Is the XLR adapter worth it? (for DVC30)

Hi, these questions may seem tired but please bear with me, I've looked through past posts and still not certain what to do:

What is the XLR adapter (AG-MYA30G) going to do for me? I think I understand the balanced vs. unbalanced issue and that this is also why you wouldn't want to go with a different adapter from say Beachtech which connects through the mini mic input. But how significant is this? And is that true? Is the special input on the DVC30 balanced?

Phantom power? That's not very important to me, at least I don't think. And the limiting function? Isn't it a bit heavy-handed if you will?

And is that it? Is there a preamp? I'm a little over my head here but what does it do for you? You're still relying on the camcorder right? My understanding is that the more connections the more chance for your audio to go bad. So if you are using a Rhode's Video Mic, which I'm considering, use an XLR adapter so you can plug into the AG-MYA30G, and then into the camera, isn't that worse? Why not just take the AG-MYA30G out of the equation?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sam

well it has several advantages. the mic pre in it is better. you can run phantom power mics, you have manual controls at your finger tips, it's a balanced secure strong connection to the camera (not a mini plug), you have a 10db pad built in to the adapter, it looks cool, you can run line level or mic level into the adapter or different ones on each input. you can have two descret inputs with independent level control, it comes with a mic holder so you can also mount something else on the camera like a light, you can use a better selection of microphones, ummmm that's all I can think of for now.

Its definitely worth the extra bit of money and its designed to work flawlessly with the AG-DVC30. I love mine.

Sam,

I guess it depends on what type project you are shooting. If it is narrative intensive with multiple actors in a scene I'd say yes go for it. The guys who have commented so far know what they are talking about. In my case I have done fine without it. I use a AT Pro24 stereo mic and it works well for my less narrative intensive projects.

By the way the videomic gets pretty high marks for value vs. performance.

Regards,

Mark
natureflixs (http://www.natureflixs.com)

Sam,

I guess it depends on what type project you are shooting. If it is narrative intensive with multiple actors in a scene I'd say yes go for it. The guys who have commented so far know what they are talking about. In my case I have done fine without it. I use a AT Pro24 stereo mic and it works well for my less narrative intensive projects.

By the way the videomic gets pretty high marks for value vs. performance.

Regards,

Mark
natureflixs (http://www.natureflixs.com)

I' have the same setup as Mark, here's a past post:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=195622&postcount=45

...Angelo

A lot of people will say that most mics sound better when they're used with a mixer. They say that trying to adjust the mic level up to the point where your signal to noise ratio is maximized will often result in the cameras preamps being pushed too hard and you will get noise. I have to admit it's very hard to find the sweet spot with my mics. It seems there's noise at every level.

Supposedly using a mixer like the BeachTec allows you to get better control and keeps you from having problems with a camera's audio level adjustment being pushed so high it creates noise from the camera's preamp.

I don't have anything like the BeachTec so I can't say how much of this is true. I just know that people into more professional levels of equipment will claim that most mics sound better using a mixer.

BTW there is another product that you may want to consider. The XLR Pro will allow you to use XLR mics and to use XLR cables on unbalanced mics. It can work with either balanced or unbalanced equipment coming in and going out. It doesn't have it's own power supply though so maybe the deal with keeping the camera's preamp from overloading might not be true with it. But then again it doesn't have a battery which saves on weight.

Much thanks. This is going to be a nice resource.

An audio friend is telling me if I'm looking to shoot something serious the audio should really be handled seperately if possible, but in the name of making this camera do everything it can I think I'll get the XLR adapter. (Perhaps it would add to it's resale value if I ever want to get rid of it as well). That said, I don't have a lot to spend on a mic. Anyone have an opinion on the SA-568 from NRG Research? I suppose I'm comparing it to the Rhodes videomic mentioned above --I saw in a past post that someone said the Rhodes was plastic and shouldn't last more than a couple of years. Although Rhodes has a good rep in general.

Just to put it out there, I know certain situations call for certain mics, I'm just looking for one to get by with for now that can sit on the camera, possibly use handheld and maybe throw it on a boompole. That is a lot to ask but these manufactors at least claim that all this is reasonable. Will be shooting a lot of narrative but things like lavs are out of the question right now. Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.

Yes the Rode VM is made of plastic but that was done mainly to reduce the weight on a mic meant to be mounted on a camera. You probably wouldn't be able to use it handheld though. First the battery comparment sticks out to the side of the mic which would make it terrribly awkward to hold plus it is a very sensitive mic and not made to be handheld (no internal suspension system) which means it will pick up a lot of noise. You can use it on a boom though. And I don't believe for a second that the life of a VM will be limited to two years. Plastic doesn't always mean cheap and flimsy.

I'm not familar with the NRG Research mic that you listed. But if it does all the things you want to get from one mic then it would be quite a package.

There are very low priced lavs around that will do an excellent job if you're interested. For $25 you can get a Giant Squid omni lav which is actually quite a good mic.

Generally mixers sound better because they're built better. The have better mic pre's and better limiters, and better circuit design, and better attenuators. They're built to be better, that's why they sound better, and they're also much much more expensive. The mixer in and of itself really has nothing to do with the mic, or it's noise floor, but more to do with the signal after the mic. In the case of the xlr adapter, well it's a mini mixer but it's small and not too expensive so it has it's limitations. but for this camera, it does a good job and they built the camera around the xlr adapter to take advantage of it. It runs through a completely seperate circuit that's optimized for it. For cameras in this price range, it's a good deal.

Now when I'm working on a project that has a crew and money, I run my mics into 3 grand mic pre's, into 2 grand converters and record to a 3 grand dat deck. But that's not what this camera is really for. the rode VM is an awesome bang for the buck. Is it hollywood? no, but it doesn't cost anywhere near hollywood either and you'll get a huge improvement over the internal mics. Now if you want to take a step up from this mic, then you're probably going to have to go with the xlr adapter. So it's a leap and you have to justify it. If you think you are going to make this step anyways, then just get it and enjoy the benifits and versatility now and later. If you don't think you're going to take advantage of it's options, then it's a waiste of money.

A perfect example is Marks video's, minimal live audio. maybe a bit of a babbling brook or a bird here, some wind there. It would probably be a waiste for him to spend that cash on the xlr adapter for the video's he makes. He's better off spending it on things like tripod heads and WA adapters.

Now for a lot of things I've been working on lately, I have to have it. I've got a shotgun on a boom pole and a wireless lav running into the xlr adapter. I'll also take the output of a live show mixer and run it into the adapter. I'm more audio driven, some are more video driven. you have to look at what you are going to use the camera for and that will dictate whether or not it's a worthy investment.

I know there are lots of reasons for going with a mixer TurtleTone2 but I just read a post last night about how a mixer does affect the noise floor. The person who posted it (on another board) could be wrong of course but according to him it was a common thing to believe. He said that nearly everyone believes that using a mixer improves the sound of most mics and one of the main reasons was that it kept the preamps on cameras from being pushed too hard which was not a good thing to do on a camera because they really weren't designed all that well.

I'm not saying I know more about this than you. Obviously I don't. I just know what I read in another post. You know how it goes with things like this. There are a lot of opinions floating around out there on sound issues. I know something about the equipment I use. I'm just repeating what I've read on equipment that I don't have experience using.

I might be able to find the post I read about the s/n issue on cameras if you'd like to read it. I'm just trying to help here.

It's all good. No worries.

we are talking about several things here, a mic, a preamp, an attenuator, an A/D converter, and a recorder. Each has it's own noise floor except for the recorder in this case because it's digital. A better mic pre isn't going to change the noise floor of the mic, only the noise floor of itself. now it may contribute to the overall noise floor if it's bad, but if it's adding noise that's lower level than the noise of the mic is generating, then that noise is going to be masked by the noise that the mic is generating. example, go stand next to a waterfall, have someone make a shhhhhh sound and see if adds to the noise floor, you probably won't hear it. If you add a bunch of elements that make noise, it's going to add up and there will be an increased overall noise floor eventually.
Anyway, just the fact that a mixer is external in no way makes it better because it's external. It's only better if it's built better. In most cases they are better than the internal pre's of a prosumer camera with miniplug inputs. Now when you add the xlr adapter like on the DVC30, it's an external mic pre that's better than the one built into the camera because they wanted to give the option of a better audio system. And it's a very good sounding system for the kinds of mics people would buy for this camcorder. It can be pushed further than the elements down the line can handle, like the A/D converter. Having an external mic pre isn't going to allow you to push the audio further than what the A/D converters can handle, it's only going to be better if it's a better designed and built mic pre than the one it's replacing in quality of sound.
There are several reasons the pro's go with external audio. One is to let the audio guy/gal be seperate from the camera so he can move around and the camera guy/gal doesn't have a boat load of audio cables running in and out of his camera while he's trying to shoot. The other reasons is they can improve the entire chain of audio, from mic placement to mic pre's to A/D converters and down to the Recorder. The whole chain is better and it's all complimentary. Your system is only as good as it's weakest link. and your goal is to try and put together a complimentary system. If you put together a mic and a mic pre and a mixer that all have a super low noise floor and then run it into a junky A/D converter, then you aren't really realizing the benifits of your super quiet components.

That's just noise issues, there are other and IMO more important reasons for choosing different components and that's quality of sound. What does the mic sound like, what does the mic pre sound like etc... now you get into personal taste and needs. A lot of times in the music industry, we'll choose a mic that's got a cool sound. may have a bit more noise than other things but the quality of the sound that it captures is what we're after. Take for instance a recording of Nat King Cole. when you listen to his voice recorded on a U47, it just sounds magical. The mic is noisey, i mean ssshhhhh noisey, the tube has a very limitied dynamic range because that's all the Germans could get after WWII. The frequency response isn't good at all and by no means flat. But it just sounds great on certain people. At the time, the noise of the mic wan't a concern because the medium in which it was recorded to (tape and vinyl) was so much noisier that you would never hear the noise generated from the mic. Ok, now i'm babbling, i'll stop.

There's no doubt that the theory I read in the post on another board boiled down to the fact that the pre's on a mixer were better than the pre's on most cameras. They were just claiming that it showed up as more noise due to the pre's on cameras not being able to be pushed hard to get the s/n ratio down or not as hard as you can push the pre's on a mixer. Any way you look at it the bottom line is the quality of the components are better on the mixers.

You're certainly right about some mics just sounding better in certain situations. In the old days of rock music a large part of what made a band have it's own sound was just serendipity. They just got lucky to have a mic that made their voice sound a particular way in other words. They didn't seem to have perfect equipment on any of their recordings and that was stuff done at major labels. Motown was well known to have created a sound based on the weakness of various equipment more than anything else. People who worked in recording studios just learned to work with what they had. Going back to the early days of recorded music it took a person with a particular kind of voice to be able to sing where it would sound good on the equipment of the day. The result was you had nearly everyone singing in the same octave. It was really pretty much true of all AM radio too. If you didn't have the particular kind of voice that sounded good on the radio you weren't going to get far. The character of the sound might be a little different but it still required people to sing in a certain range so that all those portable radios we had stuck to our ears back in the 60's could make a noise that could be recognized as a singing voice. You didn't get too much variation in the octave people sang in back in those days if they were on the radio.

Equipment has come a long way since those days but people often still use the old style equipment trying to get that old familar sound. That's why you still see people using SM58's when they play live for example. They go with what has been proven to make singers sound better and sound like what people expect. Things have improved a lot in other ways for sure. Thank goodness you don't see giant stacks of those Klipsch horn speakers we used to see back in the 70's because they really didn't sound that good. They just sounded very loud. But there are still things that are done the old ways just to try to get the old sound. Look at all the people are still using a Les Paul or a Stratocaster with a Marshall stack for example. Originally it was just very creative people (Hendrix) creating a sound with the equipment they had to work with. Now it's like standard equipment almost.