Topic: Best setup with room for improvement

[theotherwhiteguy]

Hello all,

Newbie here.  I'm looking to purchase a sound package for field recording.  It'll be used mostly for low budget indie films, documentaries, corporate videos.  I have around $4,500 to spend on a complete package and know I can't get everything I want all at once, so I'd like to have a package that has room for improvement, but a solid professional system to use for a couple years.

I've been doing a lot of research and have a good idea on what microphones I want.  I plan on getting (2) g3's with rode lav's and a rode ntg3 shotgun with windscreens, shock mount, xlr's & boom pole bag.  That totals $2,400.  So, I'm left with around 2k for a recorder & mixer.  I'd still have to buy a gear bag & case to carry my equipment, so I'm really only left with $1,700. 

I was thinking of getting a Sound Devices 302 with an H4N.  The idea behind that setup is that when I have the funds available, I'd purchase a better recorder and be able to keep the 302 on the next recorder. 

Another option I'm debating is buying a recorder such as the Edirol r44 or the Tascam DR-680 and purchasing a mixer at a later time. 

Any opinion would be fantastic.

Thanks,
Jason

[justink]

i've had my R-44 for a couple years now and i can't imagine ever giving it up for something else.

[dogmusic]

If you can get by with just two channels, I'd get a Sound Devices USBPre2 preamp and a Tascam DR-100MKii recorder and run digital in. That's great quality for $1000.

[stevetoney]

Hello all,

Newbie here.  I'm looking to purchase a sound package for field recording.  It'll be used mostly for low budget indie films, documentaries, corporate videos.  I have around $4,500 to spend on a complete package and know I can't get everything I want all at once, so I'd like to have a package that has room for improvement, but a solid professional system to use for a couple years.

I've been doing a lot of research and have a good idea on what microphones I want.  I plan on getting (2) g3's with rode lav's and a rode ntg3 shotgun with windscreens, shock mount, xlr's & boom pole bag.  That totals $2,400.  So, I'm left with around 2k for a recorder & mixer.  I'd still have to buy a gear bag & case to carry my equipment, so I'm really only left with $1,700. 

I was thinking of getting a Sound Devices 302 with an H4N.  The idea behind that setup is that when I have the funds available, I'd purchase a better recorder and be able to keep the 302 on the next recorder. 

Another option I'm debating is buying a recorder such as the Edirol r44 or the Tascam DR-680 and purchasing a mixer at a later time. 

Any opinion would be fantastic.

Thanks,
Jason

Almost everyone on this board has gone away from using field hardware mixers and opt to use their mastering software to do all of the mixing, EQ, channel fading, etc. in post processing.  As long as your mics are good high quality mics, you should be able to do whatever you want with the sound files in post that you'd do at the point of capture with the mixer.  If it was me, I don't think I'd worry about putting a mixer in the field setup either, however yeah if you did need one, you could add that later.

Since you're dealing with mission critical shoots that you have one chance to 'get it right', you can't afford to miss even a single situation where your gear isn't working right.  In that case, if you have to pay for a re-shoot, you've paid for the cost of the gear that you should have bought in the first place.

Personally, if I was in this as a business venture, the decision is easy.  The highest quality, most dependable recorder in your budget is a used Sound Devices 702 or 722.  These are rock solid pro recorders that are all metal construction.  They're field proven and used all over the world by pro outfits.  The company provides impeccable customer support.  Taboot, I haven't heard of any issues with units on the second-hand market.

I wouldn't buy a consumer grade recorder.  They're mostly made from plastic and most of the company's you'd be dealing with wouldn't support you in case you needed some critical 'in the field' support.  To me, that excludes most of the recorders that people use on this list.  Personally, I wouldn't go with the R-44...it's a great piece of gear, but I just wouldn't trust it to the rigors of a professional field environment. 

You shouldn't think twice...you should DEFINITELY strike the DR-680 off your list.  It's an unreliable recorder from a company with bad customer service.  Refer to other threads on this forum for numerous references to both the recorder and the company.  Again, I'd recommend it for consumer-grade projects, but NO WAY for pros.

Your budget supports purchase of a used 722...so to me it's a no-brainer.  The 702 would be worthy of your work and it would save you several hundred that would give you room for a mixer, but I think I'd still opt for the 722 over the 702 since it provides the capability for redundant recording to both a CF card and the on-board hard drive so that your mission critical work is captured in two places.  That covers you in case of either a hard drive failure or a card failure.

Later on, when your budget allows, I'd look into getting a high quality external pre-amp to run in front of the 702/722...for example, a Neve Portico 5012 which runs around $1700 new and $1200 used.  The sound quality of the stock preamps in the SD units are great, but most people on ts.com that use a 702 or 722 prefer the sound of their external preamps a little more.  It's personal preference though so once you get to that point, listen to alot of sources for the different preamp options and make you decision based on what sounds best to you.

[Jema]

When doing field recording for film, there are two things about the recorder that I would not be without, and that is good limiters, and low-cut filter, both preferrably analogue to prevent distortion in the input stage. These are things that many lower cost recorders, like the R-44, does not have (they all have digital ones as it's cheaper). This is one reason a mixer is often recommended, though more professional units like the 702 or 722 usually has this built in.

Secondly, as tonedeaf says, reliability is vital. Film is extremely expensive to make, and if by buying a more expensive but reliable piece of gear you can prevent a failure or some technical problem that takes up valuable time, you have most likely saved in that cost.

Another thing to consider, is how many channels you need. Many simpler, low budget jobs can be done with two channels, especially with a 302 mixer where a boom can be on one track, and two lavs mixed together for the second. Some higher end multitrack recorders, like the SD ones, do not have preamps for all channels. In these cases a mixer can again be good to supply this.

Also consider that in the long term, good microphones and preamps may last you 10-20 years, but a recorder (unless it's a more expensive, professional one) tends to be more prone to development and new investments.

Are you going to be working alone, or have a boom op? (assuming you are the mixer as you stand for the equipment) Then you need to think about how to get monitoring for him/her, and if you are going wireless or not. Once again, a mixer would provide, or a wireless reciever with a headphone output.

Do you think you will need timecode? If so, then the cheapest alternatives are HD-P2 (cannot generate it though), 702T, and R-4 Pro. These are all good recorders, but the SD is better built than the others, plus the others does not have the limiters or low-cut.


So, a mixer together with a cheaper recorder (not the H4n though, there are better for the price), or a 702/722, would probably be the way I would go, unless you need more channels.

I would advice you to also get a hypercardioid for interiors, as shotguns can sound a bit ugly with lots of reflections. Maybe an AT4053, since thats probably the best you can get for the limited budget (the Oktava MK012 is a popular low-budget choice, but is very prone to handling and wind noise, so I wouldn't recommend it if you can afford better).

Questions like this is common at dvxuser.com, so you can check there for more recommendations.

[theotherwhiteguy]

If you can get by with just two channels, I'd get a Sound Devices USBPre2 preamp and a Tascam DR-100MKii recorder and run digital in. That's great quality for $1000.

Your budget supports purchase of a used 722...so to me it's a no-brainer.  The 702 would be worthy of your work and it would save you several hundred that would give you room for a mixer, but I think I'd still opt for the 722 over the 702 since it provides the capability for redundant recording to both a CF card and the on-board hard drive so that your mission critical work is captured in two places.  That covers you in case of either a hard drive failure or a card failure.

If I was to just get a recorder for now, it'd have to have more than 2 channels.  I really would need to have at a minimum 2 lav's and a boom.

Are you going to be working alone, or have a boom op? (assuming you are the mixer as you stand for the equipment) Then you need to think about how to get monitoring for him/her, and if you are going wireless or not. Once again, a mixer would provide, or a wireless reciever with a headphone output.

I'll most likely be working alone for the majority of the shoots.

Do you think you will need timecode? If so, then the cheapest alternatives are HD-P2 (cannot generate it though), 702T, and R-4 Pro. These are all good recorders, but the SD is better built than the others, plus the others does not have the limiters or low-cut.

I'd really like to have timecode, but it seems to be just out of budget for now.

So, a mixer together with a cheaper recorder (not the H4n though, there are better for the price), or a 702/722, would probably be the way I would go, unless you need more channels.

That seems to be the best bet.  Can  you suggest another recorder for the same price? 

I would advice you to also get a hypercardioid for interiors, as shotguns can sound a bit ugly with lots of reflections. Maybe an AT4053, since thats probably the best you can get for the limited budget (the Oktava MK012 is a popular low-budget choice, but is very prone to handling and wind noise, so I wouldn't recommend it if you can afford better).

Thanks for the advice and mic suggestion.  I'll keep this mic in mind for future purchase.  It's a little too pricey for my initial investment, I think for now I'll have to get away with using the longer shotgun for both interior/exterior.

Lots of great, thoughtful advice from everyone, appreciate it! 

Do you guys have an opinion of the rode mics?  I've heard tests of them against other mics, and to my ear they sound decent.  I also like their lavs for their versatility with the micon connector system. 

[F.O.Bean]

I would DEF go the 722/702 route if its very critical that you walk away w/ recordings 100% of the time

[George2]

http://www.pinknoise-systems.co.uk/fostex-dcr302-dslr-audio-mixerrecorder-p-811.html?oscsid=8b8a40e2fec5320fc4448f673cf03b8e

[theotherwhiteguy]

I would DEF go the 722/702 route if its very critical that you walk away w/ recordings 100% of the time

The 702 is really out of question right now.  My budget wouldn't even cover the cost of that recorder, on top of that I'd need a mixer since it only has 2 channels.  My future goal is to own the 702t, but as of right now it's just not possible. 

[Jema]

If you can get by with just two channels, I'd get a Sound Devices USBPre2 preamp and a Tascam DR-100MKii recorder and run digital in. That's great quality for $1000.

I would look at the differences between the USBPre2 and the Mixpre-D, as the later may be a bit better in the field.

So, you decided that you need more than two input channels. This cuts down the alternatives considerably at this pricepoint, and more or less makes a mixer a must. I would look at getting a SD302 with a Sony M10 (good line input, reliable, and lasts long on batteries), or the 302/Mixpre-D with the Edirol R-44. The most obvious difference is that the last option would get you the possibility of recording four separate channels, while the first a downmix to two.

Which you can get also depends on if you can get any of this used. The SD302 and M10 would be about 1500 new, and 300-400 less if used. A Mixpre and R-44 would be about 1800 new, and maybe 400-500 cheaper used. If you get decent deals for both a 302 and R-44, it's possible to get within 1700.

The R-44 would most likely need an external battery though, and that adds maybe 100.

That DC-R302 does look promising though, but it can be a bit risky buying new things that hasn't yet been properly tested by many users (no way of telling yet how good the preamps, limiters etc are, software glitches etc). If you can maybe rent it first or in another way get some hands on experience with it, it could very well be an option.

[Jema]

Oh, and also look up more info on the R-44 if you think it's an option, because while I think it's the best multichannel recorder at it's price point, it does have a few quirks worth knowing. Check this thread for ost of them.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?273069-Sound-Devices-302-vs.-Roland-R-4-Pro-any-advice

What isn't taken up in that thread is the naming system when recording multiple channels. In the setup menu, you set how many channels to record. This can be 1-4 mono, 1-2 stereo, or one polywav with four channels in one file. If you choose mono channels, or two stereo, it will create a folder for each take with the chosen namne, where the individual files simply get a number such as "1", "2" etc. This can get very confusing when editing it in a DAW, where you might have dozens of channels from different takes just called "1". By limiting it to a single file (choosing a 4ch file, or stereo if you're doing two channels, or simply mono for one), the file itself get a unique name.