Tascam DR-05 or DR-07 mkII, That is the question.

zim9000 · May 10, 2011

So I'm looking at getting possible either one of these as a recorder for my shotgun mic. Currently all I have to record is onto my T3i so either one will be way better for sure. I'm just trying to decide if the extras on the DR-07 mkII are worth the extra $50?

DR-07 mkII: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/760375-REG/Tascam_DR_07MKII_DR_07mkII_Portable_Digital_Audio.html

DR-05: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/757065-REG/Tascam_DR_05_DR_05_Portable_Handheld_Digital.html

I will be using this for youtube videos that I make by either using the mics built into the recorder or through my shotgun mic. $150 is the max I can spend. I guess if anyone owns either of these or could give feedback on them would be great. Thanks.

I also found a video comparison between them from bhphoto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2uBIXPWSq8

Utopia · May 11, 2011

@wheat: Filming your scene and then re-recording the sound close-up with the camera/recorder 2 inches away from your feet while doing footsteps, your shirt for foley, etc.

lol

@Alcove, I totally understand the frustration but just look at my newbesque posts about lenses. I asked "Would it be possible to use a prime lens for filming handheld?" and I get back scores of answers that say that people usually ONLY use prime lenses while filming and never use stabilizers. It's sort of the same thing with these video-oriented guys who delve into sound.

So, that gave me a good reality check not to get SO mad at people who are clueless, they're just clueless and only know what the boxes of these little POS recorders tell them: "HD". lol...

It's up to you and I to nurture and help these people out. Your ears depend upon it.

*cue sappy cinematic music*

We are the shepherds of Euphony.

WE are the custodians of sonic creativity.

We... And only we, can make a difference to this cacophony!

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

Utopia · May 11, 2011

rayw said:
For audio all I get is a sensitivity level in dB, with nothing about recording bit rates and microphone AB & XY-LMNOP-alphabet soup.
Grrr.

Look for a recorder which records at 96K 24Bit. They should definitely tell you on the specs... That's the most basic spec for digital audio.

knightly · May 11, 2011

ROC said:
@Alcove, ... So, that gave me a good reality check not to get SO mad at people who are [less experienced]

I ran into the same thing with tech support as I grew up with computers, I had assumed that there was a baseline of knowledge for them... Then a grad student who had never touched a computer was required to use one to write her thesis... she'd never used one without a mouse let alone with one. The fact that she didn't understand the relationship between the physical mouse and the pointer on the screen blew my mind and gave me that same moment of clarity when it came to teaching what was apparently more advanced technology than I had considered it.

We can never assume a base level of knowledge that doesn't exist. It's slowly being pieced together by folks who hear terminology and specs from boxes, online articles etc... but nowhere is it explained (both how and why)... (For the record - not that you're guilty of this, just an aside - http://www.lmgtfy.com makes me cringe as a self-appointed educator. It's elitist in the worst sense of the term... we also can't assume that the folks asking the question know how to use google to search for their answers. In fact, I didn't realize there was an internal search here for the first 2-3 years I used the forums).

I've had this same conversation with many professionals who have taken my advice to re-evaluate their reactions to questions they've thought were "bordering on stupid." If the goal is to create a world in which indie filmmakers want better [insert aspect of filmmaking here]... gain their trust first, then work them around to your point of view... it's a much more effective tactic than to rail against their inexperience.

Disagree with them vocally, but back up the arguments with heavily detailed specificity and examples... you'll not only get a better response from the newbs, you'll create a volume of educational materials to which you can simply link later to save on typing... that's what I do.

Utopia · May 11, 2011

Well said.

Yeah - I'm humbled by how much knowledge of camera/lens/filming there is here just by the few questions I've asked and the responses I've gotten.

Hope I do the same with the audio end of things.

knightly · May 11, 2011

wheatgrinder said:
Capturing stereo ENV sound?
Documentary table top interview recording?

I would think these are both legit uses, although, it would still be better served using better equipment, non-fixed directional mics crossed at 45-90 degrees would allow you dial in your stereo image better and give more control over desired v. undesired environmental sounds... being able to mount a couple of omnis farther away from one another to get a really wide audio perspective, with baffling options between as well could give even a different stereo image depending on the needs of the work.

For a Doc, it'd still be extremely low signal/noise as it'd be farther away from the subject compared to a lav mic would get you... wireless or wired.

Alcove & Roc mention the video aspect as being a focus, so I'm going to bleed over the edges a bit... Both light and sound fall prey to the "Inverse-Square Law." Twice as far away is 1/4 the power of the sound/light waves hitting the capture device (ear, mic, eye, camera). So to get more light on a subject, move the light and/or the camera closer... to get more sound, move the subject and/or the mic closer.

In the same way that I've been preaching about separating the subject from the background in your image using light and color... the same thing needs be done with the audio... even to a greater extent. To get a truly clean audio signal, we must reduce the amount of sound from the background in relation to the correctly "exposed" dialog from the subject we're trying to capture. In picture, it's exposure ratios, in audio, it's signal/noise with the noise being the background audio and the signal being the subject you're trying to capture.

There, now the two are linked and may spark some cool discussion here. The way it relates to the OP's original question is that:
A) Long unbalanced (non-XLR) cable runs produce background noise into the cable by way of RF Induction.
B) Using the mics on board would necessitate having the device in shot to get good usable sound out of it.
C) Stereo imaging in audio isn't EVER used for the dialog track of your work due to the fact that early experimentation showed the audience didn't respond to it as realistic. Common cinema practice is to have an actor walk of screen right and have them enter screen left in the next cut to show travel in a larger space... having the stereo dialog follow the actor makes the dialog jump suddenly from the left to the right over the cut... centering it provided an auditory focal point for the audience and was much less disconcerting.

Here's the AB/XY explanations and a couple of others as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound#Recording_methods

wheatgrinder · May 11, 2011

hey Knighly, I like that visual context for sound.. "proper exposure" etc. Its cool, I hope this doesn't offend, but your Asperger's is showing.. and this Nuro-Normal likes it.

knightly · May 11, 2011

wheatgrinder said:
...your Asperger's is showing..

It's all just waves of little particular motion

and flickering lights annoy me (and all fluorescents flicker)! Crowds suck too - too much stim.

zim9000 · May 11, 2011

Thank you very much Knightly for all the information you have posted! It was exactly what I needed to see. So if 1/8 cabling acts like antenna while on a boom pole, do they sell boom pole's that are shielded? Doesn't xlr pick up radio noise as well, or is that based on the quality of the xlr cable? I'm a very visual person so seeing and hearing things makes a huge difference, does anyone know of a video that compares a shotgun mic on a boom pole using both types of cables? Do they make shielded 1/8 mini plug cables?

I found this cool site with great info on balanced and unbalanced as well. Tell me what you think of it: http://www.dplay.com/dv/balance/balance.html Thanks again.

wheatgrinder · May 11, 2011

that link does answer one of your questions..

Professional equipment solves this problem by using two closely-spaced conductors twisted together. Audio is balanced equally on these wires, flowing in a positive direction on one wire while in a negative direction on the other. Equipment looks at the voltage difference between those wires, and ignores everything else (everything els is noise)

Kosh · May 11, 2011

Man, knightly, wow! Good stuff, sir. Thank you. I can't say I really get all of that now, but I am going to pace this thread in my back pocket and reference it once I gain some filed time.

This was an excellent thread.

knightly, I must ask - because one of your earlier posts got me think while I was in the office today - what's the proper technique to cover a two shot with a boom? Do you keep the mic centered to get both actors, move the boom as dialog is delivered or dedicate the boom to each actor, thus giving each person a take? Thanks.

knightly · May 12, 2011

Kosh said:
Man, knightly, wow! Good stuff, sir. Thank you. I can't say I really get all of that now, but I am going to pace this thread in my back pocket and reference it once I gain some filed time.

This was an excellent thread.

knightly, I must ask - because one of your earlier posts got me think while I was in the office today - what's the proper technique to cover a two shot with a boom? Do you keep the mic centered to get both actors, move the boom as dialog is delivered or dedicate the boom to each actor, thus giving each person a take? Thanks.

Hollywood/Correct - Each actor has their own boom and boom op, the sound tech then monitors both mics to make sure they are captured optimally and these are recorded to separate tracks for use in editing later.

Higher but still on budget - The boom op has an expensive boom that makes next to no noise allowing him/her to move between the two actors to capture each of their dialogs the best possible given the framing.

Lower budget - the boom pole makes noise when you turn it, so you plant it in the middle and use the audio from the tighter frames to dub over and show alot of reaction shots to cover the mouth/dialog timing issues (dialog delivered with the actor's back to the camera to hide bad synch)

Alcove Audio · May 12, 2011

knightly said:
dialog delivered with the actor's back to the camera to hide bad synch

If only editors cut that way...

knightly · May 12, 2011

Since I generally do both the audio and the cut, I do cut that way. I like the reactions better than the dialog anyway, I think the the key to a conversation is how it's being received.

But, most directors want to see the line delivered, I don't think it's as effective as seeing how it affects others... we're getting way off topic though, so I'll digress.

Sanpiran · Dec 21, 2011

More on cheap sound recorders.

Like Zim9000 I am also in the market for a low-end recorder such as the H2, DL-05 or DL-07, etc. But being an engineer I also have my doubts that very high prices produce very high quality. Likewise subjective assessments.
What I’d like AlcoveAudio to say is precisely where these low-end devices fall over, quite apart from the obvious greater flexibility and adaptability of the high end recorders. More knobs and meters and other adjustments don’t necessarily affect the overall sound ‘quality’, just the adaptability of the machine to the recording challenges of the day. It also seems unlikely the suggestion that the sound capability of these cheap recorders is little better than an average DSLR camera.
If basic sound quality is the issue, have either Wheatgrinder or AlcoveAudio set up in their studios, their own chosen microphone set-up (stereo for simplicity) feeding the resulting sound into one of these cheaper recorders and also parallel it to their chosen recorder at say ten times the price? Can they tell the difference when played back on a decent set-up for both? If they can, are they able to translate this difference into measurable parameters such as distortion (all types), frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, quantisation noise, etc.
Such figures appear to be absent from most such machines nowadays, making comparisons on these factors impossible.
I’d be interested to hear if I am talking just rubbish, quite apart from helping to decide my purchases in the future.

gpforet · Dec 21, 2011

Spend much time on location as a production sound mixer? Spend much time in post stacking hundreds of tracks of which perhaps a dozen were recorded on location? Applying noise reduction?

I will be the first to say that on a single track, with a quality microphone positioned correctly, that a track recorded on a $14k Zaxcom or Cantar and a track recorded on a $300 budget recorder will not sound like $13,700 worth of difference. Will one have less noise, better clarity and definition, you bet.

But start stacking tracks, and applying noise reduction, and these nasty artifacts have a multiplying effect and it's not long before your soundtrack has lost quite a bit of fidelity and definition.

Additionally, those knobs and meters and switches provide functionality and flexibility that carries nearly as much weight as the sound quality. Dealing with multiple camera returns, ifb and village feeds, multiple iso tracks, multiple mixes, pfl monitoring, all while carrying your entire toolset on a harness makes for a pretty specialized piece of hardware. This is where the argument for a dedicated mixer and separate recorder pays off. Location sound is a very demanding and dynamic work environment. The ability to reconfigure, reroute, and manipulate numerous sources and sends equate to efficient use of time on set, and when on location, minutes are worth their weight in gold.

Also consider the environmental issues these tools face on a daily basis. High humidity, extremely high and low temperatures, dust, vibration...and it still has to sound great. Remember, these are not studio tools. And all those knobs and switches have to operate in these conditions tens of thousands of times without inducing switching or scratch noise into the track. And those meters have to be viewable in bright direct sunlight, or dimmed to not distract when working in sometimes nearly complete darkness. Oh yea, and it has to run on battery power sufficient to provide at least a few hours of use between battery changes.

I'm not sure what kind of engineer you are, but as an aerospace engineer, I'm suprised that professional location sound gear can be produced and supported at the price point they sell for.

I carry a PSC Alphamix, built in 2003. PSC has serviced this mixer once since I've owned it, for cleaning and replacing/upgrading the power distro section. The total bill was $90. Shipping costs more. I can call PSC and within an hour or so, get a callback from the owner of the company who knows this gear inside and out. Try that with Sony or Tascam. So, yea, they cost a lot of money. And low prices recorders are in their own right amazing at what they can do. But there are far too many differences between to two to make any kind of comparison.

Sanpiran said:
Like Zim9000 I am also in the market for a low-end recorder such as the H2, DL-05 or DL-07, etc. But being an engineer I also have my doubts that very high prices produce very high quality. Likewise subjective assessments.
What I’d like AlcoveAudio to say is precisely where these low-end devices fall over, quite apart from the obvious greater flexibility and adaptability of the high end recorders. More knobs and meters and other adjustments don’t necessarily affect the overall sound ‘quality’, just the adaptability of the machine to the recording challenges of the day. It also seems unlikely the suggestion that the sound capability of these cheap recorders is little better than an average DSLR camera.
If basic sound quality is the issue, have either Wheatgrinder or AlcoveAudio set up in their studios, their own chosen microphone set-up (stereo for simplicity) feeding the resulting sound into one of these cheaper recorders and also parallel it to their chosen recorder at say ten times the price? Can they tell the difference when played back on a decent set-up for both? If they can, are they able to translate this difference into measurable parameters such as distortion (all types), frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, quantisation noise, etc.
Such figures appear to be absent from most such machines nowadays, making comparisons on these factors impossible.
I’d be interested to hear if I am talking just rubbish, quite apart from helping to decide my purchases in the future.

Alcove Audio · Dec 21, 2011

I do not have the budget, nor the time or inclination, to do A/B comparisons.

I have been doing audio since the early '70's when I bounced tracks between two Radio Shack cassette recorders. In most instances, when I upgraded to something better than I had, there was a marked difference. The first huge difference was when I built real sonically isolated, acoustically treated rooms and put in serious professional speakers. That was when I started cursing the my budget gear. The most profound differences appeared when I transitioned from analog to digital. The combination of "noiseless" recording, my listening environment and even better speakers started showing the serious inadequacies, such as the self noise or artificial frequency response, of budget gear. My transition to a $1,000 mic and a $1,000 mic pre from a $300 mic and a $300 mic pre was startling. Freelancing in big budget facilities makes me lust for even better equipment.

A Trabant has an engine, four wheels, brakes, etc. So does a Mercedes. Which would you rather drive? The differences are the attention paid to the quality of the individual components, how those components interact and how they are brought together into a cohesive whole. There is also the issue of specificity. You can use a wrench to pound in a nail, but wouldn't you rather use a hammer?

Sure, you can use extreme low budget gear, but you will get neither the flexibility nor the results of tools designed to do their specific job.

Sanpiran · Dec 22, 2011

Budget recorders

Many thanks for your professional comments, gpforet and ArchiveAudio, much appreciated.
Of course I see that even at a cost of $2000, a recording device will not have features making it suitable for multi-location, multi-purpose, all-weather use, year in, year out. Getting down to basics, for example, all connectors, switches, sliders, etc., inside and out, would have to be corrosion-proofed, 22ct gold plated, an expensive business. The central ‘engine’ of any digital recorder, the A/D and D/A converters, would be highly specialised and developed, not to be found in any budget recorder. All semi-conductors would be specially selected and tested for quality and durability. Mechanically, the recorder would have to be rugged but also made of materials to reduce weight and handling problems by studio staff. All these factors would push the cost way outside the budgets of all but large studios.
My first foray into sound-recording (on a low budget of course) was in the early 70’s with an Akai 4000db, a stereo ¼” tape machine. Having access to highly specialised instruments such as spectrum analysers, I was able to ‘tweak’ this machine to give me close to 70db unweighted dynamic range (with Dolby), with a flat response from 30hz to 22khz. With a Sony electret mike it sounded fantastic and as good as many machines at 5-10 times the price but not good enough to withstand much studio processing.
My basic question was centred around $300-$2000 digital recording equipment and therefore still awaits an answer from someone on a really low budget!!

Alcove Audio · Dec 22, 2011