Serious Audio Response Flaw in Sony HVR-V1U - Submit Your Tests in Our Database
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
production company, mainly covering event videos (cultural dance, orchestral
and other musical performances, fashion shows, weddings, corporate video,
etc). I'm also an avid audiophile. My background and profession before I
retired was Professional Engineer, focused in radio broadcast, which
included design of FM processors, stereophonic technology for over the air
transmission, etc.
I designed my own sound system in the 1970s and have acoustic design
background as well.
I own a couple of Sony VX2000s, but with the urgency to move to HD and sell
the earlier gear before it loses all sale value, I moved to the HVR-V1U. I
chose this camera for it's 30P capability, better video lens and...
professional quality balanced audio inputs. At last, I thought... a camera
where I can connect my Neumann U87s and actually record music with
reasonable fidelity!
Well, the reality was starkly different from the hope that the appearance of
these connectors gave me. At first, I thought there was a mistake in
manufacture with the first V1U, but when the second one arrived, I realized
it was no mistake. They really DO roll off below 1222Hz! I became so
interested in accurately measuring the response of the camera that I did
numerous tests, finally ending up with the industry standard RightMark test.
The results are abysmal. The camera fails on frequency response. It gets a
"very poor" rating.
What else can one rationally give it when you go out and record a marching
band, with the bass drum thumping your chest, and you come back to the
studio, play back the recording and those thundering bass drums only sound
like tapping on paper cups--this played on a legendary sound system
world-renowned for its bass response.
Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to correct with these
cameras. It's worse than the PD150 hiss problem. In all other respects, the
V1U audio is acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's no
excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at these results, carefully
measured under laboratory conditions:
http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
This response curve is what I'd expect to see from the high pass output of a
two-way crossover network. No preamp in the world is this poor. There is no
excuse for the camera not to be flat to 5Hz, like every other piece of
digital recording equipment I own. Even my $299 Zoom H4 is flat to 5Hz and
sounds way better than the audio on this camera.
One of the attractive features of the V1U is the promise of higher end audio
than the VX2000. Anyone seeing the attention Sony paid to XLR inputs with
adjustable attenuators, individual AGC, etc., would conclude that the audio
better be pretty darned good. Instead, it's about telephone quality. Even
female speakers at a lecture I recorded sound thin and lacking in body to
their voices, and this was with 20-20,000Hz condenser mics known for their
big bottom end sound.
I am very disappointed, and so far, the technical support folks at Sony have
been silent about the results of their testing that they are supposedly
conducting on this camera at my request. It's been almost 2 weeks since
they'd said they would contact me with their findings. I can only hope that
they decide to recall the camera model and correct this glaring defect.
I've set up a general camcorder audio tests site at
http://www.basspig.com/CameraAudioTests.htm and invite owners of these
camcorders to run a RightMark test on your camcorder and submit it to me for
inclusion in our growing database.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
ushere
what mic were you using?
where was it placed relative to the sound source?
and what the hell do you expect from a $4or5k camera?
i don't think there's a pro around who expects 'serious' sound from its
on board audio, even when using, say a senn me66 or equiv. the frequency
it does an adequate, if not exceptional job with is that centred on
speech. recording anything serious would usually involve some off board
equipment, dat recorder, whathaveyou.
add to this the known quality difference between hdv and dv audio, and
you have your answer i think.
but hey, bloody great pics it takes, no?
leslie
Richard Crowley
.....
> Well, the reality was starkly different from the hope that the
> appearance of
> these connectors gave me. At first, I thought there was a mistake in
> manufacture with the first V1U, but when the second one arrived, I
> realized
> it was no mistake. They really DO roll off below 1222Hz! I became so
> interested in accurately measuring the response of the camera that I
> did
> numerous tests, finally ending up with the industry standard RightMark
> test.
> The results are abysmal. The camera fails on frequency response. It
> gets a
> "very poor" rating.
Video cameras have never been noted for their great audio
performance (from the perspective of audio production
professionals). No offense to the video people. I started out
doing audio,but got involved in video because of the notoriously
poor audio I was hearing in video producions.
But your example is bad even by video camera "standards".
To be fair, the frequency response curve you posted rather
highlights the remarkable LF rolloff. "They" typically use a
much longer X-axis and a much "compressed" Y-axis to
give the impression of a broader and flatter bandpass. It
doesn't change the data, but makes it look more palatable.
Jay Rose, an audio post-produciton mixer in Boston has
written a couple of (good, IMHO) books on audio for
digital video. He also contributes regularly to video
publications. One of my favorite articles is one he and
his son wrote on actual measurements of DV cameras a
couple of years ago. It is availble online here...
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&articleId=23902929
IIRC, none of them were as bad as your measurements.
My prime camera is a Sony DSR-300 which has a remarkable
video performance (particularly in the low ambient light
situations I often shoot under). And the audio is reasonable,
(for a video camera). I have even made casual, documentary
CD releases from audio recorded on the DSR-300. But even
it has only passable audio performance when compared
against real professional audio equipment.
It might be worth a call/email to Jay to see if he is hearing/
seeing this same kind of problem with the stuff he gets in to
mix that was shot on the new generation of HDV cameras,
etc.
You might also want to ask this question over in the
production sound newsgroup...
news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound
It is interesting to note that on Sony's web page with specs
for the camera, the video is favorably compared to 35mm
film, etc. But note the complete lack of ANY specifications
for audio (except connector types and impedances). Others
have noted this in the past (the concentration on video
performance, with audio appearing to be an afterthought).
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/spec.html
As long as people buy those things for their picture quality,
Sony, et.al. have no motivation to make anything better
than "telephonic" audio quality, and the double-system
sound professionals (over on r.a.m.p.s) will still have need
of their separate audio recorders. Alas, just another
example of "devolution" and entropy in the universe.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> > V1U audio is acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's no
> > excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at these results,
carefully
> > measured under laboratory conditions:
> >
> > http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
> >
> >
> > This response curve is what I'd expect to see from the high pass output
of a
> > two-way crossover network. No preamp in the world is this poor. There is
no
> > excuse for the camera not to be flat to 5Hz, like every other piece of
> > digital recording equipment I own. Even my $299 Zoom H4 is flat to 5Hz
and
> > sounds way better than the audio on this camera.
> >
>
A pair of Neumann U87s.
> where was it placed relative to the sound source?
On a T-bar mounted to the hot shoe on the camera, with me holding the
camera, standing curbside as the parade passed by-I'd say at the closest
point, the band passed within 20' of me.
> and what the hell do you expect from a $4or5k camera?
Better audio than I get from a $2K camera with consumer 1/8" jacks--not
worse audio.
> i don't think there's a pro around who expects 'serious' sound from its
> on board audio, even when using, say a senn me66 or equiv. the frequency
> it does an adequate, if not exceptional job with is that centred on
> speech. recording anything serious would usually involve some off board
> equipment, dat recorder, whathaveyou.
No, but I expect at least mediocre sound. This wasn't even that level of
audio.
The camera's audio section is DIGITAL. Therefore, there is no technical
reason why the electrical response cannot be flat to DC. I'm not talking
about the high end response, which is limited by the sampling frequency and
quality of ADCs.
There are times when it's not practical to drag along a laptop DAW, external
mic pre, ADC, firewire, 12V storage battery and inverter. Sometimes one has
to be mobile.
> add to this the known quality difference between hdv and dv audio, and
> you have your answer i think.
Any quality differences between PCM and MPEG1 LII audio would be on the mid
to upper end of the frequency spectrum, as that's where the data reduction
occurs. It doesn't take many bits to convey DC, or to convey low cycle-rate
waveforms. The data density goes up with frequency, hence the highs are what
suffer with MPEG. If MPEG were the cause of loss of bass, then nobody would
be sharing music on MP3 files. Think about it. :-)
> but hey, bloody great pics it takes, no?
>
> leslie
I wouldn't say great pictures. More like "sometimes passable, under ideal
lighting conditions". In reality, the images suffer a lot of
visually-distracting artifacts, such as shimmering rectangles that change
shape from frame to frame in shots looking down on calm water, shimmering
effects when panning across a football field, banding on sunsets, etc. In
short, I compare the picture quality to saving a TIFF file as JPEG from
PhotoShop with the quality setting at "2". It appears that the available
color palette is limited, much like a GIF image color palette. Under optimal
lighting, and avoiding smooth surfaces that require gradients to have enough
color transitions to produce a smooth gradiant, it can look pretty darned
good. Indoors, without multi-thousand watt lighting systems, the camera goes
into gain up, noise increases tremendously, resolution goes way down and the
MPEG CODEC gets so stressed by encoding noise that the picture quality
breaks down rapidly. You can see what I'm talking about here:
http://www.basspig.com/hvrv1u_HDV_artifacts.htm
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.primericabusinessopportunity.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> > gets a
> > "very poor" rating.
>
> Video cameras have never been noted for their great audio
> performance (from the perspective of audio production
> professionals). No offense to the video people. I started out
> doing audio,but got involved in video because of the notoriously
> poor audio I was hearing in video producions.
I know. However, today, in 2007, with the advent of cheap, high quality
DACs, there is no excuse not to have a flat response to DC. Even when a
cheap hand held digital recorder can rival some studio equipment, I would
expect at least better frequency response on a Sony "Broadcast" camera than
I get from most consumer camcorders.
> But your example is bad even by video camera "standards".
> To be fair, the frequency response curve you posted rather
> highlights the remarkable LF rolloff. "They" typically use a
> much longer X-axis and a much "compressed" Y-axis to
> give the impression of a broader and flatter bandpass. It
> doesn't change the data, but makes it look more palatable.
Well you have to realize that RightMark is designed that way because rarely
do digital systems deviate more than +/-0.1dB across 20-20KHz. So in order
to measure these fine differences, the scale is magnified vertically. But
this also illustrates just how absurdly bad Sony's digital audio circuitry
is.
> Jay Rose, an audio post-produciton mixer in Boston has
> written a couple of (good, IMHO) books on audio for
> digital video. He also contributes regularly to video
> publications. One of my favorite articles is one he and
> his son wrote on actual measurements of DV cameras a
> couple of years ago. It is availble online here...
>
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&articleId=2390
2929
> IIRC, none of them were as bad as your measurements.
Of course, because none of the DV cams have this bad a low frequency
rolloff. And he only measured noise and distortion, not frequency response.
Why? I have measured earlier DV and analog cameras and none were this poor
on the low frequency side. I can understand a shoulder-mounted VHS camcorder
with analog audio heads having a roll off below 100Hz, because there's not
enough iron in the head to produce consistent flux below 100Hz, but on a
digital system, the ONLY limitation is set by Nyquist--the sampling
frequency, which limited the UPPER cuttoff, not the lower.
I am continuing to add additional cameras to the database. Apparently there
is almost a complete blackout of information on video camera audio to date.
> My prime camera is a Sony DSR-300 which has a remarkable
> video performance (particularly in the low ambient light
> situations I often shoot under). And the audio is reasonable,
> (for a video camera). I have even made casual, documentary
> CD releases from audio recorded on the DSR-300. But even
> it has only passable audio performance when compared
> against real professional audio equipment.
Yes, these earlier models produced passable audio to 100Hz. But Sony seems
to have devolved the audio quality on the newer cameras, except CineAlta,
which is flat +/-0.1dB 20-20KHz. Go figure.
> It might be worth a call/email to Jay to see if he is hearing/
> seeing this same kind of problem with the stuff he gets in to
> mix that was shot on the new generation of HDV cameras,
> etc.
That's a good idea. I'll see if I can get contact info from the publisher.
> You might also want to ask this question over in the
> production sound newsgroup...
> news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound
Will do. Thanks!
> It is interesting to note that on Sony's web page with specs
> for the camera, the video is favorably compared to 35mm
> film, etc. But note the complete lack of ANY specifications
> for audio (except connector types and impedances). Others
> have noted this in the past (the concentration on video
> performance, with audio appearing to be an afterthought).
>
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/spec
.html
Yes, and at first, I thought the reason they didn't specify audio was
because it is digital, and doesn't suffer the vagaries of analog, therefore,
it's de-facto CD quality. NOT! Now I understand why they avoid specifying
it.
> As long as people buy those things for their picture quality,
> Sony, et.al. have no motivation to make anything better
> than "telephonic" audio quality, and the double-system
> sound professionals (over on r.a.m.p.s) will still have need
> of their separate audio recorders. Alas, just another
> example of "devolution" and entropy in the universe.
Well it goes with the whole MP3 mentality of the public. In an age when we
are able to hear the benefits of 24/96 digital audio over CDs, the world has
taken a huge step backwards to MP3. And when you look at HDTV broadcasts in
the big box stores, and all I see are a lot of macroblocks and a picture so
artifacted that I cannot understand how broadcasters allow this to go over
the air, then I see things in a completely different context: the audio
doesn't matter to the public, especially if they'll watch HDTV with tons of
macroblocks covering the screen.
I got a response from Sony today, flatly denying the problem, stating that
their testing is an industry standard and "The results these tests have
yielded show the V1U's performance to be comparable to that of the DSR-PD170
and within Sony's specification for the HVR-V1U" That last part bothers me,
because Sony won't state what their specification for the V1U is. I sense
more of Sony's obliqueness on this matter. It's going to take a lot more
pressure from us to get them to acknowledge the problem. They've offered to
test my camera and return if free of charge. But since I have two, and both
measure this poorly, I would have to conclude that there is nothing about
either that doesn't meet Sony's mysterious specifications.
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
richard
mweis...@earthlink.net opined thusly:
>
>[snip stuff about LF rolloff on V1]
It's probably a silly question, but are you sure you have the noise filter
turned off? It's there to get rid of LF wind noise, as far as I can tell. As
a design engineer with some experience I can't conceive of any technical
design tradeoffs which would limit the LF response. I agree with you, it
should be flat to 5Hz. Any preamp can do that - it's the top end that
sometimes stretches the designer and the components.
However I have another issue with the V1's sound. I have 6 of these cameras
which have probably been used a total of 100 times in the past 6 months. On 2
occasions the audio has gone unstable, resulting on first one channel dropping
out, then the other. This happened last week and I went about swapping mics
and cables to work out why one channel had disappeared. Then the other channel
went to high level white noise. I power cycled the camera and the white noise
went but one channel was still missing. I plugged my mics into one of the
other cameras and got on with the shoot, and quarantined the suspect camera.
However it hasn't played up since. Anyone else experienced this? I suspect
it was a HF instability brough on by hot patching mics, indicating an
inherently unstable design.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
"richard" <nom...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:aFMhi.1652$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> In article <7_Cfi.319661$NO1...@fe05.news.easynews.com>,
> mweis...@earthlink.net opined thusly:
> >
> >[snip stuff about LF rolloff on V1]
>
> It's probably a silly question, but are you sure you have the noise filter
> turned off? It's there to get rid of LF wind noise, as far as I can tell.
As
> a design engineer with some experience I can't conceive of any technical
> design tradeoffs which would limit the LF response. I agree with you, it
> should be flat to 5Hz. Any preamp can do that - it's the top end that
> sometimes stretches the designer and the components.
There are two noise filters on the V1U:
Mic noise filter
Wind Noise filter
I discovered that when measuring the LINE input response, neither of these
filters affect the response. The DO affect the response in MIC mode however,
and what they do is simply move the rollover from 1222Hz to some point even
higher in frequency.
The problem is that Sony has another non-defeatable filter in the audio
chain that affects mic and line input response. It cannot be defeated with
any of the menu choices. That third filter MAY be a DSP algorithm, and if it
is, Sony can fix the problem with a firmware update.
You're the first person, out of dozens who've responded to my posts about
this issue, who actually understands the technical aspects of this, such
that the absurdness of this "bell curve" frequency response on the V1U is as
obvious to you as it is to me. Unfortunately, we seem to be in rare company.
Nobody else gives a darn about this. I do. I am the one who trecked all
around NYC Saturday, having to fight with this kludge I made with the camera
and a Zoom H4 perched atop it via a hot shoe adapter (it resembled a space
station with a shuttle docked to it). The act of inserting and removing the
whole kit and kaboodle from a duffle bag as the occasion called for, was a
delicate and slow task, thanks to the extra audio baggage. Had the camera
had good audio, all I would have needed was a good stereo mic, plugged into
it.
> However I have another issue with the V1's sound. I have 6 of these
cameras
> which have probably been used a total of 100 times in the past 6 months.
On 2
> occasions the audio has gone unstable, resulting on first one channel
dropping
> out, then the other. This happened last week and I went about swapping
mics
> and cables to work out why one channel had disappeared. Then the other
channel
> went to high level white noise. I power cycled the camera and the white
noise
> went but one channel was still missing. I plugged my mics into one of the
> other cameras and got on with the shoot, and quarantined the suspect
camera.
> However it hasn't played up since. Anyone else experienced this? I
suspect
> it was a HF instability brough on by hot patching mics, indicating an
> inherently unstable design.
What I am realizing is that these modern cameras are, at their foundation,
digital computers. And we all know how 'reliable' computers are. However, I
have not encountered any reliability problems with my two V1Us. Their
performance has been consistent. I only use their audio for synch reference,
but I can see from the editor timeline that it is not missing of dropping
out anywhere during a shoot. And if you are not observing this problem on
the other 5 cameras, then if I were in your situation, I would send that
camera in for service, with a detailed description of the problem. It sounds
like there might be a bad solder joint somewhere that is affecting the
digital signal path.
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Richard Crowley
> You're the first person, out of dozens who've responded to my posts
> about
> this issue, who actually understands the technical aspects of this,
> such
> that the absurdness of this "bell curve" frequency response on the V1U
> is as
> obvious to you as it is to me.
Or perhaps we understand full well but are afraid that
you (and everyone else who buys one of those camcorders)
is just stuck with it. If you can't fight City Hall, fighting a
humongous international corp is even more daunting.
> Unfortunately, we seem to be in rare company.
> Nobody else gives a darn about this.
I would feel just as angry, disgusted, and ripped-off as you
do. Alas I don't know that there is anything practical we can
do about except maybe a class-action against Sony. But you
would need some kind of legal spec to hang your hat on. But
Sony seems to have created themselves a giant loophole by
not publishing any audio performance specs.
> What I am realizing is that these modern cameras are, at their
> foundation,
> digital computers. And we all know how 'reliable' computers are.
> However, I
> have not encountered any reliability problems with my two V1Us. Their
> performance has been consistent. I only use their audio for synch
> reference,
> but I can see from the editor timeline that it is not missing of
> dropping
> out anywhere during a shoot. And if you are not observing this problem
> on
> the other 5 cameras, then if I were in your situation, I would send
> that
> camera in for service, with a detailed description of the problem. It
> sounds
> like there might be a bad solder joint somewhere that is affecting the
> digital signal path.
The description of FS digital noise is a common symptom
of an audio bitstream that has lost synchronization. It makes
me think that the codec is not as robust as it should be to
try to take that much video and audio data and squeze it
into the 25MB/s bandwidth of DV.
Spex
>
> I would feel just as angry, disgusted, and ripped-off as you
> do. Alas I don't know that there is anything practical we can
> do about except maybe a class-action against Sony. But you
> would need some kind of legal spec to hang your hat on. But
> Sony seems to have created themselves a giant loophole by
> not publishing any audio performance specs.
>
As consumers we must remember the HVR-V1 fiasco when purchasing future
cameras from Sony. Sony clearly thought near enough was good enough for
this camera and as such showed contempt for its customers.
Sony has a network of lobbyists that inhabit several discussion boards
e.g. DVInfo.net who have shut down discussion into picture quality
issues and now they are doing it to the audio issues coming to light.
These same people shutting down conversations are the ones that have
been given pre-production models of the HVR-V1 for extended periods and
pronounced it a great camera. Which it isn't even close to being.
Mark & Mary thank you for taking the trouble to bring the audio problems
to a greater audience. I've done some googling and can see you are
taking flak for doing a good service for the consumer. Respect.
I urge people who are interested in buying a new camera to find a good
dealer who sells cameras from all manufacturers and isn't beholden to
one. Avoid the discussion boards and most of the reviewers online as
they simply are not impartial or lack the knowledge to be able to give a
valid review. Don't get sold a lemon by one of these clowns...
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
"Spex" <No....@ta.com> wrote in message
news:4688bb31$0$8741$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> >
> > I would feel just as angry, disgusted, and ripped-off as you
> > do. Alas I don't know that there is anything practical we can
> > do about except maybe a class-action against Sony. But you
> > would need some kind of legal spec to hang your hat on. But
> > Sony seems to have created themselves a giant loophole by
> > not publishing any audio performance specs.
> >
>
> As consumers we must remember the HVR-V1 fiasco when purchasing future
> cameras from Sony. Sony clearly thought near enough was good enough for
> this camera and as such showed contempt for its customers.
It's pure speculation on my part, but it COULD be that Sony has segmented
their products by neutering certain features (and it is costly to introduce
non-linearity into a normally-linear digital audio chain) with the intent of
protecting their higher end product. Another theory is that this camera is
intended for ENG work and the response curve is tailored for that "ENG
sound", that megaphone-like sound quality so often heard in news remotes.
> Sony has a network of lobbyists that inhabit several discussion boards
> e.g. DVInfo.net who have shut down discussion into picture quality
> issues and now they are doing it to the audio issues coming to light.
> These same people shutting down conversations are the ones that have
> been given pre-production models of the HVR-V1 for extended periods and
> pronounced it a great camera. Which it isn't even close to being.
Well that should not surprise me. One of them is probably a well-known
Sundance / Grammy award winner who does a lot of training on DV cameras.
That gentleman has written me off as a buffoon who knows nothing about audio
(funny, that is, given my fifty-plus years in the technical/engineering side
of the audio/broadcast industry), so unless my geriatric brain is failing
me, I think he's very much mistaken. He's one of those people who says the
V1U is a great camera and doesn't talk about the audio. But then, who cares
about audio when you're dropping from the sky at 130mph on a parasail? Yup,
you guessed it, he was one of the guys that got a pre-release V1U.
The moderator over at DVinfo.net has been holding up my membership
application to that discussion group as well, probably knowing that I tend
to shake up the dirt wherever I go.
I'm not beholden to any company--I care about getting a product that works
well.
Now the V1U is a decent camera, as far as the video end of it goes. I know
it's a 1/4" chip camera, and I know HDV is severely compressed. But when I
got the camera, there were no surprises on that end. I got what I expected
in terms of picture quality and I can work with that.
What I didn't expect was the terrible audio response curve. That HAD to be
by design. It can't be that bad, even by accident with a rookie engineer
designing the circuit. I honestly expected it to be quite a bit better than
my VX2000, which wasn't bad, except for the hiss / s/n ratio.
> Mark & Mary thank you for taking the trouble to bring the audio problems
> to a greater audience. I've done some googling and can see you are
> taking flak for doing a good service for the consumer. Respect.
And thank you for having the rare courage to step forward and go against the
tide.
I have had an unanswered inquiry from Sony going on for over a month now. I
got a brief, terse and almost insulting response from their engineering
department, stating that the camera doesn't measure this bad, and that their
samples measure to Sony's spec. But when asked what that spec is, I got...
deafening silence as the response. I've been sending them RightMark test
reports on various Sony cameras, done by myself and another Sony reviewer.
The V1U continues to be right at the bottom of the pile.
That's why my V1Us are kludged up with hot shoe mounts and Zoom H4 digital
recorders. It makes the rig resemble a space station with a shuttle docking
to it, but at least I can get good audio with the H4. Now if I could find a
way to link the rec/stop/start functions so I could have the Zoom record
when the V1U starts recording...
> I urge people who are interested in buying a new camera to find a good
> dealer who sells cameras from all manufacturers and isn't beholden to
> one. Avoid the discussion boards and most of the reviewers online as
> they simply are not impartial or lack the knowledge to be able to give a
> valid review. Don't get sold a lemon by one of these clowns...
My underlying goal with these reports and tests is not to start a class
action, but to get other owners of Sony cameras in this price range to
become aware that they are being given a raw deal with the dumbed-down audio
systems on these cameras, and to inspire everyone to contact Sony and say
that we don't want our audio dumbed down. In a camera this costly, we should
not have to attach another recorder to get decent audio. My god, you should
see how rediculously bulky my V1U is with all this extra gear on top of it.
Sony PD150 owners managed to put enough pressure on Sony to fix that hiss
problem, so we as a community have proven that we can effect change at Sony.
The V1U audio is seriously crippled to the point where everyone who owns one
should be flaming mad about this.
http://www.basspig.com/CameraAudioTests.htm
ushere
camera is almost farcical in it's hysteric's....
i have a v1 (having come thru to it via a career in broadcast tv
equipment), and i have to say that yes, the sound is pretty basic, that
yes, they crippled the practicality of separate input levels from one
mic input, buy hey, what did you expect, 96hz audio recording?
as for pointing fingers at 'pre-release' testers, i have yet to read any
mis or disinformation from any of them. then again, i doubt that any
professional cameraman would record anything serious with any of this
class of camera. it's fine for run and gun, vox pop talking heads, etc.,
but in no way would you record any 'commercial' audio on it. that's why
there is a plethora of out board recorders available.....
come on, get a life and shoot like a pro, and stop moaning about crappy
audio that you should have discovered before buying - i hired a v1 and
put it through all that i thought i might throw at it before buying.
sound WAS a disappointment - but i was buying a video camera, not an
audio recorder....
leslie (head down to avoid the flames)
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> camera is almost farcical in it's hysteric's....
>
> i have a v1 (having come thru to it via a career in broadcast tv
> equipment), and i have to say that yes, the sound is pretty basic, that
> yes, they crippled the practicality of separate input levels from one
> mic input, buy hey, what did you expect, 96hz audio recording?
No, I expected audio that's at LEAST as good as my $2000 VX2000 video
camera. And it's not unreasonable to expect the audio on a $4800 camera with
XLR balanced, phantom-powered jacks to be almost as good as a $200 hand held
recorder.
The fact is, this is a DIGITAL recorder, and as such, it's pretty hard to
introduce non-linearity in a normally-linear digital audio system. There is
no technical reason why the camera audio should not be flat to 5Hz. Heck,
I'd even be okay with -1dB @20hz. But -32.7dB @20Hz is a sign of something
seriously wrong. Even analog taperecorders do better than this.
Listen to the comparison files of on-location audio I recorded with both the
$4800 V1U and a $200 cheap hand-held portable recorder here, under the
orange paragraph:
http://www.basspig.com/CameraAudioTests.htm
> as for pointing fingers at 'pre-release' testers, i have yet to read any
> mis or disinformation from any of them. then again, i doubt that any
> professional cameraman would record anything serious with any of this
> class of camera. it's fine for run and gun, vox pop talking heads, etc.,
> but in no way would you record any 'commercial' audio on it. that's why
> there is a plethora of out board recorders available.....
I record symphony orchestras, and for that I use a truckload of high end
digital recording gear. But last month I was at a parade where I had to be
mobile and could not cart around a wheelbarrow load of storage batteries,
inverters and digital recording systems. It would have been nice if the
audio quality from my pair of Neumann U87s were not so godawfully decimated
by the low- and mid-cut filtering in the V1U.
I learned my lesson on that one and now carry around this kludge of a camera
with a digital recorder permanently bolted to the top of it. It looks
rediculous and draws a lot of eyeballs in public places, and it's a PitA to
have to deal with synching and downloading all the extra files in
postproduction, but until Sony fixes this joke of an audio system, I and
others will have to live with the inconvenience, that I thought I would be
free of by choosing the V1U over the FX7.
> come on, get a life and shoot like a pro, and stop moaning about crappy
> audio that you should have discovered before buying - i hired a v1 and
> put it through all that i thought i might throw at it before buying.
> sound WAS a disappointment - but i was buying a video camera, not an
> audio recorder....
Unfortunately, there was no rental available here, so I could not pre-test.
Anyway, it has a digital recording system, and everyone knows digital is
flat from DC to Nyquist. Sony must have deliberately neutered the audio on
this camera for marketing reasons. I can think of no way you can screw up a
digital recording system other than to intentionally and at considerable
cost, add in components to introduce nonlinearity. I'll bet that it would
cost LESS to make the audio flat, than it costs to put in this bell curve
filter.
You people that think a camera shouldn't have good audio need to get into
the 21st century with your thinking. This isn't analog tape with linear
track audio anymore! Digital is flat from DC to half the sample rate clock.
These vestiges of old are built in insults to us all.
Mark Weiss, P.E.
http://www.basspig.com/hvrv1u_HDV_artifacts.htm
ushere
> You people that think a camera shouldn't have good audio need to get into
> the 21st century with your thinking. This isn't analog tape with linear
> track audio anymore! Digital is flat from DC to half the sample rate clock.
> These vestiges of old are built in insults to us all.
>
> Mark Weiss, P.E.
> http://www.basspig.com/hvrv1u_HDV_artifacts.htm
>
>
>
>
my thinking is 21st century - hence buying a hdv camera. it is also
professional in as much as i:
a. after demo'ing it, i knew i would not depend on this camera for good
audio.
b. i bought it because i needed 16:9 for the national broadcaster i
string for, and who is quite at ease with interviews recorded on it.
c. on commercial shoots i rarely ever use any sync sound other than for
ambient purposes.
d. if i was still 'serious', and not retired, i wouldn't even dream of
hdv as being an alternative, i'd be looking at hdcam, or at least digi
beta 16:9
e. finally, in the 21st century the main game is returning the biggest
dividend to your shareholders with the least costs. the v1 does it for
me. i doubt sony is any different than any other corporation with
getting away with what it can, and at the same time, trying to protect
it's product range from internal competition.
leslie
Jan Panteltje
Weiss" <mweis...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<wJHki.2577$ew4....@fe03.news.easynews.com>:
I have listened to the two trains on the site.
I do not have this camera, but something is wrong at Sony.
And it has been for 20 years.
They have good engineers that can do it.
Their marketing sometimes is the most stupid of all companies I know.
Some of their sales persons have +++++ ego size.
Thank God for competition, just buy a Canon.
Richard Crowley
>i have to say, following this thread, that peoples expectation of a $5k
>camera is almost farcical in it's hysteric's....
Can't tell whether you are trolling us or whether you really don't
comprehend the issue here? Do you really understand nothing
about modern circuit design and/or digital audio processing with
modern chips?
Mark's expectations are completely within reason of any sane
camcorder buyer. Sony appears to have a major debacle on their
hands and so far, they appear to be stonewalling it. If you have
been following the game, this is not the first time they have pulled
such a stunt.
If you are willing to put up with deliberately crippled equipment
for which you paid thousands of $$$ (whether US or AU), then
you are part of the problem.
Richard Crowley
> my thinking is 21st century - hence buying a hdv camera. it is also
> professional in as much as i:
>
> a. after demo'ing it, i knew i would not depend on this camera for good
> audio.
You come off here as completely unknowledgable of how incredibly
easy (and ultra-cheap) it is to produce equipment with ruler-flat
frequency response at least 20-20KHz. Yes, that would have been
difficult 30, 20, maybe even 10 years ago. But with modern chip
technology that is availble to anyone for literally pennies each, you
really have to work at it to produce some thing like what Mark is
measuring. The gross anomoly that Mark is describing is
outragrous by any measure.
> e. finally, in the 21st century the main game is returning the biggest
> dividend to your shareholders with the least costs. the v1 does it for me.
> i doubt sony is any different than any other corporation with getting away
> with what it can, and at the same time, trying to protect it's product
> range from internal competition.
Using 1/4-inch chips in lower end products, or smaller/cheaper
lenses is one thing. Even deliberately limiting the bandwith of the
MPEG compression is understandable (but still galling). But
deliberately rolling off the audio frequency response in such a
gross manner is just beyond the pale. Mark's reaction is no
different than most any of us would have been at the discovery
of such a swindle.
A major portion of my video equipment and key parts of my audio
gear are Sony, but I have to say that for future purchases, they no
longer have a "free pass" to any assumption of quality. Sony today
is apparently a very different company today than Akio Morita's
original innovative and progressive vision.
Arny Krueger
message news:7_Cfi.319661$NO1...@fe05.news.easynews.com
> Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to
> correct with these cameras. It's worse than the PD150
> hiss problem. In all other respects, the V1U audio is
> acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's
> no excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at
> these results, carefully measured under laboratory
> conditions:
>
> http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
You have been mislead by a vastly expanded vertical dB scale.
The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is hard to judge because
of the expanded scale, but does not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that
great, but about an order of magnitude better than you have been mislead to
believe.
This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most music. It is not the
tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass guitars or other
instruments with deeper significant bass fundamentals. However, an octave or
two of additional bass could be restored with some well-thought out
equalization.
Just about any vocal mic that is attached to it will have a comparable or
worse bass rolloff.
Jan Panteltje
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in <S76dnb8oWso5CArb...@comcast.com>:
>"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweis...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>message news:7_Cfi.319661$NO1...@fe05.news.easynews.com
>
>> Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to
>> correct with these cameras. It's worse than the PD150
>> hiss problem. In all other respects, the V1U audio is
>> acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's
>> no excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at
>> these results, carefully measured under laboratory
>> conditions:
>>
>> http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
>
>You have been mislead by a vastly expanded vertical dB scale.
>
>The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is hard to judge because
>of the expanded scale, but does not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that
>great, but about an order of magnitude better than you have been mislead to
>believe.
>
>This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most music.
It is crap.
>It is not the
>tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass guitars or other
>instruments with deeper significant bass fundamentals.
In a [concert] hall there are _always_ lower responses.
use a spectrum analyser.
>However, an octave or
>two of additional bass could be restored with some well-thought out
>equalization.
That is crap, would amplify noise and hum only.
I have no idea why Sony cut of LF that way, maybe it was a new designer
who well you know, or to get rid of noises from the camera?
Flat to 20Hz is the least one should expect, and for 4000$ or more I
would not expect anything less then the best.
It is just about as intelligent as their PS3 marketing.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> > Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to
> > correct with these cameras. It's worse than the PD150
> > hiss problem. In all other respects, the V1U audio is
> > acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's
> > no excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at
> > these results, carefully measured under laboratory
> > conditions:
> >
> > http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
>
> You have been mislead by a vastly expanded vertical dB scale.
Arny,
In general, I have had a high degree of respect for you, based on your
demonstration of audio knowledge on USEnet, however, in this case, I think
you're being too forgiving of this horrible digital recording system.
> The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is hard to judge
because
> of the expanded scale, but does not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that
> great, but about an order of magnitude better than you have been mislead
to
> believe.
RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems, hence, anything more
than +/-0.1dB is objectionable deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass. It's
scale is generous to even encompass 3dB of deviation. But the realworld fact
is that the audio system on the V1U is down more than 30dB at 20cps. Not
acceptable for a digital--any digital recording system.
> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most music. It is not the
> tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass guitars or other
> instruments with deeper significant bass fundamentals. However, an octave
or
> two of additional bass could be restored with some well-thought out
> equalization.
It's not even good for voice, because it's not even flat over the speech
range. Hear examples:
http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/HVR-V1U_Audio_samples.htm
> Just about any vocal mic that is attached to it will have a comparable or
> worse bass rolloff.
This would be a good argument for having a camera audio system that has bass
BOOST, not bass cutoff. If your mic is rolling off, that's all the more
reason you'd want a recording system that doesn't exacerbate the problem.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
>
> I have listened to the two trains on the site.
> I do not have this camera, but something is wrong at Sony.
> And it has been for 20 years.
>
> They have good engineers that can do it.
> Their marketing sometimes is the most stupid of all companies I know.
> Some of their sales persons have +++++ ego size.
>
> Thank God for competition, just buy a Canon.
I have added another realworld example that MANY users of the V1U will
encounter: church music:
http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/CameraAudioTests.htm
After the italicized text are three samples. I used the Canon HV20 with ext
condenser mic on the altar to make the first recording.
The V1U had an external condenser mic on the same stand as those feeding the
HV20.
Finally, the Zoom H4, with external condenser mics made the third recording.
Sony doesn't look very good in this TYPICAL scenario which wedding
videographers will encounter frequently.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
frequency response of the V1U as "20-20KHz". An associate called me
yesterday to inform me that B&H Video has changed the spec from "unspecified
by manufacturer" to the "20-20KHz".
This COULD be a good sign. Perhaps Sony is realizing they overdid the
dumbing-down of the audio. Last month, they offered to take my camera in for
"repair" free of charge, as they claim is does not meet their spec
as-measured. I plan to send them in one at a time after my shooting schedule
eases up a bit. Presently, my month is fully-booked and I can't do without
them.
Jan Panteltje
Weiss" <mweis...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<x2hni.91717$oA4....@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
The Zoom H4 is really amazing is not it?
It sure gets the most natural sound in my view.
Arny Krueger
message news:f785nd$knk$1...@aioe.org
> On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:08:45 -0400) it
> happened "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in
> <S76dnb8oWso5CArb...@comcast.com>:
>
>> "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweis...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> in
>> message news:7_Cfi.319661$NO1...@fe05.news.easynews.com
>>
>>> Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to
>>> correct with these cameras. It's worse than the PD150
>>> hiss problem. In all other respects, the V1U audio is
>>> acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's
>>> no excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at
>>> these results, carefully measured under laboratory
>>> conditions:
>>>
>>> http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
>>
>> You have been mislead by a vastly expanded vertical dB
>> scale.
>>
>> The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is
>> hard to judge because of the expanded scale, but does
>> not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that great, but
>> about an order of magnitude better than you have been
>> mislead to believe.
>>
>> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most
>> music.
>
> It is crap.
That may be, but for some kinds of recording (examples previously provided
below), but 3 dB down at 130 Hz isn't fatal.
>> It is not the
>> tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass
>> guitars or other instruments with deeper significant
>> bass fundamentals.
> In a [concert] hall there are _always_ lower responses.
Of course, but recording concerts isn't the sole criteria for the usuability
of a portable camera.
If you are really serious about sound quality, you won't be using just the
internal sound of the camera, anyways.
> use a spectrum analyser.
You obviously don't know who you are talking to.
>> However, an octave or
>> two of additional bass could be restored with some
>> well-thought out equalization.
> That is crap, would amplify noise and hum only.
Horsefeathers. When you boost a range of frequencies such as I suggest, you
may amplify some hum and noise, but you'll also amplify any music in that
range. That fact falsifies your claim that only the noise and hum will be
amplified. If your recording is reasonbly clean, ther won't be that much
noise and hum.
> I have no idea why Sony cut of LF that way, maybe it was
> a new designer who well you know, or to get rid of noises
> from the camera?
I'm sticking to my origional point, which is that 3 dB down at 130 Hz, while
not the best and not even very good, isn't totally fatal.
> Flat to 20Hz is the least one should expect,
Aw come on. Most of the mics this camera will be used with are 3 dB or more
down at 130 Hz anyway.
> and for 4000$ or more I would not expect anything less then the best.
I'm informed that to get the best, prices up in the five figure range are
common.
Jan Panteltje
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in <AKednSOjh5gx-wPb...@comcast.com>:
>I'm sticking to my origional point, which is that 3 dB down at 130 Hz, while
>not the best and not even very good, isn't totally fatal.
Just a bit better then a telephone line :-)
VOIP may beat it perhaps....
Arny Krueger
>>> Needless to say, I think Sony has a major issue to
>>> correct with these cameras. It's worse than the PD150
>>> hiss problem. In all other respects, the V1U audio is
>>> acceptable. s/n is pretty good for a camera, but there's
>>> no excuse to roll off the low end at 1222Hz. Look at
>>> these results, carefully measured under laboratory
>>> conditions:
>>>
>>> http://www.basspig.com/HVR-V1U_PCM_Audio(DV).htm
>>
>> You have been mislead by a vastly expanded vertical dB
>> scale.
> In general, I have had a high degree of respect for you,
> based on your demonstration of audio knowledge on USEnet,
Thank you.
> however, in this case, I think you're being too forgiving
> of this horrible digital recording system.
I haven't forgiven anything - its just that the scale used in the page being
referred to does use a signficiantly expanded dB scale.
>> The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is
>> hard to judge because of the expanded scale, but does
>> not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that great, but
>> about an order of magnitude better than you have been
>> mislead to believe.
On second glance, the roll-off appears to be about 12 dB per octave.
> RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems,
> hence, anything more than +/-0.1dB is objectionable
> deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass.
While 30 dB down at 20 Hz is kinda of a lot for a hi-fi system, its not bad
by say live sound standards.
> It's scale is
> generous to even encompass 3dB of deviation. But the
> realworld fact is that the audio system on the V1U is
> down more than 30dB at 20cps. Not acceptable for a
> digital--any digital recording system.
If the digital recording system in question is optimized for ENG, then flat
response to 20 Hz is not required at all.
Sony specifically says that this camera was intended for ENG:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/overview.html
"The compact professional camcorders manufactured by Sony have introduced a
new level of mobility for ENG and documentary-making worldwide with their
superior quality and compact dimensions."
>> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most
>> music. It is not the tool of choice for recording big
>> pipe organs, bass guitars or other instruments with
>> deeper significant bass fundamentals. However, an octave
>> or two of additional bass could be restored with some
>> well-thought out equalization.
> It's not even good for voice, because it's not even flat
> over the speech range. Hear examples:
> http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/HVR-V1U_Audio_samples.htm
Of the samples provided only one is speech-only. It's a reading done by a
guy with one of the deepest voices around, recorded using an atypical
microphone for typical video work, and recorded in a pristene environment.
Someone stacked the deck.
>> Just about any vocal mic that is attached to it will
>> have a comparable or worse bass rolloff.
> This would be a good argument for having a camera audio
> system that has bass BOOST, not bass cutoff.
Not at all. My point is that bass cutoffs are very common when voice is
being amplified or recorded, partcularaly outside of a pristine studio
environment.
Jan Panteltje
Weiss" <mweis...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<x2hni.91717$oA4....@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
>>The V1U had an external condenser mic on the same stand as those feeding the
>>HV20.
>>Finally, the Zoom H4, with external condenser mics made the third recording.
>>
>>Sony doesn't look very good in this TYPICAL scenario which wedding
>>videographers will encounter frequently.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
>>www.mwcomms.com
I wrote:
>The Zoom H4 is really amazing is not it?
>It sure gets the most natural sound in my view.
I want to add something to my remark.
The reason why I prefer the Zoom H4 sound.
I listened to the 3 mp3 examples with Senheiser headphones (the closed type), and
in the mike setup for both the Canon and Sony (so nothing to do with the cameras),
the voices reach the ear so far apart in time that you perceive these as 2 different sounds.
Not echo, but the one ear earlier then the other.
This breaks the stereo phase, although it gives an interesting spatial picture.
However if displayed on say a wide screen you will not be able to locate the position,
of for example the kid walking about, from the sound.
The Zoom H4 seems to have the mikes very close, on a natural distance (like our ears)
from each other, and you can hear the kid walking around, and where he is.
If we look at theory (I wrote some small utilities just for this some time ago),
this makes sense.
I found 'stereo' breaks if the delay between channels is more then a few milli seconds.
It then falls apart as 2 different signals.
Unlike amplitude changes only, (like in a stereo pan on an amplifier by changing left
right volume), you also have stereo perception (and much more actually) because of phase.
To make it simple: If the maximum of say a 1 kHz tone reaches the left ear earlier
then the right ear, the brain interprets that as the source is on the left!
The math:
Say if your ears are 20 cm apart, then the sound that travels 330 m/s, so 33 cm/ms,
takes about .6 mS to go from left ear to right ear.
If the frequency is 1 kHz, so 1 mS period time, that is large part of the period
of the wave!
So for a correct stereo pattern the phase relationship difference between left and right COUNTS!
Unlike those that claim phase is ignored in the ear ..... it is an important factor
we use it to locate sound sources.
Thank you for your attention.
*This* is what makes the Zoom H4 stereo pattern so good, the mike positions.
I found this out when I wrote some utilities to get rid of the main language in a
translation channel, subtracted the main language from the translation channel that
also had the main language in it, to wind up with only the translation.
The signals were slightly delayed (went trough a different signal chain) so I added
a variable delay (by simply shifting samples in the wave files).
There is a point where the position info the brain perceives, 'breaks', and no longer
any location can be pointed out for the sound source, and before that point
shifting (delaying) a few samples moves the sound source from extreme left to extreme right!
(for a mono sound source).
I used the effect to get dead centre, dead centre was the right phase to subtract the
unwanted signal.
Now I am not saying 'always put the mikes like the Zoom H4 has these (and at that distance)',
but I *am* saying 'if you really want true stereo, where left in picture sounds left, you will
likely have to do that :-)'
FCP User
>
> The moderator over at DVinfo.net has been holding up my membership
> application to that discussion group as well, probably knowing that I tend
> to shake up the dirt wherever I go.
Someone posted a link to r.v.p and this discussion over on dvinfo.net
where I saw it.
So while it's an old thread, it was referenced there just yesterday -
so...
Regarding the above comment:
I've known Chris Hurd who owns and operates DVinfo.net for about 10
years now.
His board STARTED as the place where XL-1 owners came to gripe about
issues. But I think he realized early that bitching - in and of itself -
doesn't solve anything. So he got wise and instituted a "no trash
talking" policy that is still firmly in place today.
Point 1. It's HIS board. He can do whatever he likes with it.
Point 2. Yeah, he has pretty high standards of civility and decorum for
posts there. (In fact, I've had his moderators remove MY posts once or
twice when I've gotten mouthy - and I'm handshake friends with the guy!
So I'll attest that his policy of civility is VERY consistently and
evenly administered. Personally I think his board greatly benefits from
the sense of community it fosters. No wonder it's so popular.
I don't know anything about your situation regarding posting there, but
if your goal is really to "shake up the dirt" everywhere - I can
understand the reluctance to extend you the privilege of his shop.
The usenet is public. Discussion boards are NOT.
In my experience, if after receiving invitations to parties - if you
develop a reputation for spending all your time complaining - pretty
soon the invitations dry up.
My 2 cents, anyway.
--
Bill Davis
StartEditingNow.com
DVD editing instruction with Multi-Track Movies
tonsofpcs
> However I have another issue with the V1's sound. I have 6 of these cameras
> which have probably been used a total of 100 times in the past 6 months. On 2
> occasions the audio has gone unstable, resulting on first one channel dropping
> out, then the other. This happened last week and I went about swapping mics
> and cables to work out why one channel had disappeared. Then the other channel
> went to high level white noise. I power cycled the camera and the white noise
> went but one channel was still missing. I plugged my mics into one of the
> other cameras and got on with the shoot, and quarantined the suspect camera.
> However it hasn't played up since. Anyone else experienced this? I suspect
> it was a HF instability brough on by hot patching mics, indicating an
> inherently unstable design.
ABC has. I'd suggest you read this forum post:
http://www.videomaker.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5012
Frank
in article <Re: Serious Audio Response Flaw in Sony HVR-V1U - Submit
Your Tests in Our Database>,
tonsofpcs <tons...@gmail.com> wrote:
Same original post on the Cow, although with different responses.
http://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_thread.cgi?forumid=35&postid=856453&univpostid=856453
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> >> music.
> >
> > It is crap.
>
> That may be, but for some kinds of recording (examples previously provided
> below), but 3 dB down at 130 Hz isn't fatal.
Yes, a recording of crickets and birds would not be too much affected in
terms of timbral quality, by the bass rolloff. However, everything else
would be.
My trip to NYC back in June showed that off in spades. Just ambient sounds
of the city, as captured by the V1U, vs. the Zoom H4 I had purched atop it,
was a downright jarring difference. It could not be considered subtle in the
least.
> >> It is not the
> >> tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass
> >> guitars or other instruments with deeper significant
> >> bass fundamentals.
>
> > In a [concert] hall there are _always_ lower responses.
>
> Of course, but recording concerts isn't the sole criteria for the
usuability
> of a portable camera.
No, but life in general goes from DC to several hundred kc, and if
anything's missing, we realize, on some level, that the recording is
deficient.
> If you are really serious about sound quality, you won't be using just the
> internal sound of the camera, anyways.
Indeed, I drag along 130lbs of digital audio gear to concerts. But I can't
always do that in run & gun, or even at weddings. My Zoom H4 is a real
life-saver, but nowadays, I have a cheap little Canon HV20 consumer camera
that records very decent audio, so I use that to connect to the microphones
I place on the altar for the B&G and it works and sounds like a decent
recording SHOULD. The V1U is used as backup audio in case of a tape failure
on the HV20, and it sounds like a weatherproof trumpet PA speaker, when
compared next to the HV20 audio.
> >> However, an octave or
> >> two of additional bass could be restored with some
> >> well-thought out equalization.
>
> > That is crap, would amplify noise and hum only.
>
> Horsefeathers. When you boost a range of frequencies such as I suggest,
you
> may amplify some hum and noise, but you'll also amplify any music in that
> range. That fact falsifies your claim that only the noise and hum will be
> amplified. If your recording is reasonbly clean, ther won't be that much
> noise and hum.
The camera has a limited s/n ratio. So any boosting of signal in post is
going to bring up the electronics noise, which is heard as rumble, when you
add 32.7dB of boost at 20Hz, to flatten out the overall response. The signal
coming INTO the camera is pristine. It's the camera that's adding the noise.
> > I have no idea why Sony cut of LF that way, maybe it was
> > a new designer who well you know, or to get rid of noises
> > from the camera?
>
> I'm sticking to my origional point, which is that 3 dB down at 130 Hz,
while
> not the best and not even very good, isn't totally fatal.
It's fine for recording the screams from a parachute jumper, as he's falling
at 130mph. :-)
> > Flat to 20Hz is the least one should expect,
>
> Aw come on. Most of the mics this camera will be used with are 3 dB or
more
> down at 130 Hz anyway.
All the more reason why you don't want to add even more rolloff in the
electronics--the mics are already terrible. But fortunately, I have my
studio condensers. Unfortunately, the camera doesn't record all of the sound
the condensers feed it.
> > and for 4000$ or more I would not expect anything less then the best.
>
> I'm informed that to get the best, prices up in the five figure range are
> common.
Aw come on--it costs $5 to provide a flat response. It probably cost Sony
even more to muck it up with a high pass filter ahead of the inputs. My $200
Zoom H4 is flat from 20-39K (96KHz mode), so why can't a $4800 video camera
with a digital audio recording system sound as good as a cheap minidisc
recorder?
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> > based on your demonstration of audio knowledge on USEnet,
>
> Thank you.
>
> > however, in this case, I think you're being too forgiving
> > of this horrible digital recording system.
>
> I haven't forgiven anything - its just that the scale used in the page
being
> referred to does use a signficiantly expanded dB scale.
It's a realistic deviation for measuring cheap $29 PC sound cards, which are
mostly flat to within +/- 2dB over 20-20K. This expensive camera, which
doesn't sport 1/8" phone jacks, but real phantom powered XLR jacks, can't
even stay within the deviation of the cheapest, most awful computer sound
card. This isn't analog tape recording, where bass response depends on the
amount of iron in the recording head--it's a DC-coupled A/D converter that
someone mucked with to make it AC-coupled.
> >> The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is
> >> hard to judge because of the expanded scale, but does
> >> not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that great, but
> >> about an order of magnitude better than you have been
> >> mislead to believe.
>
> On second glance, the roll-off appears to be about 12 dB per octave.
Whatever we agree it to be, it's still abnormal for a digital recording
system on ANY device.
> > RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems,
> > hence, anything more than +/-0.1dB is objectionable
> > deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass.
>
>
> While 30 dB down at 20 Hz is kinda of a lot for a hi-fi system, its not
bad
> by say live sound standards.
Most live sound systems are flat to 45Hz. This camera is only flat to about
1,000Hz, and then it starts to roll off. In fact, the midrange drivers on my
sound system have better low end response than this camera's audio section.
They're flat to 130Hz, and then they roll rapidly below 90Hz. This camera is
already down significantly in those ranges.
> > It's scale is
> > generous to even encompass 3dB of deviation. But the
> > realworld fact is that the audio system on the V1U is
> > down more than 30dB at 20cps. Not acceptable for a
> > digital--any digital recording system.
>
> If the digital recording system in question is optimized for ENG, then
flat
> response to 20 Hz is not required at all.
Yes, but they should give the operator the ability to turn off the filter.
ENG or otherwise, with more viewers watching on home theaters with
subwoofers, to hear a clip on the news of a local parade, where the sound is
this tinny is just not conveying a realistic impression of being there. We
have the technology to make good sound. Sony just chooses to cripple it.
That forces us to do double work, recording on two audio systems for ALL
situations, instead of just critical classical concert events, and is
counterproductive. If I had MD quality sound on the V1U, I wouldn't need to
carry around an H4 and deal with synching two asynchronous recordings in
post. The H4 runs just a little faster on the clock, and adds a half second
an hour to the audio length, which requires re-rendering the audio track to
correct its duration. I'm doing a lot of extra work in post because the V1U
audio is only useable as a synch reference.
> Sony specifically says that this camera was intended for ENG:
>
>
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/over
view.html
>
> "The compact professional camcorders manufactured by Sony have introduced
a
> new level of mobility for ENG and documentary-making worldwide with their
> superior quality and compact dimensions."
>
> >> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most
> >> music. It is not the tool of choice for recording big
> >> pipe organs, bass guitars or other instruments with
> >> deeper significant bass fundamentals. However, an octave
> >> or two of additional bass could be restored with some
> >> well-thought out equalization.
>
> > It's not even good for voice, because it's not even flat
> > over the speech range. Hear examples:
> > http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/HVR-V1U_Audio_samples.htm
>
> Of the samples provided only one is speech-only. It's a reading done by a
> guy with one of the deepest voices around, recorded using an atypical
> microphone for typical video work, and recorded in a pristene environment.
> Someone stacked the deck.
Ahem... that was me, as there wasn't anyone else around to make the
recording that evening. Perhaps I can find some little short guy with a high
squeaky voice to make a more "fair" recording example. :-)
> >> Just about any vocal mic that is attached to it will
> >> have a comparable or worse bass rolloff.
>
> > This would be a good argument for having a camera audio
> > system that has bass BOOST, not bass cutoff.
>
> Not at all. My point is that bass cutoffs are very common when voice is
> being amplified or recorded, partcularaly outside of a pristine studio
> environment.
They may be common, but when the technology for flat response to 20Hz costs
$5 and is already included in the chipset in the camera, the concept of
spending more money to impose filtering is downright silly, IMHO.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
"FCP User" <newv...@fastq.com> wrote in message
news:newvideo-30554B...@news.west.cox.net...
>
> >
> > The moderator over at DVinfo.net has been holding up my membership
> > application to that discussion group as well, probably knowing that I
tend
> > to shake up the dirt wherever I go.
>
> Someone posted a link to r.v.p and this discussion over on dvinfo.net
> where I saw it.
>
> So while it's an old thread, it was referenced there just yesterday -
> so...
Yes, and I have to make a statement that one individual on that thread, who
happens to have some credentials, is making outright false statements about
my measurements, my cameras, their origin, etc. My cameras are NOT grey
market; both of them test the same, one was purchased at B&H and is
definately NOT grey market. Meanwhile, this gentleman is doing a grave
disservice to the video community by trying to quell efforts to get Sony to
recall the V1U and fix this problem. My efforts may benefit all V1U users,
if Sony agrees to correct the problem.
I don't have anything against Sony. I just want my cameras to work well. At
least make the HP filter defeatable, for those of us who don't like the
"megaphone" frequency response of the V1U.
It is becoming clear that a few other people on DVinfo are discovering that
the audio on the V1U isn't even as good as most consumer HDV and DV cameras.
But this one gentlemen is misusing his reputation to try and suppress the
facts. I have to conclude that Sony has opened their generosity to him and
his organization over the years and as such, he is motivated to defend
Sony's products, even if there are glaring defects. Even if he has to make
patently false statements about me, my qualifications and the operational
state of my cameras.
> Regarding the above comment:
>
> I've known Chris Hurd who owns and operates DVinfo.net for about 10
> years now.
I was interviewed by Chris in 1997, when he was operating a pirate radio
station in San Marcos, known as KIND Radio. I knew him for the same amount
of time.
> His board STARTED as the place where XL-1 owners came to gripe about
> issues. But I think he realized early that bitching - in and of itself -
> doesn't solve anything. So he got wise and instituted a "no trash
> talking" policy that is still firmly in place today.
> Point 1. It's HIS board. He can do whatever he likes with it.
Correct. However, it becomes problematic when two or more individuals use
his board as a forum to libel my name. It is only reasonable that I should
be able to respond and refute these absurd claims.
> Point 2. Yeah, he has pretty high standards of civility and decorum for
> posts there. (In fact, I've had his moderators remove MY posts once or
> twice when I've gotten mouthy - and I'm handshake friends with the guy!
> So I'll attest that his policy of civility is VERY consistently and
> evenly administered. Personally I think his board greatly benefits from
> the sense of community it fosters. No wonder it's so popular.
I agree. The content there is of excellent quality and is free of the
bitch-fests of USEnet.
>
> I don't know anything about your situation regarding posting there, but
> if your goal is really to "shake up the dirt" everywhere - I can
> understand the reluctance to extend you the privilege of his shop.
I never was a member of DVinfo. I became aware of the board, when a member
from another board went over there to spread distorted information about my
tests of a Canon HV20 and to accuse me of "copyright theft" for using fair
use privilage to capture frame grabs from publicly-available footage, for
the purpose of reviewing the camera's capabilities. The footage was a bit
soft and for that he concluded that I doctored the images. When I invited
him to conduct his own tests, he refused, but instead chose to attack me for
posting frame grabs from various footage that was publicly-available on the
net (which I can legally due under the terms of Fair Use, for journalistic
purposes). That happened on the AVSForum. The moderator was a buddy of his,
and promptly terminated my account there. Then the guy goes over to DVinfo
and continues to spout lies about me. I informed Chris that I didn't
appreciate someone using another board that I have no dealings with, do
libel my name and asked him in a rather firm manner to remove or edit the
thread. He got huffy on me and around the same time period, I was writing to
a gentleman who owns six of these cameras to ask what he thought of the
audio. He denied that there was any problem and after three back and forth
e-mails, he referenced the other issue and chose to conveniently use that as
an excuse not to discuss the V1U audio with me any further.
If you want to read the gory details, it is here:
http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/AVSPM.htm
My intent with joining DVinfo last month was to partake in a decent resource
for video professionals. I do make announcements when I discover something
as glaringly wrong as with the V1U. But I am not there solely to be a
trouble-maker. What we need is a forum that has the same ideals as an
audiophile magazine that started publishing in the 1970s, known as the Audio
Critic. That publication was supported by subscribers, not advertisers, and
the reviews were bluntly-honest. It was a great publication and I adore
their honesty and technical accuracy.
DVinfo and others are beholden to the camera manufacturers and as such are
self-censored so as not to upset their monetary stipend.
Since the guy from AVSForum carried his beef with me into DVinfo, a forum at
which I was never a member, he has tainted the waters permanently for me,
caused one of their moderators who is respected in the industry to blanketly
dismiss anything I say, as a total farce, and as a result, my account
remains languishing, un-activated, so I can't post in defense of, or to
dispute the lies coming from the individual who uses his good reputation to
smear others'.
========================================================================
I had a long chat with Chris about that, and he chooses to advise me not to
join the forum, accusing me of being a copyright violator, simply because I
employed the journalistic "fair use" privilage to display some frame grabs
from some publicly-available non-commercial footage, as examples of typical
picture quality from a particular camera, which, BTW, I now own. He has the
audacity to lecture me on the law, when he was the biggest law-breaker
himself, violating FCC regulations by operating and willfully refusing to
shut down a pirate radio station when confronted by federal agents. Not to
mention the copyright violations he commited by broadcasting
commercially-recorded music on KIND Radio without paying ASCAP fees. He is a
coniver and a slippery fellow, who speaks legalese terminology and pretends
to know the law, when in fact, his closet is full of skeletons.
I didn't want to say all that, but his decision to ignore my e-mail requests
to activate my month-old account so that I can post rebuttals to DSE's
outright false information about my tests, has really left me no choise but
to make the whole thing public.
========================================================================
> The usenet is public. Discussion boards are NOT.
I'm aware of that. My beef with Chris is that he is "pre-banning" me, when I
have commited no bannable offense on his board, due to not being a posting
member. It's sort of like "Minority Report" where they arrest you for crimes
you have not yet commited.
> In my experience, if after receiving invitations to parties - if you
> develop a reputation for spending all your time complaining - pretty
> soon the invitations dry up.
>
>
> My 2 cents, anyway.
Certainly not the case here. If you're curious what contributed, read the
thread in my link.
At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, my respect for the two of them has
dropped into the basement. Shame on them for their "selective morality".
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Arny Krueger
I note that your tests of the Canon HV20 (which I just acquired) put the -3
dB point at about 45 Hz, which is obviously a lot better than 130 Hz.
I notice that another Sony camera you tested rolled off at about 110 Hz,
suggesting to me that Sony considers a rolled-off bass like this to be part
of their house standard.
>>> RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems,
>>> hence, anything more than +/-0.1dB is objectionable
>>> deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass.
>>
>>
>> While 30 dB down at 20 Hz is kinda of a lot for a hi-fi
>> system, its not bad by say live sound standards.
> Most live sound systems are flat to 45Hz.
One could hope. IME reality is more like 85 Hz, which is about what it takes
to handle a typical male voice without excessive degradation.
>> If the digital recording system in question is optimized
>> for ENG, then flat response to 20 Hz is not required at
>> all.
>
> Yes, but they should give the operator the ability to
> turn off the filter.
Given that modern cameras seem to be option-rich, this seems like a
reasaonble approach.
Chris Hurd
On Aug 13, 3:04 pm, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I knew him for the same amount of time.
No Mark, you have *not* known me for the same amount
of time, nor nearly to the same extent as Bill Davis knows
me. Bill and I know each other on a face-to-face basis; we
have broken bread and shared drinks together frequently.
Yet you and I have never met. I have spoken with you just
once, by telephone, and that was ten years ago.
> I was interviewed by Chris in 1997, when he was operating a
> pirate radio station in San Marcos, known as KIND Radio.
I have never "operated a pirate radio station," nor have I ever
operated any type of radio station in my life. From April 1997
to August 2000, I was one of about 75 volunteer programmers
who put two hours a week into an LPFM radio station known
in San Marcos as Micro Kind Radio. I had a weekly two-hour
talk show on Kind Radio, but I did not operate the station. Kind
Radio was operated by the Hays County Guardian, a local
alternative media printed publication. While I fondly remember
Kind Radio and while I'm very proud of my admittedly limited
participation there, the fact is that I had absolutely no say
nor any involvement in how it was operated.
> However, it becomes problematic when two or more
> individuals use his board as a forum to libel my name.
Sounds like a paranoid fantasy, since your name doesn't
even appear on any forum at DV Info Net -- a simple search
for your name will readily reveal that there are no returns
for "Mark Weiss" anywhere: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php
DV Info Net maintains a very strict policy against using
any of our boards to flame, libel or slander any person,
whether they're a member of the site or not. On the very
rare occasion where it does happen, we deal with such
content immediately by withdrawing it from public view,
and in most cases, closing the account of the offending
party. You have *not* been libeled at DV Info Net.
> It is only reasonable that I should be able to
> respond and refute these absurd claims.
No that is not at all reasonable. DV Info Net never has
and never will exist for that purpose -- such public battles
of personality are more in the realm of usenet. It is only
reasonable that if you discover a suspected case of libel
on my site, you should bring it to my attention immediately
so that it can be evaluated and withdrawn from public view.
You have no expectation whatsoever to use my web site as
your own personal battleground. I won't allow such a thing.
> Then the guy goes over to DVinfo and continues to spout
> lies about me. I informed Chris that I didn't appreciate
> someone using another board that I have no dealings with,
> do libel my name and asked him in a rather firm manner to
> remove or edit the thread. He got huffy on me ...
Well of course I got huffy -- in your opening email you
threatened to sue me! I don't respond well to that, not
at all; I don't suspect that anybody would. If you had
simply brought the matter to my attention peaceably,
especially given our previous acquaintance, then I would
have promptly accommodated you. However, since you chose
to immediately threaten legal action against me, my hands
were tied with regard to that thread remaining in public
view until I could consult my attorney. What complicated
that situation even more was your strange response to a
similar occurrence at the AVS Forum, in which they removed
from public view a similar thread which contained offending
material, only to find you posting a copy of it (a violation
of their copyright) on your own site! But I don't see how
any of this is relevant, as the thread in question on DV
Info Net was in fact withdrawn from public view (due to
our policy, not due to your pathetic threat to sue).
> DVinfo and others are beholden to the camera manufacturers and
> as such are self-censored so as not to upset their monetary stipend.
This claim is of course a ridiculous fabrication. From its
inception up to today, DV Info Net has never received any
monetary stipend whatsoever from Sony or any other
camera manufacturer... and even if it actually did exist,
it certainly wouldn't affect our editorial content. That's a
matter of ethics, integrity and pride.
> Since the guy from AVSForum carried his beef with me
> into DVinfo, a forum at which I was never a member,
> he has tainted the waters permanently for me,
Nope -- you did that all by yourself, primarily in your
communication with me by email. He had nothing to do
with it except to alert me to the coming storm.
> caused one of their moderators who is respected in
> the industry to blanketly dismiss anything I say,
> as a total farce,
That's because most everything you say *is* a total
farce, like the bulk of your bizarre claims about me
which I'm having to respond to here.
> and as a result, my account remains languishing,
> un-activated, so I can't post in defense of, or to dispute
> the lies coming from the individual who uses his good
> reputation to smear others.
Lies, reputations, disputes, defense and smearing are
not topics of conversation on DV Info Net. If any content
there is thought to be objectionable, the proper course of
action is to simply click the "report bad post" button
(located to the left of every post). An active account
isn't required in order to report a bad post. That function
is available to all visitors including unregistered guests.
The report goes to the top forum moderators, where they
evaluate the complaint and act on it if necessary. The
one thing we don't do (never have, never will), is let it
drag out into a big online battle between personalities.
> I had a long chat with Chris about that, and he chooses
> to advise me not to join the forum, accusing me of being
> a copyright violator, simply because I employed the journalistic
> "fair use" privilage to display some frame grabs from some
> publicly-available non-commercial footage, as examples of
> typical picture quality from a particular camera, which, BTW,
> I now own.
Some of the creators of those images, a few of whom are
members of my site, made the valid complaint that not only
had you redistributed their work without their permission
(not to mention without at least proper credit), but also the
unathorized copies which you've redistributed are noticeably
degraded from their original form. There was some initial
conjecture that you had perhaps purposefully degraded those
images, since you had made your own crass accusation that
another fellow had purposefully misrepresented his; which
automatically lowers you to the same level of culpability
for the same thing that you accuse others of doing.
But ultimately it was decided that the degradation you
introduced into that stolen material was just a result of
your incompetence with the editing software. Regardless,
those folks on my site whose copyright you violated were
not very happy about what you did with their images, so it
was out of respect for them that I told you not to bother
joining our forum. They would have eaten you alive, and I
have better things to do than to police such a mess.
> He has the audacity to lecture me on the law, when he was
> the biggest law-breaker himself, violating FCC regulations
> by operating and willfully refusing to shut down a pirate
> radio station
Once again... I did not operate Kind Radio; therefore I was
never in any position whatsoever to "shut it down." At no time
were any of Kind's volunteer programmers (myself included) ever
named or sought or otherwise indicated in any of the FCC's
dismal and continuously unsuccessful attempts to quell our
Freedom of Speech. And just for the record... none of the
volunteer programmers at Kind Radio were ever charged with
breaking *any* law. So, no we were not lawbreakers.
> when confronted by federal agents.
The operators of Micro Kind Radio were *never* confronted
by "federal agents," at least never in person; and what limited
contact the FCC had with Kind Radio was conducted via certified
mail and in San Antonio, where Kind Radio's operators filed a
lawsuit against the FCC and took them to court. But this is all
fairly well documented at http://www.diymedia.net/feature/micro/f091200.htm
> Not to mention the copyright violations he commited by
> broadcasting commercially-recorded music on KIND Radio
> without paying ASCAP fees.
I had a two-hour talk show at noon on Fridays. What little
music I actually played during that block was submitted by
mostly local area artists such as Carolyn Wonderland, Trish
Murphy, Terri Hendrix and others who brought their music to
us. The vast majority of Kind Radio's rich, diverse programming
came from anything *but* commercially produced ASCAP labels;
most of the music played on that station was either locally
homegrown or remotely obscure, but for the most part pretty
much all of it was underground or well outside of the ASCAP
domain. By design, Kind Radio didn't broadcast "popular" music.
> He is a coniver and a slippery fellow, who speaks legalese
> terminology and pretends to know the law, when in fact, his
> closet is full of skeletons.
My happy experience during my time as a volunteer programmer
at Micro Kind Radio -- the friends I made there, the support that
the city gave us, and everything I learned from that time -- is no
skeleton in my closet. However my interview with you from
1997 has just become one.
I speak "legalese terminology" only when confronted with it,
such as the hostility with which you first brought it to me,
in your initial threat to sue me. As for being "a conniving
and slippery fellow," well thank you for very much the ad
hominem attack... it is indeed all you can muster when
you truly have nothing valid left to stand on. It takes one
to know one, is what I say.
> I didn't want to say all that, but his decision to ignore
> my e-mail requests to activate my month-old account
Request -- singular, not plural. I had *one* email from you
about it which came in yesterday, which was a Sunday; I'm
typically away from the computer as much as possible on
weekends. You can consider this as my reply to your email.
> My beef with Chris is that he is "pre-banning" me, when
> I have commited no bannable offense on his board, due to
> not being a posting member. It's sort of like "Minority
> Report" where they arrest you for crimes you have not
> yet commited.
A private club with a strict dress code doesn't have to
go through the motions of letting you in just so it can
kick you out. It can simply point to your shoes and deny
your entrance at the door. It happens all the time in the
real world. You're a fool if you think you have any "right"
to get in.
Prior to your registration at DV Info Net you were thrown out
of the AVS Forum and banned, you've threatened to sue me,
you've engaged in hostile ad hominem attacks upon members
of my forum and other people, you've redistributed degraded
versions of copyrighted material belonging to members of my
forum and other people without their permission, and you've
demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of some very
basic and key concepts of digital video technology, so no,
I don't believe I'll let you post on my site at this time.
> At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, my respect
> for the two of them has dropped into the basement.
Likewise, that feeling is now completely mutual.
> Shame on them for their "selective morality".
And shame on you for your "selective intelligence."
Mark Weiss, you can kiss my Bill of Rights. Good
luck with your one-man crusade against Sony. You've
got the rest of the internet at your disposal (except
the AVS Forum, where you're banned), but you sure
as hell are not going to use my web site to grind your
broken ax.
(My apologies to the regulars here for my brief
intrusion, but this was an attempted attack upon
my character and unfortunately too many people will
blindly believe anything they read on usenet. That's
the reason why I created DV Info Net in the first
place; to get away from such malice. Hopefully for
your sake and mine, I won't have to return. Best
regards, and a hearty thanks to Bill Davis.)
Chris Hurd
DV Info Net
San Marcos, TX
ushere
> (My apologies to the regulars here for my brief intrusion, but this
> was an attempted attack upon my character and unfortunately too many
> people will blindly believe anything they read on usenet. That's the
> reason why I created DV Info Net in the first place; to get away from
> such malice. Hopefully for your sake and mine, I won't have to
> return. Best regards, and a hearty thanks to Bill Davis.)
>
> Chris Hurd DV Info Net San Marcos, TX
>
keep up the good work chris....
my suggestion to mark is simple: dump your problem riddled sony, never
buy anything from them ever again, and shut up. there are a multitude of
sony v1 owners out there, all with their own crosses (mine is inability
to get a filter in between wa lens and hood, and no separation on single
input), but if the problems were as bad as you paint them, i can assure
you, there would be a LOT of noise. go buy a canon....
leslie
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
>
> No Mark, you have *not* known me for the same amount
> of time, nor nearly to the same extent as Bill Davis knows
> me. Bill and I know each other on a face-to-face basis; we
> have broken bread and shared drinks together frequently.
> Yet you and I have never met. I have spoken with you just
> once, by telephone, and that was ten years ago.
We're on opposite coasts, so naturally, it's impossible for us to have an
in-person relationship. What I meant was that I've known you for that length
of time. How you interpret that is your perogative.
> > I was interviewed by Chris in 1997, when he was operating a
> > pirate radio station in San Marcos, known as KIND Radio.
>
> I have never "operated a pirate radio station," nor have I ever
> operated any type of radio station in my life. From April 1997
> to August 2000, I was one of about 75 volunteer programmers
> who put two hours a week into an LPFM radio station known
> in San Marcos as Micro Kind Radio. I had a weekly two-hour
> talk show on Kind Radio, but I did not operate the station. Kind
> Radio was operated by the Hays County Guardian, a local
> alternative media printed publication. While I fondly remember
> Kind Radio and while I'm very proud of my admittedly limited
> participation there, the fact is that I had absolutely no say
> nor any involvement in how it was operated.
Well that's quite a different tact from the one you took in 1997. Your
boasting back then sure made it sound like you ran the station. But then
maybe, by proxy, if you ran the paper that ran that station.
> > However, it becomes problematic when two or more
> > individuals use his board as a forum to libel my name.
>
> Sounds like a paranoid fantasy, since your name doesn't
> even appear on any forum at DV Info Net -- a simple search
> for your name will readily reveal that there are no returns
> for "Mark Weiss" anywhere: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php
And how could it? You won't let me post anything in the forum!
It's NOT paranoia. Let me quote Douglas Spotted Eagle's post pertaining to
my tests:
"The person that published that "scientific examination" of the audio on the
V1 had purchased a greymarket cam that had a problem. He was tweaked because
he had no warranty and thusly developed an issue with Sony. This was one
area in which he had some knowledge, and therefore published the "data.""
In the above statement, he has evaded and untruthfully misrepresented the
fact that I have tested TWO V1Us and both of them have identical response
curves. The second one was purchased from B&H, definately NOT a grey market
seller--and DSE knows that. His contempt for me is so strong that he has
simply forgotten the content of my e-mails to him about testing more than
one camera.
> DV Info Net maintains a very strict policy against using
> any of our boards to flame, libel or slander any person,
> whether they're a member of the site or not. On the very
> rare occasion where it does happen, we deal with such
> content immediately by withdrawing it from public view,
> and in most cases, closing the account of the offending
> party. You have *not* been libeled at DV Info Net.
But I have been the target of false accusations by DSE on DVinfo.
> > It is only reasonable that I should be able to
> > respond and refute these absurd claims.
>
> No that is not at all reasonable. DV Info Net never has
> and never will exist for that purpose -- such public battles
> of personality are more in the realm of usenet. It is only
> reasonable that if you discover a suspected case of libel
> on my site, you should bring it to my attention immediately
> so that it can be evaluated and withdrawn from public view.
> You have no expectation whatsoever to use my web site as
> your own personal battleground. I won't allow such a thing.
Refuting false claims is not a flame war. It is simply presenting facts. You
folks are so caught up in your little "club of the isles" over there that
you simply don't have room for truth.
> > Then the guy goes over to DVinfo and continues to spout
> > lies about me. I informed Chris that I didn't appreciate
> > someone using another board that I have no dealings with,
> > do libel my name and asked him in a rather firm manner to
> > remove or edit the thread. He got huffy on me ...
>
> Well of course I got huffy -- in your opening email you
> threatened to sue me! I don't respond well to that, not
> at all; I don't suspect that anybody would. If you had
> simply brought the matter to my attention peaceably,
> especially given our previous acquaintance, then I would
> have promptly accommodated you. However, since you chose
> to immediately threaten legal action against me, my hands
> were tied with regard to that thread remaining in public
> view until I could consult my attorney. What complicated
> that situation even more was your strange response to a
> similar occurrence at the AVS Forum, in which they removed
> from public view a similar thread which contained offending
> material, only to find you posting a copy of it (a violation
> of their copyright) on your own site! But I don't see how
> any of this is relevant, as the thread in question on DV
> Info Net was in fact withdrawn from public view (due to
> our policy, not due to your pathetic threat to sue).
You do realize how serious that matter was, don't you? Frankly, all of the
mess that Ken Ross has caused over on AVSForum and on DVinfo has caused me
to reconsider my decision not to pursue legal action against him.
The moderator at AVSForum was a completely irrational person. Any rational
reader can sense that by reading the archived thread that I captured before
he deleted it to cover up his own silliness. I'm not the only one who holds
this opinion of both Ken and that moderator. I've received numerous e-mails
from moderators of other forums/mailing lists that I'm involved with, who
are NOT impressed with those two and how they handled things.
> > DVinfo and others are beholden to the camera manufacturers and
> > as such are self-censored so as not to upset their monetary stipend.
>
> This claim is of course a ridiculous fabrication. From its
> inception up to today, DV Info Net has never received any
> monetary stipend whatsoever from Sony or any other
> camera manufacturer... and even if it actually did exist,
> it certainly wouldn't affect our editorial content. That's a
> matter of ethics, integrity and pride.
Perhaps it is DSE who is protecting his own relationship with Sony then.
Sony lets him "play" with new models before they are released to the public.
He may even be getting some of his equipment donated or at significant
discounts from Sony. Of course this is speculation, but his seemingly
irrational ignorance of glaring problems that members of your own forum are
starting to notice on their own, seems intentional, not accidental. I smell
corporate politics in this one.
> > Since the guy from AVSForum carried his beef with me
> > into DVinfo, a forum at which I was never a member,
> > he has tainted the waters permanently for me,
>
> Nope -- you did that all by yourself, primarily in your
> communication with me by email. He had nothing to do
> with it except to alert me to the coming storm.
Sorry if I offended you by stating that I reserved the right to sue if the
material wasn't removed.
> > caused one of their moderators who is respected in
> > the industry to blanketly dismiss anything I say,
> > as a total farce,
>
> That's because most everything you say *is* a total
> farce, like the bulk of your bizarre claims about me
> which I'm having to respond to here.
Now here is where I think we stopped communicating.
> > and as a result, my account remains languishing,
> > un-activated, so I can't post in defense of, or to dispute
> > the lies coming from the individual who uses his good
> > reputation to smear others.
>
> Lies, reputations, disputes, defense and smearing are
> not topics of conversation on DV Info Net. If any content
> there is thought to be objectionable, the proper course of
> action is to simply click the "report bad post" button
> (located to the left of every post). An active account
> isn't required in order to report a bad post. That function
> is available to all visitors including unregistered guests.
> The report goes to the top forum moderators, where they
> evaluate the complaint and act on it if necessary. The
> one thing we don't do (never have, never will), is let it
> drag out into a big online battle between personalities.
No, they shouldn't be, and at the same time DVinfo shouldn't be a platform
for smearing my reputation or my scientific and carefully-executed tests on
cameras. I invited everyone who owns a V1U to perform the test
themselves--the software is available in a free edition. Show me up for the
fool and farce that you think I am.
I was unaware that I could report a bad post, especially when that post
comes from one of DVinfo's own moderators. Sort of like calling the police
to report a police officer for bad behavior. ;-/
> > I had a long chat with Chris about that, and he chooses
> > to advise me not to join the forum, accusing me of being
> > a copyright violator, simply because I employed the journalistic
> > "fair use" privilage to display some frame grabs from some
> > publicly-available non-commercial footage, as examples of
> > typical picture quality from a particular camera, which, BTW,
> > I now own.
>
> Some of the creators of those images, a few of whom are
> members of my site, made the valid complaint that not only
> had you redistributed their work without their permission
> (not to mention without at least proper credit), but also the
> unathorized copies which you've redistributed are noticeably
> degraded from their original form. There was some initial
> conjecture that you had perhaps purposefully degraded those
> images, since you had made your own crass accusation that
> another fellow had purposefully misrepresented his; which
> automatically lowers you to the same level of culpability
> for the same thing that you accuse others of doing.
Now here is where you are patently wrong. I did some research following our
last e-mail, and it turns out that I can use up to 60 seconds of video from
copyrighted material in a review about that material. It's called "Fair Use"
and it's the law. I was well within legal rights, as I used 1/30 of a second
from footage shot by various consumers that was posted to the public
internet. These were not even commercial videos. My use was purely for
academic, journalistic purposes, as a comparison of what the consumer can
expect from the various cameras.
As to the fact that I wasn't able to attribute the images to their shooters,
many of them had been collected over a 2 years span, from diverse sources,
and at that time, I was viewing them for my own edification. I had no idea
that I would one day grab a frame from each clip and display it on my
camcorder comparison page, which is a hobby page, and not a commercial
profit-making venture. Even so, I have done nothing illegal or immoral by
doing so. When you post content to the public internet, you have no
reasonable expectation of privacy or that your content won't be played or
displayed somewhere else.
> But ultimately it was decided that the degradation you
> introduced into that stolen material was just a result of
> your incompetence with the editing software. Regardless,
> those folks on my site whose copyright you violated were
> not very happy about what you did with their images, so it
> was out of respect for them that I told you not to bother
> joining our forum. They would have eaten you alive, and I
> have better things to do than to police such a mess.
I don't believe that competence or the lack thereof played any role.
My own HV20 (yes, I had to buy one) and the time I put in discovering its
features, revealed the source of the soft images: Cinema mode. That setting
reduces the contrast and applies a blur to the overall image. I shot some
normal and cimena footage and put stills on my site, demonstrating the vast
difference it causes in picture detail.
The other contributing factor was that Vegas itself is incompetent and
handling images. I've discovered numerous quality issues with footage I'm
getting out of Vegas, and the problems it's caused have spurred me to build
a new workstation capable of running Premiere Pro CS3. Vegas has some
shortcomings, but I suppose that's the cost of being able to edit HDV on a
PC without SSE2 instruction set in the CPU.
Bottom line is, Ken, because he was losing the argument on AVSforum, chose
to go into ad hominem attack mode and sick the moderator on my account --WHO
GAVE ME EXACTLY FIVE MINUTES TO EXPLAIN MYSELF AND DELETED MY ACCOUNT WHILE
I WAS WRITING THAT EXPLANATION. In plain English, what an asshole he is.
I've heard a few other complaints about AVSForum, for their banning
discussion of a certain brand of subwoofer there, so I see it is endemic to
that venue.
> > He has the audacity to lecture me on the law, when he was
> > the biggest law-breaker himself, violating FCC regulations
> > by operating and willfully refusing to shut down a pirate
> > radio station
>
> Once again... I did not operate Kind Radio; therefore I was
> never in any position whatsoever to "shut it down." At no time
> were any of Kind's volunteer programmers (myself included) ever
> named or sought or otherwise indicated in any of the FCC's
> dismal and continuously unsuccessful attempts to quell our
> Freedom of Speech. And just for the record... none of the
> volunteer programmers at Kind Radio were ever charged with
> breaking *any* law. So, no we were not lawbreakers.
Okay, so today you say you were not an operator there. What can I say? It's
your word.
> > when confronted by federal agents.
>
> The operators of Micro Kind Radio were *never* confronted
> by "federal agents," at least never in person; and what limited
> contact the FCC had with Kind Radio was conducted via certified
> mail and in San Antonio, where Kind Radio's operators filed a
> lawsuit against the FCC and took them to court. But this is all
> fairly well documented at
http://www.diymedia.net/feature/micro/f091200.htm
Again, fine. Chalk it up to my aging-induced memory loss.
> > Not to mention the copyright violations he commited by
> > broadcasting commercially-recorded music on KIND Radio
> > without paying ASCAP fees.
>
> I had a two-hour talk show at noon on Fridays. What little
> music I actually played during that block was submitted by
> mostly local area artists such as Carolyn Wonderland, Trish
> Murphy, Terri Hendrix and others who brought their music to
> us. The vast majority of Kind Radio's rich, diverse programming
> came from anything *but* commercially produced ASCAP labels;
> most of the music played on that station was either locally
> homegrown or remotely obscure, but for the most part pretty
> much all of it was underground or well outside of the ASCAP
> domain. By design, Kind Radio didn't broadcast "popular" music.
Fine. Your word, once again. Not what I got from your posts on
alt.radio.pirate in 1997 though.
> > He is a coniver and a slippery fellow, who speaks legalese
> > terminology and pretends to know the law, when in fact, his
> > closet is full of skeletons.
>
> My happy experience during my time as a volunteer programmer
> at Micro Kind Radio -- the friends I made there, the support that
> the city gave us, and everything I learned from that time -- is no
> skeleton in my closet. However my interview with you from
> 1997 has just become one.
Oh? How is that so?
> I speak "legalese terminology" only when confronted with it,
> such as the hostility with which you first brought it to me,
> in your initial threat to sue me. As for being "a conniving
> and slippery fellow," well thank you for very much the ad
> hominem attack... it is indeed all you can muster when
> you truly have nothing valid left to stand on. It takes one
> to know one, is what I say.
You demonstrate your skills as that slippery fellow quite well, I must add.
;-)
> > I didn't want to say all that, but his decision to ignore
> > my e-mail requests to activate my month-old account
>
> Request -- singular, not plural. I had *one* email from you
> about it which came in yesterday, which was a Sunday; I'm
> typically away from the computer as much as possible on
> weekends. You can consider this as my reply to your email.
Request #1 was the initial registration. It is expected that activation
occurs within 24-48 hours. Request #2 was that e-mail.
And I'll consider my reply. But also consider that by disallowing me to
represent myself in your forum when someone is spewing false information
about me or my testing methodology, you are making yourself a party to the
offending action and as such, subject to possible legal action on my part.
> > My beef with Chris is that he is "pre-banning" me, when
> > I have commited no bannable offense on his board, due to
> > not being a posting member. It's sort of like "Minority
> > Report" where they arrest you for crimes you have not
> > yet commited.
>
> A private club with a strict dress code doesn't have to
> go through the motions of letting you in just so it can
> kick you out. It can simply point to your shoes and deny
> your entrance at the door. It happens all the time in the
> real world. You're a fool if you think you have any "right"
> to get in.
No more right than the next anonymous application. You've prejudiced against
me, on the word of a couple of quacks, one of whom just happened to get
lucky and win a couple of technical Grammies, which IMHO, I think were
unwarranted, if they had anything to do with the way he records audio.
> Prior to your registration at DV Info Net you were thrown out
> of the AVS Forum and banned, you've threatened to sue me,
> you've engaged in hostile ad hominem attacks upon members
> of my forum and other people, you've redistributed degraded
> versions of copyrighted material belonging to members of my
> forum and other people without their permission, and you've
> demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of some very
> basic and key concepts of digital video technology, so no,
> I don't believe I'll let you post on my site at this time.
I point out that I was banned by an unreasonable idiot, who has no business
being a moderator at all. Your paranoid belief that I threatened to sue you
is rather extreme. I presented you with a standard request to remedy a
possible libel situation on your forum. As a standard part of that
procedure, I gave you the courtesey of notifiying you that failure to do so
MAY result in legal action. I did not say that I was GOING to sue you. When
you get a tax bill from the government, it almost always states what their
remedy is if you don't comply--it's not a notice of arrest or asset seizure.
> > At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, my respect
> > for the two of them has dropped into the basement.
>
> Likewise, that feeling is now completely mutual.
'Glad we now have a better understanding of eachother.
> > Shame on them for their "selective morality".
>
> And shame on you for your "selective intelligence."
Now I've been guilty of selective ignorance, but never before in a field in
which I am experienced with on a professional level. But do go on with your
ad hominem attacks.
> Mark Weiss, you can kiss my Bill of Rights. Good
Isn't that what you said to the FCC openly and publicly in November of 1997?
:-)
> luck with your one-man crusade against Sony. You've
> got the rest of the internet at your disposal (except
> the AVS Forum, where you're banned), but you sure
> as hell are not going to use my web site to grind your
> broken ax.
It's soon to expand. More and more people are discovering on their own, what
a joke the Sony HVR-V1U is. Some on this newsgroup have already dismissed it
because of the garbage picture it produces. Others, even on your board, have
had some epiphanies with regard to how poor the sound quality and lack of
bass response is. It's slowly coming out. You and Douglas can't suppress the
truth forever.
And folks are free to read the whole thread that got me banned on AVSForum
here:
http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/AVSPM.htm
> (My apologies to the regulars here for my brief
> intrusion, but this was an attempted attack upon
> my character and unfortunately too many people will
> blindly believe anything they read on usenet. That's
> the reason why I created DV Info Net in the first
> place; to get away from such malice. Hopefully for
> your sake and mine, I won't have to return. Best
> regards, and a hearty thanks to Bill Davis.)
>
> Chris Hurd
> DV Info Net
> San Marcos, TX
And thank you for clarifying your position in this matter. It's really a
shame, but then again, I don't give a damn, as long as your people don't
keep falsifying my test data and hurling false accusations about me.
Good day sir.
--
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> buy anything from them ever again, and shut up. there are a multitude of
> sony v1 owners out there, all with their own crosses (mine is inability
> to get a filter in between wa lens and hood, and no separation on single
> input), but if the problems were as bad as you paint them, i can assure
> you, there would be a LOT of noise. go buy a canon....
>
> leslie
There is so much that I like about the Sony, that it's really frustrating to
me that it has these unnecessary and glaring flaws.
My two Sony pet peeves:
1. The bad audio, for which there is no excuse when working in the digital
world
2. The solarizing (banding) effect that suggests limited color palette or
color reduction.
The zoom lens is sharper and not as absurdly plagued with chromatic
aberration as the Canon XL-H1's lens, it's sharp at full tele, which the
Canon is not, and the color fidelity of the sensors (excepting the CODEC
issues that cause banding) is excellent, in fact some of the best I've seen
in HDV. Sonys have been reliable for me over the past 7 years that I've been
using VX2000/TRV900 models, and frankly, there are many GOOD things about
the V1U.
That it is marred by these two problems is almost tragic, as they would be
batting 1000 if these issues didn't play into the overall picture.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
> >> per octave.
> >
> > Whatever we agree it to be, it's still abnormal for a
> > digital recording system on ANY device.
>
>
> I note that your tests of the Canon HV20 (which I just acquired) put
the -3
> dB point at about 45 Hz, which is obviously a lot better than 130 Hz.
Yes, and my recording of a wedding at a church reveals pretty acceptable
audio from the HV20 with external condenser mics.
> I notice that another Sony camera you tested rolled off at about 110 Hz,
> suggesting to me that Sony considers a rolled-off bass like this to be
part
> of their house standard.
It does indeed seem the case. However, their HDW-F900 is as flat as a CD
player from 20-20KHz. Interesting, eh?
> >>> RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems,
> >>> hence, anything more than +/-0.1dB is objectionable
> >>> deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass.
> >>
> >>
> >> While 30 dB down at 20 Hz is kinda of a lot for a hi-fi
> >> system, its not bad by say live sound standards.
>
> > Most live sound systems are flat to 45Hz.
>
> One could hope. IME reality is more like 85 Hz, which is about what it
takes
> to handle a typical male voice without excessive degradation.
Yes, on the majority of sound systems I've heard, 85Hz does seem to be the
lower limit of semi-flatness. A few have gone down to 40Hz quite
nicely--some even lower, like the one at a Broadway theater where I attended
the last showing of "Miss Saigon" with Filipino actress Lea Salonga playing
the leading role. Their sound system was able to reproduce the lower octaves
of the helicopter sound effect used in the rescue scene and I was somewhat
impressed to find a venue that had sound of this caliber.
> >> If the digital recording system in question is optimized
> >> for ENG, then flat response to 20 Hz is not required at
> >> all.
> >
> > Yes, but they should give the operator the ability to
> > turn off the filter.
>
> Given that modern cameras seem to be option-rich, this seems like a
> reasaonble approach.
Indeed. Give the buyers a choice, Sony!
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Arny Krueger
>>>> On second glance, the roll-off appears to be about 12
>>>> dB per octave.
>>>
>>> Whatever we agree it to be, it's still abnormal for a
>>> digital recording system on ANY device.
>>
>>
>> I note that your tests of the Canon HV20 (which I just
>> acquired) put
> the -3
>> dB point at about 45 Hz, which is obviously a lot better
>> than 130 Hz.
>
> Yes, and my recording of a wedding at a church reveals
> pretty acceptable audio from the HV20 with external
> condenser mics.
45 Hz is going to work for lots of things. -3 dB @ 130 Hz is going to take
an audible toll on lots of things. Given that the medium is digital, adding
bass boost in post to extend response to at least 85 Hz should be pretty
doable, but a PITA.
>> I notice that another Sony camera you tested rolled off
>> at about 110 Hz, suggesting to me that Sony considers a
>> rolled-off bass like this to be part of their house
>> standard.
> It does indeed seem the case. However, their HDW-F900 is
> as flat as a CD player from 20-20KHz. Interesting, eh?
For that six-figures HDW-F900 price, one would hope for more than 130 Hz low
end cutoff!
PTravel
I'm not going to step into this dispute, other than to say that, though I've
not met Chris Hurd personally, I've known him on-line for quite a while, and
have nothing but respect for his fairness, honesty and integrity which, in
my opinion, is beyond question. I should also add that I co-moderate the
Taking Care of Business forum on dvinfo.net. I've been following this
thread because I'll be upgrading from my VX2000 to an HDV machine within the
next year, so your allegations about the V1U are of interest to me.
As I said, I won't comment on the present dispute. I will, however, address
some misconceptions about copyright law contained in your post.
> Now here is where you are patently wrong. I did some research following
> our
> last e-mail, and it turns out that I can use up to 60 seconds of video
> from
> copyrighted material in a review about that material. It's called "Fair
> Use"
> and it's the law.
There is no magic amount of protected expression that may be used without
authorization, and below which no infringement liability will attach. Fair
Use is a defense to copyright infringement, meaning that, but for the
availability of the defense, the particular use would result in copyright
infringement liability. Moreover, Fair Use is an equitable defense, meaning
that whether or not the doctrine applies will be determined by a judge based
on the facts specific to the action which is before her. Contrary to
popular opinion, whether or not a specific use comes within Fair Use
doctrine is not a determination that can be readily made by a lay person.
The factors codified at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107 are neither exclusive nor
dispositive -- the judge must consider them, but is not bound to follow them
and may include other factors as the specific facts of the case suggest.
The unauthorized use of protected expression that you've described may or
may not constitute Fair Use -- I don't know as I haven't seen it. However,
you walk a dangerous course when you rely on your own research (from which
you've already derived considerable misinformation) to assess your potential
for liability.
> I was well within legal rights, as I used 1/30 of a second
> from footage shot by various consumers that was posted to the public
> internet. These were not even commercial videos. My use was purely for
> academic, journalistic purposes, as a comparison of what the consumer can
> expect from the various cameras.
The fact that it was posted to the internet is irrelevant. Educational fair
use is a niche subset of Fair Use doctrine and has a number of specific
requirements. Merely calling something, "academic" will not suffice, even
if the intent behind the use was to educate.
> As to the fact that I wasn't able to attribute the images to their
> shooters,
> many of them had been collected over a 2 years span, from diverse sources,
> and at that time, I was viewing them for my own edification. I had no idea
> that I would one day grab a frame from each clip and display it on my
> camcorder comparison page, which is a hobby page, and not a commercial
> profit-making venture.
Collecting clips results in making an unauthorized copy, i.e. copyright
infringement. It doesn't matter whether you were viewing them for your own
edification. Non-commercial use is not a defense to infringement. If a use
is truly Fair Use, attribution is unnecessary, as Fair Use doctrine
expressly contemplates unauthorized use.
Note, too, that I am not commenting on the particular use that you made of
this material. I don't know what it is. You are, however, relying on some
common myths about copyright protection, and I think it is important to
address them.
> Even so, I have done nothing illegal or immoral by
> doing so. When you post content to the public internet, you have no
> reasonable expectation of privacy or that your content won't be played or
> displayed somewhere else.
Posting on the internet does not result in a waiver of copyright or
dedication to the public domain. "Expectation of privacy" has no relevance
to copyright law; it is a concept that has meaning in the context right of
publicity law. People can, and should, expect others to respect their
copyrights when posting material to the internet. My own videos, which are
non-commercial, appear on my website and on Youtube. I actively police my
rights and have sent cease-and-desist letters to infringers who appropriated
my protected expression without my permission. Should I ever find an
identifiable infringer who trespasses on my rights AND they are reachable by
process under U.S. law, I will sue for infringement (one of the nice things
about being a lawyer is I can do so at minimal expense), and you can be
assured that, "it was posted on the internet so there was no expectation of
privacy" will be no defense whatsoever.
Chris Hurd
On Aug 14, 1:56 am, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> But I have been the target of false
> accusations by DSE on DVinfo.
Once again... nowhere does your name appear on
DV Info Net. You have *not* been libeled there.
> You do realize how serious that matter was,
> don't you? Sorry if I offended you by stating
> that I reserved the right to sue if the material
> wasn't removed.
What offended me was your gross ignorance of the
law (specifically Section 230 of the CDA, which you
waved in my face in the initial nastygram you sent to
me back on May 24th). You can bring suit against
anyone and everyone you wish, but whether you'll be
successful or not is another matter entirely: see the
legal briefing "Neither Notice Nor Delay in Removing
Content Are Bars to CDA Web Site Third-Party Content
Immunity Defense," http://www.winston.com/index.Cfm?contentid=34&itemid=2246
The immunity defense of S230 is exactly what grants
protection to message board operators like myself from
the liability you're claiming. Are you still willing to take
on the considerable expense of trying the precedence
of that law in court?
> at the same time DVinfo shouldn't be a platform
> for smearing my reputation or my scientific and
> carefully-executed tests on cameras.
The record of DV Info Net clearly shows that it has
never been a platform for smearing anyone's reputation;
your name doesn't even appear there so your particular
reputation isn't even a relevant issue. However, whether
or not your "tests" are scientific or carefully executed is
wide open for public debate... not just on my forum, but
anywhere.
> When you post content to the public internet, you
> have no reasonable expectation of privacy or that
> your content won't be played or displayed somewhere
> else.
You are sadly mistaken. The protection of copyright
does in fact extend to the internet... and there's
plenty of case law to prove that there is indeed a
reasonable expectation that online content will not
be redistributed without permission. And that's a
fundamental understanding which I sincerely hope
you will not have to learn the hard way.
> But also consider that by disallowing me to represent
> myself in your forum when someone is spewing false
> information about me or my testing methodology, you
> are making yourself a party to the offending action
> and as such, subject to possible legal action on my
> part.
And there's that threat of legal action again. You know
what, Mark, honestly I don't think you're going to sue
anybody. As far as I'm concerned, all of this "legal
action" chest beating of yours serves only to
undermine your arguments.
Again: your name appears nowhere on my forum,
therefore nothing is there for you to rush in and
defend, and I don't see how you can possibly
expect to successfully sue your way into a
privately owned message board.
>> ... you can kiss my Bill of Rights.
>
> Isn't that what you said to the FCC openly
> and publicly in November of 1997?
No. It's what the founder of the American LPFM movement,
Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley, said to the FCC
and NAB openly and publicly in October of 1995. Mark,
your ignorance of the history of American micropower
radio is right on par with your ignorance of copyright, U.S.
Code and digital video technology... four subjects about
which you do not seem to know all that much.
> I don't give a damn, as long as your people don't
> keep falsifying my test data and hurling false
> accusations about me.
For that last time, while dissenting opinions have been
expressed about your findings, the fact remains that nobody
has "falsified your test data," and no one has hurled a false
accusation about you by name. Hope this helps,