EX-1r recording quality vs. Fostex

[gibbygoo]

On my EX1r I record straight to the camera via a wired lav (Countryman EMW, shelved). I'm not dissatisfied, really, but the setup is definitely NOT noise-free. I am curious how this setup might compare with dual recording to a Fostex FR2-le. I have a Rode NTg-3 kit on the way, so I guess the same question goes for that too. I do mostly small-market commercial work, some event and non-breaking ENG stuff. I usually have an assistant on hand who is moderately experienced with the boom. Related question: Fostex aside, how much might I benefit from running the boom to a mid-range mixer like the The MixPre-D from Sound Devices?

[Jema]

I don't have any experience or knowledge of the camera you're using, so I cant really give a comparison to it. The general consensus though, is that a good mixer like the mixpre-D is generally preferable over a similar priced recorder (if you can't have both). Even though the FR2-LE is known for having good preamps and reliability for the cost, the mixpre is a truly professional piece of gear that is rock solid in build, offers you very good preamps, metering, low cut, and excellent limiters. Even if you get another recorder or camera along the way, the mixer will always be useful.

[Petrus]

I do not think you would gain much if any audio quality improvement by using something like Fostex FR-2-le instead of running audio straight to the camera. Using double system would just make things more complicated (twice the buttons to push just to get a shot rolling). My favorite way of doing things is using a good mixer (SD302) in front of the camera, as the meters and gain knobs are much bigger and the limiters are just great. Running a properly aligned mixer into the cam guarantees no overloading and clipping while running the levels maximally high but safe. I have measured over 92 dB dynamic range even in the ancient Canon XH-A1 with SD302, these new card-based cameras should be at least as good.

[Richard Crowley]

I agree with both Jema and Petrus. Recording audio on an FR2-LE will not be significantly better quality than directly on your EX1R. And the increased complexity of double-system sound recording would turn that solution negative on my cost-benefit ratio evaluation.

Certainly the MixPre-D is a premium piece of equipment, but I would want to analyze the reason for the poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) before spending money on ANY solution. It is quite possible that recording on an FR2-LE, or even the addition of a premium mic preamp-mixer like the Sound Devices will do nothing for your symptoms if the problem is the microphone or the way you are using it (or WHERE you are using it).

[gibbygoo]

Thanks guys. I was speculating along the same lines, but I didn't have much comparative testing under my belt to say for sure. I have been looking at the MixPre-D seriously.

On the recorder, I've heard so much praise for the Fostex that I began to wonder how it would stack up to my onboard recorder. Nice to know my EX would probably fare well against a mid-priced external.

Richard, I appreciate your comment about isolating the problem in terms of mic selection, technique and/or placement. The great thing is that all 3 of those things are well within my control. I'm pretty confident now that an NTG-3/boom=>MixPre-D=> EX1r setup is going to be a good one as long as my boom op's skills are up to snuff.

[ullanta]

I have not worked with the EX1r, but I've not yet encountered any camera that records audio as well as even pretty cheap dedicated recorders, even fed line-level signals from a good preamp. Most current cameras record passable audio IFF you record at a near-perfect level. If you need to add gain in post, camera audio pretty quickly becomes noticeably worse than audio from a dedicated recorder.

So, for narrative/well controlled commercial work, etc, with someone good riding levels, you might not see a difference. For many types of event work where sound levels are suboptimal, you might see significant improvement with the fostex. For my type if work (mainly classical music events), the difference is noticeable every time.

[Richard Crowley]

IME, prosumer portable audio recorders generally have performance that is equivalent to prosumer camcorders (i.e. those with native XLR inputs and uncompressed audio recording). Certainly the portability and easier access of controls are features in favor of the portable audio recorders. But I have heard no significant improvement of sound quality from portable audio recorders vs. good camcorders. I would not expect that, all else being equal, simply recording on a mass-market portable audio recorder would get me any significant improvement in audio quality.

[Greg Smith]

IME, prosumer portable audio recorders generally have performance that is equivalent to prosumer camcorders (i.e. those with native XLR inputs and uncompressed audio recording). Certainly the portability and easier access of controls are features in favor of the portable audio recorders. But I have heard no significant improvement of sound quality from portable audio recorders vs. good camcorders. I would not expect that, all else being equal, simply recording on a mass-market portable audio recorder would get me any significant improvement in audio quality.

24-bit versus 16-bit recording should give you an immediately noticeable advantage if you start pushing levels around much in post. At the same sample rate and bit depth, you're right, probably not so much. I always record at 24 bits when I use my external recorder (which is not all that often -- only for live music, generally) and I think that helps a little bit. Increases my confidence to record at lower levels and avoid distortion, at least.

Do any camcorders do better than 16 bit/48 kHz audio?

- Greg

[ullanta]

Richard, are you going by specs or testing? While specs may look similar, camera audio tends to have a much higher and less random noise floor… there's a lot of electrical noise in a camera. 24-bit recording also makes a significant difference.

I record classical music events with very wide dynamic range, always double system, and sync by hand… so I always listen at least a bit to both. In thousands of recordings over the last decade, with many different cameras and recorders, I've yet to find a single case where the camera was as good as the external recorder for quiet material.

But, like I say, I haven't used the ex1r… so maybe there's something revolutionary in there?

[Richard Crowley]

1) Certainly 24-bit gives you more headroom to play with, which is especially important recording live musical events, particularly those with great dynamic range. I also do a lot of work (both audio and video) with live location productions of classical music, and 24-bit sample-depth saves a lot of gray hair trying to second-guess where levels are going to be.

2) It makes no difference whether you have recorded in 16-bit or 24-bit when it comes to post production. No audio or video NLE worth the price of admission does fixed-point 16-bit arithmetic under the hood. I can't imagine anyone here is using anything that doesn't do AT MINIMUM 24-bit fixed-point arithmetic, and probably 36-bit and/or floating point. So I believe that argument is a red herring.

3) No the EX1 does not have extraordinary audio performance. But neither does a little portable digital audio recorder (H4, et.al.) NONE of that genre of products has the SNR performance it takes to be true 24-bit (144 dB). Even the most expensive, gold-plated mic preamps known in this galaxy are not capable of that kind of dynamic range. And, of course even the quietest sound stage doesn't have that kind of noise floor, either.

4) Even the best camcorder ever known is NOT appropriate for making really serious recordings (whether stereo live mixdown, or tracking individual mics) of live musical performances. I was not trying to imply that. But I am suggesting that people who are doing commercial/ENG type production (as the OP who started this discussion) are not likely to see significant improvement of audio quality by switching from one decent (but not spectacular) product to another that performs about the same (a typical portable digital audio recorder like H4, et.al.) They would see a MUCH GREATER improvement by using good microphones, good mic techniques, and selecting quiet locations.

5) I also use a 24-channel audio recorder for tracking all the mics for live musical performance recording (whether audio or audio+video). I have been recording mostly classical (choral, orchestral, chamber, etc.) music for decades, audio for a couple decades before getting into video. Most recently I have been using my Alesis HD24-XR before it died on the way back from Romania. :-(