newbie 2000 audio question

hi all,
First off, happy holidays and thanks so much for sharing your knowledge. i just ordered my vx2000 to use to record my son and his jazz combo. I am very interested in the audio and thought I just needed an off camera shotgun mic. After reading all the posts about the hiss and different mics etc I am REALLy confused.
The other problem is I am just a complete nitwit when things get too complicated. I did go for the 4 year warranty and a wide angle lens which I don't think i will use since I will be indoors most of the time.
I filmed a gig acouple of weeks ago with my older hi-8 from the back of the room and all I got was the folks in the crowd talking so I decided to spring for the new camcorder. i was going to get the Sony50 but the price of the 2000 was too cheap to pass up.
Thanks so much for any help,
Dave

[Matt Stahley]

Happy Holidays! you would be better off if you used an external audio recorder such as a minidisc and if you can get a feed from the sound board that would be even better this will eliminate the talking crowd for the most part.. otherwise a shotgun mic may not be the best mic to use for a concert recording. i have used an Audio-Technica 822 stereo mic plugged directly into a sony minidisc recorder for some small jazz shows with very excellent results placed at the rear of the venue it picked up ambient sounds but the music was at a higher level and the ambience just added to the whole "live" feel to the recording.
i have a canon wd-58 WA on my 2000 and it pretty much stays on the cam at all times. an excellent lens for the money. i especially like to use a wide lens for indoor shots myself.

thanks for the tip. There is no soundboard. Just me. Is the built in mic that bad? i hope I made the right decision. The tvr50 is looking mighty inexpensive right about now.
Actually, most of the gigs the band is playing and the audience is not talking so I guess I should be ok with a good add on mic.
Thanks again, Dave

[Jeff Donald]

I've put wireless mics on musical instruments with very good success. It eliminates background noise very successfully. If the expense of the wireless is too much your next best bet would be a wired mic to the stage.

Jeff

[Mike Rehmus]

Davie,

I hate to ruin your expectations but as long as your microphone is at the back of the club, you are going to get crowd noise and poor music.

It's the physics of the situation that is beating you. A Million dollar camera would sound just as bad.

Unlike video, audio has to be mic'd very close to get satisfactory sound. That's why the microphones are so very close to the performers and their instruments. Ugly as those bits and pieces are, it is the ONLY way to get good sound.

You might like what you get if you put a microphone up with the band but probably not. If the club/band have a sound system, get a feed from them. Feed that into one channel of your camera, feed the other with ambient sound. Mix them in post.

Since your point of view is from the back of the room, a viewer would not really expect much of a stereo sound field so you can simplify and record it Mono. Then in post you can split it into identical left and right channels after you mixed the recorded tracks.

In a club environment, the 2000 will give you a much better picture than any of the cameras you mentioned. By light-years.

thanks. I sort of new that but was hoping for a magic bullet. I am not mixing this just putting to tape and sending to relatives.
Should I even bother with an external mic?
Again, I cannot thank you guys for enough for sharing your knowledge.
Dave
ps I also feel better about spending the bucks!!

[Mike Rehmus]

They will notice bad sound. Much quicker than bad video. So it's really a decision you have to make. More money and more work.

OTOH, if this is just for one or two times, I'd not worry too much.

[Mark Austin]

I recenty hauled about $15,000 worth of recording equipment out to do a multitrack recording at the CD release show of a Houston songwriter. She was quiet, the crowd was loud. I had to toss out 4.5 hours of recorded stuff because it was just total crap (2x 2.25 hrs stereo). We ended up using the mix I ran from her stage mic and a guitar (through a countryman DI) to my API Pre's then to a Tascam MX2424 at 24/96. I used an active splitter so at least I had the direct feed and the sound guy had the split (post transformer). If you want to hear the results, ask Paul Sedillo for a clip of Lise Lidell. It took a fair amount of time in post to get it to that level, and a touch of reverb smothed it up a tad also. It's hard to do with the right stuff let alone just an on camera mic. Try to get as close to the group (or PA) as possible with a couple of mics, and record to the camera and DAT/MD or what ever as well, you can use the camera audio tracks for audio cue sync if nothing else.
my 2 cents,
Mark

I hope you had a few cold ones to sooth the pain!!


the camera came today! I ordered an AT mic from the very nice guys at equipmentemporium. You know, I just came to the conclusion that what ever I do will be better than what I am doing now.
His next gig is Jan2. I will report the results.
thanks, Dave

[Mark Austin]

<<<-- Originally posted by dave ratner : I hope you had a few cold ones to sooth the pain! thanks, Dave -->>>

Well no but, after a few more gray hairs, the final result was really good compared to what we started with.
When it was laid back to the video it looked (thanks to Paul's editing) and sounded great. The crowd noise was aceptable and you definately know it was shot live. It's hard to accept that less than perfect for me is great for someone else. She loved the shorts, and the total package was quite good. I guess I want everything to be perfect every time, a luxury I have in the studio where it's a controlled environment. The funny thing is that in my punk video that was cut to an album track there is no crowd noise, and it doesn't sound "real" so now I have to figure out how to achieve a happy medium of crowd to band noise :)
Please let us know how you make out, I'm interested to see the clips.
Mark