Going old school for sound recording

Steve, That would be why you would record with a Nagra, the pilottone will compensate for stretch. Film sound was edited on mag but not much after mid 80's or so. Dialog was probably the last to move to digital but the rest of the tracks were being created/ recorded etc on a variety of systems and only laid back to mag in the premixes. MIDI and samplers and 14" and 1/2" taper were common and Foley was primarily on 2" 24 track tape. Digidesign pretty much changed all that in the late 80's and 90's. There were others but Digi's products were the first affordable solutions. So there is a decade plus where the editing is all or mostly digital and the layback is all mag. Cutting sound on mag (stripe or fullcoat (1 to 6 tracks)) on a flatbed hasn't been all that common for quite awhile. If your working on resolved systems designed for film work sync should not be much of an issue.
 
Thanks everyone - seems clear that going analogue for this is just not the right way to go for this project. I'll have plenty of other issues to deal with, much less the additional work it sounds like will be required to go analogue. I think I will just go with a digital solution for this feature project, but maybe I'll give the Nagra a try in the future on a short or something.
 
Noiz2 said:
Steve, That would be why you would record with a Nagra, the pilottone will compensate for stretch. Film sound was edited on mag but not much after mid 80's or so. Dialog was probably the last to move to digital but the rest of the tracks were being created/ recorded etc on a variety of systems and only laid back to mag in the premixes. MIDI and samplers and 14" and 1/2" taper were common and Foley was primarily on 2" 24 track tape. Digidesign pretty much changed all that in the late 80's and 90's. There were others but Digi's products were the first affordable solutions. So there is a decade plus where the editing is all or mostly digital and the layback is all mag. Cutting sound on mag (stripe or fullcoat (1 to 6 tracks)) on a flatbed hasn't been all that common for quite awhile. If your working on resolved systems designed for film work sync should not be much of an issue.
Click to expand...

Right ... and the lack of pilotone when using an analog reel-to-reel other than Nagra or some other recorder purpose-built for film means sync would be pretty much hopeless. Regardless of whether the 1/4 inch tape is resolved to perf or digitized for editing in a DAW, my point was there's gotta be a speed reference on the tape and equipment in post that recognizes it.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, my second response reminded "thisisapocalypse" that he needs to dedicate one track to recording timecode to counteract this very probem. This is WHY is is important to record continuous timecode, not just a slate snap at the begining.

There are so many of these second-order (and third-order) issues that "thisisapocalypse" doesn't even know about. I wouldn't recommend doing this even to my worst enemy.
 
Last edited:
He says he wants to do it for fun, and for learning. I say go right ahead. However, I would strongly advise that you ALSO record sound in-camera using traditional single-system.

That way, what do you have to lose? You'll learn how we used to do it, and you'll learn why we say "good riddance" and don't do it that way anymore! :)

If the experiment works, it works. But if it doesn't work, you've got a backup plan of properly-recorded, properly-synchronized 16-bit 48KHz digital audio too.
 
I think the problem here is because you personally love the sound that analogue had - and I agree that there's little point going into the old hi-fi discussions because you like it and that's it! What I am seeing, not quite in the video industry, but in the audio industry is that the benefits of a digital chain during the production process put it so far ahead of analogue that any attempt to work in analogue is doomed. Nothing to do with quality, but just that the editing process will mean plenty of conversions from A to D and back, over and over again - and this will have a pretty poor impact on the audio. You could do the edit with a splicing block and tape, on the original media - but that's risky. So you dupe the tape - that's a quality drop.

If you really want the analgue sound, why not do what the vinyl producers do - produce in digital to take advantage of the sonic benefits, then master to analgue to put back in the 'warmth', 'depth' and all those other intangible things. My own experience suggests that just a single analogue stage works for those that like it - but using a totally analogue chain is a quality drop for certain. 15ips recording on elderly equipment sounds a liability really, and the problems in using it would make me rather worried. In terms of out and out quality, then I think I could live with a bit of hiss, and as I'm now of an age where my hearing doesn't go much above 15K, I doubt I'd hear the top end that's missing. So ingesting analogue tape into the editor wouldn't be too much of a pain - and if you use a clapper and keep shot length reasonable, then sync isn't too much of problem. To be fair, even if it was, adding or subtracting a few frames to sort it isn't hard anyway.

I do know an ex-colleague who has rescued surplus BBC analogue equipment and has no quality issues.

I started this post thinking that analogue recording on old kit is stupid, but by the end, I almost think you might have something? How odd!
 
Yeah ya all right, digital is easier, cleaner more up to date andwhatnot.

But does it have character?

No. It´s made not to have character. The engineers did great research and work that the recording equipment does not leave any trace on the recording.

Fine, now what?

I use vintage Zeiss medium format lenses of the 1960s religiously on my HVX/LEX combination and I love what I see, and that´s character.

A definite signature of the lens. A certain look and feel, a special bokeh and texture that non of the $20000 cine primes can provide.

A analogish, nonlinear, organic look that I love.

I wish I would have something like that for my sound recording.
Maybe thisisapocalypse`s idea with the Nagra is worth a try for me to.

I´m so fed up with all this christal clear, over sharp, over compressed, loud in my face digital stuff. Sound and picture wise - watching "Public Enemies" was the last straw.
Since that film I know I need something different.

And I bet I´m not the only one.

P.S. I don't think recording digital and then put it on tape will do any more good than run a cheesy filmlook plugin over a digital video footage. You need to get it analog in the first place, THAN yo digitize it and work from there. Sync is a no brainer when you use a clapper board.

my ct2 - Frank
 
Last edited:
Postmaster said:
No. It´s made not to have character. The engineers did great research and work that the recording equipment does not leave any trace on the recording.
Click to expand...

Postmaster said:
I´m so fed up with all this christal clear, over sharp, over compressed, loud in my face digital stuff. Sound and picture wise - watching "Public Enemies" was the last straw. Since that film I know I need something different.
Click to expand...

Postmaster said:
You need to get it analog in the first place, THAN yo digitize it and work from there.
Click to expand...

This really is the mindset I am coming from.

Also, thank you Barry for your words - this is about fun and exploration, I'm not holding anyone here accountable for the difficulties involved, I am still not sure that I'll go this way, but I was also thinking along the same line as Barry with regards to recording it both diigitally and in analogue so that I have options. I'm just a little surprised to see how fired up some folks are getting over this...this is a pretty harmless experiment. I should be able to tell after the first couple of days of shooting whether or not it's going to work for the duration, at which point I can continue or cut my losses. It is about character for me, I won't put character over content, but if I can have both, then that's what I'd like to get.
 
Postmaster said:
I´m so fed up with all this christal clear, over sharp, over compressed, loud in my face digital stuff. Sound and picture wise - watching "Public Enemies" was the last straw.
Since that film I know I need something different.
Click to expand...

Don't shoot the messenger. You hate a style, and I pretty much agree with you, but the media doesn't dictate the style. You can shoot/ record soft focus uncompressed (interesting since analog is more compressed as a rule than digital) low level non in your face digitally if you want. Digital gives you the choice and analog semi locks you in.

P.S. I don't think recording digital and then put it on tape will do any more good than run a cheesy filmlook plugin over a digital video footage. You need to get it analog in the first place, THAN yo digitize it and work from there. Sync is a no brainer when you use a clapper board.
Click to expand...

This could only be said by someone who has grown up in the self resolved world of digital. Analog decks drift and I'm not talking the microscopic amounts that folks complain about in the digital world. I'm talking easily measured big time drifts that just swim around the correct speed. It was a BIG deal to get decks to run in sync in the analog days. So no a clapper won't do it, unless you are working with a self resolved or camera resolved recorder. And to playback in sync you need synchronizers and properly striped tapes etc. It's doable and was done for many years but you will have to hunt down the old equipment and be very scrupulous about your work flow. Digital drift tends to be constant and is fairly fixable. Analog slip and drift is an ever changing thing and almost impossible to fix after the fact. So you need to get it right on the set. I love analog and mis tape and mag, but I don't miss the workflow.

Cheers
SK
 
Yeah, perhaps some people appreciate the sound of that great harmonic distortion from those primitave transformers and firebottles. (And the soft, varying focus, and spatial distorion from old lenses, et.al.) And if you are creating sound (not merely recording it), then creative application of this kind of distortion may be appropriate. For music, not for dialog.

All else being equal, the difference between digital and analog recording will be completely swamped by the difference between microphone A and microphone B. And even by the placement of microphone A vs. a different placement of the same micophone A.

Now if the OP were making a video about different sound recording techniques, then I would strongly encourage it. If he were in my town I would even volunteer my time and equipment to help him.

But for someone of the OP's self-identified experience, it seems like a distasterous distraction. Not that we don't all have to learn from our own mistakes. Or from others' mistakes if we are smart, which is the purpose of this forum.
 
I am speaking as a sound editor/mixer who started with analogue, and spent many years splicing tape, and mixing through an analogue mixing console.

I wouldn't use analogue recording, especially for the dialogue. The decreased headroom of analogue is a distinct disadvantage when trying to capture a dynamic performance. Your soundmixer has to be much more aware of levels to avoid the noise floor during soft dialogue passages, and distortion during loud passages.

I'll avoid the analogue vs digital quality debate, but comment that this seems to be more of a concern with regard to listening music production and the playback medium (digital vs vinyl), than film sound production that includes so many layers, and so much post processing to the sound elements to create the final mix.

Will your music be acquired analogue as well? Do you plan on mastering analogue too? At what step does digital resampling not destroy the analogue properties you are looking to capture?

If you do pursue this endeavor for purists reasons, be prepared for an arduous journey. You'll discover why virtually all professionals no longer use analogue in film sound production.
 
As a total side step. There is no "continuous wave". Magnetic tape is also quantized. Magnetism happens at the smallest level in discrete chunks so "analog" tape has more to do with the way the inherently digital (as in two states - those small chunks are either magnetized or not, no shades of gray) magnetic tape is read and written. Tape heads (analog) are averaging devices and are reading an average magnetism level of the particles that pass them. Or more accurately the number of magnetized chunks that pass by. The bit stream recordings (digital) are a pretty close approximation. It's kind of ironic that fundamentally the nature of particles and forces really makes everything digital. The real difference is how you count. The "analog" systems flood the "bits" by and average the ones going by, really high sample rate and bit depth, but a very sloppy and error prone reader. The digital systems read much more accurately but they are clocked very strictly and so patterns show up more easily (not good) and because they are counting everything they are limited in sample rate and bit depth. The things that people like about analog seem to fall into two basic camps. The first is that analog tends to sound smoother and richer (when it's not being swamped by the dark side of analog - noise his and artifacts). Probably because of the SR and the deep bit depth. The other camp is in love with the artifacts of analog. It's warm and cozy but it's an effect and not part of the original sound. Digital will eventually get all the plusses of the first camp without the "dark side" but it's probably never going to really satisfy the second camp. Part of the "charm" of analog is that the aberrations are not regular. It's a little like the original STAR WARS VS the Prequels. The originals had the random dirt that we relate to as "real life" and the prequels were way too "clean". It's really hard to fake dirt. Humans are VERY good at picking up patterns and fake "dirt" is just not random enough, or at least not in a way than seems "real". Untill digital can emulate the averaging counting of analog and go to a variable bit rate it's always going to have a pattern that some are going to see and it's not going to feel as "real" as analog.

Digital takes the day today because even though it has that clean problem it doesn't have the noise problem. You don't listen to something analog on head phones and think it's happening NOW and take the cans off to see who's talking to you, only to realize it was in the recording. With analog you always know it's a recording.

And a non quality issue does come into play. Digital, especially file based, saves a TON of time. Even DAT's had to be transferred in real time. Analog with setting up and calibration, cleaning and gain staging was way slower than real time. File transfers go as fast as your connection. And that, for film, does translate to quality. More time is spent on the film rather than on sitting around transferring sounds. It sounds trivial if you didn't live it but transferring and later digitizing was a major time factor in the post work flow.
Cheers
SK
 
If you are an audiophile, why are you using a Zoom? Get yourself some real mics, Schoeps & Sennheisers, and a Grace preamp and record it at 96K. If you really want analog sound, record say 12 tracks digital at 96 then run it through a true summing analog mixer at mixdown. You will get a bit more depth in the mix but lose out on some of the digital goodies.
 
Postmaster said:
....
I´m so fed up with all this christal clear, over sharp, over compressed, loud in my face digital stuff. Sound and picture wise - watching "Public Enemies" was the last straw.
Since that film I know I need something different.

And I bet I´m not the only one.

P...
Click to expand...

The overloud, over compressed sound is not a characteristic of digitial recording - it is a characterisitc of producers and engineers who want to get up into your face. Digital can be just as textured and subtle as analog - the loudness wars are caused by people trying to outdo the competition.
 
DrDave said:
If you are an audiophile, why are you using a Zoom? Get yourself some real mics, Schoeps & Sennheisers, and a Grace preamp and record it at 96K. If you really want analog sound, record say 12 tracks digital at 96 then run it through a true summing analog mixer at mixdown. You will get a bit more depth in the mix but lose out on some of the digital goodies.
Click to expand...

I got the Zoom because it's a good versatile recorder and very handy, I feel that it's quite good for what it is, and I'm not knocking the Zoom, and ultimately may end up using it. Even with pricier digital gear (Sound Devices stuff for example) the Zoom has its uses in other applications. I'm not wholly anti-digital, I'm really not.

I will definitely be using some Sennheiser mics and may rent a Schoeps as well. I do have a Rode NTG-3 that I like, and I'm going to trade in another mic I got that I didn't like for a Rode NT3. I like the sound of the Rodes and may run them on the digital setup and a Sennheiser or Schoeps through a Nagra and do dual recordings, tape a digital. This is by no means final, but I think I will do at least one or two test shoots with the analogue to see what it's going to look like once I get it into post.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
I got the Zoom because it's a good versatile recorder and very handy, I feel that it's quite good for what it is, and I'm not knocking the Zoom, and ultimately may end up using it. Even with pricier digital gear (Sound Devices stuff for example) the Zoom has its uses in other applications. I'm not wholly anti-digital, I'm really not.

I will definitely be using some Sennheiser mics and may rent a Schoeps as well. I do have a Rode NTG-3 that I like, and I'm going to trade in another mic I got that I didn't like for a Rode NT3. I like the sound of the Rodes and may run them on the digital setup and a Sennheiser or Schoeps through a Nagra and do dual recordings, tape a digital. This is by no means final, but I think I will do at least one or two test shoots with the analogue to see what it's going to look like once I get it into post.
Click to expand...

Do keep us posted on your progress. I especially intersted in how you'll sync up and edit the Nagra tape to video picture. I'm still thinking that is going to be an insurmountable hurdle unless you have access to telecine facilities..
 
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
 
Steve House said:
Do keep us posted on your progress. I especially intersted in how you'll sync up and edit the Nagra tape to video picture. I'm still thinking that is going to be an insurmountable hurdle unless you have access to telecine facilities..
Click to expand...

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.

If you wanted to slice and dice in the analog world you would have to transfer to Mag and cut on a flatbed. That would be a big hurdle.

You wouldn't need a telecine unless your shooting film. If the OP is shooting film (I had the impression he was shooting video) and then editing on video he needs to also pull down the audio. This was all SOP a few years back. It's not that hard IF you use the proper workflow and equipment.
 
Noiz2 said:
If the OP is shooting film (I had the impression he was shooting video) and then editing on video he needs to also pull down the audio.
Click to expand...

Indeed this feature will be shot on Panasonic GH1(s) with Canon FD, Canon EOS and Zeiss (Contax & Rollei QBM Mount) primes and a couple of other oddball zooms (got this weird Zeiss Jenazoom for free with a Canon T70 that I bought and it's suprisingly sharp and contrasty, albeit slow.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top