Hi Grazie,

Yep, took me a couple of goes before I sussed that one (ie bothered to read the manual).

Which of course leads me to the original point. Why not go straight from the AV out port to your destination. I tried it today with a phono to BNC adaptor and I couldn't discern any difference in quality from going out of the MA-300 BNC.

I think Darko is probably right - it's for those occasions where you ONLY have BNC cables (and probably forgot that cutsey lil wire!).

I'm not complaining though; I like lots of ins and outs on my gear. I was just curious!

Ian . . .

MA300 tip - Be Warned and be ready
 

I have had the MA300 adaptor for nearly a year now and use ity with a Sennheiser MKE300 on CH1 and a Senn Radio Mic 0n CH2. It works great at weddings - till yesterday. As normal I had checked it out before setting out for the day, but had to remove it at one point during the day (before the wedding service). When I put it back on both audio inputs were intermittent and with 2 mins before the service we decided to put the RM on the XL1S main camera (day saved). Because of the problem we used the main camera for any audio for the rest of the day.

Now, on inspection this morning I found the culprit, I could have kicked myself for not spotting it yesterday but with the pressure etc not surprised I did not.

If you look at the bottom of the MA300 (hotshoe fitting) you will see 4 very small cross head screws. One of these had come out slightly and had stopped the connections mating correctly hence tthe intermittent audio. I am calm and collected today and will be next shoot.

Be Warned and put a very small watchmakers screwdriver in your Camera bag

Excellent tip, Alan.

I'm going to break my own rule against cross-posting and copy this over to the XL2 forum; those folks need to see this as well. Much appreciated,

PLUS the OTHER 4 screws!
 

I think I posted about this about a year ago? Maybe not. OK - NOW see the 4 screws - 2 pairs - on each side of the foot. See them? Wellll... I lost, yes lost one and I replaced and re-screwed these in too!

So! 8 screws . . tighten 'em up NOW! Go on! Git on with it!

Grazie

Chris,
I only referenced the XL1S as it was the other Cam, the MA300 is only applicable to the XM2 (I think).

Grazie,

I must have missed your previous post so I just checked the other 4 screws, many thanks.

Apologies Alan - I did a search for my post - huh! Getting pre-senile here. I couldn't find it . .

And yes, the other screws work loose and are THE screws that keep the forward<>backward torque being transferred to the foot. These loosen up and the whole rig starts getting drunk and putting even more uneeded "whiplash" on the "del;icate" foot. I did "lose" a screw - yeah yeah yeah . . it's been said before! - and had to "locate" another from a specialist screw firm about 0.5 k from me so no problem. Oh, when I DID a "clean-out" of my KATA bag the little begger appeared! HAH!

Grazie

Keep an eye out for the little jeweler's screwdrivers; I found one at a drugstore one day in a neat little travel kit; cost about a dollar... a disposable item... no reason not to have two or three or more, for your kit, your studio, your junk drawer, whatever.

Chris - U R sooo rite!

I bought a group of them ranging from 1mm face to a MASSIVE 3mm . . cost back in 1974 - can't remember! I have them in my "Emergency" 50p zipped baglette.

Buy 'em forget 'em . .or rather REMEMBER where you put 'em !

Grazie

I dug a smally philips watchmaker out this morning and it is now in my Cam bag already.

MA300 useless?
 

Hi all, excuse me if this has already been asked but I couldn't find an satisfying answer to this.
The MA300 XLR adapter is not balanced, so why should i use it?
Why not just using a XLR to mini jack cable? With a stereo mini jack I could even record the signal coming from my ME66 into two different channels at different levels, as it has been suggested many times in this forum.
Actually I already have an MA300 but don't feel comfortable at all using my XM2with it: it makes the whole setup very fragile..
Thanks for any imput
pietro

"The MA300 XLR adapter is not balanced, so why should i use it?"

It's cool lookin' :-)

I bought MA300 for my cam and were quite unhappy with all you mentioned, especially with longer cable runs. So I bought Beachtek DXA6 and looked "not so cool" but had everything I wanted including 48V phantom power. I still sometimes use MA300 for holding on-camera mic, but like you said it's VERY fragile. So that's what i got for 300 Euros - mic holder.

Now, let's see . . £170 off the "total" budget? Also, at the time I was starting out, I understood I could "adjust" each channel independently - yes, not GAIN - but I could adjust, and THIS was a big boon over the next camera step-up. And at the time there weren't any XLRs-in for the type of money I could afford. I put the "saved", £170, money towards my Senni K6M66.

Canon were clever/cute in "providing" me with an XLR-in option. Then as a Rookie, this really impressed me. Honestly! I didn't have to understand a lot to realise I could just buy this thing and plug in my Senni.

What would I do now? Do what I'm doing: Holding out for a Canon HD which could have XLRs as part of the body.

In the meantime I had/have used and got myself up and running with the MA300; use it on my DV RigPro to share Video via the BNC to a monitor; it takes balanced audio from my mixing desk; clamp 2 mics atop or/and use my PagLight with all this.

It is scary sitting on top, and yes it scares me still - but I HAVE and DID get going with making video and getting more than average audio into my miniDV tape.

Hindsight? I wrote the book .. . BUT I've never read it!

Best regards,

Grazie

Grazie, I was waiting for you!
I'll keep on using th MA300 because it is anyway the only mic holder that I can use on my XM2 -without buying another one. I managed to have a Y cable to split the signal into two channels and to record them at different levels, and bought a headphone set to monitor what's picked up by the ME66. No matter the fact that the MA300 it's not balanced, I'll use it as a camera mic or mounted on a boom with a five meter cable -a bit long but where I'll be shooting there are no radios-electric lines-cell phones.. Himalayas!
By the way Grazie, did you say that you always keep the in-camera mic attenuator on when using the ME66? At first I thought that the attenuator was cutting too many DBs compelling me to keep the volumes very high, nearly 12 o'clock, now I don't know.. The guy who made the cable for me says that splitting the signal might make it a bit stronger. ???
I'l set the mic ATT as a custom key and see what happens from time to time.
Thanks, and thell me about the mic ATT!

Hiyah! - yeah . . throw out a piece of bait and just reeeeeelllll me back in! - Hey it was when I was starting out - yeah? - Things were different then! Kipper Ties; Flares; hipsters, dodgy haircuts and paisley . .. yeah, I am that old . . . seesh! - Ok ok ok ok it wasn't the '60s - it WAS Nov 02.

The Mic att? - Well, I once got well burnt by a dreadful live PA of a Gospel choir - I applied MIC att during this and on following "gigs" and will only release it when I feel safe. The M66 is quite "hot" and I could have a vasectomy executed on its .. er . .sensitivity - but it would be £25 and I think only in one direction. Sooooo... I've taken the position to MIC ATT what I do. However, I do have an inline ATT that I could substitute when I need.

The other "fiddle" I do is to go manual OR auto audio - this depends on the variation of the audio levels I need to contend with. Manual gets you more MORE often. Turing the dials back and forth in a variable sound mix environment is bothersome. If I'm in a "fixed" environment then I'll go manual.

Any good this?

Grazie

"Manual gets you more MORE often"
????
Italian speaking here.. What do you mean?

Switching from Automatic to Manual AUDIO control allows for the whole range of adjustment including the top end - that's all!

G

So, if the MA300 is unbalanced, then yea asside from getting to use a balance xlr system: mikes, cables mixer then into the MA300.
As I understand then that you only have a very short length/distance of unbalanced cabling before the camera sees/hears the sound.
I have been thinking of the beechtek thingy because I have a HI8 I use as a backup and just recently went through the whole "radio Cuba and 60cycle hum" problem.
For that problem I went 100% battery and got rid of the problem.
I sent an email to canon to ask them if I could use their MA300 on the HI8 (I really do want to be faithfull Canon) but they blew me off with the typical disclaimer of not even saying it can work with other cameras. Thus I have been thinking of the Beechtek for THEY say it will work with the GL2.
Now I guess the question still is: Is the audio signal out of the XLR Beechtek adapter balance or is the signal still unbalance for that short distance. And if that is the case then is the only way to get balance all the way into the GL2 is to just another camera that if you are prudent with the input then you can have balanced 100%
Did I confuse anyone? I know that I can barely follow the above.
For my basic system of 5 mikes it will cost me about $1,000 USD. So if I can't from the git go get balance all the way into the GL2 then I will use the money for a faster computer to edit my material and when in the field go 100% battery.
Thanks one and all for the assistance.
Yours,
Tom Elliott

MA300 Unbalanced?
 

The MA300 has its shortcomings, but are you sure it's unbalanced? I'd be surpised. Where did that info come from?

Tom, the output from the BeachTek is unbalanced, but for such a short run that doesn't matter in the least. It is only over long runs of more than 15 to 25 feet (depending on how electrically noisey the environment is, and who you ask) that the protection of balanced XLR cable is needed.

hmmm,
I did not go any further as to aspeck of balanced/unbalanced out put of the beechtek. Since I solved the radio interferance and 60cycle humm by going 100%battery I am not going to invest in xlr for video depostions since I have proved the past the standalone batter power gives me excelent results. Now if the project is more complicated that the depositions then I will look further.
I would think that since canon went to the trouble of making the xlr gizmo it would have a balance output to the GL2.
I will ask canon.
Yours,
Tom

I just checked on the specs of the GL2:
"Audio Terminal -10 dBV, less than 3 kohms, unbalanced "
So I would guess that the MA300 output is also unbalanced and that since it a VERY short distance from the MA300 to the input on the GL2 it doesn't make any difference, and just maybe ALL camcorders have unbalanced audio "Internally", and it isn't untill you output it that you need the balanced cables and mixer to maintain the audio quality that the camera produces. AND....AND if you want a camcorder with internal balanced audio you pay the extraprice.
I just do not know.
Yours,
Tom
PS: I did post the question to the Canon people on their tech support page, and will post here the results.

Just got off the 800 FREE tech support number.
The MA300 is BALANCED !!!!! That is the purpose of the attachment. So totally ignore the my last post. I also checked with Canon to see if the MA300 would work on my Sony HI8. It seems that the MA300 is designed to work on the hotshoe and needs the electroncs of the GL2 to use the XLRs.
So, it looks like I will use the MA300 for the GL2 and the beechteck for my HI8 backup camera.
Yours,
Tom

Exactly.

Correct. Some higher end camcorders have built-in XLR jacks so a balanced cable can be connected directly to the camcorder, but on the other side of those jacks conversion to unbalanced circuitry takes place. But most cams have unbalanced input jacks.

Ok, here is THE answer ... from Canon.
=============================
Dear Tom Elliott:

Thank you for writing to us. We value you as a Canon customer and
appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

The MA-300 does produce a balanced audio signal. We hope this
information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact us again if
you have any other questions or concerns.

Thank you for your interest in Canon.

Sincerely,

James
Technical Support Representative
==========================
So, the MA300 can input xlr blanced in out puts to the GL2 a balanced signal that the tape records.
You can't get any more of a difinitive answer that that.
Aside from the fact it is a Canon product, the reason for the high price is that it is an attachment that accepts input balance and the outputs balanced.
Ok guys??
Yours,
Tom Elliott

And the Winner is . . . . . ! ! !
 

So, Darko, you've NOW got a BALANCED mic clamp too! Great eh?

This MA300 just gets better and better and better. I even got to use my optical scredrivers to tighten its screws AND get to locate from a supplier a spare scew that went walkabout.

Now where DID I put my "Beginner's Book on Irony"

Tom, honestly, thanks for that - really! The MA300 was the only thing that fitted into my knowledge base and budget when I was young and impressionable - I just soooo WANTED to capture video!

Best regards,

Grazie

Tom, I'm afraid that James, like a lot of customer service reps, doesn't not know his arse from his elbow. Don't ever think that such an individual speaks for the engineering department. It's plausible that the MA300 accepts balanced inputs, but it does not put out a balanced signal. Nor would there be any benefit if it did. Plus, the camera would then have to provide the circuitry to unbalance it so it could interface with the same amplifiiers used by the unbalanced external mic jack. The MA300 is expensive not because of any special balancing act, but because Canon is able to get away with charging a lot for it despite the fact that there are much better values out there.

Dear Fred,
I hope you don't mind if I quote (cut and paste) your e-mail to Canon?
I mean the guy works for Canon, and I really do not think that Canon would hire someone who would out and out lie just to keep a customer. That is fraud.
So, my question to you is just what is your background/authority/training that would give you the power to make such a statement as to the quality of Canon tech and his trianing?

Tom, you apparently took personal offense at my post. Sorry, none intended. I thought you were the victim of an incompetent response, and it reminded me of other incompetent responses I've gotten in the past, hence the strong language.

If you'd like to pursue any aspect of this any further, please shoot me an email and we'll work it out.

Tom and Fred-

Please don't work this out in private...we all want to know whether or not Canon was wrong! The original intent of this post was to find out exactly what you 2 were/are discussing....so discuss on!

I use 2 ma300's on 2 gl2's and was under the impression that they produce balanced signals...I use the azden sgm 2x, with a bit of black sticky tape around it to give it a bit of girth so that it holds nice and tight in the mic holster...the other I use for ceremony only to hold my sony utx b1 wireless reciever...they have worked flawlessly for the last 3 years! Oh, well I had to replace the black piece at the bottom which cracked...like $7.95 from cannon.

Note: James being wrong is not the same thing as Canon being wrong.

Anyway, what does it mean for the MA300 to "produce a balanced signal?" And why does it matter--what does it have to do with the quality of the recording? If we can't agree on the answers to those two questions there's nothing to discuss, is there?

Ok,
1: Fred, I did not take it personally, and that is one of the problems of e-mail in that you can't hear or see the delivery of the lines ;-)
2: I called Canon again last night before the 800 line went down. Talked to a different tech, thus no e-mail quote this time.
HOWEVER .... the MA-300 accepts XLR balance cables AND it outputs a balanced signal to the GL-2 according to Canon and a different tech.
So, as I understand it the whole purpose of a shielded (yes a new word here) balanced XLR cable is to assist in getting the cleanest audo signal as is possible.
Now in my discussion with the tech (told him about the 60cycle hum and the Cuban radio interference that was only eliminated by going 100% battery) that I could possibly try a UPS that has a few transormer outlets for cleaner power.
Since the power you get from a UPS is battery power while the battery is continually being charged it makes sense to try that too for clean power with no 60cycle hum. As to the Cuban radio, I don't know if the UPS would solve that for you are still plugged into the main ac outlets, thus working off 100% batter solves that problem for you then you are not attached the attenna effect of the ac wiring in the building.
I guess that is why major film/video production companies bring along their own power generators so they are guarenteed clean power.
Wow, I never thought I would have to know soo much tech stuff.
Aint it FUN :-0
yours,
Tom

Canon has just impressed me.
I just checked my cell phone messages.
Canon called me on the cell to tell me that one of the things that jumped out was the issue that we are currently discussing, mainly the issue of the output from the MA-300. They will call me back again. The specs on the camera: Page 156 of the instruction manual at the top of the page
A/V terminal input/output:
Audio output: 4dBm (47 kohm load)/3 kohms or less
Video: 1Vp-p/75 ohms unbalanced
WHAAAAAT! does that mean?
That last word "unbalanced" is on the "Video" line, so does that mean the audio AND video in/out is unbalanced or just the video unbalanced.
So much for the manual.
Anyway I assume that is why Canon will be calling back to clear it up.
Right now I am forced to agree with Fred, yes, agree, that the output is unbalanced, at least for that short distance from the MA-300 to the camera and for whatever distance from the camera any other device that can use balanced XLR cabeling.
However I think there is agreement that for the money, the GL2 is a good camera.
Now, if one wants interchangable lenses then that is a whole other higher level of capabilities and thus more money.
I could be that Canon created this level just to "temp" one to the next level.
Right now this is my main camera with the Sony Hi8 XR CCd-TRV65 being the backup or "B" camera.
It is a shame the MA-300 can't work on other cameras and that I would have to have a BEACHTEK adapter to use an XLR balance system.
Now BEACHTEK does have an adapter they say was made for the GL2. If that would also work on my HI8 then in an emergency if the GL2 takes a dive, all I have to do is switch cameras.
Maybe I should become an assistant to MONK ;-)
Fred, we WILL get to the bottom of this issue and the fact that Canon is now going to call me back to make the issue clear impresses me about Canon tech support.
Yours,
Tom

That's easy to answer for the A/V input because we can see all the contacts on the plug. There are four, so they can only be left audio, right audio, video and ground. Each of those three signals is applied between one dedicated contact and ground. This is a good illustration of why a ground terminal is often labeled "Common." When ground is one of the conductors for a signal, it is unbalanced. A balanced signal is applied between two conductors that are not connected to ground.

It's harder to speak with absolute conviction about the MA300 because it makes many of its contacts via a circuit board connector. However, the other two ways of getting audio into the cam (mic jack, A/V jack) being unbalanced means that the internal circuitry is unbalanced, so it just doesn't make sense for the "intelligent hot shoe" connector for the MA300 to be balanced.

For the longest time I thought the same thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've gone on record around here somewhere as saying that the MA-300 is unbalanced. However... after looking into this again just recently (as a result of this discussion), there seems to be every indication that is *is* balanced. All of the marketing info I've been able to come up with points to this (and they have no reason to misrepresent such a statement). What is particularly vexing to me, though, is that I haven't been able to come up with a .PDF instruction sheet for the MA-300. I have .PDF's of just about everything else, but not for the MA-300. After scouring the web I just can't seem to track it down. If somebody out there has the MA-300 and the instruction sheet that came with it, and can scan the English portion of it including the specs and send it to me, I'd be most grateful... Tom?

Chris, I suspect that the XLR connectors do provide a balanced input connection. Where we're at in this thread now is the relatively trivial fine point of whether the output of the MA300 is balanced. A couple of Canon Tech Reps are on record as saying it is, but I think that the smart money says they're wrong. Much more likely that it converts balanced to unbalanced ala Beachtek and the others.

Ok, here it is!!
Good news for Fred and a vindication for him.
Just got off the phone with Canon tech (his nickel, he called me)
Balanced in and for the short distance to the connection UNBALANCED!
So, Fred thanks for suffering the slings and arrows of me and others on this web board.
Now for a little more clarafication from the tech.
It is RARE to have in and out balanced, except for the really expensive cameras ($10-$20,000).
It looks like is is OK for that short distance to be unbalance for it possibly would only matter if you had a power cable actually laying over that short connection, and I really doubt that anyone would do that!
AND IMHO since it is a short distance this whole thread has been a MONK job, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc, etc, etc.
My only other concern was the device itself working on my back up camera, which it can't because of the hot shoe connection.
So, either I buy a Beachtek just for the HI8 or not buy the MA-300 and use the Beachtek for both.
In any event for me to upgrade to 100% XLR balaced cables, mikes, mixer and the Beachtek/MA-300 is about $1,000.
Since I can solve my radio and 60cycle thing by going 100% battery, I will use the money for a faster computer for video editing.
It's been fun.
Yours,
Tom

Why dog the MA-300?
 

I need some advice and hopefully someone to clear the air. I have read a lot of posts where people speakly lowly of the Canon MA300. However, almost to a person they are people who haven't ever used one. People usually say "It looks really fragile..." To me, that doesn't seem like a solid reason. I looked at B&H and it is listed as a TOP SELLER, but none of the other adapters are. That doesn't mean most people are correct, but it makes me wonder.
My purpose in getting one would be for times I want to use a quality mic and mount it right on the camera. For these times, I don't see the advantage of having a Beachtek mounted on the bottom of the camera. I see cables getting in the way while I'm adjusting the camera. I already own the Studio1 BP Pro. I use it when the mic is far away or in multiple mic/line situations. However, it's not easily portable.
Does anyone with direct experience with the MA-300 have advice for me? If the mic is mounted on the bracket and the cable is nice and short, have others experienced any problems?
OR, can anyone help me figure out an easier way to use my studio1 in this type of situation?
This is my first post, so thanks for any replies. I enjoy reading this community!

Tim

Rev. Dr. Timothy J. Stidham
NewHope Community Church
Dyer, IN (Chicago Area, USA)

Clear the air? What are you looking for?


Why not?

Yes, I hear you wondering.

There are alternative ways to mount a quality mic without needing to resort to the MA300.

I have no experience of the Beach.


Yes, 4 years worth.

* Community Events

* Hectic weddings

* Corporate work

Don't understand. I've used short XLR cabling to the XLR on the MA300. I've used a Rode Video Mic with a 3.5mm to XLR adaptor. I've used Sennie 66 and Rode together too! I've used Sennie wireless RX XLR and fixed XLR. I've used long - 20 metres - XLR cabling to the MA300.


Can't answer to the Studio 1 or Beachie. Been busy using the MA300.

Cleared the air? I think I just made it foggier for you.


Grazie

Grazie,
No you haven't fogged it up, though you may have tried. I meant that I wanted someone like you to post on their actual experience. Thank you for doing so.
It seems to me that the MA300 could work just fine for what I have in mind. The comments you pulled from context in my original post refer to problems others have "anticipated" will happen if they use the MA300. That kind of comment isn't completely useless, but not as helpful as actual experiences from others. I've not read of many MA300 owners who have actually found the unit to be fragile in a way that hampered their work. A couple of people mentioned cables getting caught on things or pulled and "nearly breaking" the MA300. It sounds like you haven't had those problems. But again, "nearly breaking" sounds a lot like "not breaking" to me.
I am trying to avoid dealing with long cables for work where I'm not clamped down on a tripod. That's why the MA300 looked attractive to me. With the Studio1 I need longer cables b/c it is a body mounted unit (belt clip). Works great for boom and multi-mic set-ups, or when I'm taking a line feed to a tripod, but gets a little rediculous when I've just got a mic mounted on my GL2 and I'm walking around with the camera (falls off my belt, cables to think about etc, cables draw a little more attention...) The MA300 looks like a very short cable would work easily with it and it could stay totally out of my way while roaming and still getting better than built-in audio for walk-up interviews, etc... Maybe I should just consider the XLR to stereo mini low to high impedence adapters. I didn't really think of that. It's probably a lot less than $165.
I was also wondering of the input quality might be a little higher through the shoe vs. the mini-plug.
Is the sound quality identical? Any inherent advantage to going through the hot shoe vs. the mini-plug?
Are there any other good reasons to get the MA300?
Thanks for the reply. Anyone else want to chime in? I'm all ears.

IMHO, the MA300 came out as a quick response to then XLRs appearing on their competitors prosumers. The XL1 had the MA200 - I think? This was a way to get someone like me up and running with XLRs. Personally I DON'T like the lightweight way it is secured to the hotshoe - I would have preferred it having a more of a Panasonic heavier XLR dock. But this WAS 4 years back.

Now I'm waiting for Mr Sony to come out with a HD successor to our SD XM2 range. If it does NOT have integrated XLRs I really hope this MA300 will still be relevant. If not, I'll sell it!

The one thing you can rely upon in playing this "sport" of accessory "Catch-Up"- is that you can't rely on anything!

You may wish to consider that maybe the next model of this XM2/3/4 will incorporate XLR. IMHO, the actual camera is no slouch when it comes to separate channel, in-camera mixing. I'm not arguing against a Beachie. All I'm saying is that the audio controls - 2-dials and MIC ATTN and visible levels in 3 places! - has got me through some miserable shooting jobs. So, another "external" box may just be overkill - considering where we are in the accessory cycle.

Grazie

i have (had, i mean) the MA-300 and the Beachtek DXA-8. i broke the MA-300 by dropping it. oopsy. to its credit, it took awhile to die, even though i broke off a piece which looked somewhat crucial....

i thought the MA-300 worked perfectly well...it gave good sound whether i used it on-camera (almost never) or off-camera with a longer cable, mounted to a mic stand. disadvantages are that it is a strange shape with more exposed, breakable parts. it doesn't pack readily unless you wrap it in some sort of protective cloth or else carve out a designated foam spot in a hard case--something along those lines.

a big advantage is that it doesn't suck batteries like the DXA-8. although, the smaller Beachtek units don't have this problem. also, it is light weight, easy to carry, and easy to install. i would not purchase another, since i bought the DXA-8 to use with an FX-1 and can use it with the GL2 in a pinch (it's also useful for VO work because i can plug it into my computer to get 48V phantom power for a VO mic, something else which you don't get with an MA-300). i don't use my GL2 much anymore since i have other cameras. mostly for home movies and when i need a very light camera for image capture. and never, when i know that i need good sound because my particular GL2 is sort of noisy in that department.

if you want a unit to record basic interviews or ambient noise, the MA-300 is easily up to the job. i guess it depends on your usage. if i'm remembering correctly (someone correct me if i'm wrong), you can't line it out to another unit, a mixer, for instance, either, so it has its limits. but i think for basic field use, it's fine. i would not recommending spending more money for features i would not use.