With the V1's stock mic, connected to CH1 and recording to CH1+CH2, is it necessarry to switch both channels' wind noise reduction, or is that of CH1 enough?

Nobody answered, so I'm kicking this up - even though but my experiments in the meantime proved both channels should probably have the wind noise filter on (or off, for that matter).

I have another question on this: is "Wind noise reduction" a simple high-pass filter, merely cutting the level of everything below a certain freq value (like 80 Hz rollover on microphones), or something more sophisticated? Because if all it does is cut low frequencies, I don't see a point in using it at all! I believe it's better to record full bandwidth audio, and only filter out those wind "knocks" in post.

I'm looking forward to a more experienced person's opinion. TIA!

IMO wind noise cannot be removed in post. Various methods are available for reducing it in post, at cost of effort and audio quality. Unless recording in a hurricane, it's easy enough to protect the mic (much preferably a separate mic). I don't like electronic so-called wind filters, but they can reduce problems in quite light winds (guess they're better than nothing).

I agree with Serena.

Although a lot of audible wind noise is in the bass end, it is usually visible in the whole audio spectrum, and is usually impossible to fix in post if it is affecting speech etc.

Cheers Vaughan

(also from Melbourne)

and wouldn't it be a joy if you could switch nr on one channel only, and leave it off on the other.

i really, really, really, don't understand why sony fixed something that wasn't in the least bit broken - ie. one mic feeding ch 1 and 2, seperately, just like the 170 / 150.

leslie

not in melbourne, but in the upper hunter, nsw

With the V1's stock mic, connected to CH1 and recording to CH1+CH2, is it necessarry to switch both channels' wind noise reduction?

Leslie, do you mean that the answer to my original question is "NO"?

I have another question on this: is "Wind noise reduction" a simple high-pass filter, merely cutting the level of everything below a certain freq value (like 80 Hz rollover on microphones), or something more sophisticated? Because if all it does is cut low frequencies, I don't see a point in using it at all! I believe it's better to record full bandwidth audio, and only filter out those wind "knocks" in post.

I'm looking forward to a more experienced person's opinion. TIA!

Don't know if I'm a more experienced person but I'll give it a shot.
I'd be pretty certain that the 'wind filter' isn't anymore than a simple high pass filter as you've suggested however such a thing isn't entirely useless. There's a plus to not recording part of the spectrum you intend to remove in post anyway. Doing this gives you more headroom for the wanted part of the spectrum. Also if you've got AGC on then the AGC is likely to be adjusting to the level of the wind noise rather than the wanted signal.

Keep in mind that wind of itself makes no noise, it's the turbulance created by objects in it's path that create sound.

There's a plus to not recording part of the spectrum you intend to remove in post anyway. Doing this gives you more headroom for the wanted part of the spectrum. Also if you've got AGC on then the AGC is likely to be adjusting to the level of the wind noise rather than the wanted signal.
Good point, Bob. However, if the "wanted part of the spectrum" happens to be below the filter cut-off limit, I'm gonna lose it forever! And this is my main objection, unless the wind noise reduction is something more intelligent:-)

Leslie, do you mean that the answer to my original question is "NO"?

i wish i knew! it would appear that there is no separation on one mic input, at least not with volume control, i would therefore presume (i hope i'm proved wrong!) that nr if on on one channel would be applied to both.

i'm not really in a position to test this right now, but i might have a go tomorrow and see if i can discern any difference recording white noise. if anyone has a better idea, please tell me.

leslie

I'm not clear on what you're wanting. You can feed channel 1 or 2 separately or jointly.
Plug one mic only into channel 1, it can feed channel 1 only, or channel 1/2 simultaneously.
Look to the 1/2 switch on the front of the audio block.

Douglas, please see my first post in this thread, in connection with this one:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=93180

On the V1 as far as I know the AGC is either on or off for both channels. Same goes for wind filter. Yes the 150/170 let you control AGC independantly on both channels but not the 'wind' filter.

I kind of have to wonder why all the angst over the audio section of any HDV camera. From my experience HDV's mpeg1 audio doesn't justify Sony or anyone else spending a bundle on the audio section of the cameras.

One could buy a good two channel mic pre and feed the output into the V1/Z1 etc at line level. Personally I'd be feeding it into a separate PCM recorder and using the HDV audio as a guide track.

hi dse,

feeding a single mic into channel one, and selecting it's output to both ch 1 and 2 on the v1 gives NO separate control AT ALL, unlike the 150/170, where ch 1 could be agc, and ch 2 manual.

bob,

foggy down there today?

i wouldn't exactly call it angst - more annoyance. i haven't had a great deal of experience with mpeg1 audio as yet, but i'll make the following observations:

a. there are many situations where i'll be using an on-board mic (be it sony's or my senn) to be simply capturing ambient or atmosphere. quality will not be of that great importance, but volume will. on my 170 i could simply set ch 1 to auto, ch 2 to manual and work out the best 'guess' level for it. this set-up has proved itself (in my eyes anyway) invaluable for many situations, and has given me usable audio in situations where one or other channel couldn't cope.

b. i'm not asking sony to spend anything on their audio block - just put it back to how it bloody well was!

c. i couldn't agree more that if sound is important, then you'd want the best options available. however, in the real world (well, mine anyway), i'm a one man band most of the time - so running peripherals is generally a no go (especially since i'd have to hire them from you, and you're 300km away!).

d. ditto, running two mics - other than devising/buying some on camera mount for a second shotgun - only adds weight and makes handling the camera more cumbersome when shooting hand held.

perhaps all this stems back from too many years in the business and working with a 'simple' betasp 400 rig ;-}

i have yet to really come to terms with all the cameras built in cc stuff as well - i was always taught to shoot the best possible pictures at the optimum exposure levels, ANYTHING else, such as colour correction, could be done in post, and that was in analogue, digital makes this even more practical!

anyway, i've ranted enough about the stupidity of sony claiming 'separation' of input from channel one when fed to ch 1 AND 2....

have a gud un,

leslie

[QUOTE=Leslie Wand;679222i wouldn't exactly call it angst - more annoyance. i haven't had a great deal of experience with mpeg1 audio as yet, but i'll make the following observations:

a. there are many situations where i'll be using an on-board mic (be it sony's or my senn) to be simply capturing ambient or atmosphere. quality will not be of that great importance, but volume will.

c. i couldn't agree more that if sound is important, then you'd want the best options available. however, in the real world (well, mine anyway), i'm a one man band most of the time - so running peripherals is generally a no go (especially since i'd have to hire them from you, and you're 300km away!).

leslie[/QUOTE]

Despite the many early comments about how MP2 audio was going to be unusable -- most from those who had yet to use it -- the number of posts over many years about ACTUAL poor quality sound is small. Those shooting film with "separate system" continued to do so. Those who didn't -- didn't switch for exactly the reasons you stated so well.

In the REAL WORLD -- like yours -- it has become a non-issue. MP2 quality is higher than was ever available before PCM audio!

In fact, if you were to be looking at other places for information, the big budget alpha males would you tell you that HDV itself was unusable. Of course, these very same individuals claimed DV was unusable.

Don't be pushed into spending more because someone scares you into worrying about something. Find-out for yourself.

Leslie, I was unawares that you wanted AGC, I don't use AGC, so didn't even consider that in my response. Apologies for missing the finer point.
Bob's got the best suggestion, IMO; if you want *good* dynamic control, then use external. PITA, but necessary if you can't control the source.
Outside of AGC, the inputs are discreet, and controllable. Many times, I feed one mic/two levels with this system.

On the V1 as far as I know the AGC is either on or off for both channels. Same goes for wind filter. Yes the 150/170 let you control AGC independantly on both channels but not the 'wind' filter.

Bob, to make it quite clear: of course, you are talking here about feeding CH1+CH2 with a single mic connected to CH1, right? Because when both channels are fed separately, you CAN set them independently (eg. one manual the other auto, one with wind filter on the other off etc).

Leslie, I was unawares that you wanted AGC, I don't use AGC, so didn't even consider that in my response. Apologies for missing the finer point.
Bob's got the best suggestion, IMO; if you want *good* dynamic control, then use external. PITA, but necessary if you can't control the source.
Outside of AGC, the inputs are discreet, and controllable. Many times, I feed one mic/two levels with this system.

same complaint as my wife - i don't make myself clear ;-)

are you sure about this on the v1? for the life of me i can't seem to set the levels independently.

thanks

leslie

Leslie, unless Douglas is talking about connecting one mic with two physical connections - I don't get it either. In another thread (started by yourself) it has been established (to my greatest surprise), that setting one mic to CH1+CH2 doesn't allow for independent (separate) channels adjustment...

I mean, I didn't check it myself, though; I took what you and Marcus were saying for granted. Now, with DSE saying what I said in the other thread, I think I must do some testing - otherwise I'm confused.

Leslie, unless Douglas is talking about connecting one mic with two physical connections - I don't get it either. In another thread (started by yourself) it has been established (to my greatest surprise), that setting one mic to CH1+CH2 doesn't allow for independent (separate) channels adjustment...

I mean, I didn't check it myself, though; I took what you and Marcus were saying for granted. Now, with DSE saying what I said in the other thread, I think I must do some testing - otherwise I'm confused.

i plugged both the stock sony and my me66 into ch1, switched output to 1 AND 2, turned agc OFF, but there was no separate control of each channel anyway no how...

douglas - we are talking about the v1(p)?

leslie

i plugged both the stock sony and my me66 into ch1, switched output to 1 AND 2, turned agc OFF, but there was no separate control of each channel anyway no how...

douglas - we are talking about the v1(p)?

leslie

Did you set SEPARATE in the XLR menu (might be LINKED)?

hi piotr,

double, nay, tripled checked - NO separate control (and in menu!). i get the little symbol showing i'm on manual in the viewfinder, but it only means i'm on manual for both channels, no independently.

leslie

hi piotr,

double, nay, tripled checked - NO separate control (and in menu!). i get the little symbol showing i'm on manual in the viewfinder, but it only means i'm on manual for both channels, no independently.

leslie

OK Leslie - also did the test and you're right: with one mic, connected to CH1 and recording to CH1+CH2, the CH2 volume knob does nothing regardless on settings (manual/AGC, or LINKED/SEPARATE).

It only works with another physical connection (2 mics, or one with an Y cable, or a stereo one). With my sterero, LINKED is usefull as I can adjust both channels with one knob.

I guess DSE didn't check it, and - just like myself - commented based on how it should work, and not how it actually does...

Now I'm confused although that isn't hard!

Both XLR INPUTS have individual gains controls. If you feed channel 1 to tracks 1 & 2 then you only have 1 level control, naturally. Solution is to make a "Y" cable if that's what you want.

On the PD150 you can have separate gain controls and separate AGC (note you have to switch the camera into VCR more to change this, wierd huh?). However the gain controls work through the little wheel thingy on the back of the cam, you push the wheel to select the channel whose gain you want to change, not much use really.

Now I'm confused although that isn't hard!

Both XLR INPUTS have individual gains controls. If you feed channel 1 to tracks 1 & 2 then you only have 1 level control, naturally. Solution is to make a "Y" cable if that's what you want.

On the PD150 you can have separate gain controls and separate AGC (note you have to switch the camera into VCR more to change this, wierd huh?). However the gain controls work through the little wheel thingy on the back of the cam, you push the wheel to select the channel whose gain you want to change, not much use really.

hi bob, fancy meeting you here ;-}

and the same on the 170 - (though you didn't have to switch to vcr to change). on the one 170 there was a button marked audio and that brought up a creens showing what was going on, and if a channel was set to manual, you could turn the wheel and adjust to your hearts content.

i found it extremely useful, as explained earlier in this thread.

what i don't understand is:

a. how spot (sorry douglas if that's too informal), can do it on his camera and i can't.

b. why sony changed it in the first place.

but then again, what do i know. anyway, off to the races on friday (scone horse week) to shoot the hats, frocks, plunging / bulging necklines, and of course, the hapless, helpless punters....

now we'll see how the v1 stands up to cu's of horses legs passing the finish line...

leslie

hi bob, fancy meeting you here ;-}

now we'll see how the v1 stands up to cu's of horses legs passing the finish line...

leslie

OT, but it'd be cool to see some of that footage...

ciao,
Matt

shooting tomorrow - what format should i post on the web?

leslie

In another thread (started by yourself) it has been established (to my greatest surprise), that setting one mic to CH1+CH2 doesn't allow for independent (separate) channels adjustment...

If you read the + sign as MIX then I'd see that both channels should still be active and have their own gain and feed both Tracks 1 and 2.

If you read the + sign as meaning CH2 ROUTED TO CH1 so that would mean only CH1 was inputting a signal that is recorded on Track 1 and Track 2. Then only CH1 could have a gain control.

I certainly assumed MIX. That would tie both 1 and 2 inputs together and then feed both circuits 1 and 2.

If you make a Y cable -- only use ONE XLR for power just in case the two power pins shouldn't be connected. I don't know -- I just never tie two powers together. Like in case you turn on power off on one channel and the pin went to ground instead of OPEN.

Remember if that if you set the V1 to match your mics rated sensitivity -- you really should be able to set the level a tiny bit hot and let the limiter hold the signal to under 0dB. Also remember, the REF LEVEL is -20 not -12 like for DV. Average levels will LOOK much lower than you are used to. Don't crank it up.

I found AUTO always worked best -- after I set the sensitivity to match the mic.

Bottom-line, I would check IF I had a problem before I built a cable.

Steve is correct, Piotr; if you're using phantom, you don't want to be using a Y connector. Stereo mics would be another story; you'll be fine there.
Reference levels are not something to be worried about. Averages aren't something to be concerned about either; Digital audio is a bit-bucket, and like any bucket, you want as much as possible in the bucket without spilling anything. Peaks should be your worry.
Leslie, I now understand what you wanted. Yes, it's a drag that the V1 doesn't offer independent. The Z1 does exactly as the PD cams did; complete independence of the two, not just two level controls and latched compression. Then again...that's one of the differentiators between the Z and the V.

All three images here are being fed a 700Hz tone from a Shure A15TG tone generator. The A15TG is a fixed level output, fixed frequency output.
Which camcorder is set to -20dB? Which one is set to -12dB? Which cam is DV and which is HDV? Or are any of them at a reference level? Should the HDV meters change when recording DV/DVCAM?

There are several informative discussions on this subject in the "Now Hear This" forum here on DVInfo.net. I'd like to invite you to join in over there.