Why use a field recorder? Why a expensive one?

If your camera has good audio recording, then it's perfectly fine to record to camera. However, many (most) cameras have pretty poor audio. When you get into the world of DSLRs, in-camera audio isn't even worth trying.

Using a second system for sound recording offers a few other benefits. For one, you aren't tethered to the camera so sound has a greater flexibility in placement and movement. Second, depending on the recorder, you can track multiple mics individually so that the mix is created completely in post.

As far as expensive recorders vs. cheap... you get what you pay for. If you want absolutely crystal-clear, rock-solid recording, spend the money. If you are okay with cheaper pre-amps, awkward physical design, and less-stable clocks, by all means get a budget recorder. That's not to say that the smaller recorders cannot get good results, but there are things offered on the high-end recorders that the low-end simply cannot provide. Do you need to be able to jam-sync to time code? Do you need multiple tracks? Do you want a recorder that is easy to access either in a bag or on a cart (the little recorders aren't designed for that)?

The other thing to consider: what are you recording? If you're shooting news/ENG, then recording to your XLR-eqipped ENG camera is perfectly fine. If your focus is in short films, features, narratives, etc., then the cleaner recording made from an external recorder is going to be your best bet.
 
Thanks!!

Yeah, I mostly shoot ENG (and docs), with mixer SD 302.

But with a more expensive recorder I can get the audio from the guy which I'm booming and have a lav on (mixed from SD302), on two separate tracks? So I can mix them in post?
 
MarxWays said:
But with a more expensive recorder I can get the audio from the guy which I'm booming and have a lav on (mixed from SD302), on two separate tracks? So I can mix them in post?
Click to expand...

Well, if you have two record channels and two mics, you can record one mic to each channel and then mix them in post. This applies to recording in-camera as well since most all cameras have two-channel recording. In fact, you should never mix mics in the field unless you have to.
 
MarxWays said:
Thanks!!

Yeah, I mostly shoot ENG (and docs), with mixer SD 302.

But with a more expensive recorder I can get the audio from the guy which I'm booming and have a lav on (mixed from SD302), on two separate tracks? So I can mix them in post?
Click to expand...

Just an addendum ... when you put a lav on someone and then boom them as well, it's not so you can mix them in post but rather so you have two versions available to choose the better of in post. Mixing opens up all sorts of potential phase compications due the the boom being recorded with a slight delay compared to the lav..

As for your original quesiton ... for the same reason serious NASCAR competitors don't show up on the track driving a Yugo
 
I couldn't agree more with C2V and would add that an important aspect to consider as well (especially for bag use) is the type of connectors available. Sure, most of these cheap recorders feature a 3.5mm jack line-in and you'll get decent results feeding it your mixer's line-out but it doesn't take much for that jack to get loose/disconnect itself. Do you want to constantly worry about this on the field? 1/4 inch jack or (even better) XLR connections are much safer.
In fact I speak from experience, having recently upgraded from a Tascam DR-07 to an HD-P2 from the same brand. Even though there hasn't been much of a gain in terms of sound quality (feeding it with an SQN mixer) it's made my life much easier and I wouldn't look back for a second.

IMO the right piece of gear is the one that is simple enough to use (ergonomics/layout, menus. etc.) and reliable no matter what so that you don't have to worry about it and can focus on how to achieve better sound instead.
 
MarxWays said:
Have a question about field recorders.
Why do you use it with a mixer when the audio is being recorded in the camera?

Why buy a expensive one, isn't Edirol / Roland R-09HR or Zoom H4n enough?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...HR_R_09HR_Portable_High_Resolution_Audio.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/600761-REG/Zoom_H4N_H4n_Handy_Mobile_4_Track.html
Click to expand...


A field recorder will give much better quality and control than recording onto the camera.

With a field recorder you have a separate sound person who takes care of the sound leaving the cameraman to frame the shot and take care of the pictures. You can't do both jobs at the same time well.

You only need a mixer if you are recording more microphones than the recorder has tracks - it's getting more common nowadays, professionally, to use the Sound Devices 788T (8-track) without a mixer.

The Edirol / Zoom recorders you mention are OK for the occasional amateur or as a back-up machine for a pro. (thouth the Edirol R-44 or R-04 Pro are getting more serious).
 
Generally speaking, when compared to a video camera's audio inputs, a field recorder will have better sound and less hiss. A lot of the value is in the mic preamps (which are one of the biggest factors when it comes to hiss and general sound quality).

This page compares the recording quality of a few different field recorders. As you can see, they are not all created equal. Unfortunately that page doesn't also compare different video camera preamps, which would be very interesting. Generally speaking though, a decent field recorder will sound better than the audio subsystem on a decent video camera.

Finally, if you get a good field recorder, it is likely to outlast your video camera. A good field recorder is compatible with any camera, past, present, or future. Whether I end up shooting on DSLR, RED, a DVX100, IMAX, or crystal synced Super 8mm, my field recorder will work the same way and work equally well with all of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top