Posted by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss on 08/13/07 19:15

> >> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most
> >> music.
> >
> > It is crap.
>
> That may be, but for some kinds of recording (examples previously provided
> below), but 3 dB down at 130 Hz isn't fatal.

Yes, a recording of crickets and birds would not be too much affected in
terms of timbral quality, by the bass rolloff. However, everything else
would be.
My trip to NYC back in June showed that off in spades. Just ambient sounds
of the city, as captured by the V1U, vs. the Zoom H4 I had purched atop it,
was a downright jarring difference. It could not be considered subtle in the
least.


> >> It is not the
> >> tool of choice for recording big pipe organs, bass
> >> guitars or other instruments with deeper significant
> >> bass fundamentals.
>
> > In a [concert] hall there are _always_ lower responses.
>
> Of course, but recording concerts isn't the sole criteria for the
usuability
> of a portable camera.

No, but life in general goes from DC to several hundred kc, and if
anything's missing, we realize, on some level, that the recording is
deficient.


> If you are really serious about sound quality, you won't be using just the
> internal sound of the camera, anyways.

Indeed, I drag along 130lbs of digital audio gear to concerts. But I can't
always do that in run & gun, or even at weddings. My Zoom H4 is a real
life-saver, but nowadays, I have a cheap little Canon HV20 consumer camera
that records very decent audio, so I use that to connect to the microphones
I place on the altar for the B&G and it works and sounds like a decent
recording SHOULD. The V1U is used as backup audio in case of a tape failure
on the HV20, and it sounds like a weatherproof trumpet PA speaker, when
compared next to the HV20 audio.


> >> However, an octave or
> >> two of additional bass could be restored with some
> >> well-thought out equalization.
>
> > That is crap, would amplify noise and hum only.
>
> Horsefeathers. When you boost a range of frequencies such as I suggest,
you
> may amplify some hum and noise, but you'll also amplify any music in that
> range. That fact falsifies your claim that only the noise and hum will be
> amplified. If your recording is reasonbly clean, ther won't be that much
> noise and hum.

The camera has a limited s/n ratio. So any boosting of signal in post is
going to bring up the electronics noise, which is heard as rumble, when you
add 32.7dB of boost at 20Hz, to flatten out the overall response. The signal
coming INTO the camera is pristine. It's the camera that's adding the noise.


> > I have no idea why Sony cut of LF that way, maybe it was
> > a new designer who well you know, or to get rid of noises
> > from the camera?
>
> I'm sticking to my origional point, which is that 3 dB down at 130 Hz,
while
> not the best and not even very good, isn't totally fatal.

It's fine for recording the screams from a parachute jumper, as he's falling
at 130mph. :-)


> > Flat to 20Hz is the least one should expect,
>
> Aw come on. Most of the mics this camera will be used with are 3 dB or
more
> down at 130 Hz anyway.

All the more reason why you don't want to add even more rolloff in the
electronics--the mics are already terrible. But fortunately, I have my
studio condensers. Unfortunately, the camera doesn't record all of the sound
the condensers feed it.


> > and for 4000$ or more I would not expect anything less then the best.
>
> I'm informed that to get the best, prices up in the five figure range are
> common.

Aw come on--it costs $5 to provide a flat response. It probably cost Sony
even more to muck it up with a high pass filter ahead of the inputs. My $200
Zoom H4 is flat from 20-39K (96KHz mode), so why can't a $4800 video camera
with a digital audio recording system sound as good as a cheap minidisc
recorder?

[Back to original message]