Tascam DR-70D - what do you think?

[TheDingo]

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.

100 percent agreement from me.

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?

It's funny, because I find the Sennheiser MKE600 to tonally "balanced" that is a little bit "bright" with a good lower end. I sold my Rode NTG-2 mic after buying the MKE600 because it sounded very "muddy" with almost no high end compared to the Sennheiser.

I had the opportunity to compare the MKE600 with a Senn ME66 shotgun

I've always thought the ME66 sounds terrible. Very "tinny" with no bottom end at all. I've never understood why anyone would recommend this mic other than it puts out a very "hot" signal which is good for low cost crappy cameras and recorders which have terrible mic preamps.

Sanken CS-3e, as everyone assured me this is head and shoulders above all mics in the below $1K class (shotgun)

It's got that heavy "FM Radio" thick bass, but everything else sounds great, and it's very directional which is good if you can aim it properly.

there are such things as charts that can show you how closely a mic picks up what frequency

...But then you try two different mics that on paper look the same, but when you actually use them they are quite different.

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

Almost every voice-over artist I've met usually has their favorite mic that they feel produces the best quality sound for their voice. I see this over and over again, so I don't think anything is set in stone.

 

[DPStewart]

Frequency charts... oh dear lord ignore those things. They tell you NOTHING about how a mic sounds.

I've been in the audio game since 1982 and I have owned and used more mics than I could ever even remember, and I can assure you that 95% of all the accompanying frequency response charts were 95% the same - even on mics that sounded RADICALLY different from each other.

The only time they mattered was when I was paying extra to buy a matched pair of one model - generally for stereo recording purposes - and then it matters.

You'll never go wrong using your EARS to judge the audio performance of any mic.

 

[davefisk]

Frequency charts... oh dear lord ignore those things.

The only limited thing you learn from them if there is a peak or dip in a certain frequency, but yes, for the most part I've found frequency response charts for just about any item, this include shock mounts and windscreens, to be completely useless. It's a marketing tool more than anything else. Nobody's job consists of having a mic perfectly still in an acoustically treated room recording a sine wive...because that's what you do when you get these measurements, and it's the opposite of real world scenarios.

 

[Noiz2]

I would third the "don't pay a lot of attention to charts" and would add the specs to that also.

What you can get is a blurry picture of things you may want to pay attention to when you try it out before you buy it. So if the self noise spec looks like it will be noisy, listen for that. Usually on a good mic or piece of gear the noise has been shaped to not be an issue so you will usually not hear a lot of noise. Cheap mics may have a better spec and sound much worse because there isn't a standard that all are tested to so the spec is generated in different ways by different companies.

On the chart other than big peaks to listen for I also look a bit at where the top and bottom roll off. But I'm mostly recording SFX so I have more use for the lows than someone doing production.

All mics color the sound in one way or another and people have different views on what sounds "best". Basically you go with what you like and be flexible if it turns out your clients like something different.

A guy I used to work with a lot really loved glass breaking brightness (this is post) and I would often wear earplugs when he wanted me to listen to something because it literally hurt my ears. But he loved it that way. Since everything went on to a mix stage that we were rarely at I don't know if they tamed his tracks a bunch or ended up brightening mine.

 

[focuspulling]

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?

Couldn't agree more, great points especially on the 24-bit definition for heavy post-processing. Again, I'm promoting the idea that word should get out to folks, ignoring all the "pro/non-pro" white noise when it comes to certain applications like recording a clean interview, etc., and sparing people from investing time/resources in 100% useless extra steps in the chain. The persist refrain of "to each their own" doesn't help anyone.

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.

So now you understand the error in your initial assertion.

The audio circuitry on these cameras is poor to worse. Actually in about 90% of my work it would be an issue/ problem...


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.

90% quickly becomes a much smaller number by your own admission.

 

[Noiz2]

90% quickly becomes a much smaller number by your own admission.

Nope I took all of those times into account when I put out the 90% number. I do post so just because it's an issue does not mean that someone up the chain didn't do it and dump it on post to "fix". When I complain about the poor quality of sound recorded into DSLR's etc. it's not because of stuff I recorded and was not happy with it's the stuff others have recorded and passed off to post.

What I will concede, and have said before, is that technique trumps equipment nine times out of ten. The problem with talking a lot about that is that folks with no chops read that as "I don't need to worry about equipment either". Hand a good recordist a 1970's cassette deck and the freebie mic that came with it and you can get some great tracks because that recordist knows how to squeeze all the quality possible from the equipment. But a lot people going direct to dslr also have no sound chops.

If technique is lacking then anything you can do to bump the quality of the recording is a plus. Most recorders have limiters that can help with levels set too hot, 24 bit gives you more room to fiddle in post before the sound falls apart, better mic pres help get a cleaner signal that can help a lot with low levels, and you have a much smaller chance of having your recorder set to a compressed format.

If technique is not lacking then they are going to want to go to a recorder so that they can get better control, better meters, better bit depth, possible higher sample rate (for FX), better connections and better monitoring.

Consumer/ in camera audio can be usable but is not a sound persons first choice and shouldn't be a director/ producers first choice either.

 

[robfilms]

reviving a very old thread...

...i was wondering what folks think of the tascam dr70d?

have opinions changed/softened since nov 2015 (18 months ago)?

is it worth the $185 after rebate price currently at adorama?

thanks in advance to those who are kind enough to share.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions

 

[OldCorpse]

Just one person's experience: I have the original 60D, the 60Dmkii, and the 70D. I find myself using the 60mkii about 99% of the time. My 70D is sitting in my cabinet - haven't used it in months. Reason: I find the menu system on the 60Dmkii vastly superior to the 70D... for something you use on every shoot (the menu), it is critical that it be as user friendly as possible. The problem with the 70D I find, is that everything is buried deep in menus and there are fewer dedicated buttons (f.ex. phantom power) - I just don't find the hassle worth it, when I get everything on the 60Dmkii I want. Sure, the form factor is nicer on the 70D, but unless you need 4 xlr inputs or the onboard mics, I just don't see the advantage to the 70D - supposedly better preamps, but my ears are not good enough to hear the difference, so I don't bother. YMMV.

 

[robfilms]

oldcorpse-

thanks for adding to the conversation.

there are moments when i REALLY lust after 4 xlr inputs (boom & lav + safety tracks for each = 4 tracks)

i wonder if anyone else cares to share their thoughts?

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions

 

[Policar]

Is it just me or are the preamps super noisy on the tr-60dii? Better than a zoom but still garbage.

 

[OldCorpse]

Is it just me or are the preamps super noisy on the tr-60dii? Better than a zoom but still garbage.

I never heard/read of anyone having issues with noisy preamps in the 60D, at least the xlr channels. I have read some claim that the 3/4 channels can be noisy, but never the xlr. The 60Dmkii is supposed to have preamps that are improved over the 60D, but I can't hear any difference - nor can I hear a difference between those and the 70D which is also supposed to have improved preamps. Now, maybe I'm deaf, and everyone else who claims the xlr channels are clean is similarly deaf, but I have not had any complaints with any recordings either. One can always find even quieter preamps for a lot more money - I hear the Zoom F8 is excellent - but you have to ask whether the cleaner preamps are actually going to be a measurable factor in post production, or not - sometimes it can even be psychological... so for example, sometimes even though I can't hear the difference I'll go with the better spec not because I expect there to be an actual difference, but simply for the psychological benefit of having a margin of error and another thing not to worry about rather than something that is "barely" good enough... I'd rather have something about which there can be no doubt, that way I don't have to think about it or concern myself - one less thing to worry about.

So, maybe it could be worthwhile psychologically to look for "better" preamps, but in practice I doubt there will be any discernable difference. There's one other consideration - what are you going to be using this recorder for. If this is for dialogue, then I'm pretty confident that these preamps are not going to give you noise that will in any way be noticeable. But, if you are going to be using this for some very sophisticated effects recordings or the like where you are pushing things to the limit, then maybe you can benefit from quieter preamps - I don't know, because I've never had to do such effects recordings, all the ones I did are the usual ones like closing doors, glasses clinking and so on, and I never had an issue with the noise levels. Bottom line "garbage" is not a word I'd use to describe the preamps in the 60D/60Dmkii/70D.

On a separate point: if you read through this thread, a few pages back, you'll see that the 70D apparently has an issue with the 3.5 OUT being noisy, which can be fixed for a price (~$30 Sescom cable), with a 25dB pad. But for me, the 60Dmkii is aces, and I use it all the time. YMMV.

 

[Policar]

I never heard/read of anyone having issues with noisy preamps in the 60D, at least the xlr channels. I have read some claim that the 3/4 channels can be noisy, but never the xlr. The 60Dmkii is supposed to have preamps that are improved over the 60D, but I can't hear any difference - nor can I hear a difference between those and the 70D which is also supposed to have improved preamps. Now, maybe I'm deaf, and everyone else who claims the xlr channels are clean is similarly deaf, but I have not had any complaints with any recordings either. One can always find even quieter preamps for a lot more money - I hear the Zoom F8 is excellent - but you have to ask whether the cleaner preamps are actually going to be a measurable factor in post production, or not - sometimes it can even be psychological... so for example, sometimes even though I can't hear the difference I'll go with the better spec not because I expect there to be an actual difference, but simply for the psychological benefit of having a margin of error and another thing not to worry about rather than something that is "barely" good enough... I'd rather have something about which there can be no doubt, that way I don't have to think about it or concern myself - one less thing to worry about.

So, maybe it could be worthwhile psychologically to look for "better" preamps, but in practice I doubt there will be any discernable difference. There's one other consideration - what are you going to be using this recorder for. If this is for dialogue, then I'm pretty confident that these preamps are not going to give you noise that will in any way be noticeable. But, if you are going to be using this for some very sophisticated effects recordings or the like where you are pushing things to the limit, then maybe you can benefit from quieter preamps - I don't know, because I've never had to do such effects recordings, all the ones I did are the usual ones like closing doors, glasses clinking and so on, and I never had an issue with the noise levels. Bottom line "garbage" is not a word I'd use to describe the preamps in the 60D/60Dmkii/70D.

On a separate point: if you read through this thread, a few pages back, you'll see that the 70D apparently has an issue with the 3.5 OUT being noisy, which can be fixed for a price (~$30 Sescom cable), with a 25dB pad. But for me, the 60Dmkii is aces, and I use it all the time. YMMV.

If it's going to cost $1000 to get any better I suppose I'll keep this thing (it was $125, and the form factor I like) but there is a fair amount of hiss... it seems noisier than my camera's preamps. Then again I remember when I first A/Bed an h4n and 702 MY GOD the sound devices recorder was in another league it was like SD and 8k or something even through basic monitors.

That's helpful, though, you're right. I don't get paid to record sound usually so any investment beyond competent is a luxury for me and could be spent hiring a sound guy instead. I'll keep it if other stuff in the same class isn't much better. I do remember the sound devices pre amps were a world apart, but also this sounds better than the h4n. Curious to try it and my camera and see what's cleaner.

 

[OldCorpse]

I highly doubt there is any camera out there that has quieter preamps than the 60D or 70D - in fact, I'm pretty much sure there isn't... for sure none of the common ones like any DSLR or Sony video cams or whatnot, because this board is full of reports to that effect. FWIW, the preamps in the majority of cameras are bottom of the barrel, so it's not much of an achievement for a recorder/mixer to have better pre-amps. No question the preamps in the 60D (and 70D etc.) are superior to the h4n (don't know about the newest "pro" h4n, as I don't know anybody who has one).

If I were to look for the best that is still affordable, no question I'd go for the Zoom F8 - but you're looking at $1K. That piece of gear is fully pro. If someone were to offer me to swap my 60Dmkii for the F8, I'd do it in a heartbeat , but since that's not going to happen, for my purposes the 60Dmkii is enough though.