Posted by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss on 08/13/07 19:28

> > In general, I have had a high degree of respect for you,
> > based on your demonstration of audio knowledge on USEnet,
>
> Thank you.
>
> > however, in this case, I think you're being too forgiving
> > of this horrible digital recording system.
>
> I haven't forgiven anything - its just that the scale used in the page
being
> referred to does use a signficiantly expanded dB scale.

It's a realistic deviation for measuring cheap $29 PC sound cards, which are
mostly flat to within +/- 2dB over 20-20K. This expensive camera, which
doesn't sport 1/8" phone jacks, but real phantom powered XLR jacks, can't
even stay within the deviation of the cheapest, most awful computer sound
card. This isn't analog tape recording, where bass response depends on the
amount of iron in the recording head--it's a DC-coupled A/D converter that
someone mucked with to make it AC-coupled.



> >> The actual -3 dB point is about 130 Hz. The rolloff is
> >> hard to judge because of the expanded scale, but does
> >> not seem to be overly rapid. Not all that great, but
> >> about an order of magnitude better than you have been
> >> mislead to believe.
>
> On second glance, the roll-off appears to be about 12 dB per octave.

Whatever we agree it to be, it's still abnormal for a digital recording
system on ANY device.


> > RightMark is intended to measure digital audio systems,
> > hence, anything more than +/-0.1dB is objectionable
> > deviation across the 20-20kc bandpass.
>
>
> While 30 dB down at 20 Hz is kinda of a lot for a hi-fi system, its not
bad
> by say live sound standards.

Most live sound systems are flat to 45Hz. This camera is only flat to about
1,000Hz, and then it starts to roll off. In fact, the midrange drivers on my
sound system have better low end response than this camera's audio section.
They're flat to 130Hz, and then they roll rapidly below 90Hz. This camera is
already down significantly in those ranges.



> > It's scale is
> > generous to even encompass 3dB of deviation. But the
> > realworld fact is that the audio system on the V1U is
> > down more than 30dB at 20cps. Not acceptable for a
> > digital--any digital recording system.
>
> If the digital recording system in question is optimized for ENG, then
flat
> response to 20 Hz is not required at all.

Yes, but they should give the operator the ability to turn off the filter.
ENG or otherwise, with more viewers watching on home theaters with
subwoofers, to hear a clip on the news of a local parade, where the sound is
this tinny is just not conveying a realistic impression of being there. We
have the technology to make good sound. Sony just chooses to cripple it.
That forces us to do double work, recording on two audio systems for ALL
situations, instead of just critical classical concert events, and is
counterproductive. If I had MD quality sound on the V1U, I wouldn't need to
carry around an H4 and deal with synching two asynchronous recordings in
post. The H4 runs just a little faster on the clock, and adds a half second
an hour to the audio length, which requires re-rendering the audio track to
correct its duration. I'm doing a lot of extra work in post because the V1U
audio is only useable as a synch reference.

> Sony specifically says that this camera was intended for ENG:
>
>
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/over
view.html
>
> "The compact professional camcorders manufactured by Sony have introduced
a
> new level of mobility for ENG and documentary-making worldwide with their
> superior quality and compact dimensions."
>
> >> This camera won't be all that bad for voice and most
> >> music. It is not the tool of choice for recording big
> >> pipe organs, bass guitars or other instruments with
> >> deeper significant bass fundamentals. However, an octave
> >> or two of additional bass could be restored with some
> >> well-thought out equalization.
>
> > It's not even good for voice, because it's not even flat
> > over the speech range. Hear examples:
> > http://aamserver.dnsalias.com/basspig/HVR-V1U_Audio_samples.htm
>
> Of the samples provided only one is speech-only. It's a reading done by a
> guy with one of the deepest voices around, recorded using an atypical
> microphone for typical video work, and recorded in a pristene environment.
> Someone stacked the deck.

Ahem... that was me, as there wasn't anyone else around to make the
recording that evening. Perhaps I can find some little short guy with a high
squeaky voice to make a more "fair" recording example. :-)


> >> Just about any vocal mic that is attached to it will
> >> have a comparable or worse bass rolloff.
>
> > This would be a good argument for having a camera audio
> > system that has bass BOOST, not bass cutoff.
>
> Not at all. My point is that bass cutoffs are very common when voice is
> being amplified or recorded, partcularaly outside of a pristine studio
> environment.

They may be common, but when the technology for flat response to 20Hz costs
$5 and is already included in the chipset in the camera, the concept of
spending more money to impose filtering is downright silly, IMHO.



--


Take care,



Mark & Mary Ann Weiss



VIDEO PRODUCTION � FILM SCANNING � DVD MASTERING � AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-

[Back to original message]