On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:21:27 -0400, "Dan Volker" wrote:

>Lets say the only use you would have for your camera was shooting music
>videos at nightclubs or in a studio. While sometimes you would be getting
>soundtracks as wave files to synch in post, sometimes you would be recording
>audio off the mixing board, and sometimes you would need mics placed in a
>few places around the room. I have a GL1 right now, and I am about to buy 2
>more cameras---either 2 more GL1's or I could get 3 vx2000's. While I
>believe the video would be superior on the Vx2000 cameras, if the audio is
>as poor for high quality music as I have heard they are, it would seem they
>might be a worse choice than the GL1 ( which has decent audio when equipped
>with the AT 835 , Studio One Pro XLR adaptor, and VU Pro).
>
>What do you guys think?

The picture would be noticeably superior with the VX2000
compared with the GL-1 (in both good lighting and poor)
for resolution, relative freedom from artifacting
(oversharpening and stairstepping on edges, and
near-vertical-line discontinuities), color, and picture
smoothness at high gain. The VX2000 sound problems are
minimal in actual use (as with all camcorders, the
VX2000 sound is not up to the medium's potential, but
it is good enough to use for music recording, which
I have used it for - both "classical" and "pop",
voice and instrumental) - and it offers a superior
(to the GL-1) built-in mic, excellent AGC characteristics,
and manual-level control, if needed. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm for
more on the VX2000. I'm an "audio nut", and have few
complaints with the VX2000 sound, the "problems" of which
I think were overblown by some who expected "pro"-grade
sound along with the "pro"-grade picture in a
bargain-priced camcorder for what it does offer...