Head Clog cause audio issue on DVX-100a

[ProSound]

I did a simple internal Corporate video earlier this week With my 442 Mixer hardwired into a very old DVX100a using my 416 Boom to both channels on camera. The camera was provided by the company we were doing the video for.  I get a call from the company saying that every 5-6 minutes they is some sort of digital noise then the audio cuts out for a few second and then everything is fine. This happened on all 3 mini dv tapes we shot. I explained to the client that i was listening via the camera return, the camera operator was listing via headphones and the producer was listening via a IFB. The client then asked me if i did a playback check and i said that isn't part of my normal work flow. He then tells me they have had problems with this camera before with "The heads getting clogged and broken or no audio gets recorded to the tape even though it sounds fine via headphones". I asked if they had ever sent the camera for repair before they said no they had just used a cleaning tape. Fortunately 95percent of the audio is good but I don't feel that I am not to blame for this and that there camera being poorly maintained caused this issue

My question is do most of you do a playback check at the start of each day to check audio?

Does the clients explanation of a clogged head perhaps explain this issue?

Thanks

[Guest Ken Mantlo]

You can't be blamed for their crappy equipment that they force you to use, specially if they don't do maintenance on it.  I guess it's another reason to roll a backup.

I know this doesn't answer your question.

[Jeff Wexler]

My question is do most of you do a playback check at the start of each day to check audio?

Does the clients explanation of a clogged head perhaps explain this issue?

Thanks

Usually a playback check is done first off since few if any of the monitor return options listen off the tape, most are what is called E to E so it only lets you know that your signal arrived at the camera. Even if you had done a playback check in the morning this would not have caught the problem with the camera, a problem which the supplier of the camera was already well aware of. Head clogging could certainlyt be at fault but YOU are not at fault.

-  Jeff Wexler

[old school]

Whitney, not your problem, all theirs. I own and still on occasion use my DVX100a and they are prone to the tape head clogging. This has always been a visual F U in my experience, not a sound issue, but I am sure it could happen. They should of paid you more to roll a back up. Hope they learned something other than to clean the head of the camera.

CrewC

[RPSharman]

This is really why I feel it is so important to run a back-up.

Even though you are not to blame, our reputation is often at stake if there is anything wrong with the audio.

Basic recorders have become so inexpensive that there really seems to be no excuse not to run at the very least a 16-bit, 2-track, non TC back-up on a since flash card.  Production should be willing to at least buy the media.

Robert

[ProSound]

This is really why I feel it is so important to run a back-up.

Robert

Thanks for the input, I agree 100 percent about running a back up. I usually do that via my zaxcom wireless hop. However since this was a hardwired gig I didn't have it hooked up when I get my 552 this will be solved though the backup in this case would have not been in sync with the video since it was a a dvx 100.

[André Boisvert]

I never do playback checks. Even if you had done one in this case, what's the likelyhood that you would have fallen on the few seconds of bad audio if it only occurred every 5-6 minutes?

Even hardwired, I always roll a back up (a $280 Edirol).

[Nicole Hankerson]

Whitney(off topic)-Is your 552 still being worked on?

Nicole

[RPSharman]

However since this was a hardwired gig I didn't have it hooked up when I get my 552 this will be solved though the backup in this case would have not been in sync with the video since it was a a dvx 100.

I know you are a proponent of running a back-up.  This was more of a general comment.  I am curious, however, about a back-up not being in sync with this camera.  What am I missing?

Robert

[Jeff Wexler]

I know you are a proponent of running a back-up.  This was more of a general comment.  I am curious, however, about a back-up not being in sync with this camera.  What am I missing?

Robert

Whatever digital recording device you use will be in sync with the camera audio providing you can find at least one common start point which can be anything from a hand clap to a car door slam. If you have had to resort to an audio backup because of some failure of the stated primary recording device (the camera) everyone should be quite willing to fiddle with things a bit...  if it is stated up front that it is a true double system job, then you would have to provide some consistent and proven method of achieving sync.

-  Jeff Wexler

[RPSharman]

Whatever digital recording device you use will be in sync with the camera audio providing you can find at least one common start point which can be anything from a hand clap to a car door slam. If you have had to resort to an audio backup because of some failure of the stated primary recording device (the camera) everyone should be quite willing to fiddle with things a bit...  if it is stated up front that it is a true double system job, then you would have to provide some consistent and proven method of achieving sync.

-  Jeff Wexler

Right.  This is what I thought.  The DVX100 is a video camera, so if the sound recorder is set for 29.97 then the sound recording and camera should remain in sync from a fixed sync point unless there is drift in this camera.  Is that perhaps what Whitney meant by stating his back-up would not have been in sync, because they were using this particular model of camera?

Surely even with a bad camera, the sync can be maintained long enough between edit points?

Robert

[studiomprd]

" so if the sound recorder is set for 29.97 then the sound recording and camera should remain in sync "

JW said it correctly...

TC is not necessary, -not even an option on the camcorder in question- and thus there is no 29.97, 23.976, 24, or 30 FPS involved.  the sound recorded on a stable recorder should remain in sync.  There would not be any pull-up or pull-down issues.

[Freeheel]

Usually when I am hooking up to a camera for the first time, I'll ask for a quick record and playback.

It probably wouldn't have caught your issue however.  And I agree that you are not responsible for the clients lack of maintenance.  He should have asked you to run a backup if he thought the camera was going to fail. 

Unfortunately there are a number of problems that can show up as audio issues on digital tape cameras.  I always figured that if the audio failed, the video would be toast as well.  This was proved wrong to me with  a Sony 900r that had failing head brushes (new camera)  The camera would drop audio randomly, but the picture stayed up.  On further examination, the video was artifacted, but it was scary to me that a mainly usable image was recorded and the Audio track dropped out.

That event made me more insistent on doing my "audio recorder" check. 

(My ongoing joke with camera guys is that they are just there to carry my audio recorder... 

Cheers,

Brent Calkin

[Jon Gilbert]

I had very similar problems to you Freeheel with a 900r, luckily, being the paranoid sort that I am, I was recording a back up and that day I'd taken delivery of new Lockits, so was using those to test them, so production ended up with a fully timecoded back up for nothing.

As for playback checks, if there's time I'll record 30 seconds of speech and listen back to that off the camera, but if the cameraman doesn't give me the time to do that, I trust my equipment and my back up!

[Thomas Popp]

As a lot of people are saying, running a backup is in my opinion a complete necessity for us. Even if a company isn't willing to pay for the backup audio, I always hide a backup recorder (as small as the ZFR100 2 track recorder) in a bag in order to protect myself.

It isn't your fault that their equipment was messed up, but you could have proved your point and then saved the day if there was a backup!

~Thomas

[John Blankenship]

...Now with this knowledge shared anyone working on a job where this camera is being used should be forewarned, and should suggest to your client the use of an additional recorder due to this particular issue.

...Thanks for sharing your story, and thanks to the Group for letting us all know that these cameras have a suspect audio recording chain.

To be fair, both the DVX-100 & DVX100A have logged thousands of hours with little problems.  It still is one of the better sounding mini-cameras out there.  I've worked with many of these (and still own one) and have had few problems.  Like with any equipment, proper maintenance is important.  Over the years, I've seen more issues with Sony Betacams than with the Panasonic DVX series, but both are normally reliable if properly maintained.

However, as the DVX-100 series ages (as well as Betacams, etc.), it does become more important than ever to be cautious, as these kinds of problems become increasingly likely.

John B.

[Sam Mallery]

I never do playback checks. Even if you had done one in this case, what's the likelyhood that you would have fallen on the few seconds of bad audio if it only occurred every 5-6 minutes?

Even hardwired, I always roll a back up (a $280 Edirol).

I do this every time with my R-09HR, whether it's asked for or not. In my short career it's already saved a couple of scenes. I always roll it at 24-bit 48kHz. You can fit many many hours of audio on a $20 Radio Shack brand SDHC card.

Back in 2002, a few friends of mine who were into production (on the video side) shot a video of the band I had at the time. They came to two of our live shows with two camera people. On one of the shoots one of the cameras had an audio glitch freakout in the middle of the show. It pretty much ruined their plan, and they ended up never finishing the video.

I was surprised because (at least for 2002) they had pretty fancy video cameras. I guess it sort of cemented in my mind that you always have to run double system.

I was talking about the topic of redundancy on a shoot recently with a photographer who was a big equipment fiend and an former Marine. He said in the Marines they have a saying "Two is one, and one is none." I thought that was pretty right on.

We aren't audio people. We are Marines!

[Marc Wielage]

Whitney I don't feel this is your problem in any way.  As long as you suggested to them to record a "back up" or do the job as a "double system."  They in turn made the choice to only have the audio sent to their recording device, which they knew was suspect and didn't mention it to you.

I'm curious how messy it would be if a client refused to pay for a backup recording, wanted the sound only on camera, and then later realized some of the camera tracks were bad. Would it be blackmail if the mixer did record a backup and offered the client a copy for a fee (like equivalent to the rental fee for the recorder they initially didn't pay for)?  "Yeah, it's just 'protection' money."

I see no easy solution to this. These penny-pinching morons making the decisions don't realize how very fragile data is -- sound and picture. I don't trust what's going to the camera worth a damn, but I'm a paranoid (sometimes) post guy.

And I agree 100% with what Sam says above. I've also seen similar low-budget projects go down in flames because of bad decisions made early on.

--Marc W.

[RPSharman]

I think it's a matter of convincing production that they are hiring a professional sound mixer, and in that capacity we record to our own system.  You make a deal that you are comfortable with.  If they aren't offering you enough money to do the job professionally, then turn it down or join the race to the bottom of "lower standards for less money".  It's no different than a DP saying he can't shoot something professionally without X or Y.  If production can't afford what he wants, then he either lowers his standards or he walks away.

Robert

[studiomprd]

" for a fee (like equivalent to the rental fee for the recorder  "

actually,  more!!

" If they aren't offering you enough money to do the job professionally, then turn it down or join the race to the bottom of "lower standards for less money". "

I agree, but there are some who then cover there butt at the lower standards, and make the recording they aren't paid for making... if production later comes back and wants that, I have no problem charging them more than if they had agreed to that earlier...

[RPSharman]

I agree, but there are some who then cover there butt at the lower standards, and make the recording they aren't paid for making... if production later comes back and wants that, I have no problem charging them more than if they had agreed to that earlier...

I think that's a slippery slope.  Any producer stupid and cheap enough to refuse to let you professionally record a back-up is likely the same producer who will scream "sabotage" if their camera audio fails and they have to pay you extra to get your back-up recordings.

Robert

[Marc Wielage]

Any producer stupid and cheap enough to refuse to let you professionally record a back-up is likely the same producer who will scream "sabotage" if their camera audio fails and they have to pay you extra to get your back-up recordings.

If the camera fails, I'm not sure who's guilty of the sabotage -- especially if the sound guy is sitting 50' away and never even gets near it.

It's definitely a slippery slope. I'd just rather hammer them into paying for the recorder, unless they could absolutely verify the camera audio was perfect every step of the way (which ain't gonna happen with DV tape). I have to say, though, I've never seen audio fail on an HDCam with tape -- knock on wood!

--Marc W.

[David Waelder]

It's a tricky business getting additional money from any production company after the job wraps. Even when there is an entirely legitimate reason such as L&D the request is often accompanied by some bad feeling.

The situation of providing audio from archives has only come up once for me - the producer actually misplaced the disks! - and on that occasion he offered to pay me something for my time to recopy.

I'm thinking that it might be best to approach this by suggesting to the production company that it's only proper that they compensate you by paying something for the gear that made the back-up and for your time to recopy. Ask them to pay whatever they think is fair. If they think they should get it for free, shrug your shoulders, make the copy and let it go. You know something about them that might be useful at some time in the future when bookings are (we hope!) more plentiful and you need to choose which assignment to accept. In the meantime, no can can accuse you of taking advantage of the situation if you make no demands.

David Waelder

[studiomprd]

"sabotage"

a definite risk...

reminds me of all the folks who would purposefully send degraded audio to camcorders, their thinking to prevent use of camcorder audio.

" on that occasion he offered to pay me something   "

of course, you are working on the real productions, with real budgets, and real professionals.  they probably didn't nickle and dime you on the package rates.  These are the clients we like, and these folks aren't the problem...

[David Waelder]

of course, you are working on the real productions, with real budgets, and real professionals.  they probably didn't nickle and dime you on the package rates.

Well, sometimes that's the case.

But, in the particular example I cited, I was hired by a friend who was shooting an ethnic cooking show entirely on spec, paying for it out of his own (not very deep) pocket. He was just a decent guy. I don't remember what I charged him - probably about $25. Just enough to encourage him to remember where he put critical elements.

David