A preamp and my zoom?

swaneon

swaneon

Well-known member
Currently I have a GH2 and a Zoom H4n.
Recently they've been doing well but from the get go I knew I needed a microphone to get better range and such. Now to disable gain I also need a preamp correct?

Since I ordered a blackmagic cinema I was thinking I could go with the zoom h4n + gh2 and the blackmagic + preamp and a mic (ntg2 or such) for a wedding use
would this be optima with the equipment I have or should i put the zoom, preamp and mic on the same camera?
thanks!

PS:
I was looking at the riggy but if there is a cheaper preamp then I think i could swing by with a zoom h1 or a cheap tascam on the gh2 and the Preamp, mic and h4n on the BMC?

Much thanks!
 
What yuu mean by "need a microphone to get better range?" Nor do I understand what you mean by "need a preamp to disable gain." Personally I wouldn't use a dedicated preamp at all, opting instead for a mixer such as the SD MixPre or SD 302. A quality mixer would incorporate good preamps as part of the package and give you better control and flexibility.

Be advised no mic/preamp combination with the mic mounted on the camera is going to give you top quality recording of dialog such as dramatic scenes, interviews, or wedding vows. Mics must be positioned much closer to the person speaking than you would normally want to place a camera photographing that person. Contrary to popular belief, shotgun microphones like the NTG-2 you mention do not pull in or magnify distant sounds.
 
i meant the difference between polar patterns

but I plan on using the zoom right next to the altar then for wedding vows--i'll look into your suggestions, thanks!
 
Last edited:
The best solution I've found for weddings is to use a clip on wireless lav on the groom. Sometimes the officiant can also get one.
 
Mixer + H4n is better, and has more versatility.

Polar patterns are defined by the mic you choose, not the pre-amp.

And range is essentially the same no matter what mic you get. The difference is in the side cancellation that creates the rejection pattern on shotgun mics. As said before, the closer you are to the sound source......generally the better the sound.
 
swaneon said:
i meant the difference between polar patterns
Click to expand...
The different polar patterns of various mics are indications of their side and rear rejection of interfering sounds and have nothing to do with their sensitivity to the desired sound or their ability to pickup distant sounds.
 
If a microphone is too far away, it will not generate an adequate output signal, and extra gain in the microphone preamps will be required. Preamps, especially simple ones, introduce noise when cranked up. This generates a small niche market for products that have better audio performance, so if you MUST record from a distance, then gain will be needed and a quality preamp becomes very important. All that said - it's kind of like using technology to 'repair' a fault - in this case simply being too far away. It's common on forums to have people pop up and slate some of the very popular portable recorders with built in mics because of poor pre-amps. I really feel this is very unfair, because in most cases, the real issue is poor placement. In virtually every case, moving closer removes, or at least minimises the noise problem. It's the inverse square law in it's most exposed example. Halving the distance to the source doesn't double it, it quadruples it! The gain can be backed off and the noise vanishes!

A shotgun at a distance with the camera zoomed in never sounds like a mic clipped to the subject.
 
paulears said:
If a microphone is too far away, it will not generate an adequate output signal, and extra gain in the microphone preamps will be required. Preamps, especially simple ones, introduce noise when cranked up. This generates a small niche market for products that have better audio performance, so if you MUST record from a distance, then gain will be needed and a quality preamp becomes very important. All that said - it's kind of like using technology to 'repair' a fault - in this case simply being too far away. It's common on forums to have people pop up and slate some of the very popular portable recorders with built in mics because of poor pre-amps. I really feel this is very unfair, because in most cases, the real issue is poor placement. In virtually every case, moving closer removes, or at least minimises the noise problem. It's the inverse square law in it's most exposed example. Halving the distance to the source doesn't double it, it quadruples it! The gain can be backed off and the noise vanishes!

A shotgun at a distance with the camera zoomed in never sounds like a mic clipped to the subject.
Click to expand...
Would that it were just a simple matter of supplying makeup gain with distant mic placements. But it's not just level - the timbre of the sound recorded changes with distance as well and farther mic placements allow more and more of the room to intrude on the desired sound. Not only does the level of the sound drop with distance but so also does the overall quality of the recording, even when you raise the level with a low-noise preamp.
 
The Inverse Square Law

In simple terms, this means that a sound twice as far away is only one-fourth as loud. A sound four times as far away is only one-sixteenth as loud. So a human voice that records with adequate volume three feet away is just one-sixteenth as effective at twelve feet.
 
Steve House said:
The different polar patterns of various mics are indications of their side and rear rejection of interfering sounds and have nothing to do with their sensitivity to the desired sound or their ability to pickup distant sounds.
Click to expand...
ahh much thanks for that info

well for the next shoots I think I will look into getting a decent lav but I think I will put the zoom h4n right next to the subject.

I'm looking into mixers and they don't seem very portable. And using the zoom h4n + syncing is a chore even with plural eyes---the preamp + mic bypasses this?
 
swaneon said:
I'm looking into mixers and they don't seem very portable.
Click to expand...
33193_l.jpg

That's not portable enough? That's a 2 chan field mixer and not much bigger than an H4n. You can get larger ones, and even a single chan "mixer" (not really a mixer but a gain atten and splitter)

I run a Rolls 422 mixer into my H4n, and am extremely pleased with the result, despite it being considered "low end" gear.
 
Doc Bernard said:
View attachment 59017

That's not portable enough? That's a 2 chan field mixer and not much bigger than an H4n. You can get larger ones, and even a single chan "mixer" (not really a mixer but a gain atten and splitter)

I run a Rolls 422 mixer into my H4n, and am extremely pleased with the result, despite it being considered "low end" gear.
Click to expand...

very new to this, i'll take a lot at the 2 channel ones

that and zoom should be a fairly good set up?
I'll look into some mics
thanks!

btw what is the model of that mixer?
 
Sound Device MixPre May be able to find a used one at a decent price, since the MixPre-D is out.

As long as you feed the H4n a good signal, place and choose the mic/s right, you should be able to record decent sound with the H4n and mixer combo.

That is the real drawback to the H4n. The pre's built into it are horrible. But allow the pre's in a decent field mixer (yep, there are pre's in field mixers designed to run mics) to do the work and just let the recorder just be a recorder.....you will be surprised with the results.
 
Last edited:
swaneon said:
ahh much thanks for that info

well for the next shoots I think I will look into getting a decent lav but I think I will put the zoom h4n right next to the subject.

I'm looking into mixers and they don't seem very portable. And using the zoom h4n + syncing is a chore even with plural eyes---the preamp + mic bypasses this?
Click to expand...
Mixing consoles or mixing desks as they are also called aren't usually very portable (although studio feature film work is frequently done from a sound cart and there is often room on one of those for a console-type mixer) but field mixers such as the Sound Devices 302 are battery operated, compact in size, and purpose-built to be portable for location work. For more information see these links and there are other manufacturers that offer similar products. http://www.sounddevices.com/products/mixpred/, http://www.sounddevices.com/products/302/, http://www.sounddevices.com/products/552/

The only way you can bypass syncing in post is to shoot 'single-system' recording directly into the camera and if the camera has lousy audio circuits an external preamp won't bypass them. Any time you shoot double system, using an external recorder for the audio, you're going to have to sync, regardless of what else you have in the audio chain. An external preamp does allow you to send a line level signal to the camera instead of mic level but it's the rare pro-sumer camera where inputting a line level signal actually bypasses the mic preamps - what usually happens is the camera pads the line level input down to mic level and sends the signal through the mic preamps anyway. And I'm not aware of any DSLR that even offers the option of a line level input. The upshot is if the camera preamps aren't any good, they're going to erode the audio quality regardless of whether the camera is fed mic level plugging the mic in directly or line level signals from a mic+preamp combination. To get line level inputs that actually bypass the mic preamps you have to move pretty far up in the professional camera range.
 
Last edited:
A colleague had an H4, and the preamps were pretty noisy, but he upgraded to the H4N and they were a lot better. Still not good at high gain settings, but at more modest gain setting, quite usable.

Even without plural eyes - sync is rarely a big deal. I never worry about it, as with a waveform display in the editor - it's not a big deal to find the correct sync by eye, with just a few frames of tweak room.
 
Doc Bernard said:
I run a Rolls 422 mixer into my H4n, and am extremely pleased with the result, despite it being considered "low end" gear.
Click to expand...
Old topic here, but I'm curious about 1-2 things.

Since everyone here recommends the Sound Devices brand over all others, I'd like to know if there's other brand that have decent preamps?
I'm using a Tascam DR-40 now and I'm pleased with my AT875r fed with Phantom power from the Tascam. I find the preamps clean (headphones' preamp are noisy though) and a great combo for the price.
I'm checking what are the options (reasonable, as I can't offer Sound Devices) for both LIVE performances recording (using 4 input and mixing them into a stereo, recording with the Tascam) and just a mixer with a good/decent preamp when recording dialog audio from a boom.

Since there can't really be one solution for all, what suggestions for:
A) Good preamp for 1-2 channel, considering I'll be recording with a DR-40.
B) Simple mixer with 4 channel input, 2 output for LIVE audio acquisition/managing. Still recording stereo with the DR-40.

I've been looking for older and cheap SHURE models (like the FP42) and since pretty much everyone claims the preamps are noisy and not good with today's standards, my question is would it work for the LIVE aspect? Would you recommend another brand, model?

Thanks for your input!
 
A) Good preamp for 1-2 channel, considering I'll be recording with a DR-40.
- SD MixPre

B) Simple mixer with 4 channel input, 2 output for LIVE audio acquisition/managing. Still recording stereo with the DR-40.
- Mackie VLZ4 1202 (4 mic preamps, 4 stereo line), .. but has plenty of outputs and combinations for a mix-minus, ect... of course this is not designed for run-and-gun.. needs AC power and has no on-board limiters.
 
Do you need to be able to move around or is being tied down to a desk ok? As if you need to move an Mackie VLZ4 1202 is out of the question.

Sound Devices MixPre-D (or 302, or even 442) or all good choices to go with if you want a bag set up with your DR40.

However... given how expensive Sound Devices are, I think DR60D mk2 / DR70D / secondhand DR680 mk1 / Zoom F8 are the way to go instead.

DR60D mk2 / DR70D are so dirt cheap they're almost free (in the $100ish to sub $200 range), thus are an extremely budget friendly choice and have rather good pre-amps for their class (far far superior to what many DSLR/indy shooters have struggled with before in using the likes of a Zoom H4n).

The Tascam DR680 mk1 is the next step up, I've picked mine up secondhand for under US$300 together with a free satchler mixing bag!

A Zoom F8 is far more expensive, but... only at the same price as what a Sound Devices MixPre-D would cost new! And an F8 offers you way way way waaaaay more features, and the F8 has very good quality pre amps itself. The F8 offers tremendous bang for your buck.

Thus I'd go with one of these options I list above, unless you find a cracker good deal on a secondhand Sound Devices unit (unlikely as they hold their value well, but you might get lucky).
 
As others have mentioned the field changes a LOT if you can use AC power. There are quite a few inexpensive mixers available (that need AC power).
The other question is limiters, do you need / want them? I would argue that if you are doing anything that may have surprise loud bits you do.

Music, especially if you can set levels at rehearsal, usually doesn't have too many surprise level pops, but film dialog often does.

For two tracks battery powered I would go with the MixPre. You should be able to find one used for in the $300 range. They are some of the best preamps out there and it has fantastic limiters.

The Mackie has clean quiet preamps and if you or a friend is handy with a soldering iron you can adapt it to run off a battery pack (do a google search).

I was looking recently for a recorder with more tracks and TC (silly client request - since it's just TOD...) the two affordable choices were the Tascam DR-701D and the Zoom FR8 (~$150/ track & $125/ track).

The 701D I think is ruled out because it looks like it has to be jammed to set the TC format though I'm still looking for a definitive answer. The F8 has more of what I personally want in a recorder and at about $1,000 is not a lot over what I paid for a two channel DAT (with 1/8" connections) in 1990 and about what I paid for my flash recorded a bunch of years later. So though not "cheap" it is a bargain for serious sound work.

Neither of those recorders though have analog limiters, so they are of no use for what I want them for which is to prevent clipping with a sudden loud sound. The F8 seems to do a better job than the 701D but...

The 701D should be a step up from the DR-40 preamps but probably not a huge step. The MixPre is definitely a step up. Both are a big step up from the Rolls. My only experience with a Rolls mixer was not a good one. I hadn't heard that much self noise in.... many years. I have made mixers from scratch that had a better noise floor.

Some of the "industry standard" Shure portable mixers also have a heafty dose of self noise. They were used with 1/4" tape so probably it got lost in the tape hiss and wasn't an issue but paired with a digital recorder it's a loser.

The exception is the Shure FP24 which is a rebranded MixPre and is excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top