Decision on preamps, please help.

[Ty Ford]

FP24 is close, but not exactly the same. I don't remember the finer points; something about output circuitry and something else.

But used great stuff in good condition is a better investment than new so-so stuff.

You don't see much Sound Devices in the used market because they are being used!

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Allan Black]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Lindqvist

One thing bothers me. Juicelink appears only to deliver their product just inside US. I'm living in Sweden... So I wonder if it's even possible for me to buy one.

Ronnie

Ronnie, FWIW seems Juicelink might sell outside the US, I got right through his ordering system for a model to ship to Oz. Didn't go ahead though, but try it if you're interested.
Cheers.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Peter Rhalter

Why not look for a near-new MixPre or Shure FP24 (the same thing with a different badge) on eBay? They turn up around $500 (especially the Shure) and you get two channels of beautiful sounding Sound Devices preamps. This is the best sonic bang-for-the-buck I can think of. If you have to have 3 channels for that price than there's a definite trade-off in quality.

Best,
Peter Rhalter
www.parkfilms.com

Just so you know the developer of the Juicedlink box just posted a comparison between his box and the MixPre.

http://www.juicedlink.com/index_file...comparison.htm

He actually compares 2 Beachtek units, a MixPre to his Juicedlink.

[Peter Rhalter]

Originally Posted by Michael Liebergot

Just so you know the developer of the Juicedlink box just posted a comparison between his box and the MixPre...He actually compares 2 Beachtek units, a MixPre to his Juicedlink.

An interesting test, thanks Michael. To my tin, or maybe brass, ears the great thing about the SD preamps is how they sound, as well as their good noise performance. The JuicedLink appears to be a quiet, under-camera box; different horses for different courses. Hopefully each of us will find the box that best suits their budget and application.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

[Peter Rhalter]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

FP24 is close, but not exactly the same. I don't remember the finer points; something about output circuitry and something else.

But used great stuff in good condition is a better investment than new so-so stuff.

You don't see much Sound Devices in the used market because they are being used!

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty,

The original MixPre's and FP24s were identical. In 2002 Sound Devices changed the output driver of the MixPre to an active-balanced topology from impedance-balanced to make it more compatible with some Sony (and maybe other) camcorders. According to the old Sound Devices press release there is a 6db signal loss when the output is unbalanced. This dos not occur with the original MixPre. The color of some of the LEDs was also changed at the time. At least initially Shure stuck with the original configuration, but I don't know if that was true later on. I also think the FP24 has been discontinued recently.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Peter Rhalter

An interesting test, thanks Michael. To my tin, or maybe brass, ears the great thing about the SD preamps is how they sound, as well as their good noise performance. The JuicedLink appears to be a quiet, under-camera box; different horses for different courses. Hopefully each of us will find the box that best suits their budget and application.

Best,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

That's exactly what the boxes were designed for. Camera use.
For pure audio use, I would stick with a quality field mixer or quality field recorder.

But for those who shoot by themselves with a small setup, and are looking to use a small form factor on camera setup, the unit looks promising. Although I'm not sure that I would have use of the 4 channel box, as it's really designed for camera use. I wish that he offered some one the features of the 4 channel box in a 2 channel one, like the low cut filer and led readout. Then this might be a very very good XLR box for on camera use.
I just received my CX211 to test out against my Beachtek DXA-FX box on my FX1, and from what I have heard so far, it's no comparison, as the Juicedlink CX211 box is much much quieter than the DXA-FX.

I haven't posted anything yet, because I haven't recorder anything yet, but only had time to do a quick monitoring test with Sennhesier cans, a Rode NTG2 and Samson Micro 32 wireless setup on my FX1.

Hopefully in a couple of weeks I can get a recorded test up for everyone to see, or rather hear.

But the boxes audio is also quieter than the built in XLR on the Z1. Not that it's surprising as Sony's known for having noisy built in pre amps.

[Brian Jacobsen]

Not trying to hijack the thread, as it is has been pretty helpful. I am curious to know from the "experts" about another question related to this line of questions.

Using the same budget contraints of $500.00 or so, where should I look to upgrade for "better" sound? Mixer or recorder, better mics???

I am using a Sony Z1u with a Sennheiser shotgun XLR mic attached. I shoot school plays, choir productions and stage plays for my kids. These are all done for fun, not prefessionally. I do give the videos out to some of the parents of kids and like to give a good product, so to speak. I am in no way going to make this a career, and video about 1 time a month (this is for fun!).

My question is: will it be an upgrade (in sound quality) to get a 200-300 dollar portable mixer or is it better to get some type of recorder - Zoom, marantz, edirol, etc tied to some good mics?

Thanks for any help.

[Peter Rhalter]

Michael,

I'm curious, can you bypass the preamps on the Z1 with a line in? Some Sony's I've used seem to pick up the internal's preamp noise even though the camera is fed a line input — kind of defeats the purpose of using an external preamp. If it's really possible to quiet down the noise level with the JuicedLink that would be a major improvement.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Peter Rhalter

Michael,

I'm curious, can you bypass the preamps on the Z1 with a line in? Some Sony's I've used seem to pick up the internal's preamp noise even though the camera is fed a line input — kind of defeats the purpose of using an external preamp. If it's really possible to quiet down the noise level with the JuicedLink that would be a major improvement.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

That would be along teh same lines as teh BBC mod on the old PD170's. So it could be possible, but I don't know of anyone who is doing it.

The thing with the Z1 or FX1 and way is that you aren't getting the best audio as it's compressed HDV audio. Personally speaking, I try to get teh audio (mics) off of my camera whenever possible. I tend to use external recorders more often for my critical audio than the cameras.

The only time I generally use camera audio is for backup/sync purposes, or for main audio of things such as capturing just speech (interviews) (via wireless) like during wedding vows.

I have a Edirol R-44 on pre order (just sold my R4 to replace it with), and plan to feed 2-3 wireless feeds (can't run cables for these events) into it for wedding ceremonies (groom, officiant, musicians) and place it on the alter podium and use the on board mics (or additional mic) to record speeches. All of my audio will be higher quality .WAV format and in perfect sync. I also send a wireless feed from the recorder to my camera for monitoring purposes as well as backup sync audio.

I currently will use a recorder on musicians, recorder on podium, and wireless fed to my camera for vows and such.

For live events I would use the R4 and use live mics (hard wired) whenever possible and avoid wireless.

Again the only wireless I would use would be sent to my camera for backup/sync audio.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Brian Jacobsen

Not trying to hijack the thread, as it is has been pretty helpful. I am curious to know from the "experts" about another question related to this line of questions.

Using the same budget contraints of $500.00 or so, where should I look to upgrade for "better" sound? Mixer or recorder, better mics???

I am using a Sony Z1u with a Sennheiser shotgun XLR mic attached. I shoot school plays, choir productions and stage plays for my kids. These are all done for fun, not prefessionally. I do give the videos out to some of the parents of kids and like to give a good product, so to speak. I am in no way going to make this a career, and video about 1 time a month (this is for fun!).

My question is: will it be an upgrade (in sound quality) to get a 200-300 dollar portable mixer or is it better to get some type of recorder - Zoom, marantz, edirol, etc tied to some good mics?

Thanks for any help.

Brian see the following reply that I just wrote to Peter, as it might be of some help.

[Brian Jacobsen]

Micheal,

That helps alot. It seems the best investment for me would be to get a DAT and then feed some good mics into it for better sound. This would seem to take the sound off the camera.

In looking at some of the different recorders, is there a big difference (feature-wise or quality-wise) from the $200-400 models (Zoom H4, Edirol r-09, Marantz PMD-660 or something else not mentioned)?

Also, if I go that route, what would a protable field mixer add to the overall sound quality. Again, assuming that I am a "one man band" and wouldn't really have time to be adjusting the levels while I am shooting. Would any money be better off spent on microphones that would be able to go into the DAT?

Thanks Brian

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Brian Jacobsen

Micheal,

That helps alot. It seems the best investment for me would be to get a DAT and then feed some good mics into it for better sound. This would seem to take the sound off the camera.

In looking at some of the different recorders, is there a big difference (feature-wise or quality-wise) from the $200-400 models (Zoom H4, Edirol r-09, Marantz PMD-660 or something else not mentioned)?

Also, if I go that route, what would a protable field mixer add to the overall sound quality. Again, assuming that I am a "one man band" and wouldn't really have time to be adjusting the levels while I am shooting. Would any money be better off spent on microphones that would be able to go into the DAT?

Thanks Brian

Brian, that is really 2 hard question to answer, because having the right tools is extremely important. That means having the right mics and way to capture the audio.
For a one man band, I would say going with a good field recorder will be of greater and easier use to you than using a mixer and recorders or cameras. This is coming from a one man bad person, whi has used both mixers and now field recorders.

First off, don't use your Sennheiser shotgun mic (it's too hot and you won't get the noise rejection that you need).
I would recommend a cardiod or even better hyper cardioid style mic. A good affordable set of hyper cards that I use are a matched pair of Rode NT5's (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...id_Studio.html)
or Studio Projects C4's (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Condenser.html)

Both of these mics will require 48v phantom power so that will eliminate alot of small recorders save a few.

For a good combination hyper mic that's both battery and phantom powered, I like the Rode M3 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...crophone.html). It is a large mic but is very good for loud environments.

As for recorders...I love the Edirol products. The small R09 is great but will not give yo multi track recording. For multi track I highly recommend the Edirol R4/R4Pro or even better deal the new R-44 (recorders to SD card and is a smaller form factor). The units have very good pre amps and limiters on them and will help you get a very quiet feed while preventing audio clipping if your audio peaks too high.

The Zoom H4 isn't a bad inexpensive choice, as you get dual XLR 1/4 inputs with phantom power, as well as decent built in mics. The battery run times on them (especially with 48v phantom) is not great, but it's a decent little unit. And you could mount it on a mic stand along with one or two additional mics feeding into it if you like.

I used to own the H4 as well as M-Audio Microtrack and currrently own a Edirol R09, Marantz PMD620, soon to be added Edirol-44, and Zoom H2.
I prefer 4 track recording which is why I got rid of my H4. Besides being a better all around unit the R4 gave me the ability to take feeds from boards and still have the ability to use live mics, or even use 2-4 live mics individually.

Small nits like the Edirol R09, Marantz PMD620, and even the Zoom H2 (but I would only use it for it's built in mics) are useful, as you can simply use these recorders to get line feeds or even place them randomly on mic stands and use the built in mics of external mics to record your audio.

I haven't used the Marantz PMD660, but have heard good thing on it.
A good pace to do some research on recorders is the Tapers Forum (http://www.taperssection.com/)

There in the "Recording Gear" section, yo will find all kinds of information and testing on current recorders. And ll of these guys do recording in the field, mainly stealth recording (recording live shows).

[Peter Rhalter]

Brian,

Two other relatively new recorders to consider are the Sony PCM-D50 and the Olympus LS-10. There is also a new Tascam, the DR-1, about to be released for $299 (see http://www.bradlinder.net/2008/01/ta...le-audio.html). From all reports the Olympus and Sony both have reasonable quality mics and preamps built in and I suspect they (or the others mentioned) would work well for enhancing your recordings of high school drama. The Sony has also a very useful limiter which might be handy in situations with a wide dynamic range.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

[Peter Rhalter]

Well, since I brought up the Tascam DR-1, here is a user report I just came across (from http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php...#entry131974):

"For the Pro Field recordist , who doesnt need overdubs or metronome , or secondary inputs , ........... Get the Sony PCM - D50 , do not buy the Tascam , you will have buyers remorse .

For the Gadjeteer , who like to experiment with stuff , ......... definately This will be a Fun toy indeed

For the Minimalist ( Acoustic Guitarist , Chapman STick , any Solo player who doesnt want or need a Big Multi Track setup )

A small 2 mic channel mixer and this DR-1 is all you will need ........... The Line in is pretty , very pretty .

For the MD people , If you are looking to replace the MD ,........ this , isnt it . at least not yet , the sound quality of the MD Preamps are nice , and apparently will not be equaled for awhile in this price range . Sony did it first , and it seems like they are the only ones who understand it , while the software they used for an interface between the MD and the PC might be buggy , the system and sound of the MD is as of yet , unparalleled in this market range . the MZ-RH1 and the R50 will remain at the top of the pile for a while longer .


I heard mention on another board of "How would this compare to the Marantz PMd 620 ", it doesnt , completely different machine . wholly different thought process behind it and this .

I can take my Acoustic and plug directly into the DR1 , and get a WAY TO CLEAN sound , I can also use my acoustic preamp , and tone it down a bit ......... The DR1 is made for a Musician

That final statement says a lot , The DR1 ........ IS made for a Musician , NOT a Recordist ."

Hope that helps.

Best wishes,
Peter
www.parkfilms.com

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Brian Jacobsen

Micheal,

That helps alot. It seems the best investment for me would be to get a DAT and then feed some good mics into it for better sound. Would any money be better off spent on microphones that would be able to go into the DAT?

Thanks Brian

Hello Brian,

DAT is history. Don't go there. Run from anyone who wants to sell you one.

Regards,

Ty Ford