@5thwall Sounds like it.

By the way, do you tend to have time to do post-work on the audio or do you have to use it all as shot? If you have time for post, just use the same e-mail I gave during our testing to get in touch and I will mention a few tricks that make a big difference in the sound quality (though you may already be using most of them, there is one I am sure you have not tried yet :).

Picking up a little debate that Trevmar and I were having about gain settings an the Zoom H1... I'll put it here because it applies to digital audio recorders generally and we don't already have a topic dedicated to the Zoom H1. Be constructive. Support your statements.

What's the goal in recording audio? It's to record your subject with acceptably low noise, I contend. And that's your only goal: everything else is secondary. I use 'noise' in the most general sense to mean any difference between the signal you're trying to capture and what ends up in your recording. I don't need to go into much detail about what noise is and how to measure it. It includes all kinds of distortion as well as white noise and quantization noise. Suffice it to say that there are different kinds of noise, and how much noise you can accept is personal and subjective. As for measuring noise, generally you are concerned about the noise level relative to the level of the signal (aka signal-to-noise ratio), since you can always adjust the volume of your recording after the fact, changing the noise and the signal levels by the same factor.

Rules for setting the gain in a digital audio recorder, in order of priority: These account for the most significant and unacceptable sources of noise in digital audio recording.

1. Set the gain low enough that you don't have clipping (leave adequate headroom). That's because clipping sounds nasty.
2. Set the gain high enough that you record the signal with adequate resolution (leave adequate "footroom"). That's because too low of resolution means too much quantization noise.
3. Set the gain to keep the recorder's internal noise acceptably low.

How does dynamic range relate? If the signal has more dynamic range than the recorder, you won't be able to satisfy all of the above rules. Having more dynamic range can help. Also, having more dynamic range can increase the range of gain settings that satisfy all of the rules, meaning that you wouldn't need to be as careful about setting the gain. But increasing the dynamic range won't always help. If the gain is already at the maximum and you are using your most sensitive mic, having more headroom will be of no help at all. Maximizing dynamic range is not a goal. It's helpful only to the extent that it helps you record your subject with acceptably low noise.

wipeman made some measurements of the Zoom H1's gain and internal noise for different gain settings, and calculated the equivalent input noise. http://zoomforum.us/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15488

This information will guide some of our choices. Gain settings lower than 20 (or 16?) use digital attenuation, which means there is basically never any reason to choose a gain setting lower than 20. Gain settings lower than 20 do not reduce the likelihood of clipping, and they always result in greater quantization noise. Gain settings of 37-100 have the lowest equivalent input noise; higher than 1-36. A gain setting of 37 maximizes the dynamic range.

So what do you do with this information? You can minimize the recorder's internal noise by choosing a microphone with sensitivity such that a gain setting of 37 is the right gain setting for whatever subject you're trying to record. In effect, you match the dynamic range of the signal from the mic for whatever you're recording to the dynamic range of the H1 with a gain setting of 37. In practice this usually means choosing a mic with high sensitivity.

But should you always choose a gain setting of 37? Absolutely not, and it's easy to prove with a couple of counter examples. If you set the gain to 37 and you record a loud signal that has unacceptable clipping in the recorder, and a lower gain setting in the 20-36 range would prevent the clipping, you are absolutely better off with a lower gain setting. If you set the gain to 37 and you record a quiet signal that is just a little bit louder than the internal noise, and your signal is recorded with an effective resolution of only a few bits resulting in unacceptable quantization noise, you are are absolutely better off to use a higher gain setting. A higher gain setting won't reduce the internal noise, but it will reduce the quantization noise.

A gain setting of 37 is not magical. You should have a slight preference for a gain setting of 37 over settings of 20-36, if 37 does not result in clipping. But for quiet signals, higher gain settings are better.

Fostex DC-R302. You can't beat it for the price hands down. 24 bit, records to sd, can output to camera at the same time (easier syncing and still clean output), good battery life, readout screen with all the info including levels, compact, standard shoe mounting, 3 xlr inputs, can pan mics to differnent channels, and perfectly clean preamps.

Always keep in mind post audio cannot polish a turd - you wouldn't use a pinhole lens to film your epic - treat sound the same - bad sound + good picture = bad product full stop. Don't worry about bit rates etc etc just get the microphone in the right place, set gain levels correctly, and if you have to use personal mics - listen to them after you've placed them - a mic capsule scraping over cloth / skin can't be fixed - it's the equivalent of someone standing in front of your lens when filming - you wouldn't use or stand for it - treat sound the same. Sound is easy - if it sounds shit - it is.

Also bear in mind that your digital metering on the cheaper end products will not show true peak values or inter sample peaks - you aren't recording to tape be conservative, clipped audio is nigh on impossible to rescue - low level audio with broadband noise is easily rescued. IMHO hire a sound guy if you're looking for stress free audio - don't be a jack of all trades, they're cheap nowadays as most productions seem to think the 18 year old work experience can swing the boom.

After several revolutions, including 7 or 8 weeks with the Fostex DC-R302, I bit-the-bullet and went full top end double system. For basic 2 camera things I use a SD 702T, a Denecke Tsc smart slate, either a Sony 77 lav or an AT 899 for interviews. If I have a boom person I will use my Senn 416 in the Rycote S300, but lately I've been using the AT BP4073 in m-s mode sending the two signals discretely to one channel on the 702t, the m signal is actually more than adequate as a standalone shotgun and if I want a stereo image I can matrix it with the S channel in post.

I would normally hire a sound guy (budget allowing) but in a lot of places that I work there is no-one available with the gear that I want and I will end up training a P.A. on how everything works. In a pinch I can use the whole system OMB when I am shooting something like a 2 camera interview.

Run-n-gun handheld I often run an AT 897 wearing a Rycote softie off a hot shoe mount right into the GH2. I also have a Tascam DR100 mkII that I've used a couple times along with a dumb slate and either a mic in or the onboard mics.

Hi guys,

I've been messing with my GH2's internal mic for way too long. Time to upgrade.

My main use is documenting art works (audiovisual performances/installations). Mostly my own and from time to time other artists'. The videos are intended mainly for online promotion.

I'm looking for a compact box with internal mics (not planning to use externals mics soon but could be nice to have inputs for future upgrades) and fits well in the hot shoe. Are the larger ones (DR-100 etc) comfortable mounted like that? Are they ok for handheld use or should I really get a smaller (H1 etc) for handheld?

Currently the H2n looks interesting to me, with its surround modes that should come in handy when documenting the kind of immersive installations I'm into. Any reasons not to take it? Guess it will look a bit funny when mounted on a cam but it doesn't look to heavy or cumbersome for handheld.

I'd like to keep it under €200.

Tanx, dtr

answering the original post, my own setup is probably the simplest and cheapest: EM320E + Zoom H1 (mic is inside a Rode Blimp on a Rode Boom pole, connected with a custom made Neutrik XLR-to-Neutrik 3.5mm Canare cable). I use this so far for tests in various settings (indoors, streets, woods, some Folley etc) in preparation for a short film.

Results: it sounds pretty much okey, but room echo for internal shots can get annoying. I use EM320E in Tele mode (because I like it's "vintage" characteristics), and the levels on my ZoomH1 are usually set at 65-70, so there is some hiss (whether from mic or ZoomH1, I don't know). I then clean most of the hiss in post and double the mono signal into both channels, and it sounds pretty good and "dramatic".

Now, I'm thinking of gradually improving and upgrading this setup. Some possible upgrade options include: Roland R-26 recorder, Rode NTG-2, Rode NTG-3, second hand Sennheiser MKH 416, Oktava MK-012 with Joly mod, Sound Devices MixPre. But I don't know which investment would be the best bang for the buck. Any advice?

@itimjim I'm thinking of improving my setup and thinking of getting a MixPre like you did. In that case, ZoomH1 would be no more than a device to record the signal. Do you think it would work? or would I need to get a better audio recorder like a Roland R-26 too?

Can you guys help me ? I have a Rode Videomic Pro and I want to buy an external recorder to use with my GH3. I was thinking in the H2n or the Tascam DR -07 . Question is : CAN I attach 2 lavalier mics in the 3.5 input using a split cable so I can record interviews with 2 people ? I know the audio would be recorded in the same track , but I think thats not gonna be issue for me .

@symph I was intrigued by your "recorder" video. Recorders (or blokfluit in Dutch) present an unusual challenge for microphones as the harmonics are very unevenly distributed and you also get artifacts in the form of resultant tones. So I did a quick comparison with a bunch of different mics. First I had to locate a bunch of recorder players, but that was pretty easy as they are well organized and have websites.

This is to a certain extent a matter of taste, but I actually found the the Rode microphones to be the least persuasive for handling this kind of sound, with a strong high frequency emphasis as well as what I would describe as internal capsule resonance, and I ranked the winners as follows in order of preference: Sennheiser MKH 20, Schoeps MK2H, Sennheiser MKH 40, Schoeps MK 41, Schoeps MK 21, Oktava small diaphragm omni, Oktava SD cardioid. The Oktavas were the budget winners.

After testing the mics, I had a choice to make--the omnis sounded slightly better, but picked up too much reflections and extraneous noise, so I went with the two MKH 40s straight into the Fostex. Ideally, one could use an array of four to eight mics, but I wanted straight stereo into the box. And here is the result:

I wouldn't use any of the items you mention, but I suggest you try them first and see if you like them. Mics are like headphones in a way, different ppl have different preferences. The DR 680 is a real bargain, of course.

Thanks for the feedback @DrDave, but could you please be a bit more specific. I am real beginner in audio and, while i understand that there is not one only correct choice your opinion would be quite valuable.

I understand the DR 680 is great but the price is high here in Europe and I thought its features were overkill. I dont want to spend twice, so maybe I should rise my budget.

I also have seen good reviews about the Fostex FR-2 LE and also considering things like the juicedlink+cheap audio recorder. I have seen that for low budget you like the H2n.

What about the mics?, i am trying to find the cheapest mic...with good audio quality :-)

OMG I totally agree with Vitaliy, must have another whiskey (glug)