@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.

marantz 661 for me.

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.

Even if you have a budget don't ADR lol

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.

@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?

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

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 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?

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

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.

Future camera body should take digital audio input...

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 :)