In the new DV magazine Adam Wilt says the prototype XL2 he saw had no line in on the XLRs. Can anybody who bought an XL2 confirm if they put the line in on the real models or not?

Bill

There are two sets of RCA connectors one labeled audio 1, the other Audio B (just kiddin..audio 2)...They are labeled in/out.

Barry

So he was right--there's no line in on the XLRs, but there is on the RCAs? That is truly weird. I don't think I've ever seen an XLR input on any camcorder that's mic only.

And yet, on the XL2 there's no switch or menu setting to toggle those audio inputs between line level or mic level.

This could be the single biggest drawback of the XL2 for some people, in my opinion.

(Hey Bill, I altered the subject header of this thread, was: "no line in?" I'm pretty sure you meant "line level in" as in audio impedence; as we all know that it has inputs, but no Z-level switch? -- thanx,)

Bill

Sorry I didn't read your first post correctly--specifically the part about the xlrs. I know very little about sound. What are the drawbacks of not having mic/line level presets?...how is this different than using the level adjustments on the camera?

Barry

Well, I don't know that much about audio either, but if you try to bring in an audio feed from a line-level source such as a mixing board into mic-level inputs, then you're going to have an impedence problem... right?

A Line level IN is much "hotter" than a MIC level in.....you would not be able to set levels if you could not switch between the two.

BTW- The manual is very confusing, I am doing some tests now, but it looks like it has a line in.

Sorry Greg but let's clarify things...

It has a line in (actually it has a total of four lines in).

But those inputs are mic level, are they not?

The AAS (advanced accessory shoe) inputs are definitely mic level, along with the MA-300 XLR adapter that fits in there. Aren't the two XLR inputs on the back, plus all four RCA inputs under the panel on the back right side, mic-level inputs as well? Sadly I don't have an XL2 here. :-(

You could be looking at about 40 or more dB difference between the two, so a line level signal into a mic level input will no doubt distort like a mother.

There might be line level on the RCA's but they would be unbalanced, so you couldn't get a balanced line level signal into your camera.

I'm an audio newbie too but it would seem that you might still have to have some sort of balanced XLR adapter at the camera end that could handle line level in so that you could run balanced from your boom op or a desk then a short unbalanced signal to the camera line in on the RCA or chip it down and go mic in through the XLR.

Aaron

Ok, we do have a line in...
it is on the RCA connection, you simply need an XLR to RCA cable. These can be made very easily or can be ordered from any professional supply house. Markertec is a good source, you should always have one in your kit anyway as you never know what kind of sources you may encounter.

Switch the Audio input select switch to AUDIO 1 and the RCA connectors become active.

Yeah, thanks Chris. We refer to line in vs mic in in normal conversation, so I didn't say line level. Going through the RCA inputs would defeat the purpose of the balanced XLRs. To me this is a pretty huge drawback and one that's really dumb of them to do. If there's line level in on the RCAs and not on the
XLRs, you can only believe that was a colossal mistake by somebody. I'd bet they change it on the bugfix upgrade.

Hmm, yes, does seem like a bit of a balls up.

Aaron

Very odd indeed...

Anyone know if/when Canon may release a fix update? Any reasonable guesses?

Chris,
Just to clairify. When I say Line In I refer to a Line level inputs.

Line in and mic in refer to ther impedience levels. You will never be able to use the volume control to properly "turn down" a line input on a mic level input.

It appears the XLR input connectors are MIC IN only. Usually XLR ins are switchable LINE/MIC. I can find no way to switch the input to line level. There is a ATT (Attenuator) switch for each xlr in, but this is not the same.

The 4 RCA inputs are all LINE LEVEL inputs, simply refered to as LINE IN. They are NOT mic level inputs. They are UNBALANCED (as they only have two issolated wires vs three on the XLR- This third wire is a ground which cancels out any noise generated by the cable).

Yes unbalanced inputs are a huge drag, but at least we have a line in. This is a BIG oversite by Canon, even my 3+ year old PD150 has balanced line inputs.

I hope they can fix this, but it is usually the line/mic switch is a physical switch near the input. Possibly they could add a software switch requiring a menu selection but I doubt this as the hardware must already be in place.

This is a BONE HEAD oversight!!

Another issue I have discovered is when recording to CH 1/2 you cant send two seperate signals to each channel. For example, it is very common to send a Mult box feed to CH1 and keep the camera mic on CH2 for backup....we cant do this.

Ok...so canon made a big screw-up. As a non-sound aficianado...I guess I want to know how big is it....

1. Is balanced input necessary for line level input ?(I understand why it is for mics...but I've run long unbalanced line level cables to my cams before with no harm that I was aware of.

2. aren't most mixers capable of outputing mic level as well as line level?

3. is an inline line-to-mic reducer (adapter, transducer or transformer...whatever you sound geeks call it) a possibility? available?

where is Don Palomaki when you need him?

Barry

>>>1. Is balanced input necessary for line level input ?(I understand why it is for mics...but I've run long unbalanced line level cables to my cams before with no harm that I was aware of.

2. aren't most mixers capable of outputing mic level as well as line level?

3. is an inline line-to-mic reducer (adapter, transducer or transformer...whatever you sound geeks call it) a possibility? available?<<<

1. No not necessary, but ideal...and normal in a pro product.

2. yes / no

2a. its not always a mixer that is the concern here. At press coinferences you will encounter Mult boxes, at concerts they typically send you a line feed, etc.

3. yes, but the camera should handle this.

<< We refer to line in vs mic in in normal conversation, so I didn't say line level >>

Heh, that's because you're a working, professional videographer!

I'm a chump about these things most of the time, so I needed the exact clarification, even if it takes more words -- thanks for the insight.

So far I think this is probably the biggest *real* issue with the camera. In my opinion the oversight is directly related to the fact that this camera is coming from the consumer video division. It's marketed as "pro" and they really did do a lot of homework, and got most of the feature set just right... except for this!

Greg...thanks for the answers...I'm not trying to minimize this at all, but as an owner like yourself, I just want to make sure I'm not in a heap of trouble...I did a theatrical job a few years back and the sound guy asked whether I wanted line or mic level...I told him line and he looked surprised...I think he was used to having guys show up with an optura, a miniplug and a sheepish grin...

Barry

Barry,
In most cases its not a big deal, the problem is the rca cable becomes a big "antenna" that introduces interefence into the line, therefore balanced xlr lines are much preferd.

Even my 3 year old PD150 has balanced xlr inputs.

I suppose one could easily work around this issue with a Beachtek or Studio One balanced XLR to RCA adapter block.

Woah Chris, please tell me you didn't say that ;)

Definately something that shouldn't have to be done in a camera of this "apparent" class.

Aaron

There seems to be some confusion about audio signals. The point is this:

1) The RCA's are unbalanced line input as many have said.

2) Apparently what is missing are balanced line input with the XLR's.

Now, what is the difference between balanced and unbalanced inputs? Answer, balanced inputs are about pro-audio and they minimize disturbance with long cables. (The RCA cables disturb the audiosignal, if they are too long.)

So, basically unbalanced line input is ok in many cases, but if one is really serious about the audio, then you would definitely appreciate balanced XLR's.

Say, if there is another guy to control audio in addition to the cameraman, then balanced line input becomes practically a necessity, for otherwise the two guys are stucken to each other.

Just to be clear about this issue (sorry I know very little about sound so it takes me a while to get it), if my soundman uses a shotgun mic for dialogues with XLR output and feeds it directly to the XLRs in of the XL2, this won't affect me right?

Or if the soundman has a mixer with both balanced XLR line/mic outputs, I guess I should be fine too? Or am I not getting it again?

Just want to make sure, this is something I'm glad to know in advance so I can speak to him about it. Maybe he has a mixer with mic out or can provide one when it's time to shoot.

You will probably be OK, but whether it will affect you is hard to tell. A line level signal would be less susceptible to small amounts of noise.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Lach : Just to be clear about this issue (sorry I know very little about sound so it takes me a while to get it), if my soundman uses a shotgun mic for dialogues with XLR output and feeds it directly to the XLRs in of the XL2, this won't affect me right? >>>

The answer is yes and no. Yes, in principle you can do things this way, but in practice the answer is no, for your soundman has not access to the level adjustment which is on the camera.

Having a soundman and an external mic preamplifier, the very idea is that the (line) input level of the camera is adjusted such that the audio level display on the camera and on the preamplifier show the same input level. Then the audio level can be fully controlled with the preamplifier.

I believe Canon only included the XLR mic level inputs so that the camera could find work in ENG environments where the reporter would plug an XLR mic into the camera. I don't believe they intended for the camera to take a L/R line level feed from a mixer. In a film environment, the audio is likely going to recorded separately anyway so the camera essentially needs no sound input.

If you need to take a mixer line feed, just run XLR right up to the camera and plug in an adapter. You'll still get the benefits of balanced audio/noise rejection cause your section of vulnerability would be very short.

I guess I don't see it as a major shortcoming. I did have a thought which just occurred while looking at my XL-1. It would be interesting to take a line level XLR feed and plug it into the MA-100. The MA-100 RCA outs go into the audio one connectors. Switch the audio one selector to audio one AND set the rec level to AUTO. Now, I know that the AUTO setting is meant to be an AGC for peak limiting but I wonder if it has the ability to pull down a hot line level signal. I will attempt to try out this theory.

This is really quite unbelievable, believe me. Euh... :-)

This is absolutly unbelievable, what a big mistake. I know here in Belgium a lot of XL1-owners modificated their MA-200, to be able to switch between mic/line. They turned their camera's in a professionale video-repair centre, and some custum made switches were added to the MA-200.

They were willing to spent some extra money, because it's so important when working with a separte sound-guy.

You would expect CANON to not make the same mistake twice. Well, they did. Actually, I'm to shocked to believe it's true.

Sadly, it is.

Same here, we almost always use the line in via the mixer. And nobody is going to go from XLR to RCA on a camera that has XLRs. I think it's simply an error that, hopefully, they'll correct. We do shoot double system sound sometimes, but probably more than half the time record to the camera, so camera audio stuff is important to me, and even on the DSR500 there is a difference between going in on mic level vs. line.

What do you guys think about this thing...available through equipment emporium (by the way...I love these guys...great service...lots of effort to educate the video world about audio...download their catalog...the first 20 pages is articles about various sound for video issues)

http://www.equipmentemporium.com


AT 8202 in-line pad ...................... $45.00
Switchable -10, -20, -30 dB attenuator.
XLR in/out. Use to adapt XLR line level output
to XLR mic level input; also used to reduce line
level outputs for use with headphone.

Barry

Eugene. Why would they have had to make a switch on the MA-200 to toggle between mic/line since that function is already in the menu? Also, the XL-1 with MA-200 works just fine as it is with a pro audio field mixer for ENG/EFP. I've done it many times with perfect audio. I've simply set the internal menu for mic 1 to ATT 20, set the levels from tone and that's it. The mic setting is too hot and line is to low for a field mixer. Also, line has never worked (don't know why) when I've tried to take a feed from a board. I've always gotten perfect audio from a field mixer or board by setting the internal audio menu for mic 1 to ATT 20.

Well James,


Looks like you worked with a different XL1s then mine, and some other belgians collegues.

Of course you can swith between mic & line in the menu, but when I'm setting the menu on line and recieving sound from a Sounddevices Mixpré, audio is distorted. Tried everything, also the att20-function, nothing worked.

The MA-100 is NOT designd to deal with line level inputs. It will saturate and clip at around -7 dBV input level. It's impedance is about 600 ohms. It is designd for use with MIC level sources with a 600 ohm (or lower) output impedance. Same probably applies to the MA-200.

Pro audio gear typically has a line level around a nominal +4 dBU, and nominally 600 ohm in/output impedance. Output impedances often are lower.

Consumer gear unbalanced line level is about -10 dBV, and typically on the order of 10k ohm input impedance or higher. Today output impedance is typically on the order of 2000 ohms, but that varies widely and is usually not an issue for consumer gear.

With modern solid state gear, for audio what matters is the that the output impedance of the audio source should not be higher than the input impedance of the camcorder, etc. Being lower is OK.

Many mixers have mic level output on the order of -30 dBV, which nominally corresponds to the Canon MIC ATT level. The tape output RCA jacks on many mixers often correspond to consumer line level.

On the XL1 the RCA inputs (Audio 1 and Audfio 2) could be set for MIC, MIC ATT and (consumer) Line level input sensitivity. The input impedance changed corrspondingly. MIC ATT and Line level inputs selection gave the best noise floor. (I do not have corresponding info for the about the XL12.)

If folks do not understand the basic of sound and the capabilities of their gear they should seek competent assistance from someone who understands audio and the gear in question. Responses in web forums may not always be the best source of advice - you can't always determine the competence of the responders with respect to your problem and gear, or whether they have an agenda of their own.

Balanced line input capability is a nice to have, but if one is arouund line level output infrastructure, adding a 40 dB pad is a minor issue - should be one in everyones audio kit any way. Omitting it maybe a means of avoiding B2B issues with Sony, Panasonic, etc.

Oops. Eugene, your post said the XL-1:

"This is absolutly unbelievable, what a big mistake. I know here in Belgium a lot of XL1-owners modificated their MA-200, to be able to switch between mic/line. They turned their camera's in a professionale video-repair centre, and some custum made switches were added to the MA-200."

Maybe it's different with s.

_____________________________

Don, I heard that! I am not an audio person, I just know that we do it the way I described and it works great. I don't know what kind of output that is coming from the field mixer mic / line each time we've done it. But it has been done with 3 different mixers/operators perfectly. I'll be sure to find out next time. I know that you know what's going on and I'm listening. Thanks for the info.

I have that Audio-Technica attenuator that was mentioned earlier by the way. It's a handy gadget, but its size can be kind of awkward, and I'm not sure that 30 dbs would be enough to lower the signal to mic level. SoundDevices makes a series of attenuating cables designed to do this, but I think they may unbalance the signal.

Line level seems to be a gimme these days on cameras with XLR inputs. It's just a standard thing you chuck on a camera - like a power switch (OK, not quiet that obvious ;) ). To leave one out is just stupid.

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Palomaki : seek competent assistance from someone who understands audio and the gear in question. -->>>

Right, I agree with Don. To complete what he said, the point is that an audio signal in the cable is not like water in a pipe. When the audio cable is connected to some other device, if the impedances do not macth properly, the signal is reflected back to the cable and/or badly degraded. That's why all this talk of impedances have practical significance.

Thus, the output impedance of the mics one uses is meaningful. There are not that many cheap microphones whose output is less than 600 ohms. Using a one with higher impedance and if such a mic with a long cable results likely in a weak signal signal with damped higher frequencies.

High quality audio equipments with low noise cost easily the price of Xl1s/XL2. The prices of single components, like of the 40dB pads, vary also a lot, and typically, in the end of the day, the more you pay, the less you tend to get noise.

Before blaiming Canon for making a silly mistake of leaving out the XLR line inputs, it may be wortwhile to consider the issue the other way around. What about if Canon did not want to bluff the users with the cheapiest solution, but instead invested the money to improve the quality of the AD (analog-digital) converters? I would personally prefer proper AD converters, because if they are poor, there is not much one is able to do to improve the sound quality.

I guess we can make whatever excuses we want for Canon regarding all the things they've done (or not done) to the Xl2 but I consider no line in to be a brain dead thing to leave out.

It really strikes me as strange that the people who currently have them and have been sharing their insights will defend all these things that some of us are saying are stupid. Come on guys, are you *really* totally happy with it?

To me image is important of course, but usability is VERY important. The extra time taken to adjust exposures, and attach XLR adapters like on older cams like my XM2, or fiddle with settings etc, is important and I'd gladly pay more for these things to become more convenient. The image stuff has been done, Panasonic did it years ago - old hat - next!. The tweaks and adjustments and niceties is what makes or breaks it for me and where I was hoping Canon would put most of their effort.

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : Come on guys, are you *really* totally happy with it? -->>>

Putting it this way, the answer is obviously "no".

But, I would neither appreciate a "fake" XLR line input. I mean, as Barry said, you can get an in-line pad for $45, and they could have incorporated such a thing within the camera body and many would have perhaps been pleased.

Techinally, however, that would have been a dummy choice: One first amplifies the audio signal to line level --creating unavoidably some noise-- with some mixer/preamplifier, then the signal is taken down with a pad, and eventually the signal is amplified once again with the preamplifier within the camera generating , again, more noise. (This is why I don't like to use myself the pads.)

I guess, the audio development team at Canon must have had some upper limit of cost, and within these limits they've done their best. One can't get everything with approx. $5000.

What is nice in the XL2 is that one has now sync out (if I've understood things right). This means, one can sync an external audio device --as high quality as one affords to have-- with the camera and record e.g. multichannel audio for dolby 5.1 surround. In this sense, Canon has thought about the pro-audio needs and provided us with a technical solution for that. If they have been this honest at Canon, my answer to Aaron's question is "yes".

Lauri, cameras for years have had line level in - I can't believe for an instant that the decided not to put it in - especially on a "pro' camera - just cause of price. If they did, they are as idiotic as I'm thinking they are.

Also where does it say it has sync out? I haven't come across that yet - that would be nice. But even if they have sync out, it just says to me that Canon don't know their arse from their elbow? What was their market? Low end Filmmaker? High end? Eng? Now I, and posslby mistakingly so, thought it was the same/very similar market as the DVX100, PD170 etc. But making us buy more lenses to get all the manual control, not having line level in, mind numbingly stupid iris contro, is is just rubbing our noses in it IMO.

For full manual lens and B&W viewfinder, adapter for line level balance XLR etc aren't we now talking about the same league as cameras like the Panasonic DVC200 - 1/2" chips, full shoulder mount, full sized 270 odd minutes recording, pro features, manual lens etc etc? Maybe I'm way off in my math but I don't think so..

Aaron

<<<-- Before blaiming Canon for making a silly mistake of leaving out the XLR line inputs, it may be wortwhile to consider the issue the other way around. What about if Canon did not want to bluff the users with the cheapiest solution, but instead invested the money to improve the quality of the AD (analog-digital) converters? I would personally prefer proper AD converters, because if they are poor, there is not much one is able to do to improve the sound quality. -->>>

This is NOT a silly mistake, this is a a BLUNDER on Canons part. Adding a MIC/LINE switch is not a costly issue. BTW- Canon DID NOT invest the money to improve the quality of the AD converters....where did this come from??

NOTE- There is a very loud hiss on the MIC input, significantly more than on the Sony PD150 which was complained about for years.

Greg,

I was hoping that I would hear some feedback on the audio with the XL2, I appreciate your observations. When I had my XL1 and XL1s, the only way to get less hissier audio was to run my SoundDevices MixPre from the XLR's out of the mixer into the RCA line ins on the camera, I had to have specially made cables with resistors. I would not even use that MA-100, the line ins were better but still hissy. It still didn't match the quality of the DVX100's audio. I don't even have to use a preamp with that camera, I find the audio quality to be excellent with the DVX. So, from your observations, besides adding what looks like a built in MA100, it sounds like Canon has left the audio alone on the XL2. No line in on the XLRs and hissy audio when using the XLRs mic in is another reason why I can't see purchasing the XL2 yet.

Greg, Aaron, You may well be right it's a blunder, and there is no point to argue on that. I just find it hard to believe Canon engineers would be that naive; there must be some reasonable explanation behind their choice. Accordingly, it's hard to believe the Canon audio team did not have an upper limit on the cost of components they were allowed to put in the XL2.

That Sony has better audio than Canon is no surprise, for Sony has been manufacturing low and high level audio equipments for years. Sony's very long experience in audio design and contacts to component manufactures gives them quite a competetive edge.

XL1's MIC input is not the only hissy component, the headphone jacket is as akward.

Lauri, I agree no point in arguing and sorry if I sounded like it - I wasn't arguing with you. I'm just frustrated that's all and trying to figure out the reasoning behind it and maybe add a little voice that Canon *may* hear. If enough of us bitch about these things then maybe they will be heard.....ha!

I'm sure Canon could spin us all some bollocks as to why they did it but in the end I think it's fair of us to expect at least some standard features - that competing cams have...and have had for years.

Greg, do you have a GL2 to compare noise levels between the two?

Aaron

No I dont, but I can get my hands on one. One note on the hiss-
It sound much worse in the headphone while monitoring the recording than it it does when playing back the same recording in a studio environment.

Playback still has the hiss, but much less than you think you have via the headphones.

Greg/Aaron

I just ran through a series of comparisons with the DVX and xl2. In all situations they produced a freakily similar level of noise.

--when provided with a good level input from an external microphone, neither produced any audible noise.

I disconnected the microphone and turned up the levels (gain), both cameras produced significant hiss at the highest setting...the xl2 substantially more...but...then I plugged the mic back in to find that the xl2 simply has a greater level of gain at its maximum...so I matched the levels of both cameras (bringing the XL2 down to the DVX maximum) and then re-checked the level of hiss with no signal...identical. This is what I would expect from these cameras...and I doubt that the gl2 is far off.

Barry

Thanks Barry. Did you try the DVX with it's line level in on XLR, compared with the mic levle in of the XL2? I guess this is where test equipment might be the best thing to test these with.

Aaron

No...I was primarily interested in Gregs comment about the circuit being hissy, and then another post by someone saying that the DVX's sound is "perfect, noiseless"...my feeling is that at this level none of these camera's is going to be substantially different...they all have their "one-ups"...panasonic comes out with 24p...then canon true 16:9...these are the marketed technologies....but the rest of the guts are all probably in the same ballpark...ie the sound guys at canon have tested the dvx, and know what it is capable of...they certainly aren't going to put out something significantly "less" capable...it would be suicide..the camera costs more...

Anyway I'll leave the real testing to someone who knows what they are doing...

Barry

Originally posted by Barry Goyette : ie the sound guys at canon have tested the dvx, and know what it is capable of...they certainly aren't going to put out something significantly "less" capable...it would be suicide..the camera costs more...


You cannot attribute rational motives to what camera manufacturers will do. I mean, the DVX has substantially superior audio to all prior prosumer cameras (as verified by Jay Rose) and had been out for about a year, and I believe the DVX100A had even been released, when Sony produced the PD170.

With a nasty hum whenever the LCD was open.

So you never know. HOPEFULLY Canon has addressed it and is giving solid DVX-or-better audio, but to just assume that because the camera costs more, it has more capability... that is unfortunately giving the manufacturers perhaps more credit than they deserve. The sheer lack of a line-in switch hints that not all was clearly thought out, and my pet peeve (no true manual focus on the 20x lens) further points out that just because someone else does it, that doesn't mean that everyone will get it "right" from that point forward!

Heck, look at the Sony HDV camera: the biggest clamor I'm hearing is that there's no progressive mode AT ALL... not 24P, not 30P, not any "P". And they had years to study what the market wanted.

So, all must be verified by competent testing -- taking it on faith that the manufacturer "got it right" is likely just wishful thinking, until it's proved on a test bench.

Barry (by the way...nice name)

I agree with you totally....my comment was based on two posts -- one that said (essentially) "the xl2 has a hiss" and another that said "the DVX is perfect, noiseless, clean"...well to my ears that sounded like I needed to find out if either of these claims was true....because my assumption would be that these cameras are most likely verrrry similar...unless I had a test...some data...something...to back it up. Yes, there are many examples of engineering flaws being brought to light by diligent people like you and me.

There are equally as many "rhetorical flaws" that can be corrected in the same way.

Barry

I'm amazed at the number of "Barrys" I'm running into on these forums... I don't think I've met more than two in my life, and now all of a sudden they're everywhere...

I'm right there with you. In fact, you had a tagline somewhere that said "let the truth be told..." I don't care which camera "wins", I'd just like to know what the facts are.

My ears are probably no match for Jay Rose, so I'm anxiously looking forward to what he says. For my purposes, 99.995% of the time I have a mic-level signal connected to the XLR's, so I don't think the lack of line-level will be a big deal. But overall audio quality certainly will be. So let's hear how good it really is...

I agree with you about both claims (hiss and noiseless)... the thing is, you've got to really test, not just slap on some headphones and make a declaration. The DVX100A has a very pronounced hiss on the headphone output, but that doesn't get recorded, it's a byproduct of them having boosted the output. But if someone didn't know that, and they just plugged in some phones to listen to the camrea, they'd say "whoa -- DVX audio's awful, what's with this hiss??!"

Thanks for all your work in making XL2 demo footage available to everyone!