Personal View site logo
What are you guys using for audio recording with your DSLR?
  • 155 Replies sorted by
  • @neveraholiday I'm also using a Tascam DR-680. I like the recorder a lot for the price but have similar issues with it. It draws a lot of power, especially when you're using Phantom Power. I use a Tekkeon for power plus rechargeable batteries as a backup (so recordings don't get deleted if main battery dies or cable is jostled). This usually lasts the day. The lack of dedicated channel levels is not optimal, but I've gotten used to it. Overall, I like the sound.

    Have you experienced problems with overheating? I had read about that on the Internet before buying, but figured it wouldn't happen to me. And then I shot in 105 degree (F) weather and had the unit throw out a bunch of weird noise that wouldn't go away until we gave it a rest for a while. Which was tough to accommodate on our shoot's schedule.

    I think I ultimately need to bite the bullet and move up to a 744T -- such a great recorder, but of course priced to match.
  • Sony PCM-M10 is really small and light and has a very clean mic preamp, if you can deal with the lack of +48V phantom power and only a stereo mini-jack for mic input. That's what I use - for video and for just audio recording of performances.

    Built in mics are very good frequency response-wise, but they are omnis, so not a wide stereo field and not at all directional.
  • marantz 661 for me.
  • @DouglasHorn
    I never had any issues with overheating, though I never really used it in hot conditions. 26 farenheit the most probably. 744T would be nice if they would downgrade it to a 704T (without the hard drive inside as the 702T). A hard drive just uses a lot of energy as well. Or if they raised the 552 to a 555 to record five channels instead. I might be going with the zaxcom nomad 6 channel when it is finally ready, shipped and been positively reviewed. Wonder on the power consumption there.
  • Sorry to bring to live an old topic, but had a few questions as I am fairly new to the audio "game". I was told something like a Tascam dr-07 would be suffice for an external audio recorder for filming. I just got in to the DSLR "game" about half a year ago and have spent all my time reading and researching the video side of film-making. Now that I am just about to start filming my first major project, I am rushing to learn a bit about audio. I have been told that even with the Hacked gh2 AC3 compression settings at 448000bps that an external recorder is advised. Thus I have come to this thread to try and get some help. I am working on a "no-budget"/"low-budget" feature and don't have much money left to spend on a $300+ audio recorder. I heard the tascam dr-07 is something I should look into, but as I don't know much about audio, I cant make a very educated decision even after checking the specs on it. Was wondering if anyone with some knowledge of audio recorders can help out.

    PS I would be using my rode videomic with this.
  • Without wishing to sound like a smart ass, your question is pretty much answered by the posts above. I would involve your sound recordist in the convesation, if you're lo-budget and presumably don't have much set aside for ADR.
  • Even if you have a budget don't ADR lol
  • @mrbill
    my question is primarily about the quality of the tascam dr-07. I know in this thread a lot of people are talking about the dr100, but right now the dr-07mkII fits in to my price range. Thus I am just asking if it would be suffice, if anyone has any experience with it.
  • I use the H4N with Rode NTG-2s and the Zoom R16 (its lightweight, and 8 tracks of recording at the same time with 96khz) with a set of matched pair of SE 1A overheads, plus a stack of shure's if I need them for live events. Also a G3 sennheiser wireless set. Love the Zoom stuff.
  • Our budget crew has got an H4n, but the handling noise with the on boards is shocking, and the preamps are quite noisy.

    I still quite like what it is, and its price, but we'll be taking steps to improve the inputs by sticking a Sound Devices MixPre-D in front of it. The Zoom then becomes just a signal recorder, and backup. This also gives us flexibility to record to GH2 simultaneously, or just on its own for run and gun.
  • @sanzadz - I'd recommend devoting as much budget as you can to acquiring good sound if you're making a feature. It'll save you in the long run (and maybe save your project). Maybe renting, borrowing, or hiring an operator with gear is a better route than buying. Remember mics, cables, mixers, etc. You really want a boom mic if your project is narrative.

    @driftwood - Something I learned fairly recently is that recording at 96KHz really only matters if you plan to slow down your audio. I used to think it improved audio like going to 24-bit but according to a seasoned post sound guy I was working with, it just fills up your cards twice as fast without any ultimate improvement in quality of 48KHz. FYI.

    @neveraholiday - I wonder if you could replace the HDD in a 744T with a SSD. Silent, low power consumption. I wonder if SoundDevices will come out with any new audio-only recorders. It seems like they may be going the AV recorder route.

    Not to sound crazy here, but for all the hassles that are involved with synching double-system sound, I think it's preferable on narrative projects. I'm in the middle of editing a rather large projects (ten episodes of a series) shot on GH2s and 5Ds (and a T3i), and one thing I've noticed is that on all these DSLRs is that sound is ahead of picture by 1-3 frames depending on the model. FCP7 doesn't have an easy way (that I know of) to slip audio by this amount. So synching audio is actually a better process than having to slip each cut of a track after locking picture.

    Has anyone else encountered this? Workarounds?
  • @DouglasHorn The zoom stuff goes upto 96KHz, that's not to say I always use it, but Ive done the SAW, Notator, cubase, Logic route over the years myself and with recording live acts and bands it comes in useful now and again to have quality from where you can dither down from - especially, and probably the only real reason its useful for is; when it comes to using effects, sound processing and mastering.
    There's something about being able to master down to 48k/44k knowing everything has been assembled with oversampling. But your absolutely right, there's not much to tell when we listen between 44k, 48k and 96k.
  • The problem is that fundamentally a greater sampling rate does not = greater quality. This is because of the fundamental way digital audio works.

    44k is 100% able to recreate ALL frequencies up to 22khz. So unless you want to communicate with Dolphins and Whales there is no point in recreating ultrasonic frequencies.

    @driftwood from what I have read/discovered oversampling in audio is a bit of a black art/issue. Many artists comment that with access to the 'best' equipment different sample rates can 'sound' different. So most of the time converting sample rates can detract from sonic quality.

    What people are doing now for better audio is getting higher quality converters. This is where the real quality is. Companies like Apoggee create devices that sound like a million dollars at 96 & 44. So then it depends on what you need to use it for. For slowing down- sure- use higher sample rates- but then again software is getting amazing!

    YMMV
  • At the absolute no/lo budget end of things, I tested my rode videomic pro with a refurbed zoom H1 last night. Imported the wavs into our 5.1 surround mix room and our sound guy pronounced the files 'extremely clean'. It's plasticky and cheap, but I'd use it for interviews, no problem. Cost me 59gbp.
  • Anyone used a Beachtek DXA-SLR to feed directly into the GH2? It's got a AGC Disable feature, meaning it will generate a high tone at constant dB to fool the AGC. It can then be easily removed in post. Together with an external recorder, it is neat solution, I think, to have everything covered.
  • I was doing pro sound for a while and the Zoom h4n is just as capable as the sound devices 702. Of course the sound devices sounds better to me but no one is willing to pay for that better quality and the zoom is fine enough - what is more important is a high end mic (I use the sanken cs-3e) and lots of batteries. I am selling a used zoom (in original packaging) for $150 obo. It's only issue is the usb jack doesn't work but using the zoom as an audio interface works poorly anyway - and you can get a memory card ready for your pc for $5.

    I got to hear some movies I did with the Zoom actually play at Sundance 11 last year in a huge auditorium and the dialogue sounded great, and that was the combo I used. Really could not tell the difference at that point on dialogue. I don't bother with 96... waist of space.. 24 bit however is very helpful as it ads some headroom, so I record 24bit 48k and split the mono left channel to stereo mono with the menus. The on board mics are great for capturing ambient sound and sfx just get a good windscreen and set them to 120 not 90.



  • I just wish the hack would let you disable AGC...seriously what a damn pain in the ass that is. Why did the engineers think it was a good idea in the first place?
  • You can´t disable it, but lower the amount that far that it will be ok for most uses.

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1152
  • 96k emperors old clothes to be honest - only thing I have mixed for TV/DVD at 96k rate was Miley Cyrus 7.1 - believe me she didn't sound any better lol You mix 24 bit for Dolby E onto D5 (while the SR tapes are still scarce in the UK) and music does benefit i.e. orchestral stuff, but to be honest after you've squished it to meet the 24dB +-2 moany CALM act levels our American cousins are using now - you'll have bat ears to notice 48k 24 bit or 16 bit 44.1k A well recorded dialogue through a quiet mic in the right place not pissing off lighting, the DOP and the artist > any tech you throw at it. 24 bit 96k 8 channel Deva (or whatever) recordings still make me facepalm in the mix if the mics not actually anywhere near the artist, I used to lug a Nagra around - you lot got it easy ;p
  • Has anyone used the ART preamp with a Tascam DR100 or similar portable recorder? Inquiring minds would love to hear. I love my DR100 but the levels tend to be a little low with my Oktava mics.
  • Agreed. IMHO, the impact on quality audio is essentially in this order:

    1) Audio operation (setting proper levels, actually pushing 'record' etc.)
    2) Mic placement
    3) Mic quality/appropriateness to task
    4) Preamp quality, bit depth

    So that means a few things to me as a filmmaker who aims to get the best possible quality with limited resources. Spend the time to run your gear right, put the mics in the right place, and all the rest and you're really getting about 80% of your maximum quality for free.

    If you have some money to spend, acquire some nicer mics -- like quality lenses, they'll outlast the recorder you initially use them with. Then as you can, upgrade your recorder.

    I find that on the rare occasions that I go right into the GH2, I get totally useable audio because I stick a decent mic on the other and and place it properly. Same goes for the Zoom H1 that I occasionally use. (Main problem with both the camera and Zooms is the handling noise.) The DR-680 actually cost me less than a GH2 and I suspect I'll use it longer. Spending a little on audio gear can be one of your best investments in making your footage LOOK better, but just getting a little education and practice placing mics and setting levels is where the real bang-for-the-buck is: no real cost, huge quality improvement.
  • Use iPhone as an XLR field recorder w/ $30 app:

    http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/iphone-48khz-audio-field-recorder-xlr-inputs/

    I think this would also make a good match with it:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822394-REG
  • Future camera body should take digital audio input...
  • Just picked up my Sound Devices Pre-D mixer (the new one that's only been out a few months) -- had been recording with just the Tascam dr-100 before. I gotta say, the difference is incredible. Had been thinking about upgrading to a better recorder (661, 702) but after some tests it became clear that the problem wasn't the recorder, it was the quality of the preamps, limiters and low cut filters, and the fact that its so much better to feed a line signal to a recorder than a mic signal. Erganomically, I love how I can mount it under my camera on my rig and be able to clearly monitor audio levels and video side by side (and adjust audio with a turn of a knob, which is not only easier, but doesn't risk handling noise. And it has a USB out, so I can use it as my mixer when I do scratch v/o as well.

    Anyway, probably sound like an ad, but if any of you were considering it, definitely go demo it with your existing recorder and be prepared to be amazed.
  • I think it is an interesting question at what point given a certain budget the money should go into mics instead of the recorder. So if you hook up a pair of Schoeps to a cheap recorder, does it outperform a pair of cheaper mics hooked up to a very expensive recorder. And for me, the answer is definitely. The Schoeps can be powered even by 12 volts with a CMC6 connected to a microtrack or whatever. Of course if your budget is unlimited, it is a different story. But for me the budget line in the sand is the DR-680. Anything more pricey you will get better results by upgrading the mics or upgrading to a Lexicon :)