Professional Audio Evaluation

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Read about it here... on May 28.

 

http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/cameras/red-one/

 

 

"....Our brief listening test of the microphone inputs verified that they are not suitable for anything but a scratch track, especially when phantom is activated......"

 

I do not work for Sound Devices, but they make some of the absolute best professional recording equipment for audio on the market, period.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Phil Rhodes]

I love the way they've built a -10 device and padded it in the adapter cables to make it look pro!

 

P

[Guest Glen Alexander]

did some marketing person come up with that red meter segment? someone who has no idea what a log scale is... :lol:

 

you're in the noise floor at red segment 1, segement 2 still in the noise floor, segment 3 still in the noise floor... but "....it goes all the way to eleven...."

[Phil Rhodes]

> segement 2 still in the noise floor, segment 3 still in the noise floor

 

Don't worry, so are the bottom five bits of the picture.

 

P

[Matthew Rogers]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that they say this:

 

"Our brief listening test of the microphone inputs verified that they are not suitable for anything but a scratch track, especially when phantom is activated. Whether microphone preamplifier performance is a hardware issue or something that will change in the future with a firmware revision is unclear."

 

and then at the end they say:

 

"For most dialog applications, the Red One’s near 16-bit audio performance is similar to many of the digital pro-sumer and pro cameras we have tested. This is perfectly acceptable for dialog, especially when hit with a good, clean line-level signal. Sound Devices recommends dual-system sound for critical applications."

 

??? Seems like at first they are saying that it's crap and then later say that it's fine as long as you give it a good clean signal... Also, is the 16 bits what they measure the camera as, or is that what they think the spec is for the camera? (red says it's 24bit)

 

I've only had one problem getting clean audio onto my RED and that was my fault because I had set the mixer up incorrectly.

 

Matthew

Edited June 9, 2008 by Matthew Rogers

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that they say this:

 

"Our brief listening test of the microphone inputs verified that they are not suitable for anything but a scratch track, especially when phantom is activated. Whether microphone preamplifier performance is a hardware issue or something that will change in the future with a firmware revision is unclear."

 

and then at the end they say:

 

"For most dialog applications, the Red One’s near 16-bit audio performance is similar to many of the digital pro-sumer and pro cameras we have tested. This is perfectly acceptable for dialog, especially when hit with a good, clean line-level signal. Sound Devices recommends dual-system sound for critical applications."

 

??? Seems like at first they are saying that it's crap and then later say that it's fine as long as you give it a good clean signal... Also, is the 16 bits what they measure the camera as, or is that what they think the spec is for the camera? (red says it's 24bit)

 

I've only had one problem getting clean audio onto my RED and that was my fault because I had set the mixer up incorrectly.

 

Matthew

 

I interpret it, that if you are paying that much for a camera, there is an expectation of better performance since there much less mechanical vibrations and noise. As well as being able to record great sound on camera without relying on another external sound device.

 

If one aspect is prosumer, there would be a similar philosphy for most other aspects of the product. If the audio design is typically prosumer, the rest of the design is most likely geared that way as well, prosumer. Rarely, well, never have I ever seen or heard of products that mix and match philosophies, you pretty much get what you pay, sometimes you are paying for a great product, sometimes marketing which doesn't mean great product.

[Daniel Sheehy]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that they say this:

 

"Our brief listening test of the microphone inputs verified that they are not suitable for anything but a scratch track, especially when phantom is activated. Whether microphone preamplifier performance is a hardware issue or something that will change in the future with a firmware revision is unclear."

 

and then at the end they say:

 

"For most dialog applications, the Red One?s near 16-bit audio performance is similar to many of the digital pro-sumer and pro cameras we have tested. This is perfectly acceptable for dialog, especially when hit with a good, clean line-level signal. Sound Devices recommends dual-system sound for critical applications."

 

??? Seems like at first they are saying that it's crap and then later say that it's fine as long as you give it a good clean signal... Also, is the 16 bits what they measure the camera as, or is that what they think the spec is for the camera? (red says it's 24bit)

 

I've only had one problem getting clean audio onto my RED and that was my fault because I had set the mixer up incorrectly.

 

Matthew

I read the report to mean they were unimpressed with the mic level inputs, but OKed the line level inputs...

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes, that's what it said. Mr Rogers seems to have confused the two.

 

24-bit is genuinely tough. Almost no real world mic/preamp combo really has 24 bits of noise floor and even if you/ did, you'd be able to hear people coughing in Lesotho.

 

P

[Guest Glen Alexander]

we're going to put the aaton cantar X2 through it's paces this weekend, 24bit/96khz and the preamps are very impressive.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, if you manage to ascertain that the mic preamps have an inherent self noise of -144dB or better please let us know.

 

And yes I know that's impossible.

 

P

[Saul Rodgar]

In the feature film, upper budget TV, commercial and doc world, cameras, (even HD cameras) DO NOT record the main sound mix. HD cameras will maybe record sound as a scratch track. Any professional higher-end sound mixer will record to his own sound recorder(s). So what is the big deal?

 

I suspect this is the Nth attempt to smear RED.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Chad Stockfleth]

Speaking of crappy audio inputs, ever shot with an HVX200? :P

 

There's an audible beeping that goes onto the track. I've heard it on a couple of different cameras.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I suspect this is the Nth attempt to smear RED.

 

Since when is independent evaluation an "attempt to smear" anyone? In that case, I guess 30%+ of review critics were trying to smear Chronicles of Narnia:Prince Caspian.

[Saul Rodgar]

Since when is independent evaluation an "attempt to smear" anyone? In that case, I guess 30%+ of review critics were trying to smear Chronicles of Narnia:Prince Caspian.

 

Huh, trying to evaluate the main-sound-mix-recording capabilities of a camera that wasn't designed to record the main-sound-mix in the first place?

 

Are you kidding me?

Edited June 10, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Chris Kenny]

The phantom power isn't great (or at least it wasn't the last time we tried it, a couple of firmware builds ago), and there's no built-in limiting, but with an external field mixer to address those problems (one of these, say), we've found it's perfectly fine for dialog recording. I have no trouble believing it falls short of the Sound Devices recorders, but I suspect that's true of virtually all on-camera audio recording. It's just really hard to keep your audio totally clean inside a device which has so much else going on, electrically.

 

I do wish Red had put some sort of digital audio input on the camera, so you could digitize audio using some nice external device with its own power supply, but still get the workflow benefits of single-system sound. (This should be theoretically possible to do with the current hardware though the USB port, with an appropriate firmware update, but I'm not aware of any plans to Red's part on do this.)

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Are you kidding me?

 

No, not kidding. I saw similar reviews of the audio capabilities of the Canon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100/HVX200. Why is it so hard to believe? There are a lot of newbies out there that think they can buy a camera package and go make a movie. These reviews help people to get a reality check. Don't assume everyone has your knowledge...you weren't born knowing what you know either.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Well, if you manage to ascertain that the mic preamps have an inherent self noise of -144dB or better please let us know.

 

And yes I know that's impossible.

 

P

:lol:

 

but it goes the way eleven...

 

we're getting a setup with sound guy who mics music not just vocals for film. the mics have been well tested from 20 to 20khz. testing subsonic and hypersonic compression with sound that have a wide instantaneous bandwidth. the compressed impulse response should tell most everything.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Speaking of crappy audio inputs, ever shot with an HVX200? :P

 

There's an audible beeping that goes onto the track. I've heard it on a couple of different cameras.

 

well economy of scale, what' cost of HVX $5K?? cost of red +++30k ready to shoot? for 4 or 5 times the cost and get mediocre audio is ripoff.

 

scratch tracks for film, well yeah, there is a lot of mechanical vibration, etc. what's moving in a digital camera to cause that much degradation? hard drive moving? pulling focus? these don't compare to shoving 24 to 50fps of film through a gate. one environment is a hospital, another is a constant earthquake.

[Chris Kenny]

what's moving in a digital camera to cause that much degradation? hard drive moving? pulling focus? these don't compare to shoving 24 to 50fps of film through a gate. one environment is a hospital, another is a constant earthquake.

 

Not much is moving. And with secure connections, there's not much reason mechanical vibration should impact electronic sound recording anyway. What's happening is that inside the same enclosure, and connected to the same power supply, are about 70 watts worth of high-performance digital electronics, generating electrical noise that can easily work its way into the analog audio signal before it gets digitized.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

are about 70 watts worth of high-performance digital electronics, generating electrical noise that can easily work its way into the analog audio signal before it gets digitized.

 

so then i would suggest someone has a poor thermal design and not electrically isolated the sensitive A/Ds. there's also probably all kinds of ground loops, transients running wild, high frequency clock jitter spewing everywhere.

[Brian Langeman]

It's very reasonable to review the audio capabilities of the RED like this. Although it doesn't concern me if the audio is sub par, because I'm gonna be going double system anyways. It's very understandable that the RED would have more trouble with the audio than the HVX. It has a lot more electronics inside to interfere with the audio signal.

 

I would assume that someone who is purchasing a 30K plus camera system knows about recording to a separate sound recorder. When you're in this price range, making the mistake of thinking that you can record your main audio to the RED ONE, is pretty similar to making the mistake of thinking you could support a RED ONE with a tripod that has a max limit of 15 lbs.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I would assume that someone who is purchasing a 30K plus camera system knows about recording to a separate sound recorder.

 

So basically what you're saying is that having a lot of money makes you more informed? That is ridiculous reasoning. Many people who shoot on small gauge film know more about double system sound than some people who shoot digitally on expensive systems...why? Simple. Because film shooters have ALWAYS HAD to do a double system. Digital doesn't require a seperate system if you are content with subpar sound. In fact the sound quality, not even the digital picture, is what makes many digitally acquired products seem low quality and subsequently dooms said projects.

[Phil Rhodes]

For what it's worth, I'm quite a big fan of single system sound - it avoids paying postproduction people to do tedious make-work tasks. I consider it a throwback to an age thankfully past.

 

I'm sure there'll be many justifications of it along the lines of "we do it this way because we've always done it this way", but there is no reason it should not be done more often.

 

Except if the camera has crap audio inputs, 'course. You wouldn't usually expect to feed a camera with line level inputs even if you were recording single system.

 

P

[Brian Langeman]

So basically what you're saying is that having a lot of money makes you more informed? That is ridiculous reasoning. Many people who shoot on small gauge film know more about double system sound than some people who shoot digitally on expensive systems...why? Simple. Because film shooters have ALWAYS HAD to do a double system. Digital doesn't require a seperate system if you are content with subpar sound. In fact the sound quality, not even the digital picture, is what makes many digitally acquired products seem low quality and subsequently dooms said projects.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you're investing in a RED camera that also includes the lenses, mattebox, follow focus system, a fluid head capable of handling the load. If you don't do the research about sound recording and expect perfect sound from a camera, then you're making a mistake, just as if you would neglect to buy a mattebox. The bad sound quality which dooms said projects is usually due to the wrong mics, and the placement of them.

 

 

Single system definitely has it's advantages, but I don't think it would be wise to ever do single system on a feature film. That's what RED is aimed towards too, being used with an experienced crew. With single system you are sacrificing the sound recorder's full attention with the audio, and putting a burden on the camera operator or AC or whoever would monitor the incoming audio to the camera.

[Brian Drysdale]

Speaking to a sound guy the other day. On HD dramas he usually both feeds audio to the camera and records double system. However, he complained that it wasn't unusual for the camera audio to be used rather then the higher quality double system audio.

 

I wouldn't say that film was always double system, single system sound (optical, then magnetic strip) was used for many years on TV news.