I'm a solo operation using an HV20, Canon shotgun and an AT wireless lav. I've been reading a lot about improving audio. My camera is capable of great images but the audio leaves something to desired, so I'm thinking it may be time to add a mixer or, based on reading an older post in the HV 20 forum, something like an SD 7 series recorder and bypassing (or using it only as a backup) the camera altogether.

So, I have a few choices: mixer, recorder or both. I don't plan to keep the small camera forever, so the money spent on audio is an investment I need to be able to use with future gear. I understand how each unit works in principle, though not entirely sure why you can skip the mixer on the SD 7 series and go right to the recorder (is there a built-in mixer?)

What I don't "get" is the hands on logistics during a shoot. Where do you park the sound gear in relation to the camera, near the tripod? What if you are handheld, must you allow several dozen feet of cable to move around?

Forgive me the naive questions. Most of the people I see shooting are handheld and run everything directly to the camera. My camera is is sort of the weak link in the chain as it pertains to audio. I don't envision ever having a second person to work with, so my solution has to be as close to "set it and forget it" as reasonable.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Good audio is tougher to get than good video. To get good audio you have to get as close as possible to the sound source with a good quality mic of the right type for the application. Mixers and other equipment have their place in the chain, but they can't do much to fix the consequences of violations earlier in the chain.

From what I understand, the HV20 only has mic in. So if you don't want to try getting away with overloading it, you'll to supply a mic level input.

I believe a good solution would be to use an SD 302 mixer.

Hi,
Looking at your setup, your "set and forget" requirement and lack of a 2nd person.

Maybe you could upgrade your wireless mic system.
Lectrosonics perhaps?

And a SD 7 recorder couldn't hurt. The SD 7 is primarily a recorder but
you can mix with it too.

You generally park your sound equipment next to your recorder.
If you are handheld, it is ideal to run wireless mics.

From what I understand, the HV20 only has mic in. So if you don't want to try getting away with overloading it, you'll to supply a mic level input.

I believe a good solution would be to use an SD 302 mixer.

I strongly second Peter's choice.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS I own a 744T it has adjustable inputs, but they don't really take the place of a mixer. I also have a 442 mixer. Together they work very well. I can feed three cameras with a stereo mix the and AT THE SAME TIME record four iso traks from the mixer to the 744T.

Blows my skirt up just to think about it. :)

Bob, with all due respect to the other posters, if you're currently operating with a camera mounted Canon DM-50, I think that there are a number of things you should purchase and a number of things you should learn before you purchase a $1300 mixer. Start with a book or two. Hey, Ty's audio boot camp booklet for example.

::Blush::

Regards,

Ty Ford

I agree David! Actually, it's the reading that prompted these questions. With more information comes more questions.

There's a lot of room for improvement, I know. I guess the question is: Where do you start and at what point do you concern yourself with mixing versus taking the sound directly from the mic into the camera?

The Canon shotgun is not that bad, but it doesn't eliminate the need for something like a hypercardioid on a boom (and stand). And I'm already planning to upgrade the wireless mic.

What were you alluding to with the "number of things you should purchase" comment?

I'm in no rush to buy a mixer, per se, if the more logical path should start somewhere else. My concern, in the original post, was creating good audio and then feeding it to the mediocre HV20 device.....and medicore is my term based on reading elsewhere where people have voiced that concern. But I'm not inclined to make the process any more complicated than it needs to be for good quality. If I can get quality without mixing, that's fine.

Bob

Mixers are more than knobs that let you vary the volume.

1. They let you vary volumes without shaking the camera or getting in the way of the camera op.
2. You may need to do that a lot with some people. I ride gain even if one person is talking if their voice fades on the end of each line. You can only do this in a relatively quiet environment, otherwise you bring up the ambient noise.
3. Mixer preamps (good ones) sound better than camera preamps.
4. Good mixers have input transformers that scrape off RF before it get into your audio.
5. Good mixers have limiters that allow you to record hotter, keeping your audio further above the noise floor without distorting.
6. Good limtiers have EQ that lets you roll of LF HVAC noise before it gets into your audio.
7. Good mixers have mulitple outputs so you can feed more than one camera, or separate recorder simultaneously.
8. Good mixers make your sound better. If they didn't pros wouldn't use them.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Mixers are more than knobs that let you vary the volume. [...] Good mixers make your sound better. If they didn't pros wouldn't use them.I second Ty's statements. I have a Sony Z1U that I use with a few different microphones for different situations, and ever since I put an SD302 between the mic and the camera, there's been noticeably better audio quality in my recordings. So while technically my Z1U has all the goodies that the mixer has (pre-amps, gain controls, limiters), there's a significant difference in how well they work.

- Martin

Using the fine information obtained here, I spent yesterday evening in a pro sound shop in NYC, one that specializes in sound for video. What a difference pro in-person advice makes! They offered some suggestions about improving wireless performance but, eventually, the discussion turned to "You're going to land up spending more on quality sound than you spent on your camera!" when I started to ask about mixers and other improvements.

I'm going to rent before I purchase, regardless of what path I take. But the salesperson asked me "What's the point of buying a good mixer (MixPre or 302) and then feeding the signal into a consumer minicam, albeit a good one (HV 20)?" This wasn't delivered sarcastically and they don't sell cameras so he wasn't trying to make a sale on that end.

So I feel like I'm chasing my own tail here. I'm very happy with the image quality from the camera. Will I keep it forever, no. I'd prefer to see what shakes out with the new crop of Sony's....but even then the audio circuitry in the camera will be the weak link; it's a camera after all, not a sound recorder.

Surely I'm not the first person facing this issue, whether to get a mixer, stand alone recorder or some other option I don't see.

Bob

But the salesperson asked me "What's the point of buying a good mixer (MixPre or 302) and then feeding the signal into a consumer minicam, albeit a good one (HV 20)?" [...] So I feel like I'm chasing my own tail here. I'm very happy with the image quality from the camera. Will I keep it forever, no. I'd prefer to see what shakes out with the new crop of Sony's....but even then the audio circuitry in the camera will be the weak link; it's a camera after all, not a sound recorder.Bob,

you are correct in that your current camera will not be able to make the most out of a superb mic/mixer setup. Still, here is how I would look at the purchase of a MixPre or 302 if I were in your situation:

- It will improve your sound quality with your current camera to some extend,
- It prepares you for fully exploiting the better audio circuitry in a camera that you may work with in the future, and
- Should you decide one day to rent or purchase a separate audio recorder, you'll be in an excellent position to feed this recorder the best possible input signal.

The question I would ask myself is: how likely am I going to have a camera with better audio or a separate digital recorder in the future? If there's a high probability that either or these will happen, then a good mixer should be a wise investment for you at this time. If not, well, then it would be much harder to justify.

- Martin

Bob, don't make me come up there and push you into the pool with the big kids. I swear to God I WILL do it!

Regards,

Ty Ford

Bob,

I'm going to be using this exact same setup, but I'm still waiting on the 302 and 744T to come in. So I'll let you know what I discover.

That said, I believe the HV20 only accepts mic in. This means you'd need a line level to mic level attenuator to use the MixPre, since it only has line out.

Here's a link to an attenuator, but I can't attest to how well it, or attenuators in general, work.

http://benchmarkmedia.com/micpre/lma.html

The 302, on the other hand, has mic out.

Here is a "crazy" idea for you that I'd love the audio experts here to comment on:

1. Get a 702T.
2. Send the 702T's timecode signal (LTC) to one of the HV-20's audio channels.
3. Send one of 702T's audio outputs to the HV-20's other channel. (I believe there is a way to do this w/o creating any significant delay.)
4. Use attenuators, if needed, with the above connections.

You now have a kick-butt 24-bit sound recording. And you have matching audio track AND timecode on the tape to synch the externally recorded sound to.

You will be relying on the 702T's levels and limiters. But if you don't like their job, you could always add a MixPre (or 302) between it and the mics.

Comments? Is this crazy, or should it work?

Peter,

I like your thinking. Don't record the SMPTE level very high; maybe -6 or -10.

There's also modules that pull SMPTE out of the LANC signal that many prosumer cameras have.

As for line to mic adapters, Sound Devices makes their own.
http://www.sounddevices.com/products/xl40.htm

Regards,

Ty Ford

Bob, I agree with the guy at the store. If you take a mic signal, put it through the superior preamps of the SD 302, then knock it back down to mic level, put it through the inferior preamps of the HV20 and record it as an MP2 file (!!??) then what have you gotten for your $1300? Extra gear to haul around and hook up. The top three reasons listed in a post above for using a mixer don't apply to you.

However, I have to agree with Martin that you'll have a fine piece of equipment in your kit to use with anything that you purchase or rent later, so if you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, go for it. But be aware that your videography is likely to suffer a bit due to the distraction until you get a handle on it. Personally, I'd go for some better mics and a standalone recorder and experiment with mic placement. If you can afford to do it all, great!

Bob, I agree with the guy at the store. If you take a mic signal, put it through the superior preamps of the SD 302, then knock it back down to mic level, put it through the inferior preamps of the HV20 and record it as an MP2 file (!!??) then what have you gotten for your $1300? Extra gear to haul around and hook up. The top three reasons listed in a post above for using a mixer don't apply to you.


Depends on the circuit. My Canon XL2 only has Mic inputs. No problem with quality. Is this camera one of those HDV format cameras?

Regards,

Ty Ford

There's also modules that pull SMPTE out of the LANC signal that many prosumer cameras have.

Ty Ford

Ty, I was looking for one of these but couldn't find one (no longer available, ...). Do you know which company currently produces such a thing and where to get it?

After the help here from different members and investigating I use the follwing with my HV20:
Beachteck DXA2 adaptor, mixpre, Sennheiser G2 wireless, Rode NTG-2 and Sennheiser ME64.
This is a good basic setup and will last for when I step up to better cam. It pretty much gives me flexibilty in any situation, solo, or with boom op.
The ME64 goes on cam and is perfect for verité. If I use the beachteck in combo with mixpre then this gives me 3 channels too. The option is also there for total wirless if need be.
I know the big guys dont like beachteks and whatnot, but I'm happy so far with this for my level of work.
Hope thats of some help. Ben

Ty, I was looking for one of these but couldn't find one (no longer available, ...). Do you know which company currently produces such a thing and where to get it?

Have you put "SMPTE" anf "LANC" in Google?

Regards,

Ty

Depends on the circuit. My Canon XL2 only has Mic inputs. No problem with quality. Is this camera one of those HDV format cameras?Yes it is.

Well then you won't win any awards for the audio.

Ty Ford

Excellent. I'm glad there is a consensus :))

It sounds like I won't know until I test it. So plan A is to rent a 302 and run some content from it into the camera, compared with mic directly into camera. Does that sound reasonable?

Plan B is to give up and try to resurrect the era of silent movies!!

Cheers,
Bob

Bob,

That's a VERY, VERY good idea. Just make sure you give it a good shot by using a good set of monitors and listening deeply with a good set of headphones. Computer speakers won't do.

Regards,

Ty

Plan B is not an option, Bob 8>). But Plan A sounds like a winner. Please let us know what you find.

Depends on the circuit. My Canon XL2 only has Mic inputs. No problem with quality. Is this camera one of those HDV format cameras?

Regards,

Ty Ford

The HV20's audio circuit is, unfortunately, rather bad, even by consumer camera standards.

I've done some things with a HV20 and a SD702, also partly as a solo shooter. My solution was in the end to go double system, and film the SD702's counter at the beginning and/or the end of each take. During post I added an aux TC track to the video (in Final Cut, using the offset from the filmed counter and a little applescript for the maths), then multiclipped audio and video tracks.

The HV20's audio circuit is, unfortunately, rather bad, even by consumer camera standards.

Due to HDV or something worse?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Due to HDV or something worse?

Regards,

Ty Ford


No. I can live with HDV 192Kbit. The HV20 (at least mine) has a very noisy mic-in. Much noisier than my old TRV900, which was still noiser than the lousy PD150, wich was in turn worse than the Z1, which is still far from sony's pro cams, which still play in a different league than Sound Devices or HHB or whatever.

I love it, the HV20. Great little camera. But in my view, HV20 sound is hopeless. To feed it with a all the love and care that comes out of a SD302 does not get one very far, imho.

I love it, the HV20. Great little camera. But in my view, HV20 sound is hopeless. To feed it with a all the love and care that comes out of a SD302 does not get one very far, imho.

I'm affraid you may be correct. I went back the the audio shop yesterday with the HV 20 to rent an SD302. We spent some time trying to to find the right cables and plugs to make it work. The plug hardware on your run of the mill audio cable is way beefier than the jack on the HV 20; it would barely seat properly in the hole. It took some trial and error to find the right set of cables with a small enough mini plug.

Then there were issues with configuring the two. The mic stage of the HV 20 is really not set up to take input from a mixer, it seems, as the tech had to make numerous adjustments to the 302 to get it right.

My initial impression is that the 302 is a fine piece of gear that would be an investment in any kit...any kit where the camera has a serious audio stage. We were both left wondering: Why do you want a $1000 mixer plugged into your $800 camera with amateur audio stage?

I keep focusing on the word "investment" ......... The audio tech salesman suggested dumping the camera, that anything I buy toward the more pro end would have sufficient audio to eliminate my desire to fuss around with a mixer.

So I'm going to spend today testing the quality of mixer vs no mixer to see if I can tell a difference. More to follow.

::Sigh::

The switch to mic level out is in the menu, not a hard switch on the unti itself.

Once you do that and calibrate the mixer to the camera, you should be fine.

Regards,

Ty

Bob,

Please consider the adivce I gave in post #14. Print it out and bring it to the sound shop. See what they think. I really feel it's a potential strategy for you to get high quality sound.

The bottom line is that recording to an SD recorder will give you much better sound than using an SD mixer and recording the the HV-20.

No matter how much the HV-20's internal amplification circutry you can or can't bypass, you're still stuck with both HDV audio, which is by definition compressed 16bit, and the HV-20's digital to analog converters. These can't compare to 24bit uncompressed recording using SD's D/A converters.

I'm sorta in the same situation....

So far I decided to go with a recorder external to the camera....

Seems there are lots of new recorders hitting the shelves this Xmas and so
my research is coming up with some great machines....

What realy peaked me was the Sony PCM-D1, but its not cheap, one of the complaints from a user was Sony needed to add a remote controller...
it still seems to be the cats meow though as recorders go. Is that thing georgous or what...

anyway, then my research found the Sony PCM-D50... oh wow... it doesn't have the cool VU meters but its still a sexy beast in its own way...

These are just now showing up and the field reports I'm reading about seem the unit is working out fine... and the price is much easier to take than on
the D1....

Sony also added a remote this time and they have a XLR setup if you need to add better mikes.... the XLR setup isn't cheap but my understanding is its due to the balanced transformers ???? but my real guess is its priced this way to set in with the D1's price point..

I have also seen at least one setup using the D50 with a 302...

you might check it out.... I thought it just has a lot of versatality with the built in mikes and the ability to interface with just about any other sound equipment you might have or be adding on in the future...

I shamelessly snagged this image from a different web site.... I'd give credit due but don't know the name...

here is the Sony PCM-d50 with the SD302....

Bob,

Please consider the adivce I gave in post #14.

The bottom line is that recording to an SD recorder will give you much better sound than using an SD mixer and recording the the HV-20.


I haven't discarded this idea, don't worry. But I think if I'm going to go with a recorder I'd also like to have the use of the mixer to send the signal Both to the recorder and the camera, in case I muck something up I'll still have something on the HV 20 to work with.

All the cables looked rather intimidating but, after the initial shock, it wasn't bad at all. I'm a bit of a gear hound so I did reap some enjoyment from the ability to adjust the levels and monkey with the high pass filter before the signal went to the camera. I'm going to listen to the tapes later today.

Peter,did you say that you too were using an HV20?

Bob

I rented an SD 302 to see if I could discern any difference or benefit using it with my HV 20. I'm coming at this as a novice trying to improve the audio for my video work.

I set up in my home and ran through the same routine with a Senn G2 (stock lav) direct to camera and through the 302. Then, just to see the quality difference with my previous wireless, ran my AT Pro 88 into the camera. I did not have the miniplug to XLR converter for this so I did not test it with the mixer. I listened through phones as I set up and then again after I made a final cut movie of the test. No adjustments in FC.

I can definitely appreciate why video folks should have a mixer. If it's possible and not just my untrained ears, the end product sounded just a bit cleaner running the Senn through the mixer. There was some almost imperceptible hiss lurking in the background that seemed to disappear. I had the high pass filter on so maybe that corrected it. It was also a Pleasure to be able to accurately and easily dial up the settings on the mixer, rather than fiddling with the audio menus on the camera. I have a long way to go in understanding what I should be shooting for on the meter and how to get there with all the 302 settings, but it was nice to have fine control. And it's got to be fantastic to use with multiple sources.

At first the cables were a bit intimidating, not setting them up per se but seeing them on the floor. I like to handhold the camera alot and this is going to reinforce the need to have it on the tripod where it belongs.

The Senn is, of course, heads and shoulders better than the AT. Much cleaner and refined, not a single drop out where the AT began having them at about 15 feet. Interestingly the AT picks up a lot of ambient garbage that the Senn seems to ignore. The shop I rented from threw in a Beachtek mixer as a freebie loaner. It's clearly not in the same league as the SD302.

I'm not sure I learned anything about the audio quality of my camera. The stuff coming in from the Senn with the mixer sounds nicer than anything I've achieved so far. However, consensus here and in other forums is that the HDV audio is not the best and folks making films with this camera are recording to another device and using the camera track as a safety net.

If I had to unholster my Visa card tonight, I think I'd go with a 302 with an eye toward a recorder in the near future.

I hope this helps someone trying to answer the same question. And thank you to everyone here. You are amazingly generous with your time.

Cheers,
Bob

No. I can live with HDV 192Kbit. The HV20 (at least mine) has a very noisy mic-in.

Hmmm...

I'm using a SD MixPre and a BeachTek DXA-2s. Setting the manual mic level to -12 dB on my HV20, I am recording a -80 dB noise-floor on DV tape with no mic attached. With a mic attached, the noise-floor is limited to the room noise, which is about -60 dB in very quiet room. Hiss if any is very minimal.

Comparing the audio that the HV20 records to an uncompressed WAV file, the biggest difference for me is noticeable fall-off of the lower frequencies. The audio on DV tape is quite good, but the uncompressed audio is a lot better.

I haven't discarded this idea, don't worry. But I think if I'm going to go with a recorder I'd also like to have the use of the mixer to send the signal Both to the recorder and the camera, in case I muck something up I'll still have something on the HV 20 to work with.

All the cables looked rather intimidating but, after the initial shock, it wasn't bad at all. I'm a bit of a gear hound so I did reap some enjoyment from the ability to adjust the levels and monkey with the high pass filter before the signal went to the camera. I'm going to listen to the tapes later today.

Peter,did you say that you too were using an HV20?

BobBob,

Yes I am, or should I say will be. I have the camera, 302 and 744T, I just haven't had the time to put it all together and figure out what cables I'll be needing. (Also, most of the equipment is being stored off-site for reasons too convoluted to be worth explaining.)

BTW, I pretty sure you don't need a mixer to send the signal back to the HV-20. I believe SD's 7 series recorders all have audio outputs w/ essentially no time lag. So you could record to both the HV-20 and the recorder simultaneously by just connecting those outputs to the HV-20. I believe you will need an attenuator to bring the signal down to mic level.

The whole timecode part of my thread can be ignored if you want to record audio to both channels on the HV-20 and/or don't use a timecode capable recorder.

HTH and I'll keep you informed.

Great. I'd be interested to hear how it works out for you, bringing the signal into the recorder. Good luck.