Poor man's Nagra

[Actor]

The Uher Report Monitor would seem to be a poor man's Nagra. It's a reel-to-reel tape recorder/player which "accepts a resolver and a crystal unit to shoot sync!" Visual Products sells the Nagra for $1900 while Cameras Pro sells the Uher for $700. If I buy the Uher instead of the Nagra what do I give up to save the $1,200?

Here's another consideration. How does the Uher (or the Nagra for that matter) stack up against a mini-disk? Which produces better sound?

[Lucas Lightfeat]

You could even try this...?

http://www.mineroff.com/nature/pmd222.htm

[Guest]

I never used an Uher report for sync sound recording, but I know it is possible, the devices are designed and had been used for that.
But I own a Report 4400 Stereo IC and the sound quality is really stunning. The device is very well designed, a totally closed metal case, different to Nagra. I would prefer this highly developed analog sound to any digital equipment, for me it sounds simply better, closer to life. If you consider some basics of analog recording, you receive results that are technically very close to digital, too. The monitor seria of Uher is even better, as you can control the result of your recording during recording, using the monitor heads behind the recording heads. Analoge recording equipment is less critical concerning distortions, that may arise when recording gain is too high. While a digital recording will become totally trash when overgained, an analog recording only will sound a little bit more "rough" at the loud spots of the recording.
Pedro

[S8 Booster]

Here's another consideration. How does the Uher (or the Nagra for that matter) stack up against a mini-disk? Which produces better sound?

If your main target is SOUND QUALITY the analog recorders like the Uher & Nagra will beat any digital medium. Coupled with decent mikes the sound is much "richer" than the DIGImates.

However, MiniDisks as media is very convinient especially for playback/transfer to a computer as tracks are instantly accessible and in some cases very fast data/file transfers can be made.

Second, the media on which your final film will end up on may be a factor. On a mighty sound system the audible difference is surely noticable but not too big. If you show your film on a TV the difference is not so important.

My ratings: 1 to 10 where 10 is highest/best

Sound Quality: (with a decent mike)..Uher/Nagra - MD:...10:8
Overall Convenience.........................Uher/Nagra - MD:.....3:8
Recording Convenience: (operation)..Uher/Nagra - MD:...10:7
Recording Convenience: (portability).Uher/Nagra - MD:.....2:10
Playback/transfer Convenience.........Uher/Nagra - MD:.....5:9

* To retain the U/N excellent sound quality by transfer to a computer a HQ A/D converter is needed. Not many computers has this as a standard.
* Can you get the reel tapes anymore?

In the 1970s I did some recording work for a band on a big reel tape recorder. The tapes used were Maxell. A few years ago I transferred the recordings to a digital medium. The tapes lasted 1 run. On the next run the metall oxide totally disintegrated and the tapes were no more usable. Just for info.

My dos eurocentavos.

By the way, anybody noticed The Donald Duck -alike squeak sound from the middle of the screen on dialogs on new films? Dialog sound quality given way for SOUND EFFECTS? Don´t they care about dialog sound anymore?

R

[Lucas L.]

I roughly agree with Super8 Booster's report, but suggest that minidisc is even more user friendly than the Nagra/Uher recorders IF you use a Pro recorder, such as the Marantz PMD 650 - a beaut, perfect for film-makers.

My ratings:

Sound Quality: (with a decent mike)..Uher/Nagra - PMD 650 MD:...10:9
Overall Convenience.........................Uher/Nagra - PMD 650 MD:....5:9
Recording Convenience: (operation)..Uher/Nagra - PMD 650 MD:...8:9
Recording Convenience: (portability).Uher/Nagra - PMD 650 MD:.....8:8
Playback/transfer Convenience.........Uher/Nagra - PMD 650 MD:.....5:8

I suggest that the Uher/Nagra wins only on sound quality, and this only refers to the dynamism of the sound, only really noticeable at high volume. The minidisc may appear to give better sound on a television set, as it will contain far less hiss, wow and flutter.

Lucas Lightfeat

[S8 Booster]

Yeah, my consumptions :mrgreen:! were based on Mini MDs like Sharps or Sonys.

R

[S8 Booster]

There are quite some Uhers and Nagras available on eBay

Nagra: (Seach Nagra or click on the link)

[url=htt://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?GetResult&query=uher&from=R8&ht=1&st=2&category0=293&Top10=&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&catref=C1]Uher[/url]: (Seach Uher or click on the link)

R

[Angus]

A lot of 1970's magnetic recording tape was made with a backing material that deteriorates over 10-20 years.

Historically, the tapes of the 60's were often made using a backing material derived from whale blubber. This became politically unacceptable in the 70's ("Save the whale") so new polymers were investigated...unfortunately some of them have poor longevity.

A lot of professional recording studios and TV stations lost valuable master tapes to this. The problems weren't totally sorted out until the early 80's.

Hence S8 Booster's problems with his reels. If you have tapes earlier than this, or are lucky to have BASF tape which never exhibited this problem, old reel to reel tapes still beat CDs hands down but I would think MD is a good medium for capturing sounds for S8 films - especially if you intend to copy to mag stripe after.

I've got BASF open reel video tapes from the 70's that play almost like new....and 3M ones which exhibit the above problem and squeal their way through with barely a recognisable frame here and there...

So we should all use film instead of video!

[Lucas Lightfeat]

In my experience, minidiscs are extremely durable, and I believe that they should outlast CDs. They never exhibit data errors, in my experience, and the cases are robust and strong, up to a point, but if something were to happen, I believe a valuable disc could be removed and replaced in a different casing. I think they are in many ways more practical than DAT tapes, which can go faulty quite easily, are expensive, and are after all, tape, which can warp and stretch. Dats hold more DATA, of course, so for a cinematic feature release, I would always go with DAT (or Nagra, Revox or Ampex analogue formats) but for us small format guys and TV babies, MD is the way to go, I believe.

Lucas

[ericMartinJarvies]

mini disk is capable of 48khz recording? also, what about going to dvd with final productr being viewed on new hd tv set with a home surround sound system ... is minidisk still the answer ... or should one originate with tape?

[Lunar07]

mini disk is capable of 48khz recording? also, what about going to dvd with final productr being viewed on new hd tv set with a home surround sound system ... is minidisk still the answer ... or should one originate with tape?

although I have never used Minidisk, I can try to answer your question. Sorround Sound is a different issue. Regardless of what you start with. You have to see the big picture. You can encode surround sound using one track if you want to. What I mean is that if you opt for surround sound as an end result then you have to start thinking from the start how to achieve that. In other words: this is an audio design issue regardless of how you manage to gather and record your audio. Then you can go on to different routes: do you want 5.1 surround, 4.1 or a Virtual Surround Stereo?
If I am not clear here, then please do loet me know.

[ericMartinJarvies]

hello,

i am not familier with the dolby/thx encoding process, or any variation thereof.