topic M5 audio quality? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

M5 audio quality?

JamesMcCosh — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:29:50 GMT

I was surprised and disappointed to find that the audio channel in a video file made with my M5 is only 128 kb/s. This is adequate for speech but not good enough for anything else. Of course, the quality is only as good as the input and circuitry, but there needs to be as full an output as possible.

My 70D and my 100D both create audio of 48 Mhz, 16 bit PCM - about as good as it gets.

Why the backwards step?

Re: M5 audio quality?

Waddizzle — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:33:54 GMT

@JamesMcCosh wrote:
I was surprised and disappointed to find that the audio channel in a video file made with my M5 is only 128 kb/s. This is adequate for speech but not good enough for anything else. Of course, the quality is only as good as the input and circuitry, but there needs to be as full an output as possible.

My 70D and my 100D both create audio of 48 Mhz, 16 bit PCM - about as good as it gets.

Why the backwards step?

Did you know that audio CDs were recorded with 44 kHz sample rates? I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

Re: M5 audio quality?

JamesMcCosh — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:58:18 GMT

Yes and the BBC uses the CD specification uncompressed as their standard. 48khz is the norm everywhere else. In fact the audio equivalent of 4K is 24bit, 96Khz, but that is over the top for finished product; it is useful to preserve as much as possible before the last step before production.

I am comparing the M5 to two Canon cameras, 100D and 70D, which both give 16 bit, 48khz uncompressed. Not perfect, but as good as is needed. The point is, the signal is not compressed. 128kb/s lossy compressed is not pleasant to listen to for anything but speech. AAC is a good codec, far superior to MP3, but only at high bit rates. 128kb/s is far too low.

I ask again, why the retrograde step?

Re: M5 audio quality?

RobertTheFat — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:19:56 GMT

@JamesMcCosh wrote:
Yes and the BBC uses the CD specification uncompressed as their standard. 48khz is the norm everywhere else. In fact the audio equivalent of 4K is 24bit, 96Khz, but that is over the top for finished product; it is useful to preserve as much as possible before the last step before production.

I am comparing the M5 to two Canon cameras, 100D and 70D, which both give 16 bit, 48khz uncompressed. Not perfect, but as good as is needed. The point is, the signal is not compressed. 128kb/s lossy compressed is not pleasant to listen to for anything but speech. AAC is a good codec, far superior to MP3, but only at high bit rates. 128kb/s is far too low.

I ask again, why the retrograde step?

Since nobody seems to have the answer on the tip of his tongue, I'll venture a wild guess: It's because the higher bit rate would require more power, and a mirrorless camera's battery is already severely challenged by the power requirements of its EVF.

Re: M5 audio quality?

kvbarkley — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:55:18 GMT

Probably because most people that care record the audio on a Zoom or equivalent and add the video in post.

Re: M5 audio quality?

JamesMcCosh — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:58 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
Since nobody seems to have the answer on the tip of his tongue, I'll venture a wild guess: It's because the higher bit rate would require more power, and a mirrorless camera's battery is already severely challenged by the power requirements of its EVF.

That's at least feasible, but the 100D has a slim battery too. Also, I rather think that the computing power required to compress audio is rather greater than to leave it be.

Re: M5 audio quality?

JamesMcCosh — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:12:54 GMT

@kvbarkley wrote:
Probably because most people that care record the audio on a Zoom or equivalent and add the video in post.

But I bought the M5 with the hope that with the addition of a good microphone I could be a real 'one man band' and not need someone to wield a separate microphone and recorder for the sort of video I planned to make.

Does anybody at Canon read these posts? If you're reading this Canon, please update the firmware!

Re: M5 audio quality?

kvbarkley — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:32:22 GMT

As far as we know only the forum moderators. We do not know whether there is any channel between the forum and folks at Canon who can get things done.

Re: M5 audio quality?

RobertTheFat — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:52:57 GMT

@JamesMcCosh wrote:
@kvbarkley wrote:
Probably because most people that care record the audio on a Zoom or equivalent and add the video in post.
But I bought the M5 with the hope that with the addition of a good microphone I could be a real 'one man band' and not need someone to wield a separate microphone and recorder for the sort of video I planned to make.

Does anybody at Canon read these posts? If you're reading this Canon, please update the firmware!

Didn't you read the specs before you bought the camera?

Re: M5 audio quality?

kvbarkley — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:00:39 GMT

IT does not really say, it just says MPEG-4 AAC-LC.

Video is really the red-headed step child for these cameras.

Re: M5 audio quality?

JamesMcCosh — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:00:49 GMT

The details are not complete in the specs. I would have been reasonably happy with AAC at, say, 320kb/s, but not 128kb/s but that is not made explicit.