Please convince me if to sell it

[Brooks Harrington]

Yes Wayne, right on.... I do 16bit because most editors I know are using FCP and in such a hurry (won't take the time to replace with double system audio) and besides that, they wouldn't know what to do with 24bit. Even with those HDV cams shooting MPeg audio they still don't replace with the backup! Disgusting.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

And to the Dan who says double record is a PITA, I'm guessing you don't have a dedicated sound person.

Hi Ty:

Correct, I have three so that when my favored one is busy, I have two backups. Lately, I shoot about 60% of the time with a sound mixer and about 40% of the time without one. Out of the 60% with a sound mixer, about half of that is with double system. I actually very much like always shooting with a sound mixer, and I like shooting with double system, it frees me up from wearing headphones, worrying about lav placement and levels, etc.

I meant from a post production standpoint, double system sound is a lot more work, which equals more money. As Wayne stated, much of the time his Deva audio goodness is wasted by producers and editors who cannot be bothered to conform it, when the camera audio may have been "good enough". Budgets are lower, schedules are tighter. Sure, shooting a project with a decent budget and production schedule, double system sound is the way to go but it seems like more and more projects are needed for less money and are needed faster. Even if the sound mixer is providing double system for no additional charge, it still takes a lot more labor in post to manage it, conform it, etc.

I am in the middle of shooting a doc on a very famous persons life and career, it's very intimate and we shoot with a crew of a producer and myself, that's it. This person is a well known musical star and knows the importance of sound, is even known for the sound quality of his recordings and his prowess in the studio, but at his request, the producer hired me because said musician likes me and trusts me. We have no sound mixer on this project and not because of lack of budget, its simply because we need to be as small, light, portable and unobtrusive as possible and a one man crew is that.

I have told him that the end result would be better if we had a sound mixer but he and the producer like just having me do it all. This project will definitely be televised and there is a good chance it will have at least a small theatrical run. No sound mixer. No double system sound. Luckily I am sound competent, but as you know, it would sound better with a sound mixer on the crew. That's just the realities of production today sometimes. Same with the new Morgan Spurlock film "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden". Shoots all over the world, no sound mixer on most of them. Kind of sad but this seems to be happening a lot, especially with docs.

Dan

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Roshdi,

I vote for you keeping the 702t.

There are many advantages of using 24 bit audio.

With 24 bit audio, you can lower the gain, before recording a sound clip, when you are expecting some very loud levels. Or when you just do not know how loud you sound source will be.

With 16 bit, setting the proper level is much more critical. Of course, some great limiters help in this regard.

But, with 24 bit audio, you can record lower than normal, allowing ample room for the very loud peaks, and then normalize in post and still get great sound.

We are currently filming a Civil War feature with gunfire. I had no qualms about lowering the levels to ensure that I captured the very loud sounds properly as well as getting the lower level sounds. If I was using 16 bit audio, I would have had to be much more careful in adjusting the gain.

If you use a slate, it is relatively easy to match up the sound with the video.

As said previously, the preamps and limiters will, in most all cases, be better than those in you camera (and your camera may not even have limiters).

I am sorry to hear about your engine.

I understand that you may need to sell the 702t for financial reasons, but putting these aside, I would keep the 702t for the sake of good audio.

[Roshdi Alkadri]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Roshdi,

I vote for you keeping the 702t.

There are many advantages of using 24 bit audio.

With 24 bit audio, you can lower the gain, before recording a sound clip, when you are expecting some very loud levels. Or when you just do not know how loud you sound source will be.

With 16 bit, setting the proper level is much more critical. Of course, some great limiters help in this regard.

But, with 24 bit audio, you can record lower than normal, allowing ample room for the very loud peaks, and then normalize post and still get great sound.

We are currently filming a Civil War feature with gunfire. I had no qualms about lowering the levels to ensure that I captured the very loud sounds properly as well as getting the lower level sounds. If I was using 16 bit audio, I would have had to be much more careful in adjusting the gain.

If you use a slate, it is relatively easy to match up the sound with the video.

As said previously, the preamps and limiters will, in most all cases, be better than those in you camera (and your camera may not even have limiters).

I am sorry to hear about your engine.

I understand that you may need to sell the 702t for financial reasons, but putting these aside, I would keep the 702t for the sake of good audio.

thank you sir for the wise words. Like you said, at times i set the recorder to lower levels and is still able to capture over the top sounds with subtle low sounds with no noise. I think besides the time it takes to sync up double system, its worth the extra effort. Too many filmmakers out there let picture take lead and they ignore audio. Pretty sad really as we all know how important the soundtrack is.

I almost sold it, but thanks to all of you, you gave me that "extra" encouragment not too. I actually feel pretty good, even though im down $4200, oh well, moving on.

thanks to all again