Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: johnmac on March 26, 2011, 05:00:54 AM
-
HI folks - first post, but have been absorbing as much info as I can from this excellent site as I wrestle with sound needs whilst building a video filming kit, around a Canon 7D, with occasional 5D use.
Sorry this is a long post but if I give you some good background to my experience and sound recording aspirations it might help to more helpfully focus your responses.
Coming from a 30+ years professional stills background, with a couple of years of 16mm Arriflex nature doc filming some years back, but I have NO sound experience so looking for some sage advice.
I am working with a group of professional photog colleagues doing a mix of multimedia work, a lot projected, some web delivered, and possibly broadcast material some way down the line (but not at present). It is mostly environmental stuff, natural history etc but strongly focused on people and their role in the environment (both positive and negative). Using a lot of stills for a/v productions, and now we all have vDSLR's I'm increasingly using video as well. It's becoming more and more important that I have decent sound to match the image quality.
Also I have several personal documentary projects to work on - some where outdoors ambient sound will be required, accompanied by the occasional single voice/interview sound, and a couple of indoor projects working with individuals in their homes so need some soft ambient recording as well as interview sound.
I've also been doing some podcast material using a line straight into my Mac which is ok for what it is, but not entirely practical for location use.
I'm trying to decide on a compact sound recorder that will allow room for future growth as additional needs become apparent, and as my knowledge and experience increases, at which point extra kit can be obtained to build on the basic device.
The current choices are the usual suspects - Zoom H4n, Tascam DR100 and Sony PCM-D50 or PCM-M10. I know that none of these are an end in itself, but can be central to a more elaborate quality set-up.
Now I know all of these have been reviewed extensively and I've spent hours looking on various sites, so have a good overview of their strengths and weaknesses. However as I have ZERO knowledge of this subject a lot of the comment is meaningless, as individual opinions of which is 'better' with regard to sound quality varies, because 'better' is very subjective.
Zoom - dont like the build quality and really not at all keen on the menu system, as I prefer proper buttons and quick visual confirmation that settings are enabled. But it seems to have excellent sound quality, and good internal mics for use as a handheld for ambient, and xlr's for wide mic choice, plus 4 channels.
Tascam - like the apparent robustness, love the interface with real controls rather than menu and sub-menu navigation, input dials etc, again has good sound quality with line in but believe the internal mics are not so good. Again has xlr's for wide mic selection.
Sony 50 - like the interface and build quality and especially battery life. Internal mics apparently stunningly good. Headphone monitoring and line out. Apparently excellent limiter system. However no xlr's without additional expense, but can be used as part of a more accomplished kit with use of add on with 3rd party xlr's for even higher quality sound eg Juicedlink, MixPre etc.(whats that Littlebox I've seen here all about?) Sony 50 seems very popular with sound professionals, both field recordists and more production environment-based pros, which is a pretty compelling endorsement.
Sony 10 - as above, but newer, cheaper and smaller (?).
I would like to carry minimal kit and use the recorder's internal mics for quality ambient recording and often for interviews, and attached to top of camera for good ambient sound-in-crowd situations, such as this example - there's a couple of natural history spectacles I need to film this summer which have a large crowd of people in attendance and the oohs and aaahs as the animals appear is very atmospheric so would like to capture the sound of that crowd response around me as I film the nature spectacular, with the whole rig set up on a tripod as I need to move with the crowd, and multiple separate devices and extra cables and faff is not practical, and it seems that the Sonys would win in terms of internal mic sound quality compared to the Tascam when used as a stand-alone device for this purpose.
Thats all hunky dory. But what I have no concept of whatsoever is the actual qualitative difference between xlr input and mini-jack input when I want to use separate mics into the Sony. I cant afford a separate pre-amp at present (unless I get the Sony M10 which would leave cash for one), so would rely on the mini-jack input, but as I have zero concept of what the sound might be like its hard to know whether I'm backing myself into a corner with this approach. I will be obtaining a wired/wireless lav at some point and have been given a Sennheiser ME66/K6 with rycote and xlr to minijack adaptor cable so have a starting point in additional mics. Is there a significant difference in quality between xlr and minijack, or is it just big and robust versus small and flimsy?
Any suggestions? The Tascam is less expensive, but internal mics are reportedly poor, so it seems that in order to obtain the same quality as the Sony 10 or 50's internal mics I'd need to spend an amount for additional bolt-on mics that will pretty nearly bring me up to the cost of the Sony 50. So purchase of the Sony 50 seems sensible as it gets me a single-unit package with excellent internal mics, superb limiter system, fantastic battery life, very robust build, and moving forward is an excellent basis for building a more 'professional' kit with add-on pre-amp, xlr inputs etc. Is this sound logic or in my ignorance am I missing something more obvious and fundamental?
Any suggestions borne out of your collective wisdom would be gratefully received.
-
In case of sony you should get the 10, the 50 needs expensive memory sticks, the 10 uses standard SDHC cards.
-
I agree. I think the Sony PCM-M10 would suit your needs perfectly, and down the line if/when you add an external preamp and mics, you can still use it as an ADC/Recorder ;)
-
Those who record sound and those who record video/photography rarely understand the complex nature of either trades, skills, and talents. I don't want to burst your bubble but don't expect Hollywood sound directly from any of the recorders you listed; I'm sure you're not expecting that and whatever recorder you get will be a substantial upgrade over the current way of you doing podcasts.
I would personally look (from your list) at the D50 and the M10 since each could be good in different situations. The D50 has cardioid micrphones which would be nice for interviews but not so much for recording quiet ambient sounds; the M10 has omnidirectional mics which seems to be preferred for nature recordings but in a noisy room, bad for interviews. The M10 also has omnis spaced close together which could make both tracks seem stereo.
If you're serious about good sounds, it may make more sense to hire somebody with the gear already or rent the gear before buying or investing a lot of money. I am only stating this based on your extensive, professional background in photography and high quality film. Furthermore, if these video are going to be mostly available on the web, audio is even more critical to keep your listener and viewers concentration.
Let us know what you decide!
-
The pro duo cards for the D50 have come down in price! I got a 16gig for $35 which is only $5-6 more than a SDHC.
In case of sony you should get the 10, the 50 needs expensive memory sticks, the 10 uses standard SDHC cards.
-
Are you planning to use feed sound from the recorder line out > into the camera? In other words, the camera has audio capability, and you just want better audio capture?
Or are you planning to record video on the camera, audio on a recorder, and then merge them later on a computer?
Many of us have a similar dilemma with 2 Audio sources... a pair of room mics + a SBD feed. It's just so much easier to do it on a 4 track recorder than it is to use 2 different stereo recorders and combine them in post.
I don't know anything about video on dlsr, but I know that many video cameras have audio input via mic/line, the struggle is feeding it a signal with appropriate levels without overloading the input to the camera. That keeps the audio/video in sync, because the camera is the recorder for both.
If you are planning to record audio and video to separate recorders and combine them on the computer afterwards, I think you may decide "that gets old fast".
1) Because you can't hit "record" at the exact same time on both devices you have to align them. That's actually the easy part.
2) Any time you have separate clocks they will not run at the same rate. If you align the vid/aud at the beginning, an hour later it will be off by 1/2 a second, such that somone's lips moving on video is out of sync with their audio. If the nature of your work is that you only work in 1 minute segments, the creep probably won't add up enough to matter. But if you run 1 or 2 hour long segments, you will have to "stretch" or "shrink" the audio to match the video. How to accomplish that is a whole 'nuther topic, but the first few times it will drive you crazy. Even after you get good at it, it will still be time consuming. It doesn't mean you can't do it, just that I predict you will do it for a while and then be looking for something else that isn't so much work.
At the high end of the market are recorders which have a "time clock" input. Then things stay in sync, but they are generally expensive and bulky, they won't have built in mics, and doesn't sound like what you were really looking for.
-
Thanks folks for feedback so far.
Well Rastasean - no bubble to burst thankfully - I realise that the craft of sound recording (like lighting) needs whole lifetime of experience to properly master which is why I am prostrating myself at the feet of you experts! :-)
SmokinJoe - My plan is to use a recorder to capture much better sound than the camera can manage. The Canon 7D I'm using has AGC which cant be switched off which means trying to find a better audio solution. What I can do is use a separate recorder and mics, either a quality device with internal mics like the Sony 50 sat on top for all-in-one use (and bearing in mind the obvious limitations that method also imposes) but which will obtain better sound than the camera alone can manage.....or use the recorder separate from camera with either a wired or wireless lav, or other mic on a pole etc. And of course for some static material the recorder could be sat on a table just out of shot for interview sequences. There are other devices that combine pre-amp and xlr's for camera sound direct-in, but as I'd like to use the recorder to gather ambient sound when out without camera, the recorder option is the most flexible.
Syncing - by allowing the camera to actually record sound anyway what I'll have is a synced 'guide' track within the video file. Later in Final Cut Pro when editing I can use a plug in called PluralEyes which analyses the waveform of the guide track directly off the camera and syncs it perfectly with the higher quality separate audio, then I delete the guide track. This gives a good degree of flexibility with regard to sound acquisition. Info http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10040-10109 and http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html
I'd like to budget more for sound but its in a list with a variety of other bits so I figure if I get a decent recorder to start with, that will allow better sound than camera alone can manage, and give flexibility in the longer term by adding a better pre-amp with xlr's when budget allows.
I've seen the Sony PCM 50 and 10 mentioned in various forums by seasoned pros, both field recordists and production and broadcast types so I figured if they are good enough for them they'll possibly be good enough for me.
But I'll repeat the questions I asked before as its probably the key concern I have:
But what I have no concept of whatsoever is the actual qualitative difference between xlr input and mini-jack input when I want to use separate mics into the Sony. I cant afford a separate pre-amp at present (unless I get the Sony M10 which would leave cash for one), so would rely on the mini-jack input, but as I have zero concept of what the sound might be like its hard to know whether I'm backing myself into a corner with this approach.
-
But what I have no concept of whatsoever is the actual qualitative difference between xlr input and mini-jack input when I want to use separate mics into the Sony. I cant afford a separate pre-amp at present (unless I get the Sony M10 which would leave cash for one), so would rely on the mini-jack input, but as I have zero concept of what the sound might be like its hard to know whether I'm backing myself into a corner with this approach.
Some recorders require phantom power (up to 48volts DC) and others require plug in power. the Sony cannot provide phantom power so you would have to use a pre-amp which would power the mics and deliver the audio to the recorder via rca, xlr, 1/8" to an 1/8" input. Many "professional" recorders like the Fostex fr2 and LE as well as the marantz pmd 661 (almost any recorder over $500 has XLR but there are a few expensive exceptions) have XLR built in which means they can provide XLR power to the mics.
The audio would be better using a separate recorder like any of the ones we've mentioned but it will only improve if the recorder is close enough to the sound. I.e. Don't just have the recorder on top of the camera because you're likely to pickup a lot of noises directly from the camera and the person using it, but move it around just like you would a flash or strobe to capture the photo.
Before thinking about a pre-amp, consider what microphones you're interested in getting because microphones and pre-amps go together like chips and salsa.
-
The minijack doesn't affect the sound, but will have a slightly less secure connection and may be more fiddly hooking it up to professional gear (adapters, pads etc)
Quality wise, I think the D-50's the best of that bunch, build quality and preamp-wise (despite no phantom power and being on a 1/8" jack). I prefer the internal mics on the M-10 for ambience, but the D-50 for working with subjects.
I've used a D-50 in these kinds of situations (using the internal mics for interviews etc, or even a lavelier in the 1/8" input) and had an additional Phantom power box (had one from Canford audio) for situations with condenser mics. Although phantom adapters like the Denecke PS-2 do add extra bulk they're not that much bigger. Sony also do their own but it's almost the same price as the recorder.
An advantage of the Zoom H4N is you can record from both internal and external mics at the same time, which none of the others will do. Marantz PMD661 is also worth a look, it has a digital input too (I haven't used it though).
The shape of all these recorders is great for handheld use, but less so for working from a bag (Fostex FR2-LE / Edirol R-44 would be better for this). Although as recorders get more expensive and have XLR inputs, the internal mics usually get worse.
-
Thanks again for your continued comments.
Rich T -
Thanks for the pointer to the PMD661 again - I'd a good look at reviews for that previously and it got lots of thumbs-ups from a broad range of users.
Been doing some more thinking and reading. The M10 looks like a good device from several points of view - small and light to carry in my pocket for casual ambient use (and voice recording in a pinch), with excellent battery life, good build quality, etc etc and on long trips I can listen to mp3's too.
SO what I wonder is - if I coupled the M10 with a decent pre-amp with xlr input - such as one of these
http://www.videogear.co.uk/Audio/Audio-Mixers/Sound-Devices-Mic-PreAmp-with-Headphone-Monitor/prod_1260.html
or with a bit more expenditure which would really push my budget:
http://www.videogear.co.uk/Audio/Audio-Mixers/Sound-Devices-MixPre-Compact-Field-Mixer/prod_1147.html
would that be a useful flexible outfit?
Seems it would give me great sound as a stand-alone combination with a range of mics, and when coupled with the DSLR I'd still have a reasonably compact outfit with excellent sound. Loads of endorsements for the M10 from all quarters, many from professional users. And the SD amps seems as good as you get for the price and should outlive me.
Or is sticking an M10 on these pre-amps basically the same as drinking expensive champagne out of a plastic cup?
-
IMHO of course, but I think the Naiant Littlebox[With Output Transformers] sounds better and is cheaper than the mixpre/mm1
-
You can get a mixpre for $650 new and anywhere from $400 to $600 used. I would recommend it over the mic preamp because the sony is a stereo recorder and it wouldn't make any sense to record mono.
Many people have differences of opinion on where the cash should be spent but the majority believe purchasing quality mics that will last is key importance followed by a good matching pre-amp and a recorder. Many people still use rockbox hp-120s in conjunction with a $700 pre-amp (grace v3) and even more expensive mics (akg, schopes, dpa, etc). the mixpre provides over 60dB of gain so if you have a super quiet pair of mics, you can turn the gain up very high.
What mics are you interested in?
If you want to skip the pre-amp, take a look at countryman b3 omni mics. They are small, only require plug-in power, and affordable ($300 pair at full compass). The only issue is that you would have to have someone wire them to 1/8" for you since you purchase two separate mics.
-
Mics - thats another pile of research!
I have a Senn ME66/K6 I've inherited, and thats it.
Thing is, when you're ignorant of ALL this stuff ....where DO you start?
So I started with recorders, realized there were shortcomings, read more, now amps, next mics.
-
You can get a mixpre for $650 new and anywhere from $400 to $600 used. I would recommend it over the mic preamp because the sony is a stereo recorder and it wouldn't make any sense to record mono.
Many people have differences of opinion on where the cash should be spent but the majority believe purchasing quality mics that will last is key importance followed by a good matching pre-amp and a recorder. Many people still use rockbox hp-120s in conjunction with a $700 pre-amp (grace v3) and even more expensive mics (akg, schopes, dpa, etc). the mixpre provides over 60dB of gain so if you have a super quiet pair of mics, you can turn the gain up very high.
What mics are you interested in?
If you want to skip the pre-amp, take a look at countryman b3 omni mics. They are small, only require plug-in power, and affordable ($300 pair at full compass). The only issue is that you would have to have someone wire them to 1/8" for you since you purchase two separate mics.
Also, the Countryman mics are omnis, and its hard to get a smokin omni recording unless you know what youre doing. And location is KEY w/ omnis
-
Mics - thats another pile of research!
I have a Senn ME66/K6 I've inherited, and thats it.
Thing is, when you're ignorant of ALL this stuff ....where DO you start?
So I started with recorders, realized there were shortcomings, read more, now amps, next mics.
Then put your money into getting another ME66/K6 and go from there ;)
-
You may also want to consider the Tascam DR-2d. It can record 4tracks using both internal mics and external mics. The only trade off is less battery life.
-
Well since he already had a hypercard, I think a high quality omni set (like the b3) may be a good suggestion. He will be recording outdoors and different environments which would be harder to record using one or a pair of cards, IMO.
Perhaps a single point stereo like audio technica bp4025 is something John can also look at.
Of course accumulating a recorder, cables, pre-amp, mics means you would need somebody else to actually operate it. Do you have a team working with you or is it just a one man show?
-
I would also suggest the Church Audio cards/omnis and a CA 9100/9200 preamp. Run that LINE-IN to a SONY PCM-M10 and youre all set 8) I have been AMAZED at how well the CA stuff sounds, for the price they actually cost!
-
Do you have a team working with you or is it just a one man show?
Bit of both really. I'm doing a lot of the a/v preparation for a major national project, working with a group of 20 professional photogs, and we have commissioned a couple of pro filmmakers, and a film production house, who are doing most of the location work - both film and sound - as the project goes forwards over the next two years. I'm doing as much of the editing as possible. but we may engage another editor if I get swamped. I've also been doing some podcast materal using a mic straight into my Mac, not ideal but ok, and in the future I'd like to do some further for-broadcast sound, either for radio or webcast.
In the longer term I'll be co-working with my colleagues on discrete aspects of the project - doing a couple of specific filming/recording tasks - outdoors, needing good ambient sounds mainly, crowd noises and perhaps the odd bit of narrative. This will probably have sufficient extra hands about so I could have some assistance, but not always. To help me in the subsequent editing process I'll need some ambient sound that I can gather mysef, water, wind, leaves, specific sounds from differing habitats - seashore, woodland, mountain etc
That aside I have a couple of personal documentary projects - involving people and the effect their environment has on their health, and this is the challenging personal work. Basically using the shallow depth of field that VDSLR's can give when used at wide apertures in low light. So I'm looking for a 'clean' visual aesthetic - non-distracting background with emphahsis on subject, and careful focus shifts bringing in light and shade areas very subtly. The story is about real stuff, particular psychological consequences of certain environmental factors, and the sound (I'm hoping in my naiivity about sound recording) will have a similar 'clean' aesthetic. The sound focus will be on the individual as the narrow visual focus plays across them and they talk about their experiences, but as the focus shifts and they stop talking and the environment takes centre stage the sound stage shifts to a more inclusive one. Subject probably wont move too much as they're talking, or if they do it will be within one room. If and when working outside it will only be for cut-away shots and the indoor narrative will run over this, and obviously if its clean enough speech obtained inside, I can add a track with ambient outdoor sounds to give more 'depth' if I judge that necessary.
I guess what I'm aspiring to is a documentary about people's experiences, that strikes a balance between 'arty' and 'informative' in a visual sense, but which avoids being contrived, and in which I see razor sharp crisp clean sound playing a vital role in underpinning the narrative. Hope that makes sense?
When I'm doing this personal stuff its critical, because of the sensitive subject matter, that I am able to one-man-band it because I'm pretty sure that the success of the venture will critically depend on the relationship developed between the subject and me. A sound man in the way will be too distracting, so ease of use by me on my own is going to be vital.
Hopefully that will explain the need for 'clean' audio (apart from the fact that it just sounds 'better' anyway)!
My main difficulty aside from all of this technical stuff is getting access to the subjects - the Data Protection Act and medical confidentiality are, as I suspected they would be, proving formidable hurdles!