Keeping Up with REAPER Video

The REAPER forum is a regular stop for me. That’s where I learned about video in REAPER and where I look for the latest info. The video implementation is actually still in Alpha form, so it’s not fully supported and documented. Here’s the thread that announced the use of FFmpeg libraries.

Forum member airon has created a thread where he tracks the current state of video in REAPER, “Video Playback and Exporting” that I check often. He keeps it updated with the current FFmpeg libraries of choice, along with other news and tips.

Here’s the Cockos Wiki page describing video support. It includes details on installing the library files.

With all my enthusiasm, please remember that there are no video effects in REAPER currently. No fades, no transitions, no flipping or stretching. All we can do is move clips (and stills) around, trim them, and sync with separate audio tracks. So our style will be defined by those limitations.

Titles and Tricks

A static title is pretty easy to add to your project in REAPER. Just create a jpeg or png image in your favorite tool, heck, Windows Paint will do the job. Be sure to set the size to match your video, for instance 1280 pixels wide by 720 pixels high is a common HD video size. Start with an image or create a gradient, then add text, maybe in a couple of stages or pages. Then drag these into REAPER, drop them on the project timeline, and stretch them to match the tempo of your clip. You can see this technique in action in the tutorial video below.

You might have stills that contribute to your video, or a second or third camera shooting. Or you can extract stills from your video and use those for effects. REAPER 4 can handle multiple tracks of video along with multiple tracks of audio. The audio from all the video tracks will be part of the mix, but only the lowest (highest track number) video will be displayed. Once again, watch the video below to see these operations.

If you mute a video track it stops displaying the video as well as turning off the audio. To eliminate the audio but keep the video, just turn down the volume slider on the track, or use the Item Properties to turn down the audio.

Syncing and Slicing

The audio waveforms displayed in REAPER make syncing multiple video and audio clips a snap, especially if you create a sharp noise at some point when all the devices can capture it. The is exactly like the old “clapper board” you see in movies about making movies. You can simply clap your hands to get a spike in the audio that makes syncing easy.

Once you have tracks synced, take care to keep them that way. Use Item / Group to join items, or be careful to select all the items that belong together when you move, stretch, or trim items. In the video below observe how easy it is to select multiple items to keep them in sync. Also, I’m using ripple editing most of the time to maintain the correct relationship between items.

Cutting video items is just the same and just as easy as cutting audio. Select the item, position the edit cursor, press the S key, and your item is split at that point. As above, make sure all the items that you’re keeping in sync are selected and get split appropriately. I use ripple editing a lot when I’m trimming out parts of my videos.

Tweak the Audio

Even though there are no video effects available, the full range of audio processing definitely is present when working on video in REAPER. For instance, the clip I’m working on in the tutorial video below was shot with a Zoom Q3HD for the main video and audio. I raised the level, added some compression, applied a touch of reverb, and then put a limiter on the output to make sure I didn’t clip. The Q3HD delivers pretty clean audio but it tends to be a bit low in level and punch, so the ability to tweak the sound really adds to the usefulness of this little camcorder.

Rendering

Currently the h.264 video codec seems to deliver the goods for internet video. With the FFMPEG codec library installed in REAPER this is my preferred output. So I select the following options:

Output format: Video (FFmpeg encoder)
Format: QT/MOV/MP4
Size: 1280 x 720
Framerate: 29.970
Video codec: H.264
Bitrate: 9000
Audio codec: 16 bit PCM

Watch the Action

I used the Q3HD and a Creative Vado 3rd Gen to shoot an old Hawaiian slack key standard, My Yellow Ginger Lei in the style of Uncle Leonard Kwan. I decided to turn the video into a little tribute to my Kathy Wingert Model E guitar, so I used the guitar for the title still and shot a video of the guitar on a stand. Then I used REAPER 4 to combine those elements into a final clip for YouTube.

While I did the editing job, I shot with a couple of Sanyo Xacti HD2000s and recorded audio on a Zoom H2n. I edited those together to create a tutorial video:

and by the way, I put that tutorial together in REAPER 4 as well.

If you’re interested here’s the finished version of My Yellow Ginger Lei on my slack key channel:

I don’t think anyone is going to cut a major motion picture in REAPER, but as a way to tweak YouTube performance clips quickly and easily with an emphasis on audio, it’s a pretty decent tool.

As usual when I do these comparisons I take a little trouble to get the clip levels matched. The more I’ve investigated audio the more I realize the importance of matching volumes. So for this comparison I used REAPER to generate a 1000 hz test tone and recorded it into all the systems. Then I used that recorded tone to adjust the volumes of the recorded tracks. This is more reliable than trying to match peak or average levels in the constantly changing energy of the music track.

Here’s a video that takes you through the process of generating these clips.

And here are the trimmed and volume matched clips for you to download and compare:

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20110907/NT4.wav

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20110907/D50.wav

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20110907/H2n.wav

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20110907/H2.wav

So how do those clips sound to you? When you go to the fadeout and turn up the volume, you should be able to hear a car go by out on the street, even though the window was closed. Listen to that section for the differences in the background noise.

The build quality, at least the “feel” of quality, certainly goes to the Sony in this comparison. It’s constructed of finely detailed metal, with firm precise switches and a solid hefty feel in the hand. Many of its features are are controlled by dedicated switches instead of relying on a menu.

The Zoom H2n instead feels light, even a bit cheap. Definitely constructed of plastic and with a minimum of dedicated external controls. The Zoom offers variable stereo patterns, but so does the Sony, using different technology. The Zoom has the advantage of a surround sound mode, and I also much prefer the “electric shaver” form factor of the H2 because it doesn’t require a stand and the metering is visible when the unit is in recording position. And of course there’s a substantial price difference between the units.

They both offer external mic and line in recording features, which I’ll look at in a future post.

Now that I’ve done it, though, I’m pondering uses for all these gadgets. One that I’ve been playing with for a while is a “guitar cam” – a camera mounted directly on the guitar and giving an unusual view of the performance. With all these cams hanging around and Lynnie out of town I went to work.

The choice of guitar was pretty easy. The Epiphones have scattered, so the sacrificial guitar around the house these days is stage guitar #1, the Composite Acoustics OX. It’s really ideal for this project because my main tool is double stick tape, and the “raw” finish of the makes it unlikely to suffer damage.

Past Experiments

I’ve already tried out various mounting techniques for a peghead cam. I’ve used my smallest Gorillapod, but that proved too shakey. A mount that vibrates makes for a sea-sick viewing experience. One of my favorite engineering materials is packing foam of various kinds, but once again these efforts were lacking in stability, especially when I mounted the largish Zoom Q3HD on the peghead. I wound up with a stick of wood, a 1/4-20 bolt, some plastic, and lots of double stick tape, and came up with this.

Double stick tape, a 1/4-20 bolt, and a piece of wood

Success At Last

This mount was stable and gave a good view of the guitar neck. Here it is mounted.

Double stick tape attaches the device to the guitar

Adjustability could be better, but it works. Heavy duty (gray) 3M double stick tape holds a stack of plastic chunks together, guiding the 1/4-20 bolt at an angle to the stick. Then lighter duty (clear) 3M double stick tape holds the stick to the back of the guitar peghead.

But We Have More Cameras

Once I had a couple of decent test shots from the peghead mounted Q3HD, I started thinking about mounting additional cameras. First, one looking straight up from the bottom of the guitar, to get the fingers plucking, and my beautiful face!! Well, that didn’t work so well. The plucking was out of focus and at he wrong angle, and my face just isn’t that lovely, or interesting.

OK, let’s put one on the front, looking at the picking hand alone. Hey, and the Kodak Zi8 has a macro setting that I almost never use. Now all we need is one looking at the fretting hand from my view. The small and light Creative Vado 2nd Gen (or third, or however many) looks like a good candidate. Sure enough these cams were easy to mount with just a bit of clear double stick tape.

Kodak Zi8 mounted in the cutaway of the CA OX Raw

3M double stick tape holds the Vado easily

Three video cams mounted on CA OX

Lights, Cameras, Action

With the cameras mounted I scouted a location. With my sweetie out of town for a few days I had the whole house for my stage, and I found just the spot. Ordinarily I would never try to record in the close in space of a bathroom or shower, due to the strong early reflections. But for a guitar cam shoot I needed simple uncluttered monotone on both sides and this little hallway was perfect.

This little hallway provides two simple backgrounds

The back light would make it tough to get good video shooting down this hall, but the guitar cam(s) will be viewing side to side so they won’t get splashed. The Zoom H2 was nicely positioned by putting it on top of the hamper, and we were ready to shoot.

I barely had room for the guitar in this narrow space, but I was pretty happy with the shots I got. I spent a while shooting in another location, but when I looked at clips these were the winners.

Out of Rotation

When I pulled the clips into Edius Neo 2.5, my video editing software, I was dismayed to find that I didn’t have a way to rotate the clips. With the cameras mounted the easy way the resulting image has the guitar laying on its back, parallel to the floor.

The guitar is laying down on the job

Guitar still laying down on the job

I had expected to pull these into my Edius software, rotate them, crop and resize them, and build my composition with these images showing the guitar in a normal orientation. But it turns out that my Neo 2.5 version, the previous version entry level package, doesn’t have this capability. I would have to upgrade to the full commercial package to be able to rotate these clips. Time to rethink.

My first effort was a new layout for the clip, using the odd orientation for its impact. I cut a rough version but wasn’t too impressed. Next, do it the right way, change the camera orientation with a new mounting system. That took a day and wound up too awkward and shaky. Without re-engineering the whole project I needed to work with the clips I had.

Avidemux to the Rescue

I’ve done tutorials on Avidemux in the past, it’s a powerful bit of free software that continues to grow in its ability to manipulate video. The latest versions handle these H.264 based file formats easily and with a bit of tweaking and fiddling I was able to create rotated versions of my clips with minimal loss of quality.

Clip from Q3HD rotated in Avidemux

In order to create a standard 720P HD video file (1280×720) that Edius would accept I first rotated the image, giving a 720×1280 layout. I resized that to 405×720 in order to create the proper vertical dimension. Then I filled out the frame to 1280 pixels wide with black as you see in the still (this image is reduced to 680×360, half size).

And Here’s the Result

The song I chose is a sprightly version of an old Hawaiian royalty piece, Moani Ke `Ala, written by Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku in the late 1800s. Gabby Pahinui recorded this piece, as did his son Cyril, and both were a great source of inspiration.

As I’m listening to the clip just after it was uploaded, I’m appalled at the sound quality. There’s a background noise that is far greater than any on the original clip. I’ve been disappointed in the past but this one is really annoying. I wonder if I’ll see any improvement from a later, more leisurely transcode by Google.

I’m afraid that in some cases, simple physics is the culprit, helped along by our experience listening to modern recordings. We’re used to bigger than life sounds and close mic positions because that’s how most pop music is recorded. When we put our Q3HD in a location that gives us a conventional picture of a seated guitarist the camera is usually about four feet from the guitar. That four feet make the sound of the guitar weaker, and allow more of the room sound to intrude. This is called the direct to reflected ratio, and while we need some reflections to make a natural sound, the quick reflections of a small room generally don’t make for a pleasing recording. There’s another important ratio that suffers from a distant placement – the signal to noise ratio. Less guitar signal means we notice the surrounding noise more.

Several people have complained about the low level of the recorded audio and suggested that the Q should provide more preamp gain. But when you consider things for a moment you realize that more gain means more room reflections and more noise along with more guitar, because these ratios are established before the recording begins. So more preamp gain gives the same result as simply turning up the volume on playback in terms of room reflections and background noise.

The real solution is to move the microphones closer to the source. But that’s going to mean our conventional picture loses its head, and its hands. Since the conventional picture won’t work, we just have to get a little more creative, and find a new way of looking at the guitarist. Let’s start by positioning the mics in a good location for the audio, then see if we can find an interesting picture.

I usually use mic stands to position the camera – I have several boom stands, and they give me more flexibility than a typical tripod. I use the Zoom MA2 Mic Stand Adaptor or the Edirol OP-MSA1 to attach the camera to the mic stand. Interestingly, the Edirol adapter costs more and looks much more sophisticated, but the simple stick from Zoom does a great job and is handier in many ways.

I put together a video showing some different locations for the Q3HD using this concept of positioning for audio first. The first is the classic “off the 12th fret” location nearly universally recommended as a starting point for recording acoustic guitar. Actually, I used two variations of this, one below the guitar pointing up, one above and pointing down. From there I moved to the “off the bridge” lower bout position, and finally I tried the “over the shoulder” position that places the mic near the player’s ear.

In the video you can see the locations and quick samples of the audio and video that result from each position. All of these could be improved for both sound and picture by some extensive tweaking, and of course it’s a lot easier with two people than one.

In the process of creating the tutorial I realized I had enough material to put together a music video, a somewhat quirky one but perhaps an interesting project. I decided to try to edit the clips in REAPER, and with a bit of patience I was able to pull it off. I used Cockos LICEcap and the GIMP image editor to create a title, and rendered the results as a 1280×720 29.970 fps .MOV using the FFmpeg libraries. Here’s Waialua Slack Key as seen through the Zoom Q3HD at various angles:

I wouldn’t call the video an artistic masterpiece, but it serves to demonstrate the different angles and differing timbres of the audio captured from different locations. Hopefully it will serve as a bit of inspiration for other folks trying to get great audio and video from their Zoom Q3HD.

I also made a big step in my video camera arsenal with a shiny new Panasonic Lumix GH2. This little beauty is packed with a high performance sensor, lots of onboard image processing, a full range of manual controls, interchangeable lenses, and enough options and settings to keep this novice busy for a long long time.

I’m a long way from figuring out how to get the best from this wonderful camera, but I took advantage of one of the lovely “convertible weather in February” days we get here in Northern California to shoot a bit of outdoors playing. The wonderful old sentimental ballad, Silver Threads Among the Gold has become part of the slack key repertoire thanks to Leonard Kwan and Ledward Kaapana, and this song about the inevitable process of aging seemed to fit the austere scene.

By the way, I have a pretty fair collection of videos featuring Hawaiian slack key, mostly by me but with a couple of guest artists as well. You can see them at my YouTube channel.

The audio for this clip was captured using the Zoom Q3HD, it was placed about 24″ from the guitar, you can see the black blob of the windscreen in the lower right corner of the main performance shot. I also used the video from the Q3HD for the closeup of the picking hand.

I edited the clip in Edius Neo 2.5 and used a new reverb plugin from Jason Breebart’s Toneboosters line. The crows came with the house.

How About That H2

Then I remembered the excellent quality of the headphone/Line Out on my Zoom H2. While the quality is not quite at the level of the NT4 through a fine preamp, the H2 does a nice job of capturing clean, accurate audio. In the past I’ve used the H2 as a powered mic feeding the Kodak Zi8 and the Sanyo Xacti HD2000 mic inputs. This was always problematic, because the sensitivity of the mic inputs is a poor match for the output of the H2. It took a lot of experimenting to get the right level, then the camera preamp would wreck the audio anyway. Since the Q3HD audio input is called Line In, it should be a much better match for the Line Out of the H2. Another huge plus – the Q has metering!! This is a feature that is usually reserved for much pricier camcorders, and it definitely adds to the usability of the Q.

Time for a Test

With the house all to myself for the morning I set up in our bedroom to enjoy the lovely morning light, and shot video clips with the H2 as a Line In source as well as a few using the camera mic at various distances. With the construction project down the block and the heater going on an off, there’s plenty of ambient noise to stress test the various recording tactics. I shot a “making of” video using a Panasonic Lumix ZS3. I did a terrible job of setting the camera for the conditions, don’t blame the Panny.

I also didn’t bring a tape measure to the shoot (I learn a little every time, but at my age I forget a bit as well) or frame the close shots very well. I’ve thought about reshooting to get accurate measurements, but then I realized that each of us will be working with different conditions and different goals, so the exact distance will depend on the situation.

Interesingly, only the last shot with the Q3HD camera mic had audio quality similar to the H2 miked shot, and by that time the camera was at about the same distance as the H2 had been.

Field Recorder as Powered Mic

Naturally this technique of using a field recorder as a powered mic will work with any recorder that provides a monitoring signal in its headphone output. The problem might arise that the headphone output is low in quality, this was certainly true of the Fostex FR2-LE, for instance. Great recordings, but terrible monitoring sound. But if you have a recorder with a good clean headphone output, you have a tool to improve the audio in your Q3HD video clips.

I’m calling this experiment a success. I’m happy with the video I made using the H2 as a powered mic into the Line In of the Q3HD. I even have a wind sock for the H2, so I’m all set for shooting in the tropical tradewinds.

One consistent recommendation was the Schoeps line of microphones. I was lucky enough to find a deal on a pair of used Schoeps CMC64s (CMC6 modular bodies and MK4 cardioid capsules) a few years ago, and even though they were fairly expensive I bought them because I knew that once I had a pair of Schoeps, I could no longer blame the microphones for my less than satisfactory results.

Now, a few years older and hopefully wiser, I have come to realize that the difference between most mics is pretty subtle, the difference between preamps and a/d converters is even more subtle, and the big differences come in the instrument, the performance, and the room. Of course, believing that equipment has a minor impact has not kept me from buying more gear. Mics and audio interfaces, monitors and headphones, sometimes I just can’t resist trying something new.

A New Toy (er, Tool)

Since I’ve discovered the fun of videography I’ve found even more gear to consider. The recent Homebrewed Music comparison of stereo mics for the Kodak Zi8 stimulated my interest in a microphone that is widely recommended as an excellent medium priced tool, the Rode NT4. This mic combines the two capsules and electronics of the Rode NT5 small diaphragm condenser in a single body visibly similar to the NT3 model. This mic includes the option of using a 9 volt battery for power if 48 (or 24) volt phantom power is not available. It also comes with adapter cables providing either a conventional pair of XLRs or a 1/8″ stereo miniplug for cameras and field recorders. The NT4 doesn’t come up on the used market very often, but with a little patience I found one at an attractive price and added it to my collection.

One thing about high end (that is, high priced) gear like the Schoeps mics, in my little home studio they tend to stay in the drawer. Since Schoeps prices have gone up steadily for the last few years, my mic collection has become an investment as well as tool set, and I’ve become a bit protective of the “good stuff.” If I need a mic for a quick recording, I’m much more likely to pull out a less expensive unit, and the NT4 has been getting plenty of use lately. It’s simple to set up, useful with various recording systems, and sounds pretty darned good to me.

Shootout Time

In fact, it sounded so good, I started wondering how it might compare to the hallowed Schoeps CMC64. Once I listened to them side by side, would I still think the NT4 sounded darned good? I’ve gone into some detail on the procedure needed for a meaningful mic test, and I’ve done some other comparisons. But a recent flurry of “what is the best mic” postings on various guitar forums triggered a desire to evaluate the Rode and Schoeps side by side.

Naturally, I set the mics up as close as possible to the same position, using the same stereo arrangement. The Rode is constructed as a fixed X-Y array, so I used a stereo bar to mount the CMC64 pair in the same configuration.

Schoeps CMC64 and Rode NT4

I connected both mic systems to the Echo Audiofire Pre8, and set the gain by eye. Next I setup Reaper to record two stereo tracks, and applied the Sonalksis FreeG meters to each track. This excellent plugin let me know that my preamp gain settings were within a couple of db of each other, as close as I am likely to get with the small gain controls of the Pre8. After recording, I pulled the files into Adobe Audition where I use the Group Waveform Normalize function to set the perceived average levels to – 12 dBFS.

It’s All in the Listening

Just listening to the tracks they sounded pretty similar, so I pulled the tracks into foobar2000 to use the ABX utility. Under this audio microscope I quickly discovered that I could recognize the files as different. The Rode recording was very (and I mean very) slightly “lighter,” less full than the Schoeps track. When I checked the frequency response curves I saw that the Rode had a reduced bass response and more pronounced emphasis on the highs compared to the MK4 capsule of the Schoeps.

NT4 frequency response showing low cut and high boost

CMC64 frequency response. more linear than the Rode

I immediately wondered if I could reduce the difference with some EQ. Back into Adobe Audition, where I used the Parametric Filter, adjusted to the opposite of the Rode frequency response graph, to process the Rode track and save it to a new file.

After this processing, I could no longer tell the files apart when I ran ABX in foobar2000. In the first test I made six consecutive correct choices with no incorrect ones, a better than 85% certainty that I could tell them apart. When I compared the Rode file with EQ to the Schoeps file, my results fell apart, with three incorrect choices out of four tries.

Based on this test, it seems that a little digital EQ can make a Rode NT4 sound like a Schoeps CMC64 when recording me playing solo acoustic guitar (in this room on this day). This is not to say that an NT4 is “as good as” a pair of Schoeps mics, of course. The Schoeps modular system supports many different capsules for different pickup patterns and uses. And a pair of mics give much more flexibility in placement than a fixed X-Y stereo mic. But in this one very limited use, simple stereo recording of a solo acoustic guitar, the NT4 reduces the complexity and cost while delivering sonic results that I find completely satisfactory.

Try for yourself. Here are the files (these are CD spec 44.1 khz 16 bit PCM wave files, so they’re large – about 14 Mb each):

Download O.wav
Download P.wav
Download Q.wav

One of these is the Schoeps, one is the Rode without EQ, the other is the Rode with EQ. Ideally you’ll use an ABX tool to listen carefully and determine if you can tell the files apart. However you choose to listen, post a comment here with your impressions and I’ll email you the identity of the three files.

***** June 17, 2010 Update *****
When I posted links to these files on the Acoustic Guitar Forum the folks there quickly zeroed in on the Schoeps CMC64, so I went back to foobar2000 ABX and, sure enough, once I found the right place to listen, I could hear the difference between the Rode, even with EQ, and the Schoeps. Which goes to demonstrate an important aspect of ABX testing – it’s quite possible to miss differences, due to tiredness or predisposition or some other cause.

By separating the mic from the camera, I should be able to position the mic for optimum sound while placing the camera for the visual effect I want. Of course, I can do this wihout an audio input on the camera by a technique called parallel recording, that is, recording on a separate audio system of some kind. The familiar clack of the slate at the start of a movie sequence is used to make it easy to synchronize the picture and sound, and this technique works very well for my homebrewed videos as well. Still it’s very tempting to think that recording directly to the camera is an easier way out, with camera audio every take and every edit lining up without any extra effort.

I’ve been interested in the range of options for attaching a mic to the Zi8, and back in December I went on a little mic shopping binge. Between my storage drawer, Ebay, and Sound Professionals I gathered a collection of mics in a range of prices. But I was struck with a glitch in my Zi8 audio, which required several round trips to attempt repair at the East Coast contract repair depot. Eventually Kodak agreed to replace my camera, but by then I was on a lovely trip to Hawai`i.

Test Design

Now that I’m back I’m ready to offer up some test clips. At first I planned to video a number of brief samples of guitar and vocal, which was very troubling to me. I strongly believe that audio sampling should be done with a single performance and carefully volume matched, in order to reduce the number of variables in the sample. As much as we think otherwise, humans just cannot judge subtle (or even not-so-subtle) differences without careful controls. My aha moment came when I realized that I was only testing audio, not video, so I could use a recorded source to get a repeatable performance. Focusing on audio only also allowed me to upload the much smaller audio clips, so the comparison will be quicker and easier.

For level matching I decided to take the easy way out and simply normalize the files. Normalizing raises the peak of a file to a given level, in this case I chose -3 dBFS. I adjusted levels like this so our ears won’t be fooled by level differences, but these samples hide the differences in the real recording you’ll get if you use one of these mics. So I’m including the original sample as well. Remember that I adjusted the sensitivity of the Zi8 for each mic, so the volume levels are affected by that even in the original, un-normalized samples.

I first created a test recording in Reaper, some slack key guitar naturally. I recorded in mono with an Audio Technica AT4050 in cardioid pattern. Then I added a bit of narration. All camera mics I know about, and many accessory mics as well, are omnidirectional. There are plenty of reasons why an omni is a good choice, but real trickery is required to get a good stereo image with omnis. So I threw in a bit of movement in the stereo field to evaluate channel separation. I arranged the narration and the stereo test ahead of the music and adjusted levels.

I placed all the mics very close to my normal listening position and played back the test recording through my normal monitoring chaing – Echo Audiofire 8, Hafler P3000, Dynaudio BM6p. A Radio Shack SPL meter showed 74 db C weighted at the mic position.

As I mentioned, I adjusted the sensitivity of the Zi8 for each mic. In each case I adjusted the sensitivity to the highest level that did not show any red. I label the default sensitivity as 0, lower sensitivity goes from -1 to -5 and higher goes from +1 to +5. I wound up using the whole range in this comparison.

Test Clips

Here’s the reference recording. It won’t get any cleaner than this.
ref.mp3
or download ref.mp3

I used the Zoom H2 as the mic in my first experiments with the Zi8, so I included it in this comparison. It’s also handy because we can record with the H2 and the Zi8 at the same time. Even though the signal in the Zoom was very low and pumped up with a lot of digital gain in the normalization process, it is quite a bit cleaner than the Zi8. I set the Zoom to M Mic Gain because tests have shown that the H setting adds noise. This still resulted in a rather low level, so raising it also raised the noise as well.
h2p.mp3
or download h2p.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
oh2p.mp3
or download oh2p.mp3

I used the rear mics on the H2 so I could operate the controls on the front of the unit. As a result the stereo left and right are backwards in both the parallel clip and the Zi8 clip. Here’s the output of the H2 headphone jack recorded on the Zi8 with sensitivity set to -3.
h2v.mp3
or download h2v.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
oh2v.mp3
or download oh2v.mp3

If you’re like me you’ve been fooling with recorders for a while, maybe going back to cassette tapes. Perhaps, like me, you have some kind of little mic in a drawer somewhere. My drawer mic is labeled www.reactivesounds.com but the web site is a dead end now. I bought this to use with my minidisc recorder a few years ago. The mic is omni, no cable (requires a female to male extension), and has been repaired with superglue. I used -2 sensitivity for this mic.
drawer.mp3
or download drawer.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
odrawer.mp3
or download odrawer.mp3

I’ve used Sound Professionals http://www.soundprofessionals.com/ for these kinds of recording gear for years. I used one of their T-mics for years with my minidisc, but somehow lost it. They still sell a mic with the same model number, SPSM-1, but it doesn’t look much like the mic I remember. I set the Zi8 to -3 sensitivity for this mic.
spsm-1.mp3
or download spsm-1.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
ospsm-1.mp3
or download ospsm-1.mp3

The SPSM-15 is the least expensive single point stereo mic sold by Sound Professionals. It appears to have a higher low frequency cutoff than the SPSM-1, and/or lower sensitivity. As a result I set the Zi8 sensitivity to -2.
spsm-15.mp3
or download spsm-15.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
ospsm-15.mp3
or download ospsm-15.mp3

The AudioTechnica AT825 has been a popular single point stereo mic for many years, but was recently discontinued. The replacements are much higher in price, so it might be worth watching for used examples of the AT825 on Ebay or Craigslist. It seemed perfectly matched to the Zi8 and worked well at the default sensitivity setting.
at825.mp3
or download at825.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
oat825.mp3
or download oat825.mp3

I was impressed with the performance of the AT825. I was very disappointed in the AudioTechnica Pro 24. Although it looks much more impressive than the T-mics from Sound Professionals, it was very low in output, requiring that I set the Zi8 to the maximum +5 sensitivity.
atpro24.mp3
or download atpro24.mp3

Original versions, no normalization:
oatpro24.mp3
or download oatpro24.mp3

Let’s Look at the Video

Let’s finish off with some actual video. Be careful with comparisons, but perhaps there will be some blatant differences we can take away. When I framed the shot to include the whole guitar the camera wound up about 5 feet from the instrument. I adjusted the Zi8 sensitivity for each mic using my normal procedure – the highest setting that did not show any red squares.

I had a little fun with my new Edius Neo 2.5 software putting together a compilation of the mic demonstrations.

All these mics sound better here than in the audio test with the recording, but they still show their basic characteristics. The camera mic picks up a lot more room, as it must at that distance. And since the room is a boxy little thing, the recording sounds small and boxy.

The H2 in this clip is very slightly overdriving the Zi8, to my ears. The slightly dark voice of the H2 comes through as well. The Sound Professionals SPSM-15 does a pretty decent job for very small bucks. I failed to mention in the video that the sensitivity on the Zi8 is down to -3. This means the SPSM-15 is quite sensitive, so it might be a problem if your source is loud. To my ear the AT825 is the winner. I like the clear presentation. I’m sorry I didn’t do a better job of balancing the channels.

I hope these comparisons are useful. I plan to try these mics with a different camera in a future post.

* * * Correction on 12/03/2010 * * *

The mic I keep calling an AT825 is actually and AT822, the unbalanced version. Sorry for the brain fog.

For a number of years builders have worked on more stable replacements for the wood in our guitars, and now we have plywood, aluminum, and a range of composites including fiberglass, kevlar, and carbon fiber. In fact one of the pioneers in carbon fiber guitars, Rainsong, started their business in Hawai`i and attracted a number of local players to their instruments.

Composite Acoustics is a relatively young company that started with a dreadnaught and bluegrass focus, but thanks to my encouragement (hey, I wrote them an email) they’ve developed some very fingerstyle friendly models, especially the new OX body style.

I’ve been very curious about the Composite Acoustics OX since I saw the first pictures, and when I found a used one offered in one of the guitar forums I visit, I snapped it up. Here’s my new baby in all its carbon fiber glory:

An old leather strap holds up the high tech carbon fiber OX.

The body on this beauty is pretty slick, so the soft old leather strap helps hold it in position. Note the perfectly smooth and comfortable (if graceless) merging of the neck, body, and cutaway:

The neck flows smoothly into the body

I like the simple detailing on this very reasonably priced guitar. The tuning pegs are some I’ve never seen before but they work nicely. I would prefer a bit lighter peghead, but that’s true of almost every guitar I try:

The tuners are attractive and work very well

The black woven look of carbon fiber is so hip now that you can buy fake carbon fiber decorative parts for your car or motorcycle. The drama is evident in this shot of the top of the OX. This is the simplest, least expensive finish offered by CA, they call it Raw. The bridge, saddle, and bridge pins are all fabricated from composites. The sound hole decoration is a thin sheet of brushed aluminum that floats above the weave. You can catch a glimpse of the Wittman Mini tuner peeking out of the soundhole. I’ve installed these in almost every guitar I own:

Dramatic weave of carbon fiber, a Wittman Mini tuner in the soundhole

I was hoping for a lot when I bought this guitar, and I’m not disappointed. I think Composite Acoustics has figured out a bunch of stuff very well to create the OX Raw. Here’s a bit of video, an old hula song called Papalina Lahilahi showing some of the fun of playing this lovely instrument:

The guitar is tuned to taropatch F, open G tuned down one whole step. From low to high: C F C F A C. The sound on this video was recorded on the Zoom H2, you can see the top of it just edging into the bottom of the shot. I pulled the audio file into Adobe Audition and tweaked the EQ just a bit, but there’s no reverb, compression or other effects, you’re hearing the sound of the guitar.

The only bad thing about finding a nifty new item like the OX is the sudden urge to explore other Composite Acoustics instruments, like that cute little Cargo travel guitar …

I’ve tweaked and fiddled with this guitar for a while, especially since I brought it to O`ahu. The humidity is pretty tough on instruments. The tuning machines have always been stiff and they’ve gotten worse lately, so I decided to swap them out for the new Grover Vintage Sta-Tite 18:1 machines. I’ve heard great things about these machines on various guitar forums, and the measurements looked right to be a drop-in replacement for the stock tuning machines. I ordered up a set of #4592 Grover 18:1 Sta-Tites from Stewart-McDonald.

Well, for once luck was with me, and in fact they work and look like they were made for this guitar. Screw holed lined up, the shaft diameters are different but the bushings that came with the new Sta-Tites fit right into the old holes. Here’s a pic of the back of the peghead with half the machines replaced:

Epi Peghead with old and new tuners

These new machines are basically totally different from the originals. The base plate is thicker, the gears are obviously different to provide the higher gear ratio, and the attachment of the gears is totally different as well.

Here’s the original tuning machine:

Original Epi Grover Tuning Machine

Part of the difficulty in turning it is due to the warped base, the rest because the curved arm that holds the shaft has bent, releasing the mesh of the right angle gears.

Here’s the new one:

New Grover Sta-Tite 18:1

Notice how solid and thick the base plate is, and more importantly notice that the shaft is held in a cast mount, a much more solid bit of engineering.

These tuning machines have another fine virtue, they’re not terribly expensive. I bought this set from Stewart-McDonald for $37.37 – I’ve already gotten my money’s worth the first time I changed strings.