AF-101 16 Bit Audio Recording ?

Well, with all the expert advice I've read from this thread I'm glad I asked the question.....

Looks like a three day Christmas with the 27th now included...........the AF101 might just make January a little less depressing here in the Uk (at least on this forum anyway)
 
DrDave said:
Basically, ppl who record the audio "in camera" are not that picky about the sound.
Click to expand...

I'm picky about "the sound," but sometimes single-system audio is the way to go for certain productions.

All I'm saying is that, in my experience with Panasonic in-camera audio, it's always been more than "good enough" in many cases - which for me means primarily documentary shorts.

I won't pull out my Sound Devices or Boom Recorder setup for every production and, as Barry noted, technique can trump haute-gamme technology.

Great discussion though folks!
 
just to beat the horse a little more, the audio recorders are only 1 part of the equation, for instance, here we have a video which was shot on 5D, we shot separate sound, but for rapid sample's sake i cut this together just using the ONBOARD mic's audio, now i ain't bragging about it being good in any way, but notice.... you can understand the actor's clearly, there aren't hums, hisses, or artifacts. it's not the camera, it's the environment which happens to have no erroneous noises for the camera to pickup. it helps that the camera was close to the actors and pointed right at them, so technically on axis for the built in mic. if you want to compare cameras/audio recorders, you cannot just take clip A and clip B from different videos and compare them. Granted, doing a proper side by side comparison will show which recording device is superior, but guess what, the audience isn't watching a side by side comparison of your final product, they aren't going to know what system you recorded audio on so long as they aren't distracted by any aforementioned artifacts.

Seconding the notion that all cameras of this price range have had at least "good enough" audio and that the next step up for most people is to hire an audio guy with his/her own gear, this topic should be concluded that the audio on the AF100 will more than likely fit right in and be just as usable as on the EX1, hvx, etc., and the quality of your sound will once again be more dependent on your ability to capture it properly.

cheers!

 
I just can't imagine using anything less than 20 bit (realistically, 24 bit) if you want to process the sound in any way. As lpowell says, 96 not so much. As far as the built in standard for camcorders, I think they are just gouging the consumer. They could put serious audio in, but they prefer to use cheap chips and sell it for a premium--perhaps knowing that many use it as a scrub track anyway. But they gouge, nonetheless. Cost to implement 24 bit? Realistically, the parts would go for maybe $2-5, but they would have to figure a way to track it into the recording stream. Still, long overdue--no reason they can't mod a surround system to allow multichannel, high bit recording IN CAM, and we can all leave our DR 680s at home. I would pay a premium for that feature, for sure. Anyway 16 bit is better than AGC compressed sound, although you aren't really getting 16 bit when recording live as you have the safety factor--at say 6dB per bit you will be luck to average 14 bit on a live shoot. And it is in that area around 14 bits and below where the sound gets chunky when you normalize the audio, or add effects, specially room simulation or, for example, parallel compression. 24 bits just gives you all the digital room you need.
 
Last edited:
48/16 is totally integral ("implemented") into all NLEs for film purposes.

In Premiere it is default setting for audio.
 
DrDave said:
Anyway 16 bit is better than AGC compressed sound, although you aren't really getting 16 bit when recording live as you have the safety factor--at say 6dB per bit you will be luck to average 14 bit on a live shoot. And it is in that area around 14 bits and below where the sound gets chunky when you normalize the audio, or add effects, specially room simulation or, for example, parallel compression. 24 bits just gives you all the digital room you need.
Click to expand...

1 bit represents 6 dB, so if you are recording at -6 dB as your "headroom", then you can have up to 15 usable bits of data depending on the noise-floor of your recorder.

As far as 24-bit processing goes, can't 16-bit audio be converted to 24-bit for post processing ?

i.e. The additional bits in 24-bit audio represent a larger dynamic range ( theoretically up to 144 dB ) not resolution ( which is controlled by sampling frequency )
 
DrDave said:
I just can't imagine using anything less than 20 bit (realistically, 24 bit) if you want to process the sound in any way.
Click to expand...

I'm remembering a time when a little band called The Beatles put out top 10 hits using only an analog 4 track recorder.
No 16-bit, no 20-bit, no 24-bit 192k, just a good old fashion analog tape reel to reel.
While I run most of my ProTools sessions in 24-bit, I'll default back to the old adage, it's the Indian, not the arrow!

All the Best!

Dave
 
jesus holy hell why is this still an open debate?

if your equipment is 16 bit, it's FINE, learn more about how to acquire the audio properly and how to manipulate it, better capture methods trump bits ANY DAY

if your equip is 24 bit then great for you, go out and do something with it.

cheerios
 
Would anyone care to make a complete and exhaustive list of all the pro or prosumer camcorders on the market that support more-than-16-bit audio capture?

Here, I'll start:
1. HPX3100.
2. PDW800.

There, I think that about sums it up.

In other words, sure, 24-bit is better than 16-bit, if all other things are equal (meaning, no way would I assume that 24-bit from a Zoom Q3 pocket camcorder is going to best 16-bit from an HPX3700!) But 24-bit is largely nonexistent in today's camcorder landscape.
 
Since this thread popped back to life, I'll throw out my take:

The effort expended should depend on what you are recording and what you need for the end result. I have owned three Panny handy-cams, and for talking heads and simple audio for video, the recording quality is plenty good. If I am tripod mounted, or have someone for audio, using a good mixer in front of the cam is a nice improvement (line in). For simple projects, I don't feel the need for anything more than that. The extra bits don't matter in most cases, and good microphones and technique will help a lot more.

If a project gets more complicated, you need more tracks, or you need better ability to edit, bring out the artillery and the sound monkeys, and make it a real aural event.

Just saying, a little perspective is in order here.

Grant
 
IMHO, if you're recording musical events and your feed will be the only audio source, then capturing a
24bit source is important. I don't expect the camera to provide this and would use external recording
devices for this purpose.

Because of the dynamic range of the human voice, 16bits is more than adequate for dialog recording, and
on-camera solutions are fine (given the right microphones and pre's).

jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top