CF recorder opinions
- Thread starter ggrantly
- Start date
Sorry, I didn't mean to abandon my own post, I can only hang here for an hour or so a day. The TC issue is interesting as it relates to the Canon Cams or other TC out hardware. That issue would lend some weight towards the Tascam....and Jay Rose thought the Tascam was pretty good overall. I have just about ruled out the MicroTrac for lack of XLR. The PMD 660 still has some appeal just for the sake of size. Do any of you have the 660? is it durable? Does the sound quality and feature set measure up to the Tascam realizing that there is no TC?
It seems to me that if you were going to link up a cam and recorder with TC, that a laptop solution (travelor) might be better. So if you were going to get a recorder mostly for foley and misc, what would you prefer??
Thanks for the great comments so far....I am learning.
Grant
It seems to me that if you were going to link up a cam and recorder with TC, that a laptop solution (travelor) might be better. So if you were going to get a recorder mostly for foley and misc, what would you prefer??
Thanks for the great comments so far....I am learning.
Grant
shawnmaddock
Active member
Others might have a different opinion, but for foley or other studio work, I don't see any reason to use a field recorder; I'd go staight to computer.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
Frankly the DVX itself is good enough in the audio department to use it as a field recorder even when you don't care about picture... using mics properly will yield pretty good results. It just depends on where your project is going... even for normal broadcast the DVX is fine. We used direct in to the DVX most of the time in Haiti and I just got a copy of the nearly finished product today... I'm very pleased.
I used to go on about this, but the DVX audio is actually quite good for a camera. I still like the 671... but it's not like you HAVE to get an external audio recorder... the main reason I did was to allow a soundman to operate 100% independent of the camera. If it hadn't been for that I'd have just stayed with the DVX even for audio-only jobs. (high-end work notwithstanding!)
I used to go on about this, but the DVX audio is actually quite good for a camera. I still like the 671... but it's not like you HAVE to get an external audio recorder... the main reason I did was to allow a soundman to operate 100% independent of the camera. If it hadn't been for that I'd have just stayed with the DVX even for audio-only jobs. (high-end work notwithstanding!)
And for Ptalsky, I appreciate your comment with regards to future planning. I have been self employed for about 20 years in a couple of businesses, and I always attempt to build-buy for growth, it does commeth.
Since this is the audio board, and I am amongst friends, i will change the topic slightly. It has often surprised me throughout the entire DVX board how little emphisis is placed on the business side of things. When I first became a business owner, it never occured to me that running a business was an entirely different set of skills than my trade, and essential for success. Ths artistic pursuits of DV production aside, I have a strong bias towards eating and living indoors.....so making money is part of this equation. Can I make money with this widgit??? What is my ROI? I have read some comments on DVX user about "How much should I charge", and never have I ever heard a return comment about ROI or overhead, or capitalization, or depreciation for that matter.
This relates to the topic about equipment purchases in that it seems that most of the equipment we buy will have to be fully depreciated with little chance of any monetary recovery from resale. Moral: choose wisely since most of this stuff (electronic especially) will be with us until it ends up in the landfill. Regular hardware like lights might be a little better, but electronics are the worst in this regard.
Regards
Grant
Since this is the audio board, and I am amongst friends, i will change the topic slightly. It has often surprised me throughout the entire DVX board how little emphisis is placed on the business side of things. When I first became a business owner, it never occured to me that running a business was an entirely different set of skills than my trade, and essential for success. Ths artistic pursuits of DV production aside, I have a strong bias towards eating and living indoors.....so making money is part of this equation. Can I make money with this widgit??? What is my ROI? I have read some comments on DVX user about "How much should I charge", and never have I ever heard a return comment about ROI or overhead, or capitalization, or depreciation for that matter.
This relates to the topic about equipment purchases in that it seems that most of the equipment we buy will have to be fully depreciated with little chance of any monetary recovery from resale. Moral: choose wisely since most of this stuff (electronic especially) will be with us until it ends up in the landfill. Regular hardware like lights might be a little better, but electronics are the worst in this regard.
Regards
Grant
Hello Matt,
I agree that if you can stay wired up, the DVX is plenty good enough. The foley stuff would just be a convenience and wear and tear reduction.
How would you handle a live shoot where you wanted to move around too much for cables. I know the obvious answer is two cams...but I am not quite there yet and after having lots of employees, I will hold out for solo or beg my wife to help. Wireless seems like a risk.
Regards
Grant
I agree that if you can stay wired up, the DVX is plenty good enough. The foley stuff would just be a convenience and wear and tear reduction.
How would you handle a live shoot where you wanted to move around too much for cables. I know the obvious answer is two cams...but I am not quite there yet and after having lots of employees, I will hold out for solo or beg my wife to help. Wireless seems like a risk.
Regards
Grant
Grant,
If you scan through many of my posts, I take an ROI position many times on equipment. I certainly do this for my own purchases - I never (well almost never) replace a piece of equipment until it is paid for. I'm working on a break even basis right now in order to build the best kit I can - once I update my wireless, I'm now pretty close, now that I've added Boom Recorder into the mix.
There are lots of things on my "wish list", but most of them will stay there. I'd love to have a Deva (or really, even more, a Cantar) recorder, but it is hard, given the low budget world I work in, to rationalize purchasing a $15K recorder.
I think everyone needs to take an honest look at the kind of work they do, and purchase equipment that makes the most sense, from a business perspective, for that type of work.
Phil
If you scan through many of my posts, I take an ROI position many times on equipment. I certainly do this for my own purchases - I never (well almost never) replace a piece of equipment until it is paid for. I'm working on a break even basis right now in order to build the best kit I can - once I update my wireless, I'm now pretty close, now that I've added Boom Recorder into the mix.
There are lots of things on my "wish list", but most of them will stay there. I'd love to have a Deva (or really, even more, a Cantar) recorder, but it is hard, given the low budget world I work in, to rationalize purchasing a $15K recorder.
I think everyone needs to take an honest look at the kind of work they do, and purchase equipment that makes the most sense, from a business perspective, for that type of work.
Phil
to simplefi the stuff ill say you need to make at least 55-66% of value you invest in gear for 3 years to get 15 % income(and more if the **** doesnt happens) and selling the gear for 50% in the end of 36 months
thats incl , maintenance , sub hiring substitute gear ,bank payments if you loan the money and insurence .
so if you plan your business carefully and looking to expend sometimes to get better gear is not so painful .
in simple words , you have to make at least 5% of your investment per month .
so for hd-2 its 50$ and for 702 its 120 .
now if you shot your production and mess with syncing in the editing room for another session you can easily see why i say no way for non tc recorder with tc cameras .
tc save money if you do it right .
thats incl , maintenance , sub hiring substitute gear ,bank payments if you loan the money and insurence .
so if you plan your business carefully and looking to expend sometimes to get better gear is not so painful .
in simple words , you have to make at least 5% of your investment per month .
so for hd-2 its 50$ and for 702 its 120 .
now if you shot your production and mess with syncing in the editing room for another session you can easily see why i say no way for non tc recorder with tc cameras .
tc save money if you do it right .
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Well, a few things.
I have the 671 and like it very much. I usually use a MixPre as the front end but that has more to do with the added features the MixPre has rather than sound. The Pre's on the 671 are very good. The limiter is useless and the roll off is not much better. Battery life is very good and ease of use is great. 48/24 is noticeably better than 48/16 and testes we did with a Nagra V showed a barely noticeable difference at 96/24 over 48/24 so unless we know we are going to pitch something way down we never use 96. I also would have looked hard at the Tascam if it had been out at the time. I like how the 671 operated a bit better than the P2 but the P2 has better support (like firmware updates) than the Marantz.
THe 660 is supposed to have the same pre-amps as the 671 so it should sound pretty good. I personally hated the FR-2. And it has very short battery life, very hard to change batteries... I could go on but try it and see if it fits the way you work.
The Micro Track was a no started because of the built in batteries and lower than normal phantom power. Plus the display is in the wrong place for bag work.
I do mostly FX recording so TC is a non issue. Depending on what you do and for whom TC might be a non issue in general.
You don't "need" TC to record in sync takes. TC wasn't used until pretty recently in any film making. It came about originally because video tape didn't have sprocket holes. A camcorder and any digital recorder are inherently "self resolved" so you can do takes up to a couple of minutes with no issues at all and in most cases probably go for a half hour or more with no drift.
But and it's a big BUT. If you work for others as a recordist then it's probably wise to have TC capability because like "5.1" it's something folks are going to ask for whether they need it or use it and you better be able to yes or you will lose the job.
I'm not sure who uses TC now. It was a big deal for video shoots and a sometime thing for film. It got very important for a while when picture editors were bringing in really low rez transfers and audio post was replacing all the production. That never was really the case for low budget films since they never had the budget to do that. It's still not the case with most small projects because they don't produce the EDL's and change notes that make that a viable post flow. TC in general used to be important in sound post because we were locking up to video tape, but those days are long gone. I suspect that TC is a big issue for large budget films (shot on film) for telecine transfers and for reality TV shows with ungodly numbers of production tracks. For field recording it is a non issue. If your in house it's a non issue unless you use it for syncing audio tracks from a double system shoot.
As far as audio post goes I haven't used TC for syncing anything in probably two maybe three years. That would include maybe 100 ad's a couple of low budget features a stack of shorts and a couple of TV documentaries. Basically once we stopped having to deliver on DA-88. But as I said it depends on what you do and for whom. If I was hiring out on a lot of production recording I would absolutely want a TC recorder, because I know the question would come up.
I have the 671 and like it very much. I usually use a MixPre as the front end but that has more to do with the added features the MixPre has rather than sound. The Pre's on the 671 are very good. The limiter is useless and the roll off is not much better. Battery life is very good and ease of use is great. 48/24 is noticeably better than 48/16 and testes we did with a Nagra V showed a barely noticeable difference at 96/24 over 48/24 so unless we know we are going to pitch something way down we never use 96. I also would have looked hard at the Tascam if it had been out at the time. I like how the 671 operated a bit better than the P2 but the P2 has better support (like firmware updates) than the Marantz.
THe 660 is supposed to have the same pre-amps as the 671 so it should sound pretty good. I personally hated the FR-2. And it has very short battery life, very hard to change batteries... I could go on but try it and see if it fits the way you work.
The Micro Track was a no started because of the built in batteries and lower than normal phantom power. Plus the display is in the wrong place for bag work.
I do mostly FX recording so TC is a non issue. Depending on what you do and for whom TC might be a non issue in general.
You don't "need" TC to record in sync takes. TC wasn't used until pretty recently in any film making. It came about originally because video tape didn't have sprocket holes. A camcorder and any digital recorder are inherently "self resolved" so you can do takes up to a couple of minutes with no issues at all and in most cases probably go for a half hour or more with no drift.
But and it's a big BUT. If you work for others as a recordist then it's probably wise to have TC capability because like "5.1" it's something folks are going to ask for whether they need it or use it and you better be able to yes or you will lose the job.
I'm not sure who uses TC now. It was a big deal for video shoots and a sometime thing for film. It got very important for a while when picture editors were bringing in really low rez transfers and audio post was replacing all the production. That never was really the case for low budget films since they never had the budget to do that. It's still not the case with most small projects because they don't produce the EDL's and change notes that make that a viable post flow. TC in general used to be important in sound post because we were locking up to video tape, but those days are long gone. I suspect that TC is a big issue for large budget films (shot on film) for telecine transfers and for reality TV shows with ungodly numbers of production tracks. For field recording it is a non issue. If your in house it's a non issue unless you use it for syncing audio tracks from a double system shoot.
As far as audio post goes I haven't used TC for syncing anything in probably two maybe three years. That would include maybe 100 ad's a couple of low budget features a stack of shorts and a couple of TV documentaries. Basically once we stopped having to deliver on DA-88. But as I said it depends on what you do and for whom. If I was hiring out on a lot of production recording I would absolutely want a TC recorder, because I know the question would come up.
To agree with Noiz (somewhat...) I have lost a couple of jobs when I didn't have TC equipment. And, TC is still important for film (so it seems) especially when sending sound to the lab for telecine. And, even on video shoots where the camera does not directly support TC, production likes running TC as a backup for synch. So, as I have said repeatedly, you have to analyze your business and buy the equipment that is best suited for the type of work you do to day and are planning to do going forward.
Phil
Phil