Sound quality
 

Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

Sound quality
 

On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.

d

Sound quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

Sound quality
 

On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be. Didn't see any movie though, just sound.

d

Sound quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be.



This dinky little beast has got a 3.5 jack socket for an external mic - any
suggestioms?



Didn't see any movie though, just sound.


OK, that was a MOV which I kept at full resolution (21.7 Mb) to best
represent the achieved sound quality - if you wish to see the movie, here's
a 'Good Quality' Mpeg2 hacked down to 5 Meg which won't have done both the
video and sound any favours:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ndMicMPEG2.mpg

Sound quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be.



This dinky little beast has got a 3.5 jack socket for an external mic - any
suggestioms?



Didn't see any movie though, just sound.


OK, that was a MOV which I kept at full resolution (21.7 Mb) to best
represent the achieved sound quality - if you wish to see the movie, here's
a 'Good Quality' Mpeg2 hacked down to 5 Meg which won't have done both the
video and sound any favours:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ndMicMPEG2.mpg

Sound quality
 

On Tue, 10 May 2011 20:01:29 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be.



This dinky little beast has got a 3.5 jack socket for an external mic - any
suggestioms?



Didn't see any movie though, just sound.


OK, that was a MOV which I kept at full resolution (21.7 Mb) to best
represent the achieved sound quality - if you wish to see the movie, here's
a 'Good Quality' Mpeg2 hacked down to 5 Meg which won't have done both the
video and sound any favours:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ndMicMPEG2.mpg



Depends. Is the socket for a stereo mic or a mono one? If it is a mono
one, it is probably powered the same way a PC mic is. There will be
plenty of mics around that will do the job - the main thing is to get
it closer to the instrument so you don't get as much room.

d

Sound quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 20:01:29 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be.



This dinky little beast has got a 3.5 jack socket for an external mic -
any
suggestioms?



Didn't see any movie though, just sound.


OK, that was a MOV which I kept at full resolution (21.7 Mb) to best
represent the achieved sound quality - if you wish to see the movie,
here's
a 'Good Quality' Mpeg2 hacked down to 5 Meg which won't have done both the
video and sound any favours:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ndMicMPEG2.mpg



Depends. Is the socket for a stereo mic or a mono one? If it is a mono
one, it is probably powered the same way a PC mic is. There will be
plenty of mics around that will do the job - the main thing is to get
it closer to the instrument so you don't get as much room.


Here's all the User Manual has on the subject:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/KodakMic.jpg


I would get a suitable mic for it out of curiosity, but I'm not sure it
would work out very practicable..??

Sound quality
 

On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:34:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 20:01:29 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:40:15 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:06:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Any comments on the sound quality of this little 12 second movie?

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SaxandMic.MOV

The tone of the sax is captured nicely, but the room acoustic is not
good. It makes the sound boxy.


I'll take that as a 'not bad' - it's the little pocket videocam's own
built-in mono mic! (Kodak Zi8)

I also thought the sound of the sax was quite good.

That would be the reason. Where the camera is is never where the mic
needs to be.



This dinky little beast has got a 3.5 jack socket for an external mic -
any
suggestioms?



Didn't see any movie though, just sound.


OK, that was a MOV which I kept at full resolution (21.7 Mb) to best
represent the achieved sound quality - if you wish to see the movie,
here's
a 'Good Quality' Mpeg2 hacked down to 5 Meg which won't have done both the
video and sound any favours:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ndMicMPEG2.mpg



Depends. Is the socket for a stereo mic or a mono one? If it is a mono
one, it is probably powered the same way a PC mic is. There will be
plenty of mics around that will do the job - the main thing is to get
it closer to the instrument so you don't get as much room.


Here's all the User Manual has on the subject:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/KodakMic.jpg


I would get a suitable mic for it out of curiosity, but I'm not sure it
would work out very practicable..??



OK, that gives the necessary. You can get stereo mics for this from
several good makers. No time to look them up right now, but a few make
stereo mics. Alternatively you can make up a cable and a couple of
connectors to feed one or two of your current mics into the camera.

d

Sound quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:34:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Here's all the User Manual has on the subject:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/KodakMic.jpg


I would get a suitable mic for it out of curiosity, but I'm not sure it
would work out very practicable..??



OK, that gives the necessary. You can get stereo mics for this from
several good makers. No time to look them up right now, but a few make
stereo mics. Alternatively you can make up a cable and a couple of
connectors to feed one or two of your current mics into the camera.



I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all I've
come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I suspect, wouldn't
better the built-in mic!

Sound quality
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all
I've come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I
suspect, wouldn't better the built-in mic!

Pretty well any mic should work with an adaptor lead. Even balanced ones.
Phantom powered ones will need an external power supply, which you can
make or buy. Battery, obviously, if you need it to be portable.

Most of the pro ones use a PP9 and a SMPS to produce 48 volts. But you
could make one up using several batteries. And as has been stated before,
many phantom mics will work quite well on less than 48 volts if the full
SPL handling isn't needed.

I wouldn't bother with stereo for a video capture mic.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all
I've come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I
suspect, wouldn't better the built-in mic!

Pretty well any mic should work with an adaptor lead. Even balanced ones.
Phantom powered ones will need an external power supply, which you can
make or buy. Battery, obviously, if you need it to be portable.

Most of the pro ones use a PP9 and a SMPS to produce 48 volts. But you
could make one up using several batteries. And as has been stated before,
many phantom mics will work quite well on less than 48 volts if the full
SPL handling isn't needed.

I wouldn't bother with stereo for a video capture mic.


I was rather hoping for a simple dynamic mic solution, but I agree it
doesn't have to be stereo.

Sound quality
 

On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:18:03 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all
I've come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I
suspect, wouldn't better the built-in mic!

Pretty well any mic should work with an adaptor lead. Even balanced ones.
Phantom powered ones will need an external power supply, which you can
make or buy. Battery, obviously, if you need it to be portable.

Most of the pro ones use a PP9 and a SMPS to produce 48 volts. But you
could make one up using several batteries. And as has been stated before,
many phantom mics will work quite well on less than 48 volts if the full
SPL handling isn't needed.

I wouldn't bother with stereo for a video capture mic.


I was rather hoping for a simple dynamic mic solution, but I agree it
doesn't have to be stereo.


In that case literally any dynamic mic should do. you just need an
adaptor from whatever connector the mic has to a 3.5mm plug. Or better
yet, make up a new lead with the right connector on the end.

d

Sound quality
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all
I've come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I
suspect, wouldn't better the built-in mic!

Pretty well any mic should work with an adaptor lead. Even balanced
ones. Phantom powered ones will need an external power supply, which
you can make or buy. Battery, obviously, if you need it to be portable.

Most of the pro ones use a PP9 and a SMPS to produce 48 volts. But you
could make one up using several batteries. And as has been stated
before, many phantom mics will work quite well on less than 48 volts
if the full SPL handling isn't needed.

I wouldn't bother with stereo for a video capture mic.


I was rather hoping for a simple dynamic mic solution, but I agree it
doesn't have to be stereo.

In general, most dynamic mics these days are designed for hand held close
use. The reason? It's cheaper to make an electret etc mic. Good quality
general purpose dynamic mics also tend to be quite large and heavy. And
pretty low output. And pricey. ;-)

However, if you're recording stuff at home, why not just record the sound
separately (as you'd do for a audio only recording) then drop it onto the
picture using your PC. Sync shouldn't be a problem. Do an in vision hand
clap to give you a starting sync point. Or turn one of your spare firewood
horns into a clapper board. ;-)

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I wouldn't mind a pointer if it's not too much trouble - so far, all
I've come up with is karaoke mics costing about 2 quid which, I
suspect, wouldn't better the built-in mic!

Pretty well any mic should work with an adaptor lead. Even balanced
ones. Phantom powered ones will need an external power supply, which
you can make or buy. Battery, obviously, if you need it to be portable.

Most of the pro ones use a PP9 and a SMPS to produce 48 volts. But you
could make one up using several batteries. And as has been stated
before, many phantom mics will work quite well on less than 48 volts
if the full SPL handling isn't needed.

I wouldn't bother with stereo for a video capture mic.


I was rather hoping for a simple dynamic mic solution, but I agree it
doesn't have to be stereo.

In general, most dynamic mics these days are designed for hand held close
use. The reason? It's cheaper to make an electret etc mic. Good quality
general purpose dynamic mics also tend to be quite large and heavy. And
pretty low output. And pricey. ;-)

However, if you're recording stuff at home, why not just record the sound
separately (as you'd do for a audio only recording) then drop it onto the
picture using your PC. Sync shouldn't be a problem.


I don't really need recordings better than I get with the built-in mic so
that extra work isn't really necessary. The reason for getting an external
mic is simply because there's a socket for one and it would allow some
interesting messing abut



Do an in vision hand
clap to give you a starting sync point. Or turn one of your spare firewood
horns into a clapper board. ;-)


All three pairs of my firewood horns are in *daily* use - I wonder how many
people can say that about their speakers?

Sound quality
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
However, if you're recording stuff at home, why not just record the
sound separately (as you'd do for a audio only recording) then drop it
onto the picture using your PC. Sync shouldn't be a problem.


I don't really need recordings better than I get with the built-in mic
so that extra work isn't really necessary. The reason for getting an
external mic is simply because there's a socket for one and it would
allow some interesting messing abut

It's very unlikely the camera will be in an ideal position for sound
pickup. That mic will also likely pick up unwanted sounds - like from the
camera or operator. But you asked for advice so feel free to ignore it as
usual and go down your own route of re-inventing the wheel.

Little story. Have a pal (know you don't like me using this) over from the
states, and he's making some demo travelogues of 'Little known Britain'
hoping to sell the format. Has spent some money on this - had impressive
literature printed and bought a pretty good camera. Asked my advice about
the sound ages ago - but decided it was too expensive/complicated. And is
now asking how to recover something useful from just using the built in
mic...

Do an in vision hand clap to give you a starting sync point. Or turn
one of your spare firewood horns into a clapper board. ;-)


All three pairs of my firewood horns are in *daily* use - I wonder how
many people can say that about their speakers?

I've got - let's see - 14 pairs of speakers in daily use. Only ones which
aren't are in the spare bedroom. But none of them even remotely made of
firewood - or horns.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

On 12/05/2011 10:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Little story //whack

Nobody's interested in your silly fantasies mushbrain.

Sound quality
 

In article ,
atriage wrote:
On 12/05/2011 10:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Little story //whack

Nobody's interested in your silly fantasies mushbrain.

You must be given you've replied. Anyone else would use a killfile.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
However, if you're recording stuff at home, why not just record the
sound separately (as you'd do for a audio only recording) then drop it
onto the picture using your PC. Sync shouldn't be a problem.


I don't really need recordings better than I get with the built-in mic
so that extra work isn't really necessary. The reason for getting an
external mic is simply because there's a socket for one and it would
allow some interesting messing abut

It's very unlikely the camera will be in an ideal position for sound
pickup. That mic will also likely pick up unwanted sounds - like from the
camera or operator.


Oh yes - you soon learn to capture what you want in the duration of a single
*held breath*!! (The camera is absolutely silent.)


But you asked for advice so feel free to ignore it as
usual and go down your own route of re-inventing the wheel.


What?? Advice given here is *compulsory*..??

Reality check: These 'pocket video recorders' are slim like a cigarette case
and you slip them in your pocket when you go on your travels in the hope
that you might catch an alien space craft disgorging its occupants on a bit
of nearby waste ground or maybe catch an ole grannie beating up a scooter
gang with her handbag or somesuch - it all goes out tha window, to a point,
if you gotta haul a 50m coil of microphone cable and a power supply/car
battery along with you.

I'm going to mess around with a little lapel mic in a moment but I suspect
the best solution really does look like this:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/KodakMic.jpg


So, maybe the enquiry should read: does anybody know of a decent karaoke mic
that terminates in a 3.5 jack? - Mono is fine, I believe the 3.5mm extension
lead I have is mono.

All the ones I have seen so far are at the 2 quid mark. Worrying - 2 quid
buys a deal of Fruit Drops but it doesn't seem enough for a decent
microphone to me!



Little story. Have a pal (know you don't like me using this)


Do what you want, it's no matter to me.



over from the
states, and he's making some demo travelogues of 'Little known Britain'
hoping to sell the format.


Another one? Streuth, even I had that idea - but with the addition/inclusion
of nice, slow aerial photography.


Has spent some money on this - had impressive
literature printed and bought a pretty good camera. Asked my advice about
the sound ages ago - but decided it was too expensive/complicated. And is
now asking how to recover something useful from just using the built in
mic...

Do an in vision hand clap to give you a starting sync point. Or turn
one of your spare firewood horns into a clapper board. ;-)


All three pairs of my firewood horns are in *daily* use - I wonder how
many people can say that about their speakers?


Actually I'm wrong - make that 2 pairs in *daily* use and the third pair in
*frequent * use.



I've got - let's see - 14 pairs of speakers in daily use.


No comment.

No, really - no comment....

Sound quality
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Reality check: These 'pocket video recorders' are slim like a cigarette
case and you slip them in your pocket when you go on your travels in
the hope that you might catch an alien space craft disgorging its
occupants on a bit of nearby waste ground or maybe catch an ole grannie
beating up a scooter gang with her handbag or somesuch - it all goes
out tha window, to a point, if you gotta haul a 50m coil of microphone
cable and a power supply/car battery along with you.

Strange. I'd use my phone for that. Perhaps you didn't know you could do
this?

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Reality check: These 'pocket video recorders' are slim like a cigarette
case and you slip them in your pocket when you go on your travels in
the hope that you might catch an alien space craft disgorging its
occupants on a bit of nearby waste ground or maybe catch an ole grannie
beating up a scooter gang with her handbag or somesuch - it all goes
out tha window, to a point, if you gotta haul a 50m coil of microphone
cable and a power supply/car battery along with you.

Strange. I'd use my phone for that. Perhaps you didn't know you could do
this?



I think I'd struggle - I don't have a 'phone'..

;-)

Sound quality
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Reality check: These 'pocket video recorders' are slim like a
cigarette case and you slip them in your pocket when you go on your
travels in the hope that you might catch an alien space craft
disgorging its occupants on a bit of nearby waste ground or maybe
catch an ole grannie beating up a scooter gang with her handbag or
somesuch - it all goes out tha window, to a point, if you gotta haul
a 50m coil of microphone cable and a power supply/car battery along
with you.

Strange. I'd use my phone for that. Perhaps you didn't know you could
do this?



I think I'd struggle - I don't have a 'phone'..

;-)

Of course not. They're digital. ;-)

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Reality check: These 'pocket video recorders' are slim like a
cigarette case and you slip them in your pocket when you go on your
travels in the hope that you might catch an alien space craft
disgorging its occupants on a bit of nearby waste ground or maybe
catch an ole grannie beating up a scooter gang with her handbag or
somesuch - it all goes out tha window, to a point, if you gotta haul
a 50m coil of microphone cable and a power supply/car battery along
with you.

Strange. I'd use my phone for that. Perhaps you didn't know you could
do this?



I think I'd struggle - I don't have a 'phone'..

;-)

Of course not. They're digital. ;-)


So's the Kodak Zi8 pocket videocam - all the way up to 1080p!

;-)