PDA

View Full Version : audio to Mini?



filmmaker1977
06-04-2006, 11:43 AM
these posts came from another thread where they already were quite off-topic:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=59069&page=6

digest:


Also the only way around the mult-channel aspect is either separate .wav's or Quicktime.

The Video-for-Windows AVI file format doesn't support multi-channel 24/96 audio.


at dv info there is this:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=491427&postcount=26

and i found this:

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/shop/flypage/product_id/3844

and this:

http://www.nusystems.co.uk/product/Echo.Indigo.IO
http://www.nusystems.co.uk/product/Echo.Indigo.DJ

isn't it 24/96 audio?

and.. Jason, didn't you already posted that quicktime will support 24/96? i'm confused..


16/48 audio (2 ch) is currently recorded in the AVI file. We also have some nice audio level meters so you can see what's happening. You can use any external device with standard Windows WAV drivers (not ASIO) or use on-board PC HD audio.

24/96 needs ASIO support with recording to QT, since video-for-windows is limited to two channels at 16/48. In order to get embedded 24/96, you will need equipment capable of 24/96 (such as a USB audio device, or on-board HD audio that can record at 24/96).

We still feel the best way to get good 24/96 is to use an external audio recording device and sync it with the camera. We can do that very nicely right now since we have time-of-day timecode, so you can sync everything up using a timecode slate, We will also have LTC syncing in the future, so you can slave the camera's timecode to the audio device if you choose.

(...)

As Jason often states: "Without good pre-amps, 24/96 is overkill . . . you're just digitizing noise and useless bits."


okay but there is who is recording to a laptop..

http://207.36.59.179/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=software;action=display;num=1072074 316

what must i need to have it?.. man, i need your camera to doc work.. run & gun to the laptop and it will be enough..

external monitor, external battery, external device a, external device b, and i need a slave just to help with the weight of all this..

forget the hollywood business.. think in sundance as i already read i don't know where and you will have hollywood!

but first think about this: your camera is the most perfect INDIE cam that is available now to us.. sell like it hotcakes if you will get a COMPACT package to the laptop recording..

all the people with who i'm talking about your camera are saying the same..

handheld.. lighter.. easier..

so, please get a laptop solution to 24/96 audio recording and you must thank us our interest..

cheers man.. i like you but not so much as your Mini.. she rocks but with 24/96 audio..


Are you looking to have support something like this?

UAX220-Mic
All in one, all in hand
http://www.digigram.com/images/products/uax_220mic_lg.jpg (http://www.digigram.com/images/image_gallery/product/uax_220mic_lg.jpg)
The UAX220-Mic is a professional USB Audio interface for broadcast and other demanding pro audio applications featuring 2/2 balanced analog high-quality I/Os. Under its compact and sleek design, it combines Digigram’s leading edge experience in audio performance with the ease of use of standard USB Audio. With two professional grade mic preamps, the UAX220-Mic is the most efficient Pro Audio interface for portable use.

Get the UAX220-Mic PDF brochure (http://www.digigram.com/download_form.htm?download_path=pdf_brochure&prod_key=13300) »

http://www.digigram.com/images/navigation/uax_video.jpg (http://www.digigram.com/uax_video/)

Video about UAX220-Mic


True plug-and-play devices, the UAX220-Mic is the perfect solution for use with multiple computers; such as for example a laptop computer on the road and a desktop PC in the newsroom or studio. When connected to the USB port of a computer, the UAX220-Mic is immediately operational: no need for a specific driver or bulky external power supply. Applications

Broadcast (newsroom, mobile journalist workstation)
Live performance (theatrical playback, special effects, sound system calibration)
Recording on location
Logging, legal recording, and archiving
DJ applications
Music productionhttp://www.digigram.com/products/getinfo.htm?prod_key=13300i appreciate your tip.. maybe it will work.. but i need to know if you are talking seriously considering that you are saying 24/96 only as external recording.. preamps stuff and this kind of hassles..

with this sort of gear is it possible quality 24/96? To big screen.. that's where i've been displaying all my indie work..


edit

24/96 with this USB device? i don't think so:

http://www.digigram.com/faqs/getinfo.htm?o=answer&prod_key=13300&faq_key=706

otherwise as 16/48 will it be acceptable to big screen? are there good preamps?..

or even 24/48? is this possible with this USB device?

i've been watching the video available there, it sounds quite professional...

any thoughts?

Jason Rodriguez
06-04-2006, 03:28 PM
Once we have ASIO support, really any audio device with ASIO drivers should work . . . so there are many firewire/USB devices on the market that can do 24/96.

filmmaker1977
06-04-2006, 03:38 PM
beautiful.. when will it be?

btw, they're saying it has ASIO support..

http://www.digigram.com/faqs/getinfo.htm?o=answer&prod_key=13300&faq_key=703

though only as 48Khz.. so, not all audio devices with ASIO drivers are working..

Jason Rodriguez
06-04-2006, 06:55 PM
On board the camera we will have 24/96 support for two channels of audio in a Quicktime file format. The AVI file format will have 16/48 for two channels of audio.

With ASIO support we will have the capability to support a variety of external USB/Firewire audio devices for multi-channel recording at 24/96 into the Quicktime file format. Because of the limitations of Video For Windows we cannot do this in the AVI file format.

Hope this makes sense.

filmmaker1977
06-04-2006, 06:57 PM
:dankk2: Jason Green!.. and about 24/48, is it possible?




follow me following you:


On board the camera we will have 24/96 support for two channels of audio in a Quicktime file format. The AVI file format will have 16/48 for two channels of audio.right!


With ASIO support we will have the capability to support a variety of external USB/Firewire audio devices for multi-channel recording at 24/96 into the Quicktime file format. Because of the limitations of Video For Windows we cannot do this in the AVI file format.okay..





1)

about that device above-mentioned, they're saying there's just 48 Khz:
http://www.digigram.com/faqs/getinfo.htm?o=answer&prod_key=13300&faq_key=706

so, IS IT POSSIBLE 24/48?.. but maybe not 24/96 with such device.. is it so? and in this case, can you suggest (like Ari did) other one but with this feature recommended by you please?

interesting info over the subject:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=510635&postcount=10





2)

do you remember?
as you often states: "Without good pre-amps, 24/96 is overkill . . . you're just digitizing noise and useless bits."

what's your opinion about this:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=491427&postcount=26


conclusion
WITH ASIO support + USB/Firewire devices (like these) with good preamps for multi-channel recording at 24/96 into the Quicktime file format it's possible change the equation: CAN 24/96 BE USELESS?





in coagulated discolor.. :happy:
edit


can you explain why here:
http://www.apex-audio.be/images/foto/digigram%20UAX220-Mic.pdf (only now because it wasn't available at the manufacturer website where only exists that FAQ link and where 24-bits isn't mentioned.. why?)

it is saying also 24-bit / 96 Khz A/D and D/A converters resolution?

though sampling frequencies available are up to 48 Khz

what does it mean?..

in audio formats supported it refers again 24-bit besides 16-bit PCM

it means will 24/48 recording be possible now?.. (or maybe not because that suff considering the 16-bits limitation of the video for windows/AVI file format..)

or even will 24/96 be possible? i know when QT will be available.. september right?

Ari Presler
06-04-2006, 09:17 PM
I had seen the 24-bit / 96 Khz A/D and D/A converters resolution on the spec too. Not sure why it goes to 48Khz on other part of the spec. You might want to contact Digigram directly. I had pasted in the product as an example USB Audio device (thinking it may ahve had 24/96 support too).

QT is schedule for September (this is driven by Cineform schedule).

filmmaker1977
06-04-2006, 09:45 PM
:dankk2: for your part Ari! Jason Green, can you give your contribution too?

Jason Rodriguez
06-05-2006, 07:04 AM
We will support multiple deivices . . . not just the Digigram but other devices from M-Audio, Edirol, Apogee, Motu, etc. . . . those can do multi-channel 24/96.

filmmaker1977
06-05-2006, 10:21 AM
We will support multiple deivices . . . not just the Digigram but other devices from M-Audio, Edirol, Apogee, Motu, etc. . . . those can do multi-channel 24/96.with good pre-amps?.. in order to change your statement but in any other than as 100%: «24/96 is overkill . . . you're just digitizing noise and useless bits» ?

Tainted
06-05-2006, 10:55 AM
Make sure these puppies put out phantom power too if your need it, otherwsie you may need to supply phantom to your mics using another device in addition to the audio interface. Also, IMHO there are big advantages of using 24-bit (more headroom, less quantization errors when mixing and adding effects -- and these things are still true even with crappy preamps), but the doubling of file size from a 48 kHz to a 96 kHz sample rates is much less valuable. Unless your audio is going to be played back on a high-fidelity pro-calibrated monitor, I doubt you could find anyone that could tell the difference between 48 and 96. But, hey, that's just one man's opinion... :)

Emanuel
06-05-2006, 11:19 AM
Make sure these puppies put out phantom power too if your need it, otherwsie you may need to supply phantom to your mics using another device in addition to the audio interface. Also, IMHO there are big advantages of using 24-bit (more headroom, less quantization errors when mixing and adding effects -- and these things are still true even with crappy preamps), but the doubling of file size from a 48 kHz to a 96 kHz sample rates is much less valuable. Unless your audio is going to be played back on a high-fidelity pro-calibrated monitor, I doubt you could find anyone that could tell the difference between 48 and 96. But, hey, that's just one man's opinion... :)No it isn't... You gave a valuable contribution to the debate. I have the same opinion but be careful 'cause I'm not a techie!... ;)

I've just been following the discussion...

Concerning what Yuval Shrem posted before, here is his quote:
Hi,

I think I can help clarifying the issue...
Here goes:

most Big-Budget film production record their production-Sound (on-location-dialog) on stereo DAT tapes. these record 16bit/48kHz, however, the DAT-Decks are about $6000 machines with superb A/D converters. When using top-quality microphones and pre-amplifiers and then converting to digital with top quality A/D converters, 16bit/48kHz is more than enough for dialog and production-sound in general. The extra bits will not make such a notable difference. (could make a very slight difference though...)
On the contrary, you can get a cheep microphone, connect it a to a cheep pre-amplifier that is likely included in a cheep PCI card with low-end A/D converter that claims to do 24bit/96kHz and guess what? it will sound very bad, and will create files about 4 times bigger, making it much heavier on computer and storage recourses.

Conclusion:

16bit/48kHz with top-notch pre-amps and converters is the industry standard.
24bit/48kHz has a much better dynamic range, therefore is superior.
24bit/96kHz is simply more than you need for production recording.

However, 24/96 should be used as a master delivery format, since it does have advantages for music and sound-effects, and enable a more dynamic and crispier sounding final mix. 24/96 is also the delivery format for DVDs.

hemophilia
06-05-2006, 12:15 PM
Also, IMHO there are big advantages of using 24-bit (more headroom, less quantization errors when mixing and adding effects -- and these things are still true even with crappy preamps)

Not entirely right there Tainted. There is no difference in quantization error-- b/c all of the major audio apps (digidesign, cubase, cakewalk, fl studio, etc...) are using at least 32-bit float processing for their mixing/effects, some of them are now using 64-bit float. So even if you record 16 bit, it'll do all the processing in the higher bit depths so as not to accrue quantization error with every step of processing/mixing.

If you stick a plugin into the chain that doesn't support the higher bit depths (old 16bit integer dx plugins) then yes, the software will process it at those lower bit depths. But then that's true regardless of which format you initially recorded in.

So the PROCESSING in the audio app isn't really an issue as far as the recorded bit depth is concerned.

-Kevin

Jason Rodriguez
06-05-2006, 02:56 PM
with good pre-amps?

Yes, these external USB/Firewire devices need to have good preamps . . . you can see that some of them are rated at over 107db A-weighted, which is very high . . . you can't get that without good pre-amps.

filmmaker1977
06-05-2006, 04:27 PM
Not entirely right there Tainted. There is no difference in quantization error-- b/c all of the major audio apps (digidesign, cubase, cakewalk, fl studio, etc...) are using at least 32-bit float processing for their mixing/effects, some of them are now using 64-bit float. So even if you record 16 bit, it'll do all the processing in the higher bit depths so as not to accrue quantization error with every step of processing/mixing.

If you stick a plugin into the chain that doesn't support the higher bit depths (old 16bit integer dx plugins) then yes, the software will process it at those lower bit depths. But then that's true regardless of which format you initially recorded in.

So the PROCESSING in the audio app isn't really an issue as far as the recorded bit depth is concerned.

-Kevinhey brazilian.. excellent input.. you're good so you can help here but i didn't understand one word of your post.. or i can say i understand all the english words but not the technical ones.. i mean all besides "16 bit".. what are you saying?.. maybe people like Jason did it but basically this is a filmmaker board.. you're welcome as techie but please moderate your speech to other level okay? :)

filmmaker1977
06-05-2006, 04:35 PM
Yes, these external USB/Firewire devices need to have good preamps . . . you can see that some of them are rated at over 107db A-weighted, which is very high . . . you can't get that without good pre-amps.i just didn't understand one point: you're saying that they have good pre-amps already provided or we must to buy any other device to provide good preamps?.. and when you're posting that some of them are rated over 107db which is very high does it mean: have they good preamps included?

hemophilia
06-06-2006, 12:21 PM
hey brazilian.. excellent input.. you're good so you can help here but i didn't understand one word of your post.. or i can say i understand all the english words but not the technical ones.. i mean all besides "16 bit".. what are you saying?.. maybe people like Jason did it but basically this is a filmmaker board.. you're welcome as techie but please moderate your speech to other level okay? :)

The non-technical version of it boils down to this:

Higher bit rates than 16/44 (CD-quality) are both theoretically better, and are within the limits of human hearing. HOWEVER-- in practice it's very low on the priority list. The microphone quality, the pre-amp quality, and for film-makers doing uncontrolled production sound (as opposed to studio work) the location noise, distance from talent, wind, etc all have a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more important role than those few extra bits.

Just to reiterate what someone said before-- 16bit @ 44kHz has been the professional industry standard way to record for many years, and no one has complained about the results they got. This is b/c they were using top-notch microphones and pre's and knew how to use them.

Worrying about super-high bit rates whilst using anything but the most top-notch equipment for the rest or the chain is like optimizing high-speed aerodynamics on a beat-up old VW bug that won't go over 35mph anyway. It's like fielding a team of fat, out-of-shape, no-talent footballers and then equipping them with the latest Nike dri-fit wardrobe and expecting them to be better than pros wearing cotton.

-Kevin

Jason Rodriguez
06-06-2006, 01:11 PM
That was funny hemophilia :)

filmmaker1977
06-06-2006, 02:38 PM
okay i agree.. who doesn't?.. but the problem is keeping the same.. if i will buy a gear i must have the best deal.. the money isn't growing on trees.. MONEY is a sacred word.. it's not a joke!.. and if i will do my best as customer i must need what's the best my money can afford.. i need to know the details to evaluate how i want to spend my money..

maybe not from the viewpoint of a technical expert.. must i need to be?.. to have money to buy filmmaking gear? i'd like to see a lot of the technical professionals with who i'm working since i left the film school with a script in their hands, to know how to direct the actors, the best shooting to handle.. just to have money again for the next feature.. anybody interested?..

Jason Rodriguez
06-06-2006, 05:44 PM
The SI-1920 is a *great* deal. IMHO the best deal on the market . . . there is no other camera that can shoot 10-bit RAW data to disk on a simple modern laptop or other suitable machine, with removeable lenses (and removeable lens mounts), and that you can edit the footage in real-time multi-stream (again at 10-bit), all for under $15K. Another product like this simply doesn't exist on the market.

filmmaker1977
06-06-2006, 06:21 PM
hey jason, why this last post?.. i didn't understand why the spamming?

is anybody denying you?

the only request that i made to you (that's why i sent that PM..) is because not all the world is speaking english as you.. you might be know.. your name is spanish..

then, BECAUSE i'm NOT technical expert nor even american/english speaker like the majority of you.. tech experts here.. as future customer i need that you confirm:

if when you're saying those external usb/firewire devices must need good pre-amps like that DIGIGRAM UAX220-mic.. if you're referring their performance with THEIR own pre-amps or if it will take still another external solution outside for to provide quality..

even because i didn't understand if you're saying that DIGIGRAM UAX220-mic has pre-amps included with quality enough for to handle with audio for theatrical release.. or if besides an external USB/Firewire device like DIGIGRAM UAX220-mic, we must need another pre-amps source if we want avoid noise and other hassles stuff like that.. (following your statement above-mentioned by Ari)



please, be specific and don't me answer with apples when i ask for oranges, okay? :)

:dankk2:

filmmaker1977
06-06-2006, 07:24 PM
okay i thought you already read my PM but now i was checking your unconfirmed PM receipt and i'm seeing that you didn't.

check your PM box please!

ESTEBEVERDE
06-06-2006, 07:42 PM
Personally, I think the SI is an Earth shaking development.

This is the for real deal.

Red sounds great and in all probability it will be.

With that said, Silicon Imaging is quickly proving it is as the wave of the future today!

I personally prefer off camera recording for many reasons so the fact that SI is even considering having any on board sound capture is just icing on the cake to me!!!

Emanuel
06-06-2006, 07:55 PM
filmmaker1977, though I'm not Jason and you must wait for his answer not mine, of course, here is an interesting post from Markus (the previous post of the Yuval's post) around the subject:


I'm not an expert either, but I have some synthesizers and other audio gear and I searched for the best way to record the audio. I looked for A/D converters and found out there are alot of cards/racks which are 24 bit/96 kHz between 50$ and 5000$.
I wanted to know what the difference is and its not about features, but about dynamic range and signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). This is what the quality of audio depends on.

My Soundblaster Live card (16 bit) has about 80 dB. Sounds good, but that means that about 20% of the 16 bit audio is just noise. So you can call it a 13 bit card, or "not a real 16 bit" card. For 16 bits, noisefree audio you need about 100 dB.

The audio file is just a container (like .avi, .mov, .mxf) for signal + noise. To get the best quality, you have to minimize the noise and maximize the signal.

Some newer cards and chips have 110 dB, up to 120 dB. So 16 bits is not sufficient to record every information. But it would be silly to produce "17 bit, 18 bit, 21 bit, ..." converters. The next step would be 20, or 24 bits.
Most manufacturers use 24 bit resolution when the dynamic range is above 100 dB. But that does not mean they have a 24 bit signal. They actually waste about 6 bits with noise.
The higher the dynamic range, the more expensive the A/D converters are. To reduce the thermal noise, you have to install some serious active cooling devices.

About DV: DV is 12 or 16 bits. It's just the container. To find out how good your camera records the audio, you have to ask the manufacturer about dynamic range and SNR. Sometimes they print this in the manual. I just looked at my DVX100AE manual, but it just says "12/16 bit".

But the big question is: who needs anything above 16 bit / 100 dB?

- Music producers need that as a headroom for mixing or alternating/pitching/bending/transformating the signal.
- People recording extremly loud stuff (way louder than a rock concert).
- Scientists

For just recording and playback real-world stuff, you won't need that. Listen to a good CD, that's "oldschool 16 bit".

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=510615&postcount=9

filmmaker1977
06-06-2006, 08:14 PM
:dankk2: Emanuel

but..

"Most manufacturers use 24 bit resolution when the dynamic range is above 100 dB. But that does not mean they have a 24 bit signal. They actually waste about 6 bits with noise.

The higher the dynamic range, the more expensive the A/D converters are. To reduce the thermal noise, you have to install some serious active cooling devices."

and that's why I asked what I asked.. 24/48?.. besides the pre-amps provided from these kind of external USB/Firewire devices, will it be necessary any other source with good pre-amps or anything else to go to theatrical release?.. specially if we know that any laptop can be a hassle considering the potential electronic interference level of a computer basis recording?.. or isn't it so?

..and please don't talk me about 16/48 is CD quality blabla.. i know.. but if all the people will record at highest 24/48 or even 24/96, will i be recording with an inferior set-up?.. only if anyone like Jason may clarify that > 100 db issue..

Jason Rodriguez
06-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Okay . . .

The problem you have with trying to record 24/96 on a computer motherboard (or near a computer motherboard like internal to a laptop), is that while the specs on the audio recording codec are great (i.e., the Sigmatel chipsets are around 100db right now), you're placing them right next to very noisy electronics inside the motherboard or the laptop. That means the theoretical 100db you'd get from the chip in isolation is out the door . . . motherboard manufacturers are not manufacturing their devices for audiophile recording, they're mostly doing it for playback, and they're expecting the super-high quality playback to be piped out as a digital signal (SPIDF), so the isolation needed for great analog performance simply isn't there. Additionally, since there's no isolation, you can't have great analog pre-amps . . . you can have pre-amps with great specs on paper, but again, their real-world performance is going to be compromised by noisy electronic gear sitting right next to them on the motherboard or somewhere else inside the computer. For instance, I remember doing audio recording with the on-board on a laptop one time as back-up to a Nagra and I could hear electronically an odd clicking sound (that wasn't on the Nagra) when the hard-drive would start spinning up! So that's not what you want . . .

By using an external device (which has isolated analog pre-amps, and isolated A/D converters optimized for their theoretical dynamic ranges) you get much better audio recording. You can actually take advantage of 24/96 (or at least hope to have the possibility). On a computer motherboard, you simply can't, and 16/48 will be perfectly fine, as there's so much possible noise on the line, if you tried to record with the potential dynamic range of the 24-bit depth, you'd end up hearing the noise of the electronics inside your computer when you normalized the signal in post rather than what you were actually trying to record. And 16/48 is *perfectly* fine for the dynamic range of dialog and production sound.

So, while we're going to support on-board audio recording, we suggest that's mostly a "scratch-sound" interface, or just a simple audio interface like a normal camcorder . . . the actual audio quality will be about the same as your typical broadcast camera . . . since they too aren't that worried about the isolation of audio components. This of course tends to work for around 80-90% of the situations you'll encounter, so we see it as useful. But, If you must have the highest level of audio recording, you will need to have an external device via USB/Firewire that enables you to get away from the noise-sources inside the computer/camera.

filmmaker1977
06-06-2006, 11:13 PM
:dankk2: Jason for your nice input!..

actually, I'm thinking to shoot with this set-up:

Mini + USB/Firewire external device for help the audio -> laptop

..that's why i'm worried..



can you help here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=575530&postcount=15

as hemophilia helped with his non-technical post i'd like your answer because:

1st
the english is not my mother language;

2nd
i do art for living and unfortunately i must learn about these boring hassles.. i can assure you it's worst than to have money to buy it..

when i'm asking if these usb/firewire external devices have or not pre-amps inside, it's just because maybe you wanted to say that they will need good pre-amps.. so considering my technical ignorance, i don't know if you are saying that they already have good pre-amps included (?) or if they need for another pre-amps source (?) and if it is the case where can i solve the problem?

:dankk2:

Hi Filmmaker . . . yes, the USB devices have VERY good pre-amps . . . and they are noise-free, meaning that they are very well isolated, unlike audio on a motherboard which is close to a lot of other electronics that can create noise in the signal . . . so although the specs on a device might be 100db, if they sit it next to a noisy gigabit ethernet chip on a motherboard, that S/N is lost. The external device allow for that to be avoided.

aside any no private content i'm posting it because our exchange PM can be interesting to this debate and to other future SI users and i hope sincerely the best success for your project.. it will be mine also as customer.. and a warranty to the future.. your luck is our welfare too..

aside my bad english, my last concern is:

i) with an external USB/Firewire like those referred similar to DIGIGRAM UAX220-MIC, i can have something around > 100 db avoiding the natural electronic interferences of any laptop?

ii) or i must have an external recording device like Tascam or Edirol just for to assure quality enough to theatrical release.. because if so, i must count with more 4 - 5 lbs. right on my shoulders + a pain ass just to handle with more one device around my run and gun work..

iii) last but not least.. since a long time ago, i've been dreaming with a laptop solution for the filmmaking..

but also for the audio embedded with the image?..

can it be possible to guarantee high quality audio recording with a laptop if working via a USB/Firewire device like that DIGIGRAM UAX220-MIC?..

you're saying:
By using an external device (which has isolated analog pre-amps, and isolated A/D converters optimized for their theoretical dynamic ranges) you get much better audio recording.

and if so, 24/48 will it not be the best option?

You can actually take advantage of 24/96 (or at least hope to have the possibility). On a computer motherboard, you simply can't, and 16/48 will be perfectly fine, as there's so much possible noise on the line, if you tried to record with the potential dynamic range of the 24-bit depth, you'd end up hearing the noise of the electronics inside your computer when you normalized the signal in post rather than what you were actually trying to record. And 16/48 is *perfectly* fine for the dynamic range of dialog and production sound.

(but) when you're saying:
So, while we're going to support on-board audio recording, we suggest that's mostly a "scratch-sound" interface, or just a simple audio interface like a normal camcorder . . . the actual audio quality will be about the same as your typical broadcast camera . . . since they too aren't that worried about the isolation of audio components. This of course tends to work for around 80-90% of the situations you'll encounter, so we see it as useful. But, If you must have the highest level of audio recording, you will need to have an external device via USB/Firewire that enables you to get away from the noise-sources inside the computer/camera.can i trust in a cheap device like that?.. when you're saying: "so although the specs on a device might be 100db, if they sit it next to a noisy gigabit ethernet chip on a motherboard, that S/N is lost. The external device allow for that to be avoided." how much will it be?.. in an efficient manner?..

and if so, would it be possible to increase up to 24/48 or even 24/96 recording if the USB/Firewire will have good pre-amps?.. or is there ONLY great specs on paper?.. in this DIGIGRAM UAX220-MIC case, the S/N ratio on paper does it mean good pre-amps? did you test any external device similar?.. or did you know who had been working or testing a set-up like this one?.. because if theoretically speaking it can be work, nothing better than the practice to confirm, or not, any hassles.. or may i be confident with my set-up?..

and if so, just at 16/48?.. or can i dream with the 24/48 or 24/96 with the basic quality requirements (to theatrical release) IF via an external USB/Firewire external device like UAX220-MIC + laptop audio/video recording?


:dankk2: Jason!

i will shoot with SI.. the first digital cinema camera of the History!

and i'm sure that there are a lot of people with me too..

Jason Rodriguez
06-07-2006, 05:04 AM
Hi Filmmaker,

The problem is analog isolation . . . the external devices move the analog front-end away from the computer, and are straight digital into the computer as bits . . . so the external USB/Firewire adapters avoid the noise issues, and you don't need to have an actual external recorder, i.e., a Sound Devices or HBB, etc.