mainstreetprod
Veteran
I'm shooting a feature on an HPX500. With 4 channels available, why would I need an external recorder and mixer? What are the advantages/drawbacks of this? (I realize this is not the way it's done, but I need a better reason!)
Record straight into camera or external sound recorder?
- Thread starter mainstreetprod
- Start date
Gohanto
Veteran
I'm sure someone will jump with a better explanation, but here are a couple things to consider.
1. No camera operator I've ever met is good at riding audio levels, much less keeping an eye on the levels at all to make sure they don't peak. Their job is, and should be, to focus on the visuals.
2. If you don't use a mixer, you don't get nearly the preamp and limited quality as you would with something like a Sound Devices 442.
3. Without said high quality limiter or someone riding levels, you're in a very dangerous spot of clipping the audio which will then require ADR at a high cost to replace.
4. The levels get too low, resulting in the same thing.
5. No 24-bit audio resolution on the HPX500, which means it's even more important to have good levels going into the camera.
4. You've got no backup if an audio cable is disconnected during the shot, the wrong button is pressed and the audio drops, ect...
5. If you ever need more than 4 channels (granted you'll likely only need more than 4 channels if you're limited to that number).
6. If you don't play back the audio directly from the tape to verify, it may not be recording audio at all and no one knows it. That'd be a bad surprise to find out when you get to post.
I think especially on a feature that shoots over a couple weeks, the benefits of a mixer and external recorder pay off much more during post production than they cost during production.
1. No camera operator I've ever met is good at riding audio levels, much less keeping an eye on the levels at all to make sure they don't peak. Their job is, and should be, to focus on the visuals.
2. If you don't use a mixer, you don't get nearly the preamp and limited quality as you would with something like a Sound Devices 442.
3. Without said high quality limiter or someone riding levels, you're in a very dangerous spot of clipping the audio which will then require ADR at a high cost to replace.
4. The levels get too low, resulting in the same thing.
5. No 24-bit audio resolution on the HPX500, which means it's even more important to have good levels going into the camera.
4. You've got no backup if an audio cable is disconnected during the shot, the wrong button is pressed and the audio drops, ect...
5. If you ever need more than 4 channels (granted you'll likely only need more than 4 channels if you're limited to that number).
6. If you don't play back the audio directly from the tape to verify, it may not be recording audio at all and no one knows it. That'd be a bad surprise to find out when you get to post.
I think especially on a feature that shoots over a couple weeks, the benefits of a mixer and external recorder pay off much more during post production than they cost during production.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Thanks for the reply. Here's my thoughts on your
responses:
I'm sure someone will jump with a better explanation, but here are a couple things to consider.
1. No camera operator I've ever met is good at riding audio levels, much less keeping an eye on the levels at all to make sure they don't peak. Their job is, and should be, to focus on the visuals.
I plan on having someone else watch the levels,
realizing I can't do everything.
2. If you don't use a mixer, you don't get nearly the preamp and limited quality as you would with something like a Sound Devices 442.
Agreed, and this really concerns me.
3. Without said high quality limiter or someone riding levels, you're in a very dangerous spot of clipping the audio which will then require ADR at a high cost to replace.
True, but I think someone riding levels will take care of this problem. I think levels being too high
is a lot more likely to happen with the preamp than without.
4. The levels get too low, resulting in the same thing.
That's one reason I just bought a 4073 boom mic as an alternative to the Oktava - much easier to achieve higher levels without a preamp.
5. No 24-bit audio resolution on the HPX500, which means it's even more important to have good levels going into the camera.
Just curious - how long has 24 bit been the standard in film production? This is a faith based film that may never get past the DVD stage. Howver, we recently had interest from a major distributor, which has me thinking about raising the bar a bit.
4. You've got no backup if an audio cable is disconnected during the shot, the wrong button is pressed and the audio drops, ect...
Hopefully the person monitoring levels would catch that.
5. If you ever need more than 4 channels (granted you'll likely only need more than 4 channels if you're limited to that number).
I'm confident 4 channels will do it in our case.
6. If you don't play back the audio directly from the tape to verify, it may not be recording audio at all and no one knows it. That'd be a bad surprise to find out when you get to post.
We would do spot checks of audio recordings.
I think especially on a feature that shoots over a couple weeks, the benefits of a mixer and external recorder pay off much more during post production than they cost during production.
We'll be shooting over 3 months, mainly on weekends. Pretty high cost if I rented them.
__________________
I invented the "remove echo" audio filter. And only people that boom their actors closely get to use it.
responses:
I'm sure someone will jump with a better explanation, but here are a couple things to consider.
1. No camera operator I've ever met is good at riding audio levels, much less keeping an eye on the levels at all to make sure they don't peak. Their job is, and should be, to focus on the visuals.
I plan on having someone else watch the levels,
realizing I can't do everything.
2. If you don't use a mixer, you don't get nearly the preamp and limited quality as you would with something like a Sound Devices 442.
Agreed, and this really concerns me.
3. Without said high quality limiter or someone riding levels, you're in a very dangerous spot of clipping the audio which will then require ADR at a high cost to replace.
True, but I think someone riding levels will take care of this problem. I think levels being too high
is a lot more likely to happen with the preamp than without.
4. The levels get too low, resulting in the same thing.
That's one reason I just bought a 4073 boom mic as an alternative to the Oktava - much easier to achieve higher levels without a preamp.
5. No 24-bit audio resolution on the HPX500, which means it's even more important to have good levels going into the camera.
Just curious - how long has 24 bit been the standard in film production? This is a faith based film that may never get past the DVD stage. Howver, we recently had interest from a major distributor, which has me thinking about raising the bar a bit.
4. You've got no backup if an audio cable is disconnected during the shot, the wrong button is pressed and the audio drops, ect...
Hopefully the person monitoring levels would catch that.
5. If you ever need more than 4 channels (granted you'll likely only need more than 4 channels if you're limited to that number).
I'm confident 4 channels will do it in our case.
6. If you don't play back the audio directly from the tape to verify, it may not be recording audio at all and no one knows it. That'd be a bad surprise to find out when you get to post.
We would do spot checks of audio recordings.
I think especially on a feature that shoots over a couple weeks, the benefits of a mixer and external recorder pay off much more during post production than they cost during production.
We'll be shooting over 3 months, mainly on weekends. Pretty high cost if I rented them.
__________________
I invented the "remove echo" audio filter. And only people that boom their actors closely get to use it.
Jeff Anderson
Custom Title!
Also want to toss in how incredibly nice it is to not be tethered to sound (and vice versa). Syncing even with just a clapper isnt that difficult and doesnt take too much time. Now if you had timecode it would be even easier. Any time I have the option to shoot to a seperate recorder I always take it.
Regarding having someone else monitor and adjust levels, will they still be adjusting levels on the camera or a seperate mixer? If on the camera, thats just going to be a drag. Small pots and they will constantly be in the operator and AC's way. Now feeding a line level signal from a seperate mixer is another story and much more acceptable IMO. You're still tethered though. Less cables = happiness for me
Regarding having someone else monitor and adjust levels, will they still be adjusting levels on the camera or a seperate mixer? If on the camera, thats just going to be a drag. Small pots and they will constantly be in the operator and AC's way. Now feeding a line level signal from a seperate mixer is another story and much more acceptable IMO. You're still tethered though. Less cables = happiness for me
Also want to toss in how incredibly nice it is to not be tethered to sound (and vice versa). Syncing even with just a clapper isnt that difficult and doesnt take too much time. Now if you had timecode it would be even easier. Any time I have the option to shoot to a seperate recorder I always take it.
Less cables = happiness for me
Less cables = happiness for everyone
Gohanto
Veteran
So are you having someone ride levels or watch the levels on the camera? Two different things. Riding levels on the camera would require someone grabbing onto the camera's audio pots during a take to adjust levels, which would likely ruin a shot. If the mixer is separate then this becomes much easier.
And any decent mixer with preamps will also have limiters, where as your camera has preamps (lower quality) and no limiter. So if the signal gets too hot on a mixer, the limiter kicks in and you can likely get usable audio. In the camera it would just clip and you'd be sol.
Also, really ask yourself, on a 12 hour day when everyone is tired, you're behind schedule, and you want 2 more shots that weren't planned for, are you really going to do a re-take if levels peak? Or the audio dropped? Personally, (and even though I love sound) when I direct I can make those bad rush decisions. I can't think of anyone that wouldn't occassionally. And those moments bite when you're in post and kicking yourself.
24-bit audio make a differences even when you're going down to 16-bit, DVD quality audio for a several reasons. Same way that a video shot in HD is going to look better once it's on a DVD than an SD camera could ever shoot (thoeretically they're the same, but that doesn't translate into the real world too well).
Last edited:
Rippie
Veteran
You should still be sending a reference to camera whether its wireless
or wired for quick playback on set and also so your editor/director can figure
out what takes they want to use so they arent sync'ing everything.
A camera mic in my opinion would be too distracting to really know
if its a good take or not.
Alan H. Chang
Veteran
Audio to camera and have backup recorder.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
I agree with Gohanto, if budget is an issue, the worst case scenario for recording audio with a possibility of clipping is run audio through a mixer with a limiter. Makes life so much easier in the end. Otherwise, plan on a few more takes with someone eyeballing the Meters on the camera.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Lets say I invested in a mic with an extremely good preamp section like the
AT 480B. Would the sound quality plugged straight into the HPX500 vs going through say an SD302 be that different? (putting aside for a minute concerns about clipping)
AT 480B. Would the sound quality plugged straight into the HPX500 vs going through say an SD302 be that different? (putting aside for a minute concerns about clipping)
Steve House
Veteran
Don't confuse the "preamp" in the mic with preamps in the mixer or camera. Different circuitry, different purposes. Sending the mic directly to camera means it's going through the camera's preamps - the mic's internal preamp doesn't change that. The signal coming from the mic may be pristine but it'll still get dirtied up if the camera's preamps aren't up to snuff. A mixer like the 302 has high quality preamps and lets you send line level to the camera, going around the camera's lower quality ones. It doesn't make the mic itself sound any better than it is by itself but it CAN help you bypass those parts of the chain that can make it sound WORSE.
Last edited:
mainstreetprod
Veteran
How does the mix pre compare with the 302? Also, I already have a preamp designed for home recording studios (Studio projects VTB-1). If the specs were similar, could it fulfill the same purpose (as long as it doesn't need to be portable)?
JordanBlock
Well-known member
From my experience, the music world and the production world are looking for very different things in a preamp. I really wouldn't recommend using that tube pre for production.
unclebob6958
Well-known member
Besides the additional channel, the 302 has other controls and features the MixPre lacks, such as selectable phantom power. The MixPre is a good buy for the price, the 302 is a mid-budget industry standard.
Music preamps tend to have their own "color", that's why studios dedicated to music tend to have a variety of them. (The same holds true for music mics.) Tube pres tend to be more "colorful" as the tubes induce a certain amount of - usually pleasant - harmonic distortion. Manufacturers of production sound equipment try for a more "transparent" sound.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
What do you think about this for recording location sound, assuming the preamps are as good as claimed? Wouldn't it be a better investment than a mixer at about the same price (I really won't be doing much mixing, mainly need good preamps)
http://www.korg.com/product.aspx?pd=289
Also, I'm thinking about hiring a boom /mixer guy and one contacted me who has a Sure FP33. Is this comparable to an SD302, or below par?
http://www.korg.com/product.aspx?pd=289
Also, I'm thinking about hiring a boom /mixer guy and one contacted me who has a Sure FP33. Is this comparable to an SD302, or below par?