Hpx-170 Still No 4 Channels Of Ext Audio!??!!

ksteiger

ksteiger

Well-known member
In 1991 My old Sony Hi8 could accept an external stereo microphone to defeat the internal one. In 2000 my XL1 could accept 4 discrete external mic level sources. In 2008 Panansonic still will not allow you to defeat their crappy internal mic no matter what. Is it me, or is that just a basic request... FOR A $5500.00 CAMERA?
 
Er... in 2008 NO camera under $9,000 lets you do four channels EXCEPT the HPX170 and HVX200A. Not sure what you're going on about.

Even the vaunted EX1 and its $13,000 counterpart, the EX3, offer only two channels of input.

The only camera under $17,500 that I can think of that offers four discrete inputs (and those are all XLRs) is the HPX500.

Even the XLH1, which used to offer it, was just updated to the XLH1-S, and in that update they TOOK AWAY the four-channel option.

If you want four channels, the only way to get 'em in the under-$10,000 bracket are with the HPX170 or HVX200A (2 internal, 2 external) or with the HPX500 (four external). (unless there's some that I'm not thinking of...)
 
Barry_Green said:
Er... in 2008 NO camera under $9,000 lets you do four channels EXCEPT the HPX170 and HVX200A. Not sure what you're going on about.
Click to expand...
So in effect you are saying that it's OK to take away features and that I should not "go on" about it? I was an early adopter. A stereo mini jack that would allow this would cost next to nothing. I am one of the biggest supporters of this camera on this website so, yeah, I am a little offended by being told that I am "going on" like some nut when I have been MORE than supportive, Barry. I own two of these cameras I would just like panasonic to spend 10 dollars to include a basic feature. My point is, why are we going backwards in feature sets.

Sorry. That statement rubbed me the wrong way. I have always been more than respectful of everyone's opinions here, so please return the favor.
Ken Steiger.
 
Ken, I'm curious, how & what will you do with the 4 channels? I've got nothing against it at all, but usually the location audio I get always is somewhat unacceptable: automobile noise, jets, lawnmowers, birds, truck vibration, etc. I'm always in favor of scrubbing the tracks clean as possible or building foley tracks & ADR. I could see 4 tracks for weddings and conferences.
 
Believe it or not I have been shooting small to medium acoustic musical events where I utilize a combination of microphones to achieve a natural surround mix in camera. It started about three years ago when I was shooting some outdoor events (including a large drum circle) with a boom pole attached to my body carrying a front M/S mic and a rear M/S mic fed to the 4 channels of my XL1. The directionality and realism achieved with this setup truly astounded me. (I fudged the front L/R audio in post to create a center channel from an old LTRT encoder) Most surround post mixing is done purely by processing and digital room simulation. Recording it with mics placed specifically for surround is a whole different feeling...and nobody really does it like this. Too bad, I think.

As someone who spent many years in audio before switching primarily to the visual end of things, I have always noticed that film production people just don't think this way. And audio location sound effects people still primarily record in stereo.

Lately the only way for me to achieve this has been to run a separate protools setup, resynching later, which is fine because I have more mix options, but.., on most of the projects I shoot what I really want is LESS mix options.

OK, maybe I am going on like some sort of nut, but I am still passionate about doing as much in camera as possible. And handing a client a DVD of their event encoded with a true 5.1 surround mix instead of a standard mono or even stereo mix is impressive.

And, oh yeah The DVCPROHD codec gives you 4 - 16 bit uncompressed PCM audio tracks...why not let us use them?

Thank you for asking, hoping all is well in Seattle.
 
Hi,

The Canon camera listed above allowed you four channels but it was at 32kHz and 12 bit, not quite the same. I have asked for four intput, but I have not been able to get them for reasons of geography. If they had taken out the transport and left the body size the same, we might have had room, but the overall clamouring that the factory engineers heard was they wanted a smaller camera than the HVX.

The ability to defeat the internal mic is as yet an unconfirmed feature set in the HPX170. I think it is about 90% that this will be possible, but won't know for a fact till I get the next working sample which will be in June. It always seems easier to do these thing when you are not the engineer that has to make them happen; that is to show make it up on a button or a menu somewhere. I mean every feature has to be engineered into the camera's code and not impact any other codes that are taking place at the same time. It isn't so easy, and there are times the engineers are totally taxed by the fact that there is so much code that happens after the point where you need to put a feature and it becomes daunting to think about all of the code that has to be checked after the insert of a singular feature.

Anyhow we are listening, and trying to do the best we can, and keep it in the budget that you can afford.

Best,

Jan
 
For something like that though wouldn't just be something like taking the wires that lead to the internal mics and adding a jack somewhere? What if the front internal mics where actually connected modularly where you can pop it off revealing 2 more XLR jacks that the internal was connected to. Design wise it would only have to thicken the handle a little more near the internals. They seem about the right size already to make it not so much of an impact in production.
 
For me 4 inputs aren't necessary. They'd be a great novelty that I'm sure I'd use occasionally but they aren't a need. What I really want out of the camera is the ability to record to 4 separate audio tracks and be able to control each one. That way I can have each of the 2 audio sources split and recorded independently. With that set up I can have input 1, track 1 set for a continuous high level recording and have input 1 track 2 set lower incase of loud noises that would cause clipping. Then I could mix them together and have clean, rich audio. Make sense?
 
I think the logic is that if you're serious enough to be utilizing 4-channel digital sound in camera, you've probably got a sound guy and outside equipment.

Doing four channels in-camera would mean you have 4 xlr cables in plus a video and audio out for the sound guy. That's a lot of cables to get in the way of taking good video.

If you own TWO cameras, you've got 4 inputs already. What are you doing that you would need eight?

Personally I like having the 2 internal channels always on. It's like a bonus track. :)
 
I don't recall the link, but a while back someone on these forums actually removed the internal mics and replaced them with XLR input jacks via a breakout box (or similar). It worked just fine. So the camera can certainly physically do this.

But for Panasonic to provide it as a feature, it would have to be reliable and not mess up another feature. The custom breakout solution, if I recall correctly, was large and got in the way of the handle and the steamlined nature of the camera.

As much as I'd love to see 4 XLR inputs on the 170, I think a better solution would be keeping the standard 2 XLR inputs, and then providing a switch to bypass the internal mics in favor of attaching 2 more XLR inputs via some kind of external cable (rather than a box that attaches directly to the camera). That way when you want to use the internal mics, the 2 extra inputs don't get in the way.
 
Thank you for your reply, Jan. The normalling mini jack to overide the internal mic would be an awesome improvement. This would at least get me into those channels somehow.

As far as 8 channels with two cameras? Drift and lack of true phase coherency eliminate that as a covenient option. I have been known to shoot verry long takes. For now its Protools and an extra laptop.
Thanks again. I will take off my rant hat now.
 
^ Yeah, 4 dangling audio cables does seem like a lot for a small camera unless you have it in a fixed spot. I think the point he is making is that if you are using 4 ins, you don't need a sound guy. You simply set your levels, and do the rest in post. But the cables would be annoying if you need to move.

With the way most HD delivery formats can contain surround sound, it would be nice to be able to mount and hook up a 4 ch surround mic to capute ambient sounds in camera. I guess there are the mics that will matrix encode surround on stereo devices.
 
Beat Takeshi said:
For something like that though wouldn't just be something like taking the wires that lead to the internal mics and adding a jack somewhere? What if the front internal mics where actually connected modularly where you can pop it off revealing 2 more XLR jacks that the internal was connected to. Design wise it would only have to thicken the handle a little more near the internals. They seem about the right size already to make it not so much of an impact in production.
Click to expand...

I have suggested this but the geography available inside the mic are is not attenable to this. Additionall this would make it kind of weird to hold with the mic cables unnung to the top of the camera.

Best,

Jan
 
As a production mixer (and an HVX200A owner), it's hard not to be a bit amused by the whole discussion. I think it's great that you've found some innovative way to use those 4 channels for your very special and probably unique application. However, unless you're down at the mall shooting your buds shredding handrails on their skateboards (my apologies to the forum's skateboarders if I've misused one of their technical terms), you will have a qualified sound person on your shoot recording to another device altogether. If the person producing the product fails to arrange for how 50% of that product is handled then shame on them and let them get the product they deserve. Camera people are not meant to record quality sound and the HVX and most, if not all, video cameras above it absolutely will not record quality sound. I don't think anyone at Panasonic will be offended by this because they do not design their cameras to be professional sound recorders. Imagine if they made sound recorders that also had little tiny video cameras in them and there were straight-faced discussions between production mixers about how to record their sound and capture the images, all with the same machine. It is with that perspective that discussions about recording sound in an HVX should be properly viewed.
 
ksteiger said:
Believe it or not I have been shooting small to medium acoustic musical events where I utilize a combination of microphones to achieve a natural surround mix in camera. It started about three years ago when I was shooting some outdoor events (including a large drum circle) with a boom pole attached to my body carrying a front M/S mic and a rear M/S mic fed to the 4 channels of my XL1. The directionality and realism achieved with this setup truly astounded me. (I fudged the front L/R audio in post to create a center channel from an old LTRT encoder) Most surround post mixing is done purely by processing and digital room simulation. Recording it with mics placed specifically for surround is a whole different feeling...and nobody really does it like this. Too bad, I think.

As someone who spent many years in audio before switching primarily to the visual end of things, I have always noticed that film production people just don't think this way. And audio location sound effects people still primarily record in stereo.

Lately the only way for me to achieve this has been to run a separate protools setup, resynching later, which is fine because I have more mix options, but.., on most of the projects I shoot what I really want is LESS mix options.

OK, maybe I am going on like some sort of nut, but I am still passionate about doing as much in camera as possible. And handing a client a DVD of their event encoded with a true 5.1 surround mix instead of a standard mono or even stereo mix is impressive.

And, oh yeah The DVCPROHD codec gives you 4 - 16 bit uncompressed PCM audio tracks...why not let us use them?

Thank you for asking, hoping all is well in Seattle.
Click to expand...

If you are serious about recording discrete channels of audio, you have to go double system. The preamps on the HVX are not comparable to any professional recorder. The dynamic range/signal to noise ratio is inferior to a dedicated recorder. You should also be using nice quality preamps like Apogee, Grace or Avalon. I'd also be recording 96kHz or more to futureproof the recordings.

I don't know if it's practical to have four mic cables running out of your camera while you are shooting. Having to wrangle the cable between each setup without crew tripping over cables would be a nuisance. But if you have a single stationary shot, I suppose that's fine. You speak of quality, but recording into the camera seems more of a cry for convenience. Sure, it'd be great if Panasonic had 4 XLR Apogee preamps built-in, I'd personally pay 1000 more just for that. But let's be realistic.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Ken, I just get frustrated when I see someone blasting one product or the other for not having a particular feature, when NO OTHER PRODUCT ON THE MARKET HAS IT EITHER. I don't, in general, like griping as it just feeds more griping, so I do tend to react to squash it.

You have a need, I see that. But the point was that you're singling out one product to complain about, when you could have said "how come nobody offers this at all on the market anywhere?" It's all in how it's phrased. Especially since the complaint is leveled about 4-channel recording, when the camera you're complaining about is the only one anywhere near its price point that actually even OFFERS 4-channel recording!

So -- back on track -- can you get where you want to go? Yes. Will it be easy? No. But Marius, userid "VidLed", did exactly this: he pulled off the microphone off an HVX200 and converted it into two additional audio input channels. There's a big thread here on the site somewhere, and he even had that particular camera up for sale.

If you want four channels of discrete 48KHz 16-bit input, the $8,000 HPX500 can give that to you (but you'll need a lens and power). If you want four channels, two from XLR and two from in-camera mic, the 170 will offer that. If you want four channels at the 170 price point, you could get that but it'll mean some rewiring of the internal mic.
 
You might want to look into mini disc recorders or other small recorders. They have some mini-disc recorders that record 44.1 khz and they're pretty amazing for grabbing sounds & they fit into your coat pocket, CD quality! I've used multiple recorders in churches and had them set near the music, another back up high into the upper level and the reverb is amazingly rich and true another near the audience. Just take the tracks and sync em up in the NLE and you have something no camera will give you. Perspective! Some of the flash drive recorders could work really well also. If nothing else gather some of these up (borrow) and try them out, It's really fun and you'll get some great audio. As for camera specs, they have to please all sorts of folks with differing needs. It's a tough call sometimes.
 
I think 4 channels of external audio would be a great feature to have. It would certainly be another good selling point for the camera. If there's a real estate problem, not all 4 inputs need to be XLR. Maybe you can have 2 min XLR's or mini jacks.

Some people may not realize this, but recording 4 channels can give you a significant reduction in noise any time you have more than 2 external sources. This is true even when you use an external mixer (which you have to do any way for cameras with just 2 external inputs). For example, say you have 3 speakers, each with a lavalier mic. Your audio mixer might put speakers 1 and 2 on the L channel, and speaker 3 on the R channel. Well, when speaker 1 talks you are recording the background noise from both speakers 1 and 2. This is twice the background noise! (You're also recording the background noise from speaker 3, but you can turn that channel off in post). If the camera had 4 external inputs, then you can record each speaker on his own track, and thus have less background noise.
 
Thank you for all the responses. I do admit that my needs are specialized and I generally can not afford a 2nd person. I have seen the thread on hacking the internal mics to allow bypassing them. I will try that on my older camera.

And I get your point, Barry about no on else offering this feature either, I just didn't realize that Canon had recently removed it from their cameras. I am such a promoter of the HVX that I really wasn't paying attention to the Canons recently so your point is well taken.

One other point. It is true that from an audio standpoint there are better quality ways to go with a dedicated recorder, apogees, etc. But the audio quality on the HVX is far superior to anything offered by any other camera using the HDV codec. After all I am mostly shooting small acoustic music events and paid by the musicians or the host of the event...NOT Deutsche Grammaphone...Do I hear the difference. Damn straight! Do they? I kinda doubt it. Also I generally edit this stuff really quickly and spit out a DVD with a 5.1 mix. It really eats away at my profits to have to do a separate audio post mix in Protools. (Especially since creating a final mix in Protools requires playing it out in real time...painful for a 3 to 4 hour show)

Thank you all again
 
I don't understand... how would four inputs help you make a 5.1 mix without mixing in PT or some other DAW?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top