[Richard Crowley]

My concerns using the headphone output are…
1) More difficult to set/adjust proper levels
2) Reduced signal-to-noise performance both because of low signal levels and because headphone outputs are designed to lower standards.
3) Increased distortion from headphone outputs for the same reason as (2)
4) Removes the headphone output from its normal and desirable use, namely to MONITOR the audio you are recording.

Note that cable is monaural, so you will record only to the left channel. If you want to record both channels, you will need a custom-made cable. I make my own cables, and it is not terribly difficult to DIY. But there are probably custom cable vendors who could make one to your specifications. My favorite dealer of wire and connectors also makes custom cables: https://www.redco.com

[Richard Crowley]

Note that the “MIC/EXT IN” appears to be mic-level ONLY. There is no mention in any of the Tascam documents that it can be switched to line-level. The DR-05 manual suggests using a headphone output and turning it down to “mic-level”. While this works, it is not optimal for getting a good audio recording.

Headphone outputs are typically not equal in quality to the main outputs. And turning it down to mic level is really operating somewhat below the range of “normal operation”. And it can make for a rather “fiddly” adjustment to keep the level correct down at the bottom of the control range.

It would be better to use an attenuating cable to reduce the line-level down to mic-level. The one that is most available to people in the US is the Radio Shack Model: 42-2461 6-FT. RCA TO 1/8″ ATTENUATING CABLE
https://comingsoon.radioshack.com/radioshack-6-ft-rca-to-1-8-attenuating-cable/4202461.html#.VXLu1M9Viko

[Richard Crowley]

That is more an FCP question than an audio question.
There are several FCP forums here and on other websites where could probably have better expectation of a helpful response.

Adobe Premiere has a filter which will “round-off” the clipped peaks of an audio waveform. Dunno whether Apple has something similar.

Since it isn’t exactly “lip-sync” (unless the monkey was singing?) you could possibly replace the audio with a better sample.

My signature line over on another forum is: “Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.”

[Richard Crowley]

Thanks, Ty. Very interesting. I guess they built into the selling price the cost of ribbon replacement.

[Richard Crowley]

Only the festival can answer your questions. You could make two copies and send them both with the explanation that you would prefer the non-compressed version be shown.

[Richard Crowley]

An arbitrary requirement like that can only be explained by the people who made it. Perhaps that is a limitation of the exhibition venue?

[Richard Crowley]

Yes. As Mr. Davis said, treating a space for acoustic problems can be a complex exercise.

OTOH, I was commenting on your statement about “If that doesn’t work I’m going to buy a Sanken COS-11.” You would be FAR, FAR MORE LIKELY to get significant improvement from spending some money on acoustic treatment vs. spending 100s of $$$ trying one similar mic after the next. I was trying to say that at least your budget priorities seem to be still misplaced.

Remember that very effective acoustic control does NOT require expensive, brand-name products. You could also consider shooting in some more acoustically appropriate location. Especially if you are just doing a locked-down “talking head” shot.

[Richard Crowley]

“I’ve ordered the Oscar Soundtech TL-40. I’m going to see how it goes with that,….If that doesn’t work I’m going to buy a Sanken COS-11.”

It still sounds like you are trying to solve your acoustic problems with just the right magical selection of microphone. If the OST microphone “doesn’t work”, the Sanken isn’t likely “work”, either.

You CANNOT solve acoustic problems by selecting the magical brand/model of microphone.

[Richard Crowley]

If you are stuck motionless in front of a camera it is not clear why you are even using a wireless system at all?

Insisting on using a lav, and a HIDDEN lav at that, and refusal to use any kind of acoustic treatment in the space really puts you in an almost impossible situation. If you REALLY refuse to do any acoustic mitigation, then getting the mic as close to your mouth is the best way of increasing the RATIO of SIGNAL (your dialog) to NOISE (the room reverberation and ambient noises). That is why you see (and in many cases CANNOT see) those “headset” microphones. They are quite tiny nearly invisible.

Dressing casually is fine, but insisting on decent audio, while hiding the microphone and refusing any acoustic treatment paints you right into a corner that no directional microphone will help you out of.

You can continue beating your head on the wall, or you can do something more useful by using the proper microphone in the proper place, and/or doing some acoustic mitigation.

In the immortal words of Scotty: “Ye cannae change the laws of physics!” Your requirements are incompatible with the laws of acoustic physics as we know them on this planet.

[Richard Crowley]

The end-goal here is to stay in the “Goldilocks Zone”. Audio levels not so low that they are “down in the mud” of noise. And not so high that they clip on loud peaks. The general guideline for dialog peaks is just a generic rule-of-thumb that clearly depends on particular situation.

Higher is always better UNLESS you let the audio hit the top and it clips, then is is MUCH WORSE.