Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/10/2005, 6:48 PM
Any weaknesses in the original audio are tremendously exposed when compressed. If you have "echoey" audio to start with, a compressed stream will be terrible.
Dan Sherman wrote on 1/10/2005, 7:05 PM
Think re-recording audio and syncing is a realistic option?


Dan Sherman wrote on 1/10/2005, 7:10 PM
Disgrard that question.
That would be tedious indeed.
It's re-shoot time.
I'm coming out of denial.
jaegersing wrote on 1/10/2005, 7:26 PM
Peabody, I just watched and listened to part of the video (using an IBM notebook). The audio is not hi-fi quality by any means, but it is no worse than a lot of what you hear on the web, and it is better than some.

I think the audio is probably overcompressed, and while a better source recording will give you better final results, if you need to use this much compression you will definitely hear some degradation. If anything, you might need to use even MORE compression, because the download speed is very slow. Perhaps you could play around with the compression settings, allocating more bitrate to audio and less to video?

Have you let the client see the results yet? It could be that they already meet her expectations. Anyway, before deciding on a reshoot, you could take a sample of video with clean audio and subject it to the same amount of compression as this one. I suspect it might be almost as lispy, in which case a reshoot is not the answer.

Richard Hunter
Dan Sherman wrote on 1/10/2005, 7:36 PM
She's a veteran radio announcer turned realtor, and knows what she sounds like.
Therein lies the problem.
Another client would wave it off.
I will although copy you repsonse and present it to her.
You vever know!

Thanks Richard.