Super no-budget questions about wired lav mics and the H4n...

Since you have not purchased a Zoom H4n as yet I suggest your life may be easier if instead you purchase two Zoom H1's at less than the price of one H4n. The H1 has a 3.5mm plugin power socket so it will take any lav (though Sennheiser proprietary screw jack ones can be loose). This should be much easier to handle than two wired lavs on different people going into one recorder. If your chosen lav is wired such that it records on one channel simply duplicate in post for left and right by whatever means your NLE allows. That should be fine for your voice content.

The H4n has its drawbacks but poor user experience is I suspect down to individual unit failures not general shortcomings. Having said that mine does take a few seconds to boot up, I think it about 12 secs with an 8gb card. It uses batteries quickly with phantom power on but you'll still get well over an hour per set and probably far longer. I don't find the preamps unacceptably noisy. It also has a 3.5mm socket which you can use for an unpowered lav if you enable plugin power in the menus. You can plug lavs into the two XLR sockets but you need special adapters which can be expensive and increase the bulk. It will lose your recording if the batteries run out.

For cheap robust lavs that perform decently try Giant Squid. You can also specify how long you want your wire with them so you don''t end up with a 30ft wire going to a Zoom H1 in the talent's pocket :- )

Just run the H1's all the time and use your onboard 7D audio just for syncing only. If you can stetch to it Pluraleyes will do that for you in seconds.

I'm not sure, I guess that the two speakers will be at different distances from the cam - interviewer and interviewee? A shotgun mic is probably a non-starter in that case because its so directional and would I assume not be manned all the time, not to mention its also going to be several feet from the audio source.

Pete
 
Last edited:
tinpanalley said:
Right, so not omnidirectional like the Sennheiser ME2, for example. Ok, well, I may need to just stick to the 3350 then and figure out another setup for the two person shot. I think I'll try the mini to XLR adapter to see how finnicky, static-y, noisy it is and see if I can live with it or not. That being said, I do like the phantom power adapter option because like you said, it's cleaner to not go mini to XLR.
Click to expand...
No, for film and video work you DO want an omnidirectional lav. Normally you DON't want a cardioid like the AKG you linked to.
 
A few opinions related to what you want to do.

I would probably go with a Tascam DR60 for the recorder. I would also go with a CR40 over the Zoom because of build and flexibility, but they are probably pretty close sound quality wise.

The reason I would skip both and go with the DR60 is that it will mount to the camera and even if you use it on a strap or in a bag you will actually be able to see the meters, unlike the handhelds. I would mount it under or close to the camera and use it to feed a sync track to the camera.

With out a boom op, unless you are mostly doing sit down interviews I would skip the boom mic. Probably toss in a cable and handheld omni "reporter" mic as a backup and possible useful for noisy interviews.

Camera mounted mics generally suck and you don't ever want to be using one for a narrative film but these sound like "newsy" interviews and a lot of those and docs in general use camera mounted mics so that "bad sound" is not the killer that it would be on a narrative shoot.

My first choice would probably be a wireless lav, if you are not running and gunning. If you moving or in a crowd you really can't have a wired lav and you probably won't have the time to set up a wireless so something mounted to the camera is a must. If you can always sit down in private then wired lav is not a bad choice, or a hyper on a boom stand. Other than finding an open freq in a busy area wireless is going to win on speed and ease. As close as you are likely to be you shouldn't have any drop out issues. The cheapest decent one with the DR60 would hit your $1000 mark so that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. And you need batteries. But it's extremely quick to set up and take down and you don't have to drag a lot of cables around.
 
Noiz2 said:
I would probably go with a Tascam DR60 for the recorder.
Click to expand...
You're right about the project type and the ease of use this would bring. Hardly any run and gun at all, plenty of which can be VO anyway if need be. I really like what this DR60 can do but I do think overall, for me, the H4n is more versatile. I like it's ability to be used on a PC as a mic. I like it's 4 track music capabilities. I like it as a 24/96 recorder for capturing vinyl. It serves all these purposes AND fits in an actor's jacket. When I do my feature, there's no way I'm doing it without a soundperson. This was just informal now because it was meant to be a really quickly shot bunch of videos. To be honest they could have been done on a cell phone. There was nothing glossy or super-pro quality intended. I just wanted to do the best I could with my limited budget and manpower. Doesn't matter now anyway because the person cancelled the shoot. Shooting without hair and makeup, 15 on-set ADs and PAs was just too much for her to bear in the end. Loved the caché and branding of having low-budg videos but not any of the inconveniences. She literally wanted me to shoot these on her iphone and I refused. Not because I refuse ANY ideas on a mobile phone, but because it didn't suit this one. I've shot little videos on my mobiles before, I'm not above it.

Anyway, moving on, this was a great opportunity to learn more about sound. I've been reading more and more from all your suggestions and as far as I'm concerned, the worst experiences still have value so I'm taking everything I can from it. I did find this mic though that I couldn't find a lot of opinions on, the Shure SM11-CN, (official site here). Not sure how much to trust the dynamic lavs?
 
What.... The size of the shure lav mic is HUGE you would need to visit a chiropractor after wearing it for any length of time...
 
tinpanalley said:
You're right about the project type and the ease of use this would bring. Hardly any run and gun at all, plenty of which can be VO anyway if need be. I really like what this DR60 can do but I do think overall, for me, the H4n is more versatile. I like it's ability to be used on a PC as a mic. I like it's 4 track music capabilities. I like it as a 24/96 recorder for capturing vinyl. It serves all these purposes AND fits in an actor's jacket.
Click to expand...

OK but none of those except The coat pocket have anything to do with your original question. For your filmmaking The DR60 would be The better choice.
It can record 4 tracks also and it will record 96/24 (though The 96 part for recording vinyl is pretty much a waste since it never recorded anything close to that high a freq). Putting it in The actors pocket means your not monitoring and that is just asking for disaster, kind of like turning The camera on and walking away hoping the actor gets in the frame. And actually The DR60 is small enough to stick in most coat pockets, bulkier though. I'm not sure that The Zoom with an XLR cable attatched would fit in most coat pockets. That is kind of a moot point since if your doing sitdowns it could be sitting on just about anything out of frame.
The USB mic function is a difference.
I would then probably go for The DR40, I just have not had particularly good experience with The Zooms I have and have used.

BUT The question here is what are you buying this stuff for? The Zoom is a musician rehearsal recorder that got used by a lot of filmmakers pretty much because it was The first kid on The block. The DR60 is designed specifically for filmmaking and has features designed for that. Your post was about a recorder for filmmaking and between The two The DR60 wins hands down for that use.

If your buying a recorder because you want to do other things and you would like to also use it for filmmaking then? Maybe, but that is not what you asked.

Sometimes people ask a question ( I do consulting and this comes up a lot) that is really just trying to generate a justification for doing something that they want to do, are pretty much going to do but want a way to "legitimize" their choice. My response is always I'm answering The question as you stated it, it's your money and if you want to do XYZ then go for it. But don't wrap it in a rationalization. If it was a great choice you lose credit and if it turns out to be a bad choice you will tend not to learn from it because "others said it was a good choice".

So for filmmaking today I think The Zoom is not a good choice. I'm not digitizing LP's so? Though I suspect you can get much better A/D converters than what The Zoom has. And of course you will also need to get a turntable preamp to go in front because LP's have a specific EQ that you need to undo and The impedance mismatch will be a problem.
I also wouldn't be using a handheld recorder as a USB mic, though The USB interface function might come in handy.

So if The Zoom is what you want then get it, it's not bad, but it's not particularly good for filmmaking though.
 
The dynamic SM11 is inherently more reliable than a powered mic. It's (also inherent) low output level can be an issue. I had one for a while until it tangled with moving parts in an auto engine compartment. (S/FX recording).
 
Noiz2 said:
So if The Zoom is what you want then get it, it's not bad, but it's not particularly good for filmmaking though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the big reply. Well, here's the deal: The fact is that at this point this isn't relating to my first question anymore really so I probably should create a new thread for this because it's a whole other ball of wax. However, another thing that happens sometimes (and I'm not by any means knocking your analysis of the way people ask questions, you're right) is that people talk about something, especially in a forum and then in the midst of talking about that, other things come up. Just because, well, we're human and it's part of the conversational way of sharing thoughts. What I will admit totally to, and which I don't think is too big of a crime, is relying on countless videos, blogs, sites that have essentially declared the Zoom as THE filmmaker's tool. Now that doesn't mean it SHOULD be, of course and sound guys will know more about that. It's the same as the ubiquitous nature of the iPod for music making people think it's the best media player out there when it doesn't even come close. It's just, again, what everyone says. So, yes, I fell victim to that, no problem admitting it. But I think what really pushed me over the edge was the number of review videos on Youtube, blogs, etc that also talk about the DR40 as a lesser device.

I haven't exactly talked about records before my comment so there was no way to know this but I'm completely good with understanding the way turntables and even phonographs work. I have both and methods for playing back and capturing them. I have all the gear for that already. However, 24-bit 96kHz is the standard for high quality remasterings of jazz and classical recordings, even many commercially produced ones on major labels. I'm not arguing with you but it IS done.

I only intended any of this to be for no budget shooting. There are a lot of us out there that do that, as I'm sure you know and sometimes it's just not possible for people to buy the BEST thing out there. You can't always buy what's "much better", as you said. Now in this case, the DR60 and DR40 happen to be in the same price range (at least where I am) as the H4n, so I will look at them again. One thing I do love about the DR40 is the ability to do dual recording at different levels. I really like the DR60 but the fact is I'm not always on sticks when I shoot and it would be cumbersome. I think. I don't know. Perhaps you'd be interested in telling me what you think the major things are the DR40 does better than the H4n? I'd love yours or anyone else's input.

I don't believe you don't shoot if you don't have good equipment. I believe you do what you can with what you have. And you absolutely can do a lot with limitations if you are creative and eager to try. Nobody I know is making movies for cinematic distribution and that's not something people always understand. Why would you bother then, is what most people think. We do it because we love it and we have small followings that love what we do. So, yeah, it's not ideal, but sometimes you have to shove the recorder in the actor's pocket, hide the wire, set your levels and just try to get the best you can. And if it doesn't work you try again. There will be days when I shoot my next project where it WILL just be me doing camera and sound with an actor or two and one camera guy. And other days when it will literally be me and an actor or actors. It happens. Ed Burns made Newlyweds with 4 H4ns. I'm not a massive fan of his but he did do it. I know that drives talented and experienced sound pros nuts but it's what some of us do. I don't like that people compress the crap out of their music and that they listen to music on crap headphones but what can I do? Police it? No thanks. This isn't directed at you by the way, I just want to be clear about that. This is an all encompassin 'you'. A 'one'. Sometimes, if you don't have money, you just have to get what you can and do what you can with it and quite frankly, if that gets you the project you wanted to make, I don't see how that's wrong. There does often tend to be this idea online that if you're not doing the absolute best that can be done that you're somehow irrelevant. It's about you and what you can get and I don't see problems with asking theoretical questions along the way. Am I totally off?

...anyway this is totally not the right thread for this conversation anymore. I'll just start another, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Hey it's OK. Didn't mean to sound like I was getting too picky. Yes topics evolve.

The Zoom was the recorder of choice because it was just about the only one at a cheap cost that had XLR inputs and sounded decent. It was used a LOT. But a lot of new things have come on the market since. It's probably about the same as the DR40. I had parts break off the two Zooms I have owned (and not with rough handling at all) The little under designed door on the h2 was something that broke for almost everyone who used it much. The DR40 has held up much better and seems sturdy so that is mostly why I like it over the h4n. The DR60 just came out so it was not an option for anybody until recently. I also suspect that the DR680 wasn't available or Mr. Burns would probably have been using it (and saved some $).

Remastering jazz master tapes is one thing, digitizing LP's is completely different. Those jazz masters are on 1/2" to 2" tape running at 15 - 30 ips and have something to be captured. An LP has been squeezed and compressed to stay with in the physical limitations of a needle in a groove. Anything over 10k or so is worn off the grooves after the first dozen plays or so depending on how good the turntable is. So digitizing a used LP at 96, IMHO, is mostly a waste since there is no music in the added frequency range. 24 bit is most certainly worth it because it gives you more info to chew on when doing noise reduction etc. 96 gives you a tiny bit more in the usable zone so it's not , again IMHO, a total waste, just mostly a waste. But space is cheap so there isn't much down side, just not a lot of upside.

For filmmaking I wouldn't recommend any handheld recorder except for FX gathering. The reasons are mostly not sound quality but functionality. You really can't use them in a bag, the buttons are just too small, and the menus are not in the field friendly.

I would prefer always a bag sized recorder for the above reasons. The dr60 is not a bag sized recorder but at least it is a bag friendly recorder. You still have small screens and the menus etc. but at least you can see it while your using it. For filmmaking it also has a number of really useful features, like the pass through to the camera for a sync track, a headphone out (since many DSLR's don't have a way to monitor), slate tones and a slate mic, useful file naming, and some others.

The DR40 also lets you give files useful manes, can't remember if they changed it on the Zoom but it used to be just consecutive numbers.

I think I have mentioned most of the reasons I personally would go for the DR40 over the Zoom, but the recap is.

Less handling noise
Quieter preamps
more gain in the preamps for those low output mics
More flexibility with the built in mics. The wide position is nice for ambience recording.
Sturdier design (my opinion)
I'm also getting a lot longer life with phantom power than folks with the H4n seem to. This is a really untested on my part thing, but I haven't had the problems some claim the H4n has with really short battery life. To be fair I also don't use it that often with Phantom power so...

None of the above is probably a killer and I wouldn't toss a H4n in the trash if I got handed one, just the reasons why I bought the DR40 when I was in the market for a handheld.

There are folks on this list with a stack of A list field gear. I'm not one of them. I spent my money on post sound tools because that is what I do for bread and butter. I spent a lot of time looking for the best bang for the buck, that also was good enough that I could use it in the field for professional gigs. Some things I spent more on somethings I gradually upgraded or found used or? Since the lions share of my recording has been FX and concerts my gear is skewed that way. Price is not a major factor in my thinking except that I don't have the bucks to spend on $2,000 microphones. So I know cheap and the compromises that you have to make, and ways around them.

For instance a decent mic pre will make the cheapest recorder out there sound twice as good. I have a MixPre that was a big investment for me at the time but it has out lived everything from DAT to MiniDisk, and is still the front end of my current Flash recorder (the bag one). It made the $45 MiniDisk sound good enough that folks though they were DAT recordings.

you won't find me saying you have to go spend $$$$ to get decent sound, because you don't.

As a point of reference the lowest prices I found on line were.
H4n $217
DR40 $175
DR60 $199

So I actually recommended items cheaper than you were looking at.
 
Hey, listen this is all really great info to chew on and think about. These are just some random thoughts....
It's been really educational and been a welcome addition to my lesser knowledge of sound recording. I do appreciate the world you earn your living in, and also the hobbyist world you like to partake in and what matters to you when you invest in some kit. Today, where I am, if I don't buy what I can afford I don't get to make my little projects. And that matters more to me than knowing I have the most appropriate device. I remember reading about this guy in the 90s (granted there weren't many low budget options available then unless you loved recanned 16mm ends) who would shoot on Hi8 and record audio on some kind of portable tape recorder. But you know, this guy knocked out a whole buch of features and shorts. Fine, I wouldn't go THAT extreme because I would like it to look and sound decent, but the principle isn't far off. I still admire that guy because he made his movies. Which means he's not in the 90% of people I meet who only talk about it. Today, "affordable" doesn't mean taking a huge hit on quality. Sure, for tech people and engineering artists (sound techs, DPs, gaffers, etc) it might be cringeworthy but I think it's an absolute exaggeration to say that you can't get good picture and sound with affordable equipment these days. In fact, I'd argue that if you spend time on Vimeo and Youtube looking at what people produce out there, the problems with the content aren't so much issues of quality, but rather that they often appear to not have basic training on things like composition, framing, where to put a boom mic, and the basics of acting and writing. It's a bizarre thing to look at something that looks really nice and sounds pretty good but then is a giant visual mess that cuts wrong and is performed really poorly. Cause you think, "argh!! this is SO close to being watchable!" Yes, of course, that's my own biased opinion but having studied production on my own and more formally both in practice and in theory, there are certain unavoidable truths about how people connect to a movie based on some basics that need to be there. Well, "need to be" if you care about having any narrative appeal. I'm not referring to 10hr looping video of a squirrel jumping through a hoop with newsreel audio playing underneath and flash frames of fires (I saw something like that in an art gallery once). That stuff suits a different need, serves a different purpose for me than telling a story. I won't say what I really think about it because it's irrelevant and only my opinion. But I think it's ok to talk about it from a mechanical persepctive.
Anyway, looping back around to what we're actually talking about. In this case, as unconventional as it may be to shove a recorder onto an actor, set levels for the volume of the scene, cross fingers, and just go, and do it again if it clips, it IS unfortunately for me a reality that I may have to do at some point. And because of that, I need something smaller than the DR60, even if only slightly smaller. Consequently, having the level meter retain the clipping indicator on the H4n through the recording comes in really handy to determine at the end if anything DID actually clip. I know clipping isn't the only thing to listen for, I'm just saying. Also, I can't rule out the fact that I may need to use 1/8" lavs for my own paid work doing little interview type videos. I NEED that option. So the DR40 falls short, because from what I understand, a 1/8" lav into XLRs via an adapter isn't good. The music recording abilities, the USB mic ability, all these things give you an option and save you a rental or purchase when you don't have funds. And because the wider community of indie filmmakers rely on it, it really is talked about more in places where you look for help. So for those reasons, I feel like the H4n is the better choice for me. But the 1/8" jack is a big deal.
 
tinpanalley said:
...Today, where I am, if I don't buy what I can afford I don't get to make my little projects...
Click to expand...

I definitely am in the 'do it' camp, with whatever is affordable. That of course is conditioned with 'learn how to use what is available'...

Too many times I've said to my self... like in the early 70's... well... I can't make a 'sound movie' with a windup 16mm Bolex... can't afford a Beaulieu with a crystal driven motor and a sync to sound recorder... etc... the 80's it was 'crappy 8mm tape and NTSC video'... yuck... (Ok I did see the 4x5 to buy a Hi8 for the Wife, who never really took up with the idea of making 'motion' pictures...).

So, eventually I did buy a DVX100... and subsequently a GH-1... ok bought the Wife a Nikon D600 recently... and may 'borrow' it on occasion...

Now the problem is finding a group that really does want to make films... with no budget... working on that...
 
You know you can get PDF versions of the manuals.

They both have the "pocket issue" of being almost 10 inches long with an XLR in the tail end.

But really lets leave the H4n out since it's obvious that you have decided you want one. You may find later that some of the issues bug you but it's not "a pice of junk" so go for it.

There are people who have made films in all kinds of awkward complicated ways because of particular constraints. None were choices, they were necessities. No budget filmmakers are always latching on to these as a badge of honor instead of the creative solutions to untenable circumstances that they were.

People made low budget films on VHS and cassette recorders also. Some were amazingly well done. A guy won a bunch of awards with a film he did in iMovie. Really impressive, not a reason to start using iMovie.

You live in a window where the tools are available to do fantastic quality work. The biggest problem right now, as you have noticed, is that because the tools are so easy to get there is not the apprenticeship that most people had to go through before they could get their hands on "the good tools". So there are a lot of half hearted filmmakers out there that just want to call themselves filmmakers. They spend no time learning the craft and mostly produce real junk. Then there are a lot of want to be filmmakers who want to really make films but they are trying to do projects way over their skill level. A lot of the former will keep on making junk and a lot of the latter will get discoraged and stop before they get the skills to actually do the film that they have in their head. Both cases are bad for film as a whole since after seeing a few really bad indies, the public is not going to end up not going to the good ones.

Embrace the spirit of those folks who pulled off miracles, but don't blinder yourself by their limits since they are not yours. You are still more likely to win the lotto than you are to make a real profit from a no-budget film.

In the spirit of those rusty edgers, if you are doing sit downs there is no good reason to not monitor your sound, zero. If you are not running a mic cable to a recorder where you can get an idea of the levels or at the very least running a headphone extension from the recorder so you can hear the mic you are just being lazy. None of the filmmakers you mentioned would do that if they had an option. If your walking and talking then it's trickier but usually still doable.

There is a mindset you (generic not specific) need to watch out for. I used to call it "Designer Syndrome" in theatre. It's really easy to get into (I've been there). It's where you are doing things at the last minute or in a way that is more difficult/ complicated/ etc. than you need to. If you just squeak by at the last second you get a BIG adrenalin jolt. Designers start to get addicted to this and you will hear them going on about the 72 hours straight they stayed up to get IT done. What they don't talk about is the six months they blew off so that they HAD to go 72 hrs just to make it. It's more of an "accomplishment" to overcome obstacles and "triumph" in the end. But it kills the people working with you, and it really doesn't get better results.

I always try to steer people more to the Coen brothers model. Plan the hell out of your shoot, cover all your bases, shoot it and go home early. They almost always end shoot days early, even when they started out. People LOVE working their crews, low drama, well planned, and everyone gets enough sleep.

A slogan I keep pinned up to remind me is

"Plan the work. Work the plan." It sounds a little "boy scout" but really if you just do that life is soooooo much simpler.

Not saying your not planning but I can hear the lust in your post to have one of those "I overcame great odds" stories of your own. They are great stories but they generally really suck to live through. Much better when a bud is talking about how they killed three crew members and didn't sleep for a month to get some impossible shot, you can say "yes that was great, almost as good as the one I bought from stockXYZ for $50. And then we went home and had a nice evening with your partners. BTW hows that divorce going?"
 
I have, roughly off the top of my head, more than 10 "I overcame great odds" stories on 2 features and 3 shorts. I don't intentionally weaken myself to see if I can pull it off. I do, as I said, what I can with what I can. I really, sincerely do understand and appreciate what you're suggesting, but it's not at all what I'm doing. I don't want any more great odds stories on purpose. I plan the crap out of everything. But if something's gotta happen a certain way because of limitations, then that's the way it's gotta happen. And I don't personally think that's lazy. I do create what I can as I go very often but the basics needed are ALWAYS there. Of course a static single in an interview is something I'd monitor levels on. Even in a dramatic close-up. I've done it. And I've done it walking and talking too. It takes some pretty good cable wrangling but it's doable. Of course I'd run a headphone set from a recorder in someone's pocket if possible. But the bigger point is, I've NEVER worked withOUT a sound guy and don't plan to ever do it either. So why am I even talking about recorders in pockets?? Because there have been times when it wasn't practical to hire one for just one shot, or where the sound guy wasn't available that night but left me all his gear. I just want to know that I CAN do something if I need to because I've BEEN in situations where even a weak option would have been desirable and there wasn't one. I like options. Ten years of doing this has taught me that all the planning in the world doesn't prepare you for the stuff that can happen out of nowhere when everything is going smoothly.

The other thing is that you're still talking about making a profit as a be all to end all of motivation for making movies. I've always been perfectly fine with having a day job and doing this in my own time. I don't expect this to pay the bills. And I know others that do the same. But, as I said, people don't get it. To the hardcore, I'm not committed and to the 9 to 5ers, I'm insane. So it goes.

Speaking of deciding flat out that I want the H4n, it just occurred to me that as far as using 1/8" mics go I can always use a VXLR adapter (as someone mentioned earlier, I think?) and run them into the XLR inputs on separate channels. So, now I'm actually considering more the DR40.

There's a lot of logic and sense in what you're saying. I respect it. But it also is, with all due respect, a very very idealistic view of the world where everyone does everything the right way and is responsible about making everything work the way it should and using the right tool for the required job EVERY single time without excuses. And not without reason, you seem very unforgiving of anyone who can't do it the way you're describing. In an ideal world, everyone would make perfect films and all equipment would be perfectly and lovingly used. But that just isn't how it happens so those of us at least trying our best are just trying our best. And the fact is that every single person works differently and there is never a black and white template for how to produce and shoot a project.
 
I'm not sure where you are reading that into what I said. I worked in theatre for thirty years before film I'm not doing this for the big bucks.
The only reference I made to $ was the filmmaker who spent $50 rather than killing three crew-members, I hope that is not the "arty" way to work. If it make you happier change that to "spent an hour finding it for free on line". The point was to work smart.

Wait I did say something about your odds of recouping the cost of production. Yes as a strict hobbiest loosing money on each film is an option. For most people recouping costs means they can keep making films. And NO I'm not talking big budget films. You like Mr. Burns films. Brothers McMullen, a nice nobudget film cost somewhere upward of $25,000 to make. If he didn't recoup that he might well have not made many more films. He got on the radar with that and got some good gigs. IF your a hobbiest and and you are just doing it to do it and if nobody else sees it it doesn't mater, that is fine but then who cares what the sound is like?

I mean who are we kidding here. I haven't met a single filmmaker no matter how bad or inexperienced who didn't want to be successful.


And you NEVER heard me say you have to use the best tool for a given job.

YOU said you were doing sitdowns, AND you said you were tossing the recorded in a pocket and if it was trash you would just do it again. THAT is a lazy approach and one destined for failure. Now you say you would be running headphones? OK good idea, so you agree with me. What's the beef?

The in the pocket think comes up a lot with folks who can't afford wireless and haven't thought through how to shoot the scene with out one. Doing post I have dealt with some of these "poormans wireless" tracks and 50% or more are just unusable so it's an issue.

90% of what I'm writing is for others who will come across this thread and get some answers to similar questions.

Never except in your post has anybody talked about "perfect" anything. And no everybody doesn't work differently. A small fraction of "film art" folks are forever thinking they are inventing new things (that were used before and are not anymore because they didn't work well) and everybody else works of a few variations of the same thing. In a hundred years the workflow has gotten pretty well honed. Modern technology has let you skip a few stages or made parts easier but at the core it's the same, or very close.

But now this is gone totally off the rails and your original questions have been answered, and even some variations on them. The rest is a debate that never goes well online, much better in person over a beer. And I'm a home-brewer (no I don't do it for the money) so if your in this neck of the woods the beers on me.
 
tinpanalley said:
Speaking of deciding flat out that I want the H4n, it just occurred to me that as far as using 1/8" mics go I can always use a VXLR adapter (as someone mentioned earlier, I think?) and run them into the XLR inputs on separate channels. So, now I'm actually considering more the DR40.
Click to expand...

I have the H4, the prior model to the H4n, and with this thread I relooked at the DR60... it seems that many vendors are slashing the price to $199 or so, and at that price, I'd probably go with the DR60.

A few months ago, someone asked me about this level of recorder, and I mentioned the H4n and the DR40. The fellow chose the DR40. Since then I've been busy, and I've not heard how well the DR40 worked out.
 
In addition, the DR-40 has 1/4" and/or XLR +4dB balanced line level inputs (that allegedly are not attenuated and fed back through the preamp like most budget portables), parallel safety tracks and a single channel (mono) mode. The preamps are somewhat better than the H4n.. but far from pristine. Unfortunately the Tascam does not have 3.5mm plug-in power input., so a battery or Phantom power XLR adapter would be needed. The DR100 may be another option. The Zoom H5, 6 and DR-60 as well in the under $500 price range.
 
Rick R said:
Unfortunately the Tascam does not have 3.5mm plug-in power input., so a battery or Phantom power XLR adapter would be needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input.
I had heard that it was using battery powered lavs like the ATR3350 with adapters on the DR40 that actually caused this weird helicopter sound in the device and you had to go out to the main menu on the display to avoid it. But, anyway, the ideal is to own/rent an XLR mic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top