If you're a user of Bias Peak, Peak Pro, Deck or any other audio-editing software created by Bias Inc, you're out of luck with future support: The company has ceased operations.
And what's worse is that nobody picked up their product lines, not Avid, Apple, Microsoft... nobody. The entire Bias product line is just dead.
If you've already purchased the software fear not, it will keep working presumably forever or, until you upgrade your system to the point that the software is no longer compatible, but if you've only gotten a trial version there's no real way to make it a full version now. Not unless you're willing to hack into it with some code-monkey wrangling that I'm sure people on the internet are offering.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding the companies demise but they never were that great when it came to customer support and some of their products really needed a serious re-vamp, such as Deck, which went virtually unchanged for years.
So what are your options for products similar to the now defunct Bias offerings? To be honest I'm not sure myself. Adobe has a few audio editing offerings, as does Avid and a few others, but an exact replacement for Peak or Deck? I just don't know.
I've been using Peak for years, ever since version 4 and don't have plans to replace it with anything since it does it's job quite well, but at some point I'll have to invest in something that has support!
FYI to the community.
Reviews for Professional Editors, Producers, Camera Operators and anyone involved in the commercial filmmaking community. Often you'll find some stuff not related to filmmaking... but fun anyway.
Showing posts with label Pro Audio Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro Audio Reviews. Show all posts
Jul 23, 2012
Nov 22, 2010
Blue Sky EXR 6.5 Active 2-Way Monitor review
But here's the caveat with that standard: Not everyone has the physical space to allow for a 2.1 system (which requires a correctly placed and sized subwoofer) and/or, has the technical expertise to set it up properly. And, the some of the best 2.1 systems also command a higher price-point than the traditional 2-unit stereo pairs. Well guess what, those knowledgable guys at Blue Sky understand all that and have given the market what it's been asking for: An uber-high quality, sonically accurate stereo monitor, with some previously unheard-of features in a desktop near-field.
Enter the Blue Sky EXR 6.5 2-way near-field monitor. As with anything I test and review I always start off with a completely non-biased and open mind and my B.S. filter is on high alert for anything that turns out to be over-hyped manufacturer claims rather than real-world performance results. The need to be completely un-biased was even more important with this review because every other Blue Sky unit I've tested has always come out on top, so I had to be sure that I wasn't mentally preparing myself for another 5-Star review.
However despite the glowing reviews I've given Blue Sky's offerings previously I was a bit timid about reviewing a traditional stereo pair, in fact I was almost prepared to be under-whelmed if anything. So in point of fact I was already biased *against* the EXR's for producing any sonic experience that would impress me. I should have known better.
In fact, I did have to re-train my ears a bit to fully test the EXR's because for years I've been using the Blue Sky Pro Desk 2.1 system as my primary monitoring solution, so my ears have definitely become accustomed to the balanced sonic footprint of having a floor sub-woofer. With the sub removed from the equation I had to not only reposition the monitors to accommodate the lack of a sub but I also had to use pink and white-noise generators along with scopes to make sure I had put them into their proper position. Once I did that and started playing my standard audio test files (a varied selection of music tracks, foley and vocal tracks) then I was really in for a treat.
The EXR's really came to life in a significant way. First off, the highs are typical Blue Sky fare: Crisp & accurate without being harsh or abusive to the ear. Imaging was also noticeably open and organic, something that was punctuated by the active and tuned porting in the cabinets. And the lows were full-bodied, punchy and carried LFE moments easily without distortion. However because this is a stereo pair and not a 2.1, the EXR's can't be pushed to the same decibel level as say the Pro Desk just for the simple reason that they can't move the same amount of air as a subwoofer can, so you have to be cautious with tracks that have lots of LFE or heavy bass mixes such as heavy-metal rock or even some soundtracks such as "Transformers" which carry tons of lower-than 60hz info in the mix, as you can easily introduce distortion with too much "bass".
But one of the amazing things about the EXR's isn't just their physical output, it's that they are TUNABLE. That's right, these jewels actually contain DIP switches and to control tweeter output, a gain control and get this, "Baffle Compensation" settings on the rear panel. That's right, the porting on this unit can actually be actively controlled with the Baffle Compensation controls allowing for a highly tunable cabinet matched to room acoustics. (This requires using an acoustic analyzer, but if you've got the hardware and knowledge this unit will do it!!) I've only seen this high-end feature on monitors costing more than DOUBLE the price of the EXR's, so Blue Sky is giving you not only class-leading sound, but amazing control over that sound.
But it would be almost pointless to do a review of this type without some basis of comparison, and I was very fortunate to have been able to stack up the EXR's against the following competitors who are in the same relative price-point.
Below is the list as tested and notes of how they sounded in a head-to-head A-B test against the EXR's:
- DynAudio BM6A MkII: Anemic; lacked mid-range fullness and punch. Did not image nearly as well. Highs can be very harsh and too bright. Overall output seemed too low as if the on-board power was not enough.
- Tannoy Precision 8D: Odd sounding overall. Lots of low-end punch but dicey highs and lacked natural imaging. Almost sounded as if they needed to be broken in first. Floor noise to high for this price-point monitor.
- JBL R4326: Overall good sonic reproduction. Low-end extension not as deep or as controlled as EXR's; distorts easier than EXR's. Imaging OK but the "sweet spot" is much narrower than EXR's requiring the user not move their head to much from side to side to keep imaging sounding proper. Noticeably louder floor noise but not as bad as the Tannoy.
- Genelec 8040A: Very crispy highs that can translate into harsh when pushed; very flat and soft mid-range; too much low-end punchiness. Sounds unbalanced and requires EQ controls to balance out the highs and lows. Good for mixing heavy music tracks, poor with vocals and piano.
- Behringer B3031A "Truth": Very narrow sweet spot otherwise a decent sounding rig. Low-end extension not as deep or as controllable as EXR's. Fair mid-range but slightly anemic. Does not have a good reputation for longevity.
- Mackie HR624 MkII: Unnaturally flat and lacking detail especially in highs. Lot's of mid-range but lows are unbalanced, imaging fair to poor compared to EXR's.
- M-Audio DSM1: High degree of floor noise, translates into noisy tweeters and distorted lows. Imaging is poor across the board and mid-range suffers. Worst of the bunch by far.
- ADAM A8X: The closest sounding competitor to the EXR's. Very open, natural tweeters, excellent imaging, controlled lows. EXR's have more low-end balance and slightly better imaging especially for vocals, piano and instruments. ADAM's seem to handle LFE equally as well as EXR's however EXR's seem to have deeper low-end extension. In all a very, very tight competitor.
The only other model that I wanted add to this list but wasn't available - and is also at a higher price-point than the EXR's - is the Focal Solo6 Be 6.5.
Highly Recommended
The list of tested monitors above represents what most pro-audio users and techs consider to be the "best of the best" in that price-point of speaker, which is from $650 to sub-$1000 per unit. And it might be surprising to see how poorly some of the other models actually performed against the Blue Sky EXR's. But if you read my other reviews of Blue Sky models you'll quickly learn that the guys at Blue Sky are something of modern-day wizards when it comes to accurate sonic reproduction
If the guys at SkyWalker Sound trust Blue Sky to create an entire system for their high-end, commercial monitoring solution, don't you think *you* should do the same?
Jun 22, 2010
New Blue Sky Monitor Offerings: SAT 2.65 and Sub 212
It's amazing the things we assume as common knowledge these days. For example, we all know the earth is round. And the moon isn't made of cheese. And it turns out smoking really does cause cancer. But did you know that you can actually own products and technology specifically designed for and used by SkyWalker Sound? Seem amazing? Well, it's true - true "Blue" that is.
That's right, Blue Sky actually sells an entire professional monitoring setup that was originally designed for and in collaboration with SkyWalker Sound: The 265 Satellites and 212 Sub combination. (products offered separately, not as a standalone kit) NOTE: the 265 satellites are NOT designed to be used as standalone stereo pair but are sonically matched to the 212 subwoofer.
If you've read my other reviews you know that I've tested almost the entire range of currently available professional studio monitors and that 2 other Blue Sky products, the Media Desk and Pro Desk both got glowing reviews from me specifically because they outperform their competition and at a price point that's hard to beat. In fact I've been so surprised by the Pro Desk's performance that I'd considered anything larger to simply be… louder, but not better.
Well that assumption was blown away recently when Blue Sky sent me their latest masterpiece, the 265/212 combo. The setup consists of (2) of their 2.65 satellites which enclose (2) 6.5" inch woofers each and their gorgeous single center-mounted tweeter - all with individual discrete amps - balanced with the massive 212 Sub which houses a dual "push-pull" 400-watt driver. The subwoofer is nothing to take for granted; the enclosure is so tall that you could bolt-on a backrest and turn it into a seat - not that you'd actually want to sit on it during operation, mind you. (That would be one hell of a sphincter-loosening device, ay!)
In all honesty I fully expected that the combination of literally four large-scale drivers in a near-field setup (remember, it's 2 woofers per satellite) coupled with that uber-sized subwoofer would simply be overwhelming for a single-user edit station and all that power would be wasted on ear-crunching output. Boy was I wrong. In fact what all that power does is reproduce sound in a completely distortion-free environment, something even the Pro Desk can't do when you start cranking the output.
Speaker technology is actually pretty difficult stuff to master and here's an example of what I mean:
Take the your typical orchestra; there are several instruments that vibrate the air around them at differing frequencies and velocities from the high-pitched squeal of a violin to the low and very highly-transient punches from the timpani (kettle drums). Each of these instruments literally creates their own "space" in the air and their sound reaches our ears in slightly different ways - and times - which gives them their individualistic sound and a sonic footprint that separates them from other instruments. It's also these characteristics that professional audio engineers have to take into account when setting up microphones to capture this multi-faceted environment.
Consider the above and now apply those same concepts to say all the sounds that happen within a movie production environment; you've got ambient sounds, the spoken word from talent (or singing vocals), sound FX (which more often than not includes LFE - low frequency extensions) and of course the soundtrack the producers choose. All that stuff has to find it's individual space in the final output in the movie.
Now think about all those various sounds which can come from literally dozens of sources being squeezed down into just a few - often no more than four - separate speakers; 2 woofers and 2 tweeters. And that's the typical stereo setup you see at an edit station. Right? Does that sound logical to you? (pun intended) Well it's not at all logical and, when you start to ramp up the volume to gain more clarity during a piece what happens? You start introducing distortion because those speaker drivers can only vibrate back and forth so fast and, can only handle a limited number of frequencies at any given moment in time. Clearly speakers have their work cut out for them, and smaller speakers especially are easily overwhelmed with large sound output.
And that's the basic model behind not only the Blue Sky philosophy of creating the "2.1" environment but also in the thinking behind these massive and multiple drivers for the 265/212 setup. In effect what Blue Sky has done is not only divide up the workload for the speakers so the can more efficiently transfer all this information to your ears but, they've also given each separate driver it's own high-powered amplifier so they can move the mass of air with greater ease.
Think of it this way; a small inline 4-cylinder car can get up to 100 mph after a certain period of time and most likely near it's top-end limit "redline" of RPM too. Whereas a large V8 motor will get up to 100 mph much faster and with a lot less effort, not nearly turning as many RPM's and not getting close to it's redline either. This same concept applies to the 265/212 setup: More power, more drivers with less distortion and while not "overdriving" the speaker cones themselves.
The end result? Everything from highly percussive LFE transients to the most subtle chirping of a distant bird is reproduced with unparalleled grace. Compared to the Pro Desk the stereo imaging from this setup is nothing short of amazing; using my standard test sound files as a reference point hearing them played back on the 265/212 setup is almost like hearing them for the very first time - in a whole new dimension, almost 3D, for lack of a better term. And floor noise? No more perceptible than was apparent with the venerable Pro Desk: Extremely low and quiet.
At nearly $5K for the purchase price this system isn't for the newbie or inexperienced editor, but if you're dead-serious about hearing every minute detail of your soundtrack and truly getting an honest and unqualified perfect reproduction of your sonic environment I can't imagine anything outpacing the 265/212 setup from Blue Sky, not even at double the price. Now if I could just figure out a way to make that subwoofer a temporary seat in my office….
Jun 21, 2010
ART Voice Channel review
If you've ever noticed an announcers voice during a TV commercial, how clear and clean it sounds and how the voice seems to ride above background music or sound effects without being hard to hear or unintelligible, that's the result of a professional produced "voice over".
Getting a voice-over or "VO" as it's referred to in the industry to sound that good is a result of 5 things: Trained vocal talent for the task; a good, natural sounding microphone (such as the BLUE BlueBird for example); a high-quality mic pre-amp; a compressor-limiter either in hardware or software; and EQ to fine-tune the sound of the vocal actor. I can't help you with the vocal talent part but I can definitely help with the other 4 components.
Typically there are 2 methods that sound engineers adopt when recording VO for commercial productions: Either they record the talent "dry", which means no effects or EQ is applied during the recording session and all that work is done in post-production or; they will use a set of hardware using a compressor, limiter and EQ and fine-tune the recording for the actors voice and and end up with a recorded file that's ready to trim and insert into a project without all the extra work of setting up EQ and compression settings in post.
If you have a situation where you're recording the same vocal talent regularly or, end up recording your own voice then wouldn't it be easier to get all the hard work done up-front and concentrate solely on getting the recording done and ready to "drag-n-drop" into a sequence timeline? If so, then the ART Voice Channel is exactly the tool you need.
The Voice Channel is a "channel strip" which consists of a 2-stage tube pre-amp for the mic (condenser, dynamic or even a ribbon-type mic can be used) with phantom power available for the condenser types, a compressor section, a limiter, a parametric EQ with high and low mid ranges, an expander gate and a mic impedance-matching control. (whew) All that built into a single rack-mount, single-channel device with XLR, Toslink, S/PDIF and USB outputs along with WORD CLOCK and an insert channel. And if you don't know what all that stuff means, don't worry you can read up on it in the instruction manual.
The beauty of this device is that it allows you to fully and completely customize the mic to the talent and tailor the output to exactly what you need the sound to be without the fuss in post. Having drag-and-drop assets in any production is a huge time-saver.
In practical use it definitely takes time to setup all the control parameters to get a natural sounding vocal track and if you're not experienced at setting up a mic and or a soundboard this might be a daunting task. But if you're a seasoned pro the Voice Channel could very easily be a must-have tool in your bag of tricks for clients.
Once properly setup and when used with a high quality mic the output from the Voice Channel is startlingly gorgeous and "spot-on" for VO use. I'm not a musician nor do I work with performers in bands so I can' comment on it's application for singing but from what I understand it's the perfect home-studio add-on for "garage band" types too.
If you're not experienced in working with a sound board or rack-mount sound devices then it would take time for you to get familiar with how this works or even why it's so valuable to vocal production, but even an amateur sound engineer could make this unit turn so-so VO captures into commercial-ready vocals for national markets.
Blue Bluebird condenser mic Review
Years ago large diaphragm mics whether dynamic or condenser were really expensive, easily costing near or over $1000 dollars and, not the easiest to setup since distance from the talent and proper pop-screen positioning not to mention the quality of the pre-amp were all critical in getting really good sound.
Today with newer technology all around the audio world that's changed, drastically. Now you can get a really good sounding large diaphragm condenser mic for less than $500 and it's not so finicky with it's setup. The Blue "BlueBird" most definitely falls into the category of affordable, great sounding mics.
Based on BLUE's branded "baby bottle" design the unit comes with it's own clamp-on pop-screen (really too small for practical use but better than nothing) and ships in a gorgeous wooden slide-cover case, which looks surprisingly similar to a cedar-box turkey call hunters use to lure the big birds. At least that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it; others might have a flash-back and say, "Hey man... you can stash your weed in there!"
In use the BlueBird sounds as good at it looks (not that I think a baby bottle is a thing of beauty, mind you); it's very airy with an accurate midrange through 1.5Khz and lends itself well to vocals that don't have a growling low-end.
Connected to a Mackie mixer with Onyx preamps the mic really comes alive but also responded very naturally to a 3-stage tube pre-amp from ART. I even tried the older model Mackie 1202 VLZ PRO and the BlueBird sang just like.... a songbird! Imagine that.
Mics respond very differently to different voices and hardware setups, no doubt, so it's not entirely accurate or scientific to review a mic based solely on vocals rather than pink or white noise generators. But what human do you know sounds like pink noise when they speak or sing? OK, that's probably a question better left unanswered since I can think of an ex who had a voice like a piece of sandpaper but...
It's hard to find anything wrong with the BlueBird at all; for the price it's nearest competitor would be either an AKG Perception 400 or RODE NT1-A but in both cases the BlueBird is more natural, has a flatter mid and low-end response but doesn't sound "tinny" as many mics in this price range do and is definitely my pick versus the competitors.
Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 System Review
The history:
I've recently been on a quest to enhance my listening/monitoring experience for my main edit suite. I previously posted a not-so-flattering review of the M-Audio EX66's but I can say this is quite different.
Just to be sure I hadn't caused any setup errors on the recently purchased M-Audio EX66's I spent an exhaustive testing period where I purchased, dragged into the office an auditioned several monitors including DynAudio, Alesis and JBL to see just how other models would perform in *my* edit suite and not the dealer's nicely dampened sound room.
The most surprising thing about all the stand-alone self-powered monitors is that they all have an audible, *pink-noise-type* floor hiss. That makes no sense to me, since I'm used to Class-A discrete circuitry in my home audio receivers/amps such as NAD, Adcom and Onkyo - you can turn up the volume *almost* full (with no input selected) and still not hear as much floor noise from those amps as compared to all these professional monitors have at idle. It must have something to do with the amplifiers being in such close proximity to the drivers - but I digress.
I recently spent time at a clients' edit suite and noticed how natural, balanced and flat his audio was but never really paid attention to what the system was until the day I left. When I finally noticed it was the Blue Sky MediaDesk I couldn't believe all that accurate audio was coming from a "low-end" rig - low-end, meaning it didn't cost $2k or more. So to put it to the test I purchased a set myself.
The result:
I'm flat-out amazed, to put it simply. This little, affordable system has absolutely stunned me; I hear details far deeper into the mix than I've ever heard before and imagery is on-par with the DynAudio's. Highs seemed a little bright and sharp initially but after the drivers warmed up and started to break in a bit that mellowed out to a more neutral and accurate flat response. When the sub is properly placed and levels set it is a perfect match for the satellites. Unlike other 2.1 systems I've demo'd the sub was neither over-powering nor did it create an unnatural out-of-phase relationship to the sats - again this was achieved with balancing the output with both room placement and using an SPL meter and sine-wave capture software for setup purposes. (I used the same process for all the monitors I've tested). To date, the Blue Sky Media Desk is the only 2.1 system I've tested at this price range that created such a normal, all-around balanced output.
Of all the systems I tested only 2 stood out significantly from the rest of the pack: The BM15's and the Blue Sky MediaDesk 2.1. The distinctive difference between the two? The BM15's were slightly more accurate both in imaging and in 2k+ frequencies but the mids and lows were actually a tad muddy when compared to the Media Desk. The BM6A's with sub were also a great sounding setup but the BM15's actually had much more accurate highs and so I took the BM6A's out of the testing loop.
So let's see... the DynAudio's were about $2.5k for the pair, the Blue Sky Media Desk was $500 and has better mid to low performance but sacrifices a smidgen of imaging, hmm... And the noise-floor hiss? The BM15's and Blue Sky systems were near identical; not non-existent but far, far less than the Alesis, JBL's and of course the extra noisy EX66's.
If you want the most accurate, best bang-for-the-buck in professional audio monitoring for UNDER $600 there's just no substitute for the Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system. Period.
Blue Sky Pro Desk 2.1 Review
Any experienced film or video editor will tell you that one component to getting a good sequence is having the ability to accurately monitor the soundtrack from vocals to sound effects and of course music. To accomplish that task specialized speakers called "near-field monitors" were created to allow the speakers to be physically close to the editor without requiring high sound pressure levels (SPL) or "volume" to be used.
Over the years as movies evolved into more sound-track driven experiences with extreme low-end sounds often referred to as LFE (low-frequency extension) and surround-sound mixes became the norm, having an accurate sound monitoring setup was critical to achieve a well-balanced sonic environment for the editors to do their work and have a good reference point for what the final product would sound like to the end-user, especially when re-mastered for DVD audio (and now Blu-Ray too).
One of the problems however - and one that caused a great deal of controversy - is that most editors that already had high-quality 2-channel stereo monitors - satellites as we refer to them now - were simply adding a subwoofer to their setups to add LFE capabilities to their edit suites, but that sub was not sonically matched to the 2 stereo near-fields already in-place creating a very unbalanced and often overpowering bass component to the mix. Not to mention many of these same editors simply didn't understand how to properly setup the sub placement or output level relative to the satellites. And so many abandoned the "2.1" setups because of the poor sonic performance.
But in point of fact, having a distinct separation between satellite speakers which handle the high and mid-range frequencies and the subwoofer which generally handles the low-end frequencies below 100hz is both logical - and necessary. Why? For that we need a quick overview of how a speaker actually works - see my page in the "How To" section about how speakers work and why a 2.1 system is the perfect solution.
For the average home-studio editor or independent producer on a tight budget about $2000 is all they can afford for an accurate monitoring setup, and a few systems both traditional 2-channel and 2.1 systems are available in that price range. But after extensive testing with leading brands such as JBL, Alesis, Dyn-Audio, Mackie, ADAM and even Genelec I came across a 2.1 system that blew me away - and what surprised me more was that the cost for this 2.1 system was LESS than the cost of a high-end 2-channel option from all the others: The Blue Sky Pro Desk 2.1.
One of the distinguishing features of any natural-sounding speaker is the quality and accuracy of it's tweeter; Blue Sky uses an ultra-high quality VIFA assembly with conical diffuser for it's SAT 5 MKII satellites used in the Pro Desk system. High-frequency output from the VIFA tweeters is almost surreal; it's very life-like and airy without "pinching" your ears with too much sharpness and is responsible for most of the accurate stereo imaging produced by the satellite pair.
The mids are produced by Blue Sky's proprietary 5" inch driver assembly that has a wonderfully flat and linear response across a broad frequency and SPL range.
The Universal 8 subwoofer is a perfect match with the SAT 5 MKII's both sonically and electronically as the sub matches the satellite's backplane controls for output and mid-cut frequency settings.
As with any professional monitors all the audio connections are locking XLR-type with 3-prong ground power cable ports.
But great sound just doesn't happen by opening the box and turning on the setup, it most definitely requires properly locating both the satellites and the sub and clear instructions along with a setup guide is provided with the Blue Sky manuals.
If you've never heard a properly setup 2.1 system or, have never used a subwoofer in a traditionally stereo-only environment then you'll be absolutely amazed at how much sonic information you've been missing - and how accurately the Blue Sky Pro Desk reproduces all these sounds without coloration or distortion.
As I mentioned earlier there are a handful of competitors who offer more expensive options to the Blue Sky Pro Desk 2.1, but none of them *sound* better or are more accurate, you're just paying for a different brand label on the product. And when you consider that the entire setup is less than $2k retail (not including shipping) it's an impossible system to pass up. In fact, the *only* system I've heard that sounds better is the massive Sky System One from Blue Sky which, by the way, just happens to be what Skywalker Sound uses.
M-Audio EX66 Review
After satisfactory results from the BX8a's I'd had for a couple years I decided to try the newer EX66 monitors from M-Audio, which was supposed to be the "next step up" in the M-Audio lineup. It is a step-up in cost, but not performance.
Although the EX66's are much more efficient and have various tone controls on the backplane for tuning to an environment they are also incredibly noisy. So much so, that when in a quiet environment such as our edit suite - and with no input at all going to the speakers - you can easily hear them "hiss" from 10 feet away. That's totally unacceptable for what's supposed to be a professional near-field studio monitor.
At first I thought it to be a wiring/ground or other user-error in the install but quickly determined it is in fact the speaker electronics that is causing the above-average and nasty noise floor. When we returned them to the dealer they too were stunned to hear them "hiss" at us when hooked up to their "perfectly tuned" studio environment with line conditioners etc. We also thought that maybe only one of the monitors was hissing, but both of them were, ruling out the possibility that one of them had a manufacturing defect or bad driver.
It might still be a defect, but not manufacturing and instead just bad design or very cheap, low-end drivers. Hard to imagine that my "lowly" BX8a's were far quieter with almost no perceptible floor noise. Just for kicks, we hooked up a pair of DynAudio BM6a's and two different JBL models, they all had some level of floor noise but nothing nearly as noisy as the EX66's. And they are all in the same price-point; roughly $600-700 per monitor.
Noise aside the EX66's were definitely an improvement over the smaller BX8a with better overall imaging, more natural mid-range and less boomy low-end especially in the sub-100Hhz ranges. However when put up against the competition in the same room even their improved imaging doesn't compare to the overall accuracy of any JBL and especially DynAudio.
If you've got the budget for what the EX66's sell for, which is around $1300 street, you've got much better options, such as the Blue Sky Pro Desk 2.1 ! I can't abide the fact that monitors at this price have such low performing characteristics. If you've got a pair of BX8a's then stick with those. If you want a move up in audio quality and accuracy but don't have the budget for a set costing more than a grand, take a listen to the Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1, which sells for less than $600 street. (see review)
Olympus LS-10/LS-11 Review
One of the things any motion picture production needs is good audio, whether it's captured in a studio or on-location. Typically - and most especially - on-location audio is normally done by experienced sound engineers with very specialized field recorders and expensive boom mics inside "blimps" or "dead cats" (you see these all the time on the news, the really large, oblong-shaped covers with a screen over them or the fuzzy cover at the end of the mic pole). And on top of the pricey equipment also comes the proper methods for setting up the equipment from proper levels, to cabling to years of experience in microphone placement.
But if you're an indie producer with the typical low-budget or worse a "one man band" attempting to do everything by yourself or with inexperienced help then a fully-rigged and trained sound person is out of the question. So what to do?
For years Olympus has been making very high quality and inexpensive personal recorders and dictation machines for the general consumer market, and they've taken these years of technological know-how and used it for a more high-end purpose, that of a near-pro level sound capture device that can be used both by the total neophyte to sound or the experience pro.
The LS-10 is a brilliant combination of simple operation and high-quality sound components. Like it's more expensive competitors by Sony, Edirol and others it comes equipped with 2 top-mounted mics in a "Y" pattern to create a natural sounding stereo soundscape on capture. The on-screen menus are logically laid out and the high-contrast, backlit screen is easy to read with straightforward navigation and fully functional level-peaking meters.
It also has a very small form factor really no bigger than the mini-casette recorders of old (believe it or not, they still make those dinosaurs!) approximately 5"x2"x1" inches, small enough to be tucked away in a shirt pocket or a cinema-shooters' vest.
Battery life is also excellent and you can easily get 8-hours or more of constant use depending on conditions, the format selected and whether or not AGC is turned on or not.
But the real story about this amazing little device is just how good the sound really is. With auto-GAIN (AGC), a "MIC SENSE" switch for high and low settings and a low-cut filter switch the captured audio from the LS-10 sounds like it came from a much more expensive unit; very low noise, well defined stereo imaging and tons of dynamic range.
In fact, I've actually used the LS-10 for a professional voice-over session when in a pinch, professional equipment wasn't available. I simply put a "dead cat" (fuzzy pop-screen) over the top-mounted mics (available from a third-party developer), used the low-cut filter to remove the unwanted low-end room ambience, turned on the AGC and voila - I had a gorgeous voice-over that didn't need any compression or EQ tweaking! Amazing.
There certainly are more expensive and better sounding portable PCM recorders on the market but they're all much more expensive than the Olympus LS-10 by hundreds of dollars costing over $1100. Olympus does have an upgraded model the LS-11 which offers a few more features and a great deal more built-in record time but it's also $100 more than the LS-10 and for my money not worth the cost. If you really wanted to get a higher-quality recorder with a true professional interface (and cost) then take a look at the Tascam HDP2.
All in all the Olympus LS-10 can easily pay for itself on just one commercial gig and with it's plethora of recording formats and setups the usages for this little wonder are limited only to your imagination.
Sony PCM-D50 Review
Portable PCM digital recorders are all the rage now, especially that many of them such as the Olympus LS-10 and LS-11 sound so amazingly great. It wouldn't be Sony if they didn't offer their competitive model. Actually, the PCM-D50 is more expensive than the offerings by Olympus by a few hundred dollars but, it does have a few benefits over the LS-10.
At first blush it looks like a mini-sized PCM-D1 but costing 70% percent less. However one notable difference right off the bat is that the D50's mics can swivel from the "X" to "Y" position whereas the D1's mics are fixed and cannot be moved.
The D50's mics are also much smaller than the D1's but again, we're talking about a huge cost reduction in comparison.
One major difference in user interface between the Olympus LS-10 and the D50 is that the LCD on the D50 does not have a contrast adjustment and the backlight isn't as bright as I'd like it to be, but all the information is clearly readable even in bright daylight.
However what really matters in these devices is what they *sound* like, and in that department the Sony has an obvious edge over it's competitors. The built-in mics are quite sensitive and the pre-amps for those mics almost seem overpowering at times requiring lower record-level settings that one might expect from a device this small.
The AGC circuitry is also an improvement over the LS-10 as it handles quick transients much better and without the typical harsh pumping associated with most AGC circuits. Again, the added premium for the Sony pays off in real-world performance gains. Overall the sound quality from the D50 is superior to competitive products from Tascam, Roland and others in this price range.
Battery life is another huge plus in the D50 as it can easily go more than 20 hours with a single set of batteries; certainly that's more than normal daily human endurance without becoming mentally exhausted so clearly, the D50 battery life will outlast the human operator by a huge margin.
But speaking of human interfaces, what Sony didn't do for the extra money is a bit surprising if not downright disappointing. No hand strap, case or neck-strap is included with the unit! There are eyelets to put either but you have to buy those separately. Aw c'mon... really? My Olympus came with both a strap and a nice holster-style case - for $200 less! I guess Sony felt it wasn't making enough money on the unit sale alone.
For the money you can't buy another portable PCM recorder that sounds better than the Sony PCM-D50. Sony also makes the XLR-1, which allows you to connect XLR-type mic to the D50 or the D1. (see my review)
Since I've reviewed the D50 Sony has released a newer, slightly more compact model the PCM-M10 which looks to be a direct competitor to the Olympus LS-11, but I have not had any hands-on time with that model yet and so I can't compare it to it's now older brother.
Sony XLR-1 for D50
In short, the XLR-1 is a Sony-designed adapter that gives either the D50 or D1 the ability to connect full-sized professional XLR microphones and supply 48-volt phantom power to the mics.
At first blush the concept seems like a great idea, to transform a handheld portable PCM digital recorder into a real, on-location sound capture device. But looks can be deceiving and here's what you should know (as tested on a Sony D50):
First, mounting the D50 blocks both the left-side and rear-panel controls from being accessed. Second, there are no eyelets or hangers to put a strap on. In fact, Sony put rubber feet on the bottom of the XLR-1 obviously for the intended purpose of making the entire rig a table-top unit, not a portable shoulder-mounted one. Both of these design choices are very short-sighted and create deal-killer limitations.
But that's not even the worst part of this poorly conceived device: The typical retail price for the XLR-1 is $450.00. Add to that the cost of the required D50 at $500 and you've got the price of a Tascam HDP2, a far superior device in all respects for exactly the same amount of money.
The only plus-side is that if you've got a D50 (or D1) and want to add XLR capabilities the XLR-1 does have a tripod mount on the bottom allowing you to mount the device anywhere you can put a tripod, but that's not exactly the portability of being able to sling it over your shoulder, is it.
It's very unfortunate that one of the best portable recorders made today have such a poorly concieved and grossly over-priced accessory. With just a few minor design changes the XLR-1 *could have been* a wonderful and worthy accessory to either the D50 or D1, but at it is it's absolutely not worth the asking price nor does it truly fill it's intended role well at all.
If you're considering a D50 with the XLR-1 you'd be far better off with the Tascam HDP2 for the exact amount of money. And Portabrace makes the perfect companion for the HDP2 making it a genuine portable field recorder.
Tascam HD-P2 stand-alone field recorder Review
Good sounding audio in the field is always a must-have for any production. Thankfully digital technology has given us a wide range of acquisition devices that are far superior to their tape-based counterparts of just a few years ago for far less money.
The Tascam HDP2 is one of those devices that even when you look at it for the first time you know it's a professional piece of equipment right away.
Although it's price point of just under $1000 puts it squarely aimed at the pro audio market I've seen many student and amateur sound engineers with this device, and when asked their response was something along the lines of, "...it just works.". And that's been the reputation for Tascam pro audio equipment for decades in all genres of professional audio.
The HDP2 does exactly what you'd expect a full-on pro field recorder to do: It has built-in phantom power for it's 2 XLR mic inputs; a large, easy to read backlit LCD screen side-mounted for optimal viewing when in shoulder-slung bag; WORD CLOCK ins and outs; timestamp and SMPTE timecode; a jog-shuttle dial for quick file review and menu access; tri-level sync for HDTV applications; frame lock and a whole slew of other features.
But as with all things audio what matters is the quality of the sound captured by the device, and the HDP2 doesn't disappoint. Connect a high-quality shot-gun or large diaphragm mic and what you get is natural, controlled sound matched with AGC options and a linear limiter that doesn't "pump" when activated. The mic preamps provide predictable and natural sounding signals and lack the coloration found in lesser devices, some costing more than the HDP2 sells for.
The only niggle I found about the device is the case is plastic and has a typical plastic "feel" to it. By contrast the smaller and much less expensive Sony PCM-D50 has a metal frame surrounding it's housing and feels like it, but neither of those things have anything to do with the unit's ability to capture sound.
For the money it's hard to beat the Tascam HDP2 both in audio quality and feature set, in fact I haven't found any other portable field recorder that sounded better or had more features - that didn't cost twice as much! If you do a lot of on-location recording or plan to, this should definitely be in your selection of choices to test and preview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)