Hi.

Here's my first test recording, more to follow.

Cheers,
Dave.

Hello and good day Dave. This is another wonderful test video you have created. Great work and thank you for your valued support.

DJI Stephen Posted at 5-10 16:31
Hello and good day Dave. This is another wonderful test video you have created. Great work and thank you for your valued support.

Hi Stephen.

You are very welcome. I'll be doing some very specific setups with the Pocket and the Go and external mics over the coming weeks and will post them on the forum.

BTW. I know you can't say anything but if the rumours are true that the DJI announcement on the 15th is going to be a DJI actioncam, I'll be getting one as soon as it is available and will be doing a load of audio and video guides for it.

Cheers,
Dave.

Very entertaining Dave.  Good test as well.  Sounds great but you might find -6dB on the GO is all that you need.  Cheers, Bob

Thanks Dave, a nice preliminary review and test. At the moment I am still using the plug in mic, I am still thinking of whether I need a wireless setup for future need.  Thank you for offering a chance for us to understand more about the Rode GO.

Oh-no Posted at 5-10 16:47
Thanks Dave, a nice preliminary review and test. At the moment I am still using the plug in mic, I am still thinking of whether I need a wireless setup for future need.  Thank you for offering a chance for us to understand more about the Rode GO.

Hi.

Being completely honest, for a vlog position like I was in for that test a radio system is completely unnecessary. I've only got the Go for my other cameras for doing interview stuff but will use it with the Pocket as I've got it anyway. The Pocket's internal mics are great for that vloggy type thing.

However, for anyone using the Pocket for ENG, interviewing or reporting, then I'd say that the Go is a great addition to the Pocket. For instance. If you used the exact setup I had in the video, you could mic-up the person you are interviewing within seconds with the Go transmitter even with its internal mic and then you could film and track the person very easily. Recording that way, untethered, is very fast to setup and very flexible, plus you can get a bit of distance between you and the subject.

I'll be testing the metal version of my Nano 172 build soon to see if it can reject RFI from the Go's transmitter. If it does, it may be the perfect option for better audio quality with the Go transmitter without using a lav.

I'll also be posting some of my rig setups soon.

Cheers,
Dave.   

BobWinNV Posted at 5-10 16:47
Very entertaining Dave.  Good test as well.  Sounds great but you might find -6dB on the GO is all that you need.  Cheers, Bob

Hi Bob.

Very entertaining

You are absolutely right, either attenuate the Go or drop to manual gain, probably mid or high, on the Pocket. This was my very first take with the setup, so I had no idea if it was going to work, It did work but as you say, there's better gain matching options.

To see just how much gain is being applied, take a listen again to where I do the silence test. During the silence you can hear the noises and birds around me getting louder. This is the release time resting from the envelope that's applied to the Pocket's dynamic processing, which shows that the dialogue level was very loud going in and that the Pocket's limiter was working very hard to stop peaks. When I come back in after the silence you can hear the background noises get pushed back down. You can also hear the limiter kick in very quickly at the start .

This is all because the Pocket is in auto and the incoming level is very loud. Auto is great for most things but if you've got a healthy signal then an attenuated option is best.

With the lower attenuation the Pocket's dynamic processing won't be pushed as much.

I'll try and do another video to explain and show better what this effect is and try and explain a bit about dynamics processing, compression, limiting and AGC etc.

Cheers,
Dave.

David_Harry Posted at 5-10 17:18
Hi.

Being completely honest, for a vlog position like I was in for that test a radio system is completely unnecessary. I've only got the Go for my other cameras for doing interview stuff but will use it with the Pocket as I've got it anyway. The Pocket's internal mics are great for that vloggy type thing.

Thanks Dave.

Totally agree with your opinion and advice. A simple and fast setup is what I want, plus straight output good results, I am kind of lazy to do post processing to video and audio :-P

Oh-no Posted at 5-10 17:52
Thanks Dave.

Totally agree with your opinion and advice. A simple and fast setup is what I want, plus straight output good results, I am kind of lazy to do post processing to video and audio :-P

Hi.

There's nothing lazy about not wanting to waste your time in post

I started working in audio when I was 16 and I'm now 52. I've recorded and produced more audio & music than most people have had hot dinners I've also worked in video for over 20 years, post produced for TV and headed video and audio post for a couple of features with my old indie film company and worked post audio for a bunch of other films. After doing all that, you learn that getting it right when you film and record is the best way of doing things. Far too much stuff gets left to be 'fixed' or tweaked in post, which is no good when you're producing content on your own.

So no, it's not lazy to waste time in post

Cheers,
Dave.

David_Harry Posted at 5-10 18:23
Hi.

There's nothing lazy about not wanting to waste your time in post

Thanks Dave for your reply.  I don't meant post processing is a waste of time. My opinion is if I can sort things out and start with a proper and/or better setup to eliminate the cost of post processing that would make all things smoother, of course sometimes we need to edit something for special effect or if something goes south.


As always, would like to read more reviews and comments from you, I am eager to learn more.

I am pleased with the result from your advice to build the minimal mics setup which makes my recent trip to Germany enjoyable.

Oh-no Posted at 5-10 18:35
Thanks Dave for your reply.  I don't meant post processing is a waste of time. My opinion is if I can sort things out and start with a proper and/or better setup to eliminate the cost of post processing that would make all things smoother, of course sometimes we need to edit something for special effect or if something goes south.

Hi.

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that you meant it was a waste of time, it was me saying it was a waste of time

Cheers,
Dave.

David_Harry Posted at 5-10 17:31
Hi Bob.

Very entertaining

Hi Dave,

Now by adding the GO to the equation we have some tools that we can use. We now have a scale that shows the levels into the GO receiver, some control of the input level into the OP audio adapter and enough system gain that we can start experimenting with the OP audio gain settings.

Fun times ahead.

Cheers,
Bob

BobWinNV Posted at 5-10 20:07
Hi Dave,

Now by adding the GO to the equation we have some tools that we can use. We now have a scale that shows the levels into the GO receiver, some control of the input level into the OP audio adapter and enough system gain that we can start experimenting with the OP audio gain settings.

Hi Bob.

Yes, some fun times ahead.

Don't pay to much attention to the metering on the GO as a way to judge the level into the Pocket. The problem is that there is no truly calibrated 0db point between the output of the GO and the input of the Pocket.

As a for instance. If both of the units adhered to a set standard, for instance line level at -10dbv. Then the output of the GO, which may well be line level at -10dbv or +4dbu, would match up with the Pocket and be calibrated, thereby allowing the the meter of the GO to be used as an absolute gauge of what the Pocket is recording.

The other thing that compounds all this is the dynamics processing and not knowing at what point it kicks in and the settings of low, mid, hi on either unit also compound the issue of line level matching even further.

Cheers,
Dave.

David_Harry Posted at 5-10 18:59
Hi.

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that you meant it was a waste of time, it was me saying it was a waste of time

I didn't misunderstand you,  don't worry, my friend.

Oh-no Posted at 5-11 03:58
I didn't misunderstand you,  don't worry, my friend.

.         

David_Harry Posted at 5-10 16:39
Hi Stephen.

You are very welcome. I'll be doing some very specific setups with the Pocket and the Go and external mics over the coming weeks and will post them on the forum.

You are very much welcome Dave. With regards to the DJI event on the 15th we don't have any information regarding that said event, but please stay tuned to the latest news and updates by subscribing to DJI official website at www.dji.com or following us on social media:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DJI
Twitter: https://twitter.com/djiglobal
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/djiinnovations

Thank you so much for your valued support.

David_Harry Posted at 5-11 00:47
Hi Bob.

Yes, some fun times ahead.

Hi Dave,

It is my opinion that the meter of the go is relative to the signal seen from the microphone and not the level of the signal sent on to the camera.  I believe that they are grabbing the digitized signal after it gets to the GO receiver and displaying a digital graphic representation of that level on the GO receiver screen.  I also believe that before the digital signal is sent to the DAC for output as an analog signal to the camera it is digitally attenuated by the requested amount (0dB, -6dB, or -12dB).

For the non-Dave types reading this post I can summarize by saying that the GO receiver level meter is a relative indication of how hot the microphone level is and should be used as a tool by the operator to decide if that level is something that will keep the camera recorder happy or  whether you need to knock down the level (using the GO receiver level adjustor) to keep the camera from clipping.

Changing the GO receiver level adjustment does not change the level displayed on the GO screen as it is still showing a representation of the microphone input level as opposed to showing a representation of  the audio input level to the camera.

Bob

BobWinNV Posted at 5-11 10:10
Hi Dave,

It is my opinion that the meter of the go is relative to the signal seen from the microphone and not the level of the signal sent on to the camera.  I believe that they are grabbing the digitized signal after it gets to the GO receiver and displaying a digital graphic representation of that level on the GO receiver screen.  I also believe that before the digital signal is sent to the DAC for output as an analog signal to the camera it is digitally attenuated by the requested amount (0dB, -6dB, or -12dB).

Bob, thanks for the updated information :-)