I agree--the damn pots are backwards.

I didn't know that, I used my camera to record some voice over a couple of weeks back and although I think the sound was great (using a Sen MKH-416) it's useful to know that selecting SD mode would have helped too.

Thanks for the tip

Paul.

To clarify: when shooting SD the audio is DV standard 16 bit 48 kHz sample rate uncompressed pcm wav, better than CD in theory.

When shooting HDV the audio is compressed to MP2 at about 1:5 ratio. This is the unfortunate side effect of fitting (near) HD data to a miniDV tape. This is the same with all HDV cameras.

For critical HDV work use external audio recorder at 16/48 (or 24/48 and convert to 16/48 for edit).

About hiss: you have to listen to clean sample to judge the real quality of the audio. Often camera headphone amplifiers are noisy, as are PC based edit systems. Connect the camera to TV and hifi stereo system to hear what the audio on tape is really like.

For Jeff Johnson's reference.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=89879 provides information on noise levels.

hmm
 

just a question. i am new to the whole video filming thing(just got an XL1 last week), and the processes that are used here. i joined up here in dvinfo.net and have been soaking up as much info about DV filming as i can. when it comes to sound i have a couple questions....

why does anyone attach a mic to a camera?

i have been doing Audio recording as far as music for about ten years now. a couple of those years analog and the rest digital recording with Pro Tools and Cubase. granted its two different worlds, and from the sound of it the tolerances of quiet that you need in recording music is different from the tolerances of quiet you need in recording Video. attaching a microphone to something that has any moving mechanical parts whatsoever sounds crazy. even loosely attached. i suppose if that does the job thats cool. just sounds odd.

why does everyone record sound to the camera?

unless i am wrong when you run all of the sound right to the camera its recorded along with the video. imbedded in with the MPEG4 or on the MiniDV(in my case). i suppose if people are just using one mic on a pole, or attached to a camera, its not much to worry about. but if you are using multiple mics to capture better sound, and perhaps ambient noise, wouldnt it be better to record it to separate tracks on another audio device? that way each microphone track could be altered in post. perhaps one mic track needs a noise gate/limiter because of one instant where the sound redlined, or its too quiet/loud, or needs different compression levels, or really anything. i have never tried syncing audio to video so maybe therein lies the answer why its recorded straight to the camera. but i would imagine avid/protools does a good job of syncing sound.

i guess i am used to putting five mics around a room to record a guitar amp and tweaking the sound of all five to get something distinct. all of that nonsense isnt neccessary in the filming. still it would be nice to record serveral digital tracks and have the option of doing whatever you needed to sound later instead of recording two or more mics through a mixer to a camera where you lose track individuality.

these are the ramblings of a newbie so if they dont make sense or i am way off on something i apologize now.

People record sound to the camcorder for any one or more of a number of reasons. A few are listed below.

1. Because they have no better option available to them within their budget at the shoot in question (a very real consideration).
2. Because they do not want to deal with the additional sound gear and setup; e,g., shooting a wedding reception in a crowded venue
3. To have sound to use as a reference for sound sync in post.
4. Because the camcorder sound quality, in a field environment with lots of ambient noise, may well be more than adequate for the project at hand.
5. Because they don't know better options are available.

The issue is to bring balance to the production, there may be little added benefit to doing $10,000 sound on an otherwise $1,000 project. And having pristine sound on gorilla video shot with a $280 camcorder may strike the final viewer as a bit inconsistent.

But this specific question and answer may better fit the "All things audio" forum, while the rest of this thread is specifically addresses the XH-A1 audio.

all understandable reasoning. i was just wondering. other than the cost of a decent mic its not all that expensive. these days XLR interfaces for a pc are under $200. granted its a lot to drag around. and for weddings and such it doesnt really matter. just seems like sometimes audio which isnt really that hard or expensive to get right seems to get left behind.

Eric,

From my observation and tests, the recording quality capability of the camcorder is generally substantially better than the typical viewing/listening environment (e.g., home TV set), or for that matter the recording environment (field recording without control of stray sound sources, etc.) with respect to frequency response, distortion, noise level, etc.

The greater problem is the application in the field by the videographer. These range from mic selection and placement to management of levels. Audio is often left behind because many videographers are more visually oriented than sound oriented, and sound can be more difficult because the mic needs to be near the speaker to get good voice. But we get away with it because we are able to meet and exceed the client's expectations, which are based more on what the client or his uncle Charlie can do than what is actually possible.

It is a $3200 camcorder. For good sound coverage of a wedding you could easily spend that much in wireless and wired mics alone, without adding mixers. (e.g., mics for the officiant, groom, soloists, readings, and ambient, for starters).

And you hit on the portability issue. A rather small potion of weddings can afford adding a dedicated sound man to deal with the added gear. Many are one-man-band operations, with possibly a second camera operator if it is a two camera shoot. Fortunate is the videographer with a client base that can afford and is willing to pay for a first class shoot.