Hi guys. I know this is pretty weird, but i've been debating whether to sell my 702 TC or not.

One side says: sell it, you can go directly to camera or through a mixer and get nice 16bit sound. The negative of that is only 16bits to work with in processing, and generally preamps are better in recorders.

Other side says: you nuts, 24bits has a better dynamic range and more bits for processing. Timecode can be locked with a good camera, 24bit will yield a higher dynamic range and signal to noise ratio. But then again, many features were shot straight into camera and were good enough for the high end productions.

what do you think?

which features?

which features?

i dont understand

i dont understand

He is asking which features were shot directly to camera. Honestly, lots of them. It's commensurate with budget. Low budget war docs that have been nominated for Oscars were shot with camera audio. The new "Looking for Osama Bin Ladin" with Morgan Spurlock was shot with audio straight to camera.

The SD device definitely has great audio quality but a lot of the benefit would depend on who was editing, how good the audio post done on a project is, etc. The SD will sound superior to all camcorders that I have ever used but it's two different approaches, Dual system sound is a PITA compared to shooting with the audio ran into camera but it sounds better. It's your and your producers choice which is the right path for you.

Dan

He is asking which features were shot directly to camera. Honestly, lots of them. It's commensurate with budget. Low budget war docs that have been nominated for Oscars were shot with camera audio. The new "Looking for Osama Bin Ladin" with Morgan Spurlock was shot with audio straight to camera.

The SD device definitely has great audio quality but a lot of the benefit would depend on who was editing, how good the audio post done on a project is, etc. The SD will sound superior to all camcorders that I have ever used but it's two different approaches, Dual system sound is a PITA compared to shooting with the audio ran into camera but it sounds better. It's your and your producers choice which is the right path for you.

Dan

i think my main concern is losing that "edge" of not having 24bit files.
when you mean how well the post is, my problem there is that i was told that with 16bit files you end up with "noise" when mixing multiple tracks together.

Does it help when posting to convert all 16bit files into 32bit float?

i think my main concern is losing that "edge" of not having 24bit files.
when you mean how well the post is, my problem there is that i was told that with 16bit files you end up with "noise" when mixing multiple tracks together.

Does it help when posting to convert all 16bit files into 32bit float?

Converting your 16 bit files isn't going to do you much.

Roshdi, If I remember, you went from 702T to 702 and back to 702T, and now you're thinking of selling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all that happened less than 6 months ago.. This is a good sign that you're not giving enough thought and research before your audio purchases. Don't mean to burn you, just letting you know!

The 702T is a great investment if you know it's going to work itself off when it comes to the productions you work on. I don't know what kind of work you do or the budgets you work with so I can't make any recommendations. With SD gear you can get a pretty good return if you do decide to sell. Remember, if you think ahead you'll be saving yourself some coin.

1. Are you using a mixer? If so, which one? If not, why not?
2. What camera are you using?
3. How many in your crew, or are you alone?
4. What are you shooting, what subject in what kind of circumstance? Are you traveling or local?
5. Does your recording include music or just ambience and voices?
6. How many tracks do you need to record at once?
7. How many mics are you using at once?
8. Are you shooting SD (which PCM audio) or HDV (with compressed audio)
9. What is your final delivery format and for what audience?

It seems that one benefit of recording in 24 bits is the additional headroom, possibly avoiding clipping in unpredictable environmens. However, a good mixer with a limiter will help here.

Upping 16 bit files to 24/32 bit can be beneficial if you are going to do a lot of processing on the files. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the trouble.

The dynamic range with 16bit is enough for dialog.
Sell the 702T.......to me.

The dynamic range with 16bit is enough for dialog.
Sell the 702T.......to me.

Brooks, it's really more than just dynamic range. A lot of it has to do with the pre-amps on the recording device. None of the video cameras (and that includes the ones the production company rented from Panavision) have pre-amps that sound nearly as good as what you have in the 7xx series. However, that said, doing double recording is a royal pain if you aren't prepared to spend extra time in post working on your project. I always do double recording, but I've been told by several people that they never used the audio I gave them from the Deva. That is simply because they didn't have time to replace the audio. And that is simply a question I can't answer... does he have time to replace audio? If he does, I would argue that there is no comparison between what his camera is going to record and what the 7xx is going to record. However, if he doesn't have time to replace audio in post, or his workflow is handicapped by him doing so, then he should just record directly into the camera.

I'm an audio snob. My job is to give people the best audio I can, for me that means recording on a double-system...and again this has nothing to do with dynamic range, because you're absolutely right if it was simply dynamic range 16-bit audio would be enough, but it's about the whole audio chain.

What he should do should really be based on what his workflow is, and that's not something that we can answer for him. It's how comfortable he is working the way he is. He'll have to figure out that piece. But dynamic range has very little to do with it in this case.

Wayne

Hey how about every standard commercially released CD in the world is 16 bit 44.1... 24 bit is ok and technically better. but don't look at that as the one deciding factor.

when have you listened to a CD an thought the sound quality just isn't good because its 16 bit? it is true that 24 gives you better dynamic range, well its more like dynamic resolution is a more accurate term.

but every CD done with PRO Tools prior to the 24 bit stuff, and even after were all recorded in 16bit. Jazz Classical even reference CD's for audiophiles. did those sound bad? .......... not!

bit counting is like choosing a car because one has are more cup holders than the other.

audio data compression is a way different story tho.

Does it help when posting to convert all 16bit files into 32bit float?

Not really.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hey how about every standard commercially released CD in the world is 16 bit 44.1... 24 bit is ok and technically better. but don't look at that as the one deciding factor.

when have you listened to a CD an thought the sound quality just isn't good because its 16 bit? it is true that 24 gives you better dynamic range, well its more like dynamic resolution is a more accurate term.

but every CD done with PRO Tools prior to the 24 bit stuff, and even after were all recorded in 16bit. Jazz Classical even reference CD's for audiophiles. did those sound bad? .......... not!

bit counting is like choosing a car because one has are more cup holders than the other.

audio data compression is a way different story tho.

Well CDs are a release format. That's different than an acquisition format. And yes, early ADATS and many other digital recording formats were 16-bit, 44.1 or 48. During that time there was considerable unrest among those with good ears that digital wasn't as good as good analog. It wasn't until 24-bit was used that most of that quieted down.

So it's not really just about cup holders. There's valid science behind the difference. And to the Dan who says double record is a PITA, I'm guessing you don't have a dedicated sound person.

Concerning the "features shot" with mic to camera, yes, low budget. I did audio for a trailer a few years back and we shot mics to mixer to camera. When I saw it in the theater, I was very happy with it. Didn't blow me away, but it was very clean.

Let's not confuse mics direct to camera with mics to mixer to camera. A good mixer and person operating it makes a huge difference.

Regards,

Ty Ford

but every CD done with PRO Tools prior to the 24 bit stuff, and even after were all recorded in 16bit. Jazz Classical even reference CD's for audiophiles. did those sound bad? .......... not!

I'm not a big 24 bit snob, but every studio engineer I have ever worked with insists on 24 bit nowadays. They are normally pretty resistant to fads and gimmicks, but their reasoning is that if you are going to process the signal (mixing, effects), you want the extra resolution... and that actually makes sense to me. If i'm shooting still photos to be delivered at web resolution, I still want to shoot at a much higher rez. Filtering at the larger size then scaling down looks better, and downsampling from 10 megapixel to 1 megapixel certainly looks better than a 1 megapixel native shot.

So I'll agree that some of the bit counting is folly, but that doesnt mean that 24 bit on your source material cant offer you something extra. That extra might not be worth it to you, but that doesn't mean it isnt there.

thanks for all the replies guys. I didnt want to let go of the 702T, but my intrepid engine went on me and its gonna cost $4200 to get it running well again with another engine. Its was a financial thing. I had mixed emotions until today.

I decided that why let go of a powerful tool. The 702T is not just for double system, how about SFX collecting, narration, Location VO. I also rethought about having useful 24bit files allowing for more flexibility in post. I also took advice from your comments about especially the "preamps". No camera preamps can really match a dedicated sound recorder. I also thought about TC coming in handy with future cameras, portability and non tethered operation.

I was just emotional about my engine going as the money was gonna be used for my engagement party im saving for. I like to thank you all for that reassurance of having a good machine and not ignoring the importance of audio.

Roshdi,

I am truly sorry for your loss.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Yes Wayne, right on.... I do 16bit because most editors I know are using FCP and in such a hurry (won't take the time to replace with double system audio) and besides that, they wouldn't know what to do with 24bit. Even with those HDV cams shooting MPeg audio they still don't replace with the backup! Disgusting.

And to the Dan who says double record is a PITA, I'm guessing you don't have a dedicated sound person.

Hi Ty:

Correct, I have three so that when my favored one is busy, I have two backups. Lately, I shoot about 60% of the time with a sound mixer and about 40% of the time without one. Out of the 60% with a sound mixer, about half of that is with double system. I actually very much like always shooting with a sound mixer, and I like shooting with double system, it frees me up from wearing headphones, worrying about lav placement and levels, etc.

I meant from a post production standpoint, double system sound is a lot more work, which equals more money. As Wayne stated, much of the time his Deva audio goodness is wasted by producers and editors who cannot be bothered to conform it, when the camera audio may have been "good enough". Budgets are lower, schedules are tighter. Sure, shooting a project with a decent budget and production schedule, double system sound is the way to go but it seems like more and more projects are needed for less money and are needed faster. Even if the sound mixer is providing double system for no additional charge, it still takes a lot more labor in post to manage it, conform it, etc.

I am in the middle of shooting a doc on a very famous persons life and career, it's very intimate and we shoot with a crew of a producer and myself, that's it. This person is a well known musical star and knows the importance of sound, is even known for the sound quality of his recordings and his prowess in the studio, but at his request, the producer hired me because said musician likes me and trusts me. We have no sound mixer on this project and not because of lack of budget, its simply because we need to be as small, light, portable and unobtrusive as possible and a one man crew is that.

I have told him that the end result would be better if we had a sound mixer but he and the producer like just having me do it all. This project will definitely be televised and there is a good chance it will have at least a small theatrical run. No sound mixer. No double system sound. Luckily I am sound competent, but as you know, it would sound better with a sound mixer on the crew. That's just the realities of production today sometimes. Same with the new Morgan Spurlock film "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden". Shoots all over the world, no sound mixer on most of them. Kind of sad but this seems to be happening a lot, especially with docs.

Dan

Dear Roshdi,

I vote for you keeping the 702t.

There are many advantages of using 24 bit audio.

With 24 bit audio, you can lower the gain, before recording a sound clip, when you are expecting some very loud levels. Or when you just do not know how loud you sound source will be.

With 16 bit, setting the proper level is much more critical. Of course, some great limiters help in this regard.

But, with 24 bit audio, you can record lower than normal, allowing ample room for the very loud peaks, and then normalize in post and still get great sound.

We are currently filming a Civil War feature with gunfire. I had no qualms about lowering the levels to ensure that I captured the very loud sounds properly as well as getting the lower level sounds. If I was using 16 bit audio, I would have had to be much more careful in adjusting the gain.

If you use a slate, it is relatively easy to match up the sound with the video.

As said previously, the preamps and limiters will, in most all cases, be better than those in you camera (and your camera may not even have limiters).

I am sorry to hear about your engine.

I understand that you may need to sell the 702t for financial reasons, but putting these aside, I would keep the 702t for the sake of good audio.

Dear Roshdi,

I vote for you keeping the 702t.

There are many advantages of using 24 bit audio.

With 24 bit audio, you can lower the gain, before recording a sound clip, when you are expecting some very loud levels. Or when you just do not know how loud you sound source will be.

With 16 bit, setting the proper level is much more critical. Of course, some great limiters help in this regard.

But, with 24 bit audio, you can record lower than normal, allowing ample room for the very loud peaks, and then normalize post and still get great sound.

We are currently filming a Civil War feature with gunfire. I had no qualms about lowering the levels to ensure that I captured the very loud sounds properly as well as getting the lower level sounds. If I was using 16 bit audio, I would have had to be much more careful in adjusting the gain.

If you use a slate, it is relatively easy to match up the sound with the video.

As said previously, the preamps and limiters will, in most all cases, be better than those in you camera (and your camera may not even have limiters).

I am sorry to hear about your engine.

I understand that you may need to sell the 702t for financial reasons, but putting these aside, I would keep the 702t for the sake of good audio.

thank you sir for the wise words. Like you said, at times i set the recorder to lower levels and is still able to capture over the top sounds with subtle low sounds with no noise. I think besides the time it takes to sync up double system, its worth the extra effort. Too many filmmakers out there let picture take lead and they ignore audio. Pretty sad really as we all know how important the soundtrack is.

I almost sold it, but thanks to all of you, you gave me that "extra" encouragment not too. I actually feel pretty good, even though im down $4200, oh well, moving on.

thanks to all again