BMCC Audio Performance - 1.2 vs 1.3 vs 1.4 vs 1.5

Here are the EQ settings I used in Adobe Audition:

bmc_FFT_filter.png (61.28 KiB) Viewed 62260 times

It's not perfect - but it seems to do a pretty good job.

Based on these latest tests, until BMD come out with a new firmware release that hopefully fixes these issues, I'm going to stick with the 1.3 firmware for now, and apply this FFT filter to all of the audio.

Originally I was thinking that I'd just stick with 1.2.1 and remove the DC-offset in Audition - getting a decent Line Level signal into the camera using 1.2.1 proved to be tricky, and Mic Level is useless because of the automatic switching to line when the signal is "too hot".

Please keep in mind - that this latest tests ONLY takes into account Line Level inputs. If you're sending the camera a Mic Level feed - then I'd suggest referring to this video.

I just saw something like you try to compensate in audition on my last weeks shoot.

Audio devices files where super nice but the same mixer outputted to bmc ref sound and it
"looked" like audio with telephone effect on it. All the lower frequencies were lost so to say in comparison.


I could post some samples if anyone cares.

Yes, if you're using the 1.3 firmware the audio that is recorded has a lot of the lower frequencies reduced - and this needs to be fixed in post production. Luckily - it doesn't look like you're loosing any quality/information though. Mic Level is worse than Line Level.

If you're using the 1.2.1 firmware, you still need to do some audio post production - but it's not as bad.

HOPEFULLY eventually someone from BMD will actually comment on this. They've been deadly quiet - which is really disappointing, and extremely unhelpful.

After careful consideration, I feel safe saying that 1.3 is definitely an improvement on 1.2.1 - but it's still a long while off being useable straight out of the camera. This NEEDS to be fixed.

Anyone from BMD care to comment, or at the very least, release a frequency plot for the 1.3 firmware so that we can EQ the audio correctly?

OK.. One last try before I give up...

Christine Peterson - any word from the engineers about what exactly is going on with the audio in the 1.3 firmware?

OK.. One last try before I give up...

Christine Peterson - any word from the engineers about what exactly is going on with the audio in the 1.3 firmware?

Chris, if I may add. There is one expectation if this camera is offering L/R inputs, Line/Mic levels - That this works like any other professionally built camera. I'm not even going to concern this with the lack of phantom power, because there are work arounds for that.

This means that if I am on a shoot, let's say an interview and all I want to do is set up a simple Seinheisser ME66, which is self powered. On my other cameras, Panasonic HCX 900 or Sony Z7U even Canon 5D with ML, I can plug in my ME66 and it works - no phantom power needed since the mic is powered by a AA battery. This is an industry standard. If I plug my ME66 into my BMCC 2.5k with 1.3 firmware - unusable audio. The levels are so low that even when importing into FCP, I have to jack up the levels so much that there is an unbelievable amount of background "room" noise and I think the fan of the camera is mixed in. Yes, I'm aware that there are work arounds for this. I'm just pointing out that there is a certain level of basic expectation. Now I'm not buying a $3,000 camera, I'm buying a $3,500 because I have to buy a juciedlink adapter? Why offer any audio at all?

I don't expect to get audio to my Canon 5D (I'm aware and use magic lantern), because it doesn't offer two mic inputs with Line/Mic levels and find it a gift that I can record audio to the card in some way. I do expect to be able to record audio in a simple fashion to the BMCC because they are dressing the camera to do so.

We did our first test shoot using audio on our BMCC a few days ago, and my boss was mortified at the resulting sound. He's used a bunch of cameras over the years, from dinosaurs like the Panasonic 502 to the more compact 102, and now to the Canon 5d, and we've never seen anything like it.

We pretty much can't shoot any jobs requiring audio on the BMCC until this is sorted.

We did our first test shoot using audio on our BMCC a few days ago, and my boss was mortified at the resulting sound. He's used a bunch of cameras over the years, from dinosaurs like the Panasonic 502 to the more compact 102, and now to the Canon 5d, and we've never seen anything like it.

We pretty much can't shoot any jobs requiring audio on the BMCC until this is sorted.

What was the sound like? Was it noisy, or distorted?

I'm just curious because I shot a short video using a loaner BMCC a couple of months ago using the BMCC's audio and it sounded quite good. I used a MixPre-D and an Audio Techncia shotgun mic for the audio.

We did our first test shoot using audio on our BMCC a few days ago, and my boss was mortified at the resulting sound. He's used a bunch of cameras over the years, from dinosaurs like the Panasonic 502 to the more compact 102, and now to the Canon 5d, and we've never seen anything like it.

We pretty much can't shoot any jobs requiring audio on the BMCC until this is sorted.

What was the sound like? Was it noisy, or distorted?

I'm just curious because I shot a short video using a loaner BMCC a couple of months ago using the BMCC's audio and it sounded quite good. I used a MixPre-D and an Audio Techncia shotgun mic for the audio.

Really, really low. Boosting it up in After Effects was the only way to even hear it, and the increase in volume revealed a bunch of noise. We used a nearly brand-new pair of Sennheiser (ew112p G3) radio mics.

There has to be a reason BMD hasn't gotten VUs into the camera yet. I was thinking that it might have been because of the DC offset problem but now I'm not so sure.

Really, really low. Boosting it up in After Effects was the only way to even hear it, and the increase in volume revealed a bunch of noise. We used a nearly brand-new pair of Sennheiser (ew112p G3) radio mics.

I'm sure that would have been a lot easier to prevent if the camera had VU meters on it, so that you'd have some way of knowing what levels the camera was seeing in the first place. Sigh.

Really, really low. Boosting it up in After Effects was the only way to even hear it, and the increase in volume revealed a bunch of noise. We used a nearly brand-new pair of Sennheiser (ew112p G3) radio mics.

I'm sure that would have been a lot easier to prevent if the camera had VU meters on it, so that you'd have some way of knowing what levels the camera was seeing in the first place. Sigh.

Having VU meters wouldn't make a difference unless you have a way of boosting your audio which goes back to my post. If the meters are reliable they would tell you that your audio was unusable. If BM is going to offer audio, then the expectation is that it will record at a minimally professional way. In the current state other devises are needed just to meet bare requirements (Zoom, Juicedlink, etc) or other software such as Sound Soap or Audacity.

Now I'm looking at my Canon 5D and my BMCC and debating which is better for what it offers. I know what I'm getting with the 5D. The BMCC doesn't deliver what's promised. The picture from the BMCC is phenomenal, but the lack of expected audio is a huge problem.

IMHO, “looking” at the Blackmagic Cinema Camera’s current audio performance in isolation, Blackmagic Design has fallen short of reasonable expectations.

According to its specs, the BMCC hardware appears to be capable of recording “48 kHz and 24 bit” audio, has balanced audio inputs, and is switchable between mic & line level audio signals. If true, this means the camera is capable of recording audio that should sound fairly good, especially from line-level sources.

In actual practice, although this is somewhat true when using a BMCC with line-level audio sources, it’s definitely not true when working with mic-level sources.

I use Sennheiser ME66 & ME64 microphones with a variety of video cameras. Though not the best-sounding mics available, they’re quite popular, and when used properly can deliver results easily good enough for many professional applications. These mics can be self-powered (using a AA battery) or they can use external phantom power (such as from a camera or preamp), and they have much higher than average output levels — they are relatively “loud” mics (which is a good thing).

However, when directly connected to a BMCC (without an external preamp), the resulting sound isn’t very good compared to using them with most other cameras, including cameras that cost a fraction of the BMCC.

The following video is an example of what my ME64 sounds like when directly connected to my several-year-old Panasonic GH2 “DSLR”, which cost me less than 1/3 of the BMCC’s $3K price:


Not perfect, but quite usable, especially considering it was recorded using a $800 "stills" camera!

I don’t own a BMCC yet and I don’t have a sample video online that demonstrates what the ME64 & ME66 mics sound like when directly connected to a BMCC. However, I tested these mics with a BMCC I had on loan for a few days, and believe me, it didn’t sound anywhere near as good as a GH2 or any other pro or prosumer video camera I’ve ever used these mics with. Not even close. In my informal tests with the BMCC running firmware 1.2, the ME66 & ME64 (and also my Sennheiser wireless mics) sounded so bad (noisy! awful! terrible!) when directly connected to the BMCC (without aid of a preamp) I decided I couldn’t use them that way, at all.

Instead, I used my ME64 mic with my old SoundDevices MixPre preamp together with the line-level settings on the BMCC, and got the following result (see my notes on the Vimeo page for more info):


I think the results are quite good — not perfect, but completely usable for many professional applications. Based on what I’ve heard others achieve using various preamps (@ mic or line level), similar or better results are possible even when using preamps that cost far less than the MixPre (or current model MixPre-D), such as those from JuicedLink.

Going forward I hope BMD updates the audio portion of the camera firmware ASAP to “get out of the way” of what the BMCC hardware appears to be capable of.

Among other things, I think the low-frequency roll-off (hi-pass) filtering BMD added to the current version 1.3 BMCC firmware was a mistake, because BMD applied it to all BMCC audio, including audio from external audio inputs. The previous v1.2 firmware had other issues, but at least it didn’t feature an always-on hi-pass filter. BMD might have added the hi-pass filter to make audio from the camera’s built-in internal mic more usable (to reduce handling & fan noise), but it’s completely inappropriate for this hi-pass filtering to be always applied when using an externally-connected audio source.

Although I’d love it if BMD would please, please add audio level/VU meters displayed full-time on the BMCC LCD, I’d settle for a possibly simpler-to-implement “audio peaking” display, perhaps as simple as a small icon or dot that alternates between green & red to show when audio is either OK or clipping. That, combined with monitoring with good headphones, should be enough to get good, distortion-free audio recordings.

I don’t expect the BMCC’s mic-level performance to be as good as most standalone pro audio gear, but I do expect it to be at least as good as an old GH2. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect BMD can adjust the BMCC firmware so that using it with a good self-powered mic (or other self-powered mic-level audio source) without a preamp can result in good-quality audio recordings. But I could be wrong; maybe the current BMCC hardware can’t do it.

-

Having said all that, let me go back to what I said at the beginning: “Looking at the BMCC’s current audio performance in isolation” …

Given the BMCC’s considerable (awesome!) video capabilities, I actually don’t have a problem paying an additional few hundred dollars or so to add an audio preamp to a BMCC kit if that’s what it takes to also to get high-quality audio.

The way I look at it, the BMCC is an incredible value “as-is”, and for the user to have to add a few hundred dollars to its kit cost (buying a preamp to get really good audio) doesn’t really reduce its overall value all that much.

Yes, I definitely think BMD should fix the remaining firmware audio issues ASAP, but changing the actual camera hardware design — such as adding built-in high-quality mic transformers — is probably never going to happen to the currently-shipping or currently-announced BMD cameras. Hopefully BMD will do that in some future, unannounced camera, but at this point the hardware specs for the current BMD cameras (BMCC-EF, BMCC-MTF, BMPCC, and BMPC-4K) are pretty much set in stone.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for BMD to expect users to add an external preamp for high-quality in-camera sound recording. But I also think it’s reasonable for users to expect that the BMCC should be capable of getting at least good-quality mic-level audio without a preamp, too.

-

Well put Peter, thanks.

With all the new products being released I'm waiting a little longer continuing to use my H4n separately. I'll be curious to see the results of the new H6... if it uses the same preamps as the H4n then it won't work out. But if they are improved perhaps it will be useful as both a recorder and a mixer as it does have a separate line-out this go around. My experience trying to use my H4n as a preamp through the headphone jack that worked out very badly as many people around here also reported.

We pretty much can't shoot any jobs requiring audio on the BMCC until this is sorted.

I disagree. We've been able to get "usable" audio from the BMC on both the 1.2.1 and 1.3 firmware using an external pre-amp. Unfortunately though with both firmware releases you need to do some post-processing to make it sound "right".

An external pre-amp/mixer is a given if you want to get good audio, regardless of what camera you're using. I wouldn't connect a ME66 directly to an Alexa ever if I was being serious with the audio - so you shouldn't expect you can just connect a ME66 directly to a BMC.

If you're doing anything that requires CRITICAL audio - then I'd still strongly suggest using an external audio recorder, and just use the BMC audio as a guide track and timecode reference. Even then, you still need a good external pre-amp/mixer.

Given the BMCC’s considerable (awesome!) video capabilities, I actually don’t have a problem paying an additional few hundred dollars or so to add an audio preamp to a BMCC kit if that’s what it takes to also to get high-quality audio.

You can't just take the camera out of the box and start taking pretty pictures. You need a LENS. This is not included. Same deal with audio. If you want to record decent audio, you need to invest in good microphones and good pre-amps. Pre-amps are like filters. Yes, you can sometimes get away without them - but if you want to achieve the best results, you need the right tool for the job.

If I plug my ME66 into my BMCC 2.5k with 1.3 firmware - unusable audio.

This surprised me, so I decided to do some tests with the 1.3 Firmware...

TEST ONE:
- Sennheiser ME66/K6 and Rode NT3 plugged into a Sound Devices 552
- Both microphones powered by Phantom Power from the 552
- The 552 was set to record 48kHz 24-bit WAV's
- XLR Output from the 552 (set to Line) connected to the BMC
- BMC set to Line Level 100% on both inputs
- BMC connected to MacBook Pro running Blackmagic Media Express 3.2 for audio meters and the actual audio recordings
- Once the footage has been captured to a QuickTime File via Media Express, I then simply drag the file into Adobe Audition 5.0.2 (Build 5) for trimming and exporting
- For the EQ'ed examples below I just used the preset I came up with previously. HOWEVER, this EQ was developed when testing the Line Level performance of the camera, not the Mic Level, so some additional EQ'ing to make the audio sound "right" might still need to be done.

Here are the results:
- ME66 recorded on BMC (Unprocessed)
- ME66 recorded on BMC (EQ'ed)
- ME66 recorded on 552 (Unprocessed)
- NT3 recorded on BMC (Unprocessed)
- NT3 recorded on BMC (EQ'ed)
- NT3 recorded on 552 (Unprocessed)

TEST TWO:
- Next up I connected the ME66 and NT3 directly to the BMC
- As the BMC doesn't supply Phantom power, I had batteries in both microphones
- BMC set to Mic Level at 80% on both inputs

Here are the results:
- ME66 recorded directly to BMC (Unprocessed)
- ME66 recorded directly to BMC (EQ'ed)
- NT3 recorded directly to BMC (Unprocessed)
- NT3 recorded directly to BMC (EQ'ed)

TEST THREE:
- For comparison I also re-recorded the same dialogue to a Tascam DR-100
- The DR-100 does actually have the ability to supply Phantom power, but I decided to power the microphones off their internal batteries
- The DR-100 was set to record 48kHz 24-bit WAVs

Here are the results:
- ME66 connected directly to the DR-100 (Unprocessed)
- NT3 connected directly to the DR-100 (Unprocessed)

TEST FOUR:
- To test the performance of the ME66, I decided to put it up against a Sanken CS-3e (which is one of my favourite interior microphones)
- Both the ME66 and CS-3 were connected directly to the 552
- Both microphones powered by Phantom Power from the 552
- The 552 was set to record 48kHz 24-bit WAV's

Here are the results:
- ME66
- CS-3

Rather than give my opinion on the results, I'd love to hear what you think!

Best Regards, Chris!

Here's another quick test comparing the Mic Level performance to the Line Level performance on the 1.3 Firmware.

In this example I have a ME66 on the Left Channel and a CS-3 on the Right Channel of a Sound Devices 552, which is then connected to the BMC.

Here are the results:

- Mic Level at 80%
- Line Level at 100%

I've also just completed some more tests, comparing the frequency response between Mic Level and Line Level.

For this test, I downloaded a whole heap of test tones/sounds from the good folks at AudioCheck.net, put them together into one long file in Adobe Audition, then exported out a 48kHz 24bit 320k MP3.

You can download the test MP3 here.

I then put this MP3 onto a Sound Devices 552 for playback into the BMC. I then used Media Express to capture the audio from the camera.

Here are the results:

Benchmark Test Track

test.png (193.21 KiB) Viewed 63218 times

Line Level (100%)

line.png (189.45 KiB) Viewed 63218 times

Mic Level (98%)

mic.png (190.76 KiB) Viewed 63218 times

As you can see, there is definitely quite a difference in terms of frequency response between Mic Level and Line Level.

You can download the results from the camera here:

- Mic Level @ 39%
- Mic Level @ 82%
- Mic Level @ 98%
- Line Level @ 100%

It's not perfect by any stretch, but here's an example EQ setting you can use in Adobe Audition to make Mic Level recordings sound a bit more accurate:

BMC_MIC_EQ.png (56.72 KiB) Viewed 63216 times

Here's an example of Line Level recordings on the BMC after EQ'ing:

BMC_TEST_LINE_100_EQ.png (199.46 KiB) Viewed 63216 times

Here's an example of Mic Level recordings on the BMC after EQ'ing:

BMC_TEST_MIC_82_EQ.png (196.78 KiB) Viewed 63216 times

In both examples I've only used a single FFT filter.

You'd probably be much better off using multiple parametric EQ's, but sadly I'm not good enough with Audition/Audio Mastering to offer any useful advice in this department. If there are any audio gurus here that thing they can "level things out" - then please, by all means try and share your results!

Best Regards, Chris!

We pretty much can't shoot any jobs requiring audio on the BMCC until this is sorted.

I disagree. We've been able to get "usable" audio from the BMC on both the 1.2.1 and 1.3 firmware using an external pre-amp. Unfortunately though with both firmware releases you need to do some post-processing to make it sound "right".

Sorry, I was actually just referring to myself and my boss. It's never been necessary for us to use external audio gear in the past, so we don't have any such equipment on hand.

It honestly never crossed my mind that we'd have more trouble with the audio on the BMCC than we did on the Canon 5D, a stills camera.

It honestly never crossed my mind that we'd have more trouble with the audio on the BMCC than we did on the Canon 5D, a stills camera.

Yeah - it's pretty sad.

However it would be really interesting to compare the results of a Canon 5D versus the BMC running 1.3 firmware. I've shot lots of stuff with the 5D but have never actually recorded audio to it because it only records 16-bit/44.1kHz Linear PCM. If I get time, I'll try do some comparisons.

My gut feeling is that the final results will be very similar.

The BMC audio's not "bad" - it just needs a lot of extra post-processing, whereas the 5D gets it pretty close straight out of the camera (however you have no room to move).

It honestly never crossed my mind that we'd have more trouble with the audio on the BMCC than we did on the Canon 5D, a stills camera.

Yeah - it's pretty sad.

However it would be really interesting to compare the results of a Canon 5D versus the BMC running 1.3 firmware. I've shot lots of stuff with the 5D but have never actually recorded audio to it because it only records 16-bit/44.1kHz Linear PCM. If I get time, I'll try do some comparisons.

My gut feeling is that the final results will be very similar.

The BMC audio's not "bad" - it just needs a lot of extra post-processing, whereas the 5D gets it pretty close straight out of the camera (however you have no room to move).

Chris, first I want to commend you for doing such a thorough job on testing the audio on the BMCC. My comparisons are not nearly as detailed. Having done sound for many years for TV shows like Extra, Access Hollywood, basically any ENG style show, I've worked it. My background is basically plug and play. So if the camera has line/mic, I expect it to work as any other camera that offers these inputs. I also expect certain situations to work when needed. For example if I don't have a soundman, can I place a powered boom mic to obtain audio.

So here's my short and skinny of this.
Firmware 1.3 - No - you will not be able to plug in a powered mic and record audio. You will need a booster.
Firmware 1.2.1 - Yes - you will be able to use a powered mic and record audio. You will not need a booster.

I rolled back my firmware to 1.2.1 for this reason. Audio sounds great and works like expected.

So here's my short and skinny of this.
Firmware 1.3 - No - you will not be able to plug in a powered mic and record audio. You will need a booster.
Firmware 1.2.1 - Yes - you will be able to use a powered mic and record audio. You will not need a booster.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I agree.

The only difference between 1.2.1 and 1.3 is the scale of the levels - you still get exactly the same performance.

For example, Line Level at 65% on 1.2.1 is roughly the same as 100% on 1.3. In terms of performance, the quality will be identical - in both cases you're looking at 0dB attenuation and gain, so even if you could go past 100% on 1.3, you would just be adding digital gain which you can do in post anyway.

Remember, you can't just rely on meters with 1.2.1 to judge level because of the DC-offset. If you have UltraScope connected when you're doing audio recordings with 1.2.1 the meters will appear bigger (aka louder) than they actually are. You need to remove the DC-offset then review. You also can't really rely on the meters for 1.3 either, because a lot of the low frequencies are attenuated. Once you bring those frequencies back, the meters will appear bigger (aka louder).

The only differences between 1.2.1 and 1.3 are the DC-offset, frequency response, and the scale of the actual meters in the camera. The pre-amp performance hasn't changed at all. So if you're happy with the results in 1.2.1, then you should be able to get exactly the same end result with 1.3. In both firmware releases you still need to do post-processing to make the audio "correct".

1.3.1 was just released, and I was HOPING that maybe the BMD developers slipped in another audio fix under the radar. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they have, as we're seeing the same frequency issues as before...

BMC 1.3


BMC 1.3.1


Oh well... I guess we keep on waiting...

Thanks for letting us know, Chris!

For anyone's who's interested, I finally got a response from Blackmagic earlier in the week. They are very much aware of the issues in the 1.3 firmware, and are planning to fix them in the future. When... who knows, but at least they're noted as bugs. Fingers crossed 1.4 will be released soon with these issues fixed!

Thanks for all of your work on this Chris. I'm on a shoot tomorrow where I will be setting the camera to LINE IN @ 100% level. I've done some tests recently and can recover the bottom end, but I'm still hearing a lot of hiss on the high end. Wondering if you noticed that as well?

I've done some tests recently and can recover the bottom end, but I'm still hearing a lot of hiss on the high end. Wondering if you noticed that as well?

Yep - as you can hear in the tests I've done previously, there's still a fair bit of noise in all of the recordings. Luckily, if you've got good clean dialogue, you can clean this up to a useable state in post.

Really though... for anything where you need really great audio - just use an external recorder (and send a guide track and/or timecode to the BMC).

Good luck with your shoot!

Really though... for anything where you need really great audio - just use an external recorder (and send a guide track and/or timecode to the BMC).

Hi Chris,

whats the best way of
"....sending a guide track and/or timecode to the BMC" ?

(I have a Marantz PMD 661)

whats the best way of "....sending a guide track and/or timecode to the BMC" ? (I have a Marantz PMD 661)

Sorry for the delayed reply John - I'm currently interstate on a job.

In general, I would send a line level guide track to the Left Channel of the Camera and a line level timecode signal to the Right Channel of the Camera.

In regards to the Marantz PMD 661 however - it's a prosumer device, so unfortunately it doesn't handle timecode at all. If you're mounting the 661 on the camera, then I'd just take the signal from the RCA outputs on the 661 and connect it directly to the camera (ensuring you have the right cabling - as you need to remember that the BMC has BALANCED inputs - otherwise you can run into phase cancellation issues). If you don't want to mount the 661 on the camera, then I'd just use a wireless transmitter/receiver to get the signal to the camera. You can then use something like PluralEyes, FCPX or Premiere CC to sync the camera's guide track to your 661 master audio.

Hope this helps!

Firmware 1.4 is out now. I'm currently on 1.2.1

I'd be interested to know if they fixed the recording external mic levels and the DC offset issue? Or have introduced more audio problems?

Jules

I'd be interested to know if they fixed the recording external mic levels and the DC offset issue? Or have introduced more audio problems?

The DC Offset issue was fixed in 1.3. As far as I know, there's never been any issues with mic levels - however they did change the gain structure in 1.3 so that 100% in 1.2 is different to 100% in 1.3.

I'm currently away from the office, so sadly I can't check out the 1.4 release yet, however I'm extremely hopefully that they've fixed the frequency attenuation issue in this 1.4 release. If they haven't, then that's just bizarre.

Hopefully someone else is able to do a test and let us know if anything's changed!

I worked with 1.4 and sound a bit today, using preamp on Juiced Link CX231. Ran camera input at about 33%, and CX231 on high setting and with Trim up pretty high too. I was able to get a pretty clean voice recording with my NTG 2 mic about 2 feet away. Background hiss was not an issue. I had not previously upgraded to 1.3, so I don't know if there is a difference.

whats the best way of "....sending a guide track and/or timecode to the BMC" ? (I have a Marantz PMD 661)

Sorry for the delayed reply John - I'm currently interstate on a job.

In general, I would send a line level guide track to the Left Channel of the Camera and a line level timecode signal to the Right Channel of the Camera.

In regards to the Marantz PMD 661 however - it's a prosumer device, so unfortunately it doesn't handle timecode at all. If you're mounting the 661 on the camera, then I'd just take the signal from the RCA outputs on the 661 and connect it directly to the camera (ensuring you have the right cabling - as you need to remember that the BMC has BALANCED inputs - otherwise you can run into phase cancellation issues). If you don't want to mount the 661 on the camera, then I'd just use a wireless transmitter/receiver to get the signal to the camera. You can then use something like PluralEyes, FCPX or Premiere CC to sync the camera's guide track to your 661 master audio.

Hope this helps!

Many thanks Chris!

Is V 1.4 doing the low end like 1.3? Or is it like 1.2?

I won't be able to test till Friday.

My test track is on this thread, so feel free to do the tests yourself.

My GUESS/HOPE is they have fixed the frequency attenutation issue. Fingers crossed!

I worked with 1.4 and sound a bit today, using preamp on Juiced Link CX231. Ran camera input at about 33%, and CX231 on high setting and with Trim up pretty high too. I was able to get a pretty clean voice recording with my NTG 2 mic about 2 feet away. Background hiss was not an issue. I had not previously upgraded to 1.3, so I don't know if there is a difference.

I'm sticking with 1.2.1. 1.3 for me broke audio recording on external mics, I think this problem only affected certain BMCCs. Nothing on 1.4 that I need but good to hear that there may be no audio issues any more (a part from lack of audio meters).

Jules

What's the latest word with recording audio into the BMCC. I've got firmware 1.4 and I remember reading that you can get it to work ok in v1.4 but can't find where I read the directions.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to do any tests with 1.4 as of yet.

Hopefully if I get time next week, I'll do some tests with 1.4 on both the BMCC EF and BMPC and post my findings here.

Judging from what I've read online, 1.4 doesn't seem to fix anything on the BMCC EF - but it does fix the frequency response issues on the BMPC - but I haven't done any testing personally to confirm or deny.

Just updated mine. just did a quick test with a signal recorded to h4 and the bmcc. imported the 2 files in nle and listened to both A/B, so this is not scientific but as far as i can say, in terms of Freqency Response nothing changed to FA 1.3, seems pretty much the same no lows.

Thomas

Unfortunately I've been caught up with shoots, but I have everything ready, and hope to do some proper tests either Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. Stay tuned!

I just recently received the BMCC cam, and am blown away by the quality of the RAW 2.5K image it produces. (sans aliasing, but hey, for $2K it's forgivable!)

Audio is super weird and non-workable, as everybody else said. Its behavior also varies widely per firmware version.

Original firmware the camera came with (I'm assuming v 1.3? How come BMCC does not display it?) produced tinny sound from Rode VideoMic Pro.

Upgraded to v1.4.1, current one at the moment - and seems like Line input went way down, plus i couldn't stand what they did with the supersensitivity of the touch screen monitor. It started to respond to the clicks that never there. Interface became unusable, had to revert to v 1.2.1 firmware (because I read 1.3 had audio issues worse than 1.2)

OK so with 1.2 installed, touchscreen UI is back to normal. But audio is still weird:

- Internal mic sensitivity is down. What required 25% slider with v1.4, now requires 60% slider with v1.2

- Still no luck with Line input. I tried two Tascams and a laptop as source of Line-level signal, and can barely hear it when Ch 1/2 are switched to Line, 100% amplification on BMCC, even with 100% output levels on those source devices. Recorded signal is proportionally low as well. WTF - Exactly how high should Line level input be to satisfy BMCC?

I read people use Sound Devices successfully with Line in at 85%. Is MixPre's line out so much higher than Tascams?

Also, the issue of connectors. Exactly which 1/4" plug should be used with BMCC?

At least I am able to record external mic now. Rode VideoMic at +20, connected to Ch 1 switched at Mic level, slider at 25%. Again, FW is v1.2.1 Sound seems passable at those settings.

But I am still spooked by the stories that the cam auto-switches to Line when Mic input is peaking, and that of course will produce a drop out in the recorded signal if true?

But I am still spooked by the stories that the cam auto-switches to Line when Mic input is peaking, and that of course will produce a drop out in the recorded signal if true?

This hasn't happened for me with firmware 1.2.1

Jules

Sorry for the delay - but I've finally done some quick tests comparing 1.3 and 1.4.

Sadly, as far as I can tell, nothing has changed in regards to audio between these firmware releases.

Results as follows:

Test Track:

01_test_track.png (535.68 KiB) Viewed 20960 times

1.3.1 Firmware:

02_bmc_1.3.1.png (564.03 KiB) Viewed 20960 times

1.4 Firmware:

03_bmc_1.4.png (562.79 KiB) Viewed 20960 times

1.4.1 Firmware:

04_bmc_1.4.1.png (551.04 KiB) Viewed 20960 times

Upgraded to v1.4.1, current one at the moment - and seems like Line input went way down, plus i couldn't stand what they did with the supersensitivity of the touch screen monitor. It started to respond to the clicks that never there. Interface became unusable, had to revert to v 1.2.1 firmware (because I read 1.3 had audio issues worse than 1.2)

Not sure what was happening for you. As far as I can tell 1.4 performs exactly the same as 1.3.

As far as I know, you're the first person to report touch screen glitches as well.

Remember, the BMC has BALANCED audio inputs. A lot of people mistake low levels with phase cancellation problems.

Check your cabling. As you can see in this thread, I have been able to get good LEVELS (ignoring DC offset, frequency attenuation, and all the other horrible firmware issues, etc.) from external microphones using all versions of the firmware - it's just that the level SCALE changes in different firmware releases (i.e. 100% line level means something different in 1.2 than it does in 1.3 - but the performance of the pre-amp is the same, you just need to compensate). If you're happy to do some magic in post - then you can still get USEABLE results using a self-powered microphone plugged directly into the camera.

So, how much need is there for balanced output to the BMCC from a PreAMP like the JuicedLink Riggy micro into the camera or into a recorder, they're gonna be close, no long cable lenghts.

I'm looking to go from an external solution like the h4n (which has pretty lousy preamps) to go straight into the camera with a preamp.

So, how much need is there for balanced output to the BMCC from a PreAMP like the JuicedLink Riggy micro into the camera or into a recorder, they're gonna be close, no long cable lenghts.

The juicedLink Riggy Micro doesn't actually have balanced outputs - it has an amplified mic level output via a 3.5mm stereo mini-jack. The juicedLink BMC366 Blackmagic Cinema Camera Preamp however has 2 balanced 3.5mm locking minijack outputs at amplified mic level.

Earlier in this thread Robert from juicedLink explained his reasoning behind why he went with mic-level as opposed to line-level for his Riggy devices.

Balanced cabling is really only useful for long cable runs. If you only have a 10cm cable run - then running unbalanced will be fine as the chance of noise being introduced into the cabling is minimal.

I'm looking to go from an external solution like the h4n (which has pretty lousy preamps) to go straight into the camera with a preamp.

This is definitely an option - HOWEVER, if you're going to be using the external audio anyway and sync in post - then I wouldn't even both with the pre-amp, as you'll just be using this as a guide track.

Adding a pre-amp to the BMC is only really useful if you plan to use the camera for your final audio. With the current firmware, using the audio straight off the camera has major limitations (frequency attenuation issues, it's very hard to monitor the headphone jack, etc.) - but you can't fix majority of the issues in post. Will the final audio sound as good as a professional (or even prosumer) external recorder? No. But depending on what you're filming, you may be able to get away with it.

I'd want a preamp to always be on the rig, would you say that if it goes beyond 10cm, unbalanced becomes an issue.

The long end would be on the input side, which I suppose is balanced because it is XLR ?

I saw the bmc366, but it seems rather bulky, really looking for a smaller solution. And from what I've read, the recorders that do have decent pre amps are yet to become affordable for me.

About the Bmcc internal sound, yeah I've read the threads, it does however look as the ideal solution if it ever gets fixed, for my intents and purposes.

Sent from my Android Phone

would you say that if it goes beyond 10cm, unbalanced becomes an issue.

Balanced cable is really only necessary for long cable runs (i.e. if you have a boom microphone connected directly to the camera). If you're just using the cable to connect a pre-amp that's on the camera rig itself, the chance of noise being introduced into the cabling is minimal.

The long end would be on the input side, which I suppose is balanced because it is XLR ?

XLR cables are balanced - however, balanced cabling only works if both the input and output are balanced. If you connect an unbalanced signal into the BMC for instance, the whole wiring is considered unbalanced.

I saw the bmc366, but it seems rather bulky, really looking for a smaller solution.

The BMC366 is pretty compact, and weighs only 8 oz - I'd hardly call it bulky.

XLR cables are balanced - however, balanced cabling only works if both the input and output are balanced. If you connect an unbalanced signal into the BMC for instance, the whole wiring is considered unbalanced.

So even if it's balanced cabling up untill the bmcc366.

The unbalanced output of it would introduce the possibility of noise happening to the balanced XLR cabling on the input side of the preamp. Correct?

By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions, I'm learning lots!

So even if it's balanced cabling up untill the bmcc366.

The BMCC has Balanced inputs. The BMC366 has Balanced outputs. Therefore the connection between the camera and pre-amp is balanced to help ensure no noise is introduced into the cabling.

The juicedLink Riggy Micro however has Unbalanced outputs, and therefore the connection between the camera and the pre-amp is unbalanced.

This video might be of some help explaining the differences:

http://www.juicedlink.com/xlr-balanced- ... unbalanced