Unanswered quality question

Hi, last year I bought an imac and a wonderful Panasonic PV-GS320 mini DV camcorder to go along with it. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent trying to solve my problems with video quality.
The Problem: Whenever I import DV footage into imovie HD 6.0.4 I lose quality. Now, I know it is theoretically impossible to lose quality on miniDV footage because there are no compressions or conversions on import, but I swear it is happening.
To prove it: I imported a thirty minute video into imovie HD and sent it directly to iDVD without editing a single thing. I then burned directly to a DVD. I played the DVD on a high def, wide screen tv and simultaneously plugged in my camcorder to the TV. I proceeded to flip between the two inputs to compare quality. It is noticeably different. There is a lot more noise and the colors are faded on the DVD, whereas the picture directly from the mini DV tape is brilliant.
The quality loss is apparent the moment I import the DV footage from the camera. How is this possible? Can anyone help me?

What you see in iMovie is a Preview. While you can set the iMovie Preferences to select from 3 quality levels, the Highest level is still not equal to the total video quality that iMovie has imported. To see your DV quality movie from within iMovie, you can connect your iMac to your camcorder and your camcorder to a TV, then select to play the movie through to DV camera. What you see on the TV screen should match the original quality of the DV tape.
Regards.

Similar Messages

You saved me before...A quality question

I finally got my DVD made! BUT...I swear you can see every pixel on the screen. If a man has white hair, there are white pixels all around his head. Movements look like a blur of disorganized pixels, even stationary posters on the wall have their color pixels way past their borders. Jpegs look great, titles that move do not. I went over all the quality questions I could find on here, but most of them just confirmed I am in way over my head. I can not seem to change any of the settings, not the bit rate or anything else that would seem to effect the quality. I have my project set up as a DV NSTC, I did the Adobe encoder on high quality.
For an extreme newbie with a very important project due...does anyone have any tips???
Pleeeeeaaaase?
Sarah
PS...My footage came from a DVD recorder.

Sarah,
While your original footage was compromised by beginning life as an mpeg, you should not be getting the extreme blockiness you are seeing with the DVD. That being said, don't expect to be able to maintain the same quality as your original footage.
A couple of questions. Does the material look OK playing from the timeline? How are you exporting to Encore? What are your exact settings (everything and be sure to scroll all the way down...VBR, CBR, data-rate, etc)? What is your burn speed? What kind of DVD media are you using? What kind of device do you plan to play the DVD back on?
If all else fails, try a better encoder like TMPGEnc ($60?).

Import Quality Question

Ok I don't know much about this but,
How much audio quality do you lose when you import from a CD? Also, if the answer is lots, then does iTunes use that lossless audio encoder called apple lossless and if not where can I get and what do I need to use it? kinda 3 questions in one there...

Choose iTunes > Preferences> General pane and click Import Settings.
Choose an encoder from the Import Using pop-up menu.
You can listen to songs encoded in AAC or Apple Lossless formats in iTunes and on iPod models that come with a dock connector. If you plan to listen to your music using a different program or MP3 player, choose MP3 Encoder.
If you want to burn high-quality audio CDs with the songs you’re importing, without losing quality, choose Apple Lossless or AIFF. (Keep in mind that songs imported using this format use much more disc space.)
If you’ll be playing your songs on a computer that does not have MP3 software, choose WAV.
Choose a bit rate from the Setting pop-up menu (not available with Apple Lossless Encoder). In most cases, the default selection works well.
Higher Quality: Choose if you chose MP3 Encoder and plan to create your own audio CDs or listen to your music with high-quality stereo speakers.
High Quality: Choose if you play music in a noisy environment. This setting creates files that are about 1 MB in size per minute of music.
Good Quality: Use to fit more songs on a portable MP3 player with limited storage capacity.
Custom: Choose for greater control over the file size and sound quality.
To choose AIFF and WAV import settings:
Choose iTunes > Preferences>General pane and click Import Settings.
Choose AIFF Encoder or WAV Encoder from the Import Using pop-up menu.
Choose Custom from the Setting pop-up menu.
In the dialog that appears, choose settings:
Sample Rate: The number of times per second the music waveforms are captured digitally. The higher the sample rate, the higher the quality and the larger the file size. Don't choose a sample rate higher than the rate used to store the music originally or you'll waste space. CD quality, for example, is 44.100 kHz, so choosing a higher rate when you're encoding from a CD is unnecessary. In general, the best choice is Auto, which uses the same rate as the original music.
Sample Size: The number of bits used to store each sample taken as the music is encoded. The higher the sample size, the better the quality and the larger the file size.
Channels: If you don't have stereo speakers or if your audio files are monaural (mono files are about half the size of stereo files), choose Mono. If you'll be listening through headphones or a stereo system, choose Stereo or Auto. Auto converts monaural tracks into mono files and stereo tracks into stereo files.

Pointer to an unanswered j2ee question

This is just a pointer to a question posted on j2ee that remains unanswered; hopefully someone here can help - I'm attempting to get into j2ee stuff, obviously.
Regards,
Here's the post: http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5305753&tstart=0
~Bill
Edited by: abillconsl on Jun 17, 2008 1:22 PM

Two books:
(1) "Database Modeling and Design" by Toby Teorey,
(2) "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" by Martin Fowler.
You'll want to know about SQL and normalization. The Teorey book is good for both. Fowler's book will help with writing that data access layer in Java. - MOD

Visual quality questions

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I want to be as clear and detailed as possible about my process and goals using iMovie and iDVD.
I read posts on this forum frequently and know that many users are having problems with the visual quality of the final product and are looking for help in finding the best method of sharing.
I use still photos exclusively in my projects. I shoot using jpeg fine or raw and I use a variety of transitions as well as the KB effect on a few of the photos when creating projects. My goal is to create a slideshow movie that I can burn to disc and give to friends.
Currently I am involved with an Apple Tech Support trying to solve a problem that is beyond the scope of these forums. Last week I was asked to create a 10 slide project using a variety of transitions and the KB effect on 2 or 3 photos, share through Export using QT, and to send it to my contact through her Mobile Me. The quality was appalling - as I knew it would be because I have tried various methods of sharing - all with poor results, with one exception. Sometimes the quality after the share is excellent but deteriorates in iDVD; sometimes the quality after the initial share itself is poor. It all depends on which process I choose. Reverting to iMovie HD has not proven successful either.
The one exception for me is to share using "Export Movie". I end with a product icon on the desktop with a title.mov signature. (I used this method last week to resend my 10 slide test project to Apple Support and my contact person commented on the high quality.) The time difference creating the project to me is telling: for example, for a slideshow project that is 24 minutes long in iMovie it takes almost 2 hours to create a movie using "Export Movie", but 36 minutes or less using any other sharing method.
I certainly have not read every post on this forum, nor do I have the expertise or skill of the people who respond to questions from others about visual quality. But I haven't seen the process I use suggested by anyone else. (I have offered my solution to the problem once or twice when I am certain that the questioner is using still photos.)
So my questions are these> Is there a difference in how iMovie/iDVD handle video vs still photo projects? Is the solution I have found to retaining high visual quality just a fluke that won't work for anyone else? I would like to be helpful to others if I can be, but don't want to waste other peoples' time if my solution really isn't a solution at all.

The problem is with imovie'08 or 09 and their way of discarding every second line
in interlaced video material. Not suited for DVDs.
Never got anything alike iMovie HD 6 or FCE/P from them.
Notes on DVD quality
*DVD quality*
1. iDVD 08 & 09 has three levels of qualities.
iDVD 6 has the two last ones
• Professional Quality (movies up to 120 min.) - BEST
• Best Performances (movies less than 60 min.) - High quality on final DVD
• High Quality (in iDVD08 or 09) / Best Quality (in iDVD6) (movies up to 120 min.) - slightly lower quality than above
2. From
• FCE/P - Export out as full quality QuickTime.mov (not selfcontaining, no conversion)
• iMovie x-6 - Don't use ”Share/Export to iDVD” = destructive even to movie project and especially so
when the movie includes photos. Instead just drop or import the iMovie movie project icon (with a Star on it) into iDVD theme window.
• iMovie’08 not meant to go to iDVD. Go via Media Browser or rather use iMovie HD 6 from start.
3. I use Roxio Toast™ to make an as slow burn as possibly eg x1 (in iDVD’08 or 09 this can also be set)
This can also be done with (Apple) Disk Util tool.
4. There has to be about or more than 25Gb free space on internal (start-up) hard disk. iDVD can't
use an external one as scratch disk (if it is not start-up disc).
5. Verbatim ( also recommended by many - Taiyo Yuden DVDs - I can’t get hold of it to test )
6. DVD-R (no +R or +/-RW)
7. Keep NTSC to NTSC - or - PAL to PAL when going from iMovie to iDVD
8. Don’t burn more than three DVD at a time - but let the laser cool off for a while befor next batch.
iDVD quality also depends on.
• HOW much free space is there on Your internal (start-up) hard disk. Go for approx 25Gb.
less than 5Gb and Your result will most probably not play.
• What kind of movie project You drop into it. MPEG4 seems to be a bad choice.
other strange formats are .avi, .wmv, .flash etc. Convert to streamingDV first
Also audio formats matters. I use only .aiff or from miniDV tape Camera 16-bit
strange formats often problematic are .avi, .wmv, audio from iTunes, .mp3 etc
Convert to .aiff first and use this in movie project
• What kind of standard - NTSC movie and NTSC DVD or PAL to PAL - no mix.
(If You need to change to do a NTSC DVD from PAL material let JESDeinterlacer3.2.2 do the conversion)
(Dropping a PAL movie into a NTSC iDVD project
(US) NTSC DVDs most often are playable in EU
(EU) PAL DVDs most often needs to be converted to play in US
UNLESS. They are plabacked by a Mac - then You need not to care
• What kind of DVDs You are using. I use Verbatim DVD-R (this brand AND no +R or +/-RW)
• How You encode and burn it. Two settings prior iDVD’08 or 09
Pro Quality (only in iDVD 08 & 09)
Best / High Quality (not always - most often not)
Best / High Performances (most often my choise before Pro Quality)
1. go to iDVD pref. menu and select tab far right and set burn speed to x1 (less errors = plays better) - only in iDVD 08 & 09
(x4 by some and may be even better)
2. Project info. Select Professional Encoding - only in iDVD 08 & 09.
Region codes.
iDVD - only burn Region = 0 - meaning - DVDs are playable everywhere
DVD Studio pro can set Region codes.
1 = US
2 = EU
Yours Bengt W

First time ordering - a few quality questions

I am making a book for my mom that will have many pictures that I have scanned in and them imported into iPhoto. Has anyone noticed that printing a photo book greatly reduces the quality of their photos? The scan quality is OK, but obviously not as nice as original digital, and I don't want half the book to look like total crap.
Also, I read thru most of the threads here and noticed a lot of people talking about the dust covers in iPhoto 08 vs. canvas sticker covers (??) in previous versions. I have computers with access to both old and new versions of iPhoto and am wondering which to use. I want a hard cover book that looks professionally done... do the dust covers really not let you have an image on the front? Is it just a blank page? And does the older hard covers really have a sticker of the photo on the front??
And overall, what do you guys think of the quality of the hard cover photo books? Is 10 pages generally too thin? Should I try to beef it up a few pages? Do the pictures ever get wrongly cropped by Apple's manufacturing of the book? Do books look good?
Thanks!!

hiddenmuse:
I had a V6 theme book in progress when I converted over to V7. I looked at the new themes and the dust covers and decided that I really like them better than the glued photo cover. The dust jacket gives you some addition space for dedication and/or other information.
As far as image quality, I can't vouch for V7 as I've not ordered one with V7 as yet, today or tomorrow, but my other hardcover books were very good. Don't expect the quality you'd get in a commercial coffee table photo book as the printing is entirely different. When inspecting the photos in a large hardcover book under 10x magnification I could see the halftone pattern (dots). But not with the naked eye.
I found that the medium books had a halftone pattern visible under strong illumination with the naked eye. The newer softcover books are supposed to be printed at the same resolution as the large so that may not be a problem anymore.
Occasionally users will get oddly colored photos in their books due to some problem at the printers but Apple as been very good a correcting such problems in a timely manner.
As to the quality of the books, IMO they are excellent. I contacted Apple about printing quality and got the following response regarding materials and printing:
I contacted Apple and asked for information that I could pass on. Here's the reply I received from Apple:
"Thank you for contacting the Apple Print Products Customer Service.
I understand that you would like to know the printing process that is used and the color mode the files should be in, so you can better advise users in the iPhoto forum.
iPhoto version 4 or later, allows you to import and print files through the Apple Print Product service as RGB, grayscale, or CMYK color space. JPEG files with RGB color space are recommended for best results.
While iPhoto 2 can import files of various formats, including RGB color, grayscale, and CMYK, this version requires JPEG files with RGB color space when printing photos and books.
For more information regarding iPhoto 2, please visit the following article:
iPhoto: Color, Black and White Prints Appear Garbled or Distorted
For more information regarding iPhoto 5, please visit the following article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=165501
Here are some of the technical specifications for the books, cards, and calendars. I hope this gives you an idea about their quality and form.
BOOKS
All iPhoto books are printed using acid-free paper for long-lasting image quality. The photos are printed at a high resolution (300DPI if you use iPhoto 6). There is no external modification--such as sharpening or contrast adjustment--of the photos; what you see in the application is what is printed in the book.
Hardcovers Books
The cover is hard-bound and covered in linen. You select the linen color during the book-ordering process. The hardcover books have a solid, stiff binding that is glued and crimped. The internal pages, measuring 8.5 x 11 inches, are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock.
Softcover Books
The softcover books come in three sizes:
- Large 8.5 x 11 inches
- Medium 6 x 8 inches
- Small 2.6 x 3.5 inches
All of the softcover books have internal pages that are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock. The large softcover book has a white cover (Kromekoteplus Folding Cover, 16 point) with a cutout on the front that reveals the cover-page photo in the book. The covers for the medium and small softcover books have the cover image and title printed directly on the cover. All of the softcover books have a glued binding and feature a thick cover of McCoy 100# Cover Gloss paper stock.
CARDS
All cards are printed on McCoy 120# Silk Cover paper stock. The postcards measure 4 x 6 inches, and the greeting cards measure 5 x 7inches.
CALENDARS
All calendars measure 8 x 10 inches and are printed on McCoy 100# Silk Cover paper stock.
To ensure the best print quality, we have chosen to use Kodak NexPress technology. The press uses a dry toner, which is fused to the surface of the paper. Please see NexPress' site for more information:
KODAK NEXPRESS 2500 Digital Production Color Press
I hope you find this information helpful in answering questions on the iPhoto forum."
Also, users expectations will vary considerably. But every book that I've given as a gift, large hardcover or softcover medium were received with much enthusiasm. I don't think your Mom will be a bit disappointed.
For every book I give as a give I create an iDVD slideshow of it to give also. Tutorial #6 describes the procedure.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Video freezing in fcp4/video quality question

I recorded some DV footage on my firestore fs-4 as raw dv footage. i then dumped it to my hard drive. i then imported it to final cut pro 4. when i watch the footage in the viewer window, the video freezes after about 10 seconds but the audio continues to play. it seems like the computer cant keep up with the footage? then i dump a portion of the clip into the timeline and the audio render line comes up red. i render the clip, and the clip seems to play fine in the canvas window.
Two things:
1) can I use raw dv footage without it freezing up in the viewer window? if not, how can i convert the raw dv files to quicktime files with minimun compression?
2) why does the video that plays in the canvas window look of lesser quality than the raw dv clip playing in the viewer window? is there any way to maintain that higher raw quality for the final master? if so, can that only be achieved by dumping the raw dv footage straight in from the fs-4? or can it be done thru the traditional log and capture?
sorry about the dozen questions.
Thanks.
David

If i understand you correctly :
1) can I use raw dv footage without it freezing up in the viewer window? if not, how can i convert the raw dv files to quicktime files with minimun compression?
either put the clip on the timeline and render it, or render it and export as a QT MOVIE then reimport.
2) why does the video that plays in the canvas window look of lesser quality than the raw dv clip playing in the viewer window? is there any way to maintain that higher raw quality for the final master? if so, can that only be achieved by dumping the raw dv footage straight in from the fs-4? or can it be done thru the traditional log and capture?
dont know anything about fs-4, but i would check tyhe properties of the clip then check the properties of the sequence, for example (is the clip and the seq 29.97 48K, or is one different. what happens when you render, does it help. ALSO REMEMBER THIS :
FCP usually defaults to rendering some but not all, to make sure FCP renders everything - goto SEQUENCE/RENDER SELECTION and make sure you have checks on EVERYTHING, if not keep checking until everything is checked.
then go back and check SEQUENCE/RENDER ALL - do the same thing, god knows why FCP does not default this.....
let me know
thanks ADAM

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Premiere Workflow Final Product Quality Question - General

Clarification: This is just a general workflow question regardless of hardware/software/cpu/gpu. I'm also not asking about rendering times - just how the final product looks.
Do any one of the following 3 workflow methods have any bearing on the "quality" or "look/feel" of the final output of a project.
Specific effects are named in my examples just for the heck of it - the root of my question is if any given workflow with any given effects applied affects the quality of the final export/render.
#1) Raw Clip => Apply Sharpness => Apply Levels => Apply Three-Way CC => Export final product.
#2) Raw Clip => Apply Sharpness => Export Clip => Import Clip => Apply Levels => Export Clip => Import Clip => Apply Three-Way CC => Export final product.
#3) Raw Clip (sequence 1) => Apply Sharpness => Create sequence 2 and drag sequence 1 onto it => Apply Levels to sequence 2 => Create sequence 3 and drag sequence 2 onto it => apply Three-Way CC to sequence 3 => Export sequence 3 as final product.

Jim's answer is probably based on the fact that no matter what you do to a video, exporting it will degrade the quality almost every time. But that is not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary. What video would you have that did not require some adjustments, even if just a straight cut.
In any case, I think the answer you really want is:
#1 looks normal. So that's fine.
#2 will degrade the image every time you export unless you export to a completely lossless codec like Lagarith - which creates HUGE files and is totally unnecessary. It is just a bad workflow.
#3 is technically the same as #1. It's fine. No problem. In fact, it can be quite handy sometimes to work that way. Nesting does not cause the problems that exporting does.

Article Quality Question: Writing from the 1st person perspective

Hi guys,
Hope that you all had a good festive break. I've got a question for any of the TechNet Quality control group when they're around. It's relating to article perspective.
I've started an article series regarding CodePlex products for SharePoint (on this
link) and have in the past removed any first person perspectives as to make it as general as possible. It later struck me that this is somewhat misaligned as any review article is going to be viewed through the experience of the guy playing with the
goods.
So, whilst I appreciate that the TechNet wiki is mostly full of technical How to do and best practice guides, I'm wanting to add a different type of article to the wiki that can be referred too when people perhaps see that a CodePlex project doesn't have
a great deal of literature.
My question is, on that basis, would it be acceptable for me to write in a first person perspective just for these articles?
Many thanks,
Steven
Steven Andrews
SharePoint Business Analyst: LiveNation Entertainment
Blog: baron72.wordpress.com
Twitter: Follow @backpackerd00d
My Wiki Articles:
CodePlex Corner Series
Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves (or helps) your problem.

Hi Richard
I've seem some wiki article authors use them, but that's only typically when the article has been rushed or not formatted properly. I'm not against removing it entirely but just wanted to check in.
Thanks for your response.
Steven Andrews
SharePoint Business Analyst: LiveNation Entertainment
Blog: baron72.wordpress.com
Twitter: Follow @backpackerd00d
My Wiki Articles:
CodePlex Corner Series
Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves (or helps) your problem.

IPod Classic 160GB Sound Quality Questions

My question relates to this older thread found here http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1126861
Basically, it's that the new iPod Classics have inferior sound quality compared to older models because of the new Cirrus DAC, with reports of it sounding too bright/fatiguing/metallic/too much treble.
I love warm and laid back sound, so this concerns me and is the only thing stopping me from purchasing one. However, I am going to mainly use it in my car hooked up to a Pioneer P6100BT through USB which bypasses the iPod's DAC and uses the Pioneer one. Since I won't be using the iPod's DAC, will these sound issues not apply to me?
Thanks in advance!

The Apple Discussions thread begins in September 2007 - old 160GB iPod Classic.
This long thread suggests that the latest 160GB model has improved sound quality.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/7th-gen-2009-ipod-classic-160-sq-448992/
Richard

Audio quality questions

New to iTunes here. I think I'm settling in on using AAC at 256 kbs, VBR On as my default import mode for CDs onto my PowerBook HD as a decent compromise between quality/size. But I don't know what the difference is regarding the sample rate options of 44.1 vs 48 kHz. Right now I've got it set to auto, but am wondering what is the difference? And, any opinions regarding VBR On or Off on iTunes 7.5?
Also, how good in general is the output from a PowerBook (or various iPods) if playing an original CD or Apple Lossless file through a good stereo, vs. playing the same CD on a dedicated CD player on the same good stereo? Hope that made sense. What I am trying to get at is, I haven't been able to find any discussion on the relative quality of the D/A conversion or preamp capabilities of the portable players compared to "real" stereo equipment. Reason for asking is I had thought about ripping my CDs as Lossless, but figured I might not be getting all that the files could deliver if played back through average-level portables. Thanks for any insights or test links.

Purty Pitcher wrote:
I think I'm settling in on using AAC at 256 kbs, VBR On as my default import mode for CDs onto my PowerBook HD as a decent compromise between quality/size.
Sounds okay. Use Apple Lossless if you can spare the storage space or have a dedicated drive for your music. Then you won't have to rip your CDs again later if you find your needs change.
But I don't know what the difference is regarding the sample rate options of 44.1 vs 48 kHz. Right now I've got it set to auto, but am wondering what is the difference?
As Matthew Morgan rightfully pointed out, CD-DA uses 44.1 kHz, so don't upsample.
And, any opinions regarding VBR On or Off on iTunes 7.5?
It really doesn't make too much difference SQ-wise. Most likely, you'll just end up with bigger files on average with VBR enabled.
Also, how good in general is the output from a PowerBook (or various iPods) if playing an original CD or Apple Lossless file through a good stereo, vs. playing the same CD on a dedicated CD player on the same good stereo? Hope that made sense. What I am trying to get at is, I haven't been able to find any discussion on the relative quality of the D/A conversion or preamp capabilities of the portable players compared to "real" stereo equipment. Reason for asking is I had thought about ripping my CDs as Lossless, but figured I might not be getting all that the files could deliver if played back through average-level portables. Thanks for any insights or test links.
That's the toughest of your questions. Macs support bit-perfect pass-through out of the box when using digital out, so this is great for using your computer as a transport to an outboard DAC. Even the line out (in analog mode) of most recent Macs is pretty good in comparison with most "stock" computer hardware, as Apple tends to use very good DACs in their computers. My latest and greatest setup is as follows:
Hard drive containing Apple Lossless music > AirPort Express > harman/kardon HD 970 CD player (with digital input and extremely high quality DAC) > HeadAmp Gilmore Lite + Dedicated Power Supply > lots of different headphones.
There are many options you have as far as FireWire or USB DACs to use as a good and clean source for your music listening, and most of them have decent built-in headphone amplifier sections as well as support for balanced/unbalanced analog outputs for connecting to powered speakers or other hi-fi equipment, digital (coaxial or Toslink) output(s), and so forth.
iPods sound very good when using a line-out dock (there are many of them on the market) rather than the headphone jack. I use mine with an ALO Audio Cryo Micro Dock, a Ray Samuels Audio Hornet "M" headphone amplifier, and Etymotic ER-4S IEMs. I've been very happy with this portable setup for the past year, and really have no desire to improve upon it.

IDVD Quality Question

Kind People,
I shot my video on a Canon Vixia HF10, downloaded it to Final Cut Express to edit, exported it as Quick Time Movie, dropped it in iDVD, then played it on my TV and the quality was…..not good. The video was a little fuzzy and there were ghosts. Are there any settings I should go back and check in iDVD.
Wolfgang
FYI - I’m going to ask this same question in the Final Cut Express forum.

Hi
Exactly How did You go from FCE to iDVD ?
I do. Export as QuickTime .mov
• Not Selfcontained
• NO QuickTime conversion
How much free space is there on Your internal (boot) hard disk. THIS IS ESSENTIAL
due to that neither Mac OS or iDVD can store it's temp-files elsewhere.
Yours Bengt W

ITunes downloaded movies' quality question..

Hi everyone.
I just got me a Fifth Generation, 30GB iPod, and I can say, I am really satisfied with it. I synced all my songs in it, and a month from now, I am planning to buy an AV kit for it, for me to be able to watch all my iTunes bought movies in my 37" HDTV, and therefore, making it an advantage for me to just sync all the movies in my iPod instead of buying a hard copy DVD. What bugs me, though, is will the quality be really comparable to those of the DVD's once I plug and watch all my movies into my HDTV, and will the sound be clear? I am not so worried on the photos, for I am aware that it depends on their size. However, the movies are really posing a major question if I must or must not buy movies from iTunes, or just convert my DVD's to MP4 format.
To those who had already tried hooking up their 5G iPod into their Hi Def's, your help will be more than appreciated.
P.S., how long will it take me to download a single, full length movie from iTunes?
Again, Thanks.
Message was edited by: kerobi11

I don't have Hi-Def but the quality is excellent on a 23-inch analog set.
I have 1.5 Mbps DSL and I download a 2-hour movie in approximately 2-1/2 hours.

Quality Questions

I once did a corporate video that was about 2.5 hours long. When I was finished I backed up the project file and all of the misc files to a disc. The client now wants to make major modifications to the project. I come to find out that fcp hd's recapture method does not work with this project and I am forced to either recapture and edit the whole project, or I have a dvd of the film that I recaptured through mpeg streamclip and the video is now back in quicktime format.
The question is, is it worth the time to re-edit or can I just use the dvd-turned quicktime file as my new media source to edit. I pulled the new clip back into my editor any the quality seems comparable I was just wondering if their is going to be generational loss in this situation. I thanks you in advance for any help on this subject.

Why doesn't the recapture method work for this project? Capture a lot of footage with "uncontrolled device" selected?
I'd recapture if I were you. The quality will be far superior. But I have to ask...2.5 hour corporate video? Ouch... Not that what you did is bad or anything (didn't see it, can't tell) but unless it is THE LORD OF THE RINGS, I ain't sitting still to watch nothing for 2.5 hours....whether they pay for my time or not!
(Aside) KEVAN! Glad to see you back. Your absence has been felt. But darn it all I cannot recall your old screen name...what was it? And how's the G4 treatin' ya?
Shane

Unanswered quality question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for