DVX Audio Shootout
- Thread starter tigeba
- Start date
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I'm laughing my ass off at you guys right now! (and myself) I haven't been this excited about sound since I first replaced my 66 with a 4073.
It's a feeding frenzy with 3 crazy sharks.
It don't matter anyway... 'cause I'm 100% positive that I got it right on my first guess... care to tell me I'm wrong t?
It's a feeding frenzy with 3 crazy sharks.
It don't matter anyway... 'cause I'm 100% positive that I got it right on my first guess... care to tell me I'm wrong t?
Man--you're cocksure. Everytime I get cocksure about these blinded tests, I get hammered, so I've learned not to crow. But if you lay claim to the masta sound blasta (and are right) dinner's on me. But you have to come to DC or Chicago to collect (or maybe NAB or DVEXPO East in 2006).
MattinSTL said:
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I'm cocksure about C... but I won't feel like a failure either way on the last two... but I still think I got it right the first time. I hear either equal hiss with the third being louder on voice... or less hiss on the third after the level is matched to the second.
I had my 7506's cranked to get this assessment. A and B are close... I was really trying to be critical.
I had my 7506's cranked to get this assessment. A and B are close... I was really trying to be critical.
I just listened with my MDR-7506's instead of the monitors and and I think your first guess is right. My computer fans are way too noisy and I think they're gumming up my listening space. The second clip is definitely the muddiest and the first clip is certainly the cleanest. So I'm making final guess CAB.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I'll still post my own comparison using the SD line-in versus mic/cam... I think the last two really are awful in comparison to the first... and I know I can beat the quality of those two w/o an SD pre.
The other thing that's got me excited about the SD is it's "unclippable input" and gain stage. I think I'm hearing boarderline clipping in the second and third clips... one way or another a setting doesn't sound right to my ears. I went back to my own site to the 416 wav to be sure I wasn't losing it and my 416 clip is cleaner then the last two posted here... but nothing compared to the first clip. I want that sound... and unfortunately I know the SD won't get me all the way there.
I'm going to have to start a thread looking for field recorders now... *sigh*...
The other thing that's got me excited about the SD is it's "unclippable input" and gain stage. I think I'm hearing boarderline clipping in the second and third clips... one way or another a setting doesn't sound right to my ears. I went back to my own site to the 416 wav to be sure I wasn't losing it and my 416 clip is cleaner then the last two posted here... but nothing compared to the first clip. I want that sound... and unfortunately I know the SD won't get me all the way there.
I'm going to have to start a thread looking for field recorders now... *sigh*...
MattinSTL said:
And in comparison to 99% of the low-budget indie film soundtracks I hear--they're smooth like butta! I've been watching indie films for years and the sound is just plain terrible on at least 75% of the films--and I'm being reallllllllly charitable. I'm taking about unintelligible dialogue terrible, noise floor through the roof and out into the ionosphere terrible. I've yet to hear a DVX soundtrack where I think the DVX pre is in *any* way the limiting factor.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
Barry... I couldn't agree more. Even on many productions where I know they used a DVX the audio is bad... but then it's attributable to lazy technique or lack of a decent mic.
Ironically my z-location is so chock-full of locusts that you can't even hear yourself THINK... so it will suck if I submit a flick with ADR. I don't want to shift the direction of this thread, but I sure have some anxiety that my audio won't be up to my normal standards... and then I'll look like a whiney punk going on about sound for no good reason.
I still think my original point from all of this is about to be proven... THAT WHEN YOU'RE USING THE DVX AS THE SOUND RECORDER... there isn't a whole lot you can do (equipment-wise) to improve your sound once you've got a good mic and use it properly.
Ironically my z-location is so chock-full of locusts that you can't even hear yourself THINK... so it will suck if I submit a flick with ADR. I don't want to shift the direction of this thread, but I sure have some anxiety that my audio won't be up to my normal standards... and then I'll look like a whiney punk going on about sound for no good reason.
I still think my original point from all of this is about to be proven... THAT WHEN YOU'RE USING THE DVX AS THE SOUND RECORDER... there isn't a whole lot you can do (equipment-wise) to improve your sound once you've got a good mic and use it properly.
The Results:
Clip 1: Chain C. Probably not very surprising. Actually, I was a little surprised how much low end this mic picked up. I don't think I have ever used it for speech. I would definately roll it off a bit in post.
Clip 2: Chain A. Also not too surprising. To my ears this was the most unpleasant sounding recording. It had a really "honky" sound, for lack of a better word. I am not sure I could improve this test much by dinking around with various levels. Someone had mentioned that they felt there could be some clipping, but I set the gain fairly conservatively, and the raw waveforms were clearly not clipping. I think the harshness of the sound is just a combination of the DVX100 preamp and the converter. I think it is really highlighted when you listen to the difference between Clip 1 and Clip 3, as I did not change the preamp settings at all. The tone is quite substantially different.
Clip 3: Chain B. This was kind of surprising to me. I felt the tone was signifigantly better than Chain A, but it was quite noisy in my opinion, and definately degraded compared to the Chain C reproduction. I think that I may not have make the best use of various gain staging on this test. I might do a followup this evening where I crank up the output gain on my preamp (since I know this is a very quiet preamp) and crank down the line input on the camera.
General comment on the relative "cleanness" of the recordings. This was recorded in a fairly unrealistic enviornment (unless you are doing ADR). I also trimmed the heads and tails of the clips (out of habit) so the noise from the preamps is probably not as evident as it would be on a raw track. I would say that from an audio-post point of view, I could do anything I wanted to Clip 1 and not worry about noise, but I would definately need to be more careful with Clip 2 and Clip3 to not increase the noise a great deal. Probably any of these clips would sound fine with a little room tone running underneath to cover up the flaws.
Clip 1: Chain C. Probably not very surprising. Actually, I was a little surprised how much low end this mic picked up. I don't think I have ever used it for speech. I would definately roll it off a bit in post.
Clip 2: Chain A. Also not too surprising. To my ears this was the most unpleasant sounding recording. It had a really "honky" sound, for lack of a better word. I am not sure I could improve this test much by dinking around with various levels. Someone had mentioned that they felt there could be some clipping, but I set the gain fairly conservatively, and the raw waveforms were clearly not clipping. I think the harshness of the sound is just a combination of the DVX100 preamp and the converter. I think it is really highlighted when you listen to the difference between Clip 1 and Clip 3, as I did not change the preamp settings at all. The tone is quite substantially different.
Clip 3: Chain B. This was kind of surprising to me. I felt the tone was signifigantly better than Chain A, but it was quite noisy in my opinion, and definately degraded compared to the Chain C reproduction. I think that I may not have make the best use of various gain staging on this test. I might do a followup this evening where I crank up the output gain on my preamp (since I know this is a very quiet preamp) and crank down the line input on the camera.
General comment on the relative "cleanness" of the recordings. This was recorded in a fairly unrealistic enviornment (unless you are doing ADR). I also trimmed the heads and tails of the clips (out of habit) so the noise from the preamps is probably not as evident as it would be on a raw track. I would say that from an audio-post point of view, I could do anything I wanted to Clip 1 and not worry about noise, but I would definately need to be more careful with Clip 2 and Clip3 to not increase the noise a great deal. Probably any of these clips would sound fine with a little room tone running underneath to cover up the flaws.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
This test is what I wanted to hear and there are two positives coming out of it... the first is I'll shut my mouth about how perfect the DVX audio is (sorry Dave F)... and the second is I'll have to figure out how to get close to the "C" level of quality on a budget I can afford.
I'll still use the DVX for audio most of the time, but I'll look for an alternative for audio only field recording... Does anybody know of an affordable field recorder that's even remotely close to being THAT clean?
I'll still use the DVX for audio most of the time, but I'll look for an alternative for audio only field recording... Does anybody know of an affordable field recorder that's even remotely close to being THAT clean?
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
Hey if you don't want to keep that file hosted and posted let me know. I'd love to throw that on my own site (and credit you) just to keep things in perspective.
Since I direct so many people to my site, almost bragging about the sound quality I get with just mic and cam... I'd like to have something like this up there to offer as a referrence... so everyone (including me) can remember the difference between decent sound and great sound.
Would that be cool with you?
Since I direct so many people to my site, almost bragging about the sound quality I get with just mic and cam... I'd like to have something like this up there to offer as a referrence... so everyone (including me) can remember the difference between decent sound and great sound.
Would that be cool with you?
I guess I'm coming in a little late, but that was an interesting test. First I listened on my monitors (Genelec 8030A), and it was really hard to tell the difference between the 3 clips. But my computer is fairly loud, and I also had the ceiling fan going. So I decided to try it with headphones, and it was apparent that clip 1 was much better, and clip 3 was slightly better than clip 2.
But I think all 3 clips are useable, especially if you throw in a little ambient sound. You'll never get recordings that clean if you're in the field.
Thanks for putting up the test.
But I think all 3 clips are useable, especially if you throw in a little ambient sound. You'll never get recordings that clean if you're in the field.
Thanks for putting up the test.
MattC
Veteran
No, no no, this is just wrong. This is why Dave Fisk has an aneurism every week. First off you and Barry need to isolate your computers and do whatever else you need to do to your mixing environment to hear cleanly.
This test confirmed what I was trying to say in the other thread.The noise you heard was circuit noise. It should never be there. And you can capture clean audio in the "field" depending on how much control you have over your environment - I know, I've done it (and I've also done it recording straight to my camera, BTW).
I mean if I smeared a little a little dirt on your lens, not a lot, just enough for you to know it was there, would you go around saying, "oh yeah it's usable, especially if you throw a little diffusion in there in post, maybe changes the levels a bit". I don't think you would. Why do video folks treat audio like it's an after thought? I feel like getting on Dave's soapbox. Can you use one of the other two clips. Sure, you can use sh*t on a stick too. Ok, so maybe they're not that bad, and you could clean them up a bit. But the difference is tremendous. And here's something that folks miss sometimes - noise is cumulative. A little noise in the audio track, a little noise in the ambiance track, a little noise in the foley tracks - the **** adds up. And what if you want to process your audio, you know to get that "Hollywood Sound' that folks ask about every three months? ANY noise is going to impede your ability to do that.
Matt
This test confirmed what I was trying to say in the other thread.The noise you heard was circuit noise. It should never be there. And you can capture clean audio in the "field" depending on how much control you have over your environment - I know, I've done it (and I've also done it recording straight to my camera, BTW).
I mean if I smeared a little a little dirt on your lens, not a lot, just enough for you to know it was there, would you go around saying, "oh yeah it's usable, especially if you throw a little diffusion in there in post, maybe changes the levels a bit". I don't think you would. Why do video folks treat audio like it's an after thought? I feel like getting on Dave's soapbox. Can you use one of the other two clips. Sure, you can use sh*t on a stick too. Ok, so maybe they're not that bad, and you could clean them up a bit. But the difference is tremendous. And here's something that folks miss sometimes - noise is cumulative. A little noise in the audio track, a little noise in the ambiance track, a little noise in the foley tracks - the **** adds up. And what if you want to process your audio, you know to get that "Hollywood Sound' that folks ask about every three months? ANY noise is going to impede your ability to do that.
Matt