PD170 Split Audio Input? at DVinfo.net

Law Tyler · December 26th, 2003, 06:50 PM

You don't need a mixer for a DSR-250, with its split input ability -- one channel (left for example) recording the camera-mounted mic for ambiant sound, like applause, etc, and the right channel on a receiver getting the voice from a wireless lavalier mic of the host, or groom, or whoever, and then mix it in post as though they are 2 mono channels.

Question is, the PD-150 is supposed to be miniturized version of the DSR-250, so can it do the same thing? I presume PD-170 would be similar to PD-150.

Don Bloom · December 26th, 2003, 08:54 PM

The 150/170 has 2 channels that can be seperated. I usually run CH1 with my shotgun and CH2 with my wireless when doing weddings or events.
Don

Law Tyler · December 26th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Great. By "shotgun", you mean the on-camera mic, right?

I mean, if both devices were off-camera, then any DV cam can do that, by getting a XLR converter that splits the stereo 1/8 into 2 XLR's.

But what I like about the DSR-250 is you can record one channel with the on-camera mic, and the other one via one of the XLR in the back. This way, I don't have to bring a shotgun mic support, plus the shotgun mic is properly "directional". Plus no messing with one more battery for the shotgun mic.

Thanks.

Don Bloom · December 27th, 2003, 05:43 AM

The 150/170 has 2 XLRs that really don't care whats plgged into them and yes I do mean on camera mic although I've used it off camera on astand and/or boom. I've done talking head interviews with 2 shotguns,1 over each interviewee and each one run to a seperate channel on the camera-I've run a boom with a wireless, I've even run 2 wireless with no shotgun, each to a seperate channel. I've never had a problem.
Don

Law Tyler · December 27th, 2003, 07:40 AM

Thanks Dan.

I should have re-looked at the audio situation carefully when I got a "professional" camera (like DSR-250 and PD-150), instead of continuing to spend several K's on now-useless mixers, wireless audio, shotgun mic, etc.

With this 2-channel setup and Vegas to split them into mono channels, I don't even need to hassle with a mixer on-site, and having to find somebody to be the soundman.

Just PD-170, plus one set of wireless with a lavalier and handheld, done!

(call me STUPID...)

Don Bloom · December 27th, 2003, 08:38 AM

Don't throw the mixer out yet, sometimes it might be the way to audio nirvana ;-)

Don

Mike Rehmus · December 27th, 2003, 11:06 AM

Especially if you need to mic up a play or band and need it all to come to the camera via wireless. Easy way to collect all the inputs and output them to a single channel that can then be transmitted to your camera.

Dave Largent · December 30th, 2003, 04:35 AM

Yep, Law, I went that way, too. Got a VX and
the lack of XLRs is always a hassle.
Did you check your 170 for that LCD door
buzz? I heard some guy in LA got an
NTSC 170 that has the problem.

Law Tyler · December 30th, 2003, 07:38 AM

Well, actually I gotten the VX2100 to back up my DSR-250 instead of PD-170. Should have gotten that though, now I am regrating.

I kept wondering the benefits of the PD-170 over VX2100, and how to justify the $1000 extra. Instinctively I like the XLR over the stereo 1/8 input, but still. And the in-video time-stamping feature was something I desired too, but have yet done any legal videography to again justify the $1000 extra.

The seperate on-camera mic was another plus, but again not quite enough.

Now that I realized the "standard" audio solution is one channel to the on-cam mic, and the other channel to the wireless lavalier, and mix in post, the $1000 extra is definitely justifiable. But I am stucked with the VX2100.

It will be my back up/second camera. I think I will just feed the lavalier to it, shoot from the other side unmanned to catch a direct shot of the groom.

So, for you people out there, unless you are a "amateur vacationeer type", get the PD-170 instead of VX2100!

Dave Campbell · December 30th, 2003, 02:16 PM

When they fix it.

Dave

December 26th, 2003, 06:50 PM	#1
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	PD170 Split Audio Input? You don't need a mixer for a DSR-250, with its split input ability -- one channel (left for example) recording the camera-mounted mic for ambiant sound, like applause, etc, and the right channel on a receiver getting the voice from a wireless lavalier mic of the host, or groom, or whoever, and then mix it in post as though they are 2 mono channels. Question is, the PD-150 is supposed to be miniturized version of the DSR-250, so can it do the same thing? I presume PD-170 would be similar to PD-150.

December 27th, 2003, 11:06 AM	#7
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Especially if you need to mic up a play or band and need it all to come to the camera via wireless. Easy way to collect all the inputs and output them to a single channel that can then be transmitted to your camera. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

December 26th, 2003, 08:54 PM	#2
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	The 150/170 has 2 channels that can be seperated. I usually run CH1 with my shotgun and CH2 with my wireless when doing weddings or events. Don

December 26th, 2003, 10:15 PM	#3
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Great. By "shotgun", you mean the on-camera mic, right? I mean, if both devices were off-camera, then any DV cam can do that, by getting a XLR converter that splits the stereo 1/8 into 2 XLR's. But what I like about the DSR-250 is you can record one channel with the on-camera mic, and the other one via one of the XLR in the back. This way, I don't have to bring a shotgun mic support, plus the shotgun mic is properly "directional". Plus no messing with one more battery for the shotgun mic. Thanks.

December 27th, 2003, 05:43 AM	#4
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	The 150/170 has 2 XLRs that really don't care whats plgged into them and yes I do mean on camera mic although I've used it off camera on astand and/or boom. I've done talking head interviews with 2 shotguns,1 over each interviewee and each one run to a seperate channel on the camera-I've run a boom with a wireless, I've even run 2 wireless with no shotgun, each to a seperate channel. I've never had a problem. Don

December 27th, 2003, 07:40 AM	#5
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Thanks Dan. I should have re-looked at the audio situation carefully when I got a "professional" camera (like DSR-250 and PD-150), instead of continuing to spend several K's on now-useless mixers, wireless audio, shotgun mic, etc. With this 2-channel setup and Vegas to split them into mono channels, I don't even need to hassle with a mixer on-site, and having to find somebody to be the soundman. Just PD-170, plus one set of wireless with a lavalier and handheld, done! (call me STUPID...)

December 27th, 2003, 08:38 AM	#6
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Don't throw the mixer out yet, sometimes it might be the way to audio nirvana ;-) Don

December 30th, 2003, 04:35 AM	#8
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Yep, Law, I went that way, too. Got a VX and the lack of XLRs is always a hassle. Did you check your 170 for that LCD door buzz? I heard some guy in LA got an NTSC 170 that has the problem.

December 30th, 2003, 07:38 AM	#9
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Well, actually I gotten the VX2100 to back up my DSR-250 instead of PD-170. Should have gotten that though, now I am regrating. I kept wondering the benefits of the PD-170 over VX2100, and how to justify the $1000 extra. Instinctively I like the XLR over the stereo 1/8 input, but still. And the in-video time-stamping feature was something I desired too, but have yet done any legal videography to again justify the $1000 extra. The seperate on-camera mic was another plus, but again not quite enough. Now that I realized the "standard" audio solution is one channel to the on-cam mic, and the other channel to the wireless lavalier, and mix in post, the $1000 extra is definitely justifiable. But I am stucked with the VX2100. It will be my back up/second camera. I think I will just feed the lavalier to it, shoot from the other side unmanned to catch a direct shot of the groom. So, for you people out there, unless you are a "amateur vacationeer type", get the PD-170 instead of VX2100!

December 30th, 2003, 02:16 PM	#10
Dave Campbell Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 568	When they fix it. Dave