DVX Audio Shootout

[MattinSTL]

As a guy who is fanatical about sound... even obsessed with it... and came from the perspective of the DVX sound being "all that"... I fully agree with MattC on this one... there is simply NO comparison between the first clip and the other two.

It freaks me out to think that we've had two different people with high-end monitors on here say they can't hear the difference. That's nuts... the difference is huge and I can hear it on my Cambridge Soundworks speakers as well as my 7506's.

Now that that's out of the way... so what field recorder should I get?

 

[tigeba]

For what it is worth, I was monitoring on Mackie HR824's and my MDRV6's. I would not consider the Mackie monitors in the same league as Genelec, but they are pretty close. I could not hear the noise as clearly in my Mackies as in the headphones, but the difference in tone was very clear. My control room is fairly quiet, as I have my G5, hard drives, etc remote mounted in a separate room. With a little fan noise in the room I think it would be really difficult to hear.

 

[Barry_S]

I'm in complete agreement with Sumfun, although I'll admit I'm thinking on how to address my computer noise (over a terabyte of storage means some serious fan action). I'm the last person to condone sloppy audio, but let's get real--the audio issues in the lo/no budget film community are waaay beyond a slight increase in dialogue fidelity. Take a look at those clips in an audio editor and you'll see that the noise floors for the DVX pre vs the Neve pre aren't much different. The clip from the Neve pre is smoother and more dynamic, but it's not a huge difference. Bottom line--concentrate on the major stuff (like good actors) and get the technical basics down. Then if you have time and money to tweak--go ahead.

 

[MattinSTL]

I agree with all that fully... but let me return to my racing analogy. Let's say we have a racing forum and I wanted to get opinions on the best wax for my paintjob... while I'd agree that there are way more important factors to consider for your success in racing... this particular thread (and the one I started) is about wax... of one kind or the other... and now that it's said and done I have more respect for the polish others were talking about.

 

[Sumfun]

No, no no, this is just wrong. This is why Dave Fisk has an aneurism every week...

I guess this makes a good argument for having a good/anal sound guy take care of the audio. :thumbsup:

Yes, it would be great to have great audio all the time. But audio is just part of the picture. You've got to consider the video, the talent, the guests, the script, the location, the weather, the schedule, and bout a million other things. And then you have to do it all over again next week for another show.

This test showed me that I could do a lot better if I had some expensive equipment. But it also showed that the audio on the DVX isn't all that bad - in my opinion. (It also got me thinking about either moving the computer or using headphones more).

I guess you just have to do the best that you can with the resources that you have. It's not gonna be perfect, but sometimes good enough is good enough.

 

[Gopher_Greene]

Matt in STL I'm in the same boat, looking at equipment. I've been doing quite a bit of research, as well as talking to the sound guys on the movie I was working on. Heres a list of some of the equipment that many have suggested, one caution this is not for the faint of budget;

Mackie Onyx 1620 1 $919.00
Sanken CS-1 1 $795.00
Sanken Zepplin 1 $695.00
Sanken Shock Mount
Sanken Rycote
Sanken CS3 1 $1,350.00
Rycote Modular Windshield Kit 4 1 $695.00
Neumann KMR 82i 1 $2,100.00
Neumann Zepplin 1 $695.00
Neumann Shock Mount
Neumann Rycote
Sanken Cos 11 2 $432.00
Lectrosonics Venue 1 $3,000.00
Lectrosonics SM Transmitter 2 $1,650.00
Lectrosonics UH400A Plug On Transmitter 2 $1,090.00
Lectrosonics ALP600 Shark Fin Antenna 2 $284.00
Sennheiser HD 280 1 $103.00
K-Tek K152 Graphite Boom Pole 2 $539.00
Remote Audio Adapt-a-Pak Kit 1 $169.00

One thing this doesn't address is the recorder. I chimed in on the other thread, a bit out of place, about the MAckie Onyx. It comes with software called Traction2 that I think you could record live to a laptop, of course there is Motu (I think thats the name) for a Mac that can capture directly to HD.

Finally waht about post? Right now I have Sound Forge is all. But at school this semester I have sound editing which uses Digidesign. I think the MBox is down around 350.00 is that worth it?

Would really like to hear you guys thats been doing this a while have to say.

Gopher

 

[MattC]

I guess this makes a good argument for having a good/anal sound guy take care of the audio. :thumbsup:

Good idea...

But audio is just part of the picture. You've got to consider the video, the talent, the guests, the script, the location, the weather, the schedule, and bout a million other things. And then you have to do it all over again next week for another show.

Audio is 50 - 70 percent of the movie experience. An audience can adapt to many things, a soft image when projected for example, as long as the content keeps them engrossed. An audience never adapts to bad audio for the simple fact that it takes them out of the experience. If you think audio is an afterthought, or something that can be "good enough" then you will never have good audio and your productions will suffer as a result.

Yes, you have to do the best you can with the tools you have, but you should also know what can be done to make things better. Just because you can't do something right now, doesn't mean you shouldn't in the future.

And yes, your listening environment is critical for accurate monitoring and mixing of sound. You don't need to build a custom studio, but if you're using good monitors, and both you and Barry are, there should be no need to put on a pair of headphones (crappy by comparison) to determine if there is a flaw in the audio. Rethink your space, move out stuff that makes noise or find a way to control it, and think about investing in some Auralex. Your audio will thank you for it.

Matt

 

[MattC]

Gopher,

Sound Forge, in it's latest version, is not a bad audio app. It lacks real midi support, you need Acid Pro for that, but it's certainly workable. I don't like it myself, but that's more a preference than anything else. I'm also not a big fan of ProTools LE (although I love ProTools HD). If you're on PC I'd rather see you with an RME interface and Cuabse.

Matt

 

[ullanta]

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.

I suspected this might be the case, as it doesn't really match my experience. The external pres I usually use have good metering themselves, so I usually set their gain level by the stage, then go back to the camera and set those gains... which are generally pretty low. I think reducing the gain-up in the DVX should improve your "Chain B" quality... it would be great if you could add that into your great examples...

-Barry


Someday, when I have time, I'll try and make a comparison with some less-colored preamps, some tube preamps, and perhaps my budget Yamaha mixer preamps...

 

[ullanta]

Why do video folks treat audio like it's an after thought? I feel like getting on Dave's soapbox.

Ah, Matt, it's a sad and lonely soapbox in this industry. I stood on it for a while until it got too depressing. And it's not just video. Unfortunately, "fix it in post" (if there's any budget left) is the common mantra...

That's what's nice about recording operas... when it comes to decisions on production, editing, etc, the respose is always "&$%$& the video! Make the audio the best it can be, and cobble together the video as best you can to cover it."

 

[Sumfun]

Audio is 50 - 70 percent of the movie experience. An audience can adapt to many things, a soft image when projected for example, as long as the content keeps them engrossed.

I've heard this argument a lot, and it usually come from audio guys. But the DP is saying that video is more than 50% of the experience because if you didn't have that, no one would come to the movie in the first place. And besides, there's lot of silent movies that still play well today. The actors say that acting is more than 50% of the experience because there would be no movie without them. And look who gets paid the most in Hollywood. The writer says that the story is more than 50% of the experience because that's the "content" that keeps them engrossed. The director says it's the directing, the producer says it's the money, and so on. That's a lot of percents.

Well it's good to have people who feel that what they're doing is important, but you have to understand that making movies is a team effort. Yes, audio is important, but there's a lot of classic movies with crappy audio (by today's standards) that still can draw big audiences today. The "content" that keeps them engrossed is all the above and more.

An audience never adapts to bad audio for the simple fact that it takes them out of the experience. If you think audio is an afterthought, or something that can be "good enough" then you will never have good audio and your productions will suffer as a result.

Yes, you have to do the best you can with the tools you have, but you should also know what can be done to make things better. Just because you can't do something right now, doesn't mean you shouldn't in the future.

I don't think we're in disagreement here. If I didn't want better audio, I wouldn't be reading this forum. I'm thankful to tigeba for showing me how to get better audio, but for what I do right now, I don't think the audio from the DVX is that bad. I just can't justify buying every new toy that I see. Even if it will improve my production slightly.

I mean, let's face it. We're not George Lucas here. We don't have multi-million dollar budgets. So we have to settle for "good enough." I'm sure that if you could afford a Cine Alta, then you wouldn't be shooting with an XL2, right?

Cheers.

 

[MattC]

I've heard this argument a lot, and it usually come from audio guys.

That's funny, I've heard it from every pro I've come into contact with.

Look do what you want. I've only been trying to help people acquire and mix better audio, because most of what I hear sucks ass. And believe me, your audio will fall apart in a theater much faster than your picture. I don't just advocate gear, I've worked with folks on all aspects of acquisition as well as some cheap, high-quality capture options. Hell, I often record dialog to my XL2, but as MattSTL, BarryS or Taubkin will tell you, I get pristine sound. It isn't an accident. But to get good sound, you have to be conscious of it and make it a priority. Maybe we just hear very differently...

I can completely understand if you are saying, "hey, yeah that's much better, and I'll strive to get the best audio I can, but I simply can't afford to upgrade equipment right now". But it soundes(d) like you were saying, "eh, it's no biggie..." And if this example doesn't convince you, nothing I say will, so I'll stop wasting my breath.


Now I understand why Fisk has an attitude and now stays away from these threads. Why f'ing bother....

Matt

 

[MattinSTL]

Hey guys... let's all maintain a good attitude about this!

The one thing I really don't understand in this thread or the MANY others I've posted about sound... is how as long as I'm endorsing what's popular (for convenience) everyone's happy... but once that gets so obviously turned on it's ear... ahem, as it were... everyone discounts it.

The DVX audio is great for a camera, but these other guys were right... I, more then anybody else on this whole forum, argued tooth and nail that these guys were NOT right in saying the audio could get significantly better... but you gotta' be the bigger man and admit it when the obvious is in your face.

My camera is not me... and neither is any of my other gear. When an online friend of mine told me that every mic I owned at the time was sh*t... I got defensive for about ONE second... and then I asked, "show me". Then he did and I sold everything on ebay. I was glad for the lesson 'cause he pulled my head out of the sand... just like I'm glad for the lesson that tigeba just gave us.

I'm not expecting anybody to do anything different and I agree that you can get MORE then good enough sound for independent films using just your DVX and a mic... but clearly the audio CAN get a lot better.

Why is anybody arguing with this?

In every single equipment thread on this whole forum you could post arguments against better tripods, lights, and everything else... why not go in a thread about Arri lights and say "100w household fixtures are good enough"... or if somebody asks about the smoothness of a Vinten pod... "the Bogen 3021pro package is good enough"...

This thread is about DIFFERENCES and we're talking about easily audible differences... it's not about pretending like those differences aren't there.

What if Sony came out with a cam that did everything better then the DVX... would you admit it? Do you remember when the DVX came out and trumped some other cams that were popular at the time? There were a TON of people who argued that on our level the cam wasn't important... and that acting, writing, etc. were all more significant. Those people were right about that, but in a thread discussing the benefits of a DVX that sounded stupid.

This thread isn't about "good enough"... it's about IS there a difference... and since there so clearly IS... the discussion should be about that difference.

Certainly everybody should express their opinions freely, but I don't think you're doing the matters of truth any favors in saying the difference that's so glaringly obvious is insignificant... if you don't care that much about differences in sound quality then why get good monitors in the first place? I have Cambridge Soundworks speakers that were around $120 for the pair and I can hear a HUGE difference in the clips... what's the extra $ for if not to give you a better ability to judge sound?

 

[Matt Grunau]

Audio is 50 - 70 percent of the movie experience.

Matt

I disagree.

I think it is more than that. :thumbsup:

Sound Forge, in it's latest version, is not a bad audio app. It lacks real midi support, you need Acid Pro for that, but it's certainly workable. I don't like it myself, but that's more a preference than anything else. I'm also not a big fan of ProTools LE (although I love ProTools HD). If you're on PC I'd rather see you with an RME interface and Cuabse.
Matt

I use Sound Forge quite a bit (I especially like it in conjunction with Vegas) and I have the Waves Power and Restoration packs.

Do you like Steinberg Wave Lab?

 

[MattC]

Wave Lab is an amazing program. It's one of those programs that I keep a PC around for (no mac version), although I'm using it less and less. With Cubase SX3 I have almost all the audio processing tools I need and if I need more (very unusual) I go out to Peak. Dedicated music guys I know, those producing Red Book CDs, live for Wave Lab - I'm not one of those guys. Sound forge is great, I know a couple of guys that use it, it's just not what I'm used to, as I said it's a preference thing (I like purple, you like blue).

 

[Barry_Green]

is how as long as I'm endorsing what's popular (for convenience) everyone's happy... but once that gets so obviously turned on it's ear... ahem, as it were... everyone discounts it.

Matt, you're arguing against human nature here. The vast majority of these threads aren't about "what's the best" or "is there a difference," they're about "will someone please tell me what I want to hear?"

I can't tell you how many times the conversation goes like this:
Q: "I want to make an indie film. I want it to look like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Will my GL2 be good enough? "

A: "No."

Q: But the GL2 is all I can afford. PLEASE somebody tell me it's good enough.

A: No, it's not good enough. The GL2 is a halfway decent video camera, but it won't deliver anything like Raiders 35mm quality.

Q: You guys are just depressing me. I know the GL2 is good, Canon advertises it as an indie moviemaker's camera. How can that be? Canon's not lying, are they?

A: Look -- (then they lay out the facts)

Q: But I still think the GL2 should be good enough. It has frame mode. That looks like a movie.

A: Frame mode won't transfer to film well at all. It'll look horrible.

Q: Doesn't anyone else have any other opinions?

(at this point, a half-dozen professionals write in with their opinions)
A: Don't do it.
A2: It won't work.
A3: I've been doing this for 9 years, and I can tell you, distributors won't touch a GL2-shot movie.
A4: ditto
A5: It's not good enough.
A6: ditto

(then, this happens)
A7: "hey dude, don't lintsen 2 theez dorks, there just tryin to hold u back. tha GL2 is AWESOME!!!! Go for it!"

(and finally)
Q: Thanks! Man, I knew this was the right choice, I don't know why some people feel they have to keep other people down.

--------------------

I feel your pain. I like to do tests exactly like what's been done here. I like to find out what *is*, not what people think (because "common knowledge" rarely reflects reality!) And sometimes people really don't like the answers, but I can't help it -- the answer is what it is, whether that's in favor of, or opposed to, the current "popular" choice...

 

[MattC]

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Barry, your post should be a sticky. Not the whole thread, just Matt and yours posts. Hysterical and, sadly, true...

:beer:

 

[Matt Grunau]

I've heard this argument a lot, and it usually come from audio guys. But the DP is saying that video is more than 50% of the experience because if you didn't have that, no one would come to the movie in the first place. And besides, there's lot of silent movies that still play well today. The actors say that acting is more than 50% of the experience because there would be no movie without them. And look who gets paid the most in Hollywood. The writer says that the story is more than 50% of the experience because that's the "content" that keeps them engrossed. The director says it's the directing, the producer says it's the money, and so on. That's a lot of percents.

Cheers.

Silent movies also had in many cases a piano player playing along for added effect. And, when radio began its boom with (my personal fav is The Shadow) people used to line up around the little box and let their imaginations make the movies for them. When tv came onto the scene, it certainly wasn't silent.

I have always thought of it like this: No matter where you are in a movie experience, your home, or local theater, video is always in front of you and never occupies your entire vision. Audio, on the other hand, surrounds you totally, 360 degrees of immersion.

In Hollywood, you can have "a lot of percents" because Hollywood is about as mixed up, ass backwards, and isolated from reality as something can possibly be.

Everything is a part of the movie experience, I just think that when it comes to establishing and mainatining mood, and bringing the audience fully into the world you are trying to create, audio does it more.

But, everyone has their own opinion, mine being my own. Not like it a test where there is a right or wrong answer, more like a huge grey area.

:beer:

 

[Matt Grunau]

Wave Lab is an amazing program. It's one of those programs that I keep a PC around for (no mac version), although I'm using it less and less. With Cubase SX3 I have almost all the audio processing tools I need and if I need more (very unusual) I go out to Peak. Dedicated music guys I know, those producing Red Book CDs, live for Wave Lab - I'm not one of those guys. Sound forge is great, I know a couple of guys that use it, it's just not what I'm used to, as I said it's a preference thing (I like purple, you like blue).

You do a lot of recording too right? I pretty much use all prerecorded sounds. Would Cubase be a benifit in that regard? And I have a question for you, check your PM shortly.

 

[MattC]

The worst part of course is by adopting that mentality you don't then ask the follow up questions that should be asked. Like, ok, I have to record audio to my camera for the forseable future. What techniques can I employ to get my audio as clean as possible. And what tests can we do to demonstrate that. I've heard XL2 audio that sucks ass. I even produced some when I first got the camera. But within a weekend I was producing very clean audio with that camera. Now, I have no idea how the audio circuitry of the two cameras compares, other than hearing this test - but even if one is better I can't believe it's THAT much better. Which leads me to believe that if I had a DVX for a weekend I could get better audio than this from it. Am I right about that? Who knows, certainly not me. Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't - but I would think that everyone would be interested in learning if you could.

Matt