Admit it: How often have you used on-camera audio for the final edit?

[Mark Phelan]

And it is the Schoeps and the Mix Pre D doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The EPIC preamps are not great but when you feed them a decent signal, from a combo like that you don't get into the preamp issues that can arise when modifying the EPIC's gain. Going "direct" is most likely where one is most likely to run into problems.


David

Completely agree. And I'll add that it is as far as I'm willing to go by "going direct". Following the simple GIGO posit, garbage in – garbage out. If you give the camera something decent, it'll record it. Give it crap, it'll record that too.

It's funny how this forum always comes around to the same conclusions. I was counting down, 3, 2, 1 before Marc chimed in with his views, which I highly regard.

 

[Elsie N]

I think you're trying to justify doing things in a cheap, slapdash kind of way. If you own a 788, why run anything but scratch audio into the camera?

Talk to a re-recording mixer and ask them what kind of tracks they would prefer to mix for a TV series or a feature film. If it's some crap production for YouTube or a test or something, I can understand it.

Really, the only issue is finding a warm body to a) operate the recorder (and change levels and do all the things a sound mixer does), and b) a different person to sync up everything for the editor. You need the latter anyway because you need to organize and back up the files, and syncing the material up takes only about a minute per take -- less if the timecode is identical. The people doing these jobs can be affordable​ if you shop around and make deals, so this need not take a lot of time and money. But each does require some experience and expertise.

I get that there are some situations where you have to run a "one man band," particularly for surreptitious surveillance or dangerous areas (like war zones). But for scripted productions, this sounds like penny wise and pound foolish.

Marc, I understood the OP's statement quite differently. That is, I'm thinking he is asking if the CAMERA's sound recording is up to par rather than whether or not going direct is best practice.

As many have stated here, they seem to feel the camera's on board recording capabilities do measure up.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

What Elsie said, which has been my suspicion all along. I just wanted some confirmation.



Stephen

 

[Marc Wielage]

And it is the Schoeps and the Mix Pre D doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The EPIC preamps are not great but when you feed them a decent signal, from a combo like that you don't get into the preamp issues that can arise when modifying the EPIC's gain. Going "direct" is most likely where one is most likely to run into problems.

I have to admit, the SD mic preamps are terrific and will be a significant update to any camcorder's preamps. And if you feed line in to the camera at a reasonable level (without clipping), it can sound OK.

Marc, I understood the OP's statement quite differently. That is, I'm thinking he is asking if the CAMERA's sound recording is up to par rather than whether or not going direct is best practice. As many have stated here, they seem to feel the camera's on board recording capabilities do measure up.

They sound "OK," but that doesn't mean they sound optimum. I guarantee you, if you were to talk to any re-recording mixer in the world, they would tell you to record on a separate dedicated device away from the camera.

There are a lot of key reasons to do so: 1) if the camera file fails for any reason, you still have a sound backup; 2) if the camera operator changes speed to a non-sync speed, the audio generally will go away; 3) you need somebody to constantly check the sound levels to make sure they're brought up when it gets too quiet and brought down when it gets too high... sometimes with multiple actors or interview subjects speaking at one time. It's very difficult to change the sound levels on the camera while a scene is being shot. The other reason to do so is 4) sound quality, in general, is better on any reasonable-quality recorder (and I would count Aaton, Nagra, Sound Devices, and Zaxcom on that list).

The other issue I constantly harp on is that the camera operator has already got to worry about exposure, composition, the camera move, focus, battery power, the current state of the weather, where the shadows are, and so on. Adding to that monitoring the sound and worrying about sound levels is too much. Their job is already hard enough.

I still say this is just a question to justify being cheap, and I don't think it makes sense on a scripted show. I get that there are zero-budget productions, student films, demos, YouTube videos, and other situations where it's unavoidable, and I'm also keenly aware that reality shows and low-budget documentaries routinely just run sound to camera (except in cases where you have to record half a dozen or more actors on wireless). This can work, but it's not optimum, and be aware there are many opportunities for camera audio failure even under the best circumstances.

 

[David Battistella]

All great points Marc,

Double systems is the way to go, with a dedicated sound department. But that isn't always possible with some types of production,

I had some custom attenuated cables made for my "old fashioned" mix pre that take the level down to Mic level before being fed into the camera and that has worked out very well because the preamps int eh Mix Pre are awesome. I know an ADR recording mixer friend who put that mixer inline before the soundboard because he loves those pre amps so much.

I've had to do this for time reasons many times in fast turnaround situations where there would be no time to sync rushes, etc and the onboard audio had to be it's best. I tested the crap out of it here before putting it out there for client use. We still recorded a back-up but never went to it and the recorded audio was pretty clean when the EPIC preamps are not pushed. Recording a mono OUTPUT to two tracks onboard you could also drop the level a bit on the second track for overload protection but the limiters in the mix pre are pretty fantastic at covering that as well.

David

 

[Patrick Tresch]

The other reason to do so is 4) sound quality, in general, is better on any reasonable-quality recorder (and I would count Aaton, Nagra, Sound Devices, and Zaxcom on that list).

...and Sonosax ;-)

I'm looking for a good sound preamp on the DSMC2 compatible module from who ever makes it, as for me, doing a lot of documentaries, a mic placed on the camera is very important. To bad the 2 mic on the Weapon arn't ballanced audio line inputs or good preamps with 48v options.


Now I wonder why none have spoken about the possibility to synch your audio tracks in Redcine-X. I've found this solution to be the fastest solution. It performs the synch in a fraction of second for a whole bin (clips from the day). Then you can export them embeded in the proxy files.

Pat

 

[David Battistella]

Now I wonder why none have spoken about the possibility to synch your audio tracks in Redcine-X. I've found this solution to be the fastest solution. It performs the synch in a fraction of second for a whole bin (clips from the day). Then you can export them embeded in the proxy files.

Pat

Just to throw this out there. I think that the RCX sync won't carry over to your NLE like FCPX, etc, but that is a great option if ou are rendering out of RCX. You can do this in Resolve as well for daillies.

X2Pro has been working well for me extracting the R3D audio from the FCP X xml and saved to an AAC file which can be imported into any DAW and the sync has been rock solid. The EPIC dragon records 48K 24-bit audio and it opens up with no sync issues this way. IF I did double system then I can also do a TC sync in FCP X and export both camera recorded and external recorded audio for final mix.

David

 

[Marc Wielage]

...and Sonosax ;-)

I shouldn't leave out Sonosax -- they also make extraordinarily good-sounding mixers and recorders.

Note anything you can sync up in Redcine-X Pro you can also do in any editing program. It's not that hard to do, and it's been done for years and years and years. It does help when everything has identical matching timecode.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

All great points Marc,
Recording a mono OUTPUT to two tracks onboard you could also drop the level a bit on the second track for overload protection but the limiters in the mix pre are pretty fantastic at covering that as well.
David

I loved doing this all the time back in the hvx200 days, but how do you do that with RED? I asked it before on the audio forum but never got an answer.

 

[David Battistella]

I loved doing this all the time back in the hvx200 days, but how do you do that with RED? I asked it before on the audio forum but never got an answer.

In the context of sending two discreet outputs from a mixer.

David

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Am I the only one who can't understand, that in 2016 there is still no fieldmixer, that can deliver multi channel audio vial SDI to the camera, and no camera that has an SDI in for this? I mean, that's no rocket science, and syncing in post is soooo 80s.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

In the context of sending two discreet outputs from a mixer.

David

Ok, In the panasonic you were able to do this all internal. At the moment I need a xlr input on a workstation and perhaps a mixpre d would be a good solution since i could up the recorded sound on the camera aswel.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Am I the only one who can't understand, that in 2016 there is still no fieldmixer, that can deliver multi channel audio vial SDI to the camera, and no camera that has an SDI in for this? I mean, that's no rocket science, and syncing in post is soooo 80s.

There's most likely far better solutions coming down the pipe, but for now very few cameras can match the external audio recorders in terms of quality.

As for synching in post, I hear ya. Even when timecode is jam synched properly on set, we still do a lot of nudging in dailies to get it perfect.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Am I the only one who can't understand, that in 2016 there is still no fieldmixer, that can deliver multi channel audio vial SDI to the camera, and no camera that has an SDI in for this? I mean, that's no rocket science, and syncing in post is soooo 80s.

HD-SDI would be an unusual method to capture audio anywhere. There is a move that established Dante as a professional standard for multichannel digital audio on an ethernet cable, but even that has not been widely adapted for production sound. It's big for live sound (concerts, churches, etc.).

I think again the problem comes back to the need to record picture in a camera and sound in a sound recorder. If you try to do both in one box, the danger is risking losing everything: the "all the eggs in one basket" syndrome. There are very valid reasons to record separately. Syncing is not the huge issue a lot of people think it is. Heck, backing up and checking all the files is a much, much bigger issue. Syncing takes :30 seconds per shot; backing up and checking a day's worth of camera files takes hours and hours.

There's most likely far better solutions coming down the pipe, but for now very few cameras can match the external audio recorders in terms of quality. As for synching in post, I hear ya. Even when timecode is jam synched properly on set, we still do a lot of nudging in dailies to get it perfect.

I have had dailies sessions where we did 300 shots in a day and had to nudge maybe 5 shots. It can work absolutely perfectly provided everything is aligned and you have a great crew staying on top of things. Even during the final mix, I have seen many cases where a scene "looks" out of sync because of the actor's mannerisms and the camera angle, so they'll slip and slide the track a frame. It's better to go with how it feels than what the numbers say.

 

[Stacey Spears]

To me, on-board audio is more of a convenience. With a good pre-amp, such as the SD302, I have gotten great audio results with the EPIC. I mostly used it for dual system sound though. Even if I thought the audio was good enough, I still used the externally recorded audio if nothing more than piece of mind. (really OCD!)

The way I approach it is that if I am spending this much money for what I consider the best possible image quality, I want the best possible audio quality to go with it. I don't think of Red as an audio company, so I go with an external recorder. This is not me saying that I think Red is good or bad at audio. I just want someone who puts as much effort into audio as Red puts into video. These days I am looking at getting an SD633. I will probably still send audio out of the 633 into the Weapon for dual system sound. Its good to have a backup and also helps sync later.

I also like to work with someone who is as passionate about audio as I am about video. As Marc posted, I have enough to worry about on the video side. Obviously not every project can have a dedicated audio person.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

In camera recording should be the same quality as any pro recorder, it's all about the preamps and digitizing.
If we had a fieldmixer with good amps and encoding, sending the data stream to the camera should be a no brainer IMHO.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

In camera recording should be the same quality as any pro recorder, it's all about the preamps and digitizing.
If we had a fieldmixer with good amps and encoding, sending the data stream to the camera should be a no brainer IMHO.

Sending the data stream is the problem as it has to be converted A/D /compressed/ converted D/A to get in the HF path. If you do it wired it's "less" a problem.

Pat

 

[Lakis Amarantithis]

I use one camera with the PRO IO MODULE and the 788t, the sound from the module or a mixer is good but I also have the 788t connected via a timecode cable to the PRO IO module. The 788t's sound is extremely good in my opinion, for small projects the module's xlr's are "ok" but for a serious project I use always the 788t.

 

[Nick Morrison]

To be clear, the recordings from my Sound guys Nomad always sound cleaner/better than what we send the camera (even though thats always usable).

 

[Brian Ferguson]

The Zaxcom equipment (Nomad) is truly first rate, I like Sound Devices but they have slightly different approaches toward the same ends, Zaxcom really has some amazing integration between their wireless transmitters and the Nomad mixer/recorder/receiver all with TC built in. Really great quality. If you already had a bunch of wireless mics Sound Devices might be the way to go. If you want a new integrated system Zaxcom might be a better choice. Just a subjective decision.

I have done a lot of recording directly to Epic cameras, and RED One's for that matter. I dealt with RED audio since it was turned on. Almost always through a SD 302 with Lectrosonics wireless, with Sanken COS-11 lav mics, and also simataneously with Sanken CS-1 on a boom. Primarily athlete interviews for Oakley. I have done hundreds of these, usually a 2 man crew with quick post schedules. I don't think we ever did 2 system sound at Oakley. We always had great results and occasionally we would mount a small camera mounted shotgun for "nat sound" for run & gun situations. Just getting ambience, it was okay, not as good as going through a mixer.

With the new Weapon camera I have not had such a good audio experiences so far. The last couple of outings I split the audio from the wireless lav between the second camera - Epic Dragon, and the main camera Weapon Dragon, the audio on Weapon is only useful as scratch track. When I send a 1K tone from my SD 302 which I attenuated to the Epic for a "mic" level (which it will only take a type of mic level). I can set the levels easily on the Epic.

This time, a studio situation 2 cameras one wide and one tight - talking head, corporate stuff. I split the audio from the Lectrosonics wireless receiver and sent one to the 302 for the Epic as the main audio recorder, and the other split went to a SD MixPre-D. I was ready to record a back-up with the USB out on the MixPre-D on my Mac PowerBook and Boom Recorder Lite (you can get it on the Apple App store, 2 channel recorder, baby version of the big pro app). The boss said he didn't think we needed to.

The Weapon is just odd - you send it 1K tone with the preset Mic level from the MixPre-D it is way too low. If you boost the level you get a lot of weird background noise. If you send it tone at Line is way too hot with the camera preamps turned all the way down. So I left that mixer at Line Out and then just turned down the input and watched the levels from a distance on the LCD. It was the best audio I have had yet on Weapon but the camera isn't really set-up to any standard I know of. The RED One had better audio, which is an odd progression.

So my take-away is I trust the levels on Epic, don't trust the levels on Weapon at all. I don't think I will ever record another session without a dual system. Back-up is the way to go. I wish I had a better report, because I love this camera.