non in-ear headphones for dvx100a?

i really like the HD212pro by Sennheiser - its a relatively cheap set of phones that are sturdy, well isolated, and great for day to day to day stuff. They are FAR from garbage, and yet they are cheap enough that you dont pee your pants everytime they take a tumble. If you got money to spare, the Ultrasone HFI550 phones are undoubtedly the most awesome phones Ive ever used: really comfy, and open sounding.

Both these sets of phones are CLOSED.
 
The 7506's are great phones, but they do VERY LITTLE about the echo. If you really press 'em up against your ears tight, trying to block out real-world sound, you can get around the echo.

I also got a set of Etymotics, and they are brilliant at blocking out the echo. Superb little phones. I love the 7506's, but they're not echo-killers.
 
Barry... even with the echo gone isn't hard to listen to yourself with the radio delay?

I can't help but analyze my own voice and it slows down my speech like somebody's potting down my brain power... it's like an optical illusion for my brain.
 
MattC said:
Have to slam the XL1 huh??? LOL!!

The XL2 records 16/48k. While not 24bit, it is INCREDIBLY clean for dialog. Check one out...
Click to expand...


The feature I just finished was shot on that camera, with audio recorded right onto it, plugging directly, sans mixer. Sounded not so hot, but they used the AT897, which has a low output level anyway, so....The Sennheiser G2 they had plugged in directly sounded ok.

As much as I respect Jay Rose, and your own testing, Matt, I am speaking from real world working conditions. Lab test results really don't mean anything to me. I deal with this stuff all the time. I've even messed with the camera myself, thinking that it was just user error. Whereas the camera isn't the worst thing out there by any means, I would not consider it to be great. It's marginal, and usable in some situations. However, if you are concerned about audio quality (which you should considering you are concerned about picture quality), then I'm of the ilk that you should do everything you can to make sure you have the best audio you can. I'm always amazed when people bring in their DVX100, that they just spent $3500, on, and then don't want to spend more than $500 for sound. Where is the logic. For some reason, these people are willing to spend the money for a camera with good picture, but don't want to make the extra investment to make sure their audio is just as good as the picture can be. They have this "fix it in post" mentality, and then get really grumpy when they aren't willing to spend the money in post to fix the problems that they themselves created by not doing things right from the get go.

-stepping down from soapbox.

If you have to use the cameras mic pres, then don't expect great sound, that's my point.

-Dave
 
Dave_Fisk said:
The feature I just finished was shot on that camera, with audio recorded right onto it, plugging directly, sans mixer. Sounded not so hot, but they used the AT897, which has a low output level anyway, so....The Sennheiser G2 they had plugged in directly sounded ok.
Click to expand...

I would say that's bad mic placement then, having used the XL2 with the 897 (of course I also tend to run my dialog through an L2 Ultramaximizer). I've achieved some amazingly clean audio. By amazingly clean, I don't mean that the sound is "OMG just amazing", but that it's amazing that I got sound as good as I did out of a camcorder. And like I said, it's pretty damn clean - no signal noise that I can detect. I wouldn't record a vocalist with them, but for capturing clean dialog I think it's fine given what most folks here are doing with it. I'll put together a clip for you and send you an email.

I do agree with you though, folks spend thousands upon thousands on image (camera, tapes, lights, dollys, NLE software, compositing software, etc.) and then ask what the best mic they can get for $200 is, or they don't want to use a real audio app to mix their movie in, or they don't want real monitors, but they'll pay for a broadcast monitor..... I feel ya man. I think audio is like some kind of mystical voodoo for a lot of folks - they simply don't know...

Matt
 
MattinSTL said:
Barry... even with the echo gone isn't hard to listen to yourself with the radio delay?

I can't help but analyze my own voice and it slows down my speech like somebody's potting down my brain power... it's like an optical illusion for my brain.
Click to expand...

I've experienced the exact same thing! It drives me nuts.
 
Voodoo is right.

I do have to say that on all the projects that I've worked on, the best sounding production audio was always on the DVX100. I've had a couple XL-1 projects, which never sounded all that great, and only one thing (the feature) on the XL-2. I think you are right about mic placement. It was eithe camera mounted, or they used the wireless as a plant mic, so coverage was never really there, but there were a couple of scenes that did sound pretty good. The picture was really nice, I can say that. I had been working from a low res picture, and when I went to the screening, I was blown away at how nice it looked.

-Dave
 
Dave... please humor me. Click the link of my buddy playing guitar... how is that not great sound?

I'm open, but unless you have computer speakers and no decent soundcard in your computer (for good headphone out) then I just can't understand how that is not great sound?

Please help me here. I tried to hash this out with you a long time ago and I felt like you were evading me constantly... We can barely see each other with the 800 pound gorilla on the table and you still deny seeing the damn thing. Please listen to the sound file... that's an mp3 too... and STILL it's nothing but dead silence and crisp signal... What am I missing here?

PLEASE! Please EVERYBODY... when you listen to THIS FILE RIGHT HERE... CLICK how can you tell me that is NOT great sound?

A long time ago we had a debate where you said the CS-1 is warm and the 416 is brittle... and even though I couldn't find one other person who agreed with that it still drove me nuts that you thought that. I kept asking myself how anybody could say anything but the opposite of that and I was dying to know what you were hearing that I wasn't... now I gotta' know what I'm missing that you're getting with your audio... or at least WHY that isn't nearly perfect sound? Please criticise it for me so I can understand your perspective.:huh:
 
The 416 is still brittle, in my opinion. It's not bad, but brittle when compared to the cs-1, or the mkh60...and I've a/b'ed them extensively in different environments, and I've even had the pleasure to hear actual raw production tracks from big budget films (pirates II, war of the worlds), with different mics, so I know what they sound like. But that's really off topic at this point.

I'm at work, and I have really really crappy computer speakers on my machine here, so even the most beautiful cello concerto will sound like poo on my computer here. When I get a chance I'll listen to your recording when I get home.

-Dave



:)
 
Yeah. Just for giggles I downloaded it here at work, and I confirmed my computer speakers here suck.
 
Thanks Dave... if sometimes I sound like an ass it's only from the frustration of not understanding somebody else's perspective.

I think it was around 3 years ago that an online buddy of mine, Bryan Beasleigh, advised me that the only two mics I owned at the time... were total crap. For about 1 second I thought, "you jerk!"... but then I listened to his explanation of what he was finding in his own real world tests. We both had the me66 at the time and I also had an m58 (beyerdynamic) and he had a d230 (akg)... for interview mics. Based solely on what he explained to me I sold BOTH mics on ebay and bought new ones. Maybe this was a little impulsive, but if somebody can give me a good logical argument for something then I'm a very open-minded person. Shortly after that he sent me the first A/B comparison test... this was before ANY of the DVfreelancer stuff (linked here under shotgun comparison)... we both went berzerk after that. Bryan has Schoeps, MKH-60, and several other high-end mics that nobody here has heard of... and he's also got the 302 and he's the one with the Greg Winter modded Sony.

It would take a paragraph to list all the mics I've owned over the last 3 years... The total of cash that's left my wallet is around $8K on just mics... but I've sold them almost as fast as I bought 'em... at this point I've still got a pretty good selection.

My point is that a logical argument, with something audible to back it up, made me spend $8K over 2 or 3 years. A $500 investment in something that will make a difference in my sound quality is NOTHING to me. It's less then nothing... I'd do it today if you can give me the logical argument and something to back it up. I'll host the files!

Believe me there is nothing I'd take more joy in then significantly improving the audio I'm currently getting. I'd LOVE to think that it could get much better... and I will certainly put my money where my mouth is. On the few well-paid professional shoots I've been on they had a Marantz 670 on hand... and after hearing the DVX they stopped using it. They said that since I was camera 1 and all the video had to be loaded into the NLE anyway what was the point in double sound since the DVX was matching the quality of the 670 anyway?

The one thing I really want to stress is to say THANKS for taking the time to discuss this with me here. If you can enlighten me (like my other online buddy did) then I'll be even more appreciative.

Bryan was the one who said there's no point in me getting a mixer to improve my sound... although he endorses me buying a mixer for use as a mixer... When I asked him where he got his mixpre (yes he has mixpre AND 302) he just said "your sound is clean and if you're getting a mixpre because you think you're going to hear a difference... you're not".
 
I gotta' decide if I can spend the cash this instant... but I'd like to improve my wireless booming and the Sound Devices MM-1 has the same circuitry as their other mixer/pre-amps... and this'll bypass the mic-pres in the DVX and it should bypass almost everything else in there too... since it results in a line feed. After I get one of these I'll do a couple A/B comparisons and we'll see if anybody can tell 'em apart. As a bonus it'll only cost $350 to REALLY get this answered... Please tell me if there's a flaw in this logic?
 
Your friend's voice sounds a teenie bit 'tinny' when he reaches for those high notes. But that's only noticeable because I was trying very hard to listen to anything abnormal. Other then that it was great. I'd say no less then CD quality for sure.

BTW, not to thread jack, but I just got the oktava, and when we compared to the Rode NTG 2 I just got as well, it is noticeably warmer and more natural. The Rode is nice as well, but I'm lovin' the oktava. Thanks for the recommendation.

Joe
 
Everybody should have a pair of Oktava's, just because of the price. They are versatile, and great "put it in harm's way" mics if you need. I have an older pair, and they sound pretty good. Not as directional as the Rode, but if you want something not as directional as the Rode, then you're set.

-Dave
 
Joe... you hear him coughing later in the song? We were laughing 'cause his voice was sh*t that night... if you listened to the whole thing then you hear him laughing at himself when he can't hit a note. This was NOT the night to prove anything of this guy's ability... I just happened to have my camera and he just happened to have his guitar. Also it's just him... he writes, sings, and plays his own stuff. I told him to come by when he DIDN'T have a cold... but so far he hasn't. My point is that the only flaws you can find in that recording are from him... not the equipment.

Still... I am going to get the MM-1 and run it line in on the DVX. I can also run it into a 670, but that won't prove anything either... if I had a Deva or something truly perfect to record with that would be best... but I'm really not trying to say that DVX audio can't be beat... I'm just saying that it's good enough for everything short of a full-budget hollywood feature... or a music recording intended for pressing and national distribution. So again, I'm not saying it does any of that... all I'm saying is that for a guy who chose a $3500 camera in the first place... the sound can't be beat without spending MORE then the cost of the cam on other aspects of the audio chain.

I don't think the MM-1 is going to do anything for me other then allow the boom op to hear what he's doing... and run wired or wireless at the same time. I'd bet that once I do a recording running the MM-1 line-in... or a mic as mic-in... that nobody will be able to hear the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top