Home Free Library Store
Free Catalog



Save with a Two Year Membership

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.
Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members
Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index Search Posts
Who's Online Log In



Home: Video University Forums: Audio For Video:
Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink)

 
 


MLiebergot
Veteran


Apr 3, 2008, 6:44 AM

Post #1 of 9 (1865 views)
Shortcut
Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) Can't Post
I just wanted to let everyone know that I was contacted by a new XLR camera adapter (Juicedlinked) manufacturer the other day, and will be testing their base unit (CX211) against my current Beachtek DXA-FX box on my FX1's.

I took a look at their site and their stuff looks very promising as besides having 2 channel boxes, they also off 4 channel mixers for cameras, adn the units are not passive like Beachtek boxes and the like, but they actually use built in pre amps in their circuitry that seems to be extremely quiet.

Here's their site for anyone who's interested. Juicedlink

Also take a look at their YouTube sample on their site comparing itself to the Beachtek DXA-6, sounds real quiet.

I'll report back after I do a 2 camera test with the Juicedlink box on one FX1 and the Beachtek DXA-FX on another FX1. Both cameras will be setup ideticle and filming at the same time and I'm going to use either 2 wireless units on me or use 2 identical mics.

Besides using the boxes with a camera, I think these units could be used with small recorders like the Edirol R09/Marantz PMD620 and mix 2-4 channels of audio and output to your recorders 1/8 input. Units that already have real quiet preamps like the PMD620 might produce some real good audio.

I know that some will be using better options to record additional audio like the upcoming Edirol R-44 (4-track SD recorder), but this could be a nice option for those who already have recorders with 1/8 inputs and want a small form factor mixer to record multiple audio sources to their units.

Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro


Mark Foley
Veteran


Apr 3, 2008, 8:59 AM

Post #2 of 9 (1853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MLiebergot] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
Does look like a good piece of equipment....

The only problem I have with mix down recordings is you have to live with what you got. I guess I'm lazy and prefer to wait until post to do the mix...and have the option of changing it if I want to... :-)
_________________________
Mark






MLiebergot
Veteran


Apr 3, 2008, 10:26 AM

Post #3 of 9 (1842 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mark Foley] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
True, but if you are only doing a 2 channel mix, then both of your channels are separate anyway.
If you are doing a 4 channel, then yeah, you are going to lose half of the separate channels.

But if anyone wants to do quick simple turnaround edits, then this could be beneficial.
I wouldn't call yo lazy BTW, as what you ar doing is more labor intensive with mixing your audio after the fact. For those of us who like to get it in one shot, we are the lazy ones. Wink
In Reply To
Does look like a good piece of equipment....

The only problem I have with mix down recordings is you have to live with what you got. I guess I'm lazy and prefer to wait until post to do the mix...and have the option of changing it if I want to... :-)
Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro


Brackish
Veteran


Apr 3, 2008, 2:55 PM

Post #4 of 9 (1821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MLiebergot] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
In Reply To

I wouldn't call yo lazy BTW, as what you ar doing is more labor intensive with mixing your audio after the fact. For those of us who like to get it in one shot, we are the lazy ones.
"More labor intensive" means more time in post. If the client's not paying
for that extra time then they get "mixed on the spot as it happens". If you're
in a position where you have to keep the assembly line moving, that
time sitting around mixing in post could be used to start on the next
project.



------------------------------------------------------------
"still motion is who everyone else is trying to be like"


MLiebergot
Veteran


Apr 3, 2008, 5:36 PM

Post #5 of 9 (1805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Brackish] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
Brack, this wasn't supposed to turn into another time is money thread. So please don't trun this into the same kind of rhetoric that we hear time and time again here.
You are right to a point in that time is money, but for people who can edit multiple tracks quickly like myself, Mark and others, it's not really a chore.

Either way I look at it, I still will do audio work on all of my videos. As audio is what I consider one of my biggest selling points, as it is Mark's as well.
All things being said this new XLR box could be a great time saver for many who don't have onboard XLR's.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if these boxes are even quieter than most onboard XLR's. Especially Sony's with their noisy pre amps.


In Reply To
In Reply To

I wouldn't call yo lazy BTW, as what you ar doing is more labor intensive with mixing your audio after the fact. For those of us who like to get it in one shot, we are the lazy ones.
"More labor intensive" means more time in post. If the client's not paying
for that extra time then they get "mixed on the spot as it happens". If you're
in a position where you have to keep the assembly line moving, that
time sitting around mixing in post could be used to start on the next
project.
Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro


Mark Foley
Veteran


Apr 4, 2008, 12:21 AM

Post #6 of 9 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MLiebergot] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
Quote
the units are not passive like Beachtek boxes and the like
That was always may beef with the beachtek...as I would rather power a condenser mic at the box than run a battery in the mic (the audio purist in me hate to loose any dynamic range/SPL of the mic when it has to power itself)

_________________________
Mark






(This post was edited by Mark Foley on Apr 4, 2008, 1:47 AM)


Mark Foley
Veteran


Apr 4, 2008, 5:02 AM

Post #7 of 9 (1771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MLiebergot] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
Quote

Sony's with their noisy pre amps
Sony cams are the absolute worse at audio...pure junk/noise. Probably my biggest disappointment when I move away from Canon cameras (they got some decent electronics in there)
_________________________
Mark






RT Steele
Veteran


Apr 4, 2008, 4:47 PM

Post #8 of 9 (1729 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mark Foley] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
In Reply To
Quote

Sony's with their noisy pre amps
Sony cams are the absolute worse at audio...pure junk/noise. Probably my biggest disappointment when I move away from Canon cameras (they got some decent electronics in there)

Ditto this. (But you hear the reverse also).

I never run my audio in auto - I don't see how anybody can. It's just too hot.

Maybe it's my XLR adapter but I don't think so because even a wireless unit plugged directly into the mic jack runs way too hot on auto.

- RT


MLiebergot
Veteran


Apr 9, 2008, 7:59 AM

Post #9 of 9 (1674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Brackish] Testing a new XLR adapter for cameras (Juicedlink) [In reply to] Can't Post
Just a quick update on the CX2100 box.
It arrived on Friday but I was off from work, so I picked it and and did a quick test on Monday.
The overall build seems solid, as it has a metal casing, and XLR inputs seem well constructed.

The switches on the box are a little on the small aide, but manageable for my fat fingers.
I am not a fan of where the XLR were placed, which was on the left side of the box. And I mount my wireless and shotgun mic on the right side of the camera like most probably do. So I have to run mu cables under the FX1's camera handle (No big deal and not a deal breaker, but not as clean a setup as I would like). You can spin around the box so the XLR's are on the right, but then the level knobs are on the front of the camera and not facing you.

The pan switches are on the front side of the box and can be set to L/C/R for each channel. There's no mono stereo setting because of the selectability of each channel. So if you are using just one mic then set that channel to center and you're set. Ia actually like this setup because you can even do a center mic with one channel to both L/R tracks as well as set the other channel for a L or R pan. So one mic goes to one track and the other input can go to just one.

Now for the fun part. As I said I did a quick down and dirty test with the CX211 and a Rode NTG2 mic and my Samson Micro 32 wireless.
First off this unit when set to Medium or Low pre amps, is real quiet. And i do mean quiet. You do have to be careful though if you are using just one mic and set your pre amp to Low, that you turn down the free channel all of the way. The reason is that the noise floor on the Low pre amp channel being used is so ow, that the other channel is above the noise floor, thus creating a lot of white noise. As soon as you turn down the other unused channel all of the way, it's perfect.

The audio pots on it are small but smooth to turn and gives very even and fluid sound level adjustment.

The unit doesn't have a built in limiter on it, but it does have a 20dB output pad integrated into the box. The mixer has the flexibility to go from `+16dB gain, to full attenuation (no input signal). Whatever signal you input into the juicedlink, you will be able to adjust it with the appropriate amount of gain/attenuation to get it in the sweet spot of the camcorder mic input.

All in all for a first quick test, I am impressed. Right off of the bat just with headphones, the CX211, even with the CX211's pres turned up to high, was much quieter than my DXA-FX1 from Beachtek.
In the coming weeks I am going to actually record both to tape for a head to head and post for all.

Right now I would say that this box will give you better audio than if you had a Sony Z1 and used the built in XLR's. The difference is dramatic because of the pre amps (as Sony's are notoriously noisy).

BTW, the developer (Robert) has also posted a new video testing the CX231 (same as CX211 but has 48v phantom power) against two Beachtek boxes and a Mix Pre.
http://www.juicedlink.com/index_file...comparison.htm

Feel free to contact me with any questions that you have on the box.

Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro