Camera or external recorder?

D

David Evans

Well-known member
Hi, I have a Canon XH A1s. I usually use its xlr mic inputs to record audio. What improvement would I have if I'd get an external audio recorder to capture audio? And would a $300 be better than my camera audio recording, or would i need a $1000 to hear a difference?

Thanks!
 
First question is: are you dis-satisfied with the audio from your cam. Second question: if you are dis-satisfied, is it the cameras recording ability, your technique, or other weak links in the equipment chain that is causing the issues. I think a lot of folks think that a better recorder is some magic bullet when the real problem lies elsewhere. To answer your question directly, yes, a $300 recorder like a DR100 has the "potential" to be an improvement over your cam audio. But I would make sure you have everything else covered before you do that. The answer to your question may also depend on the type of shooting you do. For basic audio for video, like interviews or simple dialogue, at the level of work you can do the a XHA1, IMHO, you don't need dual audio. If you are doing music, that would benefit from more bits.

Also, a separate recorder brings with it a whole new set of issues. The $300 models have gain issues with some mics and they aren't bag friendly. All of them bring challenges like battery issues, synching in post, the need for someone to run it (audio fella), and the list goes on. Yes it has the potential to improve your audio, but be careful what you wish for. One good reason to go remote audio is if you are "on the hoof" where cables to the cam become a hazard, and you have an audio person to concentrate on nothing but sound.

Another way, and IMHO a better way to begin improving your cam audio, is to use a mixer in front of the cam. This allows you to utilize the better preamps in the mixer (assuming you buy a good mixer), and better better control over the input. If you purchase a recorder in the future, the mixer will still be a large benefit to most recorders.

Grant
 
Thanks for your answer :) Ok, so let's forget about the sound capturing techniques (wich I always struggle to be the best I can manage, always with the boom as close as possible to the subject), and focus on the technical issues. You talked about getting more bits if I had music. How does this work? I usually just use the mic to capture dialogues (I make movies) and then mix the music and other sounds on post. So capturing the sound with different recording devices will actually result in different bitrates? I never thought of getting a mixer. Better preamps would mean better sound quality bitrate wise?

Thanks!
 
A mixer doesn't increase bitrate to your recorder. The recorder can only record to its maximum design. Most cams record 16/48, and most external recorders can record at higher bit rates. A mixer, when used properly, can feed a cleaner signal to whatever recorder, cam or external, giving it a better opportunity.

Another generalization would be that better mics will make a bigger difference than the recorder (within the realm we are discussing). What mics are you using?

Mixing in canned audio tracks while edit has nothing to do with the bitrate of the audio you captured shooting video, except you may need to edit both into the mix.

A rule of thumb is that if you are going to edit the audio very much, using Logic or ProTools for example, a higher bit rate will allow greater editing potential. Music often receives more editing and benefit more from a higher bitrate That is a simplification. And yes, you may end up with different bitrates when editing from different sources.

Grant
 
Hi
The advice you are getting is excellent. I am always big on running little tests. The famous reality check. They have sold so many of these small recorders perhaps you know where you can borrow one. Or bring your camera into the big toy store on a slow day and test. Maybe even rent. I think armed with just a little testing you can determine for your situation what makes a difference and for what costs in time and treasure. Test a really good mic, a really good recorder and a really good preamp. If you like the difference then you can go down in price and see if the benefit is retained. You can also get other opinions on your current sound quality, perhaps here with a link. A new and expert set of ears can be a great opinion in itself. Good luck.
 
ggrantly said:
A mixer doesn't increase bitrate to your recorder. The recorder can only record to its maximum design. Most cams record 16/48, and most external recorders can record at higher bit rates. A mixer, when used properly, can feed a cleaner signal to whatever recorder, cam or external, giving it a better opportunity.

Another generalization would be that better mics will make a bigger difference than the recorder (within the realm we are discussing). What mics are you using?

Mixing in canned audio tracks while edit has nothing to do with the bitrate of the audio you captured shooting video, except you may need to edit both into the mix.

A rule of thumb is that if you are going to edit the audio very much, using Logic or ProTools for example, a higher bit rate will allow greater editing potential. Music often receives more editing and benefit more from a higher bitrate That is a simplification. And yes, you may end up with different bitrates when editing from different sources.

Grant
Click to expand...

Well, for the feature film I just directed, I used my AT8035, wich is a decent mic but not really for indoor scenes. I really felt the lack of a hypercardioid, so I'm after the Oktava MK012 right now. As you can see, not really high end mics... but I wanted to make the best out of them. So maybe using a mixer would be the best idea?

Thanks!
 
Not pricey but still excellent mics. To put the whole bit rate thing in perspective big budget films were at either 44.1/16 or 48/16 until about 2000. Around then is when ProTools systems started to really get upgraded to 24 bit. But it still wasn't common till DAT stopped being used so??? 2006 ish maybe?

So while higher bit rates are common now most of the great sound movies you can think of were done either in analog or 16 bit digital (and most were then mastered on analog film).

Judging by what you have said I would spend the money on the Hyper and stay direct into the camera. I'm not a big single system proponent but I think that's a better use of your money.

Next I would go for a decent field mixer. If your not going over two channels then a SD MixPre is a good choice. Going over two channels (in a good mixer) tends to be a big step price wise.

After all the above I would look at a recorder.

BTW don't forget some decent wind protection and a good shock mount. The Oktava really wants both.
 
Noiz2 said:
Not pricey but still excellent mics. To put the whole bit rate thing in perspective big budget films were at either 44.1/16 or 48/16 until about 2000. Around then is when ProTools systems started to really get upgraded to 24 bit. But it still wasn't common till DAT stopped being used so??? 2006 ish maybe?

So while higher bit rates are common now most of the great sound movies you can think of were done either in analog or 16 bit digital (and most were then mastered on analog film).

Judging by what you have said I would spend the money on the Hyper and stay direct into the camera. I'm not a big single system proponent but I think that's a better use of your money.

Next I would go for a decent field mixer. If your not going over two channels then a SD MixPre is a good choice. Going over two channels (in a good mixer) tends to be a big step price wise.

After all the above I would look at a recorder.

BTW don't forget some decent wind protection and a good shock mount. The Oktava really wants both.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Just one question... What is the Hyper?
 
If buying an Oktava 012, it would be wise to be aware of the pitfalls. There are Chinese 'counterfeits' about.. then there's the quality control issues of even the 'genuine Russian' ones... they're not all created equal. Then there's the previously stated need for a high-quality shock mount, (like the Rycote Invision) and even a foam windscreen is needed indoors. In addition, there are modifications available from Mike Joly and the infamous Dorcey mod, but that won't fix a turkey. So what looks like a good low budget mic, may not turn out that way. Search this forum and the web for more info before letting go of the $$$.
Or do you feel lucky.
 
Well that is a really unfair assessment. Do you actually have any experience with the Oktava?

What it is and what it isn't.

First off you can't blame the company because there are chinese counterfeits out there. That is a problem with some of Sennheiser's mics also.
Rule #1 know who you are buying from.

The quality control is really an old issue not a current one. But since the only reputable folks I know to get an Oktava from are The Sound Room (10% discount for DVXUser members) or Jolly and both test everything they sell that isn't really a problem even if it were a current problem.

The Oktava is basically a 1930's Schoeps, and has many of the same issues. They are both very sensitive to any wind and both require wind protection indoors under normal working conditions. Both are pretty sensitive to handling noise and require a steady hand or a good shock mount.
Sensitive mics are sensitive so it kind of goes with the territory. Mics with low handling noise also usually have a limited low end. If you roll off the Oktava, like you are going to do for dialog, it's not much of an issue.

I'm not sure what scale you use but if an Oktava is $$$ then a schoeps is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and up.

The mods: (and BTW the Joly mod is basically the Dorcey mod with some hardware modifications added in) are not to "fix a turkey" but to improve a good mic. I'm not sure why it would be "infamous"? It was a swap out of some electronic parts that in the early Oktava's could be improved. A lot of those choices probably had more to do with what the company could actually lay hands on than design choices (we are talking before the USSR fell apart after all). They (the mods) are however really designed more for studio use. I doubt you would hear the difference with dialog on the set and the hardware mods make it more sensitive to wind.

It's a very good mic. You don't need to be lucky just handle it properly.

That said for the kind of stuff your doing one of the hypers less sensitive to handling noise might be a better deal. You are going to pay the same or more but a less experienced boom op wont be as much of a problem. And your using it for dialog so a little less sensitivity in the low end isn't a big deal.

The one issue that may be a down side is that the Oktava's were designed as studio mics and like most high end mics are not happy about rough handling. But I have two set ups with them and they have been doing dialog and FX recording in the field with no issues. They have hung off the back of semis and ridden on camels, been spitting distance of an F-14 firing up and close enough to the backside of a MIG to get warm and they still are working happily away.
 
Last edited:
Likewise to Noiz. I have a couple of Oktavas and feel they are great mics for the $$. For sure you can get better mics, but for much more $$. All the stuff you read about Oktava issues are true; spotty quality on older models, Chinese knock-offs, and more. The thing is, those issues are blown way out of proportion compared to how successful the Oktava really is. The mic has been in production for many many years, and more recently, you don't here about any of these issues. But the old issues persist as legend; they seem the to be embedded into history like a mysterious Russian espionage plot.

Grant
 
"Well that is a really unfair assessment"
Well maybe, sometimes I don't look at the bright side of things. I have and had two stereo three-cap sets of Oktava 012s. The first set was genuine Russian and were crap, I had an opportunity to use a (good) set from the 'Sound Room' which sounded totally different so I bought those. There's a whole 'other story' behind the 'counterfeits' that I'm sure your aware of, and supposedly those 'ASM counterfeits' don't sound all that bad, though I've never had one to test.
In any case, buying one from a reputable dealer is advised and I would also recommend the Sound Room.
I would concur to SK's other statements on the modifications and designed for studio use.
 
OK fair enough. That has not been the experience of most folks.
And I take it that the second set are not "turkeys" since you listened before you bought.

I know the convoluted back story of the chinese "counterfeits". If anyone is interested Google it and you can spend a few days reading all the arguments.

I have heard that they sound quite different, not nec. bad but not very close to what the Russian Oktava's sound like.

They are probably a good buy also, but I don't like them on ethical grounds ,not the chinese's fault it's a brit who is doing the "counterfeiting".

For others I put "counterfeiting" in quotes because the brit claims to own the name so they are possibly "legitimate" "Oktava" microphones. But like buying a knock off "Crescent wrench" it isn't the same thing, just the same name.
 
Noiz2 said:
Not pricey but still excellent mics. To put the whole bit rate thing in perspective big budget films were at either 44.1/16 or 48/16 until about 2000. Around then is when ProTools systems started to really get upgraded to 24 bit. But it still wasn't common till DAT stopped being used so??? 2006 ish maybe?

So while higher bit rates are common now most of the great sound movies you can think of were done either in analog or 16 bit digital (and most were then mastered on analog film).

Judging by what you have said I would spend the money on the Hyper and stay direct into the camera. I'm not a big single system proponent but I think that's a better use of your money.

Next I would go for a decent field mixer. If your not going over two channels then a SD MixPre is a good choice. Going over two channels (in a good mixer) tends to be a big step price wise.

After all the above I would look at a recorder.

BTW don't forget some decent wind protection and a good shock mount. The Oktava really wants both.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, hypers are very wind sensitive, even indoors. I have a windscreen that I usually use on my AT8035 and it does the job, but I don't know if it will be good enough for the Oktava. The windscreen that I have is pretty simple, it's similar to this:

http://www.thomann.de/pt/rycote_wind_screen_for_tascam_dr40.htm
 
Not sure that Hypers would be more sensitive as a category but? I'm usually in a zeppelin (I was going to say always but in fact when I do indoor live music recordings I don't use any wind protection on the Oktava's) so?
 
The Sound Room is the place to get the Oktava then! I'll be in the USA for my honey moon this October, and I'll spend 2 weeks in NY. Is the Sound Room close to NY? What's the best way to get there?

Thanks!
 
David Evans said:
The Sound Room is the place to get the Oktava then! I'll be in the USA for my honey moon this October, and I'll spend 2 weeks in NY. Is the Sound Room close to NY? What's the best way to get there?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Don't know that they have a physical storefront. Better to email them directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top