For the Audio Guys, field received recorder vs camera

[Jeff Troiano]

Hey, I have an audio question. I think I know the answer, but hoped one of the audio guys would chime in.

I've been looking at the Wooden Camera A Box Pocket (for my BMPCC)

http://woodencamera.com/A-Box-Pocket.html

Basically adds 2 XLR inputs, that plugs into the mic input of my camera.

My question is....

If all other factors are the same meaning same microphone(s), same preamp being used. Would the audio recorded into the camera be of equal quality as it would be if it were recorded into a field recorder, like an H6?

I've looked up the specs on my camera, and can't find any information about how it records the audio. And I know the specs on something like the H6 is 24bit/96kHz.

When I said I think I know the answer, I think it would be no, the audio being recorded in camera wouldn't be the same quality as if recorded to a field recorder, but I have no technical knowledge as to why I think that's the answer, but wanted to ask the audio guys.

In case it applies, I'm just researching for future shorts. If the day ever comes where I get the chance to film something of feature length or for planned festival submissions, I'm planning on letting someone with more experience and knowledge handle the audio.

 

[jrusso]

For a low budget, that looks like a good option. Not sure if the fact that you are going from XLR to a 1/4 or 1/8" jack will cause impedance issues, but you may want to look into that.

Regardless of what AudioPostExpert will inevitably say, because he has a raging hard-on for me, 24bit audio simply refers to the resolution of the sample that is stored during capture. If your camera captures in 24bit, that resolution is the same as any other 24bit device, regardless of price. The gain and/or transparency of the device is not a factor as to how much of those 24bits is used. It appears the Black Magic cameras capture 24Bit / 48KHz, which is a lower res sample than the H6, but is still pretty adequate.

As long as your camera captures in 24bit audio, then make sure you have a nice long mic cable and be sure to mount it on a boom pole. If you do capture on camera, you don't want to mount the mic on the camera. You still want it on a boom.

 

[jax_rox]

For a low budget, that looks like a good option. Not sure if the fact that you are going from XLR to a 1/4 or 1/8" jack will cause impedance issues, but you may want to look into that.

Regardless of what AudioPostExpert will inevitably say, because he has a raging hard-on for me, 24bit audio simply refers to the resolution of the sample that is stored during capture. If your camera captures in 24bit, that resolution is the same as any other 24bit device, regardless of price. The gain and/or transparency of the device is not a factor as to how much of those 24bits is used. It appears the Black Magic cameras capture 24Bit / 48KHz, which is a lower res sample than the H6, but is still pretty adequate.

As long as your camera captures in 24bit audio, then make sure you have a nice long mic cable and be sure to mount it on a boom pole. If you do capture on camera, you don't want to mount the mic on the camera. You still want it on a boom.

THis isn't quite true as there are other factors that effect it.

Think of it this way - if I have Pro Tools installed on my computer, and I run a cable from my mic into, say, an Avalon pre-amp, then get it into my computer via an HDX interface and record into 24-bit 48Khz I'm going to get pretty damn good, clean audio.

If I take the same mic, run it into a Beachtek DXA, then run a long 3.5mm cable from the Beachtek into my laptop's Line-in input, and then record it into a 24-bit 48 KHz session, I'm going to get a totally different sounding recording.

From all reports, audio into the Pocket cam is relatively 'usable' but not great, even with an external preamp.

Even on very expensive cameras, the pre-amps are going to be better, and perhaps more than usable, but they're still not going to be at the same level as a device dedicated only to audio recording (of course keeping it all relative - audio into a Varicam HPX3700 is likely to be at least as good as, if not much better than, recording into a DR40)

 

[jrusso]

THis isn't quite true as there are other factors that effect it.

Think of it this way - if I have Pro Tools installed on my computer, and I run a cable from my mic into, say, an Avalon pre-amp, then get it into my computer via an HDX interface and record into 24-bit 48Khz I'm going to get pretty damn good, clean audio.

If I take the same mic, run it into a Beachtek DXA, then run a long 3.5mm cable from the Beachtek into my laptop's Line-in input, and then record it into a 24-bit 48 KHz session, I'm going to get a totally different sounding recording.

From all reports, audio into the Pocket cam is relatively 'usable' but not great, even with an external preamp.

Even on very expensive cameras, the pre-amps are going to be better, and perhaps more than usable, but they're still not going to be at the same level as a device dedicated only to audio recording (of course keeping it all relative - audio into a Varicam HPX3700 is likely to be at least as good as, if not much better than, recording into a DR40)

If the OP is capturing on such a low budget that the camera body itself is an option, then the rest of that advice is more costly than the OP can afford to affect. The camera body will be fine for their budget.

I lean towards this approach... If you can afford to purchase Pro-Sumer/Professional grade capture devices, then you are better off hiring an on set Sound Mixer / Recordist who comes with gear and experience. Unless, of course, your aim is to become an onset Sound Mixer / Recordist.

 

[jrusso]

THis isn't quite true as there are other factors that effect it.

Think of it this way - if I have Pro Tools installed on my computer, and I run a cable from my mic into, say, an Avalon pre-amp, then get it into my computer via an HDX interface and record into 24-bit 48Khz I'm going to get pretty damn good, clean audio.

If I take the same mic, run it into a Beachtek DXA, then run a long 3.5mm cable from the Beachtek into my laptop's Line-in input, and then record it into a 24-bit 48 KHz session, I'm going to get a totally different sounding recording.

What you're referring to is the transparency of the device in terms of the audio signal path through the preamp circuits and into the storage device. I'll agree with you there, however, like I just said above. It's not something that they can readily fix with a cheap upgrade. That would be a costlier venture than their budget can afford.

 

[jax_rox]

What you're referring to is the transparency of the device in terms of the audio signal path through the preamp circuits and into the storage device. I'll agree with you there, however, like I just said above. It's not something that they can readily fix with a cheap upgrade. That would be a costlier venture than their budget can afford.

Why? There are many portable recorders for the same price that are going to give you much better audio quality. Tascams, Zooms etc.

The Tascam DR60 even screws into the camera, so you don't have to hold something seperate - and still records straight onto a card - you could even run a cable into the camera as a guide track if you wanted (and as is often the norm on films).

I don't have much experience with audio in-camera from the BMPCC, however from what I've read about it - the quality isn't amazing, and definitely needs some fixing to get it to even a usable state.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

For the record, it isn't that I can't afford a better audio option. Having run into that A Box, I wanted to inquire if using thst as the recording device would be as good an option as an external recorder.

As a side note, I would love to put together a sound kit, and learn proper procedures for being an on set sound guy. But in this instance I'm just looking for the best option available for the job at hand. Which might be shorts for YouTube at the moment.

 

[jrusso]

For the record, it isn't that I can't afford a better audio option. Having run into that A Box, I wanted to inquire if using thst as the recording device would be as good an option as an external recorder.

As a side note, I would love to put together a sound kit, and learn proper procedures for being an on set sound guy. But in this instance I'm just looking for the best option available for the job at hand. Which might be shorts for YouTube at the moment.

For which your camera will do a fine job, in my opinion.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

I find all aspects of film making interesting. When I first started studying independent filmmaking about 4 years ago, I knew nothing. It's debatable whether I know much more then that now. But I wanted to do everything back then. I wanted to direct, and DP, and audio, and everything thing else. I learned over time that one man can't be everything on a set and narrowed my learning while I'm still interested in all areas, and like to have as much understanding as I can of as many areas as I can, I know I can't do everything.

 

[jrusso]

Why? There are many portable recorders for the same price that are going to give you much better audio quality. Tascams, Zooms etc.

The Tascam DR60 even screws into the camera, so you don't have to hold something seperate - and still records straight onto a card - you could even run a cable into the camera as a guide track if you wanted (and as is often the norm on films).

I don't have much experience with audio in-camera from the BMPCC, however from what I've read about it - the quality isn't amazing, and definitely needs some fixing to get it to even a usable state.

Okay, then at this point we're arguing opinions. We'll leave it in the OP's hands to determine which would be right. I agree that there are better, affordable units, however, even that may be pointless to get only a marginal gain in performance.

I have heard the opposite about the BMPCC audio, and that's where we're getting into a battle of what we've heard and neither one of us knows first hand.

 

[Alcove Audio]

1. No phantom power.

2. No gain controls.

So what good is it?

For close to the same price a Tascam DR series (-40, -100, -60, -70) or similar audio recorder you will have A LOT more audio control, better preamps and, depending upon which unit you get, real time controls. How can you lose?

 

[jrusso]

1. No phantom power.

2. No gain controls.

So what good is it?

For close to the same price a Tascam DR series (-40, -100, -60, -70) or similar audio recorder you will have A LOT more audio control, better preamps and, depending upon which unit you get, real time controls. How can you lose?

Is it really the same price? Camera plus recorder is more than camera alone. Also, not every mic requires phantom power. It's a moot point in the case where it doesn't.

Also, why not purchase a decent external pre-amp if the issue is the pre-amp? Then the gain control issue is solved.

 

[Alcove Audio]

What are you talking about?

The A-Box is an XLR adapter that plugs into the BMCC. It costs about $200. The DR-60 is also $200. I would go with an audio recorder that supplies phantom power, has gain controls, etc., etc., etc. Seems like the better bargain to me.

 

[jrusso]

Okeedoke.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

If all other factors are the same meaning same microphone(s), same preamp being used. Would the audio recorded into the camera be of equal quality as it would be if it were recorded into a field recorder, like an H6?

Surprisingly enough, if all the other factors were eliminated, then you probably would get roughly equal quality from the camera. By eliminating everything else, what you're left with is effectively just an ADC (Analogue to Digital Converter) chip. The ADC process was in effect perfected over a dozen years ago and now, even the ADC chips found in most consumer equipment are accurate to the point that there's almost no audible difference between them and the ADC chips found in the very highest quality pro audio gear. Having said this, the ADC chips used in cameras tend to be the very cheapest available, which is why I said "roughly equal quality" rather "virtually no audible difference". In comparison to this relatively minor difference though, all those other factors (which we've supposedly eliminated) have far more effect on audio fidelity and the problem is that in practice it's difficult/impossible to eliminate these other factors. For example, the mic pre-amps used in cameras are also extremely cheap but unlike the ADC process, the difference in audio fidelity between a cheap mic-pre and an expensive one is substantial and while the horrendous amount of noise/distortion can be reduced by using an external mic-pre and setting the camera pre-amp gain very low, that poor quality analogue circuitry in the camera's pre-amps cannot usually be bypassed. Other factors (such as metering accuracy for example) don't affect audio fidelity in theory but in practice do make a significant difference and metering and pre-amps are just two of several factors which ultimately affect audio fidelity.

The A-box effectively reduces just one of those other factors: By providing a balanced audio connection close to the camera, the potential for electromagnetic interference of the signal passing through a long unbalanced cable (between camera and mic) is hugely reduced. It wouldn't affect any of the other factors/potential factors (mic pre-amp circuitry again for example) though.

24bit audio simply refers to the resolution of the sample that is stored during capture. If your camera captures in 24bit, that resolution is the same as any other 24bit device, regardless of price. The gain and/or transparency of the device is not a factor as to how much of those 24bits is used.

What has the OP ever done to you? Why would you deliberately try to mislead, lie and show him so much disrespect? It IS a deliberate attempt to lie and mislead rather than just ignorance because it's already been explained to you (in a previous thread) why the quoted statement is completely incorrect!

As long as your camera captures in 24bit audio, then make sure you have a nice long mic cable and be sure to mount it on a boom pole.

Again, the worst possible advice! Is this another attempt to mislead/troll or are you really ignorant of the fact that for an unbalanced signal run you want the shortest cable possible? Why do you persist in responding to all the film sound/audio threads when even a DOP (jax_rox) demonstrates a far greater knowledge/understanding of audio theory and practice?

OP: The A-box appears to be over-priced for what is nothing more than a relatively simple bit of balanced circuitry. I concur with Alcove and Jax's assessment. For an additional $200, a prosumer recorder like the H6 not only gives you the same advantages of the A-box's balanced circuitry but additionally: Improved mic pre-amps, phantom power, marginally better ADCs, easier adjustment of gain settings, more audio channels, a rudimentary audio "bracketting" option and a limiter. A bunch of "other factors", all of which will or can improve audio quality relative to camera+A-box and therefore the choice between an A-box and a H6 is, IMHO, a bit of a no brainer!

G

 

[jrusso]

What has the OP ever done to you? Why would you deliberately try to mislead, lie and show him so much disrespect? It IS a deliberate attempt to lie and mislead rather than just ignorance because it's already been explained to you (in a previous thread) why the quoted statement is completely incorrect!

Again, the worst possible advice! Is this another attempt to mislead/troll or are you really ignorant of the fact that for an unbalanced signal run you want the shortest cable possible? Why do you persist in responding to all the film sound/audio threads when even a DOP (jax_rox) demonstrates a far greater knowledge/understanding of audio theory and practice?

Shubbida flubbida hullibaloo

 

[jsnbasanti]

Hey, I have an audio question. I think I know the answer, but hoped one of the audio guys would chime in.

I've been looking at the Wooden Camera A Box Pocket (for my BMPCC)

Why would you prefer the "Wooden Camera A Box Pocket" over say an external unit?

 

[IronFilm]

jsnbasanti, size is I presume why, as when kept small the BMPCC is a truly beautiful thing. Is the only reason I was half considering it over my DR-60D, but cancelling that thought entirely after reading this thread.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

I was curious if the audio recordings recorded into the pocket, via the "A" box, with the use of a good microphone preamp, be as good as using an external recorder, just for simplicity of not having to sync up audio later.

 

[jrusso]

jsnbasanti, size is I presume why, as when kept small the BMPCC is a truly beautiful thing. Is the only reason I was half considering it over my DR-60D, but cancelling that thought entirely after reading this thread.

I agree. Admittedly, I thought initially that the BMPCC was something different, and the cost was justified.

However, the answers posed by the others has me convinced the BMPCC was not the answer. I just don't like certain people's approach here in this thread, so I wanted time to pass before I left this reply.