Tascam DR-70D - what do you think?
- Thread starter OldCorpse
- Start date
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Better get 2 or 3 , cables always get demaged.
If is to record directly to camera I' would get a mixer, from Sound Devices or JuicedLink and from that signal you can split to camera and to recorder like zoom h5 or
one of the Tascam.
If you use some good headphones you will find that even with the cable is noisy.
Actually Sam Mallery made a small mistake ( the DR-70D output level wasn't set correctly ) in the YouTube video he posted so he still has some noise in the audio recording.
Set correctly with this Sescom cable you get a noise-floor of -75 dB RMS which is inaudible under normal listening conditions.
Here are the settings I use to get the best audio quality when recording with the 3.5mm audio OUTPUT from the Tascam DR-70D with a Sescom cable...
*** Make sure you upgrade to the latest firmware for the DR-70D which is version 1.12 ***
GH4 CAMERA SETTINGS
---------------------------
Rec Format = MP4 (LPCM) : screen 1/7 of Motion Picture menu
Mic Level Adj. = -12 dB : screen 5/7 of Motion Picture menu
Mic Level Limiter = OFF : screen 6/7 of Motion Picture menu
TASCAM DR-70D SETTINGS
-------------------------------
BASIC MENU
- RECORD : ON
- PAN : ( normal pan settings )
- GAIN : LOW ( for LINE level inputs ), MID ( for "hot" mics )
- INPUT : XLR/TRS
MONITOR MENU
- MONITOR SEL : CAM
- OUTPUT LEVEL : -6 dB
- OUTPUT GAIN : LINE
When you're shooting for someone else and have to hand over the footage at the end of the shoot, or when you are shooting something quick with next to no budget, camera audio can be totally usable for the final product.
I agree that the 24-bit audio recorded by the DR-70D will be better than the 16-bit audio recorded by DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras, but sometimes the camera audio is good enough.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
It's not the 16 VS 24 it's the low quality audio circuitry in the camera and the compression. So think of it more as a decent recorder VS consumer MiniDisk recorder, that is closer to the reality.
Camera audio could still be good enough for some things but it is a significantly lower quality than even a cheap recorder.
Camera audio could still be good enough for some things but it is a significantly lower quality than even a cheap recorder.
Testing the DR-70D 24-bit internal recording against my GH4 16-bit internal recording, they sound almost identical. Running tests with a Sound Devices MixPre-D mixer the DR-70D shows a noise floor of -80 dB RMS compared to the GH4 noise-floor of -70 dB RMS, but I've found that anything below -60 dB RMS is pretty much inaudible under normal listening conditions, so generally the GH4 sounds great if my levels are good.
Where I find the difference shows up is when I try and correct audio issues in post, where the 24-bit recording can take a lot more abuse without falling apart compared to the 16-bit recording. If I change the DR-70D to 16-bit recording, then it's really just the noise-floor that's different. I can boost the volume of the DR-70D recording more than my GH4 and it still sounds good if I can stay below the -60 dB RMS noise-floor threshold.
Personally, I don't need many of the bells and whistles of the DR-701D (though the individual and GANG control is nice), but the slightly better preamps and lower noise floor, and more importantly hopefully fixed issues that plagued the 70D, are what would push me toward it. But not at $600. What with DR-70D falling as low as below $200 on occasion, my hope is that not too long after coming out, the 701D might also fall to $300-$400 at which point it's a buy!
focuspulling
Active member
I know that (especially these days) people are fiercely guarded about their opinions, invulnerable, but it's healthy to attack and argue publicly the actual, true reality of applications besides theory. Simply put, I really really really doubt that even half of your work results in scrutiny of any kind justifying the external recording. No one will argue with you that sometimes high-quality external recording is a desired option, but your broad generalization is sort of misleading to people just getting into this.
I loathe the idea of someone recording an interview to the DR-70D instead of the GH4 internally, knowing for absolutely certain that the human voice merely talking is 100% indistinguishable between the two recording devices (for any actual productive reason).
Also, you wrote "the compression." Did you notice the LPCM in the GH4's shooting mode? I'm sure you know what that means.
What if that 'actual productive reason" is post processing of the files? What if you need to do some cleanup or what if you need to otherwise stress those files - would the 16 vs 24 make a difference? I think most people would agree that for eng, most documentaries etc., whether you record to a cam like GH4 or an external dedicated device like the 70D, you are basically not going to do much processing, so the audience may not benefit from more than just straight to cam recording. But maybe for narrative it makes sense, in case you may need or want to do more extensive post on the dialogue?
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
I ended up using an Azden mini mixer, sending signal to a Tascam portable recorder in order to get the 24 bits, that compared with the 16 bit recorded in PCM by a Canon camera, shows the benefits
OF COURSE THE IN CAMERA RECORDING WAS USING THE PREAMPS FROM THE MIXER, GIVING A VERY CLEAN SOUND.
24 bits at voice, music or any level, 24 Bits is HUUUGE as Donald Trump says. I mean this is real no doubt
OF COURSE THE IN CAMERA RECORDING WAS USING THE PREAMPS FROM THE MIXER, GIVING A VERY CLEAN SOUND.
24 bits at voice, music or any level, 24 Bits is HUUUGE as Donald Trump says. I mean this is real no doubt
Last edited:
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I would disagree with almost all of this. Yes you can put the GH4 into a PCM mode, but it also has two compressed modes.
The audio circuitry on these cameras is poor to worse. Actually in about 90% of my work it would be an issue/ problem. As long as we are at it on what basis do you "knowing for absolutely certain" that "knowing for absolutely certain"? I'm really curious because I could pole industry professionals and I'm about 100% certain that every one of them would disagree.
What I think you meant was that in your opinion they are indistinguishable. And as your opinion that is a valid position.
Now I have recorded with consumer gear and gone straight to camera and at time as a post person chosen the camera tracks, so it's not necessarily better to go dual system in all cases. More has to do with everything else. So a well boomed track from the camera beats a crappy track on a good recorder, every time. But the camera audio section on almost all consumer/ prosumer, and all the DSLR's I have seen is a far cry from even a mid level recorders audio section. So if you use a preamp and feed it a really good signal it can be perfectly acceptable some times.
I've had great results using a pro grade mixer ( i.e. Sound Devices ) with consumer grade recorders ( i.e. Olympus, Sony, Tascam ), but I know that all the heavy lifting is being done by the mixer. Take the mixer out of the equation and the results are still usable, but definitely not the same.
The worst case scenario for me is recording with the low cost Audio Technica 875R mini shotgun mic which sounds good with a Sound Devices mixer, but I find it unusable without the SD mixer. I still haven't figured out why this mic performs so much better with the SD mixer.
The worst case scenario for me is recording with the low cost Audio Technica 875R mini shotgun mic which sounds good with a Sound Devices mixer, but I find it unusable without the SD mixer. I still haven't figured out why this mic performs so much better with the SD mixer.
Hmm. Maybe you have a bum 875R? I have two of them, and I get good results with both the DR-60D and the DR-70D. Maybe I'm deaf, but then, nobody who received these recordings (all narrative short films) ever complained, so... it's possible that everyone involved is deaf, I guess. I have also used other shotguns, such as the Senn MKE 600, AT-8035, with the 60D and 70D, so hopefully I have something to compare to. Of course, I have not used any of those mics with a SD mixer, so maybe I'd jump off a bridge if I could compare and see how bad a job I did with the 60D and 70D, so who knows, maybe I better not compare
It's possible. I discovered this accidentally, when I had the luxury of a boom-op for one of my shoots and the only indoor mic I had with me was the AT875R, so that's what he used. Then when I went to edit the audio I was surprised at how much better the AT875R sounded compared to other shoots where I had it plugged directly into a Tascam unit. Normally there is a definite improvement when throwing the Sound Devices mixer in to the set-up, but this was a bigger improvement than what I was expecting. I generally find the AT875R to be "thin" on the lower end, so I always add a fair bit of EQ to improve the sound, but this time there was more on the lower end.
That's interesting. I tend to think that for many people, it's the case of "that which you are used to" sets the standard/baseline against which people judge mics. For example, I use the 875R a lot, it's basically my go-to mic. So I've sort of gotten used to the sound. Then, when I use the Senn MKE600, I find the Senn quite "bassy" - but is that because I'm used to the 875R, or because the Senn is really bassy? Well, I had the opportunity to compare the MKE600 with a Senn ME66 shotgun, and sure enough the MKE600 had more lower end sound - but then I found the ME66 to be a bit thin... so I talked to the guy who owned the ME66, and his view was that the ME66 had more "presence" compared to the MKE600, and found the MKE600 "slightly muddy". Then I listened to a Sanken CS-3e, as everyone assured me this is head and shoulders above all mics in the below $1K class (shotgun) - and I found it a strange experience... it surely could not be called "muddy" and I kind of understood what the other guy was talking about the MKE600 being "muddy"... but on the other hand, I found the "brightness" of the Sanken sort of tiring, as in, after a few hours my ears were very, very tired - and I also found the sibilants too much. So I went back to my 875R and found - this is embarrassing - that while it surely is not as "forward" or "present" as the Sanken, it is also not tiringly "bright" - and in contrast the MKE600 had almost a touch too much bassy end... so all in all, the 875R sounded nice to my ears - not too bright, and not too bassy, with enough clean pickup for voice to be an excellent choice for dialogue. Then I thought about it, and wondered if my preference for the 875R wasn't simply because that's what I am used to since I use it like 80% of the time. I guess my point is that a fair amount of what we find "good" or "bad" may be driven by what we are used to - of course, there are such things as charts that can show you how closely a mic picks up what frequency, but I really wonder how much difference that makes ultimately when it comes to dialogue... the human voice is in a fairly tight frequency band compared to what an effects mic must be able to pick up neutrally without favoring this or that frequency, so it's easier for most mics to be pretty accurate within the human voice frequency parameters; and then there will be other factors beyond that, like how does a mic handle sibilants, which I am extremely sensitive to - and I tend to overvalue mics that handle sibilants better. Of course add other factors - beyond sound quality - such as handling noise, convenient size-wise, the fact that it's a cheap mic and I don't have to be paranoid handling it the way I might be with a $5K mic, and all in all, I guess I just find the 875R mic to be a favorite of mine for most use scenarios. I guess that means I'm biased in favor of the 875R