Going old school for sound recording

[thisisapocalypse]

Hi everyone. I just want to thank so many of you for your advice in other threads, you guys have helped me learn a lot in short order, and I truly appreciate it. I should give you more background on the project I'm currently in pre-production on.

I'm going to be producing a feature film that will begin shooting in late January. It's a completely dialogue-driven comedy, and I guess I'd guess I'd describe my influences as work by Monty Pyton/Christopher Guest/Vonnegut/and the writers of The Office (both UK and USA). A lot of the film will be "interview" style as it's sort of a "mockumentary."

I'm really a trained photographer and have also done a fair amount in the way of videography, so film sound acquisition is still very new to me. I operated a boom a few times in college, but this will be the first project I'm producing where I will be managing on all fronts, as well as doing the cinematography.

I'm also a bit of an audiophile and I love analogue sound. I listen to virtually all of my music on vinyl with a very high end stereo setup. I'm a big fan of clean, powerful, analogue sound.

As I think about this more and more, and since this is sort of my baby, I want to put my heart into all aspects of production (insofar as its possible). And because I love the way analogue audio sounds, I am now considering the idea of recording the film dialogue on reel-to-reel tape.

As nearly all of the shooting I will be doing are interiors, and in a space that I am renting for the shoot, I am now considering getting a high-end reel-to-reel recorder along with a very good pre-amp and a high-end hyper-cardioid mic for recording the indoor film dialogue to reel to reel tape, and then having a friend at a studio nearby me digitize the tape recordings. I will have a Zoom H4N for this shoot as well as a backup and the few exterior shots we'll be doing which we may then choose to redo with ADR recording to tape.

From a workflow, operational, and headache standpoint, I can only imagine we will be creating a great deal more work for ourselves. That isn't so much the question really, I'm mostly curious as to how many of you have recorded film dialogue on a high end analogue system, and what you thought of the results. I can only imagine that many of you here have used a Nagra type device, but I'd like to go one level beyond just buying a Nagra.

Please no posts about how crazy you think I might be! I'm just trying to be true to myself as an artist and I want to do this film the way that will make me most passionate about it. The one thing I have is time. If it won't work, it won't work, but I guess I'm trying to figure out a way that it *could* work.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Sorry, I think you're crazy. Does "true to yourself as an artist" include decent quality dialog that is synchronized to the video? Have you selected locations that are quiet enough that you will even notice using a "very good preamp"?


Without some sophisticated timecode equipment you will never be able to maintain sync if you insist on recording to analog tape. Furthermore, having a knowledgeable, conscientious, dedicated boom operator will be 100x more important to getting good sound than digital vs. analog recording.

Furthermore, are you aware that there are only 2-3 (at most) companies still even making analog audio recording tape. And the analog tape infrastructure that remains is pretty much dedicated to recovering old historic recordings. I think you are daft for considering this.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Does "true to yourself as an artist" include decent quality dialog that is synchronized to the video? Have you selected locations that are quiet enough that you will even notice using a "very good preamp"?

1. Yes
2. All else being equal, a good preamp is a good preamp and important for driving the mic.

Without some sophisticated timecode equipment you will never be able to maintain sync if you insist on recording to analog tape.

This is why I'm asking the question as to how I would go about this. It appears that some of the Nagra units do have timecode, but what I'm looking at would not. I'm going to be working with short clips, however, so I do think with some work I'll be able to get it in sync. How different is recording to a non-timecode tape device from recording to a non-timecode digital device? This is once again why I am asking the question.

Furthermore, are you aware that there are only 2-3 (at most) companies still even making analog audio recording tape. And the analog tape infrastructure that remains is pretty much dedicated to recovering old historic recordings. I think you are daft for considering this.

1. Tape is available, so I'm not sure what the point of that statement is.
2. That just isn't accurate. The "infrastructure" that remains, while it may primarily be geared towards recovering old recordings, still exists in the studio environment on a small scale for recording artists who prefer analog tape.

I think you are daft for considering this.

Daft for considering the format that was used up until the mid 90s for basically all film dialogue recording? Okay, maybe I'm looking at using a different tape recorder (or maybe folks will push me towards a Nagra), but daft is a bit strong for one who's just in the process of considering it.

Since you seem to be very much against the setup I've described, what would be your recommended setup be for someone who wanted to record their film dialogue in an analog format?

 

[matt s.]

have you thought about capturing in digital and then dumping the final edit mix out to analog tape. I think this route would save a bunch of headaches and you could still get the nice fat analog tape compression happening in the end. you could also go to a studio and do a final mix using high quality analog tube out board compressors/eq. this should fatten things up as well.

 

[Gohanto]

Get a friend to record some samples to tape and 48k/24-bit audio (and even 96k/24-bit audio), then layer it with music, Foley, sound effects, backgrounds, and mix everything together.

I would bet a large sum of money you could never tell the analog recorded dialog apart in blind trials. Music is the only place analog still is even trying to survive as there's qualities of analog that can be used musically. Film dialog is meant to be recorded accurately, and then adjusted in a true mixing stage.

Modern DACs are better than they used to be, and the old ones gave some people a bad taste for digital. Get high quality components though, and digital is the way to go. (And if you can't afford high enough quality digital gear, then equivalent analog gear is definitely out of your price range)

 

[Richard Crowley]

Daft for considering the format that was used up until the mid 90s for basically all film dialogue recording?

Yes, without a shadow of doubt. You could go to the old-school Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.production.sound and post your question there. Most of the people there are working professionals making the feature films and episodic TV shows you see all the time. And most of them have been working since the days of analog Nagra recording, etc.

They said good riddance to analog when DAT came along, and they have now said good riddance to DAT now that direct-digital equipment (hard drive, flash, etc.) equipment is available. I doubt that ANY of them would wish to go back even to digital tape, and they would also consider using analog tape to be daft. Even by people with the proper working equipment and the expertise to use it.

Furthermore, NONE of the people who are paying for the productions (including productions where sound is most important like music concerts) would consider going back to that primitive format.

I challenge you to shoot a scene both ways and fully process it through post production and release format and see if even "golden ears" viewers can tell the difference in their home theatres (or whatever). And if they CAN tell the difference, brace yourself for the likelihood that they will think digital sounds better.

If you insist on doing this, you'd better get your analog recorder well in advance of production so you can work out the details of both production and post-production. Else you are going to be throwing a lot of time and money down the drain.

First, you need to figure out how you are going to get timecode out of your camera and record it on one of the tracks of you recorder. As if that weren't complex enough, THEN you will need to find somebody that can resolve the analog tape with timecode and turn it back into a usable digital audio track that you can drop into your NLE.

Assuming you also have a proper slate with clap-sticks and know how to use it.

If you want advice from someone who still has analog tape experience, I would recommend going to the Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.pro and seek advice from Scott Dorsey. He is an old-school masochist who still (occasionally) hauls analog tape equipment out to the field to record.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

have you thought about capturing in digital and then dumping the final edit mix out to analog tape.

I've definitely heard of folks doing this, however I like the idea of capturing the continuous wave that you get when you record in analog directly. However, it may be a good compromise...I think I'm going to have to test it.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Get a friend to record some samples to tape and 48k/24-bit audio (and even 96k/24-bit audio), then layer it with music, Foley, sound effects, backgrounds, and mix everything together.

I would be you a large sum of money you could never tell the analog recorded dialog apart in blind trials. Music is the only place analog still is even trying to survive as there's qualities of analog that can be used musically. Film dialog is meant to be recorded accurately, and then adjusted in a true mixing stage.

Modern DACs are better than they used to be, and the old ones gave some people a bad taste for digital. Get high quality components though, and digital is the way to go. (And if you can't afford high enough quality digital gear, then equivalent analog gear is definitely out of your price range)

All good points. The reason I'm considering it is because while there will be backgrounds, some sound effects, foley, etc., most of the film is straight dialogue and room tone/background in an "office" environment, so the dialogue will be completely front and center. There isn't going to be much in the way of music and certainly not when the talent is speaking. That said, your point is very well taken that once you start creating layers it's going to be difficult to tell the difference.

I am sure you are right about modern DACs and digital equipment, no doubt they have gotten better. And obviously, i'm still going to have to run this through A/D conversion, it's just the source sound that I'm interested in at this point.

It's not so much that I couldn't go the digital route for recording. A good mic, into a good pre-amp are still the first parts of the chain, and could be the same whether or not the recording medium is analog or digital. So that's a wash. The A/D conversion is not, so I'm thinking of going the studio route for that part of the workflow. Older professional quality reel to reel recorders are much less expensive than they used to be - and I'd obviously have to go the pre-owned route on this, but since it's a relatively "dead" format, I do feel like you get more for your money with one of these older recorders than what that same $$$ would get in terms of a digital recorder. Really, really good A/D converters are way more expensive than what I'd spend on a very good reel-to-reel, and then I can use studio A/Ds to get my output.

 

[Noiz2]

OK your not "crazy", well a bit. No Tape was not used till the mid 90's, or rather it was used but mostly as backup for DAT. But it wasn't used because it sounded best it was used because the infrastructure was there and it was a known and reliable system. You DON'T want a "high end" tape deck, you want a NAGRA tape deck. Tape is a bit scarce so that is an issue and your not going to stay analog very long * so why not do an analog pass later and save some cost and grief on the set.

Analog is still used for some FX recordings (gun shots etc) but folks ran from analog tape for production ASAP. TC for sync is irrelevant, you would use a slate like the good old days - film doesn't have TC either. A studio preamp is not what you want on the set. You want a clean quiet uncolored mixer designed for film work. No your location is not quiet enough. That is just a fact unless you are filming in a VERY good sound stage, and if you were you wouldn't be posting here.

There is no good reason to record production audio in an analog format. A films sound track has LOTS of tracks and is pretty heavily processed and goes through quite a few rerecording stages. Any nuance the analog production dialog had from analog recordings will be completely smothered by the process. Get good clean digital recordings and run the edited tracks through a a tape pass if that's what you want but shooting the production on 1/4" is pointless pain. I grew up on tape and mag so it's not that I don't know analog or don't like it but it makes no sense to use it for production.

* your sure not going to edit analog and you will be hard pressed to find a post house with an analog mixer with flying faders and film dubbers. And unless your going 16mm (god awful sound) or 35mm optical your not going to end up analog either.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Yes, without a shadow of doubt. You could go to the old-school Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.production.sound and post your question there. Most of the people there are working professionals making the feature films and episodic TV shows you see all the time. And most of them have been working since the days of analog Nagra recording, etc.

They said good riddance to analog when DAT came along, and they have now said good riddance to DAT now that direct-digital equipment (hard drive, flash, etc.) equipment is available. I doubt that ANY of them would wish to go back even to digital tape, and they would also consider using analog tape to be daft. Even by people with the proper working equipment and the expertise to use it.

Furthermore, NONE of the people who are paying for the productions (including productions where sound is most important like music concerts) would consider going back to that primitive format.

Please keep in mind that I am fully aware of all of the above, and the considerations which go into all of what you stated make perfect sense in all of those scenarios...but they are all dealing with way more factors than I have to deal with...tight schedules, deadlines, quick workflow requirements, etc., etc., if I were in their position, I'm sure I'd feel the same way. But I'm not.

I challenge you to shoot a scene both ways and fully process it through post production and release format and see if even "golden ears" viewers can tell the difference in their home theatres (or whatever). And if they CAN tell the difference, brace yourself for the likelihood that they will think digital sounds better.

Fair enough.

If you insist on doing this, you'd better get your analog recorder well in advance of production so you can work out the details of both production and post-production. Else you are going to be throwing a lot of time and money down the drain.

I believe this goes without saying.

Assuming you also have a proper slate with clap-sticks and know how to use it.

That's a bit harsh.

If you want advice from someone who still has analog tape experience, I would recommend going to the Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.pro and seek advice from Scott Dorsey. He is an old-school masochist who still (occasionally) hauls analog tape equipment out to the field to record.

I appreciate this info, I will do so.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

OK your not "crazy", well a bit.

If you knew me better you'd know that this is flat out untrue

So why not do an analog pass later and save some cost and grief on the set.

Definitely a consideration.

A studio preamp is not what you want on the set. You want a clean quiet uncolored mixer designed for film work.

Just FWIW, I was going to go for as neutral-sounding a pre-amp I could find.

Thank you very much for your insight on this question, it is very much appreciated. Would you go into more detail as to the benefits of going Nagra vs. high-end reel-to-reel? I'm definitely curious about this. Thank you again!

 

[Noiz2]

Richard is talking like a video guy and is exaggerating but you are are also going a bit off the deep end. TC is a non issue so that whole track is NA. But you DO NOT WANT studio recorders anywhere near your set. They are way too loud and are not at all optimized for film work. IF you feel the need to record analog you NEED to use a NAGRA to do it. Using any other deck is just stupid - sorry but it is.

And if you don't use layers of sound on your film your sound track is going to be pretty lifeless and flat. The films and TV shows you site are probably averaging 40 - 200 tracks of sound going into the mix. It's an illusion of good post that you think they are just using production tracks. In any show, film or TV, that has a professional postproduction There is no place that doesn't have more than production tracks. "Dialog driven" does not mean that you have a lot less tracks. Fewer FX tracks probably but the talkiest film with no big FX is still going to be pushing 100 tracks. Now a certain amount of that is because of checker-boarding but there is a LOT more sound playing than you think.

 

[Noiz2]

J
Thank you very much for your insight on this question, it is very much appreciated. Would you go into more detail as to the benefits of going Nagra vs. high-end reel-to-reel? I'm definitely curious about this. Thank you again!

Studio tape decks are used in sound isolating control rooms, or even in machine rooms. They are not designed to be particularly quiet and they generally aren't. They big bulky and have switched that make a lot of sound. They generally don't have any noise reduction built in. They are not designed to stay in sync to film/ video and their speed stability is somewhat variable. Traditionally they use TC and synchronizers to lock into another devices speed. This takes a fair amount of time and can be pretty soft and what they are looking for is not likely to exist on your camera so you will need someone to hack something together. They are not self resolved.

NAGRA is small quiet and optimized for film work. The transports are quiet and the switches are quiet. They are crystal locked and are both self resolved and capable of locking to camera signals. They use Can use) NAGRA Master a very optimized NR/ bias setting that vastly reduces tape hiss. You could get close with Dolby SR units but the setup time would kill your budget and every tape needs to toned just before you use it. They can be resolved to film/ video. Nagra's have excellent preamps.


If your going to go old school go old school. The old school didn't use studio recorders, and they were cheaper than Nagra's.

 

[Kellar42]

It sounds like you made up your mind before you posted Apocalypse. You asked a question, but are disagreeing with the responses, which are all pretty consistent.

 

[filmman]

http://www.releasing.net/rawstock

 

[dre83]

In my opinion, recording old school can be fun to do ones...but that's it.

How do you lighten a candle or fireplace ? Using two stones can be fun... one time...

For sync isues...use clapboard...

 

[thisisapocalypse]

It sounds like you made up your mind before you posted Apocalypse. You asked a question, but are disagreeing with the responses, which are all pretty consistent.

I'm truly not trying to be disagreeing at all, I am only asking more questions and doing my best to clarify where I am coming from. After reading these posts I think it seems clear that if I go this route, a Nagra is definitely the way to go. Again, I'm just trying to put as much info out there as I can so that I am expressing my thought process clearly, I have not at all made up my mind and to be honest this thread is changing my mind as to this approach. I had not initially considered the fact that with multiple tracks of background/sfx, etc., that this would start drowning out the differences you'd hear between analog and digital, and it's a really good point. I don't want my sound to be flat at all, I want it to be 3D and immerse the viewer, please do not read my questions and comments the wrong way, this thread is without a question swaying me against the idea, I am just going through the process of addressing concerns and listening to the advice I get based on the questions and concerns others have posted. I am heeding every word.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

In my opinion, recording old school can be fun to do ones...but that's it.

How do you lighten a candle or fireplace ? Using two stones can be fun... one time...

For sync isues...use clapboard...

Indeed - I really am looking at doing this for *fun* - but to be completely honest, with what everyone is saying, I think it sounds like the benefits that I thought would be present simply won't be there in the final mix, so it doesn't sound like for my particular project, going analog is the way to go - maybe for certain projects, but it doesn't sound like it is worth the trouble for this one.

 

[Steve House]

In a dialog-driven show, proper sync sound is king. And a key point that has fallen through the tracks is that a basic property of analog tape is it stretches from one playing to another. A simple slate to line-up the audio to picture is not enough as the audio tape will never playback at precisely the same speed it was recorded in AND the precise length of the audio clip will change each time the tape is played. Not enough to affect music reproduction but sync between sound and picture will be lost rapidly. It's the old common timebase problem and is far worse with analog tape than it is with video cameras and cheap digital recorders. Back in the day, there were several different methods (Crystal Sync, Pilotone) that recorded a tone onto the tape, often slaved to the camera motor. When the tape was transferred in post ("resolved") the tone controlled the playback speed of the machine that transferred the 1/4 tape to perforated film with a magnetic coating ("magnetic perf"). This perf was mechanically aligned to the perforated picture film in a geared synch block for editing. But if you roll a video camera for picture and record sound to an ordinary reel-to-reel audio recorder, no matter how good it is, you'll have none of these tools available to maintain accurate playback speed and alignment. It short, for purely technical reasons the attempt is doomed to failure.

 

[JordanBlock]

It might sound like a fun idea, but to be completely frank, it's nearly 2010. The infrastructure required to pull it off is basically dead and gone. At best, you'd create a ton (probably several tons) of extra work and expense for yourself. At worst, you'd end up without usable sound.