To Analog or Not To Analog?

[Ronson]

Well.

I just finished reading through roughly 100 posts on the subject of crystal sync recording, analog vs. digital, you name it.

I know Matt Pacini would lop off his arm before using a cassette recorder again.

I know Nigel loves his Nagra III, but could be talked out of it.

I know Roger is a analog freak.

And most everyone else goes digital.

But, if you guys aren't too tired of discussing it, I'd like to get some opinions re: my specific gear.

I've got a Nizo 4080 which I am planning to crystal sync through The Film Group.

I am *considering* the purchase of a Sony TC-D5M cassette recorder, which I would *consider* crystal syncing, also via The Film Group (and the resolver, too).

But to get the Sony recorder will cost upwards of $800 - 1000, when all is said and done.

If I am really set on recording analog, not digital, I have a few questions for the peanut gallery:

For Matt: you are an avowed hater of cassette recorders, but how do you think your experiences would have turned out, had you used a similar Sony recorder, with crystal sync?

For Nigel: could you still be talked out of your Nagra III? And would the Nagra III require a crystal sync and resolver?

For Roger: are you still an analog freak? And if so, could you suggest the minimum cost associated with quality analog recording? And what would that gear consist of?

(And really, I'd appreciate anyone jumping in on these questions.)

I've got the skilled soundman and a mic that, after reading some of the mic posts, might actually be *too* good (Sennheiser MKH 60), but I'm looking into possibly investing in an analog recording device, and I'd like to hear some pluses and minuses of the more high-end analog gear.

Many thanks,
Ronson


------------------

[MikeBrantley]

Sorry, Ronson, to jump into your thread, but I don't seem to be able to start a new thread.

I don't know what's up.... The forum seems to have moved. My settings and graphics are gone and my links are all broken. And the forum states no new threads are allowed.

Don't know what's up, but I'll see what I can find out and report back... hopefully in a thread of my own.

Not a happy camper... [img]frown.gif[/img]

[Ronson]

Yeah, this is weird... kinda like coming home from work and discovering someone redecorated your house.

And changed the locks.

Ah, well. Whenever we're back to normal, if anyone wants to talk analog audio... :-)

(Though, in the last few hours, I've been considering using my Sony PD-150 DVCam to record the audio on my next project, just because it's paid for...)

(And I'd welcome any opinions on that, as well!)

RP

[8th Man]

I also have a Nizo(6080) that The Film Group has modified and a Sony WM-DC6 also from TFG and I really like them. I like analog for the source material and then everything can be digital after that. I like the set up I'm currently using although what I have is not stereo. Minidisc seems to be what everyone else is grtting these days, but other than stereo I don't really see the advantage of this format over what I'm currently using. Digital seems a wee bit too cold for my taste, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this as well.

[el don]

i'm trying to understand how thosde sync sytems work, so please excuse this stupid question, but, basically, if i shoot with a crystal-sync camera, record the sound on a minidisc, and then project the film on a crystal-sync projector (like a modified elmo 1200), and if i use my stereo system to read the sound on the minidisc, is everything going to be perfectly sync, without any links or cables between the items?

[Ronson]

8th Man, how do you like the job The Film Group did with your 6080? And your sync'ed Nizo can still run at all other speeds (non-sync), correct?

Does your Sony recorder use a TFG resolver?

Thanks for the input!

RP

[8th Man]

El Don, I guess I've not heard of anyone modifying projectors this way. It seems like it would be as possible to do as modifying a camera though, huh?
It seems like it would work in theory if you started the stereo at exactly the righ time, but I just dont know. I'm more interested in that German cd player that syncs up to a projector, but it's expensive.
Yes ronson , my tape recorder uses a resolver. The first test I did with it involved a rank transfer of the S8 and then me recording the sound onto a mini-dv cassette for inputting into my Mac and syncing up in iMovie. It did work even though there is probably an easier way.
The film Group did two of my cameras and both seem to work as expected. They can still do all the other functions as normal.

[Matt Pacini]

My only complaint about recording analog format dialog, is just the syncing issue.
As a longtime musician and with much experience in professioanl studios, I actually prefer analog, as far as a recording medium goes, if we're talking solely about audio quality, WHICH WE ARE NOT!!!!!

The syncing issue is a big deal.
I used a Tascam Porta One, and the fidelity of that unit is good enough for dialog.
Sound quality was not my complaint.
However, the sync issue IS the point, and no analog recorder of any kind, that is not crystal synced is going to record steady dialog, period.

So I now use a minidisk recorder for that purpose only.
Given the fact that they are so cheap, and dialog recording does not need the greater range of fidelity that music does, why do you want to drop $1,500 - $2,000 to have a crystal synced analog setup?
You're certainly not going to tell the difference in sound quality for dialog.

Matt Pacini

[el don]

8th man, there's actually a crystal sync module for the elmo 1200 that is being sold by wittner in germany. It cost 200$. I know it works at 25fps, but i don't know if there's a 24fps version for the USA. Here is the link:

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...u/b_spezie.php

this way, an elmo GS1200+crystal modification would be the same cost than the german cd player.

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
My only complaint about recording analog format dialog, is just the syncing issue.

no analog recorder of any kind, that is not crystal synced is going to record steady dialog, period.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well honestly, Matt, I think that your situation was unique for several reasons. You and I have emailed about this numerous times and the one thing you are leaving out of your complaint is that you did not try and alter the speed of your audio clips after digitizing them nor as you were digitizing them. That means that you were expecting the audio clips to match up to the transferred film clips "as is" with no alterations or attempts at synch of any kind other than just pressing play and letting the recorder run.

In that kind of a scenario, no analog recorder could be expected to do well since A) the film is not going to be transferred at the same speed it was shot at, unless you camera just happened to shoot at 23.976fps and B)you've already acknowledged that you were using a non-synchronous recorder, so why NOT alter the speed to match the playback of the film? After all, that is what a synchronous recorder would do if you were using mag track! It would chase the sprocket holes of the film during the shoot. If the film were then transferred to video slower, the audio would have to alter speed and slow down, as well. Certainly, you would not disengage the synch mechanism, play the mag track, and then expect the audio to stay in synch, would you? It would be playing far too fast, with no synch reference.

There is nothing wrong with using a cassette deck as a field recorder but your TECHNIQUE was the problem; not the equipment used. In fact, the oldest trick in the analog book is to find the longest take, adjust the speed of the recorder match that take, and THEN digitize the rest of your audio. 99% of the time, all other takes (which are shorter) will line right up.

I have been using field analog recorders for over 20 years that were NOT crystal synched and, even transferring to mag track (where stretching or shrinking the audio digitally was not even a concept) the technique worked perfectly. Many, many low budget film makers have used this technique for years and it is not only reliable, but practical as well.

But, again, you can't just record on an analog recorder, transfer your film and hit play on the same recorder and expect it to line up again. Too many things change, such as film speed, temperature, tape stretch, etc. You do have to make some effort to attenuate those variables before transferring your audio.

Even if you don't, the longest take method works fine, even after the fact. If you find the longest take of all your digitized andio clips, stretch or shrink it slightly to find the correct playback speed, that new speed will work with 99% of all the other audio clips as well. In fact, to save time you can then apply that new speed to an entire run of digitized audio and export it as a new wave file that can then be easily matched up to the field footage, since the new speed will now be built into the wave file. But simply adjusting the speed of the playback unit when digitizing is the easiest and most effecient. Again, people were doing this long, long ago when transferring to full coat and it worked fine. Should still work today.

So, in answer to the Ronson's original question: I don't have a specific recorder in mind but the Marantz pro cassette recorders like the one I use are very dependable and have pitch change for digitizing later. It will take all kinds of tape, including metal and has noise reduction. I bought mine used for less than $300. They only take quarter inch jacks but I personally think XLRs are over rated and unecessary for shorter cable lengths under 30 feet.

Roger