Erm, pre-amps...?

gorillaonabike · Sep 30, 2012

I was talking to another amateur film maker who was asking me how my little DR100 performed. I said it was OK but was advised that a mixer, pre-amps etc... would be good.

What pre-amps she asked.

Me, erm, dunno... just advised from some sound guys on a forum.

So what pre-amps would work well (as 'budget' as possible) with a DR-100? I have absolutely no idea!

Alcove Audio · Sep 30, 2012

Once again we get into the "I want a Rolls Royce on a tricycle budget" discussions.

If you want better pre-amps on a limited budget you have to extend the limits a little bit. You can start by looking at the Sound Devices MM-1; phantom power, pre-amp gain knob, one XLR channel in, one XLR channel out, mic volume knob, headphone out, headphone volume knob, peak limiter, low cut filter, selectable monitoring - $385.00. For $325 you can get the Sound Devices MP-1. Trust me, the extra $60 for the MM-1 is well worth it, and boom-ops love them. I know nothing about the Whirlwind MD1 or the Denecke AD-20.

After that you get into dedicated field mixers. Sound Devices (up to $4,000) and PSC ($500 to $1,400) are the only field mixers I've personally used. Although I can't comment from personal experience Wendt has a stellar reputation and the Shure FP-33 ($1,300) has been a mainstay for a very long time. The mid-priced Rolls mixers ($400+) are apparently a good budget brand if you don't need hyper-quiet pre-amps (whispers and nature recording, for example).

MetalRenard · Oct 1, 2012

Just a quick note about whispers - you can add those in later anyway, in a controlled environment (studio).
Otherwise I have no clue about that stuff. ^^

brianluce · Oct 1, 2012

The Tascam is kind of the line of demarcation for sound. It's hard to go up incrementally from the DR100. The DR100 will give you decent sound, but to get to the next level, you've gotta break open the piggy bank. I tried one of those $100 preamps. Pure garbage.

Alcove Audio · Oct 1, 2012

The whole issue, from my point of view, is to avoid having to do any ADR in the first place; it is a difficult process to pull off technically, and the actors (and the director, who is usually the sound and picture editor) are usually woefully unskilled with the process as well. Besides, cheap pre-amps (and cheap mics) do induce some self noise, mostly hiss, which is relatively easy to remove (at the cost of some dialog clarity), but having a better pre-amp negates the problem in the first place. When you are doing DIY sound post and mixing most indie types run into limits on real-time processing power, which is another issue avoided by eliminating the problem at the outset; you don't have to dedicate a plug-in for noise removal. Another issue with ADR is that you then have to Foley that scene or that portion of the scene, another skill which takes time to master. One more step avoided.

From where I sit (the audio point of view), beginning filmmakers should concentrate on getting great production sound tracks. This makes the job of audio post fairly simple; dip the sound between lines of dialog, add basic sound effects and music, then mix. This is very simple. The filmmaker is, essentially, emulating very early "talkies" and television. Why would I think that this is the way to go? They are learning several other skills at the same time, technical skills like cinematography (which includes lighting) and editing, and artistic skills such as directing actors - plus scheduling, budgeting and a whole bunch of others; OVERLOAD! My motto is K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid! As the filmmaker grows s/he can get into the basics of dialog editing, Foley, more involved sound effects and better mixing skills - as well as improving all of their other filmmaking skills.

The current DIY filmmaking mindset is fine, but the fledgling filmmaker (or DP. or PSM, etc.) doesn't get to work with real professionals as they would have if they worked their way up in the traditional old-school studio system. They make mistakes, and most learn from them, but the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional learns from the mistakes of others. There are no professionals around for them to learn from, so every beginning filmmaker makes the same mistakes as almost all of the others. And they have so much to learn that not all of the lessons are firmly implanted.

AudioPostExpert · Oct 1, 2012

Excellent advice/info given by Alcove but I'd like to add to it: Audio is a process which needs a chain of equipment and that chain of equipment is far larger for audio than for any other area of filmmaking. Let me borrow Alcove's analogy of the Rolls Royce and the Tricycle: You are not going to turn your tricycle into a Rolls Royce simply by installing a Rolls Royce engine! The steering, handling, comfort and braking of the tricycle might have felt fine when it was just a tricycle but install a Rolls Royce engine and all these other elements of your tricycle will suddenly become life threatening weaknesses. The same is broadly true of sound, addimg a high quality mic pre-amp will improve your sound quality but not by as much as you may have hoped because dramatically improving one part of your sound chain will highlight the weaknesses in all the other parts. In other words, you'll only appreciate the real benefit of a high quality mic pre if you've also got a high quality mic, a high quality recorder and a high quality boom operator/mixer using them. And of course, this is only phase one of good quality sound, there's an even more complex chain of equipment when we get to audio post. In the long established audio post forums every few weeks some newbie posts a question asking which are the best speakers on a budget, they usually get boo'ed off the forum or completely ignored. Speakers are as irrelevant to audio post as a Rolls Royce engine is to a tricycle! A Rolls Royce engine only becomes relevant with a Rolls Royce chassis, suspension, body, etc.

G

brianluce · Oct 1, 2012

AudioPostExpert said:
The same is broadly true of sound, addimg a high quality mic pre-amp will improve your sound quality but not by as much as you may have hoped because dramatically improving one part of your sound chain will highlight the weaknesses in all the other parts.

G

Disagree. Going from a cheap mic to a really good one is going to make a difference. When I ran my gear through a great mixer I rented, I loved the improvement. However as you imply, it can start you on a slippery slope of wanting to bring all the pieces up to a higher standard. You put the nice tires on the car and now you want the nice wheels, the German made shocks, the Italian sway bar kit etc.

That's one of the challenges of indie filmmaking, knowing how to get the most bang for the buck on a budget.

AudioPostExpert · Oct 1, 2012

brianluce said:
Disagree. Going from a cheap mic to a really good one is going to make a difference.

I never said it wouldn't! In fact, even in the sentence you quoted, I specifically said "a high quality mic-pre will improve your sound quality"! You may "love" that quality improvement but you will be getting a much smaller improvement than you paid for if that mic-pre (or mic or mixer) is connected to poor quality components in other parts of the audio chain. Any audio recording or audio playback system is only as good as it's weakest link. Once you loose quality somewhere in the audio chain it's lost for good, it cannot be magically recreated by a high quality piece of equipment somewhere else in the chain!

G

gorillaonabike · Oct 4, 2012

Alcove Audio said:
Once again we get into the "I want a Rolls Royce on a tricycle budget" discussions.

If you want better pre-amps on a limited budget you have to extend the limits a little bit. You can start by looking at the Sound Devices MM-1; phantom power, pre-amp gain knob, one XLR channel in, one XLR channel out, mic volume knob, headphone out, headphone volume knob, peak limiter, low cut filter, selectable monitoring - $385.00. For $325 you can get the Sound Devices MP-1. Trust me, the extra $60 for the MM-1 is well worth it, and boom-ops love them. I know nothing about the Whirlwind MD1 or the Denecke AD-20.

After that you get into dedicated field mixers. Sound Devices (up to $4,000) and PSC ($500 to $1,400) are the only field mixers I've personally used. Although I can't comment from personal experience Wendt has a stellar reputation and the Shure FP-33 ($1,300) has been a mainstay for a very long time. The mid-priced Rolls mixers ($400+) are apparently a good budget brand if you don't need hyper-quiet pre-amps (whispers and nature recording, for example).

So if I were to put a PSC mixer http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300798-REG/PSC_FPSCDVMIX3_DV_PROMIX_3.html between a half-decent mic (e.g. NTG2 or ECM674) and a DR100, I am assuming this would give it a significant improvement. Is this correct?

Alcove Audio · Oct 4, 2012

You will get a modest improvement.

And I would suggest an NTG-1 or an AT875; they have better output levels, the PSC can provide the phantom power and you save a few bucks on the mic.