital cinema ****....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message



What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

Because its a good tool for the purpose?



WTF has that got to do with anything....???

The obvious meaning of that statement Keith is that you don't believe in
using good tools for a given purpose. I can live with that - its not a
disingenuous thing for you to say.


I've got two here already but 'domestically priced'
(resolution doesn't go up with the price tag), so I'm
sorry to say I disagree - looks to me like you've been
Googling like a mad thing!

I could write quite a bit about the difference between
home/boardroom projectors and large venue projectors.

Based on what personal experience of either one - of what
use would be what you wrote, if you had none?

What if I had experience with any number of home/boardroom projectors and
large venue projectors? I do.

But someone who is into 2K wide
projectors could probably do it even better.

You mean with personal experience? Of Course!

As you have so kind as to detail below Keith you have zero experience with
large venue projectors.

My own experience is with only the following 'Home
Theatre' PJs which I have personally bought:

2 x 480p Panasonic AE100
2 x 480p BenQ W100
1 x 480p Infocus IN72
1 x 576 Hewlett Packard EPsummat or other
2 x 720p Optoma HD700
2 x 1080p Optoma HD200 ('2K wide' as you call it)
1 x 1080p Optoma HD800 ('2K wide' as you call it)

True, not a large venue projector in the bunch. Most are sub-$1,000
products. Some would call them "throw-aways". There's a word that
well-describes people who can't settle on a product for long - dilettante.

No personal experience of commercial Cinema/Theatre PJs
whatsoever (no access), but I would be interested to hear
where you think the 'magical differences' between them
come in - other than contruction differences and
optimisation for contunual operation, naturally....

Why would a projector designed for home use not be optimized for continual
operation?

There are no magical differences between home/boardroom projectors and large
venue projectors. It is all very straightforward technology.

Large venue projectors are designed to be fail safe, and thus may have
reliability features such as dual bulbs so a hot spare is always available.
Many of them are designed to be mounted in remote locations, and so the
adjustments that are commonly manual on home/boardroom projectors are
motorized. Also, large venue projectors have lumen outputs in the
5,000-10,000 range, which is double or triple that of the largest
home/boardroom projectors. In addition, projectors that are used to show
current feature films may have security and anti-piracy features.