Thanks Ed and Scott for your helpful comments.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike wrote:
The analogue recorder used in this research paper was a Nagra 4S, a
large tape reel recorder. I could look for a used one on ebay but surely
there must be some manufacturer who makes newer analogue recorders,
isn't there?
Nagra does. You can order a brand new 4S from the factory in Switzerland.
I don't know how much it costs but I would guess somewhere in the $5k to $6k
range if you just want the S and don't need any fancy extras like timecode.
I am not an expert on this but it would appear that I don't need time
code. Its nice but not necessary. Time code is more useful for major
video productions. I have read you can get by without timecode.
example:
http://www.equipmentemporium.com/timecode.htm
I am aware that analogue recorders may not have the dynamic range of
digital technology but I am looking for a solution that considers both
"warmth" as well as dynamic range. Therefore an analogue recording would
be acceptable even though this decision may lead to a small sacrifice in
dynamic range.
So, rent a Nagra. Most film rental places will rent you a Nagra and a pair
of Schoeps mikes for a surprisingly reasonable price. They might even have
tape for it (which is where the real rub is today).
Good idea. What do you mean about the tape? Is it hard to find tape for it?
Now here is where my situation is a little unique:
What I find useful about the Nagra 4S is the 60 Hz pilotone signal it
can record onto the tape which is useful for synchronizing to film (for
double system sound) because the tape medium never advances at perfectly
consistant rates. Its used for speed correction in post production. This
is a more technical detail, however for some purposes this would be a
useful feature for me.
I don't think the S has pilot tone, does it? I think the S is the one
with the stripped down stereo output, no pilot no timecode.
I am pretty sure it does. Check out page 40 in that original pdf essay I
quoted. Here it is again for convenience:
Philipp Potz essay on audio recording:
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Pilot is basically not useful today.
I think you might mean "pilot is not used very often today" - I agree.
However, the technology is still there and it still works. I guess you
just have to be able to resolve the sync signal. I hope there are still
sound labs that can do this.
Cameras with umbilical cables
hardly even exist any more, and everyone uses crystal synch. Speed
correction in post is pretty much a non-issue for anything other than
film work today.
Any audio recorder with the mechanical drive of a tape never is perfect
in speed consistently and always needs correction to be perfect for any
sync work - thats my understanding - I could be wrong however.
This is part of why the S is so inexpensive.
Which portable analogue recorders could be recommended under $500?
They don't exist new. You won't find a used Nagra for that. You might
find a Uher 4000 or Stellavox but you'll spend as much getting the thing
cleaned up.
Thanks for these suggestions.
What's wrong with DAT?
I read somewhere that DAT is good and precise to a certain degree but
because it is digital if you change its duration (if you have to alter
the length of an audio segment by 0.1% to fit telecine transfer rates
for example) it forces it to resample and you loose quality. On the
other hand analogue tape is always smooth. That is why some DAT
recorders have that special sample rate option to use 48.48 KHz (I
guessed the decimal) instead of the regular 48 KHz. That sampling rate
is for the 0.1% length adjustment for video transfers.
I just thought of a possible solution: What I could do is buy two DAT
recorders and have one set to sample at 48 KHz (for film) and one set to
sample at the special 48.48Hz setting (for video). Then I would have the
best of both worlds without having to resample the audio.
Yes, but the analogue recorder can be maintained. The Minidisc, you just
throw it away and replace it every year or two. Total cost of ownership
calculations are left to you.
Very true. But can you still find the tape for a Nagra 4?
Eventually (within a year), I would later digitize the analogue
recording into my computer desktop station which is at another location.
For certain applications I might also have to adjust the sound track and
so I am looking for a solution that can withstand some editing
adjustments and resampling. (i.e. for NTSC video applications I will
have to lengthen the entire sound track length 0.1%). Therefore if a
digital recording solution is used it will have to be the highest
possible sampling rate (i.e. a 48khz. recording would be better than a
44.1khz .recording)
Does this need to be in synch?
Yes.
(I am not much interested in DAT because for film work I read that DAT
doesn't "resolve" in sync as easily or as well as a Nagra 4S due to the
inconsistency of DAT tape speed)
You are joking. DAT is so much more accurate for synch than analogue
tape that it's not even worth thinking about. But, if you want to synch
to film or video, you will want a DAT deck or a Nagra with timecode,
honestly.
Youre right. Analogue tape is not consistent in speed. However, I don't
think I need timecode. If I am using analogue tape such as a Nagra I
would need some sort of sync signal. It is often noted on film groups
that it is important to know that a DAT (or minidisc) cannot accept an
external sinc reference. Minidisc doesn't need it because it is
electronically perfect but I am not sure about DAT because DAT is driven
by a mechanical drive mechanism. I suppose the speed consistency of the
drive might be good enough but I just am not sure if it is wise to
resample DAT data simply because it is digital. Somewhere in that sound
essay by Philipp Potz he writes something to this effect.
Why do you need to synch to film or video?
Explained below.
Well, what are you trying to do, and what are you trying to synch to,
and what's wrong with renting? And what is your budget for microphones?
--scott
Its just a hobby of mine and I would have a hard time justifying
spending much money on all this. I'm a musician and my wife is a
musician too. I also am interested in film making as a hobby. I have
made two super 8 films so far - don't laugh - I'm a real super 8
advocate. Yes, if I one day am able to raise my budget I will go to 16mm
but for now its 8 mm. Anyways, just to expand my creative tool kit I
thought it would be helpful to be able to do sync sound with super 8.
I've read all the info about lip-sync sound technology and believe me
there is more to it than I can even touch upon in this post.
Here is some basic info if anyone is interested:
http://members.aol.com/fmgp/faq.htm
Your idea to rent is a good one - I'll check out the cost. But of
course, ideally it is more convenient to have the equipment at hand - or
at least some basic audio recording tool but I see your point - good
point. Thanks.
I wanted to record a piano/flute playing session with super 8 film in
sync with the sound. Then, as an additional requirement (which I must
stress isn't as important but would be useful) I would like to be able
to edit parts of it and transfer it to video. Because the video is not
as important to me as the film, I don't mind if the sound on the video
is not as "first generation" as the original because I am aware I will
have to stretch the sound track by 0.1% to compensate for the fact that
a telecine transfer fps rate is 23.976 rather than the 24fps that I will
be shooting the film at. I have two options: to crystal-sync the camera
motor (no wires between camera and audio recorder necessary) or to use
the 60Hz pilotone technology with the wire connection between the camera
and the audio recorder. I'd rather crystal-sinc the camera to avoid the
wire connection. Then I just need to find a consistent audio recorder.
-- Mike