What's the purpose of a digital recorder?

Absolutely a lot of this (like everything) is "what are you shooting?"

I just shot a 22 minute narrative pilot. The timeline for audio post is 5 weeks with an anticipated 200 man hours minimum by the time you count all the Foley work (which my audio post guy does as well). We also did 2 six hour ADR sessions because even with 3 audio guys and a full on cart on set we couldn't capture production audio that was "good enough" (interior car scenes where you hear the squeak of the trailer hauling the car for example). When you're going to that much audio effort, you want the extra bits and the high noise floor of a pro recorder.
 
I'm impressed your doing all your own Foley Nathan. :beer:

But to respond to the original poster, and the thread. Everyone has good advise, but as far as getting the best sound possible you should look at things in this order:

1. Mic Placement
2. Mic Quality
3. Pre amp quality
4. Levels
5. Bit depth
6. Sample rate.

People always think sample rate has to do with sound quality when really its bit depth your looking for. 24 bit is better than 16 bit. Sample rate does improve quality but not in a way you or I can hear.
 
Jimmy Moss said:
People always think sample rate has to do with sound quality when really its bit depth your looking for. 24 bit is better than 16 bit. Sample rate does improve quality but not in a way you or I can hear.
Click to expand...

Certainly sample rate has a lot to do with quality, specifically when you're designing sounds. There are far less artifacts when pitching down a 96kHz file compared to a 48khz file. In the case of production sound, 48kHz will suffice although I can definitely hear the difference between 48khz and 96khz.
 
Lets muddy those waters!

I'm very much in the 96 is not worth it. For dialog anyway. Your not going to pitch the production and if you can hear a difference it's slight even with folks who have very good ears. Wait a few years and you like the rest of the audience wont hear the difference either.

I would say 96 is barely perceptible from 48. @$ bit is clearly perceptible from 16. Neither is a killer. Pretty much any differences will be swamped by the other 90 tracks IF you do a real post so...

Truthfully the same thing (lots of tracks) masks the artifacts in pitching 99% of the time with FX also.

That said if I'm recording something I know I will want to pitch down I will go with the higher sample rate, for that 1%.

None of this has much to do with production sound. If you record your production at 96 two things will happen. First post will roll their eyes and curse you and second they will sample rate convert it to 48.
 
Oops.. to be clear, 48kHz SHOULD definitely be the sample rate for production. (and yes to the pull-up/pull-down versions of 48kHz as well). I agree with Scott - 96khz is ridiculous for production.. 192 is even more ridiculous for production.

I'm sure I won't be able to hear the difference between 48 and 96 soon ;)

Sure lots of tracks playing will mask the artifacts of almost anything. For FX, I typically default to 96/24 as a just in case. It also doesn't hurt to have it at that sample rate just in case the standard (many many many years from now) becomes 96kHz. Then you'll have a library of tons of 96kHz sounds. But who knows?
 
Late into the game, but my experience is that decent prosumer and pro cameras have good enough audio circuits for production work. I have measured over 90 dB dynamic ranges with DVX100 and Canon XH-A1 for example, which is almost thousand times better (30 dB) than the pro Nagra tape recorders so prominent into the eighties in cinema productions.

The problem with cameras is ergonomics. That can be fixed much easier* with a small field mixer like SD302 than with a separate recorder, which frees the sound person to do his/her thing without pawing the camera during the shoot. If I am shooting with XF-305 (my video cam at the moment) I always record into the camera, if shooting with DSLR, then I use SD722.

*) meaning the whole process including post.
 
I reckon that over 24/48, it's a bit overkill for what's really needed.
ON the other hand, as space (SD/CF cards) isn't much of an issue now, I tend to think that the better audio you record at first, the more flexibility you have for your final output.
 
ryanjf said:
Oops.. to be clear, 48kHz SHOULD definitely be the sample rate for production. (and yes to the pull-up/pull-down versions of 48kHz as well). I agree with Scott - 96khz is ridiculous for production.. 192 is even more ridiculous for production.
Click to expand...

I agree in most cases. But where you will need to do processing (like noise reduction or speed changes, especially slowing down, etc.) then 96K is not unreasonable.
 
drapeama said:
I reckon that over 24/48, it's a bit overkill for what's really needed.
ON the other hand, as space (SD/CF cards) isn't much of an issue now, I tend to think that the better audio you record at first, the more flexibility you have for your final output.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the post pain. It's easy to say lets do 12 tracks of 96, the more the better. But post has to deal with that mess. The first thing most will do is sample rate convert down to what the delivery format is (48). Most will keep the 24 bit because that will make a difference in processing (sample rate not so much. The resolution of the samples that makes a big difference not so much how often you take them).

AND high resolution junk is still junk. I would rather have a great mixer boom op work to cassette tape than an idiot go to a 96/24 file any day.

People talk endlessly about equipment but none of it makes a bit of difference if the wrong people are using it.
 
tariqari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looks like you've already answered your own question. Sometimes "good enough" isn't GOOD enough.

Just like NASCARs. Why do we need to have a specified type of requirement in order for each team to qualify for entry of the race? All of the cars on the tracks need to meet strict requirements in order to be allowed. If one of the participants has a threshold of 196mph and the rest are topping 204mph, wouldn't that eventually "slow" down the entire track or race, which in turn, creates an unsafe environment for everyone involved and all spectators?

Why 24-bit recording is necessary in large track-count projects/sessions as compared to 16-bit? Regardless of how many times scientific calculations have proved that the noisefloor of 24/16-bit recording varies between devices, once a source has been recorded through the variable of high-quality and precise equipments/instruments the arguements become unclear and starts to widen the margin of error.

The difference between 48kHz and 96kHz is actually quite startling when we consider high-fqy materials such as a hit from a triangle or the crash of a large rock boulder. The harmonics that these impacts create do extend beyond our theoretical 20kHz fqy of hearing, but more importantly the amount of vibrational information that your sound equipment could capture is 2 fold, which equates to a full octave of "junk" that is either relevant or unnecessary depending on the final medium and process workflow of manipulation.

Another scenario to consider is the camera preference of using a Panasonic HVX200 over a burrito-style handy cam. They both get about the same results in the eyes of the consumer's POV. It's good enough so why go through the extra effort?

Truly, production sound doesn't require anything above a 24/48 config, let alone dialog. At times when there are downtime to even remotely record PFX or wild FOL on set, the 24/96 option is convenient. I believe and feel that any AMBiance should be recorded at 24/96 minimum for creative and technical purposes. When you're shooting 48fps or 60fps, you'd wish you should have recorded at 96 instead of 48.
 
Wow! I was totally not expecting the depth and quality in your responses! I guess I came to the right place :dankk2: I totally feel like a fish out of water; I don't know if I mentioned this earlier but I'm a 22 y/o (as of last month :D) TV production student an I'll be taking my first audio class this fall semester (next month). So a lot of thise technical details you all mentioned flew right over my head lol, but I did catch some of it! I really appreciate your responses. This was a fantastic lesson to prepare me for the coming months :D

Thanks!
 
Noiz2 said:
Don't underestimate the post pain. It's easy to say lets do 12 tracks of 96, the more the better. But post has to deal with that mess. The first thing most will do is sample rate convert down to what the delivery format is (48). Most will keep the 24 bit because that will make a difference in processing (sample rate not so much. The resolution of the samples that makes a big difference not so much how often you take them).

AND high resolution junk is still junk. I would rather have a great mixer boom op work to cassette tape than an idiot go to a 96/24 file any day.

People talk endlessly about equipment but none of it makes a bit of difference if the wrong people are using it.
Click to expand...

So true and its all about taking care at the front end and giving the post guys what they need, not what you as the recordist think they may need!

As for 96/24 I always tend to ask any users if they actually know what the spec for 24 bit AES is and how many bits of audio are actually being recorded and most of them don't know!

answers on a post card please.
 
Last edited:
I think you've all got a different perspective on the same issue, and the differences between UK and the US are clouding the real issue. If you are a one man band, and have your camera and at least one microphone, then assuming that the camera is not rubbish in the audio dept, and most are actually pretty good if they have a switch to turn off auto audio levels, then the signal to noise ratio of the camera audio is probably going to be good enough except when sound is quiet, and you need extra gain - noise goes up because the pre-amps in the cameras are optimised for an average level louder than this. No cameras I'm aware of actually have a pre-amp gain in the same way audio mixers do. This is just the same as video gain. Use it, and down goes quality - just a given fact. The real issue that nobody has mentioned is that when audio becomes less than 'average' the cameraman is incapable of looking after picture and sound together. How many of us find it easy to watch the audio meters in the v/f while framing and holding focus? if the levels start to peak, or drop right down, do we actually have a hand spare to sort it? Of course not, and any adjustments we make will be quick and rough, not gentle and smooth. So for any shooting job where audio is variable, and needs action - then you need a second person - that's it! It matters not a jot if the second person is recording one mic, or twenty - they concentrate on audio, not picture. I had a very sudden job yesterday for BBC radio to do. a 25 second jingle for a radio programme, that needed emailing as a mp3 ready for 8.30 this morning for use at 10am! I got the call at 2pm. While doing it on location in somebodies front room - no time for even getting into a studio, I handed the musicians a small Panasonic SD-9 I keep handy - and they kind of pointed it at people while recording. What I got was first class audio into the mobile multitrack, and pretty iffy video - exactly the opposite of this topic. I could have stuck it on a tripod and run a wide angle. The point being that if you need quality sound of the space in which you're working, almost any camera nowadays is quite capable of this. The minute sound becomes more complex with radio systems and hand held mics for interviewers, it can get worse, just because the operator is doing pictures, NOT sound.

If you want high quality, controlled sound, you need two people. In truth, we have variable bit rate in mp3s, we have 44.1, 48 and 96K audio and the differences to the listener are very small - the same problem we have with cameras. Very few viewers can even spot HD. My wife has a decent HD TV in our bedroom, and an HD receiver box - and has the choice of watching the same channel on SD one HD depending on what number channel it's on - she cannot see the difference. Llsteners will detect distortion, and they may hear hiss. I recorded the BBC jingle in 96K because that's what my multitrack defaults to, but the Beeb wanted it emailed, and the wav was too big for his mailbox, so mp3, at 320 was perfectly acceptable for broadcast. Technical quality is NOT paramount, good sound is - and the right mic, in the right place is the vital thing. Gary mentioned the Bill - a very good TV drama in my opinion, and the best thing about it is that you watch the programme, and don't ever think about picture or sound - because it sounded good. I'd bet that many times, Gary was presented with multiple tracks which he used all of them to some degree, and at times, just one - depending on what he needed. I would happily use my main camera to record stereo audio if my audio recorder died - If I fed the two XLRs from my audio mixer for a live music event, for example, the in camera audio system would be perfectly capable of being used - no problems. If, however, I was using a very long shotgun to record the distant sounds of an animal, then this would mean gains up full, and they would hiss - making a proper audio device essential.

This also excludes the cheap Tascam and Zoom devices because they have the same problem - pre-amps designed for average levels. Wind the gain up and they hiss. I've a small Soundcraft mixer, not even expensive that has MUCH quieter pre-amps. Sound needs as much care and attention as picture, yet is always treated as the secondary consideration, yet expected to perform with little care and operator intervention. How many people switch their camera audio system to the auto position and forget about it, expecting it to cope?
 
Alan H. Chang said:
... At times when there are downtime to even remotely record PFX or wild FOL on set, the 24/96 option is convenient. I believe and feel that any AMBiance should be recorded at 24/96 minimum for creative and technical purposes. When you're shooting 48fps or 60fps, you'd wish you should have recorded at 96 instead of 48.
Click to expand...

Not sure why picture shooting at a high frame rate would make a difference, unless your thinking of slowing down production to match a slow-mo shot. That generally doesn't work anyway. Slowed down sounds don't generally sound the way most people think the should sound so you usually build fake slow-mo, well really nearly always.

And while I'm kind of with you on the high feq sounds, there is the catch that to be recorded you need a mic and front end electronics that can "hear" those high freq sounds. Most mics only barely have any pickup above 20k. If you have wind protection on the mic your loosing even more. So in practical terms I don't think it's worth it 99% of the time. IF you are going to do a bunch of slow down on it you do get a "smoother" sound, even if most of the "high freq" you recorded is just electronic noise from the mic. We did tests on a very quiet Foley stage with high end mics with nothing in front of them and those recordings did pitch smoother and you could here a bit more "shimmer". But not much.
Out side with less premium mics and wind protection... I know it's the new thing to do and folks with big reps are recording at high sample rates but I haven't seen/ heard anything to convince me it's worth it except in a few specialty situations.

And the Pain in the Butt factor gets significant when you know your doing post. If I'm not doing post? It's a flip of a switch, easy and I can be the coolest high sample rate guy around. But I don't like being the picture on the post editors dart board. And I have had to sample rate convert a huge stack of production sound that some bozo did at 96 (with a crappy mics, bad technique, lousy levels, into some hand held pocket recorder). Nothing brings joy like having a drive full of high sample rate turds to try and polish.

With huge storage devices and really fast transfer speeds and hunkin multi core computers I'm sure we will be going there. But I'm not sure it will be for any reason beyond that we can.

People still use and like sounds from the BBC SFX series. Those were recorded on 1/4" tape in mono. Last I checked none of the sounds are actually stereo, though maybe some of the later additions. They are usually used as "stereo" because people have pulled them off of CD's and everything on an audio CD is interleaved, but if you put a phase scope on them they are mono.

I have some sounds that a lot of editors have in their library that originated on 35mm optical recorders.

Point is if the sound is interesting, well recorded, useful, etc. That trumps tec spec every time. None of that is an argument for not recording at a high sample rate if you want to but it's misleading to think that the recordings will be better because you do.

I had a photographer friend who used to get really pissed off at folks who would ask him what camera takes good pictures. He would always say "the camera does not take the pictures, the photographer does!".
 
Noiz2 said:
The first thing most will do is sample rate convert down to what the delivery format is (48).
AND high resolution junk is still junk. I would rather have a great mixer boom op work to cassette tape than an idiot go to a 96/24 file any day.
People talk endlessly about equipment but none of it makes a bit of difference if the wrong people are using it.
Click to expand...
1) So, I'm doing it wrong when I mix with different sample rates, when I use a 24/48 project?
2) That's for sure. Technique beats equipment. High-end equipment with camera mounted audio would still be a nightmare, no matter the format.
3) Quick question then: what would you say about using a RØDE NTG2, preamplified with a JuicedLink CX211 and recording it with a Tascam DR-05? All using a boompole, with a good idea of the importance of microphone placement. I mean, I don't have "high-end" equipment, and I'm not a sound professional neither. Just wondering.
 
drapeama said:
1) So, I'm doing it wrong when I mix with different sample rates, when I use a 24/48 project?
Click to expand...

Well first off I like everyone else here states opinions. Very little in sound has an absolute answer.

So my opinion. A lot of NLE's let you toss all kinds of formats on the time line and try to sort it out behind your back. By and large they do a great job, but what are they actually doing? Format conversions are not simple easy things and when you pull up a program dedicated to doing format conversions they take some time to crunch through it. So how can a NLE do it in real time? They are obviously taking shortcuts someplace. Apple has a number of known issues with altering sound when it shouldn't have. And all this behind the scenes manipulating will bite your but if the production team didn't know in advance and did some old tried and true techniques like recording at odd sample rates so that pulled down footage would stay in sync. Plus if you sent your sound to a real sound post (and I do recommend that always) you need some way to get it there. OMF the standard, doesn't support mixed sample rates. AFF, the up and coming standard, might... not sure. Since it's a revamp on OMF though it might not. So you would have to somehow convert your project to a single sample rate to send it to anybody else.

I'm kind of old school. I want to control my choices instead of having some programer guess at what I want to do. If I'm converting I want to do it well and I don't want my DAW/ NLE doing anything I haven't told it to do. When I asked what FCP was doing to keep the different formats working on the same time line I couldn't get an answer. I know that sometimes it just doesn't work, but since I don't know what they are doing it's hard to tell what will work and what wont.

The last thing I want is some problem that only shows up late in the game. When you export and some clips drift out of sync!!! You did see that coming because the "live" version goes through a different process than the render engine so blam you don't see the problem till you render out and it doesn't work.

So that is my opinion. It's not "wrong" but it's not the way I would work.

3) Quick question then: what would you say about using a RØDE NTG2, preamplified with a JuicedLink CX211 and recording it with a Tascam DR-05? All using a boompole, with a good idea of the importance of microphone placement. I mean, I don't have "high-end" equipment, and I'm not a sound professional neither. Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Again just opinions. I used a NTG2 once and was very surprised at how well it worked and sounded. I don't own one though. I'm not a big fan of JuiceLink, but that may have more to do with the fact that they have never fit my needs and come off as a bit of a cheezy consumer junk. This however is really only an impression I have never used a JuiceLink and other than a few people talking about them being noisy (there is probably no audio product including connectors that hasn't had some bozo complain is noisy so I don't put much stock in such comments unless I know the poster) I haven't heard anything bad about them.

All the pocket recorders drive me a bit crazy. The controls are too small the meters are too small, you can't stick them in a bag (and use them), etc. That aside Tascam has a good rep with the handhelds so? I have a couple of tiny recorders I use for odd SFX collecting but I really don't like them. We had an Olympus at one place and it was a bit better than some.

As a rule they all sound pretty amazing for the size and price. I just hate physically dealing with them.

I think your looking for the "answer" though and that is, all of that properly used should be able to get you great production sound.

It's not so much what you got as how you use it.
Sounds like a Mae West quote ;~)
 
Noiz2 said:
I think your looking for the "answer" though and that is, all of that properly used should be able to get you great production sound.
Click to expand...

More for a guideline I'd say. So far, I'm (personally) satisfied with the current setup I own. But I never tried anything more "prosumer" in the sounds department. I'm stuck with "consumer" products, but as you said, when properly used it can give decent results.
I'm looking (and reading) about field mixers, but as a "pro-hobbyist" at best, I don't know if I would really need one.
Thanks for the tips though!
 
drapeama said:
More for a guideline I'd say. So far, I'm (personally) satisfied with the current setup I own. But I never tried anything more "prosumer" in the sounds department. I'm stuck with "consumer" products, but as you said, when properly used it can give decent results.
I'm looking (and reading) about field mixers, but as a "pro-hobbyist" at best, I don't know if I would really need one.
Thanks for the tips though!
Click to expand...

Looks good to me. You probably don't even need the external pre amp, but it will help the sound. A better Microphone would be money better spent than on the pre amp. Like a Sennheiser MKH416 MKH 416 shotgun mic. The NTG 2 is ok, NTG3 a bit better.

Also, higher sample rates ARE supported on Blue ray, so that is an argument for recording higher sample rates. But as another poster pointed out, any sample rate above 44.1khz is out of human hearing range, and really only effects the harmonic content of the audio below 20 kHz, the highest frequency humans can hear.

Sample rate conversion does create some noise, but not anything you can generally hear. If your on a multi million $$$ production, ya, your probably going to record 192khz sound, and be a purist.
 
Jimmy Moss said:
Looks good to me. You probably don't even need the external pre amp, but it will help the sound. A better Microphone would be money better spent than on the pre amp. Like a Sennheiser MKH416 MKH 416 shotgun mic. The NTG 2 is ok, NTG3 a bit better.
Click to expand...

1) The preamp help to get rid of cameras/camcorders/ internal preamps. Same applies to the portable recorders so far. At that price range, any recorder won't feature crystal clean preamp.
2) Sure, these mic will sound better most probably, but price is always a decisive factor when you're not living out of that! The NTG-2 (at 279$) was quite a huge improvement & investment for me when I ordered it! If I'd be making more money out of my videos/photos gigs, then I would replace/upgrade my stuff for sure. But so far, it's mostly a hobby. An expensive one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top