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

"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."
+11

Regarding Sound Forge Pro 11... IMO, SCS (Sony Creative Software) made some bone-headed changes and feature deletions which are counter intuitive, complicate and hinder the recording and FX chain process. Most folks on the SCS SF forum prefer the previous interface as well. These changes do not apply to the basic low cost SF Audio Studio or Sound Forge Pro Mac.
BTW, I've been a Sound Forge user since ver. 3 and a beta tester for SCS.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
I don't understand the fascination so many people seem to have with working as a one man band.
Click to expand...

Fascination? Dude you're like asking a starving kid why he prefers to eat dirt over this beef tenderloin meal. Don't you think everyone prefers to work with an appropriately sized professional team? We have limits you don't seem capable of imagining. We have friends that aren't willing, available or capable to work in big enough numbers on our projects. We don't have the budget to hire the appropriate professionals.

"back in the day" filming with less people wasn't possible. Now, even while it might not be advisable, it can be done and it is required from some of us to work alone. You can find the same thing happening in any field: as systems grow more complex new tools offer new ways to get an "okay" result. And some will use those tools.

Case in point: The rise of DIY dentistry

Do dentists think that do it yourself dentistry is smart and safe? No, of course not. But they also (apparently) set prices too high for some of UK's population. If it’s down to a choice between £51.30 for an NHS filling or £4.65 for a DenTek kit from Amazon which claims to do the same job, then the skint and the frugal shouldn’t be gasped at for saving pennies.

Sorry for the rant, but I've read this same message so many times -- well meaning professionals having a hard time emphasizing with those starting out.
 
Last edited:
In any OMB operation, sound is the first to be compromised.. regardless of budget, and how many times have I heard a camera person state, "I can record sound as good as any sound person"
In any case many 'picture' folks figure sound will take care of itself (which it doesn't).
 
raphb said:
Fascination? Dude you're like asking a starving kid why he prefers to eat dirt over this beef tenderloin meal. Don't you think everyone prefers to work with an appropriately sized professional team? We have limits you don't seem capable of imagining. We have friends that aren't willing, available or capable to work in big enough numbers on our projects. We don't have the budget to hire the appropriate professionals.
Click to expand...

Usually the comeback to that is "well then it is your obligation to get the budget that will allow you to do a full pro production!" - which is of course like telling a poor person "well then it's your obligation to get rich!", and if you object, then they can always point to Mr. X and Mr. Y who both did it even though both started from nothing blah, blah, blah - same old bootstrap tale. Reality is that there'll always be a lucky few, but it's not mathematically possible for everyone to be rich, no matter how hard they try - if everyone was equally talented and equally motivated, you still would end up with some at the top and the majority on the bottom... that's how the system is inherently structured. Therefore, you may get lucky and raise the big budget, but you may also do everything right and work yourself half to death, and still not make it.

So don't worry about the screamers. Do your very best. If you get the budget, great. If not, don't let that stop you and don't let the naysayers stop you - there's always someone advising you to quit... "if you don't have the money and can't raise it, just quit!". Nonsense. The OMB aesthetic can actually work to your advantage. You know how cinema verite started? The filmmakers couldn't afford a full budget - that's how. And far from stopping them, it became its own aesthetic, and was wildly imitated. It became a style. Same in music - don't have money for top instruments, production and so on... lo-fi became its own aesthetic and took the world by storm.

You will always hear the nattering "pro standards, or go home" - "bbbbut pro standards, what about pro standards". Ignore the fools. Nothing creative will ever come from those who cannot function unless they are handed rolls-royce tools. Creativity by definition means departing from the norm. Those who are so rigid in understanding tools are similarly rigid in their creative work. Free yourself. You can use any tool, as long as you understand the effect.

So don't worry about being an OMB. That said, never forget that it's always about the final effect. For dialogue recording, what you record must be clearly understood by the audience, or you will fail in the final effect. Some will say you cannot do it being OMB - but that's nonsense. It may be harder, you may need to be creative, but it doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get a good final result. By the way - speaking of limited tools becoming their own aesthetic? It even applies in film production sound - due to audience expectations and changing experience... so for example, you don't need a $5000 microphone wielded by the world's best sound professional - there's been a trend, remarked upon with horror by many top sound people, of the audience actually preferring what up until now had been clearly regarded as inferior - the sound of lavs in a production where you'd have ordinarily used mics on booms... they liked the sound of the lavs better than the boom - why?? Well, because cheapo TV and reality shows and so on, has habituated a generation to the sound of lavs, and those now sound "how it's supposed to be" and mics on booms sound worse to their ears, never mind what the pros say. A new aesthetic is born. There is a music equivalent - you have a whole generation that grew up on music being blasted from car speakers (hardly a paragon of hi-fi), or piped in through earbuds, everything streaming in low bit mp3 lossy formats. And guess what - it's just not true that people would now prefer the high end listening experience given the chance - we know that's true, because we've seen it play out in real life... even I personally witnessed it - we're talking about dynamic range being compressed in the loudness wars, I was listening to some piano music on my stereo and my friend asked what's wrong with my (high end!) speakers, because for him the quieter passages were too quiet and the loud ones too loud, so he couldn't find the right level - all because he's used to the compressed dynamic range that's virtually taken over 100% music production these days. It's a horror to the pros, but it's also reality.

Bottom line: ignore anyone who advises you not to pursue you dreams or your project "because you don't have the pro tools and a full budget". If you are creative, work with what you have, and if that's OMB, that's perfectly fine. Make sure you achieve the final result and effect you're after and don't see limitations as a negative, indeed they may be a positive and perhaps even play to a new aesthetic.
 
Well, Dude, I'm glad you equate OMB with DIY Dentistry... I just don't see how that is a positive. Screw up that extraction and get blood poisoning and you are dead in about twelve hours. So use a crew live a long life, OMB risk a quick and painful death.

Good argument though. For all of you budding filmmakers who have no money (but I'm sure have a nice cel phone, and tablet, and a solid fast internet connection, and probably a decent camera), and have no friends (friends who won't help you with your "dream" don't qualify in my book as friends) then by all means shoot your epic on your own.

I would counter though that most of the people on this list are not "well meaning professionals", a whole lot are no budget filmmakers. And I'm not sure what planet you think professionals come from but every one I know started out with no money or equipment and really no skills. THey learned the skills and invested in equipment in whatever ways they could with whatever limited funds they had. BECAUSE it was IMPORTANT to them to do the best job they could.

Many learned how to solder because building stuff was the only way they could afford better quality equipment.

Yes the quality cost bar is now near the floor so for very little money you can have very good quality gear IF you use it properly.

My rant is that so many new "filmmakers" got their hands on the toys with so little effort that they now think that all other aspects of the craft should also come with small price tags. Unfortunately there is No app for that. If you don't know what you are doing it doesn't matter how good the toys are. If you can't talk people into working on your project this is the WRONG business to be in because film is a TEAM sport. NOBODY makes anything but home movies with out help.

If you want to yank your own teeth then you should also realize that getting a friend who has a bit of experience and likes you to do the pulling is going to be a bunch better than holding the vicegrips yourself.

There are reasonable reasons to go OMB for certain types of projects. I know numerous folks who did at least part of a project OMB because it made sense. THese people did not use the false and lame excuse that they couldn't get friends to help or that the only other option was a full blown union Hollywood crew. THey did possibly for logistics possibly as an over all budget strategy (OMB where a crew would be of marginal help so you can pay or a better crew when it will make a bigger difference).

In other words OMB when well thought out and done right can be a useful option. I don't know anybody who goes OMB for all aspects of a project (if they are at all serious about the art).

I take issue when OMB is used to excuse folks who are too lazy to do the work, and really have very low quality standards.
 
OldCorpse said:
there's been a trend, remarked upon with horror by many top sound people, of the audience actually preferring what up until now had been clearly regarded as inferior - the sound of lavs in a production where you'd have ordinarily used mics on booms... they liked the sound of the lavs better than the boom - why?? Well, because cheapo TV and reality shows and so on, has habituated a generation to the sound of lavs, and those now sound "how it's supposed to be" and mics on booms sound worse to their ears, never mind what the pros say.
Click to expand...

interesting. do you have a link to this article or video?

and would lavs be better than a boom mic on a c-stand if someone is going OMB for a short film?
 
OldCorpse said:
I was listening to some piano music on my stereo and my friend asked what's wrong with my (high end!) speakers, because for him the quieter passages were too quiet and the loud ones too loud, so he couldn't find the right level - all because he's used to the compressed dynamic range that's virtually taken over 100% music production these days.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that. I too have a nice sound system, 2 big towers and an amplifyer and never have a problem with music. But with some (rare) movies, ie the Interstellar Bluray I had the same issue. Loud passages too loud or dialog too quiet. What's the problem there? My ears, my system or the movie?
 
ugafan said:
would lavs be better than a boom mic on a c-stand if someone is going OMB for a short film?
Click to expand...

I'd say don't change your habits yet. It's better to some people, but I doubt its a majority across all ages. I personally have listened to a lot of lav-vs-boom comparisons and prefer the boom sound. But I also don't watch reality TV but mostly high budget TV shows.
 
Its not a case of Lav v Boom.... its a case of JUST doing it properly. There is no point in the discussion if you then record on a DSLR which will screw it up anyway.
Here is a prime example of how to do it wrong.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRFP3bQaBAY

There is no point in wearing a lav mic if then you don't use it and just go with the top mic.
 
ugafan said:
interesting. do you have a link to this article or video?

and would lavs be better than a boom mic on a c-stand if someone is going OMB for a short film?
Click to expand...

Follow this thread here, where this phenomenon is discussed and observed by respected professionals - it's a real thing that's happening:

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/24150-lavs-in-a-mix-anecdotal/


For example:

"It is a major problem, in my opinion, that the the public and even those in our professional have gotten so accustomed to improper distance perspective (sounds close, looks far) and inaccurate acoustic perspective (sounds like having your ear under the chin of the person talking), that it is becoming the preferred sound, with all the unnaturalness and unintelligibility of a cable news "dissuasion" program. I was actually told by a young director that he preferred that sound. Amazing, disappointing, and harmful to our craft."

Anyhow, obviously this pertains more to the younger generation, but that's where things seem to be headed - eventually the olds die, and with them the old standards, and new standards are born... not always better. As that generation matures, that is becoming the accepted reality. Remember, you can say "oh, it's just the young people" - but guess who is the primary consumer of cinema film: that's right, it's young people. No wonder that folks are starting to record and mix more and more with a view to that taste expectation. Both on the creative side (young directors) and on the consumer side, new standards are being created. Take note.

Re: boom mic + stand vs lavs - depends on the circumstances. If the subject you are recording has movement, and you cannot boom due to being OMB, obviously a mic + stand is not going to work; in that case, yes, a lav, by all means - remember, movement can mean things like moving just the head away from a directional mic, and you'll have dropouts or drastic level changes, in which case again, a properly set lav is superior. Further, what is the ambient noise like? Depending on how much ambient noise there is and where it's coming from either a lav or a boomed mic may be superior. These days often you have folks do both, and then they pick whatever sounds best - you may like the boomed mic sound better, but the safety of the lav may trump that once you listen to the results. Bottom line, lavs are present more and more in production, and that sound is becoming quite accepted. Of course, technique is paramount - you can do either a lav or boom well, or badly and that may trump whatever technical differences there may be otherwise.
 
raphb said:
I wonder about that. I too have a nice sound system, 2 big towers and an amplifyer and never have a problem with music. But with some (rare) movies, ie the Interstellar Bluray I had the same issue. Loud passages too loud or dialog too quiet. What's the problem there? My ears, my system or the movie?
Click to expand...

It depends on how the movie is mixed. Once upon a time, most movies were mixed for the theater. They were meant to be heard in big spaces with large speakers spread across the theater - and the volume was UP. So you heard the dialogue at "normal levels", not as you experience "quiet", and the other effects were LOUD, which is fine in a theater, but when you now bring that sound home, and you're listening to it through one set of speakers, you end up in a situation where it's hard to adjust because you don't have separate speakers for the loud sound effects in the back, all is coming through the same speaker and you are trying to adjust between the *relatively* quiet dialogue and the *relatively* loud effects and can't find ONE level that works for both... if you up the volume enough, you'll hear the dialogue as it was meant, but now the effects sound will be way loud for your room, although they're working just as they were meant to in a large theater. So the answer to your question is that you are listening to a movie that has not been mixed properly for the Bluray/DVD or alternatively was meant to be listened to through at least a surround system like people have for serious movie watching at home... watching movies with the sound piped through a set of hi-end audiophile speakers for music may not be optimal for such movies.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
If the subject you are recording has movement, and you cannot boom due to being OMB...
Click to expand...

What a coincidence! A thread begun about JuicedLink digresses into boom miking as a one-man band, and it just so happens that Robert Rozak, president of JuicedLink, posted this gem seven years ago about how to boom a mic while working the camera.

one-man-camera-and-mic.jpg

But seriously, there also is a thread that I started about lavs and booms, Why a lavalier instead of a boom on a stand? that I think it got a lot of helpful replies and is filled with links to videos and articles.

Plus, the now-obligatory video for every thread about video vs. sound:

 
At the end, I'm sticking with my Zoom H6 (gotta work with what I have), seems like investing $300+ on a JuicedLink that compromises audio to camera compression is not great...
Maybe they will release something further on, cheaper, or with at least nice XLR out plugs instead of sticking with a 1/8in out... And a better design, we'll see...

And, I came up with this!

IMG_20150408_204717.jpg IMG_20150408_204732.jpg IMG_20150408_204744.jpg IMG_20150408_204755.jpg IMG_20150408_204847.jpg

It's all DIY from a polycarbonate (which gives a nice transparent look :cool:) scrap piece and pieces I had around my home... $0 spent on this... frankenstein "rig".

Zoom H6 on the right side, ME66 on top, and a wireless receiver on top. Im plugging my ME66 with an XLR Y splitter, because it was the shorter cable I had, thus, i haven't noticed gain or quality loss...

I paired the MS Stereo capsule with the H6 to get some ambience stereo captures around the day, which can be removed to keep the system smaller and lighter.

The downside of this rig, is the simplicity loss, now it feels like I have a huge camera system... Looks more "PRO" and is taller and wider.
My moves seem slower, since this is a bigger and heavier setup, im always checking I don't hit anything with walls.

Glidecam'ing is harder and heavier now, I might have to bundle with a arm brace or so...

Accessing the battery and the CF card compartments is more hassle now...


Tell me what you think of this all DIY rig-cage, looks nice huh?
 
Now if you can just figure out how to get that ME66 away from the camera and up where it belongs, ie, within 18-22 inches of the person speaking. Oh, and the ambiance you record is going to be contaminated with camera noises like focus motors and handling noise, what with the mic capsule within inches of the camera and the operator's hands. And while we're at it, rotate the wireless receiver 90 degrees so the antenna is vertical - the receiving antenna should be parallel to the transmitting antenna for best performance and minimum dropouts.
 
OzGizmo said:
Wow ....... with all that stuff you still don't have a VIDEO camera.
Click to expand...
I wish I had.... Like us all, but everything comes in a price. We're no millionaires sir, not everyone lives in 1st world countries.
There's no need to be impolite...
Although may I add this is not a dedicated video camera, yes, I bought this D800 for photography, yet, thinking of video too... I've had this for 3 years now... Sell all and time to upgrade though. a7s?, Blackmagic Production Camera?, GH4?
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
It depends on how the movie is mixed. Once upon a time, most movies were mixed for the theater. They were meant to be heard in big spaces with large speakers spread across the theater - and the volume was UP. So you heard the dialogue at "normal levels", not as you experience "quiet", and the other effects were LOUD, which is fine in a theater, but when you now bring that sound home, and you're listening to it through one set of speakers, you end up in a situation where it's hard to adjust because you don't have separate speakers for the loud sound effects in the back, all is coming through the same speaker and you are trying to adjust between the *relatively* quiet dialogue and the *relatively* loud effects and can't find ONE level that works for both... if you up the volume enough, you'll hear the dialogue as it was meant, but now the effects sound will be way loud for your room, although they're working just as they were meant to in a large theater. So the answer to your question is that you are listening to a movie that has not been mixed properly for the Bluray/DVD or alternatively was meant to be listened to through at least a surround system like people have for serious movie watching at home... watching movies with the sound piped through a set of hi-end audiophile speakers for music may not be optimal for such movies.
Click to expand...


Actually I think you kind of got it backward, though the point is about the same. Films are still mixed for the big screen, what they may not be spending much time on is a stereo version. We always spent a day or so doing "versions", which were altered mixes for different formats and one was always aimed at the straight stereo for broadcast and "home video" market. Now that the broadcast standard is 5.1 and video is released on DVD and BlueRay in 5.1 the bean counters may be saving money by letting the DVD player do the stereo downmix.

THe speakers in a theatre are not dedicated quite as described. There are no SFX speakers specifically. Traditionally all dialog and most/ all Foley comes from the center speakers. Everything else goes to the other speakers, mostly the L & R (or with SDDS the L, LC, RC, R) speakers. Surrounds and the sub woofer are used selectively. It's not unusual on a non action film to basically just bleed some SFX through a reverb to the surrounds and not send anything/ much of anything specifically to the surrounds. THe reason is that they are the speakers most likely not to be connected/ working/ tuned in home and theatre systems.

So in the case of playing a DVD on a good system, if it's a properly set up 5.1 system it should be fine, if it's stereo you may have to fiddle with the mixdown to make it sound right. On a show like GRAVITY where they sent dialog to od speakers including the surrounds it will be especially problematic if they didn't do a dedicated stereo mix.

You can get away with more "conflict" in the sound track if you are mixing 5.1 because you basically have dedicated dialog speakers. That gets problematic when your "dialog speakers" are the phantom center.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Scott. Makes sense. There is also such a thing as optimal sound levels for listening - a film usually has many layers of sound, and they are of course at different levels, all meant to work together, rather like a symphony. So f.ex. you may have dialogue, but perhaps there is a background sound that enhances the scene... now, if you sit at home and watch the film on f.ex. a laptop, you may have dialed the sound to where you can just hear the dialogue, but that's too low to also hear the lower level background sound, and so you'll miss out on the whole experience. Therefore for home theater, there is an optimal level of sound where you get to hear how the whole sound was meant to be taken. I imagine when mixing you then have a dilemma in that you know that perhaps 80% of the time the viewer will be seeing the film under less than optimal conditions, so do you gear your entire effort to that 80% of viewers? It's similar to how in pop music, when mixing folks often adjust the final mix through cheapo speakers, knowing that most people are not listening to the music through a hi-end system. If you are doing a film that's meant to go straight to video - or TV or streaming or whatever - who is going to mix it as if it's going to be heard through a big theater sound system. Anyhow, I imagine that it's a case of "follow the money", the mix has to work for the majority of the audience - if that means cheap TV, then that's how I imagine it'll be mixed. Which is why I was surprised to read that "Films are still mixed for the big screen"... I'd think that's increasingly less the case (except for mainstream Hollywood films for theatrical release, of course). Again, thank you for your insight into the realities of sound post production these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top