If HDV audio sucks and DV audio is great..... at DVinfo.net

Shannon Rawls · January 26th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Rather then using a double recording system to get good audio....can't you just just downconvert HDV to DV via firewire, and VOILA you'll have the high quality PCM audio you need.

Simply replace the HDV audio tracks with the downconverted DV audio tracks, and all is well?

or is it because the Mpeg Audio is the original source, that the downconverted DV audio will not be good as if it was originally recorded DV?

- Shannon W. Rawls

Christopher C. Murphy · January 26th, 2005, 04:21 PM

The compressed audio is the original source on the HDV.

Betsy Moore · January 26th, 2005, 04:25 PM

And DV audio isn't great either, some argue it's just not as bad as HDV. Depending on your project, it's usually best to avoid DV and HDV audio altogether and record externally.

O, what I would give for this not to be so...

Chris Hurd · January 26th, 2005, 05:43 PM

...except that HDV audio doesn't exactly "suck." The bit rate after compression is 384 megabits per second, which is actually very good and hardly worth complaining about.

Betsy Moore · January 26th, 2005, 06:12 PM

Even the biggest HDV admirers (myself included) don't claim you should shoot an indie feature film or similar project with the current in-camera qualities of sound. The sad qualitative fact is prosumer audio has not kept pace with prosumer video and that's why so many of us are still tethered to DATs and Discmen.

Chris Hurd · January 26th, 2005, 06:54 PM

Betsy:

<< The sad qualitative fact is prosumer audio has not kept pace with prosumer video and that's why so many of us are still tethered to DATs and Discmen. >>

Well said -- and thanks for saying it so well!

Graham Hickling · January 26th, 2005, 06:55 PM

It's ridiculous to say that "HDV audio" at 384 megabits per second "sucks".

We are probably all agreed that on-camera audio usually does suck, but that's a separate issue.

Chris Hurd · January 26th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Thank you Graham, now we're getting somewhere.

The camera itself is the single worst place to mount a mic. And yet...

Here's the big problem with audio on the FX1 and Z1, and this is a real issue. It's that onboard mic. It ain't removeable, and it's right in the way if you want to mount a matte box -- it has to go on upside down or sideways, otherwise you're not getting any filters in there. And *that* also sucks.

See, on this board it's okay to say something sucks -- but you have to be right, otherwise we'll send operatives out to your front door to break a finger for each occurence.

Rhett Allen · January 26th, 2005, 07:29 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The camera itself is the single worst place to mount a mic. And yet...

Here's the big problem with audio on the FX1 and Z1, and this is a real issue. It's that onboard mic. It ain't removeable, and it's right in the way if you want to mount a matte box -- it has to go on upside down or sideways, otherwise you're not getting any filters in there. And *that* sucks. -->>>

And that's exactly why I question the prospects of the Z1 being a "pro" camera. What moron at Sony thought that was a feature that pro's wanted? I was even shocked that Panasonic put it on the DVX100. Maybe they have something else up their sleeve? Or maybe they are trying to make it undesirable enough to step up to the next level? Or maybe they are just stupid.

Chris Hurd · January 26th, 2005, 08:08 PM

Rhett, in my opinion it's a product development oversight. In the case of the Z1 it seems almost as if the consumer division handed the FX1 to them for a mild make-over; it doesn't appear to me to be a product of co-development. They did a great job as far as the internal feature set expansion is concerned, but on the outside all they've done is to slap on a mic clamp and add the XLR jacks. What I don't get is that the accessory shoe is removeable -- which is a fine thing -- but why not go a step further and make the on-board mic removeable. I mean, surely they could have seen the matte box problem coming?

Heath McKnight · January 26th, 2005, 08:36 PM

As a person who has just shot two short films on HDV, let me say the HDV audio going into the FX1 isn't bad, it seemed quite fine with a simple adapter to get the boom mics in. And I've used three different FX1's, by the way.

If one hasn't used the FX1, Z1 (which is kinda tough since it ain't out) or the HD10/HD1, speculating won't do any good. I have some serious experience with the FX1 and HD10, and aside from an old problem with "tinny" audio on the HD10, I had no real problems with audio on either camera in HDV mode.

heath

Shannon Rawls · January 26th, 2005, 08:48 PM

Heath, I can't wait to see your clips later this week. I own a hosting company with a rack of dedicated servers (www.hosting795.com), so if you need a place to stream them from for a while, then let me know. I'm sure Chris is going to take care of you tho. Also, I own the Hollywood DV Festival (formerly known as the MiniDV Festival (www.minidvfestival.com) and this year, I have extended the festival 2 extra days to accomodate pure HD screening. Hopefully your projects will be in the fest in December.

- Shannon W. Rawls

Heath McKnight · January 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM

Shannon,

I'll consider submitting to the fest, thanks! I'm capturing in iMovie HD now.

heath

Rhett Allen · January 26th, 2005, 09:29 PM

Shannon, I completely understand where you're coming from, no worries.

It does make sense that if the audio is originally compressed then any conversion could then be sub-standard to an authentic acquisition in DV in the first place. Then again, this topic is a little over my head as I don't yet fully understand ALL the details of HDV. I think it sounds interesting but I'm just waiting to see where it all goes. I'm still wondering how they can put that much more information on the same 25mb/s tape without "something" having to give. Is that "something" the audio? The color space? The image?
I have actually turned down job's editing MPEG-2 from DVD's that clients received from previous jobs because it never worked out well, and now I'm hearing that the industry may be embracing this same standard that just a few years ago wasn't good enough. Granted, it's not exactly the same but that's where I am left to wonder. Just goes to show you, we're afraid of what we do not know.

Hey Heath, did you ever think a few years ago that you would be capturing footage for a short on iMovie? It just sounds funny.

Heath McKnight · January 26th, 2005, 10:19 PM

Sounds funny, sure, and a little tricky since I never use it, but whatever works.

heath

January 26th, 2005, 03:50 PM	#1
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	If HDV audio sucks and DV audio is great..... Rather then using a double recording system to get good audio....can't you just just downconvert HDV to DV via firewire, and VOILA you'll have the high quality PCM audio you need. Simply replace the HDV audio tracks with the downconverted DV audio tracks, and all is well? or is it because the Mpeg Audio is the original source, that the downconverted DV audio will not be good as if it was originally recorded DV? - Shannon W. Rawls

January 26th, 2005, 04:21 PM	#2
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	The compressed audio is the original source on the HDV. __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

January 26th, 2005, 05:43 PM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	...except that HDV audio doesn't exactly "suck." The bit rate after compression is 384 megabits per second, which is actually very good and hardly worth complaining about. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 26th, 2005, 06:54 PM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Betsy: << The sad qualitative fact is prosumer audio has not kept pace with prosumer video and that's why so many of us are still tethered to DATs and Discmen. >> Well said -- and thanks for saying it so well! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 26th, 2005, 06:56 PM	#8
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Thank you Graham, now we're getting somewhere. The camera itself is the single worst place to mount a mic. And yet... Here's the big problem with audio on the FX1 and Z1, and this is a real issue. It's that onboard mic. It ain't removeable, and it's right in the way if you want to mount a matte box -- it has to go on upside down or sideways, otherwise you're not getting any filters in there. And that also sucks. See, on this board it's okay to say something sucks -- but you have to be right, otherwise we'll send operatives out to your front door to break a finger for each occurence. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 26th, 2005, 04:25 PM	#3
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	And DV audio isn't great either, some argue it's just not as bad as HDV. Depending on your project, it's usually best to avoid DV and HDV audio altogether and record externally. O, what I would give for this not to be so...

January 26th, 2005, 06:12 PM	#5
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	Even the biggest HDV admirers (myself included) don't claim you should shoot an indie feature film or similar project with the current in-camera qualities of sound. The sad qualitative fact is prosumer audio has not kept pace with prosumer video and that's why so many of us are still tethered to DATs and Discmen.

January 26th, 2005, 06:55 PM	#7
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	It's ridiculous to say that "HDV audio" at 384 megabits per second "sucks". We are probably all agreed that on-camera audio usually does suck, but that's a separate issue.

January 26th, 2005, 07:29 PM	#9
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The camera itself is the single worst place to mount a mic. And yet... Here's the big problem with audio on the FX1 and Z1, and this is a real issue. It's that onboard mic. It ain't removeable, and it's right in the way if you want to mount a matte box -- it has to go on upside down or sideways, otherwise you're not getting any filters in there. And that sucks. -->>> And that's exactly why I question the prospects of the Z1 being a "pro" camera. What moron at Sony thought that was a feature that pro's wanted? I was even shocked that Panasonic put it on the DVX100. Maybe they have something else up their sleeve? Or maybe they are trying to make it undesirable enough to step up to the next level? Or maybe they are just stupid.

January 26th, 2005, 08:08 PM	#10
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Rhett, in my opinion it's a product development oversight. In the case of the Z1 it seems almost as if the consumer division handed the FX1 to them for a mild make-over; it doesn't appear to me to be a product of co-development. They did a great job as far as the internal feature set expansion is concerned, but on the outside all they've done is to slap on a mic clamp and add the XLR jacks. What I don't get is that the accessory shoe is removeable -- which is a fine thing -- but why not go a step further and make the on-board mic removeable. I mean, surely they could have seen the matte box problem coming? __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 26th, 2005, 08:36 PM	#11
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	As a person who has just shot two short films on HDV, let me say the HDV audio going into the FX1 isn't bad, it seemed quite fine with a simple adapter to get the boom mics in. And I've used three different FX1's, by the way. If one hasn't used the FX1, Z1 (which is kinda tough since it ain't out) or the HD10/HD1, speculating won't do any good. I have some serious experience with the FX1 and HD10, and aside from an old problem with "tinny" audio on the HD10, I had no real problems with audio on either camera in HDV mode. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 26th, 2005, 08:48 PM	#12
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Heath, I can't wait to see your clips later this week. I own a hosting company with a rack of dedicated servers (www.hosting795.com), so if you need a place to stream them from for a while, then let me know. I'm sure Chris is going to take care of you tho. Also, I own the Hollywood DV Festival (formerly known as the MiniDV Festival (www.minidvfestival.com) and this year, I have extended the festival 2 extra days to accomodate pure HD screening. Hopefully your projects will be in the fest in December. - Shannon W. Rawls

January 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM	#13
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Shannon, I'll consider submitting to the fest, thanks! I'm capturing in iMovie HD now. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 26th, 2005, 09:29 PM	#14
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	Shannon, I completely understand where you're coming from, no worries. It does make sense that if the audio is originally compressed then any conversion could then be sub-standard to an authentic acquisition in DV in the first place. Then again, this topic is a little over my head as I don't yet fully understand ALL the details of HDV. I think it sounds interesting but I'm just waiting to see where it all goes. I'm still wondering how they can put that much more information on the same 25mb/s tape without "something" having to give. Is that "something" the audio? The color space? The image? I have actually turned down job's editing MPEG-2 from DVD's that clients received from previous jobs because it never worked out well, and now I'm hearing that the industry may be embracing this same standard that just a few years ago wasn't good enough. Granted, it's not exactly the same but that's where I am left to wonder. Just goes to show you, we're afraid of what we do not know. Hey Heath, did you ever think a few years ago that you would be capturing footage for a short on iMovie? It just sounds funny.

January 26th, 2005, 10:19 PM	#15
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Sounds funny, sure, and a little tricky since I never use it, but whatever works. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog