Audio recording

[Jambu]

I defenitely like this forum! Thank you all guys and thank you Mike!

Now i'll take my dictionary Italian-English and go straight my next topic:

What is, in your opinion, the best way to record audio for your shootings not having a DAT recorder:

1. Mini Disc with an external microphone
2. Straight to the computer using a good mixer and a good audio program (like Cool Edit)with an external microphone
3. An Hi8 camera with an external microphone

???? thank you in advance

JAMBU

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

[technicolour]

Jambu,

You might have to be careful with a Mini disc player, The inputs are for stereo music and a microphones output is quite small so you may have problems getting sufficent volume.

If you try a mic with a minidisc player and the sound is too quiet you could try looking for a kit for a small gain preamp to boost the signal up to what your would normally put into it.

Alternativly if your shooting indoors or in a fairly fixed place i reckon the PC recorder with a mixer is the best bet, it also gives you the option of having a digital fomatt that you can play around with editing programs and dub on sounds.

The hi8 camera is a good idea too, but the other idea are better.
perhaps you could considering recordring the audio onto a Stereo VHS Hi Fi VCR which provide you with excellent audio quality, then again if you have a decent stereo cassette deck you could use that, as long as you use decent cassette tape the quality will be very good indeed. I honestly dont know what tapes are available in Italy, but i would recommend TDK SA or SAX tapes

Anyway its up too you, id go for digital for ease and quality, so the pc and mixer i reckon is the best idea but see what the more experienced guys think

------------------
Jim

[trevorbr]

I use a mini disc walkman for recording samples. Finding the XLR to 1/8" cable was the most difficult task. A battery powered condensor mic will provide ample signal for the built in preamp. I would consider this the most cost effective vs. quality solution. I have discovered that if you record in mono, audio artifacts from the data compression seem to be more noticable (subjective observation.) If you use this method, compare the results of recording in mono and one side of stereo, you loose the extra recording time but I think it sounds more natural.
As far as the computer goes, if you have a notebook with a high quality audio interface (firewire, usb, pcmcia pro interface)you would have a bit more flexability and higher quality (up to 192khz, 24-bit with Cool Edit Pro) but this is still not a very portable solution.
For dialog, I think mini disc is fantastic. A pro quality portable recorder with XLR connections etc. is expensive, but probably the best solution at the moment. It's a shame mini disc never really caught on in the U.S. I was sceptical when they first came out, but I couldn't do without it now.

-trevor


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

[Matt Pacini]

DO NOT RECORD WITH A CASSETTE DECK, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE TELLS YOU!!!!
I did this, and it was a disaster.
Cassette decks (even the good ones) are nowhere near accurate, for syncing purposes.

A good video deck with hi-fi audio works great, as does a good minidisc recorder.

Either way, I would suggest getting a good small mixer, or a good Microhpone Preamp.

I would not suggest pringing the computer along.
I've tried this, and you basically take so much time screwing around with the software, that it hold up the shoot.

VHS Hi-Fi is actually superior in sound, than any digital recording.

(I know some of you are going to attack me for saying this, so I will defend myself now!)

Professional music recordings are mostly done on 2 inch, 30 inches per second analog tape. (This is the master, which is then mixed down to either stereo analog tape, or stereo digital).

Anyway, your home cassette decks are 1.78 inches per second, so 39IPS is very fast.

With a Hi-Fi video deck, the audio is recorded onto the rotating head that records the video, which makes it equivelant to something like 3500 inches per second!
The bandwidth of video is much higher than audio, so Hi-Fi video recording is a great way to go.
Also, unlike a cassette deck, it's totally tiem stable.

Matt Pacini



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

[technicolour]

Matt


About Hi Fi VHS, I totally back you up on that!!!

Ive heard clips a friend has recorded of VHS onto his PC and the quality really is amazing, no hiss or anything that youd expect from cassette tape. Im all for of analouge sound and i dont like people saying its crap when its not.

I get your point about syncing a tape deck, you would have to find the exact start of the recording which is a pain in the arse because you have tape leader in front of the actual tape itself


Yeah Mini disc or VHS sounds the best idea, you said you had a mixer Jambu?? you could use that with the mini disc player if it has a small pre amp in it, which if it has any mic stages it must do


Oh yeah Matt, do you know if any musicans still use Analouge tape for the masters? Id like to know of any bands still using analouge so i can win arguments with my friends that its just as good as digital!

------------------
Jim

[rollemfilm]

cassette is fine if you use a Sony pro-walkman. i have had no problems with sync using an un-converted WM-D3. although this is because the pro-walkmans have a quartz lock from the factory. it is still best to use a convereted recorder and camera. i have since switched to mini disk. i "like" the sound of the Sony recorders, but could not find them anymore. you can still buy the marantz pmd 430 and have the Film Group modify it for sync sound.

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

[Jambu]

Hey!
So much info! Thanks to you all! I think the audio it's a deeply felt problem for all the 8mm shooters.
I've read all your replies a couple of time and then that's what is my idea right now:

- I discard the Hi8 camera even if it wuold be convenient because you don't have to feed it with external power sources but the MiniDisc too have batteries so...

- i'm not feeling very attracted my cassette deck (i don't know why)

- I'm going testing MiniDisc, VHS and computer using the same mic and passing thru my mixer (a Makie CR-1604) to decide which of these has the best quality for me.

- But i've got some limitations: for my movie i've got to record audio also in running cars so i think i MUST use a source with internal power for scenes like that so...

- ...maybe i can use MiniDisc when in problematic locations and VHS (or computer) for indoor shootings or for locations where i can easily get electric power.

About the sync: my idea is to have a ciak at the beginning and at the end of every shoot so when editing i would be able to sync by aligning the first ciak and then aligning the last by stirring or slowing down the entire audio track with Cool Edit... I don't mind for projecting, my final format has to be VHS!

Last specification: I've got a mixer (Makie CR-1604), a sound card (Terratec EWS88 MT), a Shure SM58 as mic, a Samsung VHS recorder and a MiniDisc player (i don't know what, a friend would lend it to me).


To technicolour:
i play in a R'n'R band and we often used an analog recorder (Tascam TSR8 - 8tracks on a 1/2" reel) for our songs! We had to go for the Terratec sound card 'cos we had problem in aligning the recording head (tracks 7 and 8 always out of synch with other tracks), we did't find a reliable lab for repairs and reels were a lot expensive but i definetely like analog more than digital! Another thing: i think it would been better to go for a 4tracks on 1/2" or even a 2tracks on 1/2" if you like live recordings done in studio (i like) so you can have a better dynamic range.

JAMBU

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

[trevorbr]

Hi-Fi VHS is excelent quality, slightly less than DAT/CD standard. VHS would definitly be higher quality than MD. The Mackie has good clean preamps but is a bit bulky, if you could put the the 1604 and the VHS in a small road rack it might be a bit easier to work with.
One other small advantage with using mini disc, audio quality aside, is that you can go directly into a computer with digital inputs if you have a MD unit with digital outputs. Rackmount units with digital output are as low as $350.00 in the U.S.
I would suggest trying the mini disc recorder without any additional pre amplification first to see if you can achieve a good signal. If you can, this will save on signal degredation and added noise. The 1604 is a good mixer, but not silent.

My two cents on the analog issue:

I read trade magazines a lot. Often, those who can afford high end analog studio time or gear will track on analog reel to reel and then dump down to Pro Tools or the like for editing and mixing (sort of like shooting super 8 and editing in non linear video.) In terms of analog being better than digital, this is now subjective. Newer digital technologies are surpassing the technical limits of analog tape, so it is more a choice in the way the media sounds. I love the sound of good analog recordings, but high end digital sounds good too. The cost and flexability of digital audio equipment is staggering when compared to analog tape. You can spend $5000.00 on a computer, software, and hardware that will give you superior audio quality (dynamic range and frequency response) and higher track count than a comparably priced analog reel-to-reel.
I hate video as a source format, but love digital audio....go figure. It's all a matter of what you are willing to give up for a given format. There are those who would argue that well made vinyl recordings played on high quality turn tables is superior to CD, but that is a different debate all together.

What do I know...

-trevor

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

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by technicolour:
" Oh yeah Matt, do you know if any musicans still use Analouge tape for the masters? Id like to know of any bands still using analouge so i can win arguments with my friends that its just as good as digital!"

Most professional recording studios still do their multitracking on 24 track analog recorders. I can't tell you the exact number, but probably like 80% of top, pro studios are doing it.
Digital has taken over the distribution mediums first (CD's, DVD's) because it's far cheaper for them to mass produce, yet charge MORE for the final product, which is annoying.
But it hasn't completely replaced the pro end stuff with digital, because:
a. It doesn't necessarily sound better. (It's argued all the time, it's a debatable issue, so it's not a "hands-down winner" situation).

b. It's unbelievably expensive to replace all your multitrack machines with 32 track digital recorders.

Digital recording has mostly killed analog in the "pro-sumnr" market, like home studio guys, doing what they would have done on an 8-track, or 4-track multitrack setup at home.
(Like myself, who has gone fully non-linear at home).

Also, almost all film recording and editing of sound is done digitally, again, not necessarily because it always sounds better, but because you have so much control. In analog, even the simplest act is tedious, like time stretching audio, like we've been talking about, or recording something backwards, etc., not to mention the generation loss from re-recording, which is very common on film audio projects.

But as far as your favourite rock band, most of them are recording to analog machines, and probably 1/2 or more get mixed to digital stereo masters (which are cheaper than digital multitrack machines).
In the pro music world, there are so many musicians and engineers that still prefer the analog recording sound for acquisition, regardless of the fact it's going to CD eventually (just like us shooting on film, then finishing on video), that it's not considered "behind the times" or whatever, to record on analog. Many prefer it, and the machines are of such incredible quality, that upon hearing music played off of them, only a total neophyte would think it's not fantastic. (Iv'e spent hundreds of hours in 24 track analog studios, so this isn't just repeating articles from magazines, by the way).
If anyone is going to argue with me on this (I'm frequently attacked on this board!), just call 20 top recording studios in any major studio, and ask them if they use any analog machines for multitracking.
(By the way, if you see a little mark on your CD that says "digi-log" that means, multitracked on analog, mixed down to digital two track (stereo)).
As far as the CD vs. Vinyl argument goes, don't get me started!
Vinyl can be excellent, but usually isn't (I made a record once.... oh no, now I'm dating myself). When they site those signal to noise specs, they are measuring from THE NEEDLE BEING OFF THE RECORD IN MID AIR, which is totally biasing the contest, since there is a huge noise floor in vinyl recordings. Also, if there's a lot of audio to record, they roll of the bass to make the grooves smaller, to fit more time on the record, so there are huge comprimised made on vinyl recordings for lots of reasons, and it's always quality of sound that takes the back seat. That's why vinyl obsessed types will always say "a well recorded record", because they know there are vey few well recorded vinyl recordings, (they just don't know why, but I do!!!).

P.S. VHS-Hi Fi is NOT any worse sounding than minidisc, or DAT. It has the full frequency response, and none of the problems associated with analog recording, like wow & flutter, modulation noise, etc. Or at least they are so miniscule, that they are not audible.
Even so, either medium is certainly good enough for recording dialog, which is mostly in the midranges of the frequency spectrum.

Matt Pacini

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

[Alex]

Analog Origination, Digital Destination.

-Alex

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