Mic solutions - on/off camera - TC synching
 

OK I am looking at several solutions and need a couple of opinions...

My camera is a PD-150.

I am looking to get a decent, cheap wireless lavalier mic. Right now I have narrowed it down to the Audio Technica Pro-88W and the Azden WMS pro.

Both have pretty much the same specs. Any opinions on reception quality? Audio quality? This would be for a single person in front of the camera speaking. THere will be times when that person is talking or interviewing someone else, so I would need the capability to easily & cheaply replace the lavalier MIC with a standard hand held mic. So, even though I am not buying a handheld unit just yet, that IS in the future, and the quality of the handheld units that work with the recievers WILL come into play in my final descision. I am leaning towards the Audio Technicas for that reason, but not set on it.

For recording indoors in a stationary environment (recording a concert, or several people in a room) I am probabky going to get a pair of Oktava MC-012s and get the Hypercariiod capsules for them.

So my question her relates to recording on or off camera.

My options are running the mics directly into the PD-150, or into a mixer and then into the PD-150.

However, if possible, I would rather record to a PC instead just because it gives me the flexibility of moving the camera around and not worrying about mic cabling. I can set up the mics, send them to a mixer and into a PC, and just leave that alone as I reposition the camera as needed, esp if doing anything hand-held in a room, which I see myself doing a lot of.

I would record into Steinberg NuEndo on a PC probably using a USB recording interface, running at 16/44.1

My understanding is that the PD-150, when recording in either DVCam mode, or recording directly to disk, gives me true SMTPE timecode, whereas recording in MiniDV mode gives me timecode, but not true SMPTE.

So, I would record the picture w/ the PD-150 (DVCam) and the audio to a PC. Both would be SMPTE timecoded, and then I can merge the audio & video together on post.

Am I asking for trouble doing this?

Opinions? Tips? Comments?

Thanks!

Alex F

I would record directly into the 150 esp. if its mainly dialog.No need for a mixer unless you are using more than 2 mics at a time.Just to simplify for post.If using 3 or more mics I would want to multitrack all the mics so i have total control in post so the PC may be a good idea. Record each mic to its own track.I dont think USB could handle more than 2 inputs at a time so firewire would be a better option. Ive never had a problem syncing audio to video by recording a hand clap at the start of each shot with the on cam mic and a boom.Also you would want to record on the PC at 16/48k since the dv audio is at that sample rate to begin with and will save some time when you dump everything into your NLE.

I'd go with the AT for the following reasons:

1. No compander
2. Awesome sound for low cost, but keep distance short
3. Great customer support from AT
4. I've never had good luck with anything Azden, and never known any professional happy with anything Azden.
5. You see the cheap AT's on quite a few film sets, so even Hollywood likes em'.

I have never used any Azden stuff, but I have seen their catalogs and heard others' opinions. They have always seemed very overpriced for the quality, so I figured that between the Azden & AT at around the same price the AT would be much better, but you never know. Behringer has a couple of good products amongst a sea of really bad stuff, so the same might have been true for Azden. Thanks for the opinion, I'm going to get the AT.

As far as Hollywood using AT, well I have never seen any live musicians actually using Azden for wireless either. :-) In the wireless world *usually* you get what you pay for, and when for the same price you can get a better Samson or Sony or AT.

Too bad X-Wire units are all but impossible to find. Those were digital wireless units that were simply amazing, esp for instruments. THey could simulate cable length and sounded better than anything else. THey were around $900 for the unit. The company was supposed to come out with a half priced model, but went under before they could.

As far as the rest of it goes, I will be recording (when setting up the stationary mics) sometimes talking (interview type stuff) and sometimes music (live, in a recording studio, people playing solo, etc.) I want to get all of that in stereo. Using a mixer or even recording via a USB soundcard and micing in software will give me more flexibility and control, and probably better sound since I can control the quality of the pre-amps, and the audio engine that is doing the recording and converting. That and it will be easier in terms of if I have to move the camera as mentioned before.

As far as synching up with a clap, my concern is that of drift, esp. if it is a music video or a concert film. I am concerned that if I do a lot of post processing (effects or otherwise), that the video will start to drift from the sound. I do have tools that can fix the audio to match the video and you won't notice, but it is a tedious and long process!

Are these drift concerns founded, or have you guys in general not really noticed this, or what?

BTW, thanks for the 16/48 tip. I never realized that minDV, etc. recorded in that format.

Thanks,

Alex F

did you HAVE TO HAVE an xlr adapter for you azden wms pro? or is it possible to just plug it directly into the microphone input... i have a gl2...

Why record using 16/44.1? The standard sample rate for video is 48kHz and that's what you should use if you're going double system to a an external recorder or a laptop.

The problem you're going to run into with using timecode for sync is there's no convenient way to get 'code from the PD150 to the recorder or computer or vice versa, AFAIK the PD150 doesn't have timecode in or out. That means that while your audio will have a timestamp and the video will have timecode, they won't be slaved to each other so as to make them identical, thus destroying their usefulness in establishing frame accurate sync. You'll still need a clapper slate on each scene in order to align the audio and video. Whether the PD150's code is SMPTE or not is irrelevant.

Steve, some cameras have time code in/out, e.g. the XH-G1. And some recorders have time code, like the Sound Devices 702T. Is it necessary to have BOTH camera and recorder with time code, or is necessary to only have one with time code, since I believe you slave one off of the other?

And if only camera OR recorder time code is necessary, is it better for audio purposes to have the camera generating the time code or the recorder generating the time code, or does it not matter?

Thanks a lot (and I hope this ? made sense, LOL)!

If you're recording double system, i.e. a recording device separate from the camera, and you're using timecode to establish sync you need code on both devices and they must be set identically to less than a maximum of 33 milliseconds deviation (the length of one frame). If someone in the scene claps their hands one time and the clap occurs at 00:14:37;18 (zero hours, 14 minutes, 37 seconds, and 18th frame) on the timecode recorded with picture, the sound of the "pop" in the sound recording must also occur at 00:14:37;18 in the timecode recorded recorded with the sound. This means the camera and the sound recording device must talk to each other and either the camera sends code to the recorder or the other way around (the norm in video production is sound slaves to video, for film it's the other way around but via a smart slate - most film cameras don't do code).

Slaving on off the other means they have to talk to each other. If the camera is the master it has to send timecode to the recorder so it must have a timecode out connector. Using the audio recorder as the master means the camera must receive code from the recorder, hence it requires a camera with a timecode input connector. The PD150 has neither. Ambient has annouced a reader that can retrieve camera timecode from its LANC terminal but I'm not certain they're shipping yet and it won't be cheap when it does.

You also have to complication not only of establishing sync but the problem of maintaining it over long'ish shots. Timecode in itself only serves to establish sync but if the sample clocks (different completely from the timecode clock) aren't running at absolutely identical rates the sync will drift over time, the length of time it takes to become noticable depending on how close or far away the two clock rates are from each other.

FWIW, I'd record 24bit/48 kHz or 24/96.

Drift isn't an issue with most scenes but then most shots are fairly short. But you're talking about music concert shoots it's going to be a different ballgame. "Austin City Limits" is on the tube in the background as I type this and if that's the sort of thing you're looking for as concert footage be prepared for some sticker shock on the hardware they use to get everything coordinated and synced up.

Steve, could you possilbly explain the difference between timecode clocks and sample clocks? And is synching sound and video for long scenes only an issue when you are not slaving?

BTW, I just ordered a two books on the subject of sound and will be ordering an third, so hopefully these basic ?'s will end soon. THANKS for all your help.

As I'm sure you know, all digital recorders convert the analog signal to digital by sampling it X times a second and recording the resulting string of numbers. 44.1kHz means that 1 second of audio contains 44,100 samples, the video standard of 48kHz means 1 second contains 48,000 samples, etc. The device's sample rate clock is the 'timepiece' that controls this process and all digital recording and playback devices have 'em. So imagine you're recording some sound destined to be matched up later to some video you're shooting at the same time but your audio recorder's clock is a terribly fast, running at, say, 50kHz instead of 48kHz like it should. If we record a 10 second scene, the 10 seconds of sound will be represented by 500,000 samples. Now we load it into our editor to sync it to picture. The editor enforces the standard and says each 48,000 samples we've given it represents 1 second of sound so as far as its concerned, that file we gave it containing 500,000 samples is 10.42 seconds long and that's how it plays it back. Meanwhile, the picture file we've given it, recorded in a camera that DOES have an accurate clock, plays back in exactly 10 seconds. So if we have lined them up so they start together, after 10 seconds the picture is done but the sound still has almost half a second left to go - they've started in synch but drifted apart. Now real world clocks are pretty accurate these days so the situation isn't as severe as my example but the principle still holds true and sound will inevitably drift out of synch with picture over time unless measures are taken to make sure the sample clocks in the camera and the audio recorder are running at exactly the same rate. Cheap recorders like iRivers and consumer mini-discs will drift out relatively quickly; professional recorders like the Sound Devices series (just as an example) will be accurate enough to hold to within a frame for perhaps 15 to 20 minutes or so but they'll all eventually drift.

A single master clock called "house synch" is commonly used in broadcasting to drive all the devices in a facility through a process called "genlock" to insure multiple cameras and audio recorders are running together. For field production a set of clock devices such as Ambient's Lockit boxes that can be tuned to each other can allow you to keep cameras with genlock inputs and audio recorders with wordclock inputs locked together to within 1 frame every 24 hours accuracy without a physical connection between them but be prepared for a bit of sticker shock - they run about US$1000 each and you need one for each camera and recording device.

Timecode is based on what is essentially a time of day clock and there are a lot of variations on how it is recorded and used, with differences between various film and video workflows and differences with the various methods of recording audio (analog, DAT, file-based) as well. While in the device itself, it may ultimately be derived from the same timebase oscillator as the sample clock, it is a separate counter altogether, meaning that it is essentially a second clock. It timestamps the video file with the exact time each specific frame of video was recorded and in the audio file the time a specifc instant of sound was recorded. But for those recorded timestamps to be useful for aligning the two files, obviously the clock in the camera and the clock in the recorder must be set to read exactly the same time.

Note that receiving external timecode only sets the slave device's timecode clock counter to read the same as that of the master, it DOES NOT necessarily synchronize the two devices' sample clock rates. The SD 7xx series of recorders, for example, do NOT derive sample clock from external timecode sent to them - instead you have to send them wordclock to sync the sample rate to an external source. Think of two clocks on the wall - you can set them togther to read the same any time you choose to do so, but if one of them runs faster or slower than the other they wont stay together once you've set them. As the ancient proverb says, a man with one watch always knows the exact time but a man with two watches is never really sure <g>.

So the upshot of it is, slaving the sample clocks in the two devices makes them run at the same rate while jamming the timecode makes them read the same time at that specific instant. Matching timecode is one way to align them to each other at a single point in time. Slaving the rates makes sure they don't drift out of alignment as you move away from the single line-up point.

Steve,

There's a place for you in Heaven.

Other thoughts.

Double recording to a 702T would give you better quality audio (if that's a factor), but you'd STILL need eyes and fingers on to capture the sound. Audio recording is NOT set and forget.

Does the PD150 have a LANC port? There's a box out there that strips SMPTE from the LANC signal.

"For recording indoors in a stationary environment (recording a concert, or several people in a room) I am probably going to get a pair of Oktava MC-012s and get the Hypercariiod capsules for them."

For reasons so great in number that only someone like Steve House has the patience to answer (especially on a national holiday), this micing approach will not yield the best results for either situation.

Regards,

TyFord

Thanks Steve, for that comprehensive summary!

Couple comments:
Sample clocks in Prosumer and Professional gear really have gotten so much better than they used to be. Timecode started way back, and analog video and audio magnetic tape players had many difficulties in synchronizing. So, when we spoke of "timecode lock", we were talking about servo-locking the motors of physical players for recording or playback/recording (editing). These were some of the first uses of digital technology in video - the actual clocks & synchronizers.

The world has changed. Nonlinear editors enable all kinds of sync tricks on the timeline that used to be impossible. It has become much more possible to fix sync, because: cameras can record reference audio tracks; 2nd system sound can be stretched or shrunk to match; and those sample clocks really have gotten much better, meaning stretch & shrink is rarely neeeded.

Having said all that, it's one thing to sync up a several hour concert recording with multiple cameras and separate audio recording, and quite another to sync several hundred documentary clips, no matter whether they were sample-rate-locked or not!

I've relatively easily synced many recordings, some with wild (unlocked) timecode, some with no timecode at all. YMMV, but, you should try this out yourself with your style of shooting and editing before deciding about double-system sound. (note: Vegas is a particularly good NLE for sync work)

Which means that there is no one right answer for all shoots. Double-system sound is not universally better than sound on the camcorder because time and money are always considerations. So are crew size & capability, so is the experience and speed of the editor.

Note also that for audio recording, time code stripes that referenced every "frame" of audio went out with timecode dat acquisition. Now, with very digital flash or HD recorders using formats like broadcast wave, all we get is an initial timestamp when recording starts. Which works, because of those better sample clocks.

As long as you can find it...

This is a box I might be interested in too, but it's a mystery where to buy it. Does anyone know of an actual place to get one?

Very true, but when you playback a recording on devices like the SD 7xx series they take the timestamp in the file header and regenerate the timecode for output just as if it had been recorded in a parallel track to begin with. The important point is that in DV workflows, timecode in and of itself doesn't prevent drift but merely provides an identiable common point of reference in the audio and video streams to allow them to be aligned to each other in post.

Carlos,

putting LANC and SMPTE into Google gives me

http://www.spcomms.com/lanc_interface/index.html
http://www.spcomms.com/lport/

Regards,

Ty Ford

Some people commented that those were not really available, but my information may be wrong.

Maybe it's the journ alist in me, but I never trust "some people" when finding out for myself is so easy.

I have heard of problems with Zeitx delivering a time code slate. Don't know if their LANC SMPTE reader is any good or available.

http://www.zeitx.com/site3/lanclump.htm

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well, "some people" is who we relate with on these forums. If I made a search I would probably find the names, but I didn't think it was worth it.

But I never found anyone that actually bought one of those converters and used them. And then reported and how they did.

Ambient supposedly has introduced a Tiny LANC Reader that extracts code from the LANC terminal but it's damned hard to find details about it on their site.

True enough, but not really relevant to today's common workflows - again, we're done with synching machines, now we'll take the files off of the 744 and put them up on the NLE timeline for sync.

Quite so. And, it should be pointed out, timecode lock of yesteryear was extremely finicky, and very, very expensive as well. Those were the days that online edit suites costing hundreds of USD per hour were a common way to do final edit and finish, requiring multiple hundreds of thousands or millions in capital expense and lots of maintenance engineering.

We can whine about the sad state of timecode support in today's prosumer equipment (and I do!), but the truth is we can do an amazing amount of work, including ersatz timecode sync with a total investment of less than $10,000 US for Audio/Video acquisition and editing, and no one would want to go back.

I'm looking at hooking up an Edirol R4 Pro (don't have it yet) with a Sony Z1U to record four tracks of audio on the Edirol as well as routing two of those tracks to the Z1U audio inputs. I've combed the Edirol and Z1U manuals and brochures. There is mention of starting/stopping the Edirol from an external controller, but I really do not have the ability to test before purchase. Is there any hope of connecting the Z1U Lanc to the L-port of the Edirol for deck control ? Am I high ?

Basically, I want to record four audio tracks (two from stereo mic, two from wireless mics) on an Edirol from the Sony Z1U camera angle and two audio tracks on an FX1 from its own camera angle. Immediately after the session, I'd like to be able to play backfour of the audio tracks from the Z1U for a video review. Am I really high ?

I've not used either the R4 or the R4 Pro!

My understanding is that Control-L, aka. Lanc control is only available on the R4. From what I've read, yes, an R4 would start and stop recording slaved to the Lanc port of a Z1. With some care (ie. a structured process, some notes taken, etc.) this gives you a set of audio files that will closely match your video clips transferred from tape with scene detection.

Moving up to the R4 Pro, you lose Lanc, but gain timecode. Typically, with something like a Z1, you would do free-run timecode that corresponds to time-of-day. Because it's free-run, and you're setting TC on the Z1 and R4 Pro by hand, without the benefit of jamming, this will typically be several frames off.

After doing rough sync in the NLE to timecode, fine sync would then be accomplished by slipping R4 audio in the timeline to match camera audio with no echo. This sounds harder than it is.

A clapper slate or TC slate can be used with the R4 Pro as well, giving visual reference for more exact sync. A clapper slate can be used with the R4. Your style of shooting might or might not benefit from using either slate.

If you search back in the archives, Douglas Spotted Eagle has posted positive experiences of using the Lanc capabilities of the R4. If it were me... I'd probably go for the R4 Pro and timecode. It's also a later model, and has some other nice features that improve on the R4.

Thanks for the help, Seth. I found Douglas's posts, but they're from 2005 and indicate that the R4 pro was not available to him at the time. Would you go for the R4Pro even if you have a free-run timecode machine with no time-code output such as the Sony Z1? I've given up on my dream of having a horu channel field recorder that will play back with my camcorder. Now, I'm wondering just how tough it will be to sync those audio files given that my timecode won't be that accurate.

R4 Will stay in sync
 

I have the R4 (not pro) and can at least tell you that it will stay in sync with my VX2100. My test was accomplished in 96/24 at over an hour time span. Capturing my DV to PPro and dumping it to the time line, then syncing my R4 files to the time line, everything stayed in sync, I had no drift.

That's reassuring. So, you're take on the Start/Stop record control via the Lanc connection is that it is quite close sample accurate or at least within our tolerance ? The non-pro R4 may then actually work better than hand-configured time sync with the Sony Z1 footage.

No, I have not used the Lanc connection yet. To tell you the truth, I don't think I will have that much of a need for it. My main purpose in purchasing the R4 was for a contentious audio recording from the beggining of the ceremony to the end. I don't want my R4 to stop recording if I have to stop my camcorder and change a tape in the middle of the ceremony. Likewise, I want a contentious recording at the reception, I'll sync my video to the audio as needed, as long as I know there is no drift in the audio recording from start to finish I'm good to go, the audio is my "master bed"

The sync test that I described above was accomplished with my camera pointed at the TV while I played a DVD (concert) on the TV. I did a clap test at the beggining of the recording standing in front of the camera, and another clap test more than an hour later at the end of the recording (and a few claps in-between). As the camera was recording, so was the R4. The R4 was recording in what's called the 4CHx1 That's a 4 channel recording to 1 four-channel wav file. It's pretty cool actually, when you go to place the single wav file on your Premirere Pro time-line, Premiere will automatically place each channel in it's own track (i.e. 4 mono tracks) I had the left & right line out of my DVD player connected driectly to the R4 inputs 1 & 2, while I had external mics connected to the R4 on inputs 3 & 4. As I stated in my privious post, once I captured my DV footage and copied my wav file from the R4 into my PPro project and got it all in sync with the first clap, all of the claps were in frame.

Hope that helps.

Yes, I would go for the R4 Pro. Your mileage may vary. I'd rather have the TC capabilities that would better support the recorder to be untethered from the camera. But if you'll always have the recorder next to the camera you'll save $700 with the R4,... and your rough sync will work (with a little care). I have to imagine that you'd still be doing some sliding of R4 audio against camera audio for fine sync.

I've synched footage from two Z1s and a Sound Devices 744T, using rough time-of-day timecode. No problem with the workflow I briefly described above. I work in Vegas.

I've synched footage from a PD150 with sound from an HHB Portadisc - no timecode and no Lanc. A little more difficult to find sync points. This was with full hour-long takes; if you're doing this kind of sync it is helpful to not start and stop the video or audio recording.

In all cases it is essential to have reference audio on the camera. This is best with a feed from the recorder, but, all the synching I've done has been with reference audio from the camera mic.

None of the above shoots were with a clapper or TC slate.

Thanks, Ron. Your experiences with the R4 are very helpful. Since I have been starting and stopping the camera a lot (coverage of martial arts matches. In camera "editing" with stop-start makes for a very useful video review after the competition), I was hoping that the LANC would help with such time sync without the need for clapping before each of 10-30 matches.

Can't wait for new portable mixers contain a 4+ channel digital recorder. Ty Ford posted something about the Aaton Cantar-X, but $15k is out of my league.
http://www.aaton.com/products/sound/cantar/specs.php
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_aaton_cantarx_field/

Your welcome. Sorry, I havn't tested the LanC. BTW, How many audio tracks to you need to cover a martial arts match?

I usually use a stereo microphone with a camera on a monopod so its easy to get in close. A few times, I've tried wireless microphones on the players, and that adds so much to the video. Now, I want to record both the stereo microphone as well as the body mics. When the players move around, the body-mounted mics deliver audio that is often channel-swapped as well as in the process of crossing over. So, I want to record four channels. In a recent tournament situation, I really wanted some remotely recorded audio from the other side of the mat. So, four is a good number, although I would also like a stationary microphone as well in the future. Lots of audio.

Thanks for all of your great advice, Seth. I'd rather no use the clapper for TC, so probably I am still better off with the TC-capable R4 pro. I'll feed an audio reference to the camcorder, but I'd rather have two of the four channels I'm actually recording. Gotta break out the manual and check if the R4 pro can route only two of the four input channels to the output mix.

There sure is. THANKS SO MUCH!

Even if your recorder is timecode capable, it doesn't do you any good for syncing unless you have some method of getting identical timecode in BOTH the picture and the sound files as you shoot. That means a couple of options ... 1) if the camera has a timecode output (Z1 doesn't) you connect that to the recorder's timecode input so that the same code that is recorded in the camera is also recorded in the audio; or 2) the audio recorder outputs its timecode to a smart slate clapper so the slate displays the code the recorder is generating and the slate is photographed at the start of each take to record the timecode into the video. The bottom line is that if the timecode recorded with picture and the timecode recorded with sound aren't identical to within a few miliseconds of each other, it's useless for syncing other than getting into an approximate ballpark. You still have to figure out how to match up a known point in the audio file with the precise frame in the picture where that sound occurs. If you don't have a camera with timecode I/O, you gotta use a slate. A smart slate with displayed timecode lets you align using the code. A dumb slate with just clapper sticks lets you align with the 'bang' and any timecode with the audio is superfluous. Just recording timecode generated in the audio recorder with the audio without using a slate accomplishes nothing at all.

I have to disagree. Manually setting time-of-day code on unsynchronized devices has gotten me within a half-second over a typical 3-4 hour shoot, which has proven to be straightforward to resolve and lock in post using camera reference audio.

I say this because I've done it at least a couple dozen times, sometimes without timecode on the audio recording (hour-long takes).

This solution has served me well for event-oriented projects. I'd find it much too tedious for short takes, and would rent a TC slate as Steve suggests above. Tape is cheap though, and another strategy for short takes is "don't stop rolling".

Far from "useless", this has been a very useful workflow for prosumer gear. Your results may vary. Certainly I'd advise trying it before betting the farm.

And yes, I'm well familiar with typical sync and timecode technology, having started with pre-timecode 2" quad, crystal sync, and bloop lights, then seeing 1" type C support the first timecode-assisted editing, and so on.

Guess my reflexes are too slow <grin> to manually set two separate TOD clocks to be close enough to be of much use. The technique that some multicam shooters use when all the cams are the same to set code on all of them by arranging them so they can all see the same remote control and setting each camera's clock to the same value but not completing the final entry, then completing the setting of all of them at once using the remote control seems viable, but just barely and it wouldn't work with devices like a Sony Cam and SD recorder where they don't have a common remote controller. Dropping a BWF file into the project so its timestamp aligns to the project timeline is a no brainer, but then you still have the problem of locating the precise frame in the video that matches an event in the audio and slipping it back and forth until they align. The distinctive audio shape of a 'clap' is easy to spot as you scan along the waveform but if you're going to have to look for it anyway, what's the point of the timecode?

Not hard to get within about 10 frames. Sometimes I do a countdown to time with the audio or camera op, we count down to a preset time - 3, 2, 1, mark, we hit the button at the same time. It's close.

Other times, I'll just use the second hand on my watch and do cameras & recorders one at a time. Takes a couple minutes per device.

I've done it, it works on some cameras, doesn't on others. Precise when it works. (within a frame).

Now this is the real question - how well does the workflow work? Once you're aligned within a half-second or so, you play the reference camera audio track against the audio you're looking to sync, and slide the audio left and right to eliminate echo.

As it turns out, the human ear is quite discriminating about echo. I suppose it's because small timing differences have everything to do with how we perceive directionality of sound. Some NLEs let you slip the audio track by less than a frame, which also helps. Very helpful if you can slip while previewing.

If you do have a clap in the track, or other visually distinctive waveform, of course that helps as well; zoom in and line it up.

The point of time-of-day code in this exercise is that it quickly gets you close enough to use visual and echo methods. I've done it without code (4 cameras with very rough code and a 24-track recording with no code), it's a little more finicky but also quite possible for long takes.

Well, I have to confess, in my comments on timecode I've habitually been thinking in a classic, film-style, double system workflow where there is no audio reference track recorded with the video. Camera does picture and picture only, recorder does audio. If I can coin the term, the sort of 'hybrid' system you're using does have some alignment tools that a classic double system would not have, being the reference audio track recorded in camera. But I think it's worth mentioning for some of our readers that may have missed it that there are some cautions in using the hybrid workflow - the biggest one off the top of my head being that the audio recorder and the camera audio tracks are best both fed by a splits of the same signal at the mixer. Running some lavs on the talent or a closely held boom to the recorder for production sound while using an on-camera shotgun for the reference track (as some might be tempted to try) could create headaches due to arrival time differences between picture, production sound, and reference sound. Depending on distance from talent to camera, slipping production sound to remove the echo when mixed with reference sound could have the result in the production sound actually being OUT of sync because at longish distances the reference track itself won't be in sync with picture, each 30 feet of subject to reference mic distance delaying sound by 1 frame with respect to picture. Sending two feeds from the mixer, one to the camera and the other to the production sound recorder, eliminates that issue.

Well.... right. Easier when every device sees the same reference audio.

However, any time you go 30 feet away with your camera-mounted mic you're a frame off. That's perceptible for most people, but we can do better!

If lip-sync looks off, fix it. If all of this were easy, then everybody would be editing their own projects.

Oops, they are :)

Perhaps Steve's cautions are appropriate, some of this is harder than straight-ahead editing in the NLE of your choice. With some smarts and a lot of persistence this prosumer gear can support untethered double-system sound.

Again, it isn't all that much easier and a whole lot more expensive with full genlock and master code.