Frinds ! I am an Indie maker.Often shoot live folk music and interview for my documentaries.I was planning to purchase a decent recorder and mixer for my PMW EX3.I can not afford both as I have a budget of approximately$2700.Can anyone please guide me what to buy.I was thinking of buying SD552.But its recorder aspect not known.I am attracted towards a recorder Edirol R-4 Pro . Now basically I am very confused between a mixer cum recorder and a high quality recorder.Please help me.

The SD552 is an excellent mixer but IMHO its internal recorder should be considered more applicable to backup, dailys, and transcription recording rather than used as the primary recorder for production sound. High quality single-system sound needs a good mixer. High quality double-system sound needs both a good mixer and a good stand-alone recorder. My only quibble with the R-4 is the on-board special effects (noise gate, compressor, graphic equalizer, etc) - you're paying for a "feature" that has no business being on a production recorder and you need to resist the temptation ever to use it.

Normally I shoot with one PMW EX3 camera.As per your advise I think I should buy SD302 mixer and SD702 recorder but then budget is the problem. i.e.$1295+1875=$3170. Please steve suggest some cheaper options.Steve how do you rate Maranz PMD661 and Zoom H4n type of cheap recorders as professional recorders for a quality production ?

How many tracks do you need?

I can't directly comment on either but uncomfortable with the idea of using the cheap Zoom-type recorders for serious productions. I know a lot of people love them but I wouldn't be confident showing up on set with one of them as my primary. About the bottom level I'd consider would be the Tascam HD-P2.

Hi Steve,

I'm picking up a used HD-P2 to try as a location recorder? I'll be using it for both small indie movie productions as well as live events. For most live events I'll be getting feeds from the speakers mics off of the PA system and for movies we usually use mics on the level of the ME-66 or NTG-2.

Any recommendations or suggestions to get me up to speed as quickly as possible with using it. I shoot primarily with a Sony EX3 and am planning to use the TC feature for easier sync in post. up till now I've recorded audio onto the camera through a mixer and also used a Sony D50 as a backup.

Thanks,
Garrett

Ramji... if you need more than two tracks, have you looked at the Edirol R-44?

I use one for my own production and am very satisfied with its performance.

Hey Ramji,
This is kind of tough. The R-4 has time code and four tracks, but the SD552 probably has cleaner preamps (better recording), and way more functionality. If it were me, I'd live with two tracks and get the 552.

A particular problem is that the R-4 lacks balanced outputs, so sending a scratch track to the camera is dodgy. In fact, if you're doing a documentary I'd suggest recording direct to camera most of the time anyway. The EX3 has some of the cleanest preamps of any camcorder. For music, you could take the time to slate and send a scratch track to the camera for syncing later. That's just how I'd do it anyway.

You know, I was just looking over the owner's manual of the SD552, and it seems you can remove a track or a pair of tracks from the main outputs and still retain control of the faders. That may mean you could mix three tracks down to two for the internal recorder and route two separate isolated tracks to the camera for a total of four. Of course you should check with SoundDevices to make sure I'm interpreting that correctly if it's something you want to attempt.

There is also another option. You can buy the SD744T four track recorder used for $3,000. They are readily available.

The SD552 is an excellent mixer but IMHO its internal recorder should be considered more applicable to backup, dailys, and transcription recording rather than used as the primary recorder for production sound.

Steve,

can you please elaborate on why the 552's recorder is not the best option (or at least the same as say a 302 and 702 used together)? I am about to purchase and thought the 552 solved all my problems...:)

Magat !I need two channels.I think that is what the Discovery HD specifications also says.
Yes Fredericks ! I was also of the impression that 552 will solve my recording problems.But after Steves comments I am not feeling confident .I will be feeding two channels to my EX3 as Marco Leavitt says EX3 has some of the cleanest preamps of any camcorder.If still I need a professional recorder then please through some more light on this.Somebody may please help.

Hey Ramji,
One thing to remember is that the EX3 has an undefeatable (and undocumented) limiter. So if you are using a mixer remember that you want to peak well before the top on the EX3's meter. If I remember right, the limiter kicks in about 4 to 6 dB before the top.

Also Ramji, when I say that the EX3 has great preamps, that's with the understanding that you are feeding it a nice, hot, line level signal. In other words, you really need to use a mixer with it. If you are feeding the mic directly into the camera you won't get that kind of performance.

You know, I was just looking over the owner's manual of the SD552, and it seems you can remove a track or a pair of tracks from the main outputs and still retain control of the faders. That may mean you could mix three tracks down to two for the internal recorder and route two separate isolated tracks to the camera for a total of four. Of course you should check with SoundDevices to make sure I'm interpreting that correctly if it's something you want to attempt.



This is a great idea, I'm gonna try it today. Remove two tracks from the mix then use the removed channels' direct outs for the camera. Should work. Thanks, Marco

552 also features an internal stereo recorder, which can capture WAV or MP3 files at either 16-bit or 24-bit; with sample rates from 44.1kHz all the way up to 96kHz.
I am again asking -Is it not sufficiant for a documentary film maker like me or I still need a saperate pro recorder with time code ?

Ramji,
You haven't mentioned how you plan on working, but in general, documentaries are almost always recorded direct to camera. This is because of the logistics of doing double system in a run and gun situation like that. Very high end productions, like say for PBS, would probably do double system, but they have the budget to hire qualified crew to handle it, in fact, we're talking about the very best in the business.

As far as audio quality, the internal recorder of the SD552 is most likely as good or better (probably quite a better) than the Edirol. The advantages of the Edirol are that it is four track, and it has timecode. I'm betting that you won't be able to take advantage of the four tracks on the Edirol, and you don't seem to have the expertise to take advantage of the timecode functionality. Direct to camera is by far the safest way to go.

To give you a more definitive answer, we need to know exactly what you are shooting and what the environment is. Do you have a sound person? Can he/she remain tethered to the camera? What equipment is he/she using, and in particular how much (and what kind of) wireless does your sound person have available?

Regarding Steve's comments about the limitations of the internal recorder of the 552, I agree to a point. It's not a question of sound quality, but rather the interface. If I were hired as the mixer on a feature film of a decent budget, for instance, yeah, I'd rather have a full featured recorder with four tracks or greater, although I wouldn't settle for the Edirol. I would also need to have a timecode slate, a dedicated boom-op, and at least three top end wireless systems. The more the better.

If I were a sound guy on a documentary, I'd rather have the SD552 and send a wireless hop to the camera. I would also use the internal recorder as a backup and set the camera's timecode to time of day. The SD552 recordings should also carry the time of day stamp in the metadata. Adding a sync box to the equation would also be a good thing.

Marco said it before I had time to reply. I might add that the 552 does not generate timecode for its internal recorder so its file's timestamps are only approximately that of the camera (though it will read TC and sync if the camera outputs it). I didn't mean to imply the recorded files would be flawed or inferior, it's just not going to be as flexible.

Ramji,

If I were a sound guy on a documentary, I'd rather have the SD552 and send a wireless hop to the camera. .

Marco,

This kind of a setup would be perfect for my needs - freedom to move the camera round 'un-tethered', but recording to the camera and to the 552.

What would you use to make the 'wireless hop" to the camera? Would there be a quality loss in that?

Cheers

Murray

Oade Brothers (don't ask me how to prounounce "oade") has an upgrade for the Edirol R-44 which gives it very quiet preamps. That said, I hadn't had any problems with my stock R-44. If you're recording a concert or classical guitarist it might make a difference. But the stock version should be more than clean enough for interviews and field production.

THAT said, the modified R-44 isn't all that much more than a stock R-44. If I'd known about it prior to getting one, I'd have gotten the Oade Brothers version.

The R-44 time stamps the beginning of the audio file, and the edit software then calculates timecode from that point forward. As far as the user is concerned it sure looks and feels like real time code. Good enough for me to quickly correlate hundreds of video clips with a particular audio file.

Single system sound is always easiest. But the Sony EX1 I have only has two tracks, and I'm often covering more than two people. And I want to have each individual on a discrete track. Thus the need for a four-track recorder.

So Ramji... if you find yourself in a similar situation, you're also going to have to determine how many tracks you'll need, then tailor an appropriate solution.

When I decided to use a double-system workflow I initially looked at the Tascam. Then the R-44 came out. There are a lot of instances in which I can make good use of all four tracks, plus the on-camera mic. For what I do, it makes a big difference in the final product.

Hi Dean thank you so much for such an eloborated reply.Often I am alone in the field recording tribal songs but I want to record the quality sound.Previously I have recorded live songs on sd302 and it was hell of a task to sync the various takes.That means the time code and video sync is important for me. R-44 doesnt have that.Tascam P2 has this facility.I always felt that I need a very small handy but quality sound recorder.Most of the people here in this forum have the mind set of Hollywood movie production .But in thirdworld country like India the documentary budget doesent allow to have a sound recordist always.Still i want to record quality sound and a good mixer and decent recorder needed within the limited budget.That is why I have started this discussion.I think the zoom h4n and PMD661 type of recoders can not be called low quility just because they are cheap.we have to look into the results.Some experienced professional recordist has to use these and give the feedback.

Hey Murray,
I rarely go wireless to camera, but do on occasion use my ATW-1821 wireless system. There is most definitely a quality loss, so that's why I stay tethered. Still, it sounds pretty good, but I wouldn't say it's feature quality or anything. Higher end systems, like Lectrosonic, sound nearly as good as wired, and supposedly Zaxcom, which I haven't used, sounds just as good as wired. Zaxcom's really high-end stuff.

For Ramji's situation, I can see why you would want to record double system for tribal music, but I would think the choice of mics and placement would be a lot more important. Can you give us an example of what mics you are using and where you are placing them?

Hi Marco I use sony ECM-678 and mostly I place it above the frame on a boom

How many performers are involved, and what instruments are they playing?

Ramji...

When you said "time code and video sync" I'm guessing you mean "locking" the camera and recorder via timecode? I believe the Tascam can do that. The Edirol R-44 can't.

Combining the Tascam and the camera would give you four tracks of audio. But you'll still need to sync them in post. I do this with something called SequenceLiner.

sequenceLiner for Final Cut Pro - an easy way to get sync dailies, cameras or sound (http://www.spherico.de/filmtools/sequenceLiner/index.html)

It creates a sequence with the video clips nicely lined up with the long audio track. The sync I get isn't perfect due to the difference in time-of-day between the camera and the recorder. But I can easily grab a group of clips and shift them as needed to attain perfect sync. If it's used with the Tascam the sync will be much more accurate. But it does mean tethering your camera to the recorder.

I've posted an example of run-and-gun multitrack audio. It allows me to be selective about what tracks to bring forward and which to suppress.

Hi Marco! I normally record a single player and the instrument is like single wire guitar we call it ektara.Sometime it is multiplewire called sarangi .Always the player is singing.In some cases the singer is dancing and then the sound of steps become impotant.At present I put wireless for singing and the shotgun sony ECM-678 on boom.

Hi Dean you are right !Tascam P2 is more suited to my budget.If anyone have used it please give the feedback about the quality of the sound.But I still need a mixer.Folks! please advise the proper mixer in above mentioned environment.

Hey Ramji,
Honestly, I don't think having a recorder is going to make much difference in the quality of your sound. I'd concentrate on getting better mics, and maybe better placement, and use the extra money to buy a decent mixer, like the SD302. What kind of wireless are you using?

Thank so much for the advice.Now I leave the Idea of buying a recorder and spend my budget on good mic and a mixer. I think I will buy SD302 or if budget permits SD552.But recently DV has review a shotgun mic AT’s BP 4029.Has anyone used it or if someone can suggest a better mic then ECM 678 which I am currently using.

Ramji,
Perhaps it's best to lay aside the question of what mic to get. I certainly don't think this is as simple as just going out and buying a stereo shotgun.

Also, I didn't intend to knock the ECM 678. I haven't used that mic, and wouldn't presume to tell you that it's bad. It's just that shotguns in general aren't always the best for recording music, especially when it's mounted immovable on a boom out of the frameline. It would seem to me that what you are missing the most is a good recording of the instrument. You are already micing the vocals. I'm going to guess that the shotgun, being set above the frameline is probably redundantly picking up the vocals again, more prominently than the instrument. Is that correct?

Is it essential that mics have to be out of the shot? If they can be in frame it will help immensely. Can any mics on the talent and instrument be wired? I can see that if there is a lot of movement with the dancing that would be problem, but it seems that there are instances where the talent is just standing or sitting with their instrument?

I'm thinking some kind of instrument mic actually mounted on the guitar-type instrument would make a huge difference here. Or even a really nice cardiod or hyper cardiod in close on the instrument, but angled to also get the vocals might be a good one mic solution.

This is actually getting away from my own area of expertise, as I have limited experience recording live music. I would suggest starting a new thread about the best way to mic your subject, specifying that you only have two tracks available, and not get bogged down on brand names just yet. Sometimes a specialty mic costing only a few hundred dollars will be a better match than a fancier mic that doesn't quite match your application.

Perhaps Douglas Spotted Eagle can be persuaded to offer some insight on this, as he has great experience recording this type of thing.

Also, again, what type of wireless are you using and with what lav?