Well, DAT machines are getting harder to find. At the prosumer level, pretty much the only choice is the Sony TCD-D8, or the step up from that is the Sony PCM-M1. For quite a bit more money, you can get the professional Tascam DA-P1, or for a LOT more money you could get into the HHB or Fostex models.

Although, for your purposes, DAT may not be the best way to go. Perhaps you should consider looking into a MiniDisc recorder. The recording quality isn't quite as good as a DAT machine, but it is VERY close.

There are plenty of portable MiniDisc recorders from which to choose. The Sony MZN-707 is a perfectly good choice and can be had for probably 1/3 the price of the lowest priced portable DAT machine, plus the MiniDisc media is going to be a lot less expensive and can be purchased almost anywhere. If you want some more professional features, like balanced microphone inputs and S/PDIF digital I/O, then HHB has their MDP500 and Marantz has the PMD650. There are others, too.

John

The audio recorded on your MiniDV camera is 48kHz, 16 bit. Maybe you could invest in a good stereo mic (battery operated condenser) and place it away from the camera to minimize the noise. Not only will you get great audio, but you'll get nice video to go with it.

Michael

I would second the notion of using a cheap camcorder. It records 16 bit 48KHz audio, the tapes are $5 for up to 90 minutes, and it comes with timecode! You could use either miniDV or even Digital 8. The biggest drawback is that you'll be stuck with Automatic Gain Control, but then for a non-professional that might even be considered an advantage.

>For quite a bit more money, you can get the professional Tascam DA-P1, or for a LOT >more money you could get into the HHB or Fostex models.

Not anymore, HHB stopped making field DATs two years ago. Also, the company that makes the transports for Tascam's DA-P1 (Alps), has stopped production on those transports - so the DA-P1 may not be around much longer. :-( Pity, the DA-P1 (IMO) is the best (non-timecode) portable DAT in production.

Good luck,

S

Interesting, I was unaware that HHB stopped production. I have a DA-P1 and I use it all the time for field production work. I agree with you, I love the little thing. It has absolutely superb mic preamps.

John

Yeah, the writing is on the wall. DAT is not going to be "the audio format" of choice going into the future - although I think it will be some time before HD recorders will be inexpensive enough to really catch on in the small/independent EFP world. Oh well, I'm going to hang onto my DA-P1 until my EcoCharge system wears out, and I can't find anyone to service my DAT anymore. :-)

S

PS Check out this discussion on ideabuzz.com...

http://www.ideabuzz.com/cas/webboard/index.php3?topic_id=4542

I purchased one of the first generation of Sony Camcorders to feature digital stereo sound. I guess you'd call it a prosumer piece. Anyhow, because digital sound was such a "featured" feature on this cam, it came with manual gain control, accepts full size RCA mic inputs, and, since it's video quality hardly keeps pace anymore, I still use it today mainly as a good quality, "DAT" portable audio recorder.

It's plenty good enough for 90% of the paying customers I serve (most of their stuff is used for audition purposes), and, aside from the auto-gain control, the new Digi8's do an even better job than my once "mega-Caddy" machine. I would heartily second the motion to purchase a camcorder with good sound specs instead of an audio only DAT.

Assuming you start with a decent source, products like Vegas will give you a huge advantage in turning so, so footage into really good sounding final productions.

Good luck, and have fun.

Caruso

Oh, and I forgot to mention that you shouldn't worry about recording audio separate from Video, Vegas is great at allowing you to dispose of the Video.

Caruso

A note about using the camcorders for audio recorders. Just because it samples at 48K and 16 bit does not make it the "SAME" as say a DAT recorder. There are other parameters affecting the sound quality as for as the frequency range, distortion, S/N ratio and such. Interesting article infact in this months Digital Video magazine with an article exactly on this and they tested the cameras against the MD and DAT machines.

Gary Ashorn, PE

GWA,

and what are the conclusions ? What cameres were analized ? What audio is better :camcorder or minidisc or DAT ?

Is there any minidisc that has DIGITAL AUDIO OUT ? Most of them have digital line in, but if I want to transfer the sound from the minidisc to de PC in order to assemble in Vegas Video....

Thanks !

I don't have the article in front of me. They used a GL2, XL-1, DSR570, PD150 for the cameras. MD Sony MZR37 and DAT TASCAM DA-P1. I "THINK" I remember these right. XL-1 is older technologie and the GL2 newer. So its audio had some traits better. The PD150 was not as good as they hoped and the DSR570 was the better of these cameras. The DAT was much better and the MD better than the cameras BUT...and I say BUT...you are not comparing apples to apples. The MD uses a different compression routine than the others. But the killer in all the cameras was the not so good frequency range. You don't use cameras for music. The DAT was much better it is made for capturing audio of greater frequency ranges. You have to match the tool to the job. Too much to discuss here. But the bottomline is cameras are not meant to be audio capturing for things that a DAT or music recorder is meant for. The different cameras for example had different levels of various specs that showed the sampling rates and other things that affect the specs PLUS how each handles things like aliasing and such. There is more to it than just the frequency range, you have to understand a range based against levels in "db" and how the different types of "db" units are used and meant to be compared. And the list goes on. Find and read not just this article but how is sound captured and audio heard.

I have done some measurement on my Tascam DA-P1 vs. my Sony PD-150. The DA-P1 outperformed the PD150 on every test I performed. The DA-P1's mic preamps were much quieter, had far less distortion and a wider, virtually ruler-flat frequency response. The analog to digital converters on the DA-P1 were also much higher quality. In situations where audio quality is critical, the DA-P1 is still my portable field audio recorder of choice.

As far as MiniDisc is concerned, the audio data is compressed about 5:1 and it only records at 44.1k. Although, in all fairness, Sony's ATRAC compression scheme is in its third (or higher) generation and actually sounds pretty good.

John

I have to second your comments about the DA-P1. I shoot on the DSR-PD150 and the GL2 on a regular basis, and I *never* use the audio from the camera. I think the point to really drive home here is that it doesn’t matter how high your sample rate and bit depth are - if you haven't got a good mic, a quality XLR cable and a clean quiet preamp to receive the signal, you're wasting your time. A great format (16 bit 44.1Hz PCM) cannot overcome a less than optimal signal path. That's why I prefer to stay away from anything with a 1/8th inch mini jack for a mic input. :-) Although, I suppose you could run your audio into an inexpensive mixer with decent preamps, and then run *that* signal into a camcorder or minidisk recorder. But then, for the price - why not just go with a DAT? :-) Anyway, I hope I haven't confused the issue further. Just concentrate on making great content and the rest will fall into place.

Shawn

I'm afraid we've all confused the issue a bit, but, consternation makes for fun.

To further confuse, I offer the following comments/questions:

Are the DA-P1, DSR-PD150, and GL2 examples of consumer level gear? In the article sited, is the testing criteria about scientific measurement or about aural evaluation (I will look it up)?

Shawnm: If you never use the sound from the cam, what sort of field recording are you doing? Music videos, concerts? Just curious. Your comment about maintaining the integrity of the path from source to destination recorder is valid, but don't lose sight of the fact that we're trying to advise a novice looking to enter at the consumer level.

"Just concentrate on making great content and the rest will fall into place." Most excellent advice!!


My old camcorder (Sony CCDV-220) only rates a harmonic range of 20 - 15kHz. Sampling frequency is only 31.5 kHz, S/N ratio a respectable, but not spectacular 85 dB. I wouldn't expect to source albums using this machine as a starting point, but, as a field recorder, it does an excellent job, especially in situations where the intended use is to produce an "audition tape" where the intended listener will be evaluating the performance, not the technical merits of the recording, itself.

I'm wondering where the specs on a good DAT machine might fall, and I also wonder if listeners would be able to distinguish between recordings made on my old Sony and a DAT machine. Frankly, I doubt it.

I love to find some good-natured expert and put him/her to a double-blind test. Usually, the expert is surprised to learn that, while he/she may be very conversant with specifications, his/her hearing is not so critical, or that he/she actually prefers the sound produced by the less sophisticated equipment.

While this is fun to do with audio equipment, it's even more fun to do with wine (blind testing, that is). The more they try, the less critical they become, LOL.

I say, if you're a novice, it matters less which way you go equipment wise, just get something (don't spend a fortune) and start making some recordings. Let your experience guide you . . . and have fun (don't over do the wine testing!!)

Caruso

I'm no expert on audio and I'm at the Prosumer level. Haven't used a 3-chip camera yet, but have done a few weddings for money where the customers weren't looking for top of the line video, just good editing and a steady hand. Anyways, I wish I could afford all the right equipment but one thing I HAVE learned -- stepping up your audio from the built-in camera mike is a huge plus. I run a AT822 on top of my camera which gives great fidelity and great stereo separation. Most of my video is close to the subject, so it works pretty well. However, I AM intrigued by the idea of using a DAT recorder for things like weddings. Maybe that's my next investment!

The Audio Technica AT822 is a fine sounding microphone at a reasonable price. I use the balanced version, the AT825, with either a Tascam DA-P1 DAT, Sony PD-150 or DSR-250 and have come up with some great location audio. For what it's worth, the DA-P1 DAT machine always sounds noticeably better.

John

>Are the DA-P1, DSR-PD150, and GL2 examples of consumer level gear? In the article >sited, is the testing criteria about scientific measurement or about aural >evaluation (I will look it up)?

Define consumer. :-)

You'll generally find these pieces of hardware in more "pro" (for hire) applications than say...weekend (not for pay) projects. But there are a good deal of people using gear like this (DSR-PD150, GL1/2) for personal use - kid's soccer games, birthdays etc.

>In the article sited, is the testing criteria about scientific measurement or >about aural >evaluation (I will look it up)?

Scientific measurement

>Shawnm: If you never use the sound from the cam, what sort of field recording are >you doing? Music videos, concerts? Just curious.

I do some independent video/film and instructional videos, but mostly large corporate media (talking head videos and the like :-)).

> Your comment about maintaining the integrity of the path from source to >destination recorder is valid, but don't lose sight of the fact that we're trying >to advise a novice looking to enter at the consumer level.

True, but I think novices should know from the beginning how they can get better audio. I believe the original poster was in fact asking about consumer level DATs (which I don't consider the DA-P1 to be). Truthfully, I think a walkman style DAT/minidisk, a small portable mixer, and decent shotgun on a fish pole is not only affordable by most novices, but could significantly increase the quality of their audio. Thought?

Shawn

Another question (which, perhaps has already been answered):

For multi-cam shots, I never really use audio from any of my three cameras' onboard mics, but always hook decent (though not super expensive) omni-directional mics up to my old Sony. These I mount on stands well away from any of the camcorders so that I get a decent sound track without a lot of mechanical noise.

I wonder if the DAT's mentioned sound better more because their mics are external and remote as compared to onboard mics whose channel pick-ups are too close physically to provide for much separation and too subject to picking up noise from the camera, itself.

Caruso

First, let me say that I think audio is every bit, if not a bit more, important than the picture. In the course of hanging out at home, most people don't actually watch the television, they often just listen to it and look at the screen when it sounds like there may be something interesting to see. Try turning the sound off while watching a newscast, it suddenly becomes a rather grim looking art gallery. Without the images, television is radio and radio has been entertaining and informing folks for close to 100 years. Also, a lot of information is passed around via the telephone and telephones don't have pictures either.

DAT machines sound better because they were designed to do one thing and do it well: record high-quality audio. 16-bit audio recording is capable of a 96db signal-to-noise ratio, in other words, the hiss level is 96db below its maximum signal level. Also, a 48K sample rate is capable of a frequency response from around 5hz to somewhere near 24khz. The DA-P1 DAT machine has mic pre-amps and an analog-to-digital converter that can fully take advantage of the 96db dynamic range and frequency response of the medium.

In this month's DV Magazine, they tested several prosumer camcorders vs. DAT machines and MiniDisc recorders. Their tests confirmed the tests that I performed myself. My Sony PD-150 "achieves" a maximum signal-to-noise ratio of just under 70db and a low-end frequency response that starts to roll off under 400hz and is down -4db at 100hz. The high end starts to roll off at 7khz and is down -2db at 10khz and -4db at 20khz. The noise floor is about 10db worse in the manual record mode. A noise floor of -60db has clearly audible hiss. And that's if you record at the maximum possible level, if your record level is set to -10db to leave room for peaks, then the S/N is as low as -50db and that is simply inexcusable for a digital recorder. Heck, a decent analog cassette machine can easily beat this noise figure. While I am quoting specs for the Sony PD-150, other prosumer camcorders don't really do any better.

Conversely, my DA-P1 tests at just over -90db S/N and a frequency response that is flat within +/-.2db from from 20hz to 20khz.

Sadly, Sony (and others) could have put first-rate sound into their prosumer camcorders, but for some insane reason, chose not to. Audio has always been the "bastard step-child" of television and I have never understood this thinking.

John