Best Under 1,000$ 24 Bit 96KHz Audio Recorder

R

Robertofish

Active member
I currently have a Zoom H4N and a Rode NTG-3 with Blimp and deadcat windmuff, as well as an Audio Technica AT4053B which I use for inside use, I am going to soon be upgrading to more microphones but still using either the Audio Technica or Rode with 3 maybe more lav mics, what recorder for under 1000$ should I get or slightly over if its worth it would be fine like 1100-1200 if need be, I was thinking of the Edirol R-44 or Tascam DR-680, are there any other good ones that you would suggest that have 24 bit 96khz and 48volt phantom power?
 
You may want to check some specs. The Mics are not going to give you anything at 96K and nobody in post wants 96K, really, nobody. Well nobody who knows what they are doing.

The only recorder I know of that fits your specs would be the Tascam 680.
 
Yeah, for dialogue, 96K is completely unnecessary and will be downconverted anyway. For sound effects recording...sometimes, but you should be using really high quality mics for that. In terms of a recorder...how many tracks do you need?
 
Why is 24 bit 96khz bad for recording, isnt it just the quality of recording? Should I be recording at 88.2, 48 etc, what would be the pros of using a field mixer, as for number of tracks 8 is good which I think the Edioral has except 4 mono instead of stereo, I have also worked with 24 bit 96khz and havent seen a problem with it.
 
Robertofish said:
I currently have a Zoom H4N and a Rode NTG-3 with Blimp and deadcat windmuff, as well as an Audio Technica AT4053B which I use for inside use, I am going to soon be upgrading to more microphones but still using either the Audio Technica or Rode with 3 maybe more lav mics, what recorder for under 1000$ should I get or slightly over if its worth it would be fine like 1100-1200 if need be, I was thinking of the Edirol R-44 or Tascam DR-680, are there any other good ones that you would suggest that have 24 bit 96khz and 48volt phantom power?
Click to expand...

The new Edirol R-26 that replaces the old R-09 is very good and the LS-100 is also well worth considering.
 
A single track of properly recorded 48K audio trumps 8 tracks of poorly recorded 96K audio all day long.


Now I don't want to come off sounding like a pompous ass, But... going through many of your posts with the issues you are having, you seen to think that throwing money into a bunch of gear will alleviate the shortcomings you are experiencing and make for a great movie. Sorry but it does not work that way. It's your lack of experience, not your gear that is the real issue here. Might I suggest that rather than spending $$$ on new wireless microphones, 96K recorders, and Boom stands so you can avoid using a boom op, that instead you invest that money into learning the craft. Even if it's just hiring a professional production sound mixer and boom op for a half day of tutoring.

Good Luck!

Dave
 
Robertofish said:
Why is 24 bit 96khz bad for recording, isnt it just the quality of recording? Should I be recording at 88.2, 48 etc, what would be the pros of using a field mixer, as for number of tracks 8 is good which I think the Edioral has except 4 mono instead of stereo, I have also worked with 24 bit 96khz and havent seen a problem with it.
Click to expand...

This kind of enforces what David said.

96 isn't "bad" for recording, it's A) a waste of time and space for production recording and B) will make post (a real post person anyway) pissed off at you. The first thing they are likely to do is sample rate convert to 48/24.

That you bring up 88.1 says you don't know much about sound and video. Digital video uses 48/16 almost exclusively. Some do 48/24 now I think and BluRay can include a high sample rate stream, but I'm not sure if that is an audio only format? Not sure but bottom line is for the foreseeable future 48/24 is the choice for production and 49/16 is your most likely format for distribution.

Editorial, for sound post doesn't really have a top number. Most projects will fit into 100 tracks or so, but I have worked on projects with close to 500 tracks. Bringing more tracks to post isn't an issue, but it isn't a benefit unless they are GOOD tracks. Having done a lot of low budget post the trend has been to record more tracks but the quality of the tracks has also trended down. There is this VERY WRONG idea that you will make up for bad quality with quantity.

Lots of piles of dung are NOT better than one pile of dung. At least with only one it takes less time, and you don't have to wash your hands as often.

IF you are going to do a lot of tracks make ONE the hero track and treat it as if it were the only track and then use the others for plant mics or something. Post really wants ONE decent track. More tracks are just more time and low budget is almost never on an hourly so it actually costs me money to wade through the dung piles.

A really good rule to remember as you learn filmmaking is "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top