Juicedlink DT454 vs Sound Devices MixPre-D

Y

yoclay

Veteran
Hello,
Doing a lot work with DSLR's (the 5DMII and GH2) and occasionally not working with a sound guy.

Looking to upgrade some equipment and have already moved on from my Rode microphone to a Sennheiser MKH-60 (though I always keep an extra Oktava hypercardoid for indoors).

The thing to know today is that the 5D no longer needs an AGC disable tone, as Canon now allow us to manually turn it off. However, apparently with the Canon firmware, even though the digital gain is no longer an issue, the analog gain is fixed at +31db. The only way to go is with the Magic Lantern hack to control both. The other advantage with ML correspondingly is onscreen levels.

Given that I am mostly working in ML therefore, the crummy level indicators on the Juicedlink are not an issue. It is smaller, lighter and the pre-amps are apparently pretty good. The unit still retains an AGC disable function and can be used on DSLR's which still have that issue like the 7D. It can also be found for as low as $300.

The Sound Devices Mixpre-D appears much more solid and heavier, has a far better levels indicator as well a tone generator, and a host of little advantages like USB connectivity. It does not have an AGC disabler. I do not know about the quality of it's pre-amp, but I am sure it is probably pretty good. It is also about $750.

My question is if anyone has had experience with BOTH of these units and how they compared for work with DSLR's. Beyond that of course your +'s and -'s are very welcome indeed, just no "you get what you pay for" comments please!

Thanks in advance for your input.
 
Sound Devices is a huge step up from Juicedlink as a front end. But your audio recording device the 5DmkII is still going to be the limiting factor here as it offers less than stellar audio performance. If audio is really that important to you, I would suggest investing in a different platform for recording your audio.

All the Best!

Dave
 
To build on what Dave said... the pre-amps in the MixPre-D are miles above what the JuicedLink can offer (not to mention the "unclippable" limiters, the slick metering, monitoring, etc.). More than that, if you get the MixPre-D now, you can look at getting a better audio recorder later (or sooner), and the MixPre-D will still be useful as a front end to a recorder.
 
The presence (or absence) of the "AGC disabler" self-identifies the Juiced Link as a product aimed at lower-end consumer gear users. While the Sound Devices products are designed for use by professionals who don't ever deal with equipment with AGC. The mic preamps in the Sound Devices products have a reputation of being perhaps the very best in the industry. Juiced Link is not notable for their mic preamps. But if you need AGC disabling, you won't find it at Sound Devices. I would personally aspire to devising a workflow that avoided any equipment with AGC.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the mic preamp in your cell phone, and 10 is the very best theoretical mic preamp it is possible to build, your DSLR is maybe 2 or 3, the Juiced Link is maybe 4 or 5, and the Sound Devices is probably 9 or even 10.
 
Interesting to note all that you folks have said, but I don't think the Juicedlink neccesarily has a lesser pre-amplifier. In fact I received an email from Robert at Juicedlink to say that he had prepared a video discussing the two and it quite frankly sounds better in my humble opinion. Granted there are a lot of factors here, but I like how Robert did not slag off the competition and very clearly explained the differences between the two.

See here:
http://juicedlink.com/blog/2011/12/mixpre/
 
yoclay said:
Interesting to note all that you folks have said, but I don't think the Juicedlink neccesarily has a lesser pre-amplifier. In fact I received an email from Robert at Juicedlink to say that he had prepared a video discussing the two and it quite frankly sounds better in my humble opinion. Granted there are a lot of factors here, but I like how Robert did not slag off the competition and very clearly explained the differences between the two.

See here:
http://juicedlink.com/blog/2011/12/mixpre/
Click to expand...

Okay, but even Robert fully admits that these are two very different classes of device. As I said in my first post, it's not just about the pre-amps. The MixPre-D has incredible limiters, professional metering (an absolute must), and very flexible i/o that will allow the user to interface with a wide variety or recording devices.

As for his pre-amp test, I really wish he'd done the test with the right mic for the space he was in. The NTG-2 was a poor choice in that small, reflective room, and it hinders the test. That said, the JuicedLink sounds a little more mid-range-heavy (boxy, if you will) to me. Of course, if you watch that video directly on the blog, it plays back at YT's 240p resolution with heavily compressed audio and no way to really know what you're hearing. For anyone who's interested, be sure to move over to YT to watch in 720p with much better sound quality.

It's also interesting that, in your first post, you ask for no "you get what you pay for" posts. Honestly, that still holds true here. The MixPre-D offers a wealth of professional features, as I've mentioned (twice now), that the JuicedLink does not.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone expects that greater functionality should definitely cost less, but what I was addressing was a kind of flippant attitude that if you simply throw enough money at whatever object you are looking for you will automatically get the best. I can say with total assurance for instance that there are many lenses out there which cost next to nothing and produce far better IQ than some very highly priced alternatives.

In terms of greater "mid-range" that is exactly what I like about it. For some I suppose that would be box-iness, but for me it added warmth.

There is no question that the Mixpre-D is attractive as a solid, flexible, well made device and the meters are much better, that is what attracts me to it, but a lot comes down to one's needs and what constitutes the next step up.

I am very grateful for everyone's clarifying comments as well.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
I don't think anyone expects that greater functionality should definitely cost less, but what I was addressing was a kind of flippant attitude that if you simply throw enough money at whatever object you are looking for you will automatically get the best.
Click to expand...

No absolutely not. If you have the wrong mic used in the wrong way in the wrong place, the best preamp in the world won't do a thing for you. (As Juiced Link demonstrated.)

I can say with total assurance for instance that there are many lenses out there which cost next to nothing and produce far better IQ than some very highly priced alternatives.
Click to expand...

And in the equivalent audio realm, if you know what you want and understand what you are doing, you can get excellent results from average equipment.

In terms of greater "mid-range" that is exactly what I like about it. For some I suppose that would be box-iness, but for me it added warmth.
Click to expand...

But your job in production recording is not to "add warmth". Your job is to get a good clean recording of the dialog as accurately as possible. WITHOUT coloration from the microphone or the preamp. That "warmth" you hear could end up being a headache in post-production mixing

There is no question that the Mixpre-D is attractive as a solid, flexible, well made device and the meters are much better, that is what attracts me to it, but a lot comes down to one's needs and what constitutes the next step up.
Click to expand...

The Sound Devices products have a reputation of being at the pinnacle of the technology and the art for field audio recording for production. But the greatest preamp in the world won't save you from lousy performance of subsequent links in the audio chain (such as recording sound on a DSLR with auto-level you can't turn off.) I would personally think it more propitious to spend money on a decent mixer and a decent recorder vs. a world-class mic preamp feeding a lousy DSLR sound input. YMMV.
 
Greetings,


I see that the video that I posted on my blog has generated many comments. I would just like to clarify a few things ...


Yoclay and I had been corresponding offline, about the signal-to-noise performance of cameras, preamplifiers, etc. And then, I saw he posted a question asking "if anybody has had experience with BOTH of these units (MixPre-D and the DT454/D414) and how they compared for work with DSLR's ... "


I'm assuming that he didn't think I had a MixPre-D around, so he didn't ask me directly and posted the question to the community. I sent him a link to my quick test on the blog, and told him to feel free to share ...




I'd just like to address some of the comments that the video has generated ...


Yes, I understand that the MixPre-D is a completely different class of mixer and does many things that the juicedLink DT454/DT414 do not. I thought I made that pretty clear in the video.


Yes, I understand that a Hollywood film crew would not be recording audio to a DSLR. However, recording audio directly to DSLR is perfectly sufficient for numerous video production applications. I was merely addressing how these preamps compared for work with DSLR's (for signal-to-noise performance), as posed in the question by Yoclay.


Yes, I made a quick and dirty video sitting at my desk. The purpose of the test was to compare if there is any signal-to-noise benefit using one compared to the other. So, I didn't really care that the mic picked up reflections from my desk, because the purpose of comparing the two clips was to determine if you could hear a difference in the noise level, while I was not speaking into the mic. I only needed the mic to establish that the signal levels were similar (hearing the reflections from the office/desk while speaking into the mic, don't inhibit the ability to confirm and verify that the signal levels are similar).


Reiterating ... purpose of comparing the two clips was to determine if you could hear a difference in the noise level, while I was not speaking into the mic.




So, regarding the comments that I read in this thread about the video, everybody is correct and right on. The 5D will still be the limiting device. No preamp can fix poor mic positioning. Etc ...


I was only trying to address the comparison with respect to signal-to-noise in DSLR recordings (per the original question), which I feel the little video adequately accomplishes.




Respectfully,


Robert Rozak


PS: I felt I needed to clear this up, because it sounded to me like some of the comments regarding the video were starting to sound like I was trying to mislead people in the video. Not the case at all. I hope you understand ...
 
Disclaimer: Richard probably knows more about audio than I do.
However, there's always room for more than one opinion. I would not rate the SD preamps as best in the world, maybe an 8. They are solid, quiet, reasonably transparent, and very reliable, However, I find that they have a very (and I mean very) slightly artificial sound and are ever so slightly covered. I would say of the last fifty professional recording projects I have been involved in, both here and in Europe, I have worked with Grace, Benchmark, Great River, Lavry, RME (both digital and analog), Millennia, Audio Upgrades, and a small number of hand made items like Scott Kent pres as well as complete systems like Sadie. On none--not a single one--of these sessions did an SD device surface--nor a Juiced Link, for that matter. If the SD preamps were the best in the world, they would be there--and I'm sure some people *do* use them, I just haven't seen any. Of the "money is no object" productions, Grace was without a doubt the number one preamp used, and I never spoke to anyone who "didn't like" a Grace. In productions I was involved using 24-36 or more microphones, RME was number one and Grace number two. In productions involving battle-hardened engineers using smaller numbers of mics, Great River had a strong showing. Of the high speed camp, that is engineers who want to capture the fast moving harmonic transients, Audio Upgrades has a good following. Of the traveling engineers, as well as the career radio and many TV workers in say, ORTV, NDR, etc., RME was the most common. My own rating, not that it matters since these are all good and it is then a matter of taste, is Grace No.1, Audio Upgrades No. 2 and RME (digital) No. 3. The Mackie Onyx preamps (not the cheapest ones but the ones with a real power supply) were for the most part as good as their pricier competition.
My own testing, and we are talking about many, many hours of testing, is that the DR 680 is "for sure good enough" and the Fostex FR2LE is very good, very "musical". I don't have a preference between the DR 680 and the SD preamps, the 680 can be ever so slightly too clear (which then is good, if you like really clear) vs the SD slightly covered.
One thing you will find, is that for the most part these preamps behave pretty much the same except when driving ribbon mics. My top three are stellar at driving ribbon mics, as are the Great River and Scott Kent. However, this depends on what Ribbons you own and the transformers therein.

Why all this? Because for your budget, you can consider the DR 680 and the benefits of mutitracking. Multitracking is going to give you a high degree of flexibility. And the preamps--tested against the top pres available--are just fine. And if you look at some of the comments above, they suggest that you need a recorder, not just pres.

But you can't go wrong with an SD box--well made, reliable, easy to power. I would buy an SD box because I know it would work in the field, not for the pres, which are of course, very good.
When I leave the house for a video shoot, I bring the DR 680, a backup recorder and I leave everything else at home. Sad, those boutique pres sitting home alone. Piles of them.

Just my 2¢, and as I said at the top, Richard probably knows more than me!
 
You have to look at what the cost to performance ratio here is. The juiced link box is designed to do one thing, and the sound devices box can do many things, thus the higher cost. If you ever think you might do something other than record audio into a DSLR, then you should heavily consider the SD mixpreD. If you just need something to get you buy and you don't need the extra outputs, then get the JuicedLink. They are two totally different boxes.
 
I started another topic about this but how about the ergonomics? Is the mix pre hard to use for handheld shooting when mounted? I'm in the same dilemma.
 
RERozak said:
[...] the MixPre-D is a completely different class of mixer and does many things that the juicedLink DT454/DT414 do not. [..]
Yes, I understand that a Hollywood film crew would not be recording audio to a DSLR. However, recording audio directly to DSLR is perfectly sufficient for numerous video production applications.
Click to expand...
1) It would be like comparing Apples and Oranges by comparing both devices' options and that's not the OP question.
2) Depending on the needs. Sure, on a big budget production, it wouldn't be the same story. But for most people, recording directly using the DSLR PCM audio is plenty enough, provided you get a good mic placement in order to get a good sound...not camera mounted. I own 2x JuicedLink CX211 and I usually use them to "boost" the sound of the mic before I feed the recorder with that signal. That way I can lower the recorder's internal preamp and record the cleanest sound possible (on a budget). Having the money to spend on a MixPre-D device, sure I would get one and I would probably get the best sound possible, but as a hobbyist, using these devices allows me to get a good audio quality, without spending thousand of dollars on audio equipment. Best compromise so far. Best option remains to have a sound man with portable gear and to boom audio, but you can always do it that way on your own and get usable audio by recording directly with the DSLR.

Here's a test I've done using the CX211 and an Audio-Technica MB4K. It's an omni-directional microphone, meant to be used as a vocal mic but when combined with the JuicedLink preamp, it gave a quite good performance when camera-mounted. I know the sound is a bit "roomy" and "echoish" but the fact that it's able to capture pretty much everyone in the room while not recording much noise gives a good idea how the preamp can perform. I'm using unusual gear for most of my work and so far I've been surprised with the results. As I said previously, I'm not a professional, more a simple hobbyist and I'm always confronted to a tight budget (still waiting to get a decent boompole), so if the budget isn't an issue as you have one, then cry once and get the beast so you won't "have" to upgrade your gear any soon. On the other hand, if you're in the hobbyist category, from my own experience I can tell you that the JuicedLink can do a good job for the price you'll pay the device. Add to that a good mic placement by running on longer XLR cable (for dialog scenes) and you'll have a great setup, while saving a lot of money.


Just my 0.02¢.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top