Audio Options?

[J.R. Hudson]

I undertsand there is a 12bit and 16bit channel for the DVX audio.

I further understand that if you record 16bit and dub in POST you will lose all ambient recordings from whatever was recorded.

Question(s)

1. Is it advisable to use an audio recording device such as the NAGRA?

2. What is the best way to record audio?

[Shrunk_Monk]

From: http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/dvproline/DVworld_24qs.html

"8. Do I need to utilize a separate DAT audio recording for high quality audio?

No. The quality of audio on the AG-DVX100 is comparable to the film industry standard DAT recorder. With professional XLR audio connectors, 48V phantom power and 16bit/48KHz sampling, the AG-DVX100 represents the state of the art in DV format digital audio."

Depends, too, on whether or not you require a separate backup on location.

Monk

[J.R. Hudson]

Thanks for the link Monk. :D

[Carlos_E._Martinez]

From: http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/dvproline/DVworld_24qs.html

"8. Do I need to utilize a separate DAT audio recording for high quality audio?

No. The quality of audio on the AG-DVX100 is comparable to the film industry standard DAT recorder. With professional XLR audio connectors, 48V phantom power and 16bit/48KHz sampling, the AG-DVX100 represents the state of the art in DV format digital audio."

Depends, too, on whether or not you require a separate backup on location.


Sorry to disagree, Monk. Except if you consider the DVX100 audio track to be your backup. I wouldn't believe so quickly what Panasonic might have to say on this.

Why don't you make a test using a quality mid price DAT machine like the Tascam DA-P1, a good quality mixer and high quality microphones, recording the same stuff in a DVX100 at the same time?

In fact, record it on any video pro camera, and listen to the result on a studio, with proper monitor speakers. Any DAT or Nagra audio recording will be a lot superior to a video's audio track.

Using double system is simply more expensive and less practical than recording directly on the video machine. But is certainly not inferior or not even equal. Why do you think professional projects still use it?


Carlos

[Shrunk_Monk]

I wouldn't believe so quickly what Panasonic might have to say on this.


Carlos,

Panasonic has stated the DVX-100 is "comparable to the film industry standard DAT recorder." The company further states: "...the AG-DVX100 represents the state of the art in DV format digital audio."

Anything, of course, is comparable. The degree of comparability is always subject to scrutiny, skepticism and ultimate technical goals. Money being no object, I'm sure we can all find our "dream" sound system.

For those of us not having access to those resources, we "compromise" with the best quality production possible, given those "limitations".

I recall being in stereo hi-fi shops, listening intently as the salesman would switch to different speakers for comparison. Listeners would oooh and aaah at the difference in sound quality. Was there a single speaker system that satisfied everyone in the sound room? Of course not - because we all hear sound differently. At the low rung, most would agree that certain speakers were inferior. On a higher level, disagreements amongst potential customers would surface as to the "best" speakers.

I had a friend once who would brag that he had the best stereo equipment in town. He claimed to be able to hear frequencies from 16 hz to 25,000 hz, and the extra cost of his equipment was well worth the extra money he paid for it. Enough said.




Why don't you make a test using a quality mid price DAT machine like the Tascam DA-P1, a good quality mixer and high quality microphones, recording the same stuff in a DVX100 at the same time?

In fact, record it on any video pro camera, and listen to the result on a studio, with proper monitor speakers. Any DAT or Nagra audio recording will be a lot superior to a video's audio track.

Using double system is simply more expensive and less practical than recording directly on the video machine. But is certainly not inferior or not even equal. Why do you think professional projects still use it?

Why don't I? Time, money, access, and for all of the reasons stated above. I will leave the ultimate critical decisions to technophiles who can judge my work on its merits.

As to "professional projects"? I trust the pros to do what they think is best.

In terms of comparison, I will let this article speak for itself, courtesy of DV.com:

http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/wilt0203

Monk

[DJClinton]

Interesting little discussion,

I myself am quite good (ego talking) at audio and have a recording studio and a couple of U-87 mic (that's 2 ladies and gentlemen). What can I say, I love em.

Basically, I sold off my DAT recorder and player due to the demise of this format and the fact that everything is burnable to CD or DVD these days.

I also found that focusing the DVX-100 is a bit of a problem without an external monitor.

Therefore the answer is easy, record your audio into your laptop using a USB interface, spend as much or as little as you like. PLUS, you can use your Laptop as a monitor for focussing.

PLUS, as a Director you can play the shots that you've just recorded to your actors, and record them and do a quick edit if you need or whatever. I've found an excellent technique is to play the footage back without the audio and see if the actors are putting across the message without words, only body language. ;)

It's the portable studio.

So, don't carry around a field recorder, mixer, monitor, generator etc etc.

Just a thought,

Thanks for reading.

DJ Clinton