Going old school for sound recording

[thisisapocalypse]

The NT3 is a good mic, but be warned that it's big and heavy and not at all designed with booming in mind.

Steve posted a good list of hypers the other day:
AT4053b
AKGSE300/CK93
AKGC480/CK63
Sennheiser MHK50
Sennheiser MHK8050
Sanken CS3 (looks like a shotgun but is not an interference tube mic)
Neumann KM185
Schoeps CMC641

Definitely the case. I'm more than likely going to grab a Neumann KM185 for recording to tape and putting on the boom. The NT3 will really be a backup and may end up on a boom stand from time to time (not ideal, I am aware, but a backup is still better than no backup) (I have a store credit with a shop and I need to use it and the NT3 is the only thing the shop has that could be in any way useful for me because of their limited offerings).

Question: What would be a good way to take the output of the Neumann and run it into both the Zoom H4N and Nagra simultaniously? Is this possible?

 

[Steve House]

Definitely the case. I'm more than likely going to grab a Neumann KM185 for recording to tape and putting on the boom. The NT3 will really be a backup and may end up on a boom stand from time to time (not ideal, I am aware, but a backup is still better than no backup) (I have a store credit with a shop and I need to use it and the NT3 is the only thing the shop has that could be in any way useful for me because of their limited offerings).

Question: What would be a good way to take the output of the Neumann and run it into both the Zoom H4N and Nagra simultaniously? Is this possible?

Feed the mic to a mixer and from there to your recording devices. My SD442 has 3 parallel outputs so a mic (actually a mix of up to 4 mics) can be sent to 3 different devices at once. not counting ISO outs. If you're going to use top-shelf hardware such as a Nagra recorder, Schoeps and Neumann mics, etc, I'd really ditch the Zoom in favour of a serious recorder such as a SD, Deva, a Nagra VI ... even a Tascam HD-P2. I'm just not convinced that cheap pocket digi-recorders like the Zooms are up to professional standards. (I know, I know - that's heresy but sorry guys, I just can't take 'em seriously.)

 

[Steve House]

Providing you record to a resolvable deck (pilotone, crystal sync etc) then you digitize resolved and align the clapper. Takes under 3-4 min should be no problem. You can probably go a lot longer but for narrative film you rarely do.

....

Are the Nagra's self-resolving, adjusting their playback speed to the recorded pilottone? I'm just wondering how to achieve a speed-controlled digitization of the analog recorded master.

And we should mention to our OP that not all Nagras generate their own sync signals - most receive it from the camera.

The reason I mentioned telecine as that digitization process produced NTSC video with sync audio from film picture and analog audio. Since he's shooting on video, the picture side is taken care of but he still needs to digitize the audio in sync. Nagra or not, just playing it back in the recorder and feeding the output to a soundcard doesn't take care of the required timebase issues.

 

[Richard Crowley]

I'd really ditch the Zoom in favour of a serious recorder such as a SD, Deva, a Nagra VI ... even a Tascam HD-P2. I'm just not convinced that cheap pocket digi-recorders like the Zooms are up to professional standards. (I know, I know - that's heresy but sorry guys, I just can't take 'em seriously.)

Lots of people have misplaced nostalgia for the "good old days" (including famous equipment) and fail to remember that modern technology has advanced several orders of magnitude. My optical mouse has more processing power than the first whole computer I used which took the space of several equipment racks.

 

[Noiz2]

Are the Nagra's self-resolving, adjusting their playback speed to the recorded pilottone? I'm just wondering how to achieve a speed-controlled digitization of the analog recorded master.

Yes, well not all but the film ones are. They are either crystal locked (self resolving) or can be locked to the camera (film camera anyway). You play them back with the Nagra resolver.

And we should mention to our OP that not all Nagras generate their own sync signals - most receive it from the camera.

Actually no. Well yes not all Nagra's generate sync but all the ones I know that can accept external sync have a Xtal plug that will make them self resolved. With video that should be good enough for film length takes.

The reason I mentioned telecine as that digitization process produced NTSC video with sync audio from film picture and analog audio. Since he's shooting on video, the picture side is taken care of but he still needs to digitize the audio in sync. Nagra or not, just playing it back in the recorder and feeding the output to a soundcard doesn't take care of the required timebase issues.

Telecine is to turn the film into video. For the purposes of dailies a version of the audio is usually married to it then. But in the "old school work flow" you don't use that audio except as a pict editors scratch track. The original tapes would be transferred by the transfer dept. to what ever your editing on (mag, files, etc.). Then during post all the sound folks keep their systems in pulldown mode so sound will match picture (Video, which runs slow) and then in the final mix when your mixing to film you switch back to normal mode so your playing back at film speed again.

Telecine inherently slows down the sound to match video speed so it would be wrong for the OP who's shooting video. Telecine would throw his tracks out of sync.

Cheers
SK

 

[Ted Spencer]

As someone who has been doing audio professionally, both analog and digital, in recording studios and film sets, since before most people posting on DVXuser were born, I will offer you what I consider a 99.99% probability:

-If you shoot your first film using an analog reel to reel audio recorder, even a Nagra, you will not do so on your second.

-There's almost as high a probability that you'll stop doing it before you finish the first...

I should add that I still own professional 2" 24-track and 1/4" 2-track track analog tape machines, and *love* them - for music recording (although they're a very tough sell to my clients now that a fast 1TB hard drive costs less than a 30 minute reel of 2" tape, and Pro Tools HD sounds as good as it does). But I wouldn't give a moment's thought to using them, or any other analog recorder, on a film shoot...

 

[Digihead]

I think this whole idea of using old analog gear for dialog recording should be likened to a man who is rebuilding a steam engine. He does it for the nostalgic love of the machine, not because he believes it will be a viable form of transportation to replace his modern automobile. He loves the train, even though it is big, and noisy. He actually prefers the sound of the klikity-klak of the train to the smooth, quiet ride of his modern BMW. But he doesn't actually USE the steam engine to get around in the modern world, it just goes round and round on a small track in his backyard.

Even the Zoom recorder will be a better choice than an analogue reel to reel. I am with Richard Crowley on this one. The new, cheap gear is so much better than the high end gear of yesterday.

You may prefer the sound of analogue, fine. But when you weigh in all the disadvantages, recording digital is just a much better choice. I'd focus on other much more important aspects of making your film. Your mic selection is SO much more critical, put all your efforts into acquiring the best possible mics you can.

IMHO, recording simultaneously to reel to reel and digital is just an unnecessary distraction. Recording to digital and analogue is really saying to yourself "I know digital is the way to go, it will sound good enough and will work, but there's this small chance that maybe the analogue could work too so..."

WHy don't you test record and film some dialogue with your Zoom, and do the same with your reel to reel. Mix the dialogue test with sound effects and music. Make a dvd of the test -- post the test to youtube. Which sounds better? Weigh in the difference of workflow, then choose one recording method and go with it.

By the way, do you have a backup reel to reel recorder?

 

[thisisapocalypse]

I think this whole idea of using old analog gear for dialog recording should be likened to a man who is rebuilding a steam engine. He does it for the nostalgic love of the machine, not because he believes it will be a viable form of transportation to replace his modern automobile. He loves the train, even though it is big, and noisy. He actually prefers the sound of the klikity-klak of the train to the smooth, quiet ride of his modern BMW. But he doesn't actually USE the steam engine to get around in the modern world, it just goes round and round on a small track in his backyard.

Even the Zoom recorder will be a better choice than an analogue reel to reel. I am with Richard Crowley on this one. The new, cheap gear is so much better than the high end gear of yesterday.

You may prefer the sound of analogue, fine. But when you weigh in all the disadvantages, recording digital is just a much better choice. I'd focus on other much more important aspects of making your film. Your mic selection is SO much more critical, put all your efforts into acquiring the best possible mics you can.

IMHO, recording simultaneously to reel to reel and digital is just an unnecessary distraction. Recording to digital and analogue is really saying to yourself "I know digital is the way to go, it will sound good enough and will work, but there's this small chance that maybe the analogue could work too so..."

WHy don't you test record and film some dialogue with your Zoom, and do the same with your reel to reel. Mix the dialogue test with sound effects and music. Make a dvd of the test -- post the test to youtube. Which sounds better? Weigh in the difference of workflow, then choose one recording method and go with it.

By the way, do you have a backup reel to reel recorder?

A good post and a lot of good points. No, I do not have a backup reel to reel, I don't have a reel to reel of any kind at this point, although if I do go that route, I will likely look for a Nagra 4.2. Where it stands, I am still interested in pursuing analogue sound, however, I think for this project, my first feature, it may just be a little too much extra to deal with given all the other work I have on my plate.

I think for now I'm going to put my funds into picking up a Neumann KM185 for indoor dialogue, stick with the NTG-3 for exteriors and record to the Zoom, I have no complaints about the Zoom, it's a nice recorder, but I think I'd be better off testing out analogue on a short or a small project, rather than betting on it for a full feature where I don't really have the resources to have enough in the way of backups, time, etc., this is a low budget production and while I think analogue does sound superior, the content does come first, and obviously, mic selection is critical...I think I'm better off using the funds to pick up the Neumann and use the H4N to record it, it should sound quite good, even if it does lack some of the analogue magic that I really do like.

So, I'm not giving up on giving analogue a try, but I think I may wait for another project down the line where I have more time, and time to test.

 

[Richard Crowley]

I think this whole idea of using old analog gear for dialog recording should be likened to a man who is rebuilding a steam engine. ?

Right. But what "thisisapocalypse" was proposing was like an apprentice mechanic with no experience attempting to rebuild a steam engine while the passengers are waiting in the coach and ready for the trip to begin. :happy:

There is a place for reconstructing artifacts and reenacting history, but not when one is ready to start shooting a production.

 

[Noiz2]

I think this whole idea of using old analog gear for dialog recording should be likened to a man who is rebuilding a steam engine. He does it for the nostalgic love of the machine, not because he believes it will be a viable form of transportation to replace his modern automobile. He loves the train, even though it is big, and noisy. He actually prefers the sound of the klikity-klak of the train to the smooth, quiet ride of his modern BMW. But he doesn't actually USE the steam engine to get around in the modern world, it just goes round and round on a small track in his backyard.

OK this is way OT, but I think your analogy is more to the point than you realize. Steam engines are both quiet and VERY efficient. There was a steam powered car that was sold until about 1951. At that time it got 28 mpg and had a cursing speed of 85 mph. A steam powered car held the land speed record for a number of decades. There was also at one time a steam powered plane. In test runs it was so quiet that the pilot and ground crew could yell to each other while the plane was flying around the field. And if you think steam is "old" and so last century, well all those nuclear power plants and navy vessels are steam powered. The reactor is used to generate steam that drives generators.

There are a lot of reasons why things change and they often don't have a lot to do with better quality. Early CD's sounded much worse that the LP's they replaced, MP3's have become the standard listening format for a majority of people. Digital isn't so much "better" as easier to get "good". A top analog recording done correctly sounds about as clean and noise free as a digital recording. But it takes the right equipment and professional recordist. The entry level to get similar quality on a flash recorder is much lower, both in cost and experience of the operator.

The new, cheap gear is so much better than the high end gear of yesterday.

Now that is just plain wrong. The new cheap gear is MUCH better than the old cheap gear. Once you start getting into high end gear there are other factors at play than just the electronics. Reliability for one thing, repairability, field repairability, durability, mechanical functionality, quality of components. But the whole X is better than Y is pretty much BS. They are apples and oranges. What is better a clean analog recording or a digital one where the operator didn't notice that there was an open ground and there is horrible buzzes and hums? I have gotten MUCH worse digital recordings than any of the analog I ever saw. Is that because digital is worse? NO, it's because any monkey can press a button and all too often now with all this cheap digital gear that is who they have pushing the button. In the OP case if he got an experienced (probably retired...) mixer with their Nagra and other goodies to do the analog and had some Craig's List "sound designer" with their Zoom do the digital I would put my money on the analog tracks. Factors other than the box have a lot more to do with the "quality" than the box does.

You may prefer the sound of analogue, fine. But when you weigh in all the disadvantages, recording digital is just a much better choice.

This I would generally agree with, though I would change the wording. It's not so much the disadvantages of analog but the advantages of digital, especially file based, that is the big seller for me.

I'd focus on other much more important aspects of making your film. Your mic selection is SO much more critical, put all your efforts into acquiring the best possible mics you can.

I would put the person first and equipment second. It doesn't mater what mic you use if you use it incorrectly. An SM58 at four inches is going to sound better (for dialog) than a Schoeps at ten feet.

IMHO, recording simultaneously to reel to reel and digital is just an unnecessary distraction. Recording to digital and analogue is really saying to yourself "I know digital is the way to go, it will sound good enough and will work, but there's this small chance that maybe the analogue could work too so..."

Or it's for the same reason it was done on most big budget films in the mid 90's, a relatively cheap backup for the analog you were planning to use. On most of the big budget films I worked on in the mid /late 90's we never opened the DAT backups, it was the Nagra tapes that went to transfer.

For a low budget film it's the workflow that would keep me away from analog, it's a lot more work and you just don't have the people, money, time and expertise to make it a good choice.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Now that is just plain wrong. The new cheap gear is MUCH better than the old cheap gear. Once you start getting into high end gear there are other factors at play than just the electronics. Reliability for one thing, repairability, field repairability, durability, mechanical functionality, quality of components.

Yes, the russians used tubes in their tactical aircraft, long after the US moved to 'transistorized' versions... Tubes are very resilient to EMP effects... while transistors are 'graded' for susceptibility... and even then... are less immune than the tube... the problem with the tube was it limited what could be put on the craft... so the russian craft was 'less capable' in terms of modern bells and whistles...

So, adding that into your analogy, we have, a steampowered tube based magnetic analog recording system that will work during a nuclear holocaust filled with EMP...
If anyone survives, they surely will need entertainment...
----------------------------------------------

Personally, not having ever worked with analog audio tapes, I will never miss 'tape' in general. That comes from working with 'tape' based computer systems, and having loads of 'data' lost, due to any number of 'tape issues'... ranging from streched tape (4mm the worst... only really 'stable' tape was 1/2 inch, and even then...), transport mechanisms, speed control, heads, etc., etc., etc... while disk drives have mechanical parts as well... since the advent of the fully enclosed winchesters... that media has jump quantum beyond 'tape' in reliability...

 

[Noiz2]

Ahh, more wisdom from someone with no experience.

You don't loose data with analog tape. A stretch would give yo a slight pitch shift. Those "tapes" were digital not analog.

Sorry Clark, been down this road with you before, and I just can't take anything you say seriously. Last time you were choosing mics based on their spectral pattern in Vegas. Nothing personal and I would probably enjoy spending a night shooting the **** with you but you often talk out of your a*& about stuff you really don't know sh&* about. It's fun and all but I don't want people making decisions that could cost them a lot of $$$ in the end based on BS.

Don't know what "russian" planes your talking about but I know a number of pilots that flew in Vietnam and the MIG's kicked our buts in terms of reliability and just plain functionality, so...? But once everyone is vaporized I don't think it matters much if it was recorded digitally or analog. Not sure how it fits the analogy (wasn't mine BTW (reading is a good first step to understanding)).

Yes, the russians used tubes in their tactical aircraft, long after the US moved to 'transistorized' versions... Tubes are very resilient to EMP effects... while transistors are 'graded' for susceptibility... and even then... are less immune than the tube... the problem with the tube was it limited what could be put on the craft... so the russian craft was 'less capable' in terms of modern bells and whistles...

So, adding that into your analogy, we have, a steampowered tube based magnetic analog recording system that will work during a nuclear holocaust filled with EMP...
If anyone survives, they surely will need entertainment...
----------------------------------------------

Personally, not having ever worked with analog audio tapes, I will never miss 'tape' in general. That comes from working with 'tape' based computer systems, and having loads of 'data' lost, due to any number of 'tape issues'... ranging from streched tape (4mm the worst... only really 'stable' tape was 1/2 inch, and even then...), transport mechanisms, speed control, heads, etc., etc., etc... while disk drives have mechanical parts as well... since the advent of the fully enclosed winchesters... that media has jump quantum beyond 'tape' in reliability...

 

[DrDave]

If you want a hint of analog sound and do not want to edit with scissors, I would suggest recording digitally with a tube somewhere in the signal chain, such as a Neumann TLM 127 or 147, and using a good analog mixer at mixdown--you can even use full automation at the DAW end going into analog, and then use a high end converter to form the final result, such as a Lavry, Mytek or any of a number of good ones. You can always opt out of the analog mix and just mix on the computer if you change your mind. It isn't really analog, but it will have some of the most desirable features of old school recording, and some of the new tube mics are marvelous creatures. I've always liked the 149, but the less expensive ones are very nice as well.
Unless you have worked with larger rolls of tape, it is hard to imagine what a pain it is. It was very exciting at the time, but even minor chores like cleaning and degaussing the heads, splicing and so on just take up valuable time.

 

[CineSound]

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 think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

1) It'll drive your post crew crazy. Having to playback and digitize dozens (more like hundreds) of reel tapes will be expensive and time-consuming. And bear in mind you'll need to get another timecode deck capable of resolving the material for post, like a Nagra T ($10,000 new).

2) Nagras -- I assume you're going to use a Nagra IV-STC, the stereo timecode version -- are somewhat rare and not easily repaired. They can be temperamental, are very heavy, and need lots of batteries (a dozen D-cells, from memory)

3) The Nagras only run about 30 minutes per reel, assuming 1.5 mil tape and 7-1/2 ips running time. You also run the risk of running out of tape in the middle of a take, which is a huge problem -- unless you have two machines.

4) The quality advantages of analog tape compared to digital (or at least good digital) are vanishingly small. I think given wide-dynamic range preamps and 24-bit recording, you're going to get much better quality on a really good digital timecode recorder like a Deva, a Cantar, or a Sound Devices (or even a Nagra VI digital machine).

5) the blank tape will cost you a fortune. The last time I checked, I think a 7" reel of 1/4" tape is about $16.00:

http://www.fullcompass.com/category/Reel-to-Reel-Tape.html

The one place where reel is still used is to capture explosions, gunshots, cannon fire, and other very loud sounds, done by SFX crews. You can make an argument that sudden, uncontrolled levels are better captured by analog since they won't clip as they will in a digital recording. Granted, you can limit or compress in digital, but the analog tape will do this naturally. But for dialog, I don't think it's warranted anymore.

My best advice is to find a good experienced sound mixer to do this work for you, and have them work out the best way to record the dialog for the project. At the very least, hire a sound supervisor to do your final mix, and ask their opinion on how to get the best possible dialog on location. Getting good mikes, good preamps, placing the mikes in the right position, and controlling the environment is 90% of the job; the recorder does not have nearly as much of an effect on the sound quality, in my experience -- assuming a minimum level of performance.

--Marc W.