The Basics of Recording Audio for Digital Video 

Pistachio Studio Thanks! Those dB designations can be so confusing :/

hey @@FilmmakerIQ can u put the following line in description before the line containing "0:38 ..." 0:00 Intro

+William Millard brilliant

Buahahahahaha! - Has been hit on the ""RØDE to glory"! - Made my day, William. Thank you!!! :-D

William Millard what about Dead Rodent?

You WIN!

William Millard was it a combat wombat?

Brian Straight I know exactly what you mean, there's something great isn't there about watching someone who really knows what he's talking about and is so talented at presenting

DSLRguide I learnt from you too from your channel. Good to see free sharing of knowledge. That helps breed creativity.

I like your videos.

DSLRguide I agree

Me too, today

Well I'm five years late, but I'll say the same thing.

@@FreeStockHub Hold my beer..

@@FreeStockHub 6 years and i also agree.

+Digital Glamour Television Wow - thank you!!

Least it's not the other way around - you can fry a preamp if you accidently send a electric spike into a mic level input ;)

Thanks for the info! The device I thought had a built-in preamp was a MacBook Pro. I guess the key thing was line input.

Eh ada mas

Pripun kabare mas laiqul ?

Alhamdulilah

I was going back and forth whether it was 96kHz or the 24bit that was contributing to the translucent quality of the audio I get off the recorder. I realize a lot of it is "psychological" - but I'll still stick to my 96kHz suggestion even if it's not entirely necessary ;)

Filmmaker IQ You are absolutely right: if your recorder supports 96kHz, there really is no reason not to use it. :) I mean, audio won't be what's breaking your disk size limits, and better safe than sorry. I just wanted to add the comment for other viewers that sound devices that don't support 96kHz are no dealbreaker and that the 24 Bit support is more important if your budget allows only for one of the two. :)

Just thought I'd throw in my programmer's perspective. Just because your software supports 24-bit samples, doesn't mean it'll work with them internally. More likely, it'll convert them to 32-bit floating-point (maybe keeping a buffer in that format on disk in a temporary file) and work on that, only converting to 24-bit again when saving the results. Trying to work with 24-bit values is a headache, because there's no provided way in hardware of working with them as a single unit. The easiest way to handle it is to convert it to some 32-bit format, which the computer can pass around as a single unit, using a third more memory and have readable source code without the clutter of moving odd-sized amounts of memory around. 32-bit floating-point tends to be the format of choice, because nearly everything has a floating-point unit which supports the IEEE754 standard and it's a reasonable amount of memory used for the precision available. It also has the advantage of floating-point versions of many algorithms being much easier to understand than integer versions. On the downside, 32-bit floats only have 23 bits of precision, so you will end up with rounding errors caused by truncation creeping in when doing a lot of summing of values, though they'll probably be small enough to be lost in the background noise.

***** You are right that most likely, the computer software internally will work with 32-bit-floats. But that doesn't really mean anything for the recording quality. An audio quality of "24 bit depth" means that there are 24 bits used to assign a value between roughly -8 million and 8 million as a signed integer with 23 bits precision. This can be, as you know, easily converted to a 32-bit-float with 23 bit precision and an additional exponent, with basically no computing power. On the other hand, if you record with 16 bits, the conversion will just fill in the additional precision of the 32-bit-float with zeros... So you still retain the full quality improvement when switching from 16 to 24 bit recording, which is what all the fuzz is about. :-) Also: Something is really broken with my comment, parts of it seems to be crossed out...

Must be the illuminati...

Actually that is what I use right now and it's awesome! A lav mic plugged into a smartphone is no problem if you get the right app. I use an Android phone, a cheap LG L15G with Neewer lav mic from Amazon. There is no concern for low battery, just turn on Airplane mode and put the phone on silence. I don't use the phone for any other thing as I got it specifically for this purpose so there is no sim or data connectivity on the phone. There are some things to note though, there is no way to monitor the levels while the recording is going on, also ensure the app you get records 48khz or else you will have audio sync issues and again, ensure to set the right levels to avoid clipping, which applies to all audio capture systems anyway. My system has been working great and I have two of it in case I need to record a dialogue. If I want to improve the quality of my audio, I found out that getting a better condenser mic is all I need at the moment. I still plan to get a Zoom H4N Pro with wireless lav mics but I don't have to do so at the moment but will still do later.

LOL

Had to manage 96 Lav's about 2 Months ago

Audibly, it does matter. If you're not careful, 96 kHz can actually sound WORSE. Recording at 96 kHz includes inaudible ultrasonic frequencies. If you don't do postprocessing correctly, this will cause audible distortions when playing back on systems that can't reproduce ultrasonic frequencies (most of them). End result: don't just record at 96 kHz unless you know what you're doing, and only if your analog equipment is pretty high quality.

You need add digital dithering when converting 24bit to 16bit in order to avoid distortion.

***** You sir, are very confused by sample rate vs frequency response. Though they all us Herz as unit, but they mean totally different things.

***** This is true. When downsampling to 44.1 or 48khz you need to do careful lowpass filtering to avoid aliasing artifacts.

lentostinato Dithering isn't really necessary. Simple truncation in that case will only cause some minor articats in the -96db to -120db region which is inaudible. Sure, proper dithering is good to use, but no recording ever got ruined for the lack of it.

I have been tempted on several occasions to pick up the Tascam DR60D just to have it but since I have and use the HD-P2 I just haven't pulled the trigger. The P2 is a great recorder (which I got used from a guy in Alaska) and it's got a ton of pro features like gen lock (which I haven't used). I'm a fan of Tascam, I've had them repair the P2 and they're a solid company with good products.

Filmmaker IQ I did eventually pick up a DR60D. It's good but I've had some issues with batteries and long recordings (1hr +) I got a DR70D as well but I had to send it into the factory because of a faulty screen.

I have one and it's definitely a step up in quality from the Zoom H4 I used to use. Filmmaker IQ is right though, it eats batteries like crazy (as most higher quality systems do) so you want to plan ahead with many rechargeable batteries or run off of AC whenever possible.

Me to. Doesnt help that they also used a sound effect that sounds like digital clipping???

@PH VlogLine. HaHa! That was my first thought, too.

ON LEFT BOTTOM Window type to search - take off enchancement -also you can type fix audio -i have to constantly do this --

I'm using a Galaxy 10 phone right now and the audio is loud and xrystal clear. You may have a not so great set of speaker(s).

I agree. I even put headphones on and it was difficult to hear. The content of the video was good but the audio sucked. Thumbs down for me sorry.

Maybe get some not so shitty headphones or watch in a quieter environment.

@@FilmmakerIQ Other people complained as well. So it's not just me.

Actually the audio is quite good! The problem here are different standards for audio loudness aka LUFS wars... by modern standards louder means better, even if it degrades the signal...

Absolutely totally I agree lousy audio on this video.

Learn the difference between low levels and bad audio. Levels were low I admit, but the quality is just fine.

@@FilmmakerIQ I agree good quality But the level was too low. Just curious? Were you using the mic on the camera or Lav of Mike ? Keith Kuhn

Boom mic. Watch the video. It's all laid out.

Daiman Webb don't get too caught up in the recording settings - the single most important thing to get right (aside from decent microphone placement) is recording levels and also mixing levels...

Daiman Webb how are you going bro trust me I struggle alot to understand stuff too