There are some factors that I am quite certain supports my view on this subject.
1) Having dealed with high end Hi-Fi systems since 1970 I have a quite trained ear to sound details.
This means picking up details in sound at modest sound levels to get the best possible "sound picture".
2) The human ear is most sensitve at about 3500Hz (3,5 kHz) where the sound range of human voices have its basic sound range if my memory serves me right. Ref to PHON curves.
Check: SQUARE ONE : Quantifying Noise
http://www.squ1.com/index.php?http://ww ... ntify.html for referenece
Thus the "sound resolution" (dynamic range in the ear sensitive frequency are, ability to pick up details, overtones/harmonics, depth/resolution (analog to latitude on film)) around that lower frequency range is very important and might differ greatly between A and D recording systems besides digital sound is alway "processed" while analog is more directly "right on".
The AD conversion and digital sound processing is a complex issue that I compare to the processing of K40. Although not 7 stages it goes through many and each of these processes add a "dialect" to the sound,. The processing includes filtering of "white noise" step up/down frequency convertion, Mulitibit (20 or more) filters and sometimes high speed 1 bit converter with feedback/feed forward process to correct phase/waveforms etc. If you think that digital sound can be judged just by technical data, you are completely wrong!
3) When I listen to TV news nowadays it sounds like people talks in a "tube" (Sometimes I have problem to undestand in detail what they say) and when the clips like the one posted here is shown regulary on my TV immediately before or after the daily news it is easy to compare.
4) The REAL Hi-Fi freaks (do not count me in) never accepted the digital era. They use analog record players or high end tape recorder/players, tube preamps, tube power amps etc. Occationally you will find some of them that uses transitorized curcuits as well.
5) My intention was not to compare 8/16mm mag stripes, the 16 mm is surely superior but with a HQ mike connected to some S8 cams the single system sound is impressive. This is not an issue limited to frequency range as such but the sound range around where the human ear is at its most sensitive, 3500 Hz, the "bluesy" world.
6) My suspicion was confirmed 10 years ago discussing this with a cameraman from our national TV broadcast company NRK confirming this (beyond any doubt) at a film sound training course I attended to.
7) There are HUGE differences in the sound quality of A/D - D/A converters even though the technical specs are almost identical. I do not belive for a second that High-End converters are used on news range DV cams. Correct me if I am wrong.
This said I am the first to admit that probably all people hear sound differently and admit that many people do not notice (or bother with) the difference. It is widely recognized today that for example women and men´s hearing (way of processing the sound) is quite different as well.
I like quite a lot of the gizmo stuff in the digital world and it works great to me like the MD recorder/player that I substitute the sound stripes on S8 with.
My current Hi-Fi system uses a CD player, although connected directly to the PA via balanced (XLR) cables, thus eliminating the preamp for losses.
Now, what do this do? The system play like a dream (live sound) on loud levels but not good at lower levels unfortunately.
However, adding a preamp it will reveal all the neuances at low levels but have some loss at higher levels. The "punch" will go.
Biggest problem with the non-preamp setup?
The CD recordings. I am lucky if I find 1 in a 100 that have a sound quality up to the capability of my (modest) Hi-Fi system.
Since there are no controls except volume on the non preamp setup, I get what there is, no more, no less.
Using a preamp makes many more CDs sound OK but there are really many CDs that are really bad. ("we are all in it for the money", FZ 1967?)
The 1:100 ratio is confirmed by many HiFi "freaks" I have met.
Not slamming the DV sound as such, just noting that there is a difference that I at least, do not like.
Cranium I think, posted some info here a while ago that in the Audio HE world it was recognized that even 96 bit (or kHz - do not remember which but it is way over "standard" specs) High End A/D converters/preamps did not match the sound quality of tube A/A preamps.
The size alone on a High End D/A converter will usually prevent it from beeing installed in a camcorder with the 7+ or so separate power supplies required to ensure the system a High-End performance.
My 2 EURO cents
R
). Sure times have changed and the sound and image quality of video camcorders is outstanding. No sense in arguing about it. For those who love film it is a loss not to be able to shoot sound film and project it on our screens. Single system sound for computer editing and finishing on video would be the way to go if film stock were available. I can't say 16mm mag sound is better than todays video sound tracks, but is was good and sounded wonderful to me. My two cents.
. 