Stereo mic's again

[Tom]

In prior threads, we discussed (and I learned, thanks to Lou and Larry) of the need to use a stereo super cardiod external mic for recording our concerts. After some successful recording with an inexpensive stereo mic' and a Canon videocam, this time last year I bought a second inexpensive stereo mic, and thought I'd compare both mic's with both the Canon and my Panasonic Lumix G7 'still' camera that also takes decent video.

Something strange during my limited non-tech 'tests' at home ...

Mic' 1 worked great with the Canon videocam, but less so with the G7.
Mic' 2 worked great with the G7, but less so with the Canon.

I proceeded to video our next concert (May/June 2023) concurrently with the 'good' combinations of mic' and camera above.

I recently got our Board to approve the purchase of a 'better' stereo mic'. If I'd taken the time to re-read Larry's posts here, I could have saved myself quite a bit of research, reading/watching reviews and tests comparing the Sennheiser MKE 440 to the Rode Stereo Videomic; I came out of that with the same conclusion as Larry, and bought the MKE 440.

At this week's rehearsal, we had 12 4th graders accompany us playing 4 numbers in a mini-concert for their parents; I recorded only audio of the kids using the Canon videocam, then proceeded to record (video & audio) part of the remaining rehearsal. I used the MKE 440 mic' with the Canon videocam for several numbers, then switched to the MKE 440 mic' with the G7 camera.

When I got home and watched/listened to the video/audio on my PC, I was surprised to find the volume recorded with the Canon was significantly lower than that recorded with the G7 (same mic'). I'd left the MKE 440 with the default settings, and now I'm thinking of experimenting at next week's rehearsal (our last before our concerts). Also, I haven't looked for, or changed, any settings on the cameras, and I need to do some reading on that.

 

[Lou Schneider]

In prior threads, we discussed (and I learned, thanks to Lou and Larry) of the need to use a stereo super cardiod external mic for recording our concerts. After some successful recording with the inexpensive stereo mic' and a Canon videocam, this time last year I bought a second inexpensive stereo mic, and thought I'd compare both mic's with both the Canon and my Panasonic Lumix G7 'still' camera that also takes decent video.

Something strange during my limited non-tech 'tests' at home ...

Mic' 1 worked great with the Canon videocam, but less so with the G7.
Mic' 2 worked great with the G7, but less so with the Canon.

I proceeded to video our next concert (May/June 2023) concurrently with the 'good' combinations of mic' and camera above.

I recently got our Board to approve the purchase of a 'better' stereo mic'. If I'd taken the time to re-read Larry's posts here, I could have saved myself quite a bit of research, reading/watching reviews and tests comparing the Sennheiser MKE 440 to the Rode Stereo Videomic; I came out of that with the same conclusion as Larry, and bought the MKE 440.

At this week's rehearsal, we had 12 4th graders accompany us playing 4 numbers in a mini-concert for their parents; I recorded only audio using the Canon videocam, then proceeded to record part of the remaining rehearsal. I used the MKE 440 mic' with the Canon videocam for several numbers, then switched to the MKE 440 mic' with the G7 camera.

When I got home and watched/listened to the video/audio on my PC, I was surprised the find the volume recorded with the Canon was significantly lower than that recorded with the G7 (same mic'). I'd left the MKE 440 with the default settings, and now I'm thinking of experimenting at next week's rehearsal (our last before our concerts). Also, I haven't looked for, or changed, any settings on the cameras, and I need to do some reading on that.

I've long noticed that many videos posted to places like YouTube have different audio levels, even professional productions. Sometimes the levels are too low for satisfactory playback on my laptop even with the video player and the laptop's speaker gain turned all the way up.

You can "normalize" low audio during the editing process. Movavi Video Editor is one that offers a "Normalize Audio" feature. This raises consistently low audio without affecting the short term dynamic range like a compressor would.

Back when I worked for the radio station we used the "Normalize" feature in Audacity (a free audio only editor mentioned in this article) to set the average volume levels when dubbing CDs and commercials into the station's playback system.

 

[Tom]

You can "normalize" low audio during the editing process. Movavi Video Editor is one that offers a "Normalize Audio" feature. This raises consistently low audio without affecting the short term dynamic range like a compressor would.

Thanks Lou. You're making me think ... I use Pinnacle Studio for my post-concert 'edits' prior to uploading to YouTube, but it's usually limited to chopping the video into individual clips (one song per clip), cropping out audience applause and MC announcements. I know that Pinnacle Studio has a ton of video editing features, and it must also have audio editing capabilities. Off to look/listen ...

 

[Tom]

Thanks Lou. You're making me think ... I use Pinnacle Studio for my post-concert 'edits' prior to uploading to YouTube, but it's usually limited to chopping the video into individual clips (one song per clip), cropping out audience applause and MC announcements. I know that Pinnacle Studio has a ton of video editing features, and it must also have audio editing capabilities. Off to look/listen ...

Looks like Pinnacle has a ton of audio tools, including a normalize function. I played around with it some today. Still have some questions, but the way Pinnacle handles it is quite logical.

 

[Larry N.]

When I got home and watched/listened to the video/audio on my PC, I was surprised to find the volume recorded with the Canon was significantly lower than that recorded with the G7 (same mic').

Keep in mind, Tom, the the MKE 440 has a 3 position gain switch that lets you set levels for different devices, so if you make brief recordings with each device at the different settings you can identify which setting works with which best device. It might not be perfect, but it can help.

I hope you got the "dead cat" (furry wind shield) kit with the 440- I've had that on in fairly strong winds outside and it makes a BIG difference. I also find that even for uses other than in an auditorium, etc, the 440 still gets me the best audio -- works well indeed.

Pinnacle Studio is what I've been using for video editing for years, and the capabilities are tremendous. I'd also echo Lou's suggestion about Audacity in many cases, which can also sometimes help reduce extraneous noise -- a lot of capability there, complementing the sound control in Studio..

 

[Tom]

Keep in mind, Tom, the the MKE 440 has a 3 position gain switch that lets you set levels for different devices, so if you make brief recordings with each device at the different settings you can identify which setting works with which best device.

Understood Larry. I'd left the sensitivity control in the center position, as I did for the same mic plugged into a second camera. It just surprised me what a difference there was between the two combinations. (Edit: corrected statement).

A couple of days ago I tried recording short clips (of me speaking) with different combinations and varying the sensitivity setting. I might do additional testing with the band during next week's rehearsal; I just don't want any surprises with clipping any peaks, or distortion; That's one advantage of leaving it in the low position and subsequently normalizing.

I hope you got the "dead cat" (furry wind shield) kit with the 440

I thought about it but, since the band doesn't perform outdoors, I passed. For the rare times that folks jam outdoors e.g. a picnic (very small groups or soloists), I have my original mono mic' with a dead cat.

Pinnacle Studio is what I've been using for video editing for years, and the capabilities are tremendous. I'd also echo Lou's suggestion about Audacity in many cases, which can also sometimes help reduce extraneous noise -- a lot of capability there, complementing the sound control in Studio..

I haven't used Audacity for many years, and forgot about it until Lou mentioned it. Doing some research last night, I stumbled on references to Reaper; They offer 2 prices (one for personal and non-profit use, and the other for commercial use), both with full functionality. I'll probably download their freebie trial (also with full functionality, and decide if it provides more functionality or ease of use than Pinnacle. In reality, although I've used Pinnacle for many years, I typically fire it up on twice a year after our Spring and Christmas concerts, and usually have to remember how to use it.

Here's a video of an audio pro demo'ing the normalize feature in Reaper, although he doesn't usually normalize.

Meanwhile, some of the original posts where I saw the reference to Reaper were very negative about the need for normalizing.

 

[Lou Schneider]

Meanwhile, some of the original posts where I saw the reference to Reaper were very negative about the need for normalizing.

Like anything else, normalizing can be abused if used in excess, for example recording at a very low level reduces the resolution of the recording because you're using fewer of the available bit steps. But used in moderation it can be a very useful tool.

As an example of reduced resolution I remember listening to the pre-broadcast feed of a remote football game over one of the early digital circuits which had somewhat limited resolution. There was an open mic just barely picking up ambient noise including a band playing on the field. If I cranked the monitor all the way up there wasn't any noise or hiss but I could hear the brass section disappear and re-appear as it dropped below the threshold of the digital encoder. During the broadcast everything sounded fine because the much louder announcers and foreground noises masked the holes in the background audio.

 

[Tom]

.... I remember listening to the pre-broadcast feed of a remote football game ...

Your comment reminded me we used to have a guy in our boat club who contracted with TV stations to run their 'sound truck' for live TV broadcasts of football games across the country. I never did take him up on his offer to meet up if he was working a local game. We've since lost touch.

 

[Larry N.]

I thought about it [dead cat] but, since the band doesn't perform outdoors, I passed. For the rare times that folks jam outdoors e.g. a picnic (very small groups or soloists), I have my original mono mic' with a dead cat.

If those shoots are the only time you use the 440 that makes sense, but I almost always keep the 440 in place since I prefer its performance to either the built-in or other external mics in most situations. Thus the "dead cat" makes a huge difference in a lot of situations, even just a light breeze.

Glad the 440 is working out for you- I love mine, as you can no doubt tell.