[Richard Crowley]

Note further that the exact answer to your question depends on what legal jurisdiction applies to your situation. My response (and presumably that of Mr. Stinton) was from the perspective of the USA, while Mr. Rossiter related an anecdote from the UK where the copyright law is somewhat different, but apparently business deal shenanigans are the same around the world. :-))

[Richard Crowley]

Simple answer: You need a “synchronization license” to include music in a video or film production.

You must negotiate with the rights holder of the music (the publisher, the label, whomever it is) for the rights. In many cases, you will find that it is way beyond your budget. That is why there is a brisk business in “sound-alike” production music.

It makes absolutely no difference that you are a non-profit or whether you distribute copies for free or for $$$. You must have a sync license.

If you have some personal relationship with the composer, performer, rights holder, etc. you could parlay that into some kind of deal within your parameters. Nothing prevents the rights-holder from granting a free license if they wish.

You can identify the rights-owner of many songs using the Harry Fox (HFA) online directory: https://www.harryfox.com/public/songfile.jsp If you were only distributing sound recordings, then you could use a compulsory “mechanical license” which you can purchase online from HFA at “statutory rates”. Alas, there is no equivalent for “sync license”.

[Richard Crowley]

The fate of the 700 MHz band has been known for a decade. The FCC did nothing to discourage the sales and use of of thousands (10s of thousands?) of units. Indeed, they act as if they didn’t know what was going on. “‘I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” The FCC has become just another politicized government bureaucracy.

Probably way less than 5% of all wireless mics were ever “licensed”, so most users are “going pirate”. Note that the users who WERE licensed have no benefits to show for it. They must jump out of the 700MHz pool just like us pirates. Arrrg! 🙂

[Richard Crowley]

“Moving forward getting a wired mic might be the best option.. I’ll have to discuss the pros and cons of both approaches. The only thing I can see is them not wanting to be limited in how they walk around the room.. but its either be limited or run the risk of the interference I guess.”

Everything is a tradeoff decision. What is more important, a clean recording, or the spontaneous wandering of the presenter? You can make a case either way.

“Will be doing some post cleanup over the next couple of days, so we’ll see how that goes. ”

Cell phone RFI noise is particularly tough to eradicate. It is not that different from the intentional jamming done behind the Iron Curtain during the bad old days of the Evil Empire (USSR).

[Richard Crowley]

DV25 is spatially compressed 5:1 right in the camera. That is the definition of “DV25”. It is the same bit-stream whether you grab it live out of the camcorder or record it to tape and then play it back.
(With the possible exception of tape artifacts.) DV25 is NOT temporally compressed.

Note that because DV25 uses 4:1:1 compression (4x as many green samples as red or blue), using GREEN screen (vs. BLUE screen) generally will allow better results when trying to chroma key with DV25.

[Richard Crowley]

“Then, there’s my favorite option: a wired microphone. Is there any reason that you cannot use a wired microphone to pick up the audio? ”

Yes, that is my BKM! (Best Known Method). It is no longer practical to get 100% audience (and even crew) compliance with turning OFF all their little pocket jammers.

My favorite solution was the movie producer who took offending cell phones, etc. from cast and/or crew and nailed them to the door frame (or the fencepost). Probably not practical for most of us. :-((

[Richard Crowley]

“All users of 700 MHz Band wireless microphones (and similar devices) who wish to continue to use their equipment – including users such as theaters, churches, schools, conference centers, theme parks, and musicians – will need to retune (or replace, if necessary) their equipment no later than June 12, 2010….”

“… If information on the device indicates that it operates on frequencies between 698 and 806 MHz then the device uses the 700 MHz Band and may NOT be used after June 12, 2010….”

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wirelessmic_advisory.html

[Richard Crowley]

“But still…..-10dBFS is when referencing -20dBFS as 0VU. ”

-20dBFS is the pro-standard for tone reference in the digital age. It is equivalent to the “0dB” back in the analog age. It clearly allows for 20dB of headroom above the “reference” level. As you say, it would be the same as PBS specifying back in the analog age that peaks of +10dB were permitted. (And I vaguely recall that WAS something like the PBS spec back in the analog age.)

Note that many users of “prosumer” equipment use -12dBFS as the reference level. This leaves 12dB of headroom, but gets average levels higher above the (somewhat higher) noise floor of prosumer equipment. Some might argue that all of us who record single-system audio to video camcorders are “prosumer” because no video cameras (even high-end “broadcast” models) have really notable audio sections. 🙂

[Richard Crowley]

Thanks for posting that, Terry. Note that most of those numbers that seem very “low” are based on readings from specialized (read: expen$ive) averaging meters like Dorrough, etc. and not on the kinds of metering most of us have available.

I believe the “bottom line” number in the PBS spec that applies to us who are using ordinary computer-based NLE is…

“3.1.3 Programs are permitted to have audio levels that regularly peak near but not above the following limits using a digital peak meter: SD: -10 dBFS…”

I am a bit surprised at the “-3dB” number quoted for HD. I suspect it means that we can expect the audio levels will be further “adjusted” at one or more places along the transmission path. I’d be happy if they could just keep the audio in sync with the pictures. 🙂

[Richard Crowley]

“I may have misspoke when I said I recorded at 30-25 dbs. The audio is playing back at that rate, but actually closer to -18dbs when someone speaks.”

Even -18dB seems rather low for speech peaks. I would prefer something more like -12 or -10dB for peaks. Not sure what you mean by “recorded at”?

“I imported a track from a cd … and that played back at -14 dbs (on average, as it fluctuates)”

That seems rather low for a commercial CD recording. Where (and how) are you seeing “-14 dbs”? Maybe your overall levels (or monitoring levels?) are set too low.

“So I think what I’m seeing is just volume level.”

Yes “volume level” is what dB measures. There are not two different things here.

“Do you know what db level it should be at for dialogue?”

I’m not sure what you are asking here? If you mean “what level should I peak speech while recording”, then my suggestion would be around -12 to -10dB. If you mean “how loud should I mix the mono speech track in my production mix”, then only you can answer that based on artistic decisions. It is not a number that someone can prescribe in an online discussion forum.

“Also, Adobe Soundbooth lets me save mono files as stereo files and this creates two tracks.”

So it just “copies” the mono channel into both the left and right stereo channels. If that stereo track is all you need from mixing, then that seems OK. But if this mono track is one of several that you are mixing together for the production, I don’t see the point in converting it to “stereo”?

“Everything appears to be synched.”

Sync would not be expected to be an issue when simply copying a mono track to left and right stereo tracks. The tracks are identical copies, and redundant.