What do you think about the audio quality (mic preamps, xlr-line-in, ALC, etc) of the A1?

Background: I am very close to switching from Sony to Canon. What I never liked about the cheaper Sony cameras (150/170/Z1, I don't know about the V1) was the quality of the XLR-inputs: they were just too noisy and even managed to mess up a clean and strong line signal from a good mixer/recorder. How does the A1 compare with the Sonys?

Could anybody post some audio samples recorded with the A1 and a decent microphone to get a rough idea about noise, dynamic range, etc?

Or would any of you guys be able to do some audio testing on a A1/G1? I am thinking of something straight forward: some "1-2-3 check, check" in a more of less silent room with a decent mic in four different settings:
1) recorded directly to the camera with ALC,
2) with levels set manually,
3) going through a mixer and using line-in on the A1
4) and as "reference": recorded to a high quality Fostex or Tascam or whatever.

I followed a lot of highly interesting discussions on image quality during the last weeks in this great forum but I wasn't able to find anything more detailed about the A1's audio qualities or limitations up to now.

Martin

Hi Martin,

I just used my XLR-in 2 days ago. It was outside in a forest and a small river nearby. I used a Shure SM 58 Vocal Mic.
Audio level auto!!!
No Mixer used...the sound is absolutely GREAT!
I´ve used a JVC 2/3" 3 CCD Cam before and i prefer the A1 sound.

Hi all

I've just joined the ranks of XH-A1 owners and I have to say that on the whole I love the camera. The image quality available is stunning and so far it's really impressed me in terms of usability and creative scope.

Sadly though I have to report that the XLR inputs are indeed rather noisy and IMO not up to scratch for many applications - anyone wanting to record interviews will certainly want to consider using a separate recorder or at least a heavy dose of noise reduction. To my surprise it actually seems to be noisier than my Sony PDX10 which I've always considered to be a bit of a white noise generator!

The microphones I have tried are as follows:

Sure SM57
GrooveTubes GT57
Rode NT-1
Rode NTG-1

In each case there was a pervading hissy noise characteristic that isn't present when the mics are used with other equipment such as a rackmount preamps etc.

I can provide some audio clips if anyone is interested.

Thanks

Martin

I can provide some audio clips if anyone is interested.

Dear Martin
yes, please do! I would be especially interested in a sample that shows the white noise genereated by the pre-amps (your best mic, some distance to the camera, a voice sample and some silence) and, if possible, a sample that shows the quality of the XLR inputs when used with line level.

all the best,

Martin

I've been shooting interviews without a mixer, going mic in, and the sound quality has been excellent. Most of the times I use a Sennheiser MKH60. On one occasion I used the cheap Sennheiser G2 wireless, and it was amazingly good too for the money. I can't tell any difference between audio from the XH A1, mic in, and the DSR500WS, mic in.

For most of the interviews I usually put the boom on a C-stand, mic positioned in the normal manner, a foot or so from the talent, or I have a soundman with me. When using the lav, I stick it under the collar and let it show because it doesn't like to be buried. When I need to use buried lavs, I use the Lectrosonics wireless with Countryman lav.

If you're getting unacceptable audio from your mic inputs, there's some kind of problem with your camera or your setup, and you might want to check it out with another camera if you can.

While the Sennheiser is a high quality shotgun mic, I've also used an ancient Sony shotgun too on rare occasion, and although the sound is not as rich as the MKH60, there's no noise.

Hi Martin

Well you'll be pleased to know that the noise performance is MUCH better when using an external preamp going into the XLR inputs at line level - the hiss largely disappears leaving what sounds like a pretty well balanced, un molested signal.

I have some spare time tomorrow so I'll do some more controlled testing and produce some clips to demonstrate the results.

Just tried a quick test of intrnal mic preamp noise.
Using the mic jack (not XLR for this quick test)
16-bit audio mode
Battery power
Automatic gain ON
Record in SD mode to tape
Dummy plug (open circuit) inserted in the MIC jack (to disconenct internal mic)
Captured via firewire
Viewing resulting .WAV files with AUDITION.

Noise was -66.4 dB relative to max record level (sine wave).
With MIC ATT enabled the noise was -71.5 dB.
No dominant frequency noted in the noise.

Will test the XLR input jacks in the near future.

Hi Martin

Well you'll be pleased to know that the noise performance is MUCH better when using an external preamp going into the XLR inputs at line level - the hiss largely disappears leaving what sounds like a pretty well balanced, un molested signal.


What external preamp did you use for this?

Strange to hear (..) different opinions on this one. I think the headphone amp particular is very noisy, the build in mic in combination with auto level ( something I never use) in a silent room, gives a noise/hiss amount on my studio headphone that is like standing in a waterfall.

Use of headphones will accentuate the impression of hiss because there is strong direct coupling to the ears. This noise is much less apparent in a typical listening environment.

As to using Automatic audio level in a quiet room. AGC is generally dumb. It tries to maintain an average sound level in the normal recording range. If you put the camcorder in a quiet room, the AGC will increase the gain until what ever input reaching the AGC sensor (signal from ambient room noise, mic-self noise, and preamp noise) reaches the desired record level, or gain reaches the MAX point.

Judge noise in the context of how it comapares to normal program material level using an appropriate recording technique, tempered by the job requirement. The audio requirement for a from-the-scene news report of a fire is different than a classical concert.

For field shooting, ambinet noise will more than mask preamp noise with most reasonable microphones choices. If folks need studio-quality sound they should use studio quality audio recording equipment. It is all abotu knowing the equipment, it capabilities and limitations, and using it accordingly. After all, it is only a $3200 (street price after rebates) prosumer-class camcorder.

I agree with all the praise people have heaped on this camera's wonderful images. I've been shooting with the XH A1 for a few months now in both documentary and scripted production. But from an audio perspective I have to agree that using some sort of secondary pro audio recording medium is much better than recording production sound through the xlr inputs on the A1.

I recently shot in a very controlled environment with a dedicated sound department. We ran production sound into the camera for reference, but the noise level difference between what I'm hearing off the DAT and what got recorded to the camera is remarkable. In fact, I edited for a week with camera audio before the sound recordist delivered all the audio for the whole shoot as .wav files on a data dvd. And when I heard the first .wav file I thought "Did someone turn the air conditioner off for this take?" When I went further and compared all of the audio, I found that it was simply the case that background audio from the DAT stayed in the background, whereas something in either the circuitry or the compression of the Canon audio was moving all the background noise well into the midrange where our dialogue was. For my ear, the difference was remarkable.

This has been a discouraging experience since half of my work is documentary, and I have noticed that when cuttting doc footage I have a much harder time matching the ambience from cut to cut when using audio recorded directly to the Canon. This has been the case when using the rhode shotgun and when using a lectrosonics wireless.

If someone can recommend an HDV (or ProHD etc...) camera that they really like for a good clean audio signal please post here.

This has been a discouraging experience since half of my work is documentary, and I have noticed that when cuttting doc footage I have a much harder time matching the ambience from cut to cut when using audio recorded directly to the Canon. This has been the case when using the rhode shotgun and when using a lectrosonics wireless.

If someone can recommend an HDV (or ProHD etc...) camera that they really like for a good clean audio signal please post here.
Are you using a mixer and going into the camera at line level, or are you plugging the microphone directly into the camera?

If it had a really bad noise level, did you not turn the ATT on? I thought there was something wrong with mine until I noticed the switch was flipped the wrong way. I find the mic in audio quality actually better than what I get with mic in to the DSR500. It's even better with line in, naturally. Under controlled contitions I use a mixer, but for documentary interviews I almost always go mic in. The mic is a Sennheiser MKH60, when I have a soundman, or a Sennheiser G2 wireless if I'm by myself. I have intercut audio from this camera with that from the same mic going to an M-Audio Microtrak and I can't hear any real difference in noise level.

If it had a really bad noise level, did you not turn the ATT on? I thought there was something wrong with mine until I noticed the switch was flipped the wrong way. I find the mic in audio quality actually better than what I get with mic in to the DSR500. It's even better with line in, naturally.

I have never tried the ATT switch before. Now I'm burning with curiousity to see if it helps. Camera is being cleaned at Canon in Irvine, but I'm going to test this right away when the unit comes back.

If it's not in the proper position, the audio sounds crappy.

Michael: What was the audio configuration when you shot? While not up to professional DAT audio standards (but then what camcorder is?), the sound from the A1 is pretty clean when appropriately configured. Was the A1 receiving the exact same sound source as the DAT and how was it connected to the camcorder?

Using +12 dB XLR audio gain up will make the noise floor pretty high and should be avoided.

Using LINE or MIC ATT setting will improve the noise floor, if your source has high enough output.

Using audio automatic gain can cause the noise to become more apparent during periods of softer audio input, and should be avoided if audio quality is critical.

The A1 has sufficient audio recording setup options that allow one to get good audio, or poor audio, just as one can get good video or poor video depending on how one uses the presets and exposure controls.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=89879&highlight=noise+floor for more data on the A1 audio capability.

Are you using a mixer and going into the camera at line level, or are you plugging the microphone directly into the camera?

Hey Jack,

I just checked with my sound mixer who worked on a scripted project that I shot, and he was definitely going into the camera at line level. This is discouraging news for me because people in this thread having been saying that at line level the audio is super quiet, but compared to the pro audio recording of the same audio signal, the canon is significantly louder, and compressed sounding. Now, to be fair, I'm comparing the canon audio with a professional hard drive recorder, which is a pro audio device recording uncompressed. But even if you give the canon a handicap for being a non audio dedicated device, it still has come out way too far behind for my taste.

The only wild card here is perhaps the audio cables themselves that went from the mixer to my camera. It is possible that they had something to do with degrading the signal, so I'm going to have to test it further.

As for the ATT switch for recording a mic level signal directly from the shotgun I will be testing that tomorrow.

This is all very interesting. I went to a three hour a1 seminar at Birns and Sawyer here in LA and the guy giving the seminar said to NEVER use line in off a pre-amp because for some unknown reason the camera will not give you decent results.

Said that he always uses mike in only. Don't have experience in this myself because I have been reluctant to move from my DVX after this and other statements about audio being below par. This was was not what I wanted to hear since I was planning on buying it at the end of the seminar, but that cooled my jets.

Can you post a short sample of the poor sound?

I'm thinking about getting the A1 to produce a film, but I just can't have bad sound. What I'm reading about the sound on the Sony V1 and the Canon A1 makes me want to shoot my project with the DVX100B.

The camera I use at work is a DSR500, a 2/3" chip DVCAM, and for most interviews and dialog I use mic in. When there's more than one mic we use a mixer and line in. The audio quality of that camera is fine for everything I've done with it, including some stuff that was transferred to 35mm film.

When I got the XH A1 for personal use, one of the things I noticed about it is that its audio is significantly cleaner than the DSR500. So I don't have a problem at all with mic in on it. Sound studios, of course, have different standards. For dialog with actors, interviews, etc., the sound quality is perfectly good. If you are going to record a symphony orchestra, you might want to do double system and use a recorder.

And speaking of recorders, I've intercut sound from the DSR500 with double system sound from our Tascam DAT deck, and nobody can tell the difference. I also have a little Microtrack flash recorder with 1/4" inputs, and I've intercut its sound with the XH A1's and again nobody can hear any difference.

If you stick a mic on the camera and run it on auto gain, you are not going to get good sound. If you use a soundman with a decent shotgun mic on a boom, properly positioned, and/or good quality wireless mics also properly positioned, you will get good sound.

I agree that to record a symphony you need highly specialized uncompressed recording devices. This is probably not of any interest to anybody interested in cams. Now you are saying that the A1 has cleaner audio that the uncompressed PCM audio than the DSR500?
Even though the A1 might be fine to take actors lines with a shotgun mic properly placed, aren't you pushing a little here? MPEG1 audio as clean as PCM audio?

Yes, it sounds cleaner to me when comparing mic in to mic in. The DSR500 with line in was much cleaner than mic in. I haven't used the mixer yet with the Canon, other than a quick test to make sure line inputs worked, so I can't say about that.

"Yes, it sounds cleaner to me when comparing mic in to mic in."

That is truly amazing to me.

One thing to consider is that HDV compresses audio. So regardless of how clean the A1's sound is, you still wind up with compressed MP-2 audio.

To stay within DV's data rate, the HDV codec (among other things) compresses sound to give video more bandwidth.

This is considered okay if you aren't doing a lot post production work, but if you are going to do significant sound finishing, compressed audio is not what you want to be starting out with, FWIU.

This is all very interesting. I went to a three hour a1 seminar at Birns and Sawyer here in LA and the guy giving the seminar said to NEVER use line in off a pre-amp because for some unknown reason the camera will not give you decent results.

Said that he always uses mike in only. Don't have experience in this myself because I have been reluctant to move from my DVX after this and other statements about audio being below par. This was was not what I wanted to hear since I was planning on buying it at the end of the seminar, but that cooled my jets.Kelly, one reason why the A1 shooting in HDV does not have as good sound as a DVX because a DVX is standard def and therefore records 16-bit uncompressed sound. Now before adding effects, the difference between uncompressed and MP-2 is considered pretty minor. But when effects are added to the audio, the difference can become rather significant, FWIBT.

If you want uncompressed audio recorded to the camera, you'd need to use a cam like the HVX, which records four uncompressed 16-bit tracks.

Michael,

All the videos I've done so far are interviews, using an Audio Technica Lav mic (but the lav is fixed to a boom in front (off camera) of the talent).

Yes, there is some hiss in the quiet passages due to the AC vent. However, in post (using Adobe's Soundbooth) it's very simple to take out monotomous sounds from the whole audio track. Even other unwanted sounds like doors slamming or cell phones ringing etc.

Take a look at these two videos. (if the video stops/starts, just let it buffer 100% before playing). The second video can be seen by clicking on the "Philosophy" button.

http://thehomefront.dynamicarchitects.com/staging/BuildOrbit

I've not altered/modified the sound in any way in these videos. In fact in the first one, the last two interview passages have the lav mic positioned in the front of the talent rather than cliped to her shirt. One can noticed a marked imporvement in clarity of voice in those last to passages as compared to the earlier.

To to add to my ealier note...

I used the XLR CH1 input (as Mono) and the mic was on a 25 foot XLR cable plus 6 feet cable of it's own.

MPEG1 audio as clean as PCM audio?

There is no discernable quality difference between mp2 at 384kbps vs pcm. A different preamp will sound way different compared to another preamp than mp2 vs pcm will.

Mikko,

From what I uderstand:

That is only the case if heavy effects or post work is not done on the sound.

One way MP-2 compresses is by removing sounds that are made inaudible by other sounds. E.g. you don't need a whisper immediately following a huge explosion, b/c the human ear can't adjust quickly enough to hear it. But remove the explosion in post, and you may be asking yourself "Where did the whisper go?"

Compression is fine for releasing the finished product, but if more work is going to be done on the sound, it can cause some problems. How serious an issue this is, I'm not sure. It has a lot to do with how much post work will be done and where the material will ultimately be played.

Again, this is what I've been told; I don't have experience taking a project to professional post house where these issues seem to become most important.

I must say that when I plug a good Neumann mic in to my A1 it sounds very good. Maybe not as good as it's possible to get but still very good. Matching the mic may be the issue?

:)

Mike

I use mostly a Sennheiser MKH60 and it sounds great too.

After reading everyone's suggestions here, and using my A1 on a few more jobs, I'm now quite comfortable with the sound quality when the Mic Att setting is turned on. Thanks all.

Now there's a new problem. Either I never noticed it before, or it never existed before, but when my shotgun (Rhode) is mounted in the shotgun mic clip I hear siginificant hum coming from the camera motor. It took me quite a while to figure out where the hum was coming from actually, but as soon as I took the shotgun out of the mic clip, the hum was gone. I can recreate the hum by simply touching the microhone to the body of the camera. I know that the rubber gaskets inside the mic mount should dampen those vibrations, and if I simply lay the microphone in the clip but don't tighten the screw, then I don't hear the hum. But as soon as I turn the screw to provide enough tension to keep the mic in place, then I hear the hum again.

I have solved this problem by using a shock mount in the hot shoe, but I'd hate to think that my shotgun clip is no good to me any more. Has anyone experienced this?

The mount is a mount only, not a dampener as I found out the hard way. Then again, there are no rubber sprockets to separate the mic from the cam.

I had to use some soft foam tape to mount my mics (K6 ME64/66) and it has helped a bit but the mount itself does nothing to stop any camera noise from being picked up.

Does anyone know of any solutions to the on cam mic mount? Such as mounts with proper sized threads and placement of those threads?

Dummy plug (open circuit) inserted in the MIC jack (to disconenct internal mic)



what does this mean? does the A1 leave its internal mic on unless you plug both xlr inputs? I thought it was xlr or internal only- but never both....sadly...

what does this mean? does the A1 leave its internal mic on unless you plug both xlr inputs? I thought it was xlr or internal only- but never both....sadly...
In the XH-A1, the moment you choose XLR inputs in the audio menu, the built-in mics and the 3.5mm mic socket are switched off, regardless of whether you plug anything into the XLR sockets. However, when the XLR inputs are not selected, the internal mics are live unless you plug something into the 3.5mm mic socket. Having the choice of internal mics or balanced XLR inputs is pretty useful (compared to e.g. Sony FX7/V1 where you have to choose when you buy the camera) but it is an either/or choice per shot.

As you tighten the screw on the mic mount, it compresses the rubber damping material. The more it is compressed, the less damping it provides, and the more vibration is transmitted to the mic. In general, the best damping performance is provide when the external mic is loosely held by the clamp.

Dummy plug (open circuit) inserted in the MIC jack (to disconnect internal mic)]

what does this mean? ...

Means that you can disconnect the internal mic without enabling the XLR input jacks by inserting a 3.5mm stereo mini phone plug (with nothing connected to it) in the mic jack. This will result in no sound being recorded to tape, so mainly it serves testing purposes.

As you tighten the screw on the mic mount, it compresses the rubber damping material. The more it is compressed, the less damping it provides, and the more vibration is transmitted to the mic. In general, the best damping performance is provide when the external mic is loosely held by the clamp.

Don,

This is very true. Last night I performed a test with two different but very common shotgun mics, each screwed firmly in place on the mic mount. In fact, they were very likely screwed in too securely. All the same, I'm going to share my results. I used the Rhode NTG-1 and the Sennheiser MKH 60 (P48).

I ran the audio from my XH A1 directly into my computer, so that I could record the camera's audio signal while the camera was 1)recording, 2)in pause, and 3) in power save mode.

If you are listening with headphones, you will hear that the Rhode mic picks up much more hum from the camera motor. That being said, I don't know exactly how to interpret the results of this test. I almost always use a shock mount for shotgun mics anyway, and I've recorded lots of audio with my Rhode and I've always been happy with the results.

The simplest conclusion I can draw is to follow Don's advice and avoid clamping down too hard on the mic.

To hear my results go here:

http://www.theclawproductions.com/test/MicMountTest.mov

Microphone positioning is a MUCH more significant factor than the A1's noise floor.

A couple of the posts here suggest that the A1 doesn't record PCM sound. It does - when you are recording SD video - and just as well as other camcorders of its ilk.

It's impossible, as someone else mentioned, to tell the difference between PCM and the slightly compressed audio of the HDV format. But it's also true that any compression will be exaccerbated in post by further compression (for broadcast or for the internet). I don't think this is a big deal though - the audio compression of the format certainly won't ever be as apparent to the ears as the video compression of HDV is to the eyes! (Of course, if you were shooting for TV broadcast, you'd probably be filming in SD anyway, so the sound would be PCM in the first place.)

I don't think the A1 is particularly noisy when correctly set up. It's probably not advisable to record onto a camcorder for anything intended to be played loud through, say, cinema speakers - but for TV and PC playback, it's not bad at all.

The only thing I really dislike about the camera's audio is the peculiar insensitivity of the line inputs, and the counter-intuitive gain pots.

I agree--the damn pots are backwards.

A couple of the posts here suggest that the A1 doesn't record PCM sound. It does - when you are recording SD video - and just as well as other camcorders of its ilk.

I didn't know that, I used my camera to record some voice over a couple of weeks back and although I think the sound was great (using a Sen MKH-416) it's useful to know that selecting SD mode would have helped too.

Thanks for the tip

Paul.

To clarify: when shooting SD the audio is DV standard 16 bit 48 kHz sample rate uncompressed pcm wav, better than CD in theory.

When shooting HDV the audio is compressed to MP2 at about 1:5 ratio. This is the unfortunate side effect of fitting (near) HD data to a miniDV tape. This is the same with all HDV cameras.

For critical HDV work use external audio recorder at 16/48 (or 24/48 and convert to 16/48 for edit).

About hiss: you have to listen to clean sample to judge the real quality of the audio. Often camera headphone amplifiers are noisy, as are PC based edit systems. Connect the camera to TV and hifi stereo system to hear what the audio on tape is really like.

For Jeff Johnson's reference.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=89879 provides information on noise levels.

just a question. i am new to the whole video filming thing(just got an XL1 last week), and the processes that are used here. i joined up here in dvinfo.net and have been soaking up as much info about DV filming as i can. when it comes to sound i have a couple questions....

why does anyone attach a mic to a camera?

i have been doing Audio recording as far as music for about ten years now. a couple of those years analog and the rest digital recording with Pro Tools and Cubase. granted its two different worlds, and from the sound of it the tolerances of quiet that you need in recording music is different from the tolerances of quiet you need in recording Video. attaching a microphone to something that has any moving mechanical parts whatsoever sounds crazy. even loosely attached. i suppose if that does the job thats cool. just sounds odd.

why does everyone record sound to the camera?

unless i am wrong when you run all of the sound right to the camera its recorded along with the video. imbedded in with the MPEG4 or on the MiniDV(in my case). i suppose if people are just using one mic on a pole, or attached to a camera, its not much to worry about. but if you are using multiple mics to capture better sound, and perhaps ambient noise, wouldnt it be better to record it to separate tracks on another audio device? that way each microphone track could be altered in post. perhaps one mic track needs a noise gate/limiter because of one instant where the sound redlined, or its too quiet/loud, or needs different compression levels, or really anything. i have never tried syncing audio to video so maybe therein lies the answer why its recorded straight to the camera. but i would imagine avid/protools does a good job of syncing sound.

i guess i am used to putting five mics around a room to record a guitar amp and tweaking the sound of all five to get something distinct. all of that nonsense isnt neccessary in the filming. still it would be nice to record serveral digital tracks and have the option of doing whatever you needed to sound later instead of recording two or more mics through a mixer to a camera where you lose track individuality.

these are the ramblings of a newbie so if they dont make sense or i am way off on something i apologize now.

People record sound to the camcorder for any one or more of a number of reasons. A few are listed below.

1. Because they have no better option available to them within their budget at the shoot in question (a very real consideration).
2. Because they do not want to deal with the additional sound gear and setup; e,g., shooting a wedding reception in a crowded venue
3. To have sound to use as a reference for sound sync in post.
4. Because the camcorder sound quality, in a field environment with lots of ambient noise, may well be more than adequate for the project at hand.
5. Because they don't know better options are available.

The issue is to bring balance to the production, there may be little added benefit to doing $10,000 sound on an otherwise $1,000 project. And having pristine sound on gorilla video shot with a $280 camcorder may strike the final viewer as a bit inconsistent.

But this specific question and answer may better fit the "All things audio" forum, while the rest of this thread is specifically addresses the XH-A1 audio.

all understandable reasoning. i was just wondering. other than the cost of a decent mic its not all that expensive. these days XLR interfaces for a pc are under $200. granted its a lot to drag around. and for weddings and such it doesnt really matter. just seems like sometimes audio which isnt really that hard or expensive to get right seems to get left behind.

Eric,

From my observation and tests, the recording quality capability of the camcorder is generally substantially better than the typical viewing/listening environment (e.g., home TV set), or for that matter the recording environment (field recording without control of stray sound sources, etc.) with respect to frequency response, distortion, noise level, etc.

The greater problem is the application in the field by the videographer. These range from mic selection and placement to management of levels. Audio is often left behind because many videographers are more visually oriented than sound oriented, and sound can be more difficult because the mic needs to be near the speaker to get good voice. But we get away with it because we are able to meet and exceed the client's expectations, which are based more on what the client or his uncle Charlie can do than what is actually possible.

It is a $3200 camcorder. For good sound coverage of a wedding you could easily spend that much in wireless and wired mics alone, without adding mixers. (e.g., mics for the officiant, groom, soloists, readings, and ambient, for starters).

And you hit on the portability issue. A rather small potion of weddings can afford adding a dedicated sound man to deal with the added gear. Many are one-man-band operations, with possibly a second camera operator if it is a two camera shoot. Fortunate is the videographer with a client base that can afford and is willing to pay for a first class shoot.