Record onto What?
- Thread starter DavidG
- Start date
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Good catch. However the big boost/ cut still applies. A +4 dB signal can overload the inputs of a -10 device with ease. Trims are not always pads and pads are what you need. On many mixers the trim is a trim on the first amplifier stage, that will overload if you haven't knocked down the signal before it hits the input. And if we really want to get picky a balanced +4 is generally designed to interface with 600 ohm and -10 is generally designed to interface with 10,000 - 100,000 ohm (though most modern equipment is pretty flexible on this now) so you can end up with impedance mismatches that will cause problems. And lastly your correct about "wired correctly" but there are a number of choices of "correct" and the wrong one will cause problems. A bunch of modern equipment uses "impedance balanced" inputs and those aren't as flexible with how you convert to unbalanced. Then there is the pin 2 VS pin 3 HOT. It used to be East coast and Europe was pin 3 and West coast was pin 2. Pin 2 is the "standard" now but there is a lot of equipment out there that is pin 3 HOT. And lastly it is important what you do with the unconnected pin. Most will want it grounded but not all, and some old equipment can actually be damaged by grounding the unused pin.
My point was that it is not a straight forward thing to interconnect the two. It's done successfully all the time, but not generally by folks who don't know the difference between a line level and a mic level.
Allen Green
Active member
Guys the real issue sounds more like a budget issue most of the post go something like "what is the least expensive recorder to use for recording ....." No offence that is how we learn. But if you are shooting with a camera that doesn't have xlr inputs or consumer type camera then your money should be going to upgrade your camera. If you are a soundguy then I would take the money and put it into the best shotgun mics, wireless mics and field mixer you can afford. Then record the dialog on the camera. If you are a cameraman or Producer doing a short film then find a soundguy with gear make friends or a deal with and get them to help. If you are doing it for a client then hire a soundmixer. I've seen people try to cut corners and do it themselves or have a friend run sound and lost a client.
I guess the bottom line for me is if you're doing a short film, industrial/corp video, or micro-budget feature record directly into a prosumer or pro camera with XLR imputs at line level coming from a mixer.
Of course like Ullanta if you're doing a music thing or higher budget indie then you have to either hire a soundmixer or (if you are a soundguy) spend the money. Noiz has a quote from Hunter S. Thompson that somewhat applies here the"shallow money pit" is so true. I stated in another post that I could have been driving a Porshe (or paid off my house) for the amount of money I've put into gear, but it take gear to make money. (by the way I drive a '96 chevy pu)
Just my 2 cents
I guess the bottom line for me is if you're doing a short film, industrial/corp video, or micro-budget feature record directly into a prosumer or pro camera with XLR imputs at line level coming from a mixer.
Of course like Ullanta if you're doing a music thing or higher budget indie then you have to either hire a soundmixer or (if you are a soundguy) spend the money. Noiz has a quote from Hunter S. Thompson that somewhat applies here the"shallow money pit" is so true. I stated in another post that I could have been driving a Porshe (or paid off my house) for the amount of money I've put into gear, but it take gear to make money. (by the way I drive a '96 chevy pu)
Just my 2 cents
Jokerswild
Well-known member
With the Canon A-1, I have only used MIC-IN to plug my mics into with nice results..When would I use the LINE-IN on the camera. Not for mics?
Steve House
Veteran
Only when the mic signal has been first passed through a mixer or preamp to boost its level from mic level to line level.
Jokerswild
Well-known member
Gotcha Steve. Thank you.
Jokerswild
Well-known member
You know, I wish the manual would spell stuff like this out. I guess they expect one buying this camera to know all this information. I don't find the Canon manual on the A1 to be all that great.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I am putting together a FAQ on my site that should help a little bit with some basics. Allen, my car has a few years on yours... It's a fine line between getting new toys and buying something that will actually pay for itself. How important the quality of your recorded sound is has a LOT to do with what you need to end up with. A lot of times it really isn't important to record great tracks, and some times it is VERY important. The trick is to figure out where in that spectrum you are. It's also important to understand what that means. If your going to get so so tracks, own up to it. I hear way too many "I want the best sound and I have $100 to spend". It just doesn't happen. If you go I know I'm making compromises but what's the best I can do for what I have, folks can be a lot more helpful. One thing I would do in that case is find my post guy BEFORE I shot a frame. He/she is going to have to deal with it so let them help make their (and your) life easier.
I can get zero distortion zero compression audio with over 90 S/N ratio with a SD302 to XH-A1 combination (shooting SD). Which analog Nagra can do the same?
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Which DAT machine at 48/16 is that?
If we want to get all techno if your recording your compressing. No recording technology with the poss exception of some very high end bitstream recorders even come close to the dynamic and feq range of real life. Second NOTHING going through electronic processing has zero distortion. The only real issue is whether the distortion, compression, dynamic range, and feq response sounds better. Comparing paper specs after a certain point is well a bit pointless. For the gross issues it make sense but it should not be confused with the the whole story. For instance digital distortions I'm not talking about clipping here but the artifacts of the recording process the digital equivalent to tape noise) are as a rule much more noticeable because they are periodic/ harmonic. Analog noise as a rule is much less noticeable because it's random and inharmonic. Digital compresses by limiting the amount of information it stores about the sound, analog compresses as it gets too much information to store, but it stores a lot more information about the sound. If analog could eliminate the noise it would blow most digital systems away, but analog tape inherently has a certain amount of BG noise. Dolby SR and Nagra Master eliminate most of that noise. The dominance of digital had nothing to do with quality, it had to do with convenience and cost. A top of the line Nagra sounded a lot better than DAT (assuming both are operated properly). But that Nagra would cost you 15K-25K. A DAT at the time (c1990-95) cost ~$1,500 - $2,500. I bought my first one in 92 for $850. THe Nagra tapes ran $5-$10 and lasted 15 min. A DAT tape cost ~$12 and lasted 90 min. Any assistant with 10 min training could transfer a DAT, a Nagra needed either the original recorder or a deck set up to play Nagra Master tapes and needed someone who understood gain stages and constant monitoring to get an optimum transfer, or a transfer dept which cost $$$.
Go back and listen to some early CD's or first and even second generation DAT recordings. They sound HARSH.
24 bit made a big difference, but DAT never went to 24 bit. Later generation converters sound a lot better, in fact those old CD's sound better today through a recent CD player than they did when they came out. But part of the converter "improvement" is filtering, rounding off the data to take the edge off.
But this started because you said that "DAT" would sound better than a Nagra and that is a statement that would only be made by someone not familiar with both. Your pulling up paper specs and inaccurate "facts" sort of points out that I was right.
Would I recommend that a filmmaker go out and buy a Nagra, never. If your a sound FX person than probably (they are still used daily for recording things that digital still doesn't do well like explosions). But I also wouldn't recommend DAT, for totally different reasons. DAT is dead. In a few years you won't be able to find tape, you can't get most of them repaired right now since nobody's making parts. Nagra will at least be repairable for a long time to come and 1/4" tape is going to be around for awhile yet. I would recommend the thing that killed the DAT, a Flash or HD recorder. These took over for all the reasons DAT took over (cost and convenience) PLUS they sound better.
justmarvin
Well-known member
Hi Noiz2,
You said you would make an FAQ covering the basics for people who are new to sound stuff. Where's your site at, and when do you think it will be up? That sounds very helpful, thanks
JM
You said you would make an FAQ covering the basics for people who are new to sound stuff. Where's your site at, and when do you think it will be up? That sounds very helpful, thanks
JM
The original question was about recording to camera or MD. A good DV-camera/mixer combination like XH-A1/SD302 is just as good as any DAT and vastly better than most reproduction systems and compressed delivery media (DVD).
Properly implemented digital recording does not compress anything. It might, in theory, miss some very low level signals, but that is not compression. In real life it does not even matter, see below.
Even a 16 bit system surpasses the dynamic range of 99% of the peoples listening rooms (typically 40 dB SPL noise floor, even more, max peaks about 105 dB SPL = 65 dB usable range, 16 bits has over 90 dB dynamic range). Only gunshots and jet engines tax the digital sytems and nobody in their right mind tries to reproduce those 140+ dB SLP levels.
With 24 bits you get about 120 dB dynamic range (limited by the analog cirquitry), which means you have to have a system that can put out about 140 dB SPL in an exeptionally quiet room to have full use of the available dynamic range. If you have such a system you are either deaf or an idiot with too much money.
All modern digital systems cover fully the frequency range people can hear, recording and reproducing higher frequecies serves no purpose for humans. And recording HF audio is not even possible with high S/N ratio due to microphone limitations, sorry bats.
i sold my nagra in 94 bought hhb and never looked back , by th way noise , in 95 when i bought it the 4st cost 12grand incl tc and the hhb cost about half of that .
about sound - as almost anything was recorded true external mixer , never found anybenefit to work with nagra preamps( i used sqns and lm in these times ) . the only benefit workig with analog tape is not for sound qoality as only for the saturation you get when you overload it , for gun shots its ond nice for regullar voice is **** for rockenroll its exellent ( but you can buy plug ins for that and have the same with digital)
now , people still micht live on memories and weep how good was the nagra ( 4.2 mono in 15 speed) but for the real stuff i dont think there would be anyone who will reverse he life go back to these days .
by the way my hhb still ticking and has the same sound it had 10 yers ago and francly when all my non linear making money outside i dont have even one bad thought why not to use it for 300000 usd comertial or double system to some hdv sony **** .
about sound - as almost anything was recorded true external mixer , never found anybenefit to work with nagra preamps( i used sqns and lm in these times ) . the only benefit workig with analog tape is not for sound qoality as only for the saturation you get when you overload it , for gun shots its ond nice for regullar voice is **** for rockenroll its exellent ( but you can buy plug ins for that and have the same with digital)
now , people still micht live on memories and weep how good was the nagra ( 4.2 mono in 15 speed) but for the real stuff i dont think there would be anyone who will reverse he life go back to these days .
by the way my hhb still ticking and has the same sound it had 10 yers ago and francly when all my non linear making money outside i dont have even one bad thought why not to use it for 300000 usd comertial or double system to some hdv sony **** .
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
That is true but you were calling me out on my response to your post saying that DAT was vastly superior to Nagra.
Take out the "vastly" and I agree.
It does not do audio compression it does do data compression, sort of like MP3. It only "looks" at the signal every 48/1000 of a second, sound like a lot but in the audio spectrum not really.
It can get loud, yes. Interesting, if I were to read this I would assume that nobody would be able to hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. In contrast I have found nobody who can't tell the difference. They must all be super human.
I guess we could drag up the "dynamic range" VS "resolution" debate. In practical use 24 VS 16 has nothing to do with how loud or how soft the system is capable of on paper. Softer sounds sound less "gritty" everything sounds less "harsh" and everything sounds more "detailed". Call it what you will it is very audible, even to non idiots.
This is another of those great scientific arguments that has a crucial flaw. The problem with the above is that it assumes that it has asked the right answers and so makes blanket statements that in them selves may be correct but then goes to draw conclusions that are not founded on facts and don't reflect reality. This stuff has become so common theses days.. It would have made both my logic and physics professors very pissed off.
OK so lets assume that what your saying is actual fact and that it is all we need to know. Then any sample rate over 40k is a wank (and actually for 95% of the population we could drop that down to around 26K) and 16 bit has got us more than covered. So 40/16 is as good as anyone can hear and most won't be able to tell the difference if you knocked that down to 26/16.....
We know that is clearly not the case (maybe I'm assuming to much and your actually going to argue that 26/16 is great). So either your facts are wrong (I think your on pretty safe ground) or you didn't ask the right question. What's the right question? I'm not sure but any question that results in answers what contradict experience is flawed somewhere.
A friend of mine a bunch of years ago was supervising a film mix and walked in to the stage and hears this quite noticeable hum. She went to engineering to get someone to fix it and was told there was no hum. They showed her some scope that showed no hum in the system. After a lot of arguing she got them on to the stage sill saying "there is no hum". She told them to be quiet and listen. Then they went off to try and find the hum. Turns out the "right" question was "why doesn't my scope show the hum?".
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
OK I was pushing the high end on the Nagra $$. I'm in FX not production so the DAT folks were moving to was the DAP-1 which was ~~$1200, I paid $850 for a Dennon in 1993-4. Unlike most production work FX often has an extreme dynamic range but one is often recording things that are VERY quiet so preamps are poss more important than production?? Anyway the Sony and Tascam and Denon mic pre's were non too good. HHB I think were pretty good, it's been a long time since I used one. And mic pre's are probably a bit of a fetish with FX recordists so the difference in mic pre quality was an issue. Most recordist I know use dedicated mic pre's. That was not nec. with the Nagra which had great mic pre's.
The convenience factor also I think comes into major play with production VS FX recording. So I can see production moving faster to DAT than FX. Titanic was done on both (mirrored) and that was the first show I saw that used DAT as the main production tapes (they transfered the DAT and used the 1/4" as safety), mostly because the transfer was cheaper (though they did check to see if it was worth it to transfer the 1/4" instead, and decided it wasn't).
I would never suggest that anyone really longs for hauling around a Nagra and a ton of batteries and a truck of tape. The point I was making was that the move wasn't because DAT sounded "vastly" better but because it was cheaper and easier. For FX while it did move mostly to DAT and now HD, Nagra's are still in use. 1/4" tape handles explosive sounds better, it also handles "gritty" sounds better. Some sounds, especially screechy, gritty , scrapey sounds could cause some DAT's to freak out. So there are still a handful of things that a Nagra and 1/4" tape are still the tool people will reach for.
ullanta
Veteran
This is completely untrue. I'm not 100% sure about the little portable DAT decks, but any decent-quality rackmount DAT is quite clearly cleaner and quieter than the XH-A1. There is a big difference between the data representation and the actual audio quality.
Alan H. Chang
Veteran
Dave G.
What is your budget for audio?
I'm concerned about the audio capture on your HV20's as they aren't the most pleasant idea to do I'm going to recommend you to go get a mixer that can act as a clean preamp for your HV20's. A two channel Sound Devices Mixpre is the minimum that you should consider as a solid, reliable mixer. A Rode NTG2 or an AT875R for shotgun will get you through most situations. If your budget is a little more flexible, go get an Audio Technica AT4073a or look for a used Sennheiser MKH416 P48/T-power. When you are encountering a small room with very reflective surfaces, go spring for a hypercardioid microphone such as the Oktava MK012 w/ hyp capsule. Should the situation becomes very echoey, go for a cardioid or even try dampening the walls and floors. Another option is to get a recorder like the Tascam HDP2 and it'll be your mixer/recorder.
The options available are endless, it's a 50/50 call recommending you gear that we're not sure what you can or cannot buy. Another option is to rent. If you do know that you're shooting for a short period of time, then it's well worth renting. Let us know what's your circumstances are and we'll be glad to give you advice.
What is your budget for audio?
I'm concerned about the audio capture on your HV20's as they aren't the most pleasant idea to do I'm going to recommend you to go get a mixer that can act as a clean preamp for your HV20's. A two channel Sound Devices Mixpre is the minimum that you should consider as a solid, reliable mixer. A Rode NTG2 or an AT875R for shotgun will get you through most situations. If your budget is a little more flexible, go get an Audio Technica AT4073a or look for a used Sennheiser MKH416 P48/T-power. When you are encountering a small room with very reflective surfaces, go spring for a hypercardioid microphone such as the Oktava MK012 w/ hyp capsule. Should the situation becomes very echoey, go for a cardioid or even try dampening the walls and floors. Another option is to get a recorder like the Tascam HDP2 and it'll be your mixer/recorder.
The options available are endless, it's a 50/50 call recommending you gear that we're not sure what you can or cannot buy. Another option is to rent. If you do know that you're shooting for a short period of time, then it's well worth renting. Let us know what's your circumstances are and we'll be glad to give you advice.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Standard PCM audio is technically uncompressed. The Nyquist theory demonstrably proves that all (theoretically) audible frequencies, or roughly 20-20K in 16 bit 44.1, are represented fully as unaltered waveforms after filtering is applied. There are certainly artifacts associated with less than optimal converter technologies, but state of the art 16-bit (which is admittedly very, *very* expensive even now) sounds excellent. But with cheaper 24 bit systems that sound as good (and much better than less than exotic 16 bit) readily available, "state-of-the-art-16 bit" is almost never found in use. So it verges on moot.
(Re 24bit
They're normal, as you obviously know. 24 bit sounds quite noticeably better than 16 in all but the most exotic levels of converter technology. Standard issue "high-end" converters like Digidesign's $4000 8 channel HD 192 (I use 'em all the time) are no exception.
100% correct, and you can add "wider and deeper stereo image" to the list of benefits.
Sadlly, in practice, this is all too often true. An amazing fact to me is that so many young iPodders don't notice the difference in sound quality vs a CD in spite of the fact that iPods (and MP3 players) at "standard" 128Kb data rates severely degrade the sound, especially the bass. They aren't really listenening for quality is what I believe the answer. Quick and dirty is good enough for the YouTube generation.
Maybe it was in the monitor amps!
But your point is well taken. Even the highly esteemed PBS's TV broadcasts are frequently a full-on wasteland of bad audio. The Jim Lehrer News Hour (which I greatly enjoy otherwise) often hums 60Hz to beat the band, and audio-to-picture sync in some prerecorded segments is so far off as to beg the question "this piece was post-produced by trained monkeys for some kind of a research experiment, right?".
Oh the humanity...
Last edited: