How does this sound 2

[Kathy Smith]

A while ago I posted a recording and had people evaluate it (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...s-sound-5.html)
In that thread few things got clarified for me. 1. My wireless receiver/transmitter combo is not really up to par 2. One of my Sanken COS 11D was not functioning properly

Since then I got an adapter for my mic so I can wire it directly to the camera and I got one of my mics fixed.
In this thread I am hoping people can compare my wired recording to my wireless (I have not upgraded it YET!) and let me know if this is the expected difference or if there is still something not right with my recording. Now, please remember I am recording directly Canon C100 (not top of the line Sound Devices recorder etc). Both recordings are straight out of the camera, no post processing. I am looking for a sound that would be make people say "this sounds very nice" not "this sounds f***ing awesome" as I can't achieve that with my equipment. Also, there was noise in the room so...
Anyway, here are the recordings. Please let me know if I should be getting something better out of C100 and wired Sanken COS-11d. Thank you so much.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ny01gmynae6pwkf/wired1.wav
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1zchh6azc4urb31/wireless1.wav

[Rick Reineke]

Both sound OK to me. The wired clip sounds cleaner and 'fuller', but a wireless track could be EQ'd and such to sound almost as good if there are no RF hits.
BTW, if you transcoded your WAVE files to single-channel mono, they would be half the size and no quality loss should occur. No big deal on local network hard drives, but on the internet, size is an issue, especially for folks with a slow connection.

[Gary Nattrass]

Both are acceptable but the wireless sounds thinner and probably has some high pass filtering in the transmitter.

I would probably be adding some 150hz in post to both to warm them up a little but would also have a 100hz high pass filter as standard on any speech or dialogue channels.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Rick Reineke

Both sound OK to me. The wired clip sounds cleaner and 'fuller', but a wireless track could be EQ'd and such to sound almost as good if there are no RF hits.
BTW, if you transcoded your WAVE files to single-channel mono, they would be half the size and no quality loss should occur. No big deal on local network hard drives, but on the internet, size is an issue, especially for folks with a slow connection.

thank you.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

Both are acceptable but the wireless sounds thinner and probably has some high pass filtering in the transmitter.

I would probably be adding some 150hz in post to both to warm them up a little but would also have a 100hz high pass filter as standard on any speech or dialogue channels.

How do you apply 100hz high pass filter on dialogue channels? Do you do that in post. Where do you get the filter?

[Daniel Epstein]

Both sound okay but may be a little overmodulated on peaks. Looking at the Manual for the camera (pages 73 to about 76) there are a few settings which could make your mic recordings sound better or worse. There is a sensitivity setting and a peak limiter setting. This might make a difference to a recording of a mic which sounds a little ragged to one which sounds smooth on the peaks.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

Both sound okay but may be a little overmodulated on peaks. Looking at the Manual for the camera (pages 73 to about 76) there are a few settings which could make your mic recordings sound better or worse. There is a sensitivity setting and a peak limiter setting. This might make a difference to a recording of a mic which sounds a little ragged to one which sounds smooth on the peaks.

peak limiter is off and sensitivity setting is set to normal. Do you think there is a need for me to change that?

[Daniel Epstein]

Hey Kathy,
I would play with it and see how it sounds. Maybe go down to the -6DB on sensitivity and turn on the peak limiter. When I looked at your tracks in Audacity nothing seemed to go above -6DB but it was hitting that level which is pretty hot for digital when recording from a mic.

See this note from Page 77 of the manual

Manual Audio Level Adjustment
You can set the audio level for each channel manually from -G to 18 dB.
1 Set the audio level switch of the desired channel to M.
2 Turn the corresponding dial to adjust the audio level.
• For reference, 0 corresponds to -G, 5 corresponds to 0 dB, and 10 corresponds to +18 dB.
• As a guideline, adjust the audio recording level so that the audio level meter on the screen will go to the right of the 18 dB mark (one mark right of the 20 dB mark) only occasionally.
• Closing the protective cover will prevent the audio controls from being changed inadvertently.
NOTES
• If at least one of the channels is set to manual audio level adjustment, you can also activate the audio peak limiter to prevent audio distortions. When activated, the audio peak limiter will limit the amplitude of audio input signals when they exceed -6 dBFS. Use the [¡ Audio Setup] > [Audio Input] > [Limiter] setting.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

Hey Kathy,
I would play with it and see how it sounds. Maybe go down to the -6DB on sensitivity and turn on the peak limiter. When I looked at your tracks in Audacity nothing seemed to go above -6DB but it was hitting that level which is pretty hot for digital when recording from a mic.

See this note from Page 77 of the manual

Manual Audio Level Adjustment
You can set the audio level for each channel manually from -G to 18 dB.
1 Set the audio level switch of the desired channel to M.
2 Turn the corresponding dial to adjust the audio level.
• For reference, 0 corresponds to -G, 5 corresponds to 0 dB, and 10 corresponds to +18 dB.
• As a guideline, adjust the audio recording level so that the audio level meter on the screen will go to the right of the 18 dB mark (one mark right of the 20 dB mark) only occasionally.
• Closing the protective cover will prevent the audio controls from being changed inadvertently.
NOTES
• If at least one of the channels is set to manual audio level adjustment, you can also activate the audio peak limiter to prevent audio distortions. When activated, the audio peak limiter will limit the amplitude of audio input signals when they exceed -6 dBFS. Use the [¡ Audio Setup] > [Audio Input] > [Limiter] setting.

I'll run some tests tomorrow.

What I find annoying is that I always record my levels low although in camera it seems like I am recording them pretty high and when I bring them to final cut they are usually around -20.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by Kathy Smith

How do you apply 100hz high pass filter on dialogue channels? Do you do that in post. Where do you get the filter?

Some cameras have a high pass filter fitted as do location mixers and they can both help.removing LF rumble or wind buffeting noise.

You can also use them in post but if there is a risk of the mic amp overloading on location it can be good to use them there. My P2 cameras and location mixers both have 80hz high pass filters and the mixer also has 160hz for difficult high wind rumble.

[Kathy Smith]

OK, I did a few more tests this morning.
Here is what they are:

1. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100, the way I normally record (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)
2. Shure lav mic (not sure which one) wired to C100, the way I normally record (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)

With test 1 and 2 I wanted to hear the difference between these 2 mics to see if it was worth getting the Sanken

3. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100, I raised the levels because I always get them low when I bring them to Final Cut (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)
4. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100 (peak limiter on, mic sensitivity set to -6db)

All of these are straight out of the camera, no post processing

What do you guys make out of all of this?
What else can I try?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pxkoce8fp84c1p/1.wav
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3r2zurlu21vcrzz/2.wav
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vm4hzaj2lc4sdj7/3.wav
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lx8ku3lvaxzjufb/4.wav

[Daniel Epstein]

Kathy,
In order of preference by listening on my system Number 4, Number 2, Number 1, Number 3, If you are looking for natural sound and smooth. Number 3 has volume but feels harsher. Number 1 seems thin but might be easier to boost in post. The Shure mic sounds pretty good at Normal settings although mic placement might change ones decision. Frankly all are acceptable although Number 3 is starting to have characteristics I would worry about.

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

Both are acceptable but the wireless sounds thinner and probably has some high pass filtering in the transmitter.

Yep. What Gary said.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

Kathy,
In order of preference by listening on my system Number 4, Number 2, Number 1, Number 3, If you are looking for natural sound and smooth. Number 3 has volume but feels harsher. Number 1 seems thin but might be easier to boost in post. The Shure mic sounds pretty good at Normal settings although mic placement might change ones decision. Frankly all are acceptable although Number 3 is starting to have characteristics I would worry about.

Thanks Daniel.
Is it normal to always boost levels in post?

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Kathy Smith

OK, I did a few more tests this morning.
Here is what they are:

1. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100, the way I normally record (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)
2. Shure lav mic (not sure which one) wired to C100, the way I normally record (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)

With test 1 and 2 I wanted to hear the difference between these 2 mics to see if it was worth getting the Sanken

3. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100, I raised the levels because I always get them low when I bring them to Final Cut (peak limiter off, mic sensitivity normal)
4. Sanken COS-11D mic wired to C100 (peak limiter on, mic sensitivity set to -6db)

All of these are straight out of the camera, no post processing

What do you guys make out of all of this?
What else can I try?

Number 4 is spot on. I wish I could get audio that clean and nice. But that would take a COS-11D which I can't afford. Sigh....

I would always run with a peak limiters at the preamps -- mixer or camera, in this case. You never know when they'll be needed. Dropping the sensitivity seems to have cleaned up what over modulation there was.