If there's manual audio control.... at DVinfo.net

John Vincent · February 26th, 2010, 12:33 PM

How will that effect recording sound on the Mark II?

We know the Mark II's geting 24p, but it's also (apparently) gettin audio meters as well.

Does that mean no beachtec add-on needed?

jdv

Bill Binder · February 26th, 2010, 12:50 PM

No matter what they do, the preamps in the unit obviously will continue to SVCK, so the use of a preamp may still be useful if a good clean signal is desirable for you (e.g., gain up with an external preamp, leave gain on the 5D2 very low). But certainly no more shenanigans would be needed to attempt to defeat the AGC (although I preferred ML anyway, so that was never a problem for me personally).

Brant Gajda · February 26th, 2010, 12:58 PM

If they fixed the AGC, I think a lot of people would be happy. I'm not sure there would anything else to ask for.

Erik Andersen · February 26th, 2010, 01:09 PM

With audio gain control, you could use a mic like the Rode Videomic mounted on the camera, connected to the mic jack, and get audio no better or worse than the onboard mics on conventional camcorders. You'd still pick up camera noise, but it should be a huge improvement.

So no beachtek needed.

For my purposes, to record sync sound from multiple wireless mics I'll still of course need my Zoom H4N or Tascam DR-100.

Jon Fairhurst · February 26th, 2010, 01:39 PM

Either with Magic Lantern or with a Canon manual audio gain fix, the key is to drive a hot, clean signal into the camera. If you can keep the gain down to 10 dB or so, it's really good.

The current default is +31dB analog fixed, plus additional digital gain for AGC.

So, the bottom line is that you will want a hot mic, or an external preamp. A preamp or other external device is often needed for balanced XLR compatibility and to deliver phantom power.

Matthew Roddy · February 26th, 2010, 04:36 PM

I don't want to "hi-jack" this thread in any way, but I think my question goes along with the first one (which seems to have been answered a few ways).

I've heard bad things about the codec for audio on this camera. I was TOTALLY jazzed to hear about ML defeating AGC, but I've heard people say, "No matter what you do, you'll never get "professional" audio on this camera (5D2). You absolutely have to have an external recording device."
I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source (in my case, either a Tram lav mic or a Senn. ME66). What am I missing?

(In my case, "professional" means: cable commercials, industrial videos and the occasional narrative that will likely never see the big screen, but I still want it as good as possible.)

Tony Tibbetts · February 26th, 2010, 04:56 PM

I don't think you're missing anything. I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications.

Logic dicates that you can record good audio to the 5D

Peer Landa · February 26th, 2010, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brant Gajda

If they fixed the AGC, I think a lot of people would be happy. I'm not sure there would anything else to ask for.

Timecode...?

-- peer

Bill Binder · February 26th, 2010, 05:26 PM

> I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source.

> I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications.

I do a lot of audio recording, and my take on this is audio is only as good as the entire audio chain, so it's never as simple as "source is good, therefore uncompressed will be good." In the case of the 5D2 you'll be running it through the camera's preamps and it's a/d converter, and both will play a role in the final recording. In my personal opinion, there's no doubt in my mind that both the preamps and the a/d are cheap and low end -- there's probably not much to argue about there really when compared to real hardcore pro audio gear, it's obvious as hell if you don't use an outboard preamp.

HOWEVER, for most applications I agree 100% that if you feed it a hot, clean signal from a decent preamp and mic combination, it'll do just fine for most professional applications. And even for lower-end prodcutions without a preamp, it might be good enough for many people if used with a hot mic and no AGC.

On the other hand, it surely will never compare to high end audio gear used throughout the entire audio chain.

Matthew Roddy · February 26th, 2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

I don't think you're missing anything. I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications.

Logic dicates that you can record good audio to the 5D

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I thought I must be missing something.

I fully intended on getting a 2-input JuicedLink for my mics.

The comparisons Jon did were really darn convincing that the 5D2 CAN sound great when fed a good signal. I liked it (in his comparisons) as I did the H4N, as I recall.

Jim Giberti · February 26th, 2010, 07:16 PM

Bill's assessment is pretty much on the money. I have a commercial recording studio as well and track, mix and monitor with top notch gear from Neumann and Neve to JBL and Focusrite. But that doesn't mean you need that stuff to get perfectly acceptable (meaning broadcastable/DVDable) audio through the Canon, as long as you're minimizing the input stage and overriding the AGC.

You need a good mic, a great mic is better. You need a preamp to minimize the Canon pre. You need a little understanding of gain stages (not rocket science) and you need someone (not you if you're shooting) who know's how to keep a signal out of the red (you're girlfriend even...mine does).

With good post, folley and scoring you can get fine audio from the Canon.

An H4N and Pluraleyes is even better and still simple and inexpensive.

Jon Fairhurst · February 26th, 2010, 07:30 PM

Bill is right. The preamps and A/D don't compare with top, dedicated audio gear. They're 16-bits, the anti-aliasing filtering seems to be poor, and the clock probably jitters like mad.

That said, there is no compression, and with the gain low, the preamps are truly 16-bits worth of clean. Canon did a nice job isolating things, as there no buzz or other bad behavior on the analog path.

My only complaint is that the recordings can be a bit harsh. Consistent with the video, I'm pretty sure that's due to aliasing. On the flip side, the JL/5D2/ML combo sounds really crisp. And the noise is very, very low.

The end result is professional, but not audiophile, quality. It's probably good enough for what 90% of people at DVInfo.net produce. As far as noise goes, it's probably close to the 99% level. It's the harshness that holds it back. It just doesn't deliver that combination of creamy smooth and crisp and clear that you get with top recordings. (Hint: you won't get that with an H4n either. ;) )

Jim Giberti · February 26th, 2010, 08:06 PM

I can't agree with you here...that you can't get that kind of sound with an H4N. If you're recording with a Schoeps or Neumann through a preamp even as simple as the Sound Devices gear you can get cinema sound with an H4N including silky and crisp. The H4N has all the bit depth and sampling rate to capture the full range that this level of gear will produce. Film producers over the years would have killed for one.

Bill Binder · February 26th, 2010, 08:32 PM

Sorry, but I don't agree. The H4n is good, and plenty capable, and great for indie work, but let's be serious here, it's far from high end, and it's definitely not something being used by any serious production with a budget. If you were to rent a pro audio package, it would not include an H4n, that much I'm sure of. Again, don't take this the wrong way, the H4n is plenty capable, and of course is being used by a lot of folks to do great work, but it's prosumer level gear at best. Hell, as far as I can tell, they don't even publish any of the important specs (e.g., Frequency Response, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Dynamic Range, Total Harmonic Distortion, etc.).

Jim Giberti · February 26th, 2010, 09:00 PM

I didn't say that it was pro level gear or that you would find it in a pro rental package. I own a couple of packages better than what you'd get from most rental houses and have a post facility as good as any in the biz. My statement was that with a good front end, the bit depth and sample rate of the H4N is capable of recording that quality accurately.

You'd have to show me some reason why it wouldn't given it's basic audio specs. I've recorded it for national work using a couple of different mics and I've gotten great sound in mixing and mastering - which is where a lot of the "silky and smooth" sound that Jon was referring to comes from. Just like much of the polish people see in finished film is grading.

It isn't built as a pro piece of gear and doesn't have all the functionality but that doesn't mean it isn't capable of recording a quality input accurately.

The exact same thing can be said of the 5DII versus true cinema gear, and of course it's being used for professional film making everyday. And it looks absolutely great with the right lens, lighting and DP.

Same thing will happen if you record a quality chain into a 24 bit 96k H4N and know how to do quality post and mastering.

In fact, not long ago as a test, I recorded an acoustic guitar track directly into the X/Y onboard mics using the internal click. I transferred that file directly into my studio mix as the featured instrument in a fairly high profile radio/TV score. I would normally track a Taylor dreadnought like that with a pair of Neumanns or a single U87 into a Neve or Focusrite, but after I tracked it, I loved the sound and it was clean and accurate.

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to give another professional perspective for people without big budgets. Over and over it's been shown that high quality work can be done on the most basic gear - including major albums and films. That's unquestionable and my basic point.

February 26th, 2010, 12:33 PM	#1
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	If there's manual audio control.... How will that effect recording sound on the Mark II? We know the Mark II's geting 24p, but it's also (apparently) gettin audio meters as well. Does that mean no beachtec add-on needed? jdv

February 26th, 2010, 12:50 PM	#2
Bill Binder Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 542	No matter what they do, the preamps in the unit obviously will continue to SVCK, so the use of a preamp may still be useful if a good clean signal is desirable for you (e.g., gain up with an external preamp, leave gain on the 5D2 very low). But certainly no more shenanigans would be needed to attempt to defeat the AGC (although I preferred ML anyway, so that was never a problem for me personally). __________________ BayTaper.com \| One man's multimedia journey through the San Francisco live jazz and creative music scene.

February 26th, 2010, 01:09 PM	#4
Erik Andersen Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 218	With audio gain control, you could use a mic like the Rode Videomic mounted on the camera, connected to the mic jack, and get audio no better or worse than the onboard mics on conventional camcorders. You'd still pick up camera noise, but it should be a huge improvement. So no beachtek needed. For my purposes, to record sync sound from multiple wireless mics I'll still of course need my Zoom H4N or Tascam DR-100. __________________ Canon 5D Mark II \|\| L-Series Lenses \|\| Steadicam Pilot \|\| Final Cut Studio www.lovestorymedia.com

February 26th, 2010, 01:39 PM	#5
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Either with Magic Lantern or with a Canon manual audio gain fix, the key is to drive a hot, clean signal into the camera. If you can keep the gain down to 10 dB or so, it's really good. The current default is +31dB analog fixed, plus additional digital gain for AGC. So, the bottom line is that you will want a hot mic, or an external preamp. A preamp or other external device is often needed for balanced XLR compatibility and to deliver phantom power. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

February 26th, 2010, 05:26 PM	#9
Bill Binder Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 542	> I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source. > I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications. I do a lot of audio recording, and my take on this is audio is only as good as the entire audio chain, so it's never as simple as "source is good, therefore uncompressed will be good." In the case of the 5D2 you'll be running it through the camera's preamps and it's a/d converter, and both will play a role in the final recording. In my personal opinion, there's no doubt in my mind that both the preamps and the a/d are cheap and low end -- there's probably not much to argue about there really when compared to real hardcore pro audio gear, it's obvious as hell if you don't use an outboard preamp. HOWEVER, for most applications I agree 100% that if you feed it a hot, clean signal from a decent preamp and mic combination, it'll do just fine for most professional applications. And even for lower-end prodcutions without a preamp, it might be good enough for many people if used with a hot mic and no AGC. On the other hand, it surely will never compare to high end audio gear used throughout the entire audio chain. __________________ BayTaper.com \| One man's multimedia journey through the San Francisco live jazz and creative music scene.

February 26th, 2010, 12:58 PM	#3
Brant Gajda Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 113	If they fixed the AGC, I think a lot of people would be happy. I'm not sure there would anything else to ask for.

February 26th, 2010, 04:36 PM	#6
Matthew Roddy Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Riverside, Ca Posts: 307	I don't want to "hi-jack" this thread in any way, but I think my question goes along with the first one (which seems to have been answered a few ways). I've heard bad things about the codec for audio on this camera. I was TOTALLY jazzed to hear about ML defeating AGC, but I've heard people say, "No matter what you do, you'll never get "professional" audio on this camera (5D2). You absolutely have to have an external recording device." I thought the audio was Uncompressed and therefor as good as the source (in my case, either a Tram lav mic or a Senn. ME66). What am I missing? (In my case, "professional" means: cable commercials, industrial videos and the occasional narrative that will likely never see the big screen, but I still want it as good as possible.)

February 26th, 2010, 04:56 PM	#7
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	I don't think you're missing anything. I think these people who make these claims are a little misinformed. It's uncompressed 16/48 Audio. With a good preamp device (sound devices or juicedlink for examples) the audio should be perfectly acceptable for professional applications. Logic dicates that you can record good audio to the 5D

February 26th, 2010, 07:16 PM	#11
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	Bill's assessment is pretty much on the money. I have a commercial recording studio as well and track, mix and monitor with top notch gear from Neumann and Neve to JBL and Focusrite. But that doesn't mean you need that stuff to get perfectly acceptable (meaning broadcastable/DVDable) audio through the Canon, as long as you're minimizing the input stage and overriding the AGC. You need a good mic, a great mic is better. You need a preamp to minimize the Canon pre. You need a little understanding of gain stages (not rocket science) and you need someone (not you if you're shooting) who know's how to keep a signal out of the red (you're girlfriend even...mine does). With good post, folley and scoring you can get fine audio from the Canon. An H4N and Pluraleyes is even better and still simple and inexpensive.

February 26th, 2010, 07:30 PM	#12
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Bill is right. The preamps and A/D don't compare with top, dedicated audio gear. They're 16-bits, the anti-aliasing filtering seems to be poor, and the clock probably jitters like mad. That said, there is no compression, and with the gain low, the preamps are truly 16-bits worth of clean. Canon did a nice job isolating things, as there no buzz or other bad behavior on the analog path. My only complaint is that the recordings can be a bit harsh. Consistent with the video, I'm pretty sure that's due to aliasing. On the flip side, the JL/5D2/ML combo sounds really crisp. And the noise is very, very low. The end result is professional, but not audiophile, quality. It's probably good enough for what 90% of people at DVInfo.net produce. As far as noise goes, it's probably close to the 99% level. It's the harshness that holds it back. It just doesn't deliver that combination of creamy smooth and crisp and clear that you get with top recordings. (Hint: you won't get that with an H4n either. ;) ) __________________ Jon Fairhurst

February 26th, 2010, 08:06 PM	#13
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	I can't agree with you here...that you can't get that kind of sound with an H4N. If you're recording with a Schoeps or Neumann through a preamp even as simple as the Sound Devices gear you can get cinema sound with an H4N including silky and crisp. The H4N has all the bit depth and sampling rate to capture the full range that this level of gear will produce. Film producers over the years would have killed for one.

February 26th, 2010, 08:32 PM	#14
Bill Binder Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 542	Sorry, but I don't agree. The H4n is good, and plenty capable, and great for indie work, but let's be serious here, it's far from high end, and it's definitely not something being used by any serious production with a budget. If you were to rent a pro audio package, it would not include an H4n, that much I'm sure of. Again, don't take this the wrong way, the H4n is plenty capable, and of course is being used by a lot of folks to do great work, but it's prosumer level gear at best. Hell, as far as I can tell, they don't even publish any of the important specs (e.g., Frequency Response, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Dynamic Range, Total Harmonic Distortion, etc.). __________________ BayTaper.com \| One man's multimedia journey through the San Francisco live jazz and creative music scene.

February 26th, 2010, 09:00 PM	#15
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	I didn't say that it was pro level gear or that you would find it in a pro rental package. I own a couple of packages better than what you'd get from most rental houses and have a post facility as good as any in the biz. My statement was that with a good front end, the bit depth and sample rate of the H4N is capable of recording that quality accurately. You'd have to show me some reason why it wouldn't given it's basic audio specs. I've recorded it for national work using a couple of different mics and I've gotten great sound in mixing and mastering - which is where a lot of the "silky and smooth" sound that Jon was referring to comes from. Just like much of the polish people see in finished film is grading. It isn't built as a pro piece of gear and doesn't have all the functionality but that doesn't mean it isn't capable of recording a quality input accurately. The exact same thing can be said of the 5DII versus true cinema gear, and of course it's being used for professional film making everyday. And it looks absolutely great with the right lens, lighting and DP. Same thing will happen if you record a quality chain into a 24 bit 96k H4N and know how to do quality post and mastering. In fact, not long ago as a test, I recorded an acoustic guitar track directly into the X/Y onboard mics using the internal click. I transferred that file directly into my studio mix as the featured instrument in a fairly high profile radio/TV score. I would normally track a Taylor dreadnought like that with a pair of Neumanns or a single U87 into a Neve or Focusrite, but after I tracked it, I loved the sound and it was clean and accurate. Not trying to argue with you, just trying to give another professional perspective for people without big budgets. Over and over it's been shown that high quality work can be done on the most basic gear - including major albums and films. That's unquestionable and my basic point.