I have a budget of about $3500 for a good quality field mixer and recorder and am looking for recommendations. They will be used exclusively for talking head interviews with one or two people on location at their homes or workplace throughout the country, so travel is involved and weight and size are important. I use a Panasonic AF100 and since I am only recording dialogue under reasonably controlled circumstances, I was thinking of a Sound Devices 552 and Denecke SB-3 time code generator but would be interested in other options members of the forum might suggest.
Recommendation for field recorder and mixer
- Thread starter Jon Gallo
- Start date
David W. Jones
Veteran
That setup should work just fine.
Thoughts...?
A: Do you need 5 channels of inputs.
B: Is 2 Track recording enough.
C: Do you need the SB-3 since the 552 can jamsync with the AF100 as the master.
Thoughts...?
A: Do you need 5 channels of inputs.
B: Is 2 Track recording enough.
C: Do you need the SB-3 since the 552 can jamsync with the AF100 as the master.
As a general rule, I don't need all 5 channels, thought we have done one interview where we did have to mike 5 people. Most of the time, we are dealing with just one or two people at a time.
2 track recording is enough.
I was under the impression -- which may be wrong -- that the AF100 loses synch when paused and the SB-3 avoids the problem.
Jon
2 track recording is enough.
I was under the impression -- which may be wrong -- that the AF100 loses synch when paused and the SB-3 avoids the problem.
Jon
David W. Jones
Veteran
The SB-3 would be handy, but without a time code slate you have no way to check your time code. Something like Jumpstart LTC would be handy for setting up your time code.
My thought was running the AF100 in TOD master and doing a quick jamsync with the 552. You should then be able to disconnect the cable and stay in sync.
My thought was running the AF100 in TOD master and doing a quick jamsync with the 552. You should then be able to disconnect the cable and stay in sync.
Last edited:
A basic question I have is that I've read comments describing the 552's recorder as suitable for backup but not ok as the primary recorder. I've also read comments saying the audio is excellent. I'd prefer carrying just the 552 rather than both a field recorder and a field mixer but I'm concerned by the comments that's its only good enough for backup recording.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Jon, I would not be troubled by the comments. Are there better primary recording devices, sure there are. But that does not mean that the quality of the recordings the 552 makes are of poor quality. 103 db dynamic range vs 114 db on their higher end 788T.
If you ever needed multi-channel recording or more than the 552 provides, it has direct outs as well as additional balanced, tape, and link outs.
A standard breakaway cable with headphone return to the AF100 would provide your audio backup & make monitoring during the interviews helpful.
Although a wireless hop can sure come in handy if you can swing the cash.
Good Luck!
Dave
If you ever needed multi-channel recording or more than the 552 provides, it has direct outs as well as additional balanced, tape, and link outs.
A standard breakaway cable with headphone return to the AF100 would provide your audio backup & make monitoring during the interviews helpful.
Although a wireless hop can sure come in handy if you can swing the cash.
Good Luck!
Dave
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
Is there a reason you're not considering the Zaxcom Nomad 4 other than the $400 over budget? As a 552 user since launch (and a happy one at that) I'd be hard pressed to overlook the Nomad if I was buying today. I'm not saying it's a shoe-in, but it's a strong contender.
We also run an AF100 and find the 552/AF100 combination meets almost all of our needs. I do often use the direct outs to track wireless lav ISOs, and simply send a mono mix to camera for sync in post, without timecode.
But with the "base model" Nomad you essentially get a 6 channel mixer, 4 channel recorder and timecode all rolled into one and, if you ever want high-end wireless it's Zaxnet capable out of the box. It's also upgradeable to the 6, 8 and 12 channel model so you don't need to spend money on a whole new unit if you do ever need more.
My favourite advantage of the 552 though? The shockingly awesome battery life on the internal AAs.
We also run an AF100 and find the 552/AF100 combination meets almost all of our needs. I do often use the direct outs to track wireless lav ISOs, and simply send a mono mix to camera for sync in post, without timecode.
But with the "base model" Nomad you essentially get a 6 channel mixer, 4 channel recorder and timecode all rolled into one and, if you ever want high-end wireless it's Zaxnet capable out of the box. It's also upgradeable to the 6, 8 and 12 channel model so you don't need to spend money on a whole new unit if you do ever need more.
My favourite advantage of the 552 though? The shockingly awesome battery life on the internal AAs.
Rick R
Veteran
The recorder in the 552 was 'intended' to be for back-up, transcriptions and such, but that doesn't mean it's sub-grade, I'm sure it sounds as good or better than a properly gain-staged budget portable with a 302 or MixPre line level frontend.
I'd give the Nomad some serious consideration. Sure, it has some pros and cons, but so does just about every set-up.
I'd give the Nomad some serious consideration. Sure, it has some pros and cons, but so does just about every set-up.
There has been some discussion on this thread that the recoding section of the 522 isn't up to par. I'm curious to explore that a bit; as compared to what? Is the recorder section of the 552 not as good as a 702 for example? Could someone with experience put that in perspective. I have been using a 302 + 680. Would the 552 not even measure up to that? What are we really talking here?
Grant
Grant
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
Hi Grant,
I'm not sure that's really what's being said but let's look at our available figures and attempt to discern what they mean what they mean.
Dynamic range of the 552's A/D converter stage is quoted at 103dB A-weighted from Sound Devices. Have a look here to see what that means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting). The 20Hz-20kHz performance will be slightly lower but we don't know exactly what it is.
S/N of the 680 is quoted at 98dB A-weighted (we have to guess this is the system-wide S/N ratio and that the A/D stage for this purpose will use the same.)
As a comparison, the 788T, which is dramatically more expensive than either of these can record a maximum dynamic range of 123dB A-weighted and Sound Devices publishes a full-bandwidth 20Hz-20kHz figure of 120dB.
For recorders like the H4n, Zoom doesn't even publish the firgures. Or at least hadn't the last time I checked.
Now, the maximum dynamic range available in a 24-bit system is 144dB. That is calculated, easily, at 6dB per bit. 16 bit is, you got it, 96dB. But, in practice, systems of either resolution cannot achieve their theoretical maximum. It's another case of diminishing returns where if you want a 24-bit system to resolve as close to the maximum dynamic range as possible, it can get very expensive. Conversely, using a 24-bit system to capture well above the 16-bit range is easy these days.
So what do we have? We have an $8000 recorder that captures 21-bits of useable information and two other recorders that capture the equivalent of 17-bits of dynamic range. More importantly, should we care?
In most cases no, not really.
100dB is more than enough dynamic range to capture quality field audio and there's a lot of electronics before that stage that will affect the sound in far more important ways, and we're not even talking positioning and placement (with production audio) etc. Mics, cables, preamps and more, will all factor into what exactly gets converted to PCM audio so while indeed the 552's recording stage is inferior to any of the 7-series recorders its preamps and analog stages are not.
What good is 100dB of dynamic range if the audio getting converted is of poor quality? That would be some exceptionally dynamic junk.
Is one recording high-dollar audio for high-dollar productions where every dB of dynamic range is worth an order of magnitude more than one's recorder? If so, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd be running Cantars or Devas or Sonosaxs or 7-series recorders (all mated to lots of other equally expensive, esoteric equipment.)
I think careful attention to the important aspects of location sound and 99.9% of your target audience (an equally high number of editors both audio and video) would be ecstatic with audio produced by either the 552 "backup" recorder or a SD302/DR-680 combination.
With the exception of a few really poorly designed products, many of the professional and semi-professional options have long been good enough in the hands of users who know where the real keys to quality audio lie.
It doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't upgrade equipment to improve quality as budget allows, but there when it comes to digital audio, there are better long-term investments than trying to squeeze and extra dB or two of "on paper" dynamic range out a given setup.
I hope this is helpful and that I'm not coming off as a total idiot.
I might need a little time to digest this, thanks for the very detailed effort and explanation! So how does this info relate to Rick R's comment, "The recorder in the 552 was 'intended' to be for back-up, transcriptions and such"?
I would have thought SD would have just blended the mixer section of the 302 with two extra input channels, and used the existing 702 recording section. That is about how it is priced, but that isn't the case. I shouldn't assume. I would also opine that although there is always a desire for pristine sound, for the typical small video production, the recording technique is much more important than increasing equipment quality; that assumes a reasonable level of equipment. At my level, would I really notice the difference between the sound files of my 680 vs a 702 given the same recording setup. Probably not with my ears. There might be other reasons to go with a SD device, build quality, more connectivity, etc. and those extra bucks do buy something real. As much as I like my 680, it does seem a little like a teacup.
Grant
I would have thought SD would have just blended the mixer section of the 302 with two extra input channels, and used the existing 702 recording section. That is about how it is priced, but that isn't the case. I shouldn't assume. I would also opine that although there is always a desire for pristine sound, for the typical small video production, the recording technique is much more important than increasing equipment quality; that assumes a reasonable level of equipment. At my level, would I really notice the difference between the sound files of my 680 vs a 702 given the same recording setup. Probably not with my ears. There might be other reasons to go with a SD device, build quality, more connectivity, etc. and those extra bucks do buy something real. As much as I like my 680, it does seem a little like a teacup.
Grant
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
Rick R's comment is accurate in that the recorder in the 552 was marketed and advertised exactly as he writes it. SD never claimed (or tried) to have it replace their 7-series recorders, but that doesn't mean we can't use it for the purpose of being a 2-track recorder. Plenty do, but when you think about it, adding a good timecode generator (master clock) alone would bump the price up by about $1000.
I can't know what Sound Devices were thinking with the 552 and I can't say that I've been anything less than satisfied with the audio from its backup recorder.
I agree with you, those bucks do buy something real, but in addition to the difficult (but not impossible) to detect increase in quality of the equipment's sound stage there is the point you make about build-quality and durability. All very true. For me however, the real difference is in terms of level of service from the companies that build and sell this equipment.
For example, I know my SD equipment rep here in Montreal on a first name basis and he's always available when I need him. The Sound Devices support is equally top notch and they're very responsive to queries in their own forum. So you're not just buying a high quality piece of equipment but an expectation of a standard level of quality that includes every aspect from purchase to service to the sound.
It's late and I'm not sure I'm making sense here again, but hopefully...
