JuicedLink?, Is it worth the money, other options,

G

gelojtaboada

Member
Im very tempted in acquiring a JuicedLink device, specially I have my eyes on the RM222 to use with my D800
I have general questions regarding the $300 investment for the device to work, of course it needs batteries...

A question for the audio professionals, experts and users...
Is it that good? Or has it just grown by well made marketing and good ranks in popularity??

Im wondering if this is the best option for the subject, clean preamps, build quality, ergonomics, AUDIO QUALITY, ease of use, etc...
What are your thougts, experiences with JuicedLink devices?

I will be using this for One man band shoots, mostly documentary, so ergonomics, portability, ease of use is important to consider... And also price! $$$ :tongue:

I was sniffing around Beachtek, and Sound Devices products... (Sound Devices MP-1)

Overall, I want to make sure if its an investment worth off...

I'll use this paired with my Sennheiser ME66/K6 mic, and my Nikon D800,
I also use a Zoom H6 for double system, but must of the times ends up being unconfortable and hard to control by myself... And the not so good preamps of the Zoom...

Thanks in Advance,
Angel.
 
gelojtaboada said:
Is it that good? Or has it just grown by well made marketing and good ranks in popularity??
Click to expand...
Juicedlink devices are very well made and features some nice preamplification. I'm using two of these, older model CX211, and it works just great. Using it with my Audio-Technica MB4K and RØDE NTG2 mics and both gives decent results with the JuicedLink. Audio quality is very good when editing in post with a minimal adjustment on the gain.
I recommend you one. Sound Devices are great, but it's more on a professional grade level from what I've read.
 
IMHO, your starting premise is faulty.
What makes you think the mic preamps in the Juice box (or Beachtek, et.al.) are any better than the Zoom? I've never seen any evidence of that.
And much more important, what makes you think that the audio portion of ANY DSLR is even in the same ballpark as a proper audio recorder?
If anything has been "over-marketed", it is the basic concept of recording primary audio to your DSLR, no matter HOW good the front-end preamps
There is no DSLR ever made that records audio better than your basic digital audio recorder. Regardless of what you throw on the front-end.
 
Hi Richard, thanks for the response.

You might want to check out this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGMiIXkiJ9E
It's very informative, its a long video, and its provided by JuicedLink.

Richard Crowley said:
What makes you think the mic preamps in the Juice box (or Beachtek, et.al.) are any better than the Zoom? I've never seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...

I've never tested JuicedLink products, but I've watched/heard tests and they sound, well... promising.
From my own experience with a Zoom H6 and an ME66 (which I own), preamps are not that good... Considerable hissing starts to show up at 60%, with about -5dB signal... With an ME66... (50mV/Pa)... 9in away from the subject's mouth...
Less sensitive mics might struggle with it...
NTG2's sound great preamped with the JuicedLink.

Richard Crowley said:
And much more important, what makes you think that the audio portion of ANY DSLR is even in the same ballpark as a proper audio recorder?
Click to expand...
Its like comparing DSLRs with Alexas... Thats, well... a world of difference. But the bottom line of this is: "I will be using this for One man band shoots, mostly documentary" and to be honest, I find it difficult to double system at this point... even with the Zoom H6, which is a rather simple setup, I mostly guide myself from what my ears hear from the headphones... I keep my Zoom on a pouch in my belt, for ease of mobility, weight, and lack of rigging options... and as you say:

"Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.", wise words.


Do you have experience with JuicedLink devices or any product on the same line?, I'm mostly interested on user experience opinions... which, beyond the "tech-specs" is what matters...

:dankk2:
 
I have a love/hate relationship with my JuicedLink Riggy Micro 333. Owned it for about a year.

Love the clean professional audio preamps, battery life, phantom power, the small size, reliability, and the gain knobs. I would definitely buy again. But there are some cons that annoy me greatly:

1) If you choose to not screw it under the camera.. the "Riggy" is kinda hard to rig.
2) You need to keep an Allen key with you to remove it. Not cool.
3) The Riggy has a DIY feel to it. It's solid.. but IMO the boxy appearance looks aesthetically cheap.
4) I'd prefer all the switches that control phantom power, mic & line level, etc... to be in a backlit digital menu. I don't want to look for a tweak tool, toothpick, or some tool + a flashlight to adjust this in the dark.

It's a combination of good function/ bad design. Still, I don't regret my purchase. Bottomline, the Juicedlink sounds very clean and therefore, I won't be going back to double-system sound. I do have a Tascam DR100 digital recorder; it's collecting dust. I've recorded plenty of dialog and even some full orchestra mixes with my Riggy + GH4 combination. Not one single client complaint yet.
 
gelojtaboada said:
...
But the bottom line of this is: "I will be using this for One man band shoots, mostly documentary" and to be honest, I find it difficult to double system at this point... even with the Zoom H6, which is a rather simple setup, I mostly guide myself from what my ears hear from the headphones... I keep my Zoom on a pouch in my belt, for ease of mobility, weight, and lack of rigging options... and as you say:

"Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.", wise words.
Click to expand...

If there can't be eyeballs on the recording level meters your sound is always going to be a gamble. Headphones are important in order to evaluate the quality of the sound coming in - did an overflying airplane cover a vital line or did the subject move off-mic, for example - but 'phones are not a substitute for meters when it comes to setting/monitoring levels. Earbuds, other then IEMs, are even worse than over-the-ear isolating cans. Does it sound loud and distorted because the recording level is too high or is it because the headphone gain is too high. Is it weak because your input level is too low or did you accidentally knock the headphone gain down? Without eyes on the meters you can never know.

I don't understand the fascination so many people seem to have with working as a one man band. Revolutionarily cheap high-quality equipment not withstanding, film is still a collaborative art form. On set there's just too much that needs to happen simultaneously in order to produce high quality images AND sound recordings PLUS pay close attention to what's going on in the scene, for any one pair of eyes, one pair of hands, and one brain to be able to do it all. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that.
 
Steve House said:
I don't understand the fascination so many people seem to have with working as a one man band. Revolutionarily cheap high-quality equipment not withstanding, film is still a collaborative art form. On set there's just too much that needs to happen simultaneously in order to produce high quality images AND sound recordings PLUS pay close attention to what's going on in the scene, for any one pair of eyes, one pair of hands, and one brain to be able to do it all. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I understand this all too well!

It's called a budget, or rather lack thereof.

And it's happening more and more often. Especially in the commercial end of things. Commercial shoots where we would normally have a crew of 7, being done with a crew of 3. Smaller commercial projects where I would normally budget for a crew of 3, being done by a single person.


As far as your JuicedLink stuff goes.... I would purchase from a seller that allows returns. Try it out, and if it doesn't meet your needs, send it back.
 
Steve House said:
If there can't be eyeballs on the recording level meters your sound is always going to be a gamble. Headphones are important in order to evaluate the quality of the sound coming in - did an overflying airplane cover a vital line or did the subject move off-mic, for example - but 'phones are not a substitute for meters when it comes to setting/monitoring levels. Earbuds, other then IEMs, are even worse than over-the-ear isolating cans. Does it sound loud and distorted because the recording level is too high or is it because the headphone gain is too high. Is it weak because your input level is too low or did you accidentally knock the headphone gain down? Without eyes on the meters you can never know.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. thats why Im considering JuicedLink devices or similar, I've been struggling with my Zoom H6 headphone monitor preamp, its terrible, and fools the heck out of you, it adds big time hissing instantly, makes you feel you have terrible hissy audio like no other... :2vrolijk_08:, how to know if your audio is clean or hissy with such monitoring system? I always set the headphone gain to 100% on my H6, is that an ideal thing to do??

Steve House said:
I don't understand the fascination so many people seem to have with working as a one man band. Revolutionarily cheap high-quality equipment not withstanding, film is still a collaborative art form. On set there's just too much that needs to happen simultaneously in order to produce high quality images AND sound recordings PLUS pay close attention to what's going on in the scene, for any one pair of eyes, one pair of hands, and one brain to be able to do it all. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree with you on that sir.

We all know that film is still a collaborative art form.. I used to live and work in LA, yep, on the film industry, all the way from unpaid-cheap-indie-but-cool sets and productions, to big ass high-end-IATSE sets and shoots... I know what the industry demands and requires... There's no doubt on that, a film its not a film without teamwork.
But thats a whole different deal, well... Hollywood, 1st world, with hungry and passionate people that are even willing to not get paid for a 1week shoot just to learn what they love to do... film. Its a perfect scenario for movie magic.

Nevertheless, IMHO, i think DOCUMENTARY FILM runs on a very, very different set of rules... There's no such thing as a "film set" (unless you do an interview), you run on limited time to shoot, because in documentary, you shoot moments, not scenes... there's no such thing as shot lists or hourly schedules as fiction work, theres no huge crews, theres no a specific crew per department... (unless you work on BBC, NatGeo, or you have an actual budget for your doc) well... You get my point, right? :)

Also... Me, as the majority of filmmakers, don't live in the US or Europe, we don't live in 1st world countries, and most of the times, we don't have a budget, at all. Thats why there's people creating this kind of products, trying to get the most of what you have... But that's very relative imo.

Doing one man band shoots is most done on documentary film, i think doing one man band for fictional-narrative shoots is crazy! I think is doable, but crazy. Everything is possible, it all depends on your story, on your script... every shoot demand different scenarios, there's some that get done OMB, but it might be madness! Quality matters

Doing OMB for documentary, is required at times, and better at times... you won't be able to capture the same moments with a crew next to you, even 1 more person next to you makes the difference, believe me. Being OMB keeps the intimacy and harmony of your subjects.
Most of times people turn their heads away when they see a lens, they freak out when they see a crew and a camera together. They act different... It's maybe, something that only 3rd world people will understand...

One man band is a way to do it, as well as having a crew is another, as Mr. Marx said: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".



 
I've seen the analysis videos about running audio directly into a DSLR camera, and well, honestly, a DSLR just doesn't sound good. I know this from personal experience running audio into a DSLR in a myriad of ways. It's great for reference, that's for sure. I run on of those small videomic things right into my camera, and then I have a real mic going into a recorder..usually a Tascam DR-60D, or Sound Devices 744t. I've run my Sanken CS-1 into a Sound Devices Mix Pre-D, taken the the mic level out and gone right into my camera, while at the same time going into my 744t. The difference between on camera audio and real recorder audio is night and day. The audio that goes to my DSLR is for sync reference only, and even then, if I dumb slate I don't really need it.
SO...I would not recommend relying only on audio going into your DSLR as primary audio. My mobile rig consists of my camera that is in a Norbert Sport DSLR frame that I can then mount my DSLR reference mic onto. Underneath the camera is my Tascam DR-70D. I can monitor the audio on that easily and the controls are right there in front of me. It's super easy to run by myself. I can mount my Sanken on the Norbert, but I only ever do that if I'm doing a talking head interview or a product demo video. I'd never run that way for documentary or narrative work. At that point I'd get a proper sound mixer. If there isn't a budget there for a proper sound mixer then I just wouldn't do the project. Getting a proper budget is just as much a part of making any project as getting your camera, and not budgeting for a sound mixer is not the wisest thing. At that point you'd be better off ditching the camera, going audio only, and just doing a podcast. You'll have a much bigger audience and it'll be cheaper and faster to do anyway.
 
You are kind of right about doc's in that crews are smaller and budgets are often whatever the director can scrounge at the moment. They also tend to go on for a long time so a full paid crew would be very expensive. However of the many docs I have worked on from nobudget student projects to fairly good (for a doc) budgets nobody has done OMB except maybe for an interview where travel was involved. Even the nobudget guys shot with at least an assistant who doubled as the sound guy.

DSLR's are not decent recorders. They record compressed audio passed through an analog section of lower quality than most computers built in sound card.

Sticking a decent preamp in front will help, often a lot, but you are still not getting close to what you could be getting. Clients not complaining is a very weak defense since most clients know nothing about sound and the bar out there is pretty low. So can you get by going direct? Probably. But it is a compromise both in acquisition and with being able to "fix" things down the line. The compressed formats DSLR's record with were designed for distribution, not aquisition. You have maybe 1/10th of the data to work with as you do with an uncompressed format. So you are recording with an inherently noisier device to a file that will make noise reduction harder because of the lack of information.

Depending on what you are doing with the films this is either a big potential problem or maybe not one at all. If it's destined for the internet or streaming to a phone and you got a decently clean recording in the first place you are probably fine. If the recording needs a lot of post help and it's going to be shown on something with a good sound system...

As for Juice Link. I only dealt with one once and it was awhile ago so... The one I used was a decent piece of consumer gear. It was not really cheap junk but it was also not even close to professional in quality. If I were comparing it to a DSLR it would be a REALLY big step up but compared to SD gear not even close.

But as I said that was awhile ago and they may have stepped up their game a lot since then. They are however a consumer company and are not really aimed at the professional market so it is very unlikely that they are "professional quality" just based on who they are selling to and what they are charging. If the goal is just to be a front end to a DSLR though I doubt the quality difference would show much after it gets crunched by the DSLR's audio section.
 
OMG! What is that? Zoom Q8? It's not out yet, so no reviews, but what is the use scenario here? Holy cow, this is so bizarre... I mean xlr inputs and at least semi-serious audio on a totally subpar video camera... I just don't... words fail me. But hey, I'm no marketing guy, so who knows, maybe there are hordes of buyers screaming for just such a solution in search of a problem... had you posted this yesterday, I'd be sure it's an April 1st joke.
 
gelojtaboada said:
Nevertheless, IMHO, i think DOCUMENTARY FILM runs on a very, very different set of rules... There's no such thing as a "film set" (unless you do an interview), you run on limited time to shoot, because in documentary, you shoot moments, not scenes... there's no such thing as shot lists or hourly schedules as fiction work, theres no huge crews, theres no a specific crew per department... (unless you work on BBC, NatGeo, or you have an actual budget for your doc) well... You get my point, right? :)
Click to expand...

Here's the deal though. If you want people to sit through your documentary, your audio has to be excellent. People will forgive all kinds of video sins, from shakey-cam to blown highlights to screwed up color. But if they can't understand your dialog, they stand up and walk out.

I've done that. More than once. Most people have.

That's the risk you take by not having decent audio. People are telling you this stuff for a reason.

If you're on your own, you're on your own. But at least record second system using a decent recorder with decent preamps, and get your mic off the damn camera. If you're not going to do that, you've got to ask yourself what you are really trying to accomplish, and what you really are accomplishing. Just sayin'.
 
I tried Juicedlink. It didnt do it for me. The battery life is short and it has an akward built.
I really appreciate the sound devices + pcm-m10 combo for sound.
 
To be fair my experience has been the one man band thing is the rule and not the exception for certain types of video (corporate, etc. ) Sometimes I recognize that its simply too much to take on single handedly and will budget for another person but many times I think adding $200-300 per day (let alone more) to my quote or the budget for another hand would be the difference between them going with me or passing for someone cheaper. so many times the OMB thing is really not a choice. that being said however, I hate dslrs for video for seveal reasons, the audio thing being one. will push for at least a c100 or even an smaller sensored ENG cam whenever possible, only bringing the dslr if client specifically insists upon it.
 
The issue here is NOT the "one-man band" workflow.
The issue here is the delusion of relying on DSLR audio as your primary/only audio capture.
Using a proper video camcorder by yourself as a "one-man-band" is not an issue. Many of have done that often.
But expecting to get quality audio recording, especially from a musical act, on a DSLR is just unrealistic, IMHO.

I suppose if you MUST record audio on a DSLR, at least get one (or hack one) to turn OFF the automatic-level control.
If you can't do that, then this whole conversation is essentially pointless.
And use the best mic preamps you can find to feed it with.

DSLRs may have the PICTURE heritage of excellent SLR glass and huge imaging chips.
But they have the AUDIO heritage of the very cheapest consumer video camcorders ever made.
 
Bruce Watson said:
People will forgive all kinds of video sins, from shakey-cam to blown highlights to screwed up color.
Click to expand...

I think now days thats a pitty too... Right?, well it all depends on the look and feel of the doc.

Bruce Watson said:
But if they can't understand your dialog, they stand up and walk out
I've done that. More than once. Most people have.

That's the risk you take by not having decent audio. People are telling you this stuff for a reason.

If you're on your own, you're on your own. But at least record second system using a decent recorder with decent preamps, and get your mic off the damn camera. If you're not going to do that, you've got to ask yourself what you are really trying to accomplish, and what you really are accomplishing. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

That's something all filmmakers know... A former rule I'll say. You can have beautiful images, but if paired with bad audio, most likely it wont work...Bad audio, disliked films... Documentary can be a slight touch forgiving, but, watching most of indie films in which a big percentage of 'em have bad audio, it's just shameful... Shameful how great ideas get partly ruined by bad audio... Isn't it? :undecided

And of course... It's quite OBVIOUS I'm not doing the whole film with my shotgun mounted and plugged in top of my camera... :laugh: I would never forgive myself!

deleuze3 said:
I tried Juicedlink. It didnt do it for me. The battery life is short and it has an akward built.
I really appreciate the sound devices + pcm-m10 combo for sound.
Click to expand...

Hi deleuze3, may I ask which model of JuicedLink you used?, I've heard the new RM222 and similar have a good battery life about 30hrs w/o phantom...
Also, which sound devices product you used?

Thanks :)


Richard Crowley said:
I suppose if you MUST record audio on a DSLR, at least get one (or hack one) to turn OFF the automatic-level control.
If you can't do that, then this whole conversation is essentially pointless.
Click to expand...

I think, now days most DSLRs have AGC off, my Nikon has manual controls. And yes, having AGC is pointless

Richard Crowley said:
And use the best mic preamps you can find to feed it with.
Click to expand...
So... Do you recommend this line of products?, As I said, I own a Zoom H6, which I think has worst preamps than the JuicedLink, I think...
What do you recommend?
 
RE: the zoom camera. I think what they are aiming at is the Herofo lks with a lot better audio. It's a fixed very wide angle lense and that is very much the Hero "look". Maybe for interviews? But I used to do a bunch of portrait work, not studio but like promotion shots for actors and such. I would use a 35mm lense some times but really you want an 85mm to 109mm a lot of the time because it's much more flattering. A 35mm worked if you payed attention because if you didn't you could get that wide angle nose for days look, The Zoom camera has a 16mm equivalent lense. You are starting to hit fisheye with that so I doubt it's going to work for any "normal" interview.

But if your "action footage" is with the Hero and you film has that really wide aesthetic then this would be almost ideal for the interview sections.

We'll see but I suspect they missed on this one and you will be able to pick them up highly discounted in twelve months.
 
gelojtaboada said:
I always set the headphone gain to 100% on my H6, is that an ideal thing to do??
Click to expand...
Not ideal, but you probably have little choice if you want to hear anything. The H6 has a very weak (20mW x2 @32 ohm) HP amp. Low powered HP amps usually produce a lot of hiss and distortion as well. IMO, a 50mW amp would be usable, but I would even consider that anemic.
 
gelojtaboada said:
...I own a Zoom H6, which I think has worst preamps than the JuicedLink, I think...
What do you recommend?
Click to expand...
I have used an H6 to record >100 TV show segments and it worked fine for us.
If the JuicedLink works for you, then go for it. Else you may need a premium kit like Sound Devices.

Even if the JuicedLink DOES have better mic preamps than the H6, you will probably lose any advantage when you surrender you audio to a DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top