On my EX1r I record straight to the camera via a wired lav (Countryman EMW, shelved). I'm not dissatisfied, really, but the setup is definitely NOT noise-free. I am curious how this setup might compare with dual recording to a Fostex FR2-le. I have a Rode NTg-3 kit on the way, so I guess the same question goes for that too. I do mostly small-market commercial work, some event and non-breaking ENG stuff. I usually have an assistant on hand who is moderately experienced with the boom. Related question: Fostex aside, how much might I benefit from running the boom to a mid-range mixer like the The MixPre-D from Sound Devices?
EX-1r recording quality vs. Fostex
- Thread starter gibbygoo
- Start date
I don't have any experience or knowledge of the camera you're using, so I cant really give a comparison to it. The general consensus though, is that a good mixer like the mixpre-D is generally preferable over a similar priced recorder (if you can't have both). Even though the FR2-LE is known for having good preamps and reliability for the cost, the mixpre is a truly professional piece of gear that is rock solid in build, offers you very good preamps, metering, low cut, and excellent limiters. Even if you get another recorder or camera along the way, the mixer will always be useful.
I do not think you would gain much if any audio quality improvement by using something like Fostex FR-2-le instead of running audio straight to the camera. Using double system would just make things more complicated (twice the buttons to push just to get a shot rolling). My favorite way of doing things is using a good mixer (SD302) in front of the camera, as the meters and gain knobs are much bigger and the limiters are just great. Running a properly aligned mixer into the cam guarantees no overloading and clipping while running the levels maximally high but safe. I have measured over 92 dB dynamic range even in the ancient Canon XH-A1 with SD302, these new card-based cameras should be at least as good.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
I agree with both Jema and Petrus. Recording audio on an FR2-LE will not be significantly better quality than directly on your EX1R. And the increased complexity of double-system sound recording would turn that solution negative on my cost-benefit ratio evaluation.
Certainly the MixPre-D is a premium piece of equipment, but I would want to analyze the reason for the poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) before spending money on ANY solution. It is quite possible that recording on an FR2-LE, or even the addition of a premium mic preamp-mixer like the Sound Devices will do nothing for your symptoms if the problem is the microphone or the way you are using it (or WHERE you are using it).
Certainly the MixPre-D is a premium piece of equipment, but I would want to analyze the reason for the poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) before spending money on ANY solution. It is quite possible that recording on an FR2-LE, or even the addition of a premium mic preamp-mixer like the Sound Devices will do nothing for your symptoms if the problem is the microphone or the way you are using it (or WHERE you are using it).
Thanks guys. I was speculating along the same lines, but I didn't have much comparative testing under my belt to say for sure. I have been looking at the MixPre-D seriously.
On the recorder, I've heard so much praise for the Fostex that I began to wonder how it would stack up to my onboard recorder. Nice to know my EX would probably fare well against a mid-priced external.
Richard, I appreciate your comment about isolating the problem in terms of mic selection, technique and/or placement. The great thing is that all 3 of those things are well within my control. I'm pretty confident now that an NTG-3/boom=>MixPre-D=> EX1r setup is going to be a good one as long as my boom op's skills are up to snuff.
On the recorder, I've heard so much praise for the Fostex that I began to wonder how it would stack up to my onboard recorder. Nice to know my EX would probably fare well against a mid-priced external.
Richard, I appreciate your comment about isolating the problem in terms of mic selection, technique and/or placement. The great thing is that all 3 of those things are well within my control. I'm pretty confident now that an NTG-3/boom=>MixPre-D=> EX1r setup is going to be a good one as long as my boom op's skills are up to snuff.
ullanta
Veteran
I have not worked with the EX1r, but I've not yet encountered any camera that records audio as well as even pretty cheap dedicated recorders, even fed line-level signals from a good preamp. Most current cameras record passable audio IFF you record at a near-perfect level. If you need to add gain in post, camera audio pretty quickly becomes noticeably worse than audio from a dedicated recorder.
So, for narrative/well controlled commercial work, etc, with someone good riding levels, you might not see a difference. For many types of event work where sound levels are suboptimal, you might see significant improvement with the fostex. For my type if work (mainly classical music events), the difference is noticeable every time.
So, for narrative/well controlled commercial work, etc, with someone good riding levels, you might not see a difference. For many types of event work where sound levels are suboptimal, you might see significant improvement with the fostex. For my type if work (mainly classical music events), the difference is noticeable every time.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
IME, prosumer portable audio recorders generally have performance that is equivalent to prosumer camcorders (i.e. those with native XLR inputs and uncompressed audio recording). Certainly the portability and easier access of controls are features in favor of the portable audio recorders. But I have heard no significant improvement of sound quality from portable audio recorders vs. good camcorders. I would not expect that, all else being equal, simply recording on a mass-market portable audio recorder would get me any significant improvement in audio quality.
Greg Smith
Veteran
24-bit versus 16-bit recording should give you an immediately noticeable advantage if you start pushing levels around much in post. At the same sample rate and bit depth, you're right, probably not so much. I always record at 24 bits when I use my external recorder (which is not all that often -- only for live music, generally) and I think that helps a little bit. Increases my confidence to record at lower levels and avoid distortion, at least.
Do any camcorders do better than 16 bit/48 kHz audio?
- Greg
ullanta
Veteran
Richard, are you going by specs or testing? While specs may look similar, camera audio tends to have a much higher and less random noise floor… there's a lot of electrical noise in a camera. 24-bit recording also makes a significant difference.
I record classical music events with very wide dynamic range, always double system, and sync by hand… so I always listen at least a bit to both. In thousands of recordings over the last decade, with many different cameras and recorders, I've yet to find a single case where the camera was as good as the external recorder for quiet material.
But, like I say, I haven't used the ex1r… so maybe there's something revolutionary in there?
I record classical music events with very wide dynamic range, always double system, and sync by hand… so I always listen at least a bit to both. In thousands of recordings over the last decade, with many different cameras and recorders, I've yet to find a single case where the camera was as good as the external recorder for quiet material.
But, like I say, I haven't used the ex1r… so maybe there's something revolutionary in there?
Richard Crowley
Veteran
1) Certainly 24-bit gives you more headroom to play with, which is especially important recording live musical events, particularly those with great dynamic range. I also do a lot of work (both audio and video) with live location productions of classical music, and 24-bit sample-depth saves a lot of gray hair trying to second-guess where levels are going to be.
2) It makes no difference whether you have recorded in 16-bit or 24-bit when it comes to post production. No audio or video NLE worth the price of admission does fixed-point 16-bit arithmetic under the hood. I can't imagine anyone here is using anything that doesn't do AT MINIMUM 24-bit fixed-point arithmetic, and probably 36-bit and/or floating point. So I believe that argument is a red herring.
3) No the EX1 does not have extraordinary audio performance. But neither does a little portable digital audio recorder (H4, et.al.) NONE of that genre of products has the SNR performance it takes to be true 24-bit (144 dB). Even the most expensive, gold-plated mic preamps known in this galaxy are not capable of that kind of dynamic range. And, of course even the quietest sound stage doesn't have that kind of noise floor, either.
4) Even the best camcorder ever known is NOT appropriate for making really serious recordings (whether stereo live mixdown, or tracking individual mics) of live musical performances. I was not trying to imply that. But I am suggesting that people who are doing commercial/ENG type production (as the OP who started this discussion) are not likely to see significant improvement of audio quality by switching from one decent (but not spectacular) product to another that performs about the same (a typical portable digital audio recorder like H4, et.al.) They would see a MUCH GREATER improvement by using good microphones, good mic techniques, and selecting quiet locations.
5) I also use a 24-channel audio recorder for tracking all the mics for live musical performance recording (whether audio or audio+video). I have been recording mostly classical (choral, orchestral, chamber, etc.) music for decades, audio for a couple decades before getting into video. Most recently I have been using my Alesis HD24-XR before it died on the way back from Romania. :-(
2) It makes no difference whether you have recorded in 16-bit or 24-bit when it comes to post production. No audio or video NLE worth the price of admission does fixed-point 16-bit arithmetic under the hood. I can't imagine anyone here is using anything that doesn't do AT MINIMUM 24-bit fixed-point arithmetic, and probably 36-bit and/or floating point. So I believe that argument is a red herring.
3) No the EX1 does not have extraordinary audio performance. But neither does a little portable digital audio recorder (H4, et.al.) NONE of that genre of products has the SNR performance it takes to be true 24-bit (144 dB). Even the most expensive, gold-plated mic preamps known in this galaxy are not capable of that kind of dynamic range. And, of course even the quietest sound stage doesn't have that kind of noise floor, either.
4) Even the best camcorder ever known is NOT appropriate for making really serious recordings (whether stereo live mixdown, or tracking individual mics) of live musical performances. I was not trying to imply that. But I am suggesting that people who are doing commercial/ENG type production (as the OP who started this discussion) are not likely to see significant improvement of audio quality by switching from one decent (but not spectacular) product to another that performs about the same (a typical portable digital audio recorder like H4, et.al.) They would see a MUCH GREATER improvement by using good microphones, good mic techniques, and selecting quiet locations.
5) I also use a 24-channel audio recorder for tracking all the mics for live musical performance recording (whether audio or audio+video). I have been recording mostly classical (choral, orchestral, chamber, etc.) music for decades, audio for a couple decades before getting into video. Most recently I have been using my Alesis HD24-XR before it died on the way back from Romania. :-(
Thanks guys! But please bear with me here.
In line with what Richard stated about who I am and what I do, let me tell you guys about a typical local commercial type of job for me:
* :30 to :90 sec piece, usually destined for 720p web and/or local broadcast.
* Downtown shop in a small city.
* Old building, lots of clutter, decent ceiling height.
* Lots of florescent lights.
* A few shoppers scurrying about, but consciously quiet.
* typical HVAC issues, water coolers, office equipment etc.
* Minimal outside noise, but it's there.
* Non-professional speaker who faces at me, slightly off axis (I'm camera-left).
The dialogue component (just the speaker, no Q&A) is the anchor to the piece. (There is also a light acoustic soundtrack.) I have a Bingo grid on my off-camera monitor and I almost always begin with a moderately tight setting with the speaker's nose in the upper right-third crosshair. Camera is locked down. Key light w/ small softbox is camera left (left of me). Boom op will be camera right with an NTG-3 on a blimp, suspended about 16 inches above speaker's head, wired straight to camera or possibly through a MixPreD. Hard-wood flooring. Thin carpet at best.
In addition to the boom setup, I may also have the Countryman EMW lav wired into the other channel or into a cheapie field recorder (h4n) for backup (no intent of mixing the two channels). I might not even listen to the field recorder file if I'm satisfied with the camera's track.
So there it is. Pretty basic.
I didn't want to bore you guys with details, but this is the SPECIFIC situation that my original question is based on. (Forget concerts, music recording, theatrical stuff.) So in the specific situation described above, will my sound quality noticeably improve if the boom is sent to a Fostex FR2-le rather than the internal recorder of the EX1r? (Let's assume that my sound guy is totally on his game running the boom and adjusting levels off a mixpre.)
You actually answered this question pretty well. I just want to make sure the possible gains of going external might be limited to situations beyond what I've described. Thanks again, guys. I feel like a total leech sucking all your knowledge... but hey, I'm cool with that.
In line with what Richard stated about who I am and what I do, let me tell you guys about a typical local commercial type of job for me:
* :30 to :90 sec piece, usually destined for 720p web and/or local broadcast.
* Downtown shop in a small city.
* Old building, lots of clutter, decent ceiling height.
* Lots of florescent lights.
* A few shoppers scurrying about, but consciously quiet.
* typical HVAC issues, water coolers, office equipment etc.
* Minimal outside noise, but it's there.
* Non-professional speaker who faces at me, slightly off axis (I'm camera-left).
The dialogue component (just the speaker, no Q&A) is the anchor to the piece. (There is also a light acoustic soundtrack.) I have a Bingo grid on my off-camera monitor and I almost always begin with a moderately tight setting with the speaker's nose in the upper right-third crosshair. Camera is locked down. Key light w/ small softbox is camera left (left of me). Boom op will be camera right with an NTG-3 on a blimp, suspended about 16 inches above speaker's head, wired straight to camera or possibly through a MixPreD. Hard-wood flooring. Thin carpet at best.
In addition to the boom setup, I may also have the Countryman EMW lav wired into the other channel or into a cheapie field recorder (h4n) for backup (no intent of mixing the two channels). I might not even listen to the field recorder file if I'm satisfied with the camera's track.
So there it is. Pretty basic.
I didn't want to bore you guys with details, but this is the SPECIFIC situation that my original question is based on. (Forget concerts, music recording, theatrical stuff.) So in the specific situation described above, will my sound quality noticeably improve if the boom is sent to a Fostex FR2-le rather than the internal recorder of the EX1r? (Let's assume that my sound guy is totally on his game running the boom and adjusting levels off a mixpre.)
You actually answered this question pretty well. I just want to make sure the possible gains of going external might be limited to situations beyond what I've described. Thanks again, guys. I feel like a total leech sucking all your knowledge... but hey, I'm cool with that.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Your complaint is pretty generic. We aren't really sure what "definitely NOT noise-free" means in your context.
The situation you are describing is noisy by definition. Not sure why you would expect it to be "noise-free"?
Are you talking about the signal-to-ambient noise ratio? Something that could be changed by method?
Or are you talking about the signal-to-electronic noise ratio? Something that could be changed with different (better) equipment?
It may come down to your expectations or your description of your recording.
Perhaps it would help to post a sample where we can see/hear it. Then you can get an evaluation from new ears.
Sorry if the exchange with ullanta was off-topic for your question.
I should have been more specific so that ullanta wouldn't think I was talking about music production.
The situation you are describing is noisy by definition. Not sure why you would expect it to be "noise-free"?
Are you talking about the signal-to-ambient noise ratio? Something that could be changed by method?
Or are you talking about the signal-to-electronic noise ratio? Something that could be changed with different (better) equipment?
It may come down to your expectations or your description of your recording.
Perhaps it would help to post a sample where we can see/hear it. Then you can get an evaluation from new ears.
Sorry if the exchange with ullanta was off-topic for your question.
I should have been more specific so that ullanta wouldn't think I was talking about music production.
ullanta
Veteran
Gibbygoo, as Richard said, we're slightly off track from your original question, but in my first post I think I did say that in your situation you were likely OK with the camera in your situation, especially controlled narrative. The less controlled the event work is, the more likely you'll see a benefit from the external recorder.
Richard, I don't know that we're disagreeing... Much... I can't say I love the Zooms (especially because of their wretched timing drift) so I haven't spent much time with them for double system recording… but with the original and second micro tracks, a variety of Tascams, and of course my 744t, I've found the sound quality difference to be significant. I do use a Zoom R24 for occasional multitrack backup recording, and that in my testing still sounds a lot better than the camera… though the timing drift makes it very problematic for syncing. I did finally have a chance to use it though, last month when a power glitch scrambled the AD converters of my ProTools rig in the middle of an opera… I list about two minutes of the ProTools recording, but was able to use the R24 (plugged into the ANALOG outs of the same preamp) to seamlessly patch it. Isn't it gratifying when you get to use your backup after lugging it around, connecting and tearing it down, for years?
I'm not sure what you mean about having recorded in 24 bit not mattering in post… having recorded in 24 bit allows a lot more gain and processing in post (thus the ability to leave more headroom in prod). And sure, nothing will realize the full potential of 24-bit recording, but many things will indeed do better than 16-bit.
And, no argument at all with the deprecation of equipment when skill can be improved. The biggest improvements come from improving skills, only after that do equipment differences start to matter.
Richard, I don't know that we're disagreeing... Much... I can't say I love the Zooms (especially because of their wretched timing drift) so I haven't spent much time with them for double system recording… but with the original and second micro tracks, a variety of Tascams, and of course my 744t, I've found the sound quality difference to be significant. I do use a Zoom R24 for occasional multitrack backup recording, and that in my testing still sounds a lot better than the camera… though the timing drift makes it very problematic for syncing. I did finally have a chance to use it though, last month when a power glitch scrambled the AD converters of my ProTools rig in the middle of an opera… I list about two minutes of the ProTools recording, but was able to use the R24 (plugged into the ANALOG outs of the same preamp) to seamlessly patch it. Isn't it gratifying when you get to use your backup after lugging it around, connecting and tearing it down, for years?
I'm not sure what you mean about having recorded in 24 bit not mattering in post… having recorded in 24 bit allows a lot more gain and processing in post (thus the ability to leave more headroom in prod). And sure, nothing will realize the full potential of 24-bit recording, but many things will indeed do better than 16-bit.
And, no argument at all with the deprecation of equipment when skill can be improved. The biggest improvements come from improving skills, only after that do equipment differences start to matter.
Last edited:
ddixon
Well-known member
If I can ask a side question here - specifically what light and what size and type soft box do you use?
Greg Smith
Veteran
I honestly doubt you (and even more important, the clients and audience) would notice enough of a difference in the final product to be worth the bother.
A bigger improvement might come from replacing the shotgun with a hyper for indoor boom use in a reflective environment.
- Greg
Richard Crowley
Veteran
How?
A Sound Devices product is not in the same league as any of those other examples. It is hardly even in the same game. And if we want any sort of meaningful comparison, we need to identify what kind of camera(s?) we are comparing to.
What camera? No question that class of equipment is better than many cameras. But I can't agree that it is better than ALL camcorders.
That is why even though we develop the CPU chips in the fab next-door to my office, I don't trust computers for live recording. But I agree that my Zoom R-16 is cheap insurance.
No question that 24-bit recording makes it easier to do live recording. But once you have the data (whether 16-bit or 24-bit), they are handled the same, i.e. with adequate bit-depth in editing. If you think about the math involved even in simple "mixing", you will understand how that works.
Richard,
In the OP I shouldn't have made that statement about "definitely NOT noise-free." I've just made some noob mistakes setting levels too low on the camera, not wearing headphones (tsk, tsk, I know), and then cranking up the level (along with the noise, I suppose) in the FCP timeline. Just user error. It's past tense now. I'm not really viewing this as a problem-solution scenario. I'm just trying to learn more about the comparative value of one setup vs. another in a situation that I consistently find myself in. And give me some credit: I think I've described that scenario pretty well.
I agree, I think a sample is in order. I have a shoot coming up early next week that might make the perfect guinea pig.
In the OP I shouldn't have made that statement about "definitely NOT noise-free." I've just made some noob mistakes setting levels too low on the camera, not wearing headphones (tsk, tsk, I know), and then cranking up the level (along with the noise, I suppose) in the FCP timeline. Just user error. It's past tense now. I'm not really viewing this as a problem-solution scenario. I'm just trying to learn more about the comparative value of one setup vs. another in a situation that I consistently find myself in. And give me some credit: I think I've described that scenario pretty well.
I agree, I think a sample is in order. I have a shoot coming up early next week that might make the perfect guinea pig.
ullanta
Veteran
The less-planned and controlled the situation, the more likely it is that levels will be suboptimal... or even downright lousy. "Events" is a pretty broad term... but depending here and there on board feeds, speakers who don't know how to use mics, table mics at conferences that hasve people sitting 6 inches and 6 feet away, lecture recitals and masterclasses where whispery-quiet talk is interspersed with loud musical passages... lots of unpredictable or just hard-to-handle things happen that require very conservative levels, which must then often be gained up in post, which of course also raises the noise floor.
Differences in noise floor between different devices become more obvious in such situations.
That's why I said "of course" before "744t"... but the MictoTracks and various Tascams still apply. As to what camera... I work primarily with Panasonics, so: DVX100 (P and B), HVX200 (P and A), HMC150, HPX170. But over the years I've also collaborated with others using similar-level Sony, JVC, and Canon cameras. I think these are somewhat appropriate comparisons for the EX1R... but if not, I'd be happy to hear the differences.
It's rare to find good clean reviews/comparisons of camera audio. I'm very interested to hear if you've tested some cameras and found them better... tell, tell!
Exactly. I have been lugging lots of heavy backup equipment to gigs for years (I used to use a Fostex VF160, which recorded 16 tracks and took an ADAT input... i miss it, but getting data off it was a royal pain). On the other hand, I also keep my recording systems in a reliable state and never upgrade anything on them without really good reason. I use ProTools 6.9.2 on G4 laptops running OSX 10.4.11 for all critical portable recording... and have not had a computer problem in years. For editing systems, I update more frequently for various reasons, and of course have less reliable performance. I'm fascinated by the glitch at the opera last month... the protools system kept going, the cameras kept going, the R24 kept going... only the AD converter had a problem, and started sending out noise. The show blacked out (the lighting systems went down for a few seconds), the house lights flickered... but in the end, I could reconstruct the whole thing using the backup. Luckily it was recit, and the singers carried through!
Yes, and I understand that the quantization error is scaled up as we add gain, and that the much-smaller quantization error of a 24 bit recording makes a difference when you have to crank up the gain in post. A 24-bit recording with peaks at about -48dBFS has the same quantization error (theoretically, and after being raised by 48dB) as a 16-bit recording peaking at a perfect 0 dBFS... Or (another fun way to think about this for the non-mathematically inclined) is that a 16-bit recording with peaks at -48dBFS is essentially an 8-bit recording in terms of quantization; a 24-bit recording with peaks at -48dBFS is essentially a 16-bit recording. Sure, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the difference. Whatever the bit-banging capabilities of the DAW/NLE, acquisition at an effective 16bit sample size will be better than acquisition at an effective 8 bits. The final product tends to be 16 bits, so 24-bit recording gives you tremendous leeway at least insofar as quantization error is concerned, while 16-bit recording gives you relatively little.
Last edited: