I'm starting to look at HD cams to bring with me to the Olympics in August
my first question is whether the Dolby 5.1 feature on some of the cams is a worthy feature or just a gimmick, the much touted cannon HV series only records in stereo

thanks

I have a Panasonic SD3 with this feature. I view it as a gimmick, but it actually does work somewhat. You can even adjust the gain of each channel independently (kind of an odd feature in what's essentially a point-and-shoot video camera). The main problem is that the mics are mounted on the TOP of the camera, picking up wind and handling noise pretty easily. I would have preferred to have stereo mics facing FORWARD instead of upwards, maybe in a 90 degree X-Y pattern.

I did find that if you connect an external microphone to the SD3, it's smart enough to drop down to 2-channel 256 Kbps Dolby Digital.

Hi syphon00,

I own a Sony HDR-SR1 and am constantly amazed at the Dolby 5.1 surround sound. I don't think it is gimmicky at all; it really adds an extra dimension to your videos.

Sony makes a wireless Bluetooth microphone. I strapped it on my daughter for one of her cheerleading performances. The sound from the mic comes out the center channel and you still get the surround sound on the other channels.

I didn't know the Canon HV's only recorded in stereo. This is shocking. The way people on this forum talk about that camera I thought it would do everything, even make breakfast for you.

Hope this is helpful.

I won't cook breakfast but it will sure as heck run circles around the majority of HD camcorders in the video dept.

Hi syphon00,

I own a Sony HDR-SR1 and am constantly amazed at the Dolby 5.1 surround sound. I don't think it is gimmicky at all; it really adds an extra dimension to your videos.

Sony makes a wireless Bluetooth microphone. I strapped it on my daughter for one of her cheerleading performances. The sound from the mic comes out the center channel and you still get the surround sound on the other channels.

I didn't know the Canon HV's only recorded in stereo. This is shocking. The way people on this forum talk about that camera I thought it would do everything, even make breakfast for you.

Hope this is helpful.
Hi, I'm considering picking up the wireless mic to use with a HDR-SR11.

I'll mostly be using it to attach to a volleyball pole so that I can capture all the up-close sounds of a volleyball match. Is it small and versatile enough to be used in this way?

Thanks in advance.

Hi negitoro,

Wow, that sounds like a pretty cool idea.

The mic is certainly small enough to hook to a volleyball pole. I would be concerned about it getting hit by the ball or the rope though.

I think the distance on the mic is something like 30 feet.

Hope this is helpful.

Thank you for your reply bbibb.

Yes I'm concerned with an errant serve hitting the unit when it's strapped to the pole. I wish I could see it in person so I can get a better idea of its size and construction.

Regardless, I will be ordering this product soon. :)

Without multiple directional mics there is only fake stereo or surround. Manufactures can claim that the cams record stereo, 5.1 or even 7.1, because specs always sell. But in reality unless you have two mics pointing in different directions the camcorder is NOT going to capture ture stereo sound with good seperation. The same is true for 5.1. Most consumer cams do not have more than one mic inside pointing in different directions.
For true HD surround audio capture you need something like a Zoom H2 or H4 digital mic. These tiny mics do studio quality recordings at 24bit/96kHz (three times better than CD qualilty), and they are pretty affordable at less $200. You can easily merge the video and audio in the post.

Panasonic HD-SD9 and HD HS9 record 5.1 Dolby Digital.

Does anyone had experience hooking one of those HD camcorders supporting 5.1 recording and playing back the sound through a none-HDMI reciever?
Technically one should inverst in an HDMI adaptor to seperate DD sound.
How is the quality of the effect captured? Is it worth while investing since I tend to stay with DV Tape-based camcorders that from some reason does not support the 5.1 feature?

Regards,
Alon

I have the Panny SD9, and have played back its 5.1 DD on a standard definition DVD that was converted from raw footage, using the 'supplied' editing software. Played back on a standard definition DVD player (optical output) to an Onkyo home theater receiver, it sounded very clear. All the channels were distinct, I could hear people talking on either side of me, vehicles traveling by moved through the 'space', and even got engine idling from large trucks. There was nothing bad about it.

I can't speak to the hdmi issue, but if your editing software also makes DVDs (as the Panasonic HDWriter program does), then your audio stream is preserved, however it was shot. The SD9 does not have individual channel gain, only a global adjustment. You can, however, select a mode that emphasizes the subject in your lens, and not the world around you.

Hi syphon00,

I didn't know the Canon HV's only recorded in stereo. This is shocking. The way people on this forum talk about that camera I thought it would do everything, even make breakfast for you.



It's not the camera, it's a limitation of the HDV format. My $3,700 HDR-FX7 only records in stereo as it's an HDV cam. As others have mentioned, the best way to get 5.1 sound is to use a directional mics anyway and sync in post.

For my piddlin' around use for my Sony SR5, I find the DD5.1(5.0?) to be pretty nifty. I just burned about 90 minutes from a trip to the Zoo yesterday, and it's seperate enough to hear the crying kid panning from left to LR to RR as we went by. Also bird noises and the hum of the humidifiers in the aviary moving through out the soundfield add tons to the overall presentation.

I'm impressed with the 5.x on the SR11 as well. I think we have two schools of thought in this thread with one being us casual users that enjoy it for what it is (and it is better than plain jane stereo by miles) and then others that want to spend hundreds of dollars on a mic system and more time sync'ing and post processing to produce a vastly superior product.

Either's better than stereo, but I'm not sure how the Olympics would benefit from it to be honest with you. To me one thing that would be important for the Olympics (don't know what events your going to see) but when I went to the summer games an EVF would've been more important than 5.1 sound. You'll be outside in stadium venues in bright sunlight staring at a faded out LCD for many of the events unless you have a good viewfinder to look through.

It's not the camera, it's a limitation of the HDV format. My $3,700 HDR-FX7 only records in stereo as it's an HDV cam. As others have mentioned, the best way to get 5.1 sound is to use a directional mics anyway and sync in post.

No tape based camcorder will record surround sound natively, only certain DVD and hard drive based camcorders, SD or HD. MiniDV did allow for 4 channel recording when set to 12 bit/32 kHz mode. Canon's prosumer camcorders took advantage of that mode as did Sony's DCR-HC1000 with a proprietary microphone. Canon also has an HDV prosumer camcorder that records 4 channels by splitting the full 384kbps audio track to two 192khz tracks at 16 bit 48 kHz. One thing to note is that Canon's AVCHD camcorders do not record 5.1 and select Panasonic's did not while all of Sony's do, even the newly released tiny HDR-TG1.

MiniDV and HDV records stereo, there is a way to get surround sound my doing a stereo matrix encoding (Dolby Pro-Logic). There is a microphone (http://www.holophone.com/pdf/H4_specsheet.pdf) unit that has 5 internal microphones and internally encodes it to two channels that plugs into the stereo microphone jack of any stereo camcorder, but it's sold commercially and is commercially priced, so it's very expensive.

I find the 5.1 sound of the SR12 to be clearly superior to simple stereo. Just the ambience it adds is worth it. It truly adds to the entire viewing experience.

MiniDV and HDV records stereo, there is a way to get surround sound my doing a stereo matrix encoding (Dolby Pro-Logic). There is a microphone (http://www.holophone.com/pdf/H4_specsheet.pdf) unit that has 5 internal microphones and internally encodes it to two channels that plugs into the stereo microphone jack of any stereo camcorder, but it's sold commercially and is commercially priced, so it's very expensive.

How much does that microphone cost anyways? I heard about this thing too which is really a 4 channel but really has just 3 mics, lf, rf and one mic for surround and you can use a external mic for the center front. It's $99, too bad they couldn't make a version that actually had all 5 mics.

http://www.cascade-audio.com/

That's nice, I never seen a cheaper surround matrix microphone yet. The H4 5.1 microphone costs 20x more than the consumer oriented Vive. Looks like something I can attach to my FX1 to give it some form of surround sound while my SR11 and TG1 records it natively, albiet with picture quality not as good as the FX1 in low light.

How much does that microphone cost anyways? I heard about this thing too which is really a 4 channel but really has just 3 mics, lf, rf and one mic for surround and you can use a external mic for the center front. It's $99, too bad they couldn't make a version that actually had all 5 mics.

http://www.cascade-audio.com/

I had a chance to compare the sound of the Sony SR11 vs Canon HV20 (external mic)

Recorded near the woods with tons of ambient bug/bird sounds.

Played back though a basic 5.1 setup. When played back without any processing the Sony revealed a much wider sound field. I have long suspected ( and posts here confirm) that this must be a form of pseudo-surround processing within the Sony camera. I confirmed this when I activated PLII for the Canon and compared it to the unprocessed Sony output. They were now virtually the same. I mean almost identical.

It makes sense. Real 5.1 involves placing/facing mics in various positions around the area you wish to record. Of course this is not the case with the Sony. Thus you get the illusion of 5.1 without real 5.1 input.

The HV20 audio processed through PLII envelopes the listener just as much as the Sony output. It is a neat illusion.

I would never use PLII for anything but this since I am not a big fan of the effect.

When you say you "activated" PLII do you mean just turning it on via your receiver or do you mean you encoded it in post?

When you say you "activated" PLII do you mean just turning it on via your receiver or do you mean you encoded it in post?

Just on the receiver for this comparison.

I have done some experimentation with post-processing and you get a similar outcome.

http://www.holophone.com/products_h3d.html

Check this out for true 5.1 on any camera with a stereo mini in. :)

I had a chance to compare the sound of the Sony SR11 vs Canon HV20 (external mic)

Recorded near the woods with tons of ambient bug/bird sounds.

Played back though a basic 5.1 setup. When played back without any processing the Sony revealed a much wider sound field. I have long suspected ( and posts here confirm) that this must be a form of pseudo-surround processing within the Sony camera. I confirmed this when I activated PLII for the Canon and compared it to the unprocessed Sony output. They were now virtually the same. I mean almost identical.



You can also get the same effect from any stereo camera by using a pseudo-surround filter on the audio track in just about any editor that offers one.

I have in the past also taken a Stereo track into Adobe Audition 2 and created true dolby digital 5.1 sound by chopping up the stereo track and placing the sounds on newly created tracks (center track, left front track....etc). For example... the cam operator's voice balanced on the rear 2 tracks.... the interviewer and such on the center track... etc. But it's REAL time consuming work!

The only way to get true DD5.1 sound is with 5 mics feeding 5 tracks, pointed in different directions. Preferably though each mic should actually be physically placed in the extreme corner (and center) locations of the room or area that you are shooting. Although it's not the end of the world if you can't feed 5 independent tracks because you can encode dolby into 2 tracks.... it's simply not recognized Dolby Digital anymore, but rather Dolby pro logic.

You can also get the same effect from any stereo camera by using a pseudo-surround filter on the audio track in just about any editor that offers one.I strongly disagree.

Sony's cameras (the SR11 for example) capture and record six specific sound tracks. I know this because I had someone talk and walk around me while I taped (on my SR11) and the voice audibly moved when I played the DVD on my home system. 5.1 sound puts you in the picture.

Canon has made a serious error here. I chose not to buy Canon's HV20/30 (otherwise excellent even superior cameras) or any of its other camcorders on this point alone.

IMV, 5.1 sound is a critical feature in choosing a camcorder. With a good home system, you'll hear the difference. Believe me.

The only way to get true DD5.1 sound is with 5 mics feeding 5 tracks, pointed in different directions. Preferably though each mic should actually be physically placed in the extreme corner (and center) locations of the room or area that you are shooting. Although it's not the end of the world if you can't feed 5 independent tracks because you can encode dolby into 2 tracks.... it's simply not recognized Dolby Digital anymore, but rather Dolby pro logic.


Thats not true. All you need is two mics with omni patterns.
You can then adjust combine the signals from the two mics with different phases to steer the beam.
5 of these circuits could then produce sounds pointing in 5 different directions.
The trick is you can't use directional mics when you use this technique.
The radiation pattern of each mic has to some coverage not only forward facing but also backward facing.

Now if you wanted to get the highest quality 5.1 sound, then yes, you need 5 mics.
But I suspect for most people the built-in cam 5.1 technique will be more than satisfactory.

Thats not true. All you need is two mics with omni patterns.
You can then adjust combine the signals from the two mics with different phases to steer the beam.
5 of these circuits could then produce sounds pointing in 5 different directions.
The trick is you can't use directional mics when you use this technique.
The radiation pattern of each mic has to some coverage not only forward facing but also backward facing.

Now if you wanted to get the highest quality 5.1 sound, then yes, you need 5 mics.
But I suspect for most people the built-in cam 5.1 technique will be more than satisfactory.

What you describe of course is entirely possible, but it's known as Pseudo-surround....manipulating the frequencies, phases, and speed of the 2 base signals to produce multiple tracks (much the same way the human ears work which are basically stereo but in spite of that we can judge depth with them), which is different from DD5.1 which is 5 discrete tracks. Now you COULD use the multiple tracks generated from the Pseudo-surround and render them out as DD5.1 sound for a final output, but it wouldn't be DD5.1 from the source and I think that's what you mean when you say "...highest quality 5.1 sound,..."

I strongly disagree.

Sony's cameras (the SR11 for example) capture and record six specific sound tracks. I know this because I had someone talk and walk around me while I taped (on my SR11) and the voice audibly moved when I played the DVD on my home system. 5.1 sound puts you in the picture.

I don't have a SR11 so I'm a bit our of my depth here, so if you say it works, then I believe you. It wouldn't be 6 tracks though.... the LFE track is actually not part of the surround spec and is usually derived from the center track (or a monophonic mix of all tracks) coupled with a low pass filter.

The question is more of a technical one.... are there five directional mics in the cam producing 5 discrete tracks, or is it 2 mics producing sound based on pseudo-surround. Good quality video IMO is only part of the equation. The sound is what really brings it all together.

I do however agree with you that Canon has missed the ball on this one. I have Canons and I go to great (and time consuming) lengths to produce as best I can, DD5.1 sound from the stereo tracks that the Canon records. My next cam won't be a Canon for this reason. I have a fairly high quality surround system that I am forever trying to take advantage of. Good quality video IMO is only part of the equation. The sound is what really brings it all together for that "I'm in the picture" feeling.

The question is more of a technical one.... are there five directional mics in the cam producing 5 discrete tracks, or is it 2 mics producing sound based on pseudo-surround. Good quality video IMO is only part of the equation. The sound is what really brings it all together.Big Barney, I agree. As Dan also notes above, the Sony SR11 seems to capture sound in two channels and then convert these into five channels with a sixth low response channel. The recorded file contains six distinct sound channels.

I suppose one could call this "pseudo-surroundsound" but then by that logic, all camcorders should be called "pseudo-cameras" since they compress image data and don't always record everything that is happening exactly. Alot of interpolation is used.

Ultimately, the proof is in the end result. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, then who cares whether it's really a duck or not because it's the same as a duck.

When I first started looking for a camcorder, I did as many others and focussed on the image quality. Then I recalled the first time that I got the 5.1 sound working on my home TV. Wow!

Moving pictures require good sound. Sony's TG1 and the SR11/12's seem to deliver. I can't speak about other makes or models.

http://www.holophone.com/products_h3d.html

Check this out for true 5.1 on any camera with a stereo mini in. :)

Actually, if you read it more carefully, it's output is a 6 wire XLR.

I am in the market for an HD camcorder. I am torn between Canon HF100 vs Sony CX12, mainly because of surround sound. I like Canon products but in this case I have to think carefully because HD package is incomplete without quality sound. I have a high-end home theater system and consider myself as a mild-audiophile.

Here's the scenario where I need help:
If I play Sony and Canon sound through my home theater receiver, which can decode both Pure Dolby Digital and Doly Pro Logic II, would I hear the same quality sound for both camcorders? Essentially, since Sony is producing pseudo Dolby Digital during recording, can't I have my home theater receiver do the same during decoding with the same quality output? This way my buying decision can become simpler.

since Sony is producing pseudo Dolby Digital during recording, can't I have my home theater receiver do the same during decoding with the same quality output? This way my buying decision can become simpler.

Kind of a complicated thing to explain but i'll give it a shot.

First, the Sony cams are producing REAL Dolby digital 5.1 surround sound not "pseudo" sound. Now it has been pointed out that the mic spread is not good (for reasons of camera compactness) so the channel isolation is not ideal... BUT... it is real Dolby surround (as denoted by the use of the official Dolby name and trademark in the specs).

The advantage to REAL dolby digital (as opposed to "pseudo" surround) is in its DIRECTIONAL value. A sound coming from back to front, or left to right in the original shoot is accurately reproduced on the finished product. In Pseudo surround this is not the case. It is simply a stereo track that has been "colored" a little and sent out to more than 2 speakers. I sometimes produce a pseudo surround sound track from my HV20 stereo track by copying the track, and using a karaoke filter to remove vocals and call that the rear track. It sounds great....but it has no real directional value to it.

Now you CAN get true surround sound on a stereo cam as well by using something like the Vive mic. (It's a mic with multiple mic elements within a single casing and contains a prologic encoder). It however operates on a Dolby prologic level, not a Dolby digital one. It uses the prologic encoder that will encode the rear tracks INTO the stereo track which is then recorded by the cam. On output from the cam, you still get a stereo track, but if played back on a system with a prologic decoder, the rear channels will be decoded and played.

The big disadvantage to the prologic signal however is that it is tough to edit. There are many cheap and effective software solutions to editing Dolby Digital but this is not the case with prologic. In fact (so far anyway) there is no real software solution to opening a prologic signal. You have to use a hardware decoder (such as your prologic surround system), playback the prologic, and then re-capture (or record) each channel as it plays back.