Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Request for Great Built-in Audio

Have to agree with you K

Don't get too confused with the numbers, even though a good 24 bit implementation would be nice, the signal chain and how to tweak it is much more important. Actually I would by far prefer a cheapo mic + a nice signal chain to attach a mixer with low noise and external pots + a pad, to a cheapo phantom solution. But this is RED. The builders of the 4 channal RED ONE without a simple way to adjust levels... Haven't even tried to record audio to the ONE yet. Is it good?
 
RED Audio is perfectly usable but it's not going to set any benchmarks for the world's ultimate audio gear. Nothing like the groundbreaking level of image quality. Personally I don't even think it would be that expensive to implement something much better on Scarlet. Just about everything you'd need for high-end audio is already available on a box like this that *retails* for $179.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AudioBoxUSB

Surely the parts to put into a camera going into larger scale production would be much cheaper. Jarred is all over that sort of component sourcing.

My point is that adding leading quality audio into the camera is not going to be costly or even technically that difficult. It just needs to be made a priority as it was kinda left hanging on RED One, at least in the early builds and the lack of hardware controls is a major omission it would have been easy. I have no doubt Scarlet will completely deliver with the image, RED has already proven this skill. Why not shoot for the sky with both picture and sound? At least that's my never to be humble opinion.

Noah
 
Two XLR's and the ability to feed power to the mic directly from the camera, as well as make it avalible for the use of an external mixer.
It's enough for me... my wishful thinking is 24-bit 96Hkz, because that sound quality rocks.

Not having good audio or not as good as the HVX200/DVX100 is out of the question I think. A big deal about the term "Digital Cinema" is the fact that you can have both sound and images together without worry about syncing together them in post. The workflow is too slow if we need to record on DAT because the camera isn't good enough.

Audio is as important as image in my view, movies isn't a visual artform it's an audiovisual artform. It's been that since sound came into the picture.

So, I believe that the absolute minimum quality for a camera like this is to have two XLR inputs that can feed power to an external mic and have an ergonomic volume slider.

That, together with a good wide range like 12mm - 17mm is my suggestions or wishes for this camera.
 
NoahK said:
Just about everything you'd need for high-end audio is already available on a box like this that *retails* for $179.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AudioBoxUSB

Surely the parts to put into a camera going into larger scale production would be much cheaper. Jarred is all over that sort of component sourcing.
Click to expand...

OK, first of all, that box is almost the size of the entire Scarlet! And second of all, I think prosumer audio is probably a much larger market than the market of potential Scarlet buyers.

Let's get real people. I'm sure Scarlet is going to have perfectly fine audio for non-critical situations and scratch tracks but it's absurd to expect much else out of a device so small and inexpensive. I want Red to revolutionize the quality of motion picture capture and so far that's what they've been doing. There are plenty of affordable solutions in the audio field already. Let Red focus on their strengths.
 
I'm sure this is too late because the die has been cast, but if Scarlet was more of a box like EPIC with a host of interface connections, then a series of modular boxes could be attached, one for transport controls, one for audio, one for media, one for power, etc...

By using a modular approach to design this would enable an easy plug & play approach to upgrades and retros. Other mfg.s could jump in and produce all sorts of extensions and turbo this & that. You might go for a different media system and I might want an enhanced power system, and someone else might want an enhanced audio system.

This mothership and her little modular children would keep all of us with our different needs happy. This would be my approach.
 
Hope you're right, master Noah.

I'm just speaking, based on my [limited] understanding of audio gear.

Hey, :), I've had my eye on the Presonus FireBox for some time...

http://www.zzounds.com/item--PRSFIREBOX

Gotta compare with this new AudioBox thing...

Looks like a USB Inspire so far...

PreSonus are a great brand, AFAIK, delivering pro performance at a price that my pocket would like.

TC Electronic should be also very good.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--TCEKONNECT8

..For example. Same price.

But one day, when I grow up...

...I hope to have one of those:

http://www.prismsound.com/music_recording/products_subs/orpheus/orpheus_home.php

Or one of the bigger PreSonus bugs.

...

Dreams are free, right? :)

Regarding audio, I have no Christmas wishes for Scarlet.

If it delivers equal to the HVX200, I'll be one happy kiddie.

...

I'll be getting a Scarlet. Even with a fixed lens it will probably smoke the rest in terms of quality. I'm sure it will.

And of course - I'm in love :love:.

But just think about it - why give away that 2000-2500 extra $ to the 35adapter people?

Not that I have anything against them, they're great.

But... that's money that will go elsewhere, for sure. Why skip it?

And the people that just want to make home movies won`t go for the 3K $ Scarlet, they'll go for the HV20\30.

3K$ sounds like too much for home movies.

And RAW recording? Most people don't even know what this is... and they don't care.

Scarlet is for more "involved" people: pros, semi-pros, serious enthusiasts, enamoured kiddies, etc. ;)

OK, I'm not a businessman. Jim says that you have to sell a lot of Scarlets to make it a good deal.

I see that RED isn't only about camera-making, but also about surviving and being successful as a business.

The fixed lens looks more like a "business" thing than a camera-making thing.

But if it's essential to the RED company, I can understand that.

With all the great things that you've been doing, I wouldn't want you to go down, even if I have an interchangeable lens Scarlet.

And you certainly know better than me what will sell better.

But we all know which camera would be the better one for a all of us enamoured kiddies.

It would be a Scarlet with interchangeable lens options.

So... just thinkin`..

Sorry, huge post.

Cheers. :)
 
karapetkov said:
The truth is, a single good pre-amp would cost maybe half the price of the camera itself.
Click to expand...

http://www.juicedlink.com/index_files/CX_camcorder_XLR_microphone_adapter_audio_mixers.htm

I have a Sony FX7 so I don't get phantom and don't get XLRs. I bought a Beachtek, and it sucks!

Juicedlink boxes are made with top-notch parts, and yield lower noise than the Mix-Pre box because of the high-grade preamps... Look at the price, it's CHEAP.

Anyway. This box is a great solution, it's compact, it has decent preamps, it has phantom out of 9V batteries for 3 hours.

Like already said, Scarlet could feature a little box to attach below to provide 2 XLRs and Phantom.

Keep it modular!

PS: Hey RED! Why not hire the guy that makes Juicedlink? lol
 
Or just phantom through the cameras XLR connection, why make it complicated?
 
It's a $3,000 camera guys. $3,000. If you want the best, most professional feature set, go spend $30,000 on a Red One or $60,000 on an Epic. If you don't have that kind of budget, then learn to live with the fact that you might have to compromise a bit for $3,000.
________
TOYOTA SCEPTER SPECIFICATIONS
 
My DVX100 have two XLR inputs and Phantom power, so what do you mean Ethan? I really don't see why the Scarlet couldn't have at least one XLR input with phantom power. The only thing I see as a obstacle is the size of the input.

And Scarlet is a professional camera, so I expect at least a professional input.
 
Ethan Cooper said:
It's a $3,000 camera guys. $3,000. If you want the best, most professional feature set, go spend $30,000 on a Red One or $60,000 on an Epic. If you don't have that kind of budget, then learn to live with the fact that you might have to compromise a bit for $3,000.
Click to expand...

Well to be perfectly frank the audio on the RED One was a little wanting at first too(well actually non-existent), though it was ultimately addressed as best as possible through firmware updates. Just hoping they'll nudge in the right direction with Scarlet up front and acknowledge this is very important to most experienced filmmakers.

Noah
 
Glazarus said:
And Scarlet is a professional camera, so I expect at least a professional input.
Click to expand...

Did anyone say the final product wouldn't have XLR's? All they showed at NAB was a very early mockup. Granted I haven't read every spec of info here in since NAB and could have missed some type of official audio announcement, but I'm not aware of the input options being set in stone.

It could very well be that due to Scarlet's size they decide to add XLR's as some type of add-on accessory, who knows.

That's not my gripe anyway. My problem is with those who are begging for top notch audio in a $3,000 camera that is also supposed to have superb imaging capability, write scripts for you, have bad acting detection, and an easy edit function. I think everyone is asking a bit too much from a $3,000 camera.
________
Honda Spree
 
Mm-yeah, why not make partnership with an established manufacturer, say PreSonus.

It would certainly draw many [more] eyes to the Scarlet.

RED Scarlet with PreSonus audio.

Or other similar.
 
Ethan Cooper said:
That's not my gripe anyway. My problem is with those who are begging for top notch audio in a $3,000 camera that is also supposed to have superb imaging capability, write scripts for you, have bad acting detection, and an easy edit function. I think everyone is asking a bit too much from a $3,000 camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not "begging" for anything brother, just pointing out that a little bit of forethought now in the design phase could result in an even more desirable camera with superior tech-specs to what's already out there. No one's asking for bad acting or script detection- I'll leave that to the audience thank you. :whistling:

We already know Scarlet will have great imaging capability- that's a given with RED. So what's wrong with asking for just a little more innovation with proper inputs, pan pots and recording format selection? If you're satisfied with the status quo on the audio side or relying on hiring someone else and their outboard audio gear to make sure the audio is pro- hey good for you.

But please don't take the sentiment far beyond the simple technical request for something any experienced filmmaker would agree is truly important. And as with anything it's just a suggestion. If RED decides not to implement any of these suggestions- hey it's their camera and no one's forcing me to buy it. At $3,000 for a 3K camera I'll get one anyway- it's a no brainer...

-Noah
 
Can't see a whole lot wrong with asking them to place a higher priority on audio. Red One's audio journey has been a little rough. And on the Scarlet prototype, I don't recall seeing *any* audio inputs on it. At all. Not XLRs, not mini-XLRs, not even a 1/8" mini-jack.

I'm with Noah on this: let's ask for good audio up-front and ask that it be prioritized. As someone else said, a DVX100 (which is less expensive than a Scarlet) has a pretty good audio subsection on it. Even the HMC70, the ugliest camera on earth, has dual XLRs with phantom power and line/mic switchable.
 
Ethan Cooper said:
Did anyone say the final product wouldn't have XLR's? All they showed at NAB was a very early mockup. Granted I haven't read every spec of info here in since NAB and could have missed some type of official audio announcement, but I'm not aware of the input options being set in stone.

It could very well be that due to Scarlet's size they decide to add XLR's as some type of add-on accessory, who knows.

That's not my gripe anyway. My problem is with those who are begging for top notch audio in a $3,000 camera that is also supposed to have superb imaging capability, write scripts for you, have bad acting detection, and an easy edit function. I think everyone is asking a bit too much from a $3,000 camera.
Click to expand...

Why go back to the land of 35mm film where you can't record audio that syncs directly on location? I don't see any reason for not having good audio together with the good image. Audio isn't such a big deal to get good quality out of compared to how hard it is to get a good image. The bitrate and Hkz isn't what I'm talking about here, it's being able to use a good microphone on location.

Phantom power from the input of the camera makes a very smooth production workflow and especially for documentaries where there are only one person filming and doing the sound.
I don't care if it's XLR or something else, as long as it can feed power to the external mic and be able to carry the signal without loosing it's quality.

But it should at least be a professional input like what the XLR input is.
It will be more then odd if my old DVX100E have better audio capability then Scarlet, when audio isn't such a big deal of getting descent.
With my DVX100 I get two XLR inputs, 16bit 48Khz sound, is that impossible?
3K at under $3000 is impossible so :)

As said, the only thing I can see that limits the use of XLR's is the fact that Scarlet is a small camera and XLR's are big connection, but I assume that the connections on the Red One can feed power, even though you need to adapt to XLR connections? Or am I wrong?
 
Scarlet is clearly defined as a "professional" camera and not a "prosumer" one.
A professional camera should have XLR plugs. Heck, even most prosumer cameras have them.
 
Glazarus said:
Why go back to the land of 35mm film where you can't record audio that syncs directly on location? I don't see any reason for not having good audio together with the good image.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, nor was I advocating this. I'm just interpreting some of the requests here as people wanting "I paid an audio guy with top notch, specialized gear to come in and record pristine audio" type sound in this very inexpensive camera.

A good field mixer alone costs almost as much as this camera. How much are people expecting for 3 grand?

I, like many of you, expect the audio controls and quality on Scarlet to be at least as good as our old DV cameras and much better than crappy HVD audio, but I don't expect much more, and certainly not in the neighborhood of a high quality, specialized and expensive piece of audio recording gear. That's all I'm trying to say here guys. Sure, I'd love for them to give me the best of everything, but it's a $3,000 video and audio package, and that's what I keep coming back to. Even at this price this thing is a bargin compared to what's on the market today.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding some of you, much like some of you have misunderstood me. Hopefully we're clear now.
________
YAMAHA RHINO HISTORY
 
I said in another audio thread that Scarlet is more important to have good audio capabilites then Red One and Epic.
One and Epic is mostly used on feature/shortfilms and television series where aftersync might be more common even when it's possible to record directly onto the footage.

Scarlet will probably be used more "on the spot" like with documentaries and in areas where you might not even have a soundguy and need a good mic mounted on the camera.

So, Scarlet is more important to have good audio capabilites then the other Red cameras. That's my thought anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top