audio levels at receptions and other loud events
- Thread starter accelv
- Start date
Common advice is that you should always monitor audio with headphones. I would think especially at loud receptions, since getting clear voice audio with lots of background noise is a big challenge. Never personally used auto levels for audio ... I always keep an eye on the levels and LED and adjust accordingly. One option would be to run one channel lower (to be safer) and one a little hotter. If the hot channel distorts, the lower channel would hopefully be better.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Depends on how loud you're talking about, and what kind of mic you're using. If you're using the onboard mic or a condensor or electret condensor, none of those will be very suitable for a high sound pressure level environment. The mic itself will blow out and distort, regardless of what you have the levels set at. For a very loud event, you'd probably be best served by looking at using dynamic mics.
As Barry said, you really need a mic that is appropriate to the audio levels.
In addition to that, some complain that the preamps can be overloaded even though the audio levels are set low (via the pots). Limter seems to be in the chain AFTER the incoming level and BEFORE the signal hits the DAC. So.. doubly important to have a less sensitive mic that will not overload itself in a high audio level environment.
In addition to that, some complain that the preamps can be overloaded even though the audio levels are set low (via the pots). Limter seems to be in the chain AFTER the incoming level and BEFORE the signal hits the DAC. So.. doubly important to have a less sensitive mic that will not overload itself in a high audio level environment.
blueskyvideo
New member
I agree with Danny, "Common advice is that you should always monitor audio with headphones. I would think especially at loud receptions,...One option would be to run one channel lower (to be safer) and one a little hotter. If the hot channel distorts, the lower channel would hopefully be better."
Especially since you can then turn the monitor down on the headphones and cushion your ears from the blasting noise that everyone else is subjected to. And since it is the loud band, and not a toast, you just need to monitor that its not distorted, humming or buzzing.
Especially since you can then turn the monitor down on the headphones and cushion your ears from the blasting noise that everyone else is subjected to. And since it is the loud band, and not a toast, you just need to monitor that its not distorted, humming or buzzing.
Thanks for chiming in, guys. But that doesn't address the real question.
The DVX100 had great audio. Even at very loud receptions or live band performances, I never worried about the mics overloading, so long as I had the levels set right. Never happened once, even with 100dB SPLs. The mics on that cam performed flawlessly. No buzz, no hum, no overmodulation.
Are you guys saying that does NOT apply to the 150 as well? Are you saying that the built-in mic is inferior to the DVX100's mic? Are you saying that the 150's mic WILL overmodulate in similar circumstances? Has anyone ever run any tests to see what kind of SPLs you need to reach at the mic in order to overmodulate it, even if the pots are turned down?
The DVX100 had great audio. Even at very loud receptions or live band performances, I never worried about the mics overloading, so long as I had the levels set right. Never happened once, even with 100dB SPLs. The mics on that cam performed flawlessly. No buzz, no hum, no overmodulation.
Are you guys saying that does NOT apply to the 150 as well? Are you saying that the built-in mic is inferior to the DVX100's mic? Are you saying that the 150's mic WILL overmodulate in similar circumstances? Has anyone ever run any tests to see what kind of SPLs you need to reach at the mic in order to overmodulate it, even if the pots are turned down?
MadHMC150
DVXuser Sponsor
Having your levels set right is the most important thing obviously. You can kind of do this effectively by looking at your levels and having them peak where the line is on the meter (no red) and you wouldn't need headphones.
What they are saying is some mics perform better then others depending on the application. For on cam use a good all around shotgun mic is common, I use a Rode NTG. But if you don't monitor your audio with some good headphones you really wont know what its really going to sound like.
Going out on a limb, but I'm sure the 150 has good as, if not better audio then the dvx100.
What they are saying is some mics perform better then others depending on the application. For on cam use a good all around shotgun mic is common, I use a Rode NTG. But if you don't monitor your audio with some good headphones you really wont know what its really going to sound like.
Going out on a limb, but I'm sure the 150 has good as, if not better audio then the dvx100.
I rarely use the on-board mics, but I have to think that the HMC150 mic would perform better just on the basis of there being no noise from the tape transport mechanism to leak into all your audio. The problem is that it will still pick up all the noise that comes from operating the zooms and dials, but I guess if you're someplace loud enough it won't matter.
Hello Jim,
Sorry to say, but in my opinion the onboard mic of the DVX is better. I dont know why, but I get distorted sound a lot easier with the 150. If you wanna use the onboard mic of the 150 in very loud enviroment you have to be very careful...I always keep one chanel REALY low and having a zoom H1 recording for backup...! NEVER had or have (still using it) such problems with my DVX.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Because, Jim, you're asking for six times as many pixels in the same space. Something has to give. It's not that the manufacturers are stupid, it's not that they don't know what you want, it's that it's impossible to do. Period.
Now, on the mic thing -- somewhere here I did a test using Live Free or Die Hard, between an HMC150 and a DVX100, where I shoved the camera right up to the thundering speakers and recorded. I seem to remember the DVX's mic handled the preposterously high sound pressure levels better than the HMC150's mic did. Which would mean that the HMC150's mic is probably more sensitive, and can pick up quieter sounds easier, but the DVX's mic, while quieter, could handle higher sound pressure levels better.
Now, on the mic thing -- somewhere here I did a test using Live Free or Die Hard, between an HMC150 and a DVX100, where I shoved the camera right up to the thundering speakers and recorded. I seem to remember the DVX's mic handled the preposterously high sound pressure levels better than the HMC150's mic did. Which would mean that the HMC150's mic is probably more sensitive, and can pick up quieter sounds easier, but the DVX's mic, while quieter, could handle higher sound pressure levels better.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Jim, think it through -- if it was that easy, wouldn't someone have done it?
You can't do what you're asking. There are no affordable full-res 2/3" CCDs on the market in cheap cameras. The chips are expensive, the heat they generate is enormous, the power supplies they use are huge... look at an Anton Bauer Dionic battery, and then compare that to a DVX battery -- the Anton Bauer is about 8x the size. Why? Because 2/3" cameras are power-hungry monsters.
And you might want to consider that a) the Scarlet doesn't exist, and b) it's not a video camera. It's a digi-cine camera, so it doesn't have to do all sorts of things that video cameras do.
Anyway, this is pointless to continue discussing, because what you want doesn't exist, and you're comparing it against something else that doesn't exist...
Ah, now that's a different issue. I was arguing about the ability to actually fit a 2/3" CCD into a hand held form factor.
Whatever the engineering issues, I still think it's something that needs doing.