audio recording with the d7000

this looks like it:

http://www.juicedlink.com/audio-preamps-mixers-etc-c-66

just in passing, look at the production of the video; another case of 'why hire pros if we can do it in the house' or what I call the good enough trend

sound is always the least featured aspect of amateur video, even on expensive dslr's and videocameras alike: just like sound did not matter.

There is no place for xlr connectors and usable pots on a dslr, and there is no headphone jack, no sound meter, and agc (automatic gainb control)

The stereo 1/8 connector for microphones is the most nightmarish type you can find; it usually is ridden with problems soon, or stops working completely if you're not extra careful with the connection.

But if you want pro sound with separate mikes and obtain sound that does justice to the quality of the video image produced by the d7000, you'll have to spend substantial money.

I'm investigating this solution. It mounts under the camera, and the combo mounts on the tripod.

Anybody have tried this? What is the behaviour of the low-med-high setting in the mic section of the d7000? Is is fixed gain? Do you turn on the agc disable function on the juicelink?
--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

DSLR audio is not intended for serious use. It's a toss in for hobbyists to make home video. Good audio equipment will cost money, just like anything else. Some of our microphone preamplifiers alone cost more than a DSLR with lens.

I think you'd be better off recording with a small handheld digital recorder, for a couple of hundred bucks, putting the unedited video into ProTools or a similar application, and put the audio in, and sync it up...THEN edit the project. I think the D7000 has a limiter...auto mode...but I believe the input is MIC level, not line level. An outboard mic pre might overload everything, no matter what the camera's gain is set at.
--
Larold

pocketfulladoubles said:

DSLR audio is not intended for serious use. It's a toss in for hobbyists to make home video. Good audio equipment will cost money, just like anything else. Some of our microphone preamplifiers alone cost more than a DSLR with lens.

Click to expand...

Your opinion, but I recently rented my studio for the production of nationwide ads using (you guessed what?) the canon 5d. They used a separate audio recorder, but then, it's a full crew of experienced professionnals with the editing support access. I asked the audioman about an audio solution for a dslr, and he directed me to BeachTek and Juicelink sites. He says some productions will prefer to record the sound right on the dlsr. I know some episodes of a very popular american soap was filmed entirely with several 5d's.

I think it's a passing fad, the form factor of dslr being a major drawback. Until pro video catches up with affordable large sensors and assorted lenses, this trend is booming among the tv/cinema crowd. It is used for short movies, ads, even by national tv stations, so it is not only for hobbyists...What they're lookiing for ? subject isolation with high quality wide aperture lenses coupled with large noiseless sensors is no1 on their list. And the texture, as they say, has a very filmlike look in their opinion.

In the meanwhile, I want to explore the possibilities...who knows, next week I might be asked if I can do video too...and It'll be a lot of fun anyway.

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

The juicedlink will work fine (and is a very good quality), although the agc disable feature (so useful for the Canon 5d MkII when it first came out) is not needed given the D7000's three non-agc levels.

Another option that I (and others) use is a Zoom H4, which allows separate audio (synced up in post by using a slate, or Pluraleyes software). This (and similar field recorders) allows separate recording of high quality audio, but I also sometimes link it to the Nikon D7000: in this case, I use the H4's line out into a -25db Pinknoise cable (reducing the line out level to a suitable level for the D7000's mic input).

In this mode the field recorder provides level control/metering, headphone monitoring, and acts, like the juicedlink, as a preamplifier (either for its own mics or, preferably, external mics - either should be near the sound source not on the camera hotshoe unless you are after ambient sound). This provides a suitable signal to feed the camera at its lowest sensitivity (therefore meaning the D7000's comparatively noisy preamps do little and, thus, add little noise). Testing so far, I have found that with this set up the D7000 adds little noise and for many uses this could save the hassle of syncing: it simply depends how critical your sound is.

The field recorder option then gives more flexibilty than the juicedlink option, and, depending on what field recorder is used, can give extremely high quaility results; the main advantage is that you always have a separate higher quality sound recording. In some cases, however, it might prove fiddlier/less robust to use. NB some field recorders (including the Zoom H4's replacement, the H4n) combine line out and headphone sockets in one, which means that you will need to split the signal to headphones and camera.

Incidentally, although the D7000 audio has only 3 levels other than agc, good news is that it samples at 48khz, not the 44.1 of the DPReview review: oddly Nikon keep this spec quiet.

Hope this helps with your audio thoughts.

Larold said:

I think you'd be better off recording with a small handheld digital recorder, for a couple of hundred bucks, putting the unedited video into ProTools or a similar application, and put the audio in, and sync it up...THEN edit the project. I think the D7000 has a limiter...auto mode...but I believe the input is MIC level, not line level. An outboard mic pre might overload everything, no matter what the camera's gain is set at.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments. The preamp insures a good level of audio from the mikes reaches the dslr input. Depending on the mikes available, this might be necessary. It is recommended the mic section of Nikon's be set to low sensitivity in order to get the best s/n ratio, and adjust the preamp accordingly. On the other hand, phantom power gives access to a lot of pro microphones, your budget being the limiting factor.

Syncing separate sound for each scene could be very time consuming or quite difficult for the amateur.

Larold said:

--
Larold

Click to expand...

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

Throwback said:

The juicedlink will work fine (and is a very good quality), although the agc disable feature (so useful for the Canon 5d MkII when it first came out) is not needed given the D7000's three non-agc levels .

Click to expand...

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for

Throwback said:

Another option that I (and others) use is a Zoom H4, which allows separate audio (synced up in post by using a slate, or Pluraleyes software). This (and similar field recorders) allows separate recording of high quality audio, but I also sometimes link it to the Nikon D7000: in this case, I use the H4's line out into a -25db Pinknoise cable (reducing the line out level to a suitable level for the D7000's mic input).

Click to expand...

Understood, but a little exotic for my skills.

Throwback said:

In this mode the field recorder provides level control/metering, headphone monitoring, and acts, like the juicedlink, as a preamplifier (either for its own mics or, preferably, external mics - either should be near the sound source not on the camera hotshoe unless you are after ambient sound). This provides a suitable signal to feed the camera at its lowest sensitivity (therefore meaning the D7000's comparatively noisy preamps do little and, thus, add little noise). Testing so far, I have found that with this set up the D7000 adds little noise and for many uses this could save the hassle of syncing: it simply depends how critical your sound is.

Click to expand...

Looking for good sound: little hiss, no hum, some end-of-spectrum capabilities (say, 40Hz to 18khz response). Top quality pro sound is, I'm afraid, out of my reach.

Throwback said:

The field recorder option then gives more flexibilty than the juicedlink option, and, depending on what field recorder is used, can give extremely high quaility results; the main advantage is that you always have a separate higher quality sound recording. In some cases, however, it might prove fiddlier/less robust to use. NB some field recorders (including the Zoom H4's replacement, the H4n) combine line out and headphone sockets in one, which means that you will need to split the signal to headphones and camera.

Incidentally, although the D7000 audio has only 3 levels other than agc, good news is that it samples at 48khz, not the 44.1 of the DPReview review: oddly Nikon keep this spec quiet.

Hope this helps with your audio thoughts.

Click to expand...

A lot. thanks.

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

Glad to be of use. I'm not certain that the use of a field recorder is that exotic, tho, compared to a juicedlink. You can buy something very good for the price of the juicedlink DT454, and it will have much better meters and, as I said, will also give you separate recording that will be better than anything via the camera, if only as a second option or for those times you want the best sound and can bother with syncing. I'm happy with the Zoom H4 (which has phantom power, albeit less than perfect), but, for example, the Sony PCM D50 is a seriously good bit of kit and much easier to use (and has excellent meters and on board mics). A field recorder is usually much lighter than a juicedlink too, which may be significant. And the -25db cable is easy to buy.

I'm sure there are lots of viable solutions. It just comes down to how critical the audio is. I record and measure sound for a living, so when I see these things, I start thinking about frequency response issues, calibration, interactions between the apparatus and the sound field, directionality, on and on. And, I listen to and review it all on very controled montiroing systems and signal analyzers. Grantid, my take on it may be total overkill for your application, but my experience with the built-in and simpler solutions is that they will be satisfactory for only the modest work.

jean bernier said:

pocketfulladoubles said:

DSLR audio is not intended for serious use. It's a toss in for hobbyists to make home video. Good audio equipment will cost money, just like anything else. Some of our microphone preamplifiers alone cost more than a DSLR with lens.

Click to expand...

Your opinion, but I recently rented my studio for the production of nationwide ads using (you guessed what?) the canon 5d. They used a separate audio recorder, but then, it's a full crew of experienced professionnals with the editing support access. I asked the audioman about an audio solution for a dslr, and he directed me to BeachTek and Juicelink sites. He says some productions will prefer to record the sound right on the dlsr. I know some episodes of a very popular american soap was filmed entirely with several 5d's.

I think it's a passing fad, the form factor of dslr being a major drawback. Until pro video catches up with affordable large sensors and assorted lenses, this trend is booming among the tv/cinema crowd. It is used for short movies, ads, even by national tv stations, so it is not only for hobbyists...What they're lookiing for ? subject isolation with high quality wide aperture lenses coupled with large noiseless sensors is no1 on their list. And the texture, as they say, has a very filmlike look in their opinion.

In the meanwhile, I want to explore the possibilities...who knows, next week I might be asked if I can do video too...and It'll be a lot of fun anyway.

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

Click to expand...

Even high-end $200,000 cameras dont have decent internal audio.. welcome to movie production.

jean bernier said:

this looks like it:

http://www.juicedlink.com/audio-preamps-mixers-etc-c-66

just in passing, look at the production of the video; another case of 'why hire pros if we can do it in the house' or what I call the good enough trend

sound is always the least featured aspect of amateur video, even on expensive dslr's and videocameras alike: just like sound did not matter.

There is no place for xlr connectors and usable pots on a dslr, and there is no headphone jack, no sound meter, and agc (automatic gainb control)

The stereo 1/8 connector for microphones is the most nightmarish type you can find; it usually is ridden with problems soon, or stops working completely if you're not extra careful with the connection.

But if you want pro sound with separate mikes and obtain sound that does justice to the quality of the video image produced by the d7000, you'll have to spend substantial money.

I'm investigating this solution. It mounts under the camera, and the combo mounts on the tripod.

Anybody have tried this? What is the behaviour of the low-med-high setting in the mic section of the d7000? Is is fixed gain? Do you turn on the agc disable function on the juicelink?
--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

Click to expand...

pocketfulladoubles said:

I'm sure there are lots of viable solutions. It just comes down to how critical the audio is. I record and measure sound for a living, so when I see these things, I start thinking about frequency response issues, calibration, interactions between the apparatus and the sound field, directionality, on and on. And, I listen to and review it all on very controled montiroing systems and signal analyzers. Grantid, my take on it may be total overkill for your application, but my experience with the built-in and simpler solutions is that they will be satisfactory for only the modest work.

Click to expand...

sure. fully understood. It's like amateurs asking me what camera should they buy...my answer would be 'get a D3s or a D3X', the rest is amateurish, or a big compromise, but that's not reasonable for most people, as they can't justify these cameras. I'm into modest work for the moment. For personal projects and experimentation. I certainly do not expect the highest level from this set-up, but much better than the built-in mic.

A further thought on a budget approach to good audio from the D7000. It is worth considering how easy it is nowadays to sync high quality audio files on an external recorder with the camera's video files: no need to use the slate approach if that is putting you off. I mentioned Pluraleyes in my first post, but the same company now produces Dual Eyes which can be used with any NLE as it is a very straightforward to use standalone program: it will automatically find the relevant part of the audio from the separate audio track and produce a new version of the video (keeping the old) with the high quality audio added in sync. You can select a whole stack of mov and wav files at the same time. I haven't used this particular program, but it appears well thought of and simple: worth checking out as you do your research into different approaches.

The D7000 has good signal performance at the mic inputs i the level is optimized for best DR/Signal to noise ratio. Using an external field recorder such as the little Zoom H4 has a lot of advantages for a lot cost. Mic preamps do not have to be expensive for good performance, it is sort of like the esoteric audio field where wild claims are made about differences that can't be detected in double blind tests, but cost thousands more. With any audio source capture, how the signal is handled along the way is far more important the specs or cost of one item in the chain. Moving a cable a foot long the ground or a mic a few inches will have much more dramatic affects in sound quality than the difference between any $200 mic preamp and a $2000 model.

As with photography, how the data is handled and the care taken to reduce degradation makes the difference between great audio that enhances a production and just run-of-the-mill journeyman efforts. Same with live or record production, the little things done well add up to be a good result, regardless of price of gear. What the sound does for the viewer's experience is all that matters. Perfectly recorded and processed garbage is still garbage. Most amateurs and by far most pros still only produce garbage....but clean or low distorted garbage.

The H4 has higher performance than my old $85,000 a piece tape decks but those old decks were used on records that are considered classics today and much copied but with less success. Top results are from addressing little insignificant details most people ignore. The same in photography or sound. The gear makes little difference.

With proper technique, a tiny digital field recorder as good as the cheap-as-dirt Zoom H4 are capable of theatrical release movies.

You can even use older pro style analog recorders if you record time code on the audio track of the D7000 to lock the analog deck with a synchronizer.

Even a low cost electret external mic positioned close to the source will outperform very expensive shotgun mics mounted on the shoe. Beside, you need sound picked up close because the visual image is closer than the camera. The delay of sound's travel getting to a shoe mounted mic will introduce sound out of sync with the characters mouth or sound source. With a sound speed of about 1100 feet per second, and the onset of detectable speech sync problems for viewers is about 15 milliseconds, you can see that a mic 50 feet away will be pretty much out of sync with the visual image, which is irritating to viewers.

Audio for production is another art form so there is good reason serious productions, even with one camera documentaries, there is a separate sound specialist handing that task. You do not need expensive gear, just gear used well.

--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

spbStan, I agree with 99% of what you said with the exception that there are times where that "$2k preamp" is justified, namely critical recording/forensics and low sound pressure measurement. You're absolutely right though that the purpose of the OP is not one of them.