If there's manual audio control....
 

How will that effect recording sound on the Mark II?

We know the Mark II's geting 24p, but it's also (apparently) gettin audio meters as well.

Does that mean no beachtec add-on needed?

jdv

No matter what they do, the preamps in the unit obviously will continue to SVCK, so the use of a preamp may still be useful if a good clean signal is desirable for you (e.g., gain up with an external preamp, leave gain on the 5D2 very low). But certainly no more shenanigans would be needed to attempt to defeat the AGC (although I preferred ML anyway, so that was never a problem for me personally).

If they fixed the AGC, I think a lot of people would be happy. I'm not sure there would anything else to ask for.

With audio gain control, you could use a mic like the Rode Videomic mounted on the camera, connected to the mic jack, and get audio no better or worse than the onboard mics on conventional camcorders. You'd still pick up camera noise, but it should be a huge improvement.

So no beachtek needed.

For my purposes, to record sync sound from multiple wireless mics I'll still of course need my Zoom H4N or Tascam DR-100.

Either with Magic Lantern or with a Canon manual audio gain fix, the key is to drive a hot, clean signal into the camera. If you can keep the gain down to 10 dB or so, it's really good.

The current default is +31dB analog fixed, plus additional digital gain for AGC.

So, the bottom line is that you will want a hot mic, or an external preamp. A preamp or other external device is often needed for balanced XLR compatibility and to deliver phantom power.

I don't want to "hi-jack" this thread in any way, but I think my question goes along with the first one (which seems to have been answered a few ways).

I've heard bad things about the codec for audio on this camera. I was TOTALLY jazzed to hear about ML defeating AGC, but I've heard people say, "No matter what you do, you'll never get "professional" audio on this camera (5D2). You absolutely have to have an external recording device."
I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source (in my case, either a Tram lav mic or a Senn. ME66). What am I missing?

(In my case, "professional" means: cable commercials, industrial videos and the occasional narrative that will likely never see the big screen, but I still want it as good as possible.)

I don't think you're missing anything. I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications.

Logic dicates that you can record good audio to the 5D

Timecode...?

-- peer

> I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source.

> I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications.


I do a lot of audio recording, and my take on this is audio is only as good as the entire audio chain, so it's never as simple as "source is good, therefore uncompressed will be good." In the case of the 5D2 you'll be running it through the camera's preamps and it's a/d converter, and both will play a role in the final recording. In my personal opinion, there's no doubt in my mind that both the preamps and the a/d are cheap and low end -- there's probably not much to argue about there really when compared to real hardcore pro audio gear, it's obvious as hell if you don't use an outboard preamp.

HOWEVER, for most applications I agree 100% that if you feed it a hot, clean signal from a decent preamp and mic combination, it'll do just fine for most professional applications. And even for lower-end prodcutions without a preamp, it might be good enough for many people if used with a hot mic and no AGC.

On the other hand, it surely will never compare to high end audio gear used throughout the entire audio chain.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I thought I must be missing something.

I fully intended on getting a 2-input JuicedLink for my mics.

The comparisons Jon did were really darn convincing that the 5D2 CAN sound great when fed a good signal. I liked it (in his comparisons) as I did the H4N, as I recall.

Bill's assessment is pretty much on the money. I have a commercial recording studio as well and track, mix and monitor with top notch gear from Neumann and Neve to JBL and Focusrite. But that doesn't mean you need that stuff to get perfectly acceptable (meaning broadcastable/DVDable) audio through the Canon, as long as you're minimizing the input stage and overriding the AGC.

You need a good mic, a great mic is better. You need a preamp to minimize the Canon pre. You need a little understanding of gain stages (not rocket science) and you need someone (not you if you're shooting) who know's how to keep a signal out of the red (you're girlfriend even...mine does).

With good post, folley and scoring you can get fine audio from the Canon.

An H4N and Pluraleyes is even better and still simple and inexpensive.

Bill is right. The preamps and A/D don't compare with top, dedicated audio gear. They're 16-bits, the anti-aliasing filtering seems to be poor, and the clock probably jitters like mad.

That said, there is no compression, and with the gain low, the preamps are truly 16-bits worth of clean. Canon did a nice job isolating things, as there no buzz or other bad behavior on the analog path.

My only complaint is that the recordings can be a bit harsh. Consistent with the video, I'm pretty sure that's due to aliasing. On the flip side, the JL/5D2/ML combo sounds really crisp. And the noise is very, very low.

The end result is professional, but not audiophile, quality. It's probably good enough for what 90% of people at DVInfo.net produce. As far as noise goes, it's probably close to the 99% level. It's the harshness that holds it back. It just doesn't deliver that combination of creamy smooth and crisp and clear that you get with top recordings. (Hint: you won't get that with an H4n either. ;) )

I can't agree with you here...that you can't get that kind of sound with an H4N. If you're recording with a Schoeps or Neumann through a preamp even as simple as the Sound Devices gear you can get cinema sound with an H4N including silky and crisp. The H4N has all the bit depth and sampling rate to capture the full range that this level of gear will produce. Film producers over the years would have killed for one.

Sorry, but I don't agree. The H4n is good, and plenty capable, and great for indie work, but let's be serious here, it's far from high end, and it's definitely not something being used by any serious production with a budget. If you were to rent a pro audio package, it would not include an H4n, that much I'm sure of. Again, don't take this the wrong way, the H4n is plenty capable, and of course is being used by a lot of folks to do great work, but it's prosumer level gear at best. Hell, as far as I can tell, they don't even publish any of the important specs (e.g., Frequency Response, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Dynamic Range, Total Harmonic Distortion, etc.).

I didn't say that it was pro level gear or that you would find it in a pro rental package. I own a couple of packages better than what you'd get from most rental houses and have a post facility as good as any in the biz. My statement was that with a good front end, the bit depth and sample rate of the H4N is capable of recording that quality accurately.

You'd have to show me some reason why it wouldn't given it's basic audio specs. I've recorded it for national work using a couple of different mics and I've gotten great sound in mixing and mastering - which is where a lot of the "silky and smooth" sound that Jon was referring to comes from. Just like much of the polish people see in finished film is grading.

It isn't built as a pro piece of gear and doesn't have all the functionality but that doesn't mean it isn't capable of recording a quality input accurately.

The exact same thing can be said of the 5DII versus true cinema gear, and of course it's being used for professional film making everyday. And it looks absolutely great with the right lens, lighting and DP.

Same thing will happen if you record a quality chain into a 24 bit 96k H4N and know how to do quality post and mastering.

In fact, not long ago as a test, I recorded an acoustic guitar track directly into the X/Y onboard mics using the internal click. I transferred that file directly into my studio mix as the featured instrument in a fairly high profile radio/TV score. I would normally track a Taylor dreadnought like that with a pair of Neumanns or a single U87 into a Neve or Focusrite, but after I tracked it, I loved the sound and it was clean and accurate.

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to give another professional perspective for people without big budgets. Over and over it's been shown that high quality work can be done on the most basic gear - including major albums and films. That's unquestionable and my basic point.

I agree, and even a Sony D1 (or a D50) will blow the lid off the H4n. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many are still gaga over that noisy plastic thingee.

Not to open up a new can of worms here, but that's how I mostly pick (or avoid) my poison -- I try to rely on professional specs rather than someone's "sounds good to me" opinion. Hence, when a product lacks a proper spec (like the H4n or the 5DMKII's audio for that matter) to me that's a big red flag.

-- peer

I only tested the H4n with the native XLR input and preamps. To my ears, it sounded a bit mushy compared to the JL/5D2/ML combo. I believe that I was hearing phase distortion - the low, high, and mid frequencies aren't perfectly coincident, so the impulses aren't crisp. And it wasn't just a matter of lacking high frequencies. It was also slightly noisier (about 6dB) than the JL/5D2/ML.

Keep in mind, I'm being picky here. It sounds very competent, just not excellent.

Given that the juicedLink can transform even the crummy Microtrack II into a usable recorder, I would think that you're right, Jim, that a better preamp would give the H4n a step or two up the ladder. I don't know that it would fix the phase non-linearity though. That's probably in the anti-aliasing filter.

In fact, I'd love to test the JL/5D2/ML with a sweet anti-aliasing filter between the preamp and camera, if not built into the preamp. That would almost certainly eliminate any harshness due to aliasing, and could keep it crisp with linear phase.

Anyway, I don't doubt that the H4n can really sing with an external preamp. But I haven't tested it like that.

With my experience with Magic Lantern, it is clear that you a preamp is still the best method of recording sound to camera. The CX 231 from Juiced Link is the minimum requirement, I think. I have used a more powerful field mixer and Magic Lantern with good effect.

Thanks for all the info guys - truly an education.

jdv

Even with a field mixer for the boom op, a juicedLink is nice. It lets you keep the unbalanced run to the camera short. At a minimum, use one or two XLR transformers right near the camera for use with a field mixer, so all long runs are balanced.

My last thought on this: I don't think terms like "gaga" are very helpful in these discussions and I don't know of a serious music producer or engineer that doesn't rely on their ears and experience over published specs - that's the reverse of the way it works in professional audio....film making too.

All that matters is what the listener hears and what the viewer sees and some of the best and most successful audio ever produced was recorded on gear far less capable than the H4N in terms of reproduction. That's not snarky or an opinion it's simply the truth, including some top, Grammy winning stuff - I've recorded in some of the studios.

Same thing with films. Real commercial successes and very profitable productions are made all time with gear that a lot of people on this board and others would demean as cheap or consumer or whatever brand people sometimes put on things. We've done a good deal of award winning work in both film and music with everything from 35mm and 48 track digital to Xl1s and the H4N.

I run one of the highest end recording studios in my part of the world and I certainly like what I've gotten out of the H4n when I've used it for broadcast and corporate. I mean seriously...nearly all radio production is delivered MP3 today - we used to have a dedicated T1 line in our room just to deliver daily production to the stations.

I like encouraging people to focus on the best gear they can afford with the confidence that the most important aspect is what they put in to it.

So it goes.

Absolutely agree, and that is what I do !

Well, Canon came through with manual audio control. Having come from film, it's not such a deal breaker for me, but I know it's very important to some users.

john

Maual audio control only works pre-recording right. I looked at the display while videoing qanf there was not way to see how the video was going. No way to see or adjust during actual recording....correct? Seems like that defeats the purpose. Auto in someways seems better in cases where the levels would vary greatly during actual recording.