Cheap recorder that doesn't compromise

[Rick R]

According to SD specs, the MixPre 3/6 series recorders have a 3.5mm TRS stereo (unbalanced) output with a max level of +7.8dBu, so ... it would not work well feeding a +4dB balanced line input. I think the same goes for the Zoom F series (they would feed a cam-hop transmitter nicely though).
The 633 has pro line level main outputs though (max +20dBu).

 

[Run&Gun]

When it’s a OMB operation, the person operating the camera is the person operating sound.

If there’s a dedicated audio person and sound is fed to camera either by cable or by wireless hop, it is theoretically out of the camera op’s hands. However, I have been in plenty of situations where something has intervened. The camera op has a brain fart and flips a switch or bumps a dial and screws something up. Or the camera op disconnects to go grab a shot with camera mic and ends up resetting everything. Or they just decide to play creative genius with the sound. Stuff happens, and as long as someone else is holding the device that controls the last gain stage before recording, it’s more likely to happen.

But I wasn't talking about a one-man-band situation.

Some people have been saying that you can't get good audio in-camera and that is untrue. I, and others like me who have been doing this for decades, prove it's possible and easy, every day, IF you do it correctly. All of the examples of "why not to do it" are operator error examples of why it didn't work. On my VariCam, the audio pots are 1) a push-in lock design, you have to push them in to turn them and 2) I shoot with a shoulder case on, so there are two things keeping the audio pots from being bumped/accidentally adjusted. My C300 has a physical cover over the audio controls, so no accidental adjustments there. And my F55 has the audio level adjustment in a menu, so again, no accidental level adjustment. And there is always the old-school method that I still see to this day at times- gaff tape over the knobs. As far as some of the other things, well you can't fix stupid. Again, those are operator error mistakes and not technical limitations of the equipment.

I'm not saying don't use an external recorder(I do), but don't tell people that it's not possible to get quality audio recorded in-camera, because it is.

 

[Run&Gun]

You still have issues of dealing with cabling running from the soundie to the camera, plus risks of settings bumped wrong on the camera by accident (but having a camera return helps improve the odds of catching that).

Plus also the camera is only doing two tracks usually, yet usually I'm recording more than two tracks.

Yes, you only have two choices of getting audio to the cam: cable or wireless. I do both all of the time. Sit-down and (most) live-shot situations we are hard wired. If I need to be mobile or in possible dangerous situations(post game on the field of NFL games, for example), we are wireless. We follow a procedure for setting audio and locking it down, just like when we are hard-wired(and I always monitor audio at the camera when we are wireless). Yes, you take the chance of RF hits and drop-outs, but that chance exists with wireless no matter if it's from a subject/talent to the bag or bag to camera.

If you're running more than two tracks, by all means record the ISO's. But again, in my world(non-narrative/scripted), the two channel camera mix is what gets used the majority of the time. Probably largely for convenience, but still, a quality mix is a quality mix.

We can discuss this till the cows come home, but all I'm trying to say is that a professional camera is more than capable of recording quality audio when you do it right. There isn't some crazy technical limitation that makes its quality vastly inferior to an external recorders sound quality.

 

[Alex H.]

I'm not saying don't use an external recorder(I do), but don't tell people that it's not possible to get quality audio recorded in-camera, because it is.

The words “not possible” were never used in regards to in-camera audio (though I’d argue that DSLRs do fit that bill, and I still see a fair amount of production on those). And there are plenty of us around here who have been doing this for decades, and we’ve all been shaped by our experiences.

If anyone is interested in a very abridged look-back at how far we’ve come... old-school field mixers weren’t exactly quiet by today’s standards, but their noise floors were generally lower than the noise floors of the cameras. The FP-32, 32A, and 33 were indudstry workhorses, but BetaSP was noisier than the mixers. DigiBeta started seeing a noise floor that exposed that of the mixers. The DVX-100A was lauded not just for affordable 24P production, but because it actually had some of the cleanest in-camera audio of its time. I had one, and did shoot some projects in-cam, but still preferred DAT outside of the camera. By that time, Sound Devices mixers had come around and were obliterating Shure mixers for quiet performance, which was needed because the cameras were cleaner. We moved on from tape (cameras) to solid-state, and things got even better. Audio recorders also moved to solid-state. What cameras offer today was inconceivable 15 years ago. And field recorders and mixers got even better, and were eventually merged into single units.

Today’s camcorders and digital cinema cameras offer in-cam audio that is usable for some things, but I still find that the mixing, routing, limiters, metering, and pre-amps are much better outside of the camera, and that the internal recording in the bag or on the cart is superior, even if that difference isn’t always enough for some projects to go with it over in-cam.

For ENG, in-camera is still pretty common (I still do plenty of C-SPAN, news magazines, etc.) even if the audio bag is wireless to cam and running ISO tracks. For narrative, second-system is still better. That’s also an important distinction: ENG/EFP vs. narrative. I’m offering my own perspective and preferences here, too... not assuming by any means that its the only right way to do anything. I find second-system preferable, and I stand by that.

I was recently on a 2-cam shoot with RED EPIC and a C300 (bizarre camera pairiing), wireless audio/TC camera hop from a 633. It was a pain, granted a bit of that was due to the Zaxcom system the producers provided and related cabling issues. Even when it wasn’t buggy, I listened off-cam and was still happier with what was in the bag.

 

[Alex H.]

David, in interest of getting back on-topic here:

As the old saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. We can sit here and accuse others of being drastically wrong, or acknowledge that “the rules” are pretty loose and this is all a matter of personal experiences and preferences. I’ve seen sound people who get lots of work do things that I would think ridiculous, but it works for them. Lighting & grip are the same: there’s an art form to breaking the rules. Take all this for what you will and figure out which workflow best applies to your typical production. You owe the best quality you can get to your clients, and its really up to you as to which tools help you do that most effectively.

If you want to pony up $3k for a Sound Devices 633, you’ll be all set for in-camera and second-system... but that goes well outside your original question of “cheapie” recorders. I will say this: get the best you can now and invest in something that will last you a long time.

And again, if you have a regular (and experienced) sound person you work with, consult with that person. If that person is a newbie, still have a conversation and come to an agreed solution, as it is best for that person to learn and form better habits in workflow now than to try and break bad habits later.

 

[Noiz2]

I'm missing something here. Why would the audio guy NOT have control over the sound?

In the set as you describe the mixer has "control" but they can't see the levels and don't know if the cameraperson has changed anything. Leading to...

If you are shooting on a professional camera and following standard professional protocols for sending audio from a professional mixer to the camera, there should be absolutely no reason(outside of a technical malfunction) that you don't have good audio recorded in camera, as long as the audio guy was able to get good audio to begin with.

I think you are reading the wrong thread. The OP is looking for the cheapest recorder that doesn't suck. That does not say "professional" tools and crew.

So in the context of a professional crew who was their workflow down and is using professional tools I would mostly agree with you. But then a professional is probably also running a backup in your scenario, I know I certainly would. But this thread is not about a full on professional crew and kit. And in the low budget world you can not depend at all on the cameraperson not unplugging something or in advertently hitting a level control.

 

[Noiz2]

There is recorder from Marantz that judging by the 2 Channel interface that I own, should be better than any of the similarly priced recorders
is the PMD-706 6-Channel Recorder, The build and sound are Great.

Interesting and a very nice price.

I would definitely want to check one out in person though. My main recorder for years has been a Marantz and it has held up very well. But things I would check on before you buy would be 1) Firmware, Marantz used to require you send the recorder to the shop to update firmware. That is just not acceptable. I probably would not have bought it had I known. As it is the first one I had had old buggy firmware and I returned it.

2) Limiters. They may have fixed this but the limiters on my recorder are worse than useless. They act like a lagging AGC, so you get your clip and then the level drops for a bit and then starts going back up. Just awful.

3) file naming, mine just incremental numbers them so everything needs to be renamed. Odds are you I would rename them anyway but it would be nice if I could at least put unique names/ numbers as each card will have files with the same number.

None but the firmware are killers. At $150 less than the Zoom (current discount) it's a pretty good contender in the low priced multi channel market.

 

[Felipe Henao]

@Noiz2, Recently purchased the 2 channel interface from Marantz and compared to a Beachtek I've owned for more than 5 yars is waaay better and the price is just funny.
This recorder is all metal you can literally jump on it is made like a tank, Clean preamps, and like 60 db of gain abit heavy but that is the price for having a well made device.
Check the reviews at BHPhoto, on the other side I've owned a Tascam recorder, that despite of having good sound the plastic pieces under a careful treatment
just get self destroyed with the years.

 

[David Evans]

Guys, like I said, the only problem that I have is how to sync audio and picture when recording to a separate recorder. Well, actually, the problem is not only sync but also find the correct audio file that corresponds to a certain video file in the camera. I've never used timecode (never had the need to) but apparently this would be the only way to make it work? Any recommended timecode ?

Thanks

PS: Alex, I don't always have a dedicated sound guy. Sometimes I do, but most times I need to count on myself and someone helping me. And that someone is not a dedicated sound guy, most of the times...

 

[Noiz2]

I did a bit of checking and the only big issue I found is that the 706 looses whatever file it is recording if it looses power. The good news is that Marantz has said they will fix this in a firmware update. Assuming they let users instal it...

This is really competition for the similar Tascam recorders, the Zoom F series is a decent step up.

 

[IronFilm]

There is recorder from Marantz that judging by the 2 Channel interface that I own, should be better than any of the similarly priced recorders
is the PMD-706 6-Channel Recorder, The build and sound are Great.

Six channels with phantom power for under three hundred dollars is crazy good value.

 

[Run&Gun]

In the set as you describe the mixer has "control" but they can't see the levels and don't know if the cameraperson has changed anything. Leading to...


I think you are reading the wrong thread. The OP is looking for the cheapest recorder that doesn't suck. That does not say "professional" tools and crew.

So in the context of a professional crew who was their workflow down and is using professional tools I would mostly agree with you. But then a professional is probably also running a backup in your scenario, I know I certainly would. But this thread is not about a full on professional crew and kit. And in the low budget world you can not depend at all on the cameraperson not unplugging something or in advertently hitting a level control.

OK. Fair enough. But in my scenario(of a professional crew), the audio guy doesn't need to see the levels on the camera while they are recording. The levels have been set, matched and locked down. And, at least on mixers like an SD 633, 664, etc., you can "match" the return levels coming back from the camera(presuming you're hardwired) to the mixer output levels, so the audio op should be able to toggle back and forth between the mixer and return and the levels on the meters match, and in essence they are now able to check the levels on the camera without actually having to look at the meters on the camera. But, sadly, this is all based on the presumption that the camera guy is not a complete boob and the camera is something at least a step better than what you can grab at Best Buy(OP said it's an Ursa Mini 4.6, so I'm gonna presume he, at least, has a fighting chance).

 

[Run&Gun]

The words “not possible” were never used in regards to in-camera audio (though I’d argue that DSLRs do fit that bill, and I still see a fair amount of production on those). And there are plenty of us around here who have been doing this for decades, and we’ve all been shaped by our experiences.

I completely agree with you in regards to people being shaped by their experiences(and DSLRS having crap audio, too. Lol). And that's why I know that good audio recorded in camera is possible, with the proper equipment and knowledge and crew.

I wasn't trying to spin this thread into something that it's not, but in the interest of knowledge, I felt that those that may not know or may have been taught/told that the only way to get good audio is with second system sound, needed to know that you don't necessarily have to. Yes, there are times when that is absolutely the way to go and sometimes even the ONLY way to go. But there is still quality(sounding) work being done every day without it.

 

[Noiz2]

I completely agree with you in regards to people being shaped by their experiences(and DSLRS having crap audio, too. Lol). And that's why I know that good audio recorded in camera is possible, with the proper equipment and knowledge and crew.

I wasn't trying to spin this thread into something that it's not, but in the interest of knowledge, I felt that those that may not know or may have been taught/told that the only way to get good audio is with second system sound, needed to know that you don't necessarily have to. Yes, there are times when that is absolutely the way to go and sometimes even the ONLY way to go. But there is still quality(sounding) work being done every day without it.

As a sound person who very occasionally shoots some things with a DSLR I would agree with you. Now I get a lot of excremental audio from low budget projects but in most cases it would have been possible for them to have gotten decent tracks with the equipment they had.

The "you can't get decent audio in a camera" really dates to pre DVX100 camcorders that were really bad mostly. Some time after the DVX most prosumer or better cameras have decent audio and pretty much all professional cameras have good or better sound sections. And even DSLR properly fed can sound pretty good.

On low budget shoots 90% of the problem is #1 lack of interest in good sound #2 lack of knowledge of how to get decent sound. Kind of tied to both is sometimes poor equipment choices like really crappy mics. But the reality is anything you buy today is probably going to sound better than pricey gear from the 80's, 90's or earlier. The core parts have gotten so cheap that even cheap ger uses pretty good parts.

Decent education in sound for film would help the situation quite a bit. Realizing the potential would get filmmakers to think about it before they get to post and some education could vastly reduce the amount of trash that goes to post. The industry itself is part of the problem. There are some decently realistic looks at the visual workflow on a big film but the sound always gets treated like "magic" that the right box makes happen. If FX are talked about at all it's usually Foley (heavily edited so it looks quick and easy) or a recordist recording something dangerous.
Dialog is always portrayed as a mix of miracle workers and lots of ADR.

Anyway this has veered pretty far OT

Jumping back OT.

For real FX work or production recording a bag friendly box is highly recommended. In a handheld I would only consider one that had XLR mic ins. The exception to that is if you already have a bag recorder then a small handheld can be really useful even if it only uses it's built in mics. For the OP use... You could probably do fine with a handheld like the Tascam DR-40. Handhelds are a PITA for production but if it's just a few odd scenes then the advantage of having a small recorder you can easily carry around might superseed that.

I use a MixPre as a front end to a recorder and there is a bit of extra hassle having two devices that need to be powered and connected but not that much. And pretty much any recorder you get is going to have decent mic pres so it's not going to be that big a deal if you go direct. For me the limiters are often really important and that is why I keep the MixPre in front.
If you can record at 24 bit do so, but it is not magic and won't suddenly make things better. The reason to do so is you are getting higher resolution and like having higher resolution video you can work with it more before it falls apart. I almost never see 24 bit come in from production but I work in 24 bit in post for that reason and all of my FX are recorded at 24 bit.

 

[Run&Gun]

On low budget shoots 90% of the problem is #1 lack of interest in good sound #2 lack of knowledge of how to get decent sound. Kind of tied to both is sometimes poor equipment choices like really crappy mics...

Decent education in sound for film would help the situation quite a bit...

This. This is the Readers Digest version of the takeaway from the sidetrack.


Sometimes the best information and discussion is "off-topic" stuff that spurs off from the original topic/discussion.

 

[IronFilm]

The reason to do so is you are getting higher resolution and like having higher resolution video you can work with it more before it falls apart. I almost never see 24 bit come in from production but I work in 24 bit in post for that reason and all of my FX are recorded at 24 bit..

Good grief!! Say whaaaat?

You need to hassle the producers to hire proper sound recordists.

What kind of amateurs are recording to 16bit.

Next you will tell me they're MP3 files as well....

 

[Noiz2]

Digital video standard is 48/16, so a lot of people are recording 16 bit. And a fair number of people who are semi OMBing want it in 16 bit since that is what they think they need.

BTW a lot of what people here on PRI (Public Radio in the US) and probably radio many places IS recorded on MP3. Not recommending it but true none the less.

And well Dolby Digital is a compressed format...

And there is nothing particularly wrong with 16 bit, CD's are after all 44.1/16.

Also there are a LOT of amateurs on this list.

But the real bottom line is that it is not the gear so much as how you use it.

Name the top ten films for sound and then look at what they were made with, it's how you use the tool not what tool you use.

 

[GaryNattrass]

Yup and most of all the classic films were recorded with a mono Nagra and dubbed on tripple track 35mm sound film with at best Dolby SR noise reduction.

I personally find 24 bit useful in post but as stated earlier have pretty much recorded 48k 16 bit audio for most of my career.

As for dynamic range it can sometimes actually ruin a project and there are numerous examples of too much dynamic range being used, besides as anyone who has done any high end audio post there are fairly strict rules to ensue that relative loudness for dialogue and delivery of TV shows.

Just look up loudness and R128 then try to mix your project within those guidelines and I think you will find it pretty much comes out sounding like Mp3.

Also just as a final note how many of us actually listen to any music etc 16 bit 48k anyway these days as most music is compressed as are Dolby digital sound tracks and TV in 5.1

I would rather have well recorded 48k 16 bit or Mp3 audio than bad or unmonitored 24 bit.

 

[IronFilm]

Digital video standard is 48/16, so a lot of people are recording 16 bit. And a fair number of people who are semi OMBing want it in 16 bit since that is what they think they need.

Assuming we're discussing filmmaking as usual, then no professional soundie is commonly recording 16bit.

And not even amateurs who have a clue will be doing 16bit.

Plus we should do everything we can to encourage people to embrace 24bit as the standard it is! Rather than ever ever suggesting capturing in 16bit

 

[GaryNattrass]

How many people actually get their content shown anywhere near a cinema so quoting film techniques all the time just muddies the water in the same way as they quest for shallow DOF but without even bothering to consider that "film" uses a focus puller to achieve that.

As most people tend not to even bother doing any audio post on their content the sheer dynamic range digital offers makes forums like these just full of mis information.

I work in film and TV as a job but rarely use more than 20-30 db of dynamic range and as for R128 or dial norm for "film" it tends to be even less.