FORUMS: list search recent posts

Mixer to Cam enough

COW Forums : Audio Professionals

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
newbee33
Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 15, 2008 at 4:50:50 am

hello everyone,

this one is causing a headache for me. Is recording into the HVX200 with the SD302 mixer plenty of headroom. Others are telling me, nope, just use a seperate recorder, double system.

is the 16bit, 48khz enough. the projects are planned for film festivals, and hopefully one day maybe it would get picked up.


Return to posts index

Ty Ford
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 15, 2008 at 5:05:04 pm

Hello 33 and welcome to the Cow Audio Forum.

16-bit, 48 kHz was what DATs were and a lot of movies were made with double record DATs.

Can you do better, sure A Sound Devices 702T or 744T.

An experienced person with 16-bit 48 kHz will probably get better sound than an unexperienced person with 24-bit, 96 kHz.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Want better production audio?: http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford/AudioBootcamp.html
Watch Ty play guitar:





Return to posts index

rick kadri
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 15, 2008 at 11:26:52 pm

thanks ty, nice to meet you. so iam wondering if audio is well recorded in 16bit in camera (hvx200) for dialogue, and then in post is converted to 32bit float, i know this doesnt improve quality buy my understanding is the rounding is better?



Return to posts index


Ty Ford
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 16, 2008 at 2:26:01 am

Once you're at 16, going to 32, 64 or whatever doesn't do a lot of good.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Want better production audio?: http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford/AudioBootcamp.html
Watch Ty play guitar:





Return to posts index

rick kadri
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 16, 2008 at 4:37:46 am

thanks ty, i decided to stick to double system and use the 702t,

as you know that extra dynamic range and more room to play with is a bonus. 24bit, 96khz it is, with proper mic placement etc. of course

thanks again.



Return to posts index

Roland Heap
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 16, 2008 at 5:47:48 pm

I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that there is no place in location sound for 96kHz - stick to 48kHz.

Anything else will just make your post production more tricky, give you less storage, and the extra kilohertz will only be heard by passing mongrels.

:)

Ro



Return to posts index


Will Salley
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 17, 2008 at 1:27:42 am

I have to agree with you Roland, but with the exception of "specialty" shoots such as direct-to-tape music shows (where the audio will be re-mixed for audio only release,etc).

Also, that extra doubling of sampling frequency doesn't buy you any extra headroom, it just helps the resolution of the audio. The extra 8-bits does, however, help with headroom but not as much as a good pre-amp in an outboard mixer (such as the 302). Actually, the mic pres in the 7-series are excellent, but the pre-amps in the 302 are almost as good and the built-in limiter is superb. Why go double-system unless an unusual camera/mixer link is necessary? It's just adding an extra step in post.



System Info - G5/Dual 2 - 10.4.8 - QT v7.1.3 - 8GB ram - Radeon 9800Pro - External SATA Raid - Decklink Extreme - Wacom 6x8



Return to posts index

rick kadri
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 17, 2008 at 2:23:41 am

i'm going double system not so much for the 96khz, but for the 24bit, the extra dynamic range and more room to apply effects and processing, i tested a file going into camera with 302, sounds good, but with 302 into 702T, OH MY! clean, crisp, so little noise, i thought the machine was off.

the headroom is where it excels. i also like the multipurpose of the recorder for SFX,ambience, music, foley etc. and not all camera operators like to be tithered either.


Return to posts index

Roland Heap
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 17, 2008 at 8:43:16 am

Ah, now 24bit vs 16bit - that IS worthwhile. I hate it when I have to bring out the DAT and drop those extra bits these days. But you can go to 24bit without pushing up the sample rate and messing with your editor's mind...

24bit, 48kHz, all the way for me. Easy for everyone.



Return to posts index


Ty Ford
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 17, 2008 at 1:21:24 pm

Roland, and folks,

I agree. I think it's been pretty much proven that 24-bit, 48 kHz is the baseline spec for audio today, even though I'm pretty sure Digi-beta is only 16-bit, 48 kHz.

I get a bit pragmatic when I know how much good technology there is out there and see formats like HDV. It's really an interim format (as many are). Something to sell until the next format is invented. Video format wars have been around before I started writing about technology twenty years ago. The battle is not likely to end.

Soon after HDV hit the market, I spoke to a technical rep from a leading equipment company. He said that if you really wanted good audio, of course, you would not used HDV audio. You would double record.

This begs the question, "How good does your audio need to be?" I can't answer that for you. I have sent radio spots out as 384 kbps stereo mp3 files. I did not lose a minute's sleep over it because, for better or worse, it is common practice today.

Again, specs aren't everything. A very good recordist with average gear may get better sound than someone less experienced with all the best gear.

For more information on lossy (destructive) and lossless (non or not as destructive) compression), try this, http://flac.sourceforge.net/

Regards,

Ty Ford




Want better production audio?: http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford/AudioBootcamp.html
Watch Ty play guitar:





Return to posts index

rick kadri
Re: Mixer to Cam enough
on Jan 17, 2008 at 2:18:07 pm

alright, i'll just use the film setting on the 702t, which is 24bit 48khz. and ty is right, its not just he equipment, its also the person operating it. thanks everyone



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]