Source
r/VIDEOENGINEERING•
andrei1981no

Better sync: send mic signal through camera or through a USB interface?

Noob question here.

I am trying to achieve the best possible audio/video synchronization for live HD webinars in Zoom. The dilemma I am facing is:

Option 1: Connect XLR mic to Sony A6100 camera through a XLR-3.5mm interface, and then send combined audio-video signal from the camera's clean HDMI to iMac via Elgato Cam Link 4K.

Option 2: Connect XLR mic to iMac through a USB audio interface (e. g. Elgato Wave XLR) and use Elgato Cam Link 4K and the USB audio interface as separate video and audio sources in Zoom.

I would simply try and compare, but for that I would need to buy both the XLR-3,5mm interface and the USB audio interface, and I need just one of the two.

Thanks in advance!

Posted Nov 5, 2022, 2:10 PM UTC

316
AdvancedVidiot•

Camera

17
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you!

1
jonathanr42•

Having done both, camera is the way to go. That way the sync between audio and video is spot on. If you add audio later in the signal chain, there will be latency for the video processing so audio will be ahead of video.

6
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you so much for sharing your experience! Makes total sense to me.

1
SeenUrMeme5011Times•

We typically use Dante or usb interface without issues. This also provides a safety if loss of the video signal your audience can still hear while you get the camera back up (hope it doesn’t happen). Turn off all of zooms auto settings and use original audio for a cleaner feed.

Edit: experience is based on over 200 shows all produced through zoom over 3 years (we’ve also worked with zoom directly for development)

5
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you, very useful. I hadn’t thought of the possibility of interruptions in the camera feed, but, of course, that sounds very real and it’s nice to have a backup.

2
OobleCaboodle•

If the sound is going through a vision mixer, and the audio is going through a mixing desk, you're going to need to delay the audio to sync them up anyway.

5
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you for the tip! I have not decided whether to use a mixing desk, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

1
joots•

Camera for the best sync. Record into an interface as a secondary recording so you have redundancy

2
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you for the tip on redundancy. Makes total sense to me!

1
EXT_RageJack of all trades•

Camera for sync, simplicity, and budget. If you start to need more mics you can introduce a mixer then.

One nice thing about having an audio interface I will say is typically it's by the computer, whereas the camera is closer to the talent. The computer could be in a separate room/area (especially if taking advantage of balanced XLR runs). If you need to adjust audio live, adjusting settings on camera may bump it or accidentally do something else (low chances but still there). Audio interface is separate and likely closer to the operator and requires just adjusting a gain knob. Also means plugging in headphones for monitoring is relatively easy. May not be an issue but something to think about.

2
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you very for the detailed explanation!

My setup is very basic, without a need to adjust or monitor audio once it's set up. I can survive an accidental audio or video interruption without too much trouble. So I guess I'll just stick with the first option (mic into the camera) for the moment, and will add a second mic and a mixer later on, like you suggested.

1
wr_stories•

Camera

2
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you!

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-5
lofisoundguy•

OP was asking about sync not quality

5
andrei1981noOP•

Thank you!

Just to clarify: do you mean that

a) it is not going to differ in terms of audio quality, OR

b) it is not going to differ in terms of audio-to-video sync, because the latencies in both cases would be so low that the difference in lags would be negligible?

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3