Recording clean audio for film and video is a complex profession unto itself, and newcomers – especially those entering into the business via the popularization of hybrid DSLR/video cameras – can often find their head spinning while they research their options.

Traditional filmmaking techniques typically call for two or more crew members dedicated solely to the task of capturing sound. But in some scenarios, independent filmmakers and hobbyists must often assume the role of the jack of all trades, becoming at least somewhat knowledgeable and technically proficient in multiple areas which would normally be reserved for dedicated crew. As more hobbyists and aspiring professionals cross into ultra-light filmmaking and the DSLR arena, they may find themselves in the position of having to acquire location audio on their own — or at least provide the necessary gear.

Unfortunately the built-in audio capabilities on all current DLSR cameras are wholly inadequate for this task. You can do a few things to increase your odds, such as adding external microphones and special mixer units, both of which must still ultimately answer to the weak and noisy preamps, circuitry, and limited audio controls offered by the existing DSLR’s. In most such cases, a dual-sound setup consisting of a digital field recorder (preferably along with a good mixer) will provide the robust features and control needed to acquire the very best audio for your production.

Having owned and worked with a few different digital recorders, both in narrative film and corporate production pipelines, I wanted to give my thoughts on several specific models, and in the process provide a general framework on how to choose one for your own needs. While in this article I’m going to be comparing the Zoom H4n compact recorder with the Sound Devices 702 (since I own both and have the most experience with these), you could apply many of these principles to help you decide between just about any of the current digital recorders on the market. The Edirol, Sony, and Tascam recorders come to mind for popular alternate options.

You might say that comparing the H4n against the SD702 is like comparing apples to oranges — and you would indeed be entirely correct in this regard. These are two entirely different units residing in entirely different classes, and therefore this is not a direct comparison or competition of features. I personally use both for different reasons, depending on the task at hand. My primary concern here is giving an overview of both, and perhaps help the audio newbie decide just how powerful of a recorder he or she may need depending on the budget and requirements of their own particular project.

The Samson Zoom H4n Handy Recorder has become almost the de-facto standard for the production of many small, independent shorts. It’s small, it’s inexpensive (as of this writing, it can be purchased for just under $300 within the United States), and it’s audio capabilities are a leap ahead of similar models in this price range. That being said, there are some limitations to this sort of compact unit that you should be aware of, which may not seem apparent until you’re on set or on location — which may be too late.

So far I’ve been using the H4n primarily to record audio tracks for corporate & non-profit videography jobs, and in the outdoors for capturing nature and ambient sounds. It’s small and light enough to carry comfortably in a backpack, camera bag, or a even a cargo pocket. For most narrative work I would personally rather use my Sound Devices 702 along with the 302 mixer, mainly because the gain and fader knobs on these are much more precise and quicker than operating the buttons on the H4n. The H4n’s button-style operation can be an issue in some circumstances, primarily when using the built-in mics, since you’ll get some handling noise from touching or manipulating the unit while it’s recording. You can mitigate this somewhat by using the RC2 remote control available for the H4n. I suppose you could also attach a mixer to the H4n, although I have not used it in this manner, since I also have access to the 702+302, and it seems that this somewhat defeats the purpose of a handheld, ultra-compact recorder.

The H4n will accept external mics via it’s two XLR inputs, with or without Phantom power. The audio quality is very clean and comparable to higher-end units. For basic recording on a budget, you can’t beat the H4n. The build quality is good, and I’ve operated it in prolonged cold & damp conditions in the British Columbia and Washington backcountry without any problems, except perhaps a reduced battery life. I’m planning on using it as the primary recording device on a feature documentary project, which will involve covering long distances on foot, and carrying all of my gear with me. The H4n certainly has it’s place when you require a lightweight kit.

As a side note, be sure to update your H4n firmware. Version 1.70 (released November 2010) introduced the ability to individually adjust the levels of each XLR input.

Zoom H4n Pros:

• Compact, light. Fits nicely in the hand, or in a large utility pocket.
• Quality preamps and circuitry, much cleaner than the previous H2 model and the inputs on HDSLR cameras. Quite useable for independent productions, after accounting for it’s limitations (see cons below).
• Extremely affordable at around $300 US (as of this writing), or occasionally on eBay for even less.
• Gives you the ability to record ambient sound using the included stereo mics (may be a con, see below), or use external microphones from two XLR inputs (Phantom-power capable), or record from each at the same time.
• Stamina mode lets you conserve battery while recording continuously (at a reduced 16-bit / 44.1kHz). While not the 11 hours advertised, I was able to get roughly ~6 hours of recording time out of 2 Duracell Alkaline batteries before having to switch them out. This was outdoors on cold nights, with temperatures around freezing.
• Available wired remote control (RC4), a must for using the built-in stereo mics (see cons)
• Basic optional limiters, low-pass filters, 4-second pre-record buffer, etc.
• 1/4-20 thread hole in the back for mounting on a tripod plate, ball head, shock mount, light stand, avenger clamp, etc.

Zoom H4n Cons:

• Button-style level adjustment only – no traditional faders. Without knobs, on-the-fly adjustments of recording levels is rather slow and imprecise. Without an external mixer, this could be an issue in a demanding and fast-moving production environment.
• While using the built-in stereo mics, any handling, movement, or making adjustments to any controls will cause an unacceptable amount of noise on your recording. Adjusting levels without using the available remote-control will result in audible “popping” sounds with each press of the button. These mics are sensitive — sweeping the unit through the air, even slowly, causes wind noise. Of course, none of this applies when using only external or wireless mics.
• Limited carrying options — no included belt clip, or obvious way to attach to a mixer bag without jury-rigging something custom, or looking at third-party solutions.
• No timecode sync capability.
• Inability to individually enable or disable Phantom power for each input. It’s either on, or it’s off.
• XLR inputs are mic-level only, inability to switch to line-level.

The Sound Devices 702 (and it’s siblings, the 702T, 722, 744T, and 788T) is an extremely robust, professional field recorder often found in everything from film schools (students of Vancouver Film School have access to several of these) to major television and feature film productions. Many professional recordists swear by Sound Devices, which is a US company dedicated purely to manufacturing quality recording gear. They don’t make TV’s, DVD players and toasters — just mixers, recorders, and preamps — and they do it well.

The 702 model will set you back about $1,900 (as of this writing) from the major online retailers. Is it worth it? In short — Yes, if you can afford it, have regular paid work in audio acquisition, and will be making your money back by using it. If you are working in documentary, TV, or feature film, you may even want to opt for the 702T, which includes the capability to sync timecode with cinema cameras and smart slates using a jam sync cable. You’ll pay a little more for this at around $2,500. Otherwise you or your editor will just have to spend the few extra minutes to sync the audio manually in post-production. The higher models (722, 744T, etc) add more audio channels and an internal hard drive. Although not absolutely required, a mixer, such as the Sound Devices 302 (which I’ll be reviewing in a later article), combined with the 702/702T, makes for a very powerful piece of kit that will not be made obsolete anytime soon.

I’ve been using the 702 for primarily for narrative film / location audio recording, coupled with the Sound Devices 302 mixer. The captured audio quality is unparalleled. It has the features I need to quickly name, number and organize series of files based on the shot list, scene, and take numbers. No more listening to hundreds of files to find the right take.

The aluminum and stainless-steel case is tough, built for the field, and should be able to take some level of abuse without problems (although I don’t recommend abusing your expensive gear!). You can stack other heavy devices on top without worrying about something getting squashed.

The power management and battery options are exceptional. I happened to have an old, large-capacity Sony Li-on battery (model NP-F960) from an ancient Hi8mm Handycam sitting in a box, unused and uncharged for many years. When I bought my 702 a few years ago, I was pleased to find that it accepted this and other similar Sony batteries. This neglected 15-year old battery charged right up, and to this day can run my 702 for 2-3 long working days on set, without having to swap batteries or recharge (can you tell I’m happy? I’m seriously getting my money’s worth out of this battery – haha!). Pop in a 16GB or 32GB CF card, setup your scene names according to the shot list, plug in your mics (or preferably a mixer), and you’re good to go.

Sound Devices 702 Pros:

• Tough, rugged, robust — and generally packed with all of the features you could possibly ask for in a 2-channel field recorder.
• Plenty of inputs/outputs and linking options, ability to connect a PC keyboard using the CL-1 interface
• Ability to record either to Compact Flash cards or to an external hard drive connected via Firewire, giving you near-unlimited storage space.
• Front-facing controls and rectangle-box design better suited to be carried and operated inside of a mixer bag, alone or alongside a mixer, on a sound cart, or by simply clipping on a shoulder strap.
• High-visibility, colored LED level meters which are adjustable to different leveling modes (selectable peak, VU, or peak with VU ballistics).
• Audio knobs/faders which allow you to quickly adjust audio levels on the fly, or push them in to lock them into position. Faster, more precise control over levels than the push-button style controls found in the H4n and similar compact units.
• Ability to accept both plug-in DC power and a variety of common Sony Li-on camera batteries (L and M style) – potentially giving you days of continuous recording time in the field using a single large battery.
• Getting around in the menus, working with files, and naming scene/takes is fast and efficient.
• Up to 10 seconds of pre-record buffer – if you’re too slow or miss a take, you can hit record and it saves up to 10 seconds of audio prior to when you pressed the button.
• Awesome support from Sound Devices.

Sound Devices 702 Cons:

• No built-in time code for jam-syncing with cinema cameras and smart slates. For that you’ll need to jump up to the 702T, or any of the models ending in ‘T’, which designates time-code capability. As with the H4n, audio files will need to be synced manually (granted, this is not difficult once you’ve done it a few times).
• Slightly larger and heavier than the H4n, though not prohibitively so.
• Likely cost-prohibitive for the casual hobbyist. May not be worth it unless you’re making money at this.

The initial cost of investing in quality audio gear can be rather overwhelming. A recorder is, after all, only a small part of a complete location sound kit. The good news is, sound technology changes at a much slower pace than digital film/video cameras. A good sound kit may last you decades — while cameras are often considered obsolete within a 3-year window.

Mixers, while not necessarily required for small or casual production, are also a very important part of any true audio kit, and thus deserving of a dedicated article. I will explore mixers in greater depth in a future post.

In the end, the best result will almost always be achieved by hiring an experienced and dedicated audio professional, who will typically bring his own complete set of gear to your production. This leaves you free to do your job without worrying too much about the complexities of acquiring good audio on location or on set. After all, no single piece of gear, no matter how capable, is a magic bullet to a successful production. That lies only within the knowledge and skill of you and your team. Good gear should enable your creativity, not limit it.

If you work with audio, let me know what you use in the field or on set, and why.

• OS X Lion First Impressions
• HDSLR Wishlist for 2011
• Hike – Trailer and Reviews
• Review of the RODE Lavalier
• Choosing a Field Recorder – Zoom H4n or Sound Devices 702?
• View Complete Archives

• Audio
• Gear
• News and Annoucements
• Post-Production
• Software
• Videos

Phoric Photography Twitter Flickr Vimeo

Subscribe via RSS Browse Archives Contact