What's the purpose of a digital recorder?

[tariqari]

Hey, I looked a round a little bit and I didn't see a direct answer so I figured I'll just ask.

What is the main purpose of having a digital recorder (zoom, tascam, etc)? I have an AGAF100 and it has two built in xlr ports. Is there an advantage to recording the audio separately and syncing in post?

I get that you'd have more mobility plus you can record sound effects without the need of a camera but I'm not sure why I would need it for shooting projects.

Tariq

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Typically the audio electronics inside a cam vary from average to really bad. A pro sound guy would be horrified at the noise floor on most cams. Combine that with the boom operator being tethered to the cam (his cable getting in the camera operators way), the audio guy having to touch the cam for audio purposes and potentially screwing something up on the video settings, and it's well worth syncing in post. Audio to camera is run and gun only IMO.

 

[Richard Crowley]

NO camera (even one that costs as much as your house) has audio recording quality as good as a high-end recorder (Sound Devices, Nagra, etc.) NO camera has audio recording quality better than an average sound recorder (Zoom Tascam, et.al.) And MOST camcorders have audio performance that is WORSE than your average pro-sumer digital audio recorder. For many reasons, that is the state of the art in the industry and the situation seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

So you can argue that a camcorder with good audio performance may be roughly equivalent to your average digital audio recorder. But even if that is the case, the camera operator should be paying attention to framing and focus, etc. It is very difficult to devote your full attention to getting a good picture while ALSO recording good sound. If for no other reason than this, a separate recorder (or at least a separate mixer) is necessary to allow the (hopefully, dedicated) sound person to do their best job.

 

[tariqari]

Interesting reasons! So the quality is noticeably better on a recorder than through the camera?

 

[davefisk]

Interesting reasons! So the quality is noticeably better on a recorder than through the camera?

In my experience, yes. You can get usable audio on a camera if you have to...for example, if you are self funding a short film in order to build up experience, then you might be able to get away with it, but on larger more professional projects you'll want to run a separate dedicated audio recorder. What I've often done is run a scratch track to the camera to help sync up (I'll usually send it through a Comtek, which is a wireless IFB system, and not broadcast quality).

 

[David W. Jones]

Interesting reasons! So the quality is noticeably better on a recorder than through the camera?

That really depends on a number of things, including the operator of said equipment. I have personally recorded less than optimal sounding audio on some of the best audio recording gear made. For what it's worth, I also own an AF100 camera fed by an SD302 mixer, and most of my clients can't hear a quality difference between the AF100 audio and the SD702 recorder audio. Especially after a spot hits the air.

 

[Richard Crowley]

I agree that it is possible to get good (even broadcast quality) recording from a decent camera with XLR inputs. It depends on how careful you are while shooting, the quality and placement of your microphone, the ambient noise, etc. etc. etc. But keeping track of all that is beyond reasonable expectations for probably the majority of the less-experienced people who come through here. That is why a separate sound person/recorder is typically recommended.

 

[Noiz2]

It, to a certain extent, comes down to people. An external recorder IS better but if it's used by an idiot then ... On the flip side on board sound gets very little attention. If your lucky it's fine but nobody is watching levels and certainly nobody is adjusting levels. You really want your cameraman/ DP looking at the image not the sound meters so audio in camera is a crap shoot. IF you have a team that has done it a lot and knows the gear you can get good results. If you other option is a totally inexperienced boom op trying to figure out the recorder the day of the shoot, you may be better off going internal.

It's like everything else. A Panavison Camera doesn't take great shots, it's just capable of taking great shots. A dedicated recorder doesn't get you great sound but it's capable of it. Generally speaking on board audio is not capable of great sound.

 

[drapeama]

Interesting reasons! So the quality is noticeably better on a recorder than through the camera?

Generally speaking, yes. A digital recorder can record up to 24bits/96khz WAV (uncompressed) audio while a camcorder usually won't record more than 16bits/48khz (in the better case).
That being said, and depending on what you're shooting, I've used a JuicedLink preamp and recorded audio with a camcorder on many events. It's less complicated than using an external recorder and sync the audio in post (for LIVE/Run&Gun shooting). That being said, the JuicedLink was used as a preamp (meant to!) and I've been able to lower the recording volume in the camera, so I was recording good and clean audio directly in-camera by using the JuicedLink, but in mpegII audio at 384Kbps (compared to .wavs at 1536kbps). Many people won't hear much difference, but pro-hobbyists and serious audio persons will.

If you're only shooting familly videos (birthday partys) then it doesn't matter! But any other situations would require better audio treatment!
Another thing I've done in a couple situations: Mic > JuicedLink > Portable recorder > Camera (using the heaphone's output on the recorder to feed the Mic input on the camera). Gave me a dual audio recording and once properly set, clean audio on both devices. Just a tip.

 

[ryanjf]

...but in mpegII audio at 384Kbps (compared to .wavs at 1536kbps). Many people won't hear much difference, but pro-hobbyists and serious audio persons will.

384Kbps!!! That scares me.. That's like spelling "foley" :crybaby:

 

[GaryNattrass]

Well I've been using the audio capabilities on my cameras for many years and it is perfectly acceptable for most jobs including broadcast!

I have also used digi beta and betacam SP and to totally dismiss them in favour of a sep recorder is just downright silly, a sep recorder could actually make things a lot more complicated in post and as my main job function has been dubbing mixer for the past 32 years I have experienced the result of over zealous sound recordists who think that by throwing technology at a job will be the magic solution.

So when I get an OMF for drama with 8 tracks of audio it just makes me think that the recordist is actually just being lazy a lot of the time and can not be bothered to mix decent audio on location.

OK don't get me wrong external recorders have their uses but most modern mid range cameras recording at 16 bit 48k can produce perfectly acceptable results for broadcast TV and film production.

I have a marantz external recorder and had a sony D50 but they tend to sit on the shelf most of the time as the four audio tracks on my panasonic HPX371 P2 cameras are totally acceptable for most jobs including cinema indie productions.

Even the audio on my little canon HF11 has been used on full broadcast productions and the AF100 you have is perfectly acceptable for most broadcast recording purposes.

I am about to travel to London to do some small sports event and you can bet your bottom dollar that 99% of the roaming coverage for that will be done with audio in the camera.

Right tools for the job etc but the spec for broadcast is 16 bit at 48k and most cameras are perfectly capable of producing acceptable results.

 

[Alex H.]

So when I get an OMF for drama with 8 tracks of audio it just makes me think that the recordist is actually just being lazy a lot of the time and can not be bothered to mix decent audio on location.

Let's not project generalities like this on the larger world of location recordists and mixers. Multi-tracking is a godsend, and from my years of audio post I'd much rather get the tracks than not.

I freelanced for a production company for a while in the ProTools suites and was always appalled at the condition of the audio I'd get in the OMFs. This was cable network programming, but for shows where there were only two people on camera, I'd get a single track of mixed dialog... riddled with phasing and other issues. I always wondered why, because working in the field I would always split two people instead of mix... not because of laziness, but as a safety measure for post (and this is dealing only with two tracks, in-camera). It wasn't until they sent me out on a shoot that I figured out why: it was their SOP. They sent me with a kit that had just enough cable to run one channel of the mixer's output to one input on one of the two cameras. Not only were they routinely mixing, of four available record channels between two DBeta cameras they were only using one. When I questioned it, I was told that "it's digital and you don't have to worry about digital." I called the Production Manager and insisted that he drive to the location with more XLR cables, which he did.

I know that seems a little OT but the reality is that splitting tracks, even in the simplest of setups, is worth its weight in gold in the long run. On large productions, the sound mixer will mix but will also track, but if you're running several mics and you don't have an A2 or a couple of boom ops or are otherwise a one-person sound crew, sometimes mixing is the one thing that can get cut without sacrificing any production quality.

To the OP: I've worked with cameras that had terrible sound, cameras that were passable, and cameras that were impressive. But having a dedicated recorder gives you the flexibility to ensure the quality of audio no matter which camera is running. Sound is often an afterthought with camera R&D. They put it there because they cannot sell a camera without some sort of sound recording. On the low end, there may not even be external inputs. On the high end, they actually do put some resource into R&D and end up with something very usable (ARRI Alexa comes to mind). Then there's everything in between. But the elements of the signal chain that impact sound quality, most notably the pre-amps, are not the most important parts of the camera and are not given the same attention to detail, no matter which camera.

Sound recorders, on the other hand, are designed for one thing: sound recording. By investing in something like Sound Devices, Nagra, or the like, you get something that was made just for sound without taking shortcuts. Even in the mid-range of recorders, you can get a really nice machine that's even nicer with a good-quality mixer in front.

 

[Noiz2]

384Kbps!!! That scares me.. That's like spelling "foley" :crybaby:

 

[Noiz2]

I think it's also important to take into consideration WHAT you are shooting and where. Mr. Nattrass has been working broadcast in England. The British workflow, even on features, is considerably different from the US and broadcast is very different from narrative film.

The problem I have had in post with multi track production (and I mean more than two tracks) from low budget films is that often the production mixer is barely able to deal with a pair of tracks and with more you just get lots of bad. Given the choice I would rather have one really good over eight bad. I would also prefer eight good over 1 great because no mater how "great" the production is it always needs some clean up and editing.

If I'm a broadcast mixer with very short turnaround and no post editorial ("So when I get an OMF for drama with 8 tracks of audio"). In the US you are not going to get eight tracks of audio on a Drama and certainly if you did only a couple of them would be dialog, and that would be edited and probably have had a fair amount of tweaking done to it.

BUT the question had to do with separate recorded VS recording in camera. And I did see any general dismissal of camera sound. Some cameras have decent audio (though none of the DSLRs do). The BIG difference as I and others pointed out is that In Camera sound is not under the control of the SOUND person. Camera people are not focused on sound and are sometimes openly hostile. Having the camera person be you "production mixer" is just a bad choice. Unless it's the only choice OR you have worked together so long that you have worked it out, then it's an OK idea but not ideal.

For Run and Gun work it may be your only choice and if the camera has decent sound then it may be an OK one. In those situations though I always mirror what I'm sending to camera on my recorder. All too often a camera person will flip a switch or??? and trash the sound. Some how it's always sounds fault even if your not allowed near the camera.

British shows are done much closer to what we in the US would call Run And Gun and I think that explains a bit the earlier post.

American dramas are closer to a US film flow with a fair amount of sound editorial done by a crew of editors.

 

[Alex H.]

BUT the question had to do with separate recorded VS recording in camera. And I did see any general dismissal of camera sound. Some cameras have decent audio (though none of the DSLRs do). The BIG difference as I and others pointed out is that In Camera sound is not under the control of the SOUND person. Camera people are not focused on sound and are sometimes openly hostile. Having the camera person be you "production mixer" is just a bad choice. Unless it's the only choice OR you have worked together so long that you have worked it out, then it's an OK idea but not ideal.

If the camera is capable of decent to good sound recording, there are safeguards to recording to camera with a sound person in control. I ran this way for years with lifestyle programming, and having the ENG snake with monitor return is the first and best defense. With Sony's Beta SP cameras, the audio controls were terrible. I could generally keep an eye on the VU meters behind the camera op's head (much easier if the camera was on a tripod), but the rotary level controls were flaky and in an easy-to-brush spot. Sneeze at them the wrong way and the levels would be out of whack. So, I'd get levels set and slap a strip of gaff tape across them to keep them from being moved. The later SP cams and then the DBeta cameras had more stable controls and had them covered, which made things much easier. Alexa's controls are all menu-driven, and the display is on the other side of the camera so it isn't obstructed by a human head. RED is menu-driven, but the last shoot I was on with one of those, the visual metering was all but useless (it's been a while... maybe that's been fixed?). Smaller cams like the DVX, HVX, HPX... those are difficult just because the LCD with the level meter isn't likely to be in a spot convenient for the mixer.

It takes very intentional and concentrated set-up and gain staging to make sure that the camera is in line with the mixer, but once that's set and under control the mixer can take care of most of the rest. But no matter what, the key to recording in-camera is monitoring from the camera.

With DSLRs, this is often impossible. Even with the DSLRs that offer it - with or without a third-party firmware update - it's sketchy at best. And even in the high-end cameras, the headphone pre-amps often have been of questionable integrity. Most of the smaller cameras have pretty poor headphone output. I was always impressed by the sound quality I could get recording to a DVX-100A, but the headphone monitoring wasn't the best.

Aside from being able to secure higher-quality recording from better gear, one of the biggest advantages to having a separate sound recorder, for me, is being completely independent. Being tied to a camera is a pain in the duff, especially of the camera op is high-strung and a bit ADD. Using a wireless camera hop opens you up to problems you cannot detect immediately. So being completely detached and not depending on the camera leaves freedom of movement, and complete control over recording and monitoring.

I still work projects every now and then where I'm tied to a camera, but honestly I much prefer having second-system for most of what I do... whether or not I'm working with a camera that has decent audio i/o and recording. While the sound quality is a concern, it's a lot of the logistical challenges of in-camera that I've mentioned that help make the decision for me.

 

[GaryNattrass]

But with best respects an OMF of an edited programme of over 300 shots with each shot then having 8 tracks to choose from is not what I would call useful, also not actually knowing which track has the best valid audio on it can also be minefield without the benefit of being on the location.

Besides how can someone on location do quality control on 8 tracks at the same time? it is just too much to monitor on a shot by shot basis.

OK multi track has its uses in certain situations and to offer a back up to a main recording but it is not a substitute to good location boom and recording work.

There are now reality shows here in the UK where they just plonk radio mic's on everyone and record it all multi track but I know that the post guys have huge headaches then sorting it out after the event.

Feature films are a different ball game as they have the budget to deal with sep sound, they also have dialogue editors to sort it all out but most TV work simply does not have the budget and indie films certainly do not.

As stated the four audio tracks on my camera tend to offer enough for most jobs and the addition of a stereo recorder as a back-up to radio systems or to record sep buzz tracks may be of use at times.

OK things may be different in the USA but at the end of the day an external recorder is a tool to be used as and when required not just because they exist and are available.

 

[Noiz2]

But with best respects an OMF of an edited programme of over 300 shots with each shot then having 8 tracks to choose from is not what I would call useful, also not actually knowing which track has the best valid audio on it can also be minefield without the benefit of being on the location.

Gary, you do need to keep the differences between the US and the UK. Even on a no budget film IF you do audio post this is part of the job. Of course you don't know what happened on set, unless you get sound reports. But that is also somewhat immaterial. The production sound person doesn't know what the edited film is going to be like so...

As the mixer in the US you are not going to see all those tracks. And your actually minimizing the situation because if you have eight tracks then you have eight tracks times the number of takes. You might have over a hundred tracks to listen to if your trying to fix stuff in post. Only the post person can really tell what "the best valid" audio is going to be, so yes it's a lot of work. IF the tracks are good in means you can have a really good dialog track, if they aren't then it doesn't matter how many tracks you shot.

In general for a low budget film I completely agree that as the post person I would rather have a pair than a stack of tracks. But that is because in general I have yet to get a stack of tracks where the quality was worth the effort.

Besides how can someone on location do quality control on 8 tracks at the same time? it is just too much to monitor on a shot by shot basis.

IF the production mixer is good it is doable. If you are using a boom op as your only sound person then not. I did theatre for many years and we often had over 20 channels going at the same time. It's not impossible, it's just a lot of work.

OK multi track has its uses in certain situations and to offer a back up to a main recording but it is not a substitute to good location boom and recording work.

Basically the point I keep making.

There are now reality shows here in the UK where they just plonk radio mic's on everyone and record it all multi track but I know that the post guys have huge headaches then sorting it out after the event.

Here also. They also have a zillion cameras. It's a huge nightmare for shows that are really a waste of bandwidth.

Feature films are a different ball game as they have the budget to deal with sep sound, they also have dialogue editors to sort it all out but most TV work simply does not have the budget and indie films certainly do not.

This I completely disagree on. That may be the case in the UK but in the US TV shows have a crew for post. Even no budget shorts, IF they do a sound post, do a dialog edit. I have done a LOT of small films and we have ALWAYS done a dialog edit. Even when it's only me I always do a dialog edit and then move to FX. This may be a cultural thing? But blanket statements like this are just way too broad. At the least you need to put a "in my experience" on that. We haven't even talked about the post workflow in places like Hong Kong and India which are drastically different than what either of us have mentioned.

There is no ONE work flow.

But the Run and Gun production sound that gets done by way too many new US filmmakers is a serious handicap to the finished quality of their films. In England you have experienced crews working this way and they do a great job, but in the hands of an inexperienced (or non existent) crew it's a disaster. At the very least having an external recorder forces them to have at least one person actually paying some attention to the tracks. And not doing a real audio post is near fatal for quality.

Again you are working in a different world from US filmmakers. So UK filmmakers should probably not pay so much attention to what I'm advocating and stick closer to Gary on this.

As stated the four audio tracks on my camera tend to offer enough for most jobs and the addition of a stereo recorder as a back-up to radio systems or to record sep buzz tracks may be of use at times.

From a US perspective you are describing a Run and Gun shoot, and maybe some low budget shorts, with no sound post editorial. When done by US filmmakers they are almost always are very hard to sit through.

For others "buzz track" = "Room Tone", and it's not all that useful if you don't record it with the same setup as the dialog so I wouldn't use a separate recorder for that if you are not recording dialog to it.

OK things may be different in the USA but at the end of the day an external recorder is a tool to be used as and when required not just because they exist and are available.

Agreed, you should not be using anything just because you can. I would phrase it the opposite though and use it unless there is a good reason not to. For all the reasons we have stated before.

And I would also point out that there are at least two separate discussions here that you keep combining. Recording to an external recorder is NOT the same as recording multiple tracks. There are cameras that can record four tracks. Recording lots of tracks or not is a different discussion from recording in camera or to an external recorder.

There are definite benefits in many cases to recording to a stand alone recorder. The argument for lots of tracks is not very strong unless you have the people with the experience to do it right.

To those un familiar with this UK vs US "sound", get a copy of Deadwood, or The Wire, or even something like Sex in the City or Young Indy, and a copy of ? I'm not sure what would be an appropriate UK show would be say Darling Buds of May, A touch of Frost, Dr. Who, Life on Mars? Take a careful listen to them. The US aims much more at a big budget Hollywood sound track. There is generally, Foley, and pretty much everything that you see will make a sound. They have very full polished sound tracks. UK shows tend to have a sound closer to british films. Generally more "rough and ready, there will be things that are not covered, it sounds more like it was all recorded on location.

Part of this is the size of the post crew and schedule and part is a difference in style.

Neither is the "right" way, they are just different.

As a gross over simplification (excluding sit come and such) US shows tend to be more "immersive" and "Hollywood like" and BBC shows tend to be more "live" and "theatre like".

They are Very different styles. So when your deciding how you should do your small film sound (production and post) you NEED to keep in mind where your audience is. A full "over polished" Hollywood style sound might not go over so well in the UK. A more british "cinema verite" style is generally not going to do as well in the US.

 

[GaryNattrass]

Good points there Scott and I agree with what you say but here in the UK you tend to get non technical staff deciding how things are done and at times no consultation or consideration for the post processes involved.

You also get limited post time due to budget restrictions so having recordists going off and doing feature type location work all means jack when you don't have time to sift through the tracks or even time to sync material.

I used to dub an ITV cop show called The Bill for five years and we had four days to do one hour episode from OMF to finish and a lot of the time we also had to re-dub and fix previous episodes. I always do a dialogue edit and pre mix on every show I do but when you are then thrown multi track work to deal with it can be an impossible task to get the best out of it.

Sep sound always has its uses as does multi track recording but to totally dismiss recording to the camera in favour of either can also be to the detriment of the production and especially if people are not aware of the post implications or get bogged down in using technology for the sake of it or because that is what the big boys do.\

I have done whole indie films with one mic (AT875R) on a boom into the back of a camera and got just as good sound as if I had all the kit available in the world but it is down to knowing and understanding the workflow from start to end delivery and sadly there are an awful lot of recordists who have never even been in a dubbing suite or understand what we do at the post end of things.

As for sound report sheets they tend not to be done on anything other than high end drama and went out of circulation when nagra's and transfer of sep mag stopped being used, a lot of the time you are lucky to get anything written on the tape box and when I have asked some sound recordists why they don't do them the reply tends to be that we have too many things to carry these days!

Oh well vive la difference as they say in France ;0)

 

[ggrantly]

A few thoughts on the external recorder vs recording to cam:

For reference, I have panasonic cams, (both P2 and AVCHD) a DR100 and used to own a H4. I have better recorders as well. Please keep the following comment in perspective; I don't do any big budget work and keep audio editing to a minimum. Think basic interviews and corporate type projects. I also work solo mostly.

I would rather record to cam then the DR100 because of the limited available gain and think this would be true of the H4n as well. The panny cams have much more gain available than either cheapo recorder I have owned, and that alone often makes recording to cam better. The DR100 can record better as a bit box and is a bit better to control, but the preamps are a real limitation unless you are running better quality mics with hot output. Just forget dynamic mics on a DR100 (RE50/NB). The biggest problem with recording to direct cam is the lack of control, it is hard to ride levels and shoot, and yes if the operator is doing much with the cam, that can be a problem too. Using the 302 in front of either a cam or DR100 (line in) is a huge improvement for a lot of reasons; metering, limiters, level control, etc. I mount the 302 on a magic arm and shelf when on stix. Obviously if you are moving around, the cam + 302 doesn't work, though the new MixPreD might work under some circumstances given the improved mounting (think shoulder rig).

For me and my work, recording to cam is usually "good enough". Mic quality, placement, room acoustics and the like make a much larger difference than gaining some extra bits. And of course, there isn't any synch issues in post. Though it is really nice when I can improve the entire process with a more professional setup.

Grant

 

[Noiz2]

Gary & Grant,

I completely agree that you can, with the right people and camera, get perfectly fine sound on camera. When I am doing tiny budget production I run through a MixPre and send one feed to the camera and another to a recorder. If I'm doing post and I get an OMF of the camera sound I will most of the time go with that. I record to the recorder for those times when the operator flips the Line/Mic switch, or when they turn off a channel because????????

Some cameras have just crap sound but most (DSLR excepted) have decent sound these days. A lot of those cheap shoots though over here are using DSLR's and the sound on them sucks.

When I go through the MixPre I set it up so the camera is "clip proof". So providing someone doesn't change things it should be good.

As a rule I would rather monitor my recorder than the camera. The reasons are that the headphone jack is almost always a mini 1/8" and is just problematic. On some cameras it's in the way and DP's hate it dangling off. And the headphone amp often is not very good so you are not hearing what your recording. And of course your are not hearing what you are recording anyway just the input to the audio section. Some of the digital recorders have a safe monitoring function but unlike the Nagra (RtoR) the delay is HUGE. DAT was bad but the flash recorders are just unusable. SD has like a five sec. lag. So in practice we are always listening to what's going in and not what is actually recorded. I would rather make sure my safety is solid, and of course I can do something about it during the take where you can't touch the settings on the camera during a take, than listen to a crappy headphone feed from the camera. Now if you don't use a recorder then you have to use the headphone from the camera.

So for me personally I will always mirror to my recorder. I got talked out of it on one shoot. I was feeding two cameras so "instant backup" and they wanted to use their mixer that they bought for the shoot and were not going to pay for mine. One camera hit the mic/lime switch between rehearsal and take, the other switched settings and switched to the onboard mic (there wasn't one). Because of the shot and "set" constraints some how we couldn't get a headphone feed off the camera, can't remember why. Anyway disaster. But they let me use my rig the next day... There are a ton of ways that I or the producer could have "fixed" it before the shooting for the scene was done. And all of them were not done for "good reasons", but the end result was we had to ADR the whole scene. And I did it for free because I let myself get talked into something I knew I shouldn't be doing.

I have talked to folks who always run straight to camera, never run a safety and have never had a problem. But to me that is just rolling the dice when you don't have to.


If you look back at some of my posts you will see I am a big advocate of recording only one or two tracks on low budget films. It lets your limited sound recourses focus on getting a good track rather than juggling a zillion feeds none of which get enough attention. An exception might be A boom mic that you focus on and tossing a bunch of plan or radio mics into other tracks as basically backup for boom misses.

I also hate to go through a ton of tracks but I would hate it much less if there were some good tracks in there. I have done two shows that had a LOT of production tracks and both sucked. One had over 12 tracks and NONE of them were worth using most of the time. It does wast a lot of time.

So personally, I'm not happy about getting a lot of tracks for post. I only want dialog and I don't care about anything that isn't dialog. Often when a Mini-Indi has a lot of tracks a bunch are for "FX" and "ambience" If I see that it's straight to the trash. I don't want "ambience" from the set except Room Tone and I have almost never used an FX that was recorded in production (that wasn't buried in dialog).

My "dream" post production is I get one great Mono boom track and an OMF with nice big handles.