[Richard Crowley]

Powering down seems like a pretty kludgy answer, especially with no power switch and a captive power connector.

I would just overwrite the unwanted frames with a black frame and get on with it. Name it “EMPTY” to help identify that is represents “nothingness”.

[Richard Crowley]

“There are no short cuts on sound , just audible compromises. – Peter Groom”

That is GOLDEN! May I quote you? May I use that in my sig (with proper attribution, of course)?

[Richard Crowley]

Certainly not for everyone, but a rather novel approach. Cut-n-paste from another audio forum…

“Looking for an inexpensive means to capture audio from a dynamically moving crowd, I sampled many MP3 players’ recording capabilities. Ultimately the best bang-for-the-buck was refurbished SanDisk Sansa Clip+ devices ($26/ea) loaded with (open source) RockBox firmware. The most massively multi-track event was a thorium conference in Chicago where many attendees wore a Clip+. Volunteers worked the room with cameras, and audio capture was decoupled from video capture. It looked like this. Despite having (higher quality) ZOOM H1n and wireless mics, I’ve continued to use the RockBox-ified Clip+ devices … even if the H1n is running, the Clip+ serves as backup. There’s no worry about interference or staying within wireless mic range. The devices have 4GB capacity, and RockBox allows WAV capture. They’ll run at least 5 hours before the battery is depleted (with lots of storage left over). I would suggest sticking with 44kHz (mono) capture, as 48kHz is unreliable. To get an idea of their sound quality, here is a 10-person dinner conversation (about thorium molten salt nuclear reactors) in a very busy restaurant. I don’t know how else I could have isolated everyone’s dialog for so little money. (And I would NOT recommend Clip+ with factory firmware… they only support 22kHz and levels are too high for clipping on people’s collars.)”

RockBox Firmware

Thorium Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co-vj_PSfL8

Example video of dinner/conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENH-jd6NhRc

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Richard Crowley]

Sorry, no excuse. Monitoring has nothing to do with the microphone, wireless or not. You monitor out of the CAMERA. If you have such a cheap camera that it doesn’t even have a headphone/audio output, then don’t plan on getting decent audio out of it in any case.

Indeed, if your problem is improper use, then even wireless kits that cost more than you car won’t help you. Without any useful details, there is no supporting evidence for your claim.

[Richard Crowley]

Lower-cost equipment tends to be mechanically less rugged. So you could expect cables to break, connectors to fail, etc. more quickly/often. But these can be repaired if you have the resources.

The receivers in cheaper equipment also tend to be less sensitive and less selective. So they would be more prone to interference. Unless you are out in the jungle or desert in the 3rd world, you can’t just assume that you can turn on your wireless kit and use it without checking for interference from others.

The audio quality in lower-end equipment is also frequently lower, with signal-to-noise, frequency-response, and dynamic-response audible problems.

Note that ALL equipment, whether the cheapest junk or the most expensive stuff on the planet won’t work if the antennas are not properly deployed, or if you select a frequency that already has interference, etc. Or if the lav microphone (or cable or connector, etc.) is broken or intermittent. You cannot violate the laws of physics by throwing money at the problem.

[Richard Crowley]

If you hang around any of these online forums which discuss production audio, you will find no love for Azden. Of course, since you provided no sample of your problem audio, or details of how you were using the equipment, we don’t know whether it is even Azden’s fault or not.

Not intending to beat you up, but I can’t think of ANY excuse for NOT monitoring the audio AT ALL TIMES WHILE SHOOTING. Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder. Why on earth do people think that audio will “take care of itself”? I’ve never understood that concept.

[Richard Crowley]

Actual darkness is useful for the responders to practice under realistic circumstances. But if you are making a training video, trying to shoot using IR seems counter-productive and costly for no apparent benefit to the final product.

In similar circumstances, I have strongly advised against trying to combine shooting a real training video concurrently with an actual exercise. Those are two different projects with different goals, and they will both suffer if you try to combine them. Shooting “B-roll” document to evaluate how the training exercise went is a different thing with different requirements for success.

[Richard Crowley]

Professional-grade cables are NOT the same as “premium” “botique”, “snake-oil”, “big-name” cables.

As you say, the main problem with cheap low-end cables is the materials, construction, and durability. And sometimes, the quality of the shielding. I would be quite surprised to actually HEAR a significant difference even between “low-quality” cables and good professional-grade. (Except for shield integrity problems in hostile locations.)

Stick with the professional brands, Canare, Mogami, Belden, etc cable, and Neutrik, Switchcraft connectors. Avoid anything with the name “Monster” or any of the sleazy consumer “premium” brands.

[Richard Crowley]

I am one of those people who thinks that a clip-on lav is ALWAYS better than ANY boom mic (“shotgun” or hyper-cardioid) for a sit-down interview.

Let’s get with the times here, people! Why are we still using our grandfather’s technology (hanging a mic from a boom) from back when a microphone was the size of a football? We have really excellent-sounding mics nowadays the size of a match-head!

Here are my criteria for using a boom mic:
1) Period piece where the sight of visible microphones is banned. (Or the actors are nude and no place for a mic!)
2) Talent/subjects come and go quickly (like a man-on-the-street interview, etc.) And there a hand-held may be better than boom anyway.
3) The talent is in a hostile environment (i.e. cavorting in the surf where you don’t want any expensive electronics)
4) TRUE “run-n-gun” breaking news coverage where you are chasing the disgraced politician up the steps of the federal courthouse.
5) Film-style (one camera, detailed setps) shooting of SCRIPTED dramatic action where the boom operator knows who/where the next dialog will be. (i.e. big-time Hollywood film/TV production)

Note further that mount the microphone (ANY microphone) ON top of the camera is NEVER a good spot for it. It is ALWAYS a 3rd-rate kludgy compromise and will yield inferior results.

[Richard Crowley]

Even the “good” example has a bit too much ambient for my taste. I would use a clip-on lav for that kind of thing and leave the booms for more dramatic shooting.

I think you could get rid of some of the “ring” using a notch filter, but whether that would render it “acceptable” depends on a great many other factors which likely none of us (except the director) are privy to.

For example, if you were using just a short clip (a phrase or a sentence), or if there were a music bed, or if the audio in the rest of the production all sounds distant, then it might be OK if you can filter it adequately. And of course, what it costs to re-shoot (if it is even possible?)