Originally Posted by MattLP
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant 32 Mbps.
Though that should have been blindingly obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of video editing since it's pretty standard for 1080p H.264.
b/s and 3.2M
b/s, or 32MB/s, or 320Mb/s. All possible. No way for me to guess, and the differences would be huge. Recording options are VAST these days. There are some common standards but good video recorders have lots of hardware compression modes. Even decent "pro-sumer" cams with built in recording tend to have a variety of recording options.
I do apologies for being so literal in my previous response on the matter. I can understand why that would be frustrating. However, I think you're holding me to an unreasonable expectation here. Anyone with "basic" knowledge, might just assume 32Mbps, but I
can't assume that, as every bitrate I've ever seen used or worked with myself hasn't
been 32Mbps. That's just one possibility in a very long list of them.
bps can be edited on a tablet or a laptop or almost any hard drives made in the last 10 years without a serious drive related holdup. The fact that you said you had a HD bottleneck when working with it points to something far greater than 32Mbps. Mechy drives at their WORST (like the center of the spindle on a low rpm laptop drive) are good for ~300-400Mbps these days.
3.2Gbps (4K RAW 10-bit) requires SSDs or mechanical RAID.
If you were having a playback or bottleneck issue working with 32Mbps footage on a machine, then it would be worth investigation into where that holdup was, so as to avoid it in a future projects.
And of course I also referred to uncompressed AVIs.
AVI is a container type. The contents could vary wildly. Uncompressed 720P? 4K? 24FPS? 300FPS? Color depth? It's not that simple.
Furthermore, as a conservatory-trained musician with a highly trained ear I'm just going to assume all you do is look at numbers and never actually listen to audio.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
There are $30 sound cards that will get you 80% of the way to the excellence offered by the $200 sound card, there are $100-170 motherboards with on-board sound that will do the same.
There was a time that I believed that a wonderful amplifier could "solve" the woes of any poorly designed speaker because I gave into the mysticism of it rather than observed the science of it. I think you're making the same mistakes. I have nothing against premium audio gear as my ears are hypersensitive to distortion, noise, etc. Gives me a headache. I love nice audio gear; but found out a long time ago, that as is the case with most consumer electronics, the incremental steps of quality on the high end have logarithmic price increases. It doesn't make sense to step into any of the logarithmic price points on a single component of a system and then surround it with ordinary boom box grade flea market trash. Common sense tells me that the same money spread out buys a better result. A pair of amplified monitors for $100 can only be so good. I'm saying, they aren't good enough to justify a $200 sound card. If your ears tell you something different, then that is just proof of the point I was making about the human factors involved. We are all subject to human error and placebo effect.
Here's what $45 worth of crossover components looks like: Hint: This still
doesn't result in an "ideal" crossover. It is still flawed
in many ways. Phase tracking and reactance are only mediocre in this design (it's been through the ringer of complex simulation and I haven't found a great solution yet).
Point I'm making is that, a mediocre 2-way passive crossover that actually solves some of the major hurdles like baffle step loss (but not all of the little ones), costs about $45 in components to make. Some corners could be cut and this could be done for $25 instead without too many losses. That said, you're not going to find even $20 worth of crossover components in a $50 amplified monitor.
On these speakers, onboard sound wouldn't be particularly great because they have the dynamic capabilities to expose the flaws. For the same reason I wouldn't spend $200 on a sound card to power a $100 pair of amplified monitors, I wouldn't take the $40 worth of amplification out of those cheap monitors and use it to power these speakers. It's a recipe that dissolves the areas of advantage. Like spending $300 on an X79 motherboard, and then failing to put the CPU that gives that platform the advantage on it (the 6 core). When we spend our own money, we can do whatever novel thing we desire regardless, when we're spending other peoples money, practical value and common sense should be front stage.Edited by mdocod - 3/22/14 at 12:30pm