What THEY don't want YOU to know about PRE-AMPS!

Yeah I WAS getting a microtrack... I racked up a hundred posts on taperssection as I tried to investigate the new m-audio recorder... and I read all the "real world tests" and "bug" threads. There's several reasons I decided to skip the microtrack and get the 671.

I had actually paid for my microtrack already and had to cancel the order before it shipped.

Also vidled, you should be albe to hear the difference I'm talking about just by setting up a mic and plugging it into the dvx... and then plugging it into the 660... just don't move the mic and speak from the same position. After you hear the dialog with one versus the other... even with equalized levels... I'll be surprised if the 660 doesn't sound a lot more isolated then the cam did.

Also I want to add that I haven't kept all the mics I've tried... I have a decent kit, but it's not like I'm into collecting mics. There's a reason why I kept each mic I have and why I didn't keep others.
 
Interesting.
Will try the 660 vs. DVX "test" hopefully next week. But will probably still go with a MIXPRE (need a field mixer anyway, and this one seems decent).
Unfortunately I "only" have the AT835b, but have been geting okay results with it so far. A 4073a would be nice, but alas, some things have to wait! ;-)
I finally did hear tigeba's test after finding that thread.
Very interesting stuff!
 
Did you realize the benefit of an external pre-amp? No I don't mean to improve the DVX audio a bit, or bring out some of the hidden character of the mic. I'm talking about the single most important element for quality location sound... what is it?

It's getting the mic CLOSE enough to the speaker and controlling the unwanted ambient noise or unwanted interraction of room acoustics with your dialog!

Are we clear on that? Anybody dissagree?

Would you be surprised to learn that a PRE-AMP could make a HUGE difference in your ability to MAGICALLY CLOSE the distance to the mic and ALSO dramatically improve the mic's handling of room acoustics?

I know I was!

We've all done a matte in our NLE right? You know how you can make a circle "wipe" called a matte where a circle grows or is stationary in the frame to make the transition or create a lower third? Well if you don't know then go to the NLE forums and come back, 'cause I'm not explaining it in an audio forum... but it's a good visual tool to understand this.

Anyway, one of the variable characteristics of the matte is "edge sharpness" and that's what the pre-amp does for the pattern of the mic pick-up... let's say you have a hyper-cardioid plugged into your camera... this mic is gathering sound from an oblong bubble out the front and a tiny bubble out the rear... but in a sloppy pre-amp the bubble has very soft edges so that sounds which should be clearly outside of that bubble still leak in...

----STOP! That's not what a preamp does. A good preamp (versus a not so good one) presents a better match to the mic which results in better sound. It does nothing to change the pattern or its edges.-------

also the weaker pre-amp doesn't have the strength to push that bubble very far... so your effective reach is less.

With the improved pre-amp the edges of the bubble get sharper so that it's easier to keep wanted sounds within the mic's pattern and keep unwanted sounds out of the pattern... and at the same time the extra juice of the good pre can extend that pattern farther away then ever before!

----STOP! This is not true for the above mentioned reasons.------

SNIP---

In TC's flick I noticed the good location sound and others commented on it. He had an 897 (a 4031) and a MIXPRE... get that last part? Would you like to know how his location sound is so much less hollow sounding then other people who may have used an even better mic? If you want the answer to that question then please scroll to the top of this post and start reading again... just keep repeating that process until you get it.:thumbsup:

I'll post some audio (and some pics to show setup) which will illustrate this perfectly... first I'd like to see if we can get any good discussion on the premise.

---------To get it straight:

1. Closer is better with mics
2. Hypers for inside, shotguns for open spaces outside
3. Mixers with good preamps and limiters trump using mic inputs on cameras.
4. If you're not mixing during a scene with multiple mics, you're probably not doing it right or are putting a big burden on the post production crew.


Thanks,

Ty Ford
 
I have to agree with Ty on this one. I think what you are experiencing is a better match for your microphone. I don't doubt you are noticing a better overall sound, as it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Mixpre will sound better than the DVX preamp. Keeping the signal chain clean, and well matched from mic to cable to preamp/mixer to recorder combined with good miking techniques, and control over the interaction with the location are all key to achieving that great location sound that the pros get. We're still a ways away from getting that good on our own productions, but we're trying to get there.

Steve
 
Steve,

Sounds like you are on the right track and know how things work. What's keeping you from getting what you want?

Ty
 
Sorry Ty... I played with a few different mics and I see you are right... I definitely jumped the gun on this post and now I gotta' figure out how to tactfully edit my early enthusiasm.

My GF and I went out to dinner tonight and I said I needed to fix this thread before somebody busted me...

D'oh! Too late!

HEY GUYS EITHER FORGIVE ME FOR THIS STUPID THREAD OR I'LL DELETE IT.

The difference in pre-amp is still pretty amazing... but I think I jumped the gun on the proclamation of magical changes in the room... clips will be posted shortly.:thumbsup:

My hypothesis was premature to say the least... I was just enamored with how good my mics sounded through the FP24... but whatever... you can listen and decide for yourself.
 
Well, I think we're all on the same page, basically.
The fact that a MIXER/PREAMP is "a good idea" remains. (That together with good mic placement of course.)
:beer:
 
Whatever guys... I should probably delete this thread and I think I will tomorrow or the next day. For the most part I think I give good info on this board and I got a little wacky in this thread.

CLICK HERE for the clips!

This is an Oktava in my garage... I specifically chose the garage for it's crappy acoustics in an attempt to prove my point... which has basically been disproven... Hell I don't even think this set of clips is a good argument for the pre-amp! I'll probably post some other clips with my better mics and see what I get.

Peace out.
 
:thumbsup: Don't be so hard on yourself! :thumbsup:
Thanks for the link.
I'd certainly say that the GARAGE presence is less noticable in clip #4 as opposed to #1, where it clearly sounds like a small room. This "small room" atmosphere is not nearly as noticable in clip #4.
However, the levels seem not quite the same, so it's hard to tell 100%.
Ideal (or at least BETTER) test situations would be setting up the recording with two recordings at the same time, the DVX and the 671/MIXPRE, or something like that. I think you also suggested that in another thread. But many thanks for this sample. Considering it's a $200 mic in a garage, it sounds pretty good!! (#4)
 
I'll try to do it more scientifically and then post that. I noticed that the levels sounded off too.

I was trying to match the levels by using the meters on each component, but they don't sound the same to me either.

What made me freak out in the first place was using an AKG ck63 (hyper) in my kitchen... where it was really hollow sounding on the dvx and then really full sounding through the 671... maybe I should just post that one. Every sound bite on my site that isn't a wav file isn't worth that much anyway because you can hear some odd distortion in it... but wavs are huge... so I'll shorten the tests and just do wav. I'll post the ck63 in my kitchen later today.

I do wish I hadn't chosen such a provocative title for this thread... It was a goof on the "natural cures" book.
 
Here's the ck63... CLICK

I don't know how pronounced the drop in noise floor will be unless you listen with decent monitors or headphones... but anyway there it is.

I'm guessing it was the control and the quality of the headphone output on the FP-24 (and 671) which got me nuts on this topic. The combination of the improvement on the pre-amp AND the headphone outputs together had me thinking the difference was night and day... but I'd have to say that it's a solid improvement... where the value is as much in the extra control of the mic as it is the better signal path.

The difference in sound will probably be lost on many listeners... but the improvement in location audio as a whole won't be.

Still... my early use of the word "magic" was stupid because it's simply hard science (and there is no "tractor beam" for sound).

It's ironic that I said "magic" so many times with Gob as my avatar... totally appropriate really! If you watch AD then you get it.
 
Hey Matt.
That clip was not using any external preamp then?
Clip #1 is mic --> DVX, clip #2 is mic --> 671?
Would have to assume therefore that going via the FP24/mixpre into line level input on the 671 it would improve yet again, no? (I'm not too familiar with the 671 preamps)
 
Yeah that one was just into the recorder... that's why I said you might want to give your 660 another comparison versus the dvx. That was 16/48 also... the 24/96 sounds good in the 671, but I have to send it back to Marantz today to get a firmware update because that's why 24/96 isn't sounding good in my computer... so as I have it set right now there's no reason your 660 won't sound as good.

And yes, the noise floor drops pretty much over that when going to the FP-24 and line-in route... but in my previous clips the step down is so gradual over 4 cuts that I didn't think it was worth it to add the intermediate step of using line-in on the dvx... or the final step of using line-in on the 671.

This thread burned me out because I was too excited at the good sound early on... and while it's a big improvement in my opinion... I wouldn't expect everybody to think so. The main issues that this setup are going to solve for me are more complicated then the ideas I began selling in this thread. What I'm planning to do with my audio will be more trouble then most people will go to.

How's this for a complex setup? I got this stuff so that I could satisfy my desire for a wireless boom, but not lose anything by actually running it wirelessly. The boom mic will feed the FP-24 so the sound guy can run levels (and the mic gets 48v)... then that signal will go into the 671 and the sound guy can monitor via the headphone out on the 671 (so he knows what's actually already BEEN recorded)... then from the 671 output I'll have my G2 setup so that I have a guide track back on the camera from the wireless, but I'll be matching up 24/96 (or 16/48) in post... hopefully fairly easily because of the guide track. At the camera I'll use my own pair of 'phones so I can run the cam and simultaneously monitor my sound guy in case he gets too relaxed on his mic positioning... plus I'll know if there's any offending sounds (like a harley in the distance) that are ruining the location audio. If I want to take this a step further I'll mount a hyper on the cam so that I've got natural sound for BTS.

So does this sound like a good way to get the best possible location sound, but still beat some of the frustration in doing double sound or what? Sure it sounds complicated, but really all it takes is one push on the 671 to start recording and then level tweaks on the FP-24... that part is cake for a sound guy (even an inexperienced one)... and then I'll know if he's doing his job because I'll only hear sound in that ear/input when he's actually recording sound. Plus I can tell if he's too far away or if he's off axis and correct the problem on the spot. I know this might sound complex, but it's really not... and this should be a good way to ensure that I'm not wasting any time by trying to do location sound instead of ADR.
 
Got one... plus I can slate it on the FP-24.

I guess my clapper-board could finally be put to use instead of just being a neat prop. That's what you meant by slate it right? You meant to litterally slate it? (or did you just mean to pop a 1k pilot tone off the 24?)
 
Honestly, after the zombie thing the benefit of slating has become obvious (with a quick note after each slated shot)... back at the NLE I could have saved a lot more time by not having to watch several takes of everything to remember which one I wanted to use! With the clapper you could referrence a note that says S1 T3 and you'd know that scene 1 take 3 was the best... and then only capture that take for the edit.

I used to think people were just "playing filmmaker" when they'd slate DV productions if the audio and video were already sync'ed in cam... but after sorting through "planned" scenes with several takes I'll slate every project like this from now on!
 
I slated everything on my zombie short, and I felt a little dumb doing it, but it was actually quite helpful for identifying the scenes. Since I only had maybe 3 lines of dialog, I didn't run external audio. I think altogether, I shot 28 minutes of footage but the slates at the beginning of the scene was very handy.
 
Ty, the thing that's holding us back is a combination of budget and technique. On the budget end of things, the gear that we own is adeqaute for a lot of things we do, but not ideal. When we do get a budget worthy of better quality we rent higher end equipment and the results are much better. But I still struggle with things like securing lav mics properly under clothing so that you get no clothing noise. I try to use techniques either shown to me or that I've read about and it just doesn't always work out so well. I know this is something a lot of sound people struggle with on a regular basis, but in striving for perfection we always seem to fall short. The other area of concern is that we generally have small crews and we sometimes have to do multiple jobs on a set, and that can lead to mistakes when you can't focus on the one part of the process. In a controlled environment with no time constraints, we know enough about recording techniques to get the job done. It's when things get chaotic and fast paced that it can fall apart.

But anyway, that's why these forums are great because ideas get tossed around and knowledge is gained. It helps bridge the gap between those just starting out and the pros. So Matt, don't feel bad about the thread. Good things still came out of it.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top