Cheap recorder that doesn't compromise

[David Evans]

Hey guys,

I usually record audio into my camera (Ursa Mini 4.6k), going through a Sound Devices MM1. This works well as I use the camera just as a recorder while taking advantage of the MM1 preamp.

But for some of my shots (especially steadycam shots) this setup is not ideal, so I'm looking for the simplest and cheapest digital recorder that:

1- i can use my MM1 preamps and bypass completely the recorder's preamps;

2- records in 24 bits;

3- doesn't cause any loss in audio quality;

Any good recommendations?

Thanks

 

[truelife]

I'd recommend the MixPre 3 or 6 (also Sound Devices). Both very solid for the price and are quite small and easy to mount on camera.

 

[David Evans]

Thanks truelife. The MixPre looks great, but that would mean that I wouldn't be using my MM1 as the preamps should be the same in both machines, right? My goal was to continue using the MM1 and use a cheapo recorder that wouldn't compromise (aka, be able to bypass the internal preamps of the recorder). If I go and invest on a Mix Pre, I guess I could try to sell the MM1.

 

[Alex H.]

The MixPre looks great, but that would mean that I wouldn't be using my MM1 as the preamps should be the same in both machines, right? My goal was to continue using the MM1 and use a cheapo recorder that wouldn't compromise (aka, be able to bypass the internal preamps of the recorder). If I go and invest on a Mix Pre, I guess I could try to sell the MM1.

The Kashmir preamps in the new MixPre series are a newer preamp design, and the MM-1 is an older design. Though, even the older SD preamps are very nice. I do find the Kashmir preamps even quieter than older SD preamps even though the original MixPre I had a few years ago wasn’t exactly noisy.

You’ll find that many of the really inexpensive recorders do not completely bypass the pre-amps with line inputs; rather, they pad the pre-amps.

Matching audio and video in post isn’t very difficult and there are many software options to automate the process. I find that having audio detached from the camera is much more versatile than being tied to the camera. In-camera audio is also not usually the cleanest or most robust sound recording anyway. It’s gotten better, but audio for a video camera is typically an afterthought. A dedicated recorder solves this issue.

 

[Doug_EX]

Tascam DR40 or ZoomH4n

 

[Noiz2]

The MixPre looks great, but that would mean that I wouldn't be using my MM1 as the preamps should be the same in both machines, right?

Not really. In a typical film with a decent budget many many different mics and preamps are used. Having the same preamp is not going to make your tracks sound the same. If you were switching between shots in the same scene ??? Maybe there may be a slight difference but I doubt you would notice because other factors will have much more impact, like distance and placement. And even then it is not at all uncommon to use wireless and boom tracks so there you have wildly different mics feeding different preamps.

There are plenty of things to worry about in filmmaking not matching mic pres is not one of them.

 

[David Evans]

The Kashmir preamps in the new MixPre series are a newer preamp design, and the MM-1 is an older design. Though, even the older SD preamps are very nice. I do find the Kashmir preamps even quieter than older SD preamps even though the original MixPre I had a few years ago wasn’t exactly noisy.

You’ll find that many of the really inexpensive recorders do not completely bypass the pre-amps with line inputs; rather, they pad the pre-amps.

Matching audio and video in post isn’t very difficult and there are many software options to automate the process. I find that having audio detached from the camera is much more versatile than being tied to the camera. In-camera audio is also not usually the cleanest or most robust sound recording anyway. It’s gotten better, but audio for a video camera is typically an afterthought. A dedicated recorder solves this issue.

Alex, would it be a good trade to sell my MM1 and get a new Mix Pre?

 

[Alex H.]

Not really. In a typical film with a decent budget many many different mics and preamps are used. Having the same preamp is not going to make your tracks sound the same.

I think he was asking more about no need to use the MM-1 to feed the MixPre due to the equal(ish) quality of the pre-amps in the MixPre-3/6. The pre-amps in the MixPre-3 and -6 are a newer, better design.

 

[Alex H.]

Alex, would it be a good trade to sell my MM1 and get a new Mix Pre?

If you’re wanting to go completely second-system audio recording, absolutely. And if you want to be able to handle more than one mic in the field.

If you still want balanced (XLR), line-level audio to your camera, the MixPre will not do that.

 

[David Evans]

If you’re wanting to go completely second-system audio recording, absolutely. And if you want to be able to handle more than one mic in the field.

If you still want balanced (XLR), line-level audio to your camera, the MixPre will not do that.

I must say I've always been a guy that loves that video and sound are synched from the very beginning. It'd be a completely new workflow for me. I guess the part that worries me the most is finding the correct audio for a specific take. Lol. I'm sure this is all very easy for someone used to doing this, but this is something i've never had to worry about. Any specific technique for organizing audio and video files and linking them later?

 

[NorBro]

If you keep the MM-1, the cheapest solution would be recording to a Zoom H1 via XLR to 3.5mm.

I do this a lot and the audio sounds great. They are currently $70-$80 brand new as they are on their way out (discontinued and replaced with Zoom H1n).

 

[ggrantly]

I must say I've always been a guy that loves that video and sound are synched from the very beginning. It'd be a completely new workflow for me. I guess the part that worries me the most is finding the correct audio for a specific take. Lol. I'm sure this is all very easy for someone used to doing this, but this is something i've never had to worry about. Any specific technique for organizing audio and video files and linking them later?

Much like yourself, and often working alone, I prefer to record dialogue audio in-cam when possible. Although my primary cam records 24 bit audio and even the preamps are fair, I prefer to feed it line level when possible. And, I also need the option of second system audio.

My solution for tripod shots: I have a SD302 mixer (or an older generation Mixpre is has the same preamps and likely the same as your mm1) and set that on a magic arm clamped on my tripod. The 302 has three inputs and outputs to two, so much more versatile than a single channel mm1. Besides taking advantage of the great 302 preamps, I can set the mixer in a place where I can ride levels and actually see the metering. For recording tripod mounted in-cam, this has been a great solution for me. If I want second system audio, I add a recorder of some sort to the 302 which can still send output to the cam if desired. Although not the cheapest of the cheap recorders, I have liked the Tascam DR100 series, and the Mk2 version has pretty good preamps and can stand up as a stand alone recorder with phantom power. But if you are doing dual system, from a mixer bag, I don't know of any cheap recorder that works very well. In my case, I splurged on a used SD 744t which gives me about every option I could want limited to four channels used in combo with the 302. The newest SD MixPres weren't available when I put this system together, but in the end, I still would want the 302 or a similar to feed the cam, so it works for me.

Edit: Sorry about the photo orientation.

 

[Alex H.]

I must say I've always been a guy that loves that video and sound are synched from the very beginning. It'd be a completely new workflow for me. I guess the part that worries me the most is finding the correct audio for a specific take. Lol. I'm sure this is all very easy for someone used to doing this, but this is something i've never had to worry about. Any specific technique for organizing audio and video files and linking them later?

This isn’t pratical if you’re doing run-and-gun event coverage, but if you’re shooting narratives, corporate, promotional, etc., you’ll have time to slate each shot.

 

[Rick R]

If your feeding a camera (equipped with line level XLRs) from a MM1, the difference between that and recording directly to a MixPre 3, 6.. or whatever, is not going to make a night/day difference.
The MM1 BTW has been used to feed the boom mic to the PSM on countless mega budget films.

 

[Alex H.]

If your feeding a camera (equipped with line level XLRs) from a MM1, the difference between that and recording directly to a MixPre 3, 6.. or whatever, is not going to make a night/day difference.
The MM1 BTW has been used to feed the boom mic to the PSM on countless mega budget films.

For me, it’s about eliminating in-camera audio from the chain. No, the MixPre-6 won’t be a drastic improvement over the MM-1 (though the new Kashmir pre-amps are pretty stellar), but the MixPre-6 will make a noticeable difference from the camera.

 

[ggrantly]

Recording line-in to my Panny PX270, compared to an all SD audio chain; there is some difference. But for most corporate work, the difference is insignificant. I'm sure for big productions where heavy post were involved, it might be more important. Everything is relative. Down here at DVXuser levels, I think technique would be a more important issue than the slight improvement a stellar recorder brings when a good preamp is used.

Not so sure about Sony cams, but there has been large improvements in the audio sections of both Panny and Canon cams over the last several years, but the bad stigma remains with many audio pros that was well deserved a decade ago. And as is the case with many cheaper recorders, they do just fine as bit buckets where a good preamp sits on the front side.

 

[IronFilm]

Tascam DR40 or ZoomH4n

No. Just no. Not unless you're living last decade and broke.

Today in 2018 we're just totally spoiled with better low budget alternatives!

I must say I've always been a guy that loves that video and sound are synched from the very beginning. It'd be a completely new workflow for me. I guess the part that worries me the most is finding the correct audio for a specific take. Lol. I'm sure this is all very easy for someone used to doing this, but this is something i've never had to worry about. Any specific technique for organizing audio and video files and linking them later?

Your URSA Mini supports timecode. So just get a recorder which supports timecode (of which the prices for them have dropped DRAMATICALLY in the last couple of years, ditto timecode boxes. Very affordable now!), and keep your camera jammed with a timecode box.

I use Ultrasync ONEs:

But I have Tentacle Syncs too, and they're a good choice as well:

As for recorders:

Zoom F4 is amazing value for money, just packed with features for a very low price.

MixPre3 / MixPre6 are solid too, but I dislike their limited output options and their relatively low track count.

MixPre6 can only do 4 channels with TC (unlike the Zoom F4 which can do 6):

If you however just want a cheap cheap CHEAP recorder doing a track or two (but no timecode) then get the Tascam DR60Dmk2 for maximum bang for buck. (miles and miles better than the likes of an H4n!)

http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-r...various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/

 

[Felipe Henao]

As you have the preamp, and I guess this is a decision made budget wise, check the zoom F1 Field recorder the new one seems to be made for the field +96-24.
I'm tempted to get one for a similar set up.

 

[Run&Gun]

I'm not trying to make a blanket statement here, but in-camera audio has been given a bad rep and in this day and age with modern equipment, I don't think it's totally deserved. My primary cameras today are the VariCam(P2), F55 and C300. They are usually fed from either an SD 664 or 633 and always at line level. We usually record everything in the mixer, even when iso tracks aren't necessary(like a single mic situation) and usually hand over the WAV files and MP3 transcription tracks with the camera files, but the majority of the time the audio that is used are the camera tracks. The mixer tracks are more or less just a back-up in-case something happened with the camera tracks(i.e: took hits if doing a wireless hop).

And for what it's worth, I'm not shooting narrative. It's mostly network/broadcast and some production.

 

[GaryNattrass]

I'm not trying to make a blanket statement here, but in-camera audio has been given a bad rep and in this day and age with modern equipment, I don't think it's totally deserved. My primary cameras today are the VariCam(P2), F55 and C300. They are usually fed from either an SD 664 or 633 and always at line level. We usually record everything in the mixer, even when iso tracks aren't necessary(like a single mic situation) and usually hand over the WAV files and MP3 transcription tracks with the camera files, but the majority of the time the audio that is used are the camera tracks. The mixer tracks are more or less just a back-up in-case something happened with the camera tracks(i.e: took hits if doing a wireless hop).

And for what it's worth, I'm not shooting narrative. It's mostly network/broadcast and some production.

I totally agree and people should at least be trying to get good in camera sound before complicating things with single operator sep sound increasing the signal and gain structure chain and also adding potential sync issues in post.

I have many videos inc drama content with mics straight into the back of my P2 cameras and at work it is rare that we use sep sound for most of our news and doco production.