Zoom F8 Officially Announced and Available for Pre-order

Zoom has been kicking butt in the indie audio gear front more and more as time rolls on.

One of the more interesting audio devices I saw at NAB earlier this year was a prototype 8 channel pro-level field recorder that Zoom had at their booth - The Zoom F8. It is available for pre-order at B&H Photo as of today.

This is an interesting move from Zoom. They've been a strong contender among indie film and video makers as far back as 2007-ish with the Zoom H4. That device was breakthrough in that it was a small, handheld stereo recorder with pro-level XLR inputs that ran on consumer AA batteries and was reasonably priced (around $400 or $500 as I recall). I had one for a short time. It was amazing. But it had some serious issues: The preamps didn't have a lot of gain (so using dynamic handheld mics wasn't very realistic), the preamps were noisy, battery life wasn't great especially when phantom powering mics, and the plastic build quality wasn't amazing. Also, that jog-dial thing you use to navitage through menus was not great. But still, it was a worthy start.

Then the H4n came a few years later with better build quality, slightly better preamps (though still noisy), and better battery life. Some of the issues remained. The premps were still pretty noisy. The jog-dial thingy was pretty much the same. Another good step forward from Zoom. They sold a lot of these and there are still tons in use today.

Then the H6 came in 2013. Even better build quality, much better preamps, good battery life and some nice features that Zoom has added with firmware updates (e.g., the ability to solo monitor channels while recording so that you can dial in levels). I recently had an H6 on loan from B&H for several weeks and was really impressed! There were a couple of things I didn't love about it, but they weren't total show-stoppers: I still don't love the jog-dial and while the new color screen is pretty, it is slow and very difficult to see outdoors and nearly impossible to see in direct sunlight. I'll have a review here on the blog in the next week or so.

The Zoom F8 looks like Zoom is aiming at taking some of the lower end pro market from the likes of Sound Devices though their field recorders are quite a bit more expensive (arguably for good reason). Here are the specs for the F8:

• 8-channel/10-track field audio recorder/mixer

• 8 discrete inputs with locking Neutrik XLR/TRS combo connectors

• Compact and lightweight aluminum chassis, weighing just 2 pounds (without batteries)

• High quality mic preamps with up to 75 dB gain, less than -127 dBu EIN, and +4 dB line inputs

• Support for up to 24-bit/192 kHz recording as well as 96 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 48k, and 44.1 kHz, plus 47.952 kHz / 48.048 kHz for HD video compatibility; 16-/24-bit resolution

• Accurate Time Code (0.2 ppm) I/O on standard BNC connectors; dropframe/non-drop formats with Jam Sync

• Three different power supply options: 8x AA batteries, external DC battery pack with Hirose connector, or 12V AC adapter (AA’s and DC battery pack not included)

• Automatic switching of power source from DC to batteries at user-defined voltage levels

• Dedicated gain control knob, 6-segment LED level meter, and PFL/Solo switch for each channel

• Phantom power (+48V/+24V) on every preamp

• Advanced onboard limiters for input and output

• High pass filter, phase invert, and Mid-Side decoder

• Input delay of up to 30 msec per channel / output delay of up to 10 frames per output

• Compatible with Zoom microphone capsules; optional extender cable enables remote positioning

• Dual mini-XLR (TA3) balanced Main Outs plus ⅛" stereo mini-jack Sub Out

• Dedicated headphone output (100 mW) with front panel volume control

• 2.4" full-color backlit LCD with monochrome mode

• Dedicated PFL display with viewable trim settings

• Dual SD/SDHC/SDXC card slots, up to 512 GB each

• Records in BWF-compliant WAV or MP3 file formats

• Support for extensive metadata (BWF and iXML); input time, date, project, scene number, etc.

• Built-in slate mic/slate tone with front panel switch

• Built-in tripod mount; camera mount adapter also included

• Use as an 8-in/4-out USB audio interface (@ 96 kHz)

• Free Zoom F8 Control App for iOS allows wireless remote control, file renaming, and metadata entry

Wow! The things that impress me most is that these new pre-amps come with +75dB of gain. There are three power options (8 AA batteries, Hirose connector for pro-level batteries like Anton Bauer, and an AC adapter). Zoom claims that the analog to digital converters have 120dB of dynamic range (SoundDevices clain 117 for most of their recorders and mixers). This is the first time that Zoom has reported the A/D dynamic range spec so it seems like they're serious about playing with the big boys. Timecode generator that can also be jam synced. Aluminum build. iOS mixer app that does channel metering, faders for each channel, and the ability to enter metadata! Limiter with adjustable settings for threshold, attack and release.

So yes, being the audio nerd that I am, I have one on pre-order and will have a review after it ships in August. :-)

I do have some concerns:

• The hardware pots (potentiometers) for each channel look really small and I'm not sure how robust they'll be. Mixing may be pretty tough relative to the SoundDevices and Zaxcom pro-level field mixers which have big knobs.

• Output only includes 2 mini XLR outputs for the stereo mix bus and 3.5mm for DSLR shooters. No camera return. Though to be fair, this is probably not a big deal for most indie filmmakers and is part of the reason that this device is so much less expensive than the SoundDevices and Zaxcom field recorder/mixers. To me, this is why it looks like Zoom is still very much aiming for indie film-makers, not higher end pros (who would need this option. On the set of serious productions, you'll typically need a feed for the director and the camera.

• That screen is still quite small and I'm interested to see how easy it is to see outdoors in the sun. Also, audio meters should never be underestimated. Only those which are large enough and have enough steps are truly useful when mixing and recording. That's a very small screen to fit 8 meters. But if the app is good, this can be overcome.

Those seem like reasonable trade-offs given the $999 price. It seems like they packed it with all the audio quality you'd get in the higher end recorders and mixers, but without some of the more sophisticated features that are only needed for higher budget productions (more routing and output options).

Can't wait to put it through its paces!

RODELink Wireless Lavalier System Review

It's been a lot of work, but here it is, finally: My review of the RODELink Filmmaker Wireless Kit. What do I think overall? This is a good balance of quality for the price (launched at $399 USD).

Pros:

• Digital signal does not drop when working within 50 meters in any of the tests I did, even outdoors and in WiFi heavy offices (because WiFi uses the same frequency in many cases).
• Battery life - lasted 7 hours and 10 minutes on a set of eneloop AA batteries (and this set is about 3.5 years old and has had a lot of use in photo flash units and audio recorders). This is much better than I expected.
• Very simple setup
• Can use up to 8 kits simultaneously
• Good audio quality
• No annoying external antennas
• No latency issues so audio stays perfectly in sync with the video captured by your camera

Cons:

• Plastic body and receiver packs (though it is good quality plastic, it is still plastic)
• Body and receiver packs are a little larger than most others in a similar price range (Perhaps this is the tradeoff for no antennas). Not a problem when mounted on someone's belt behind them but potentially a little more tricky for mounting on brides

One thing that took me a while to figure out is that the mic that comes with the kit sounds a fair bit better when hidden under the shirt of your talent. It seems that it really was made to be hidden vs worn on the outside of clothes. That would explain why they call it a filmmaker kit and not an ENG kit. I just use the RODE Invisilav to make it super simple to mount the mic under the talent's shirt.

Also, it can be used with any mic with a 3.5mm mini stereo jack (TRS) like the RODE VideoMic Pro. So you can even have a wireless shotgun microphone!

Sony A7RII: The New Ultimate Enthusiast 4K Camera?

Sony made quite the splash last week in the enthusiast/semi-pro filmmaking world with the announcement of their Sony a7RII camera body. I really try my best not to get too caught up in every new camera released, but this one definitely caught my attention.

To be honest, I was expecting to see an update to the a6000 this month. I think that an updated a6000 with in-camera stabilization and X-AVC S codec would be a rather compelling camera for enthusiast film and video makers. I'm pretty fond of the APS-C sized sensor in general. It is reasonably easy to focus yet allows you to get a decently shallow depth of field when you need to. It also means you can use smaller lenses than the full-frame cameras where the lenses can get pretty beastly in terms of size and weight.

But what impresses me so much about the A7RII is not only does it capture 4K footage in camera, but it reads out every row on the 42 megapixel sensor in video mode. Wow!

Why is that a big deal? Full-frame DSLRs that shoot video up to this point have generally relied on line-skipping to produce full HD footage simply because their sensors had more than 1080 rows of pixels. Rather than have a sensor and/or image processor fast enough to read every row and then combine pixels to produce the HD footage, they just read every other row (or some similar scheme). Why is this an issue? Often this resulted in rather bad moire or aliasing. If you're not familiar with moire, you'll often see it rear its ugly head when shooting fine patterns such as pinstriped shirts or brick buildings. It is super distracting because the fine pattern nearly dances off the screen. Definitely takes the viewer out of the story.

Also, the A7RII has the new 5 axis stabilization on the sensor. So you can shoot handheld with lenses that are not optically stabilized. That's a very nice feature and means that I could potentially shoot handheld with my older, non-stabilzed lenses, saving me the investment of all new lenses.

And of course, we're talking about a full-frame 35mm, 42 megapixel sensor which could be very nice for still photography, something I still do plenty of professionally. The 12 megapixel sensor of the Sony A7S is a camera I passed on simply because it wouldn't have been very useful to me for my still photo work. Clients are often expecting more than 12 megapixels for still photos these days. 42 would definitely suffice.  ;-)

Downsides? Well, the HDMI output is still only 8 bit color. Is that a huge show-stopper for me? Hmm, not really. I have that on my Panasonic GH4, but I'm still trying to find a case where that makes a huge difference for the types of things I shoot (talking head/interviews mainly). 10-bit color  just isn't a wow feature for my work. If I did a lot of chromakey, perhaps.

The $3200 USD retail price will put this out of reach for many. But for what you're getting, it seems pretty fairly priced. Would have been nice if they could have managed to keep it under $3000 but there's a lot of tech in there.

I also have to say that once you put fast lenses on this tiny little camera body, things start to get a little wonky in terms of balance. These fast full frame lenses are huge and the camera body is tiny (at least relative to most DSLRs). So all that portability and light, nimbleness I was excited about is sort of out the window. Not a huge deal if the camera is up on a rig to video production. Possibly more of a big deal for a wedding photographer. But maybe not. I need to give it a try.

Regardless, I'm really impressed with the direction Sony is heading. They're changing the imaging world in some very positive ways! Will I buy a Sony A7RII? Hmm, I'm not so sure, at least I can say that I am not pre-ordering at this point. Maybe I'll change my mind later. And for now, that Nikon D750 is serving me exceptionally well as a still photos camera.

RODELink's Lavalier Audio Comparison to Audio Technica AT899

**Status Update 17 June 2015** In further experiments, I've found that the RODE Lavalier sounds a whole lot better when hidden under the talent's shirt. Sounds like this mic was designed for that which is not surprising as this is how they are often used when shooting film (not as much with ENG/News/Doc). Now it makes even more sense that RODE calls this the RODELink Filmmaker Kit. Final review should be out later this week.

I’ve been testing the RODELink to put together a review and a few times paused while post processing and thought to myself, “hmm…this audio seems sort of harsh…” So I did several things to narrow down the issue. I think it is just the nature of the RODE Lavalier mic. Here we have a listen to a clip from the RODE Lavalier and then compare it to a clip from the Audio Technica AT899, a similarly priced lavalier (~$200 USD).

Neither of them are perfect. I would describe the sound of the RODE Lavalier as a little more “forward” or “in-your-face” and the AT899 as smoother in the mid-range but more sibilant. They’ll each complement other’s voices differently than mine. Which do you prefer?

Random Thoughts on Buying Gear for Film and Video

Here are some random thoughts I wrote down some time ago. Maybe they'll help you and maybe they wont. But here's a sample of my thought process:

Notes first written sometime back in 2014, before I had my Panasonic GH4 and Shogun recorder and my iMac 5k:

What should I buy next for my filmmaking kit? Often I find myself distracted by all the cool gear available on the market. This is a problem in two ways: 1) I lose precious creative filmmaking time by endlessly researching gear and 2) I sometimes get my priorities mixed up and end up with the wrong gear, at least it is wrong from the standpoint that it doesn't help me solve my most pressing filmmaking issues.

Here are a few ideas that I've attempted to use to work through this dilemma…

First, I list out the problems that I'm trying to solve for my current or upcoming project. I don’t worry about priority yet, just all the issues that I need to or would like to solve. I avoid listing gear, just list the problems I need to solve.

- No 4:2:2 4K record capability

- Lack of stabilized movement

- Mediocre audio quality with indoor dialogue in particular, but also outdoor

- Difficulty getting colors right when color correcting/grading

- Framing issues

- Lack of energy in recordings

Next, work through the list and choose the one that will make the most difference or, in some cases, simply must be done first because of client needs.

In this case, I chose color—I seem to really struggle getting consistent color and can never seem to really tell what my video is going to look like because I don’t trust my two monitors…

Next, think it through, what is the problem if you think it through in greater detail?

I don’t trust that either of my monitors closely represent the standard color space, gamma, etc. where my videos and films will be viewed. When I see my finished videos on other peoples’ monitors or projectors or TVs, they look different than on my PC monitor. Where will they be viewed? Mostly on office computers and projectors and TVs. But mostly on PCs. However, it is most critical that they look their best on the office projectors and TVs (where they will be viewed by larger groups).

Can this be solved with my current gear?

Maybe, but I’m not sure. I have calibrated my Dell Ultrasharp 2413 with an X-Rite i1 Display Pro and that seems to help, but it often seems too saturated and doesn’t at all match my cheapo HP monitor. Calibrating in this way is not very effective, I learn, because we're using an 8 bit color workflow via a computer video card. If colors are way off, there isn't much space to move around to compensate. It will never be amazingly accurate.

What are the potential solutions?

- Invest in a color workflow that works via a video I/O device (different than a computer video card) which supports 3D LUTs and ideally, 10-bit color.

- Buy a modest reference monitor

Added notes June 2015:

I opted not to solve this problem for now. I'm now working mainly on an iMac 5k. It is NOT a reference monitor, I know that. Colorists would scoff and some might even totally discount everything I have to say from this point forward. But let me give some context.

My jobs don't pay all that much. There is absolutely, positively no budget for a colorist in 99.9% of my jobs. My clients don't expect exceptional color (sadly). So they get what they pay for - a decent quality internal video that has not been edited or graded on a reference monitor and may look decent but may not look great.

For the record, I don't just go all cavalier. I do use an

X-Rite i1Display Pro colorimeter

to at least get me into the parking lot of the right ballpark. But I am fully aware that calibrating through a computer video card that supports 8 bit is problematic and not anywhere close to reference grade.

I will keep at this until at some point I can charge more and can afford a reference monitor. Perhaps I can start serving a higher tier client base. I'm working on it. But this is a decent start and working with a "color calibrated" iMac has produced content good enough for low-end corporate gigs.

So that's the context. And that's a problem that I opted not to solve for now.

Another thought that I don't think occurs to a lot of people. Some gear is a better investment than other gear.

I think that most sound gear, microphones in particular, are much better investments than camera bodies. Hear me out on this, it isn't quite as absurd as it first sounds.

Of course you need at least one decent camera to produce a film or video. But cameras become obsolete very quickly these days. I counted the cameras I've had over the last 9 years and I believe I've had 7. That's almost a new camera yearly. At this rate, I barely have time to get well acquainted with my camera before it is upgraded. Some DPs are so awesome that they can pull that off and adapt to a new camera really quickly. But I think many of us indy guys that don't shoot all day long every day could benefit from a little more practice with our cameras. A year may be enough time for some, maybe not for others. I personally could probably benefit from more practice with my cameras.

Now consider microphones. How many of us own a $2,000 microphone? Not many is my guess. I certainly don't and I'm a self-professed sound enthusiast.

Back to cameras. How many of us own a $2000+ camera? I do and probably a lot more of us than those that own a $2000 mic.

Schoepps Collette Series MK41 Supercardioid Microphone Set

Now try an exercise: Choose a movie and watch one scene from the movie two different ways. On the first viewing, don't watch the visuals, just listen to the sound. Second time, just watch the visuals and turn the sound off.

Which had more emotional impact? Which was easier to follow?

I'm betting that in most cases, it is easier to follow and there is more emotional impact from the audio only experience. That's not always true and of course we all want stunning visuals and awesome sound. But if you have to cut back your budget a little on one to invest in the other, it might make sense for most of us who have skimped on audio gear to re-allocate our budgets a little and use more for sound and a little less for cameras. Don't get angry. Just think about it. It may not apply in your case but for most of us, I bet it is a valid point worth considering.

To be clear, I'm not saying you should spend thousands on audio gear and just work with a $500 USD camera with a kit lens. But on the other hand, I am suggesting that might help get you out of a creative slump in you're in one.

Of course lenses are also probably a better investment than camera bodies in most cases. So there's that to consider.

Zoom H6 Audio Field Recorder

But I think my next big, multi-thousand dollar investment is going to be either a mic or a good solid field recorder. And to make a step toward that goal, in the next few weeks we're going to have a look at the difference between $200 - $400 field recorders and a Sound Devices audio interface that costs $900 (and only has two mic inputs). To do this, I'm borrowing a Zoom H6 and Sound Devices USBPre 2 to compare with my trusty Tascam DR-60DmkII. I opted for the USBPre 2 because it is really a proxy for a Sound Devices 700 series field recorder that many pros use. It has the same preamps and analog to digital converters. So it should give us a good idea of what a $3300 Sound Devices field recorder or mixer would do for us.

Now before you cry, "But that's not a fair comparison!" I totally get that. I'm not trying to compare, really, just answer the question, "What practical benefits do you get when you use a pro level field recorder?" I'm guessing that the difference in audio quality is not worlds better. Probably a little better, but not night-and-day different. I bet reliability and routing options and flexibility and powering options and durability are better on the pro units. But we'll see.

Thanks for enduring my rambling thoughts. I'm not sure whether this has helped anyone aside from me so you're a good sport for reading through if you've made it this far!

RODELink with Multiple Transmitters?

The question has come up several times now, "Can you transmit from two mics and transmitters to a single receiver with RODELink?"

Short answer: No.

There are wireless systems where you can transmit from multiple body packs to a single receiver, but the receivers are large, usually metal case deals that would not be fit for rigging on a camera and they usually include an AC to DC power brick adapter. These are really designed for live sound and concerts.

The RODELink, just like all the other wireless systems designed for film, video, and ENG are designed to work in the field without AC power and to be small enough to rig on a camera if you're using one or two units.

So, if you're shooting an interview, you will need two kits, each with a transmitter and receiver. But then the question becomes, how do you get the signal from two receivers into your camera that only has one 3.5mm TRS mic input? (often these are referred to as stereo minijack inputs - same thing)

There are probably a lot of other ways, but I use my Tascam DR-60DmkII instead of my camera. But even this only has one 3.5mm input. Not to worry, RODE offers a 3.5mm to XLR adapter for this very purpose! They call it the VXLR adapter and it allows me to plug two RODELink receivers into the two XLR inputs on the DR-60D.

I usually just record the audio with the Tascam and then sync the sound with the video in post. But some people hate doing that and are willing to sacrifice 24 bit audio for 16 bit camera audio. And I get it, there's plenty of debate out there as to whether 24 bit is all that critical. For the record, I always record 24 bit. I'm not saying you have to but here's my reasoning: It uses up very little space relative to high bit-rate video and gives me more latitude to clean things up in post. And for those that argue it doesn't make a difference in post, I'd love to see a specific, compelling example you can show to prove that. Also, syncing in post is really easy. If you're doing a ton of clips, yeah, that's harder and maybe in that case you need Pluraleyes (software from Red Giant that automatically syncs all your audio and video clips from a shoot) to do that for you.

But if you just cannot bother with all that, you could just run the signal out of the Tascam's output to the camera's mic input and then you're all set!

Someone also asked if they could just use a 3.5mm splitter to get the signal from the two receivers into the camera. In theory that should be possible. Of course you're back to using the camera's preamp (which is pretty poor quality with most cameras that have 3.5mm inputs) and 16 bit audio for most cameras. So, your results may be less than optimal.

If this is your first exposure to the RODELink wireless mic system, we've done a couple of video episodes on it so far that you might find interesting:

RODELink Distance and Interference Tests

One of my biggest concerns when I first heard about the RODELink wireless lavalier system was how well they would hold up in environments with a lot of potential interference, like corporate offices with lots of wifi network activity. Also, I was curious to learn how well it would perform when you use two kits simultaneously. So in this episode we put the RODELink to the test in two scenarios: First, we have our actors walk around a corporate office away from the receiver unit until we experienced the signal dropping. We also recorded a mock interview with two kits in a wifi heavy office building. Let’s see how RODELink held up!

(Pretty well, it turns out)

New RODE VideoMic Pro 2015: Overview and Demo

I will start by saying that I am not a fan of on-camera mics, even things like cold-shoe mount shotgun mics. There are two problems with using shotgun mics on the camera: 1) The camera is almost never close enough to the talent for a short shotgun mic to get a good dialogue recording without picking up lots of ambience. If that's the sound you want, then this is fine, but usually we're looking to eliminate most of the ambient sound and noise. 2) the mic is pointed not only at the talent, but at all the other sound and noise behind the talent or reflecting off the wall behind the talent. That's not quite as big a deal, but still a problem if you're trying to get just the dialogue.

However, cold-shoe mount mics can be used closer to your talent. And the newly redesigned (2015) RODE VideoMic Pro with Rycote Lyre shockmount is a fine candidate for this. In this episode I demonstrate the difference between using it on camera and using it boomed within 40 - 60cm of your talent.

But of course, you have to find a way to get the mic connected to your camera if you're operating 6 feet away from it. And my favorite options are these:

RODE VC1 (10 foot extension cable). This is the least expensive option and simply allows you to run the cable from just over your talent to your camera. Works great if you're still within about 6 feet of your talent. Runs for around $10 USD.

Zoom H1 or Tascam DR-05 Audio Field Recorders. I have the H1 but if I were buying today, I'd go for the Tascam because of its slightly better build quality. These allow you to connect the mic directly to the audio recorder. These are so light weight that you can just put them up on a stationary boom in studio, or combine it with the VC1 extension cable. The advantage with this approach is that these recorders will almost certainly record higher quality sound than 99% of cameras. On the downside, if you really want to look at it that way, you will have to sync the sound to the video when you edit in Premiere, Final Cut, or which ever editing app you use. It is super simple and worth the 10 seconds of extra work from my point of view.

Then, of course, there's the issue of how to boom the mic. This is a little more complicated but here's a reasonably affordable way to boom the VideoMic Pro if your talent will be sitting in one place.

Just another option to consider for capturing quality sound for your film and video projects.

What's the Difference Between a $200 Field Recorder and $900 Audio Interface?

https://youtu.be/TRoIMPHS91U I've been using a Tascam DR-60DmkII Audio Field Recorder to capture the audio for my film projects and am quite happy with the results in almost every case. And while I'm really happy with the Tascam, the DR-60DmkII isn't perfect. The build is quite plasticky and the battery life isn't amazing. So I attached a massive USB battery to the back of the recorder with industrial grade velcro and that powers the recorder for longer than I am able to measure (I suspect about 50 hours because I have to charge it every other month or so). And that's with the recorder phantom powering mics.

But why do the pros use things like Sound Devices and Zaxcom field recorders that cost thousands? Is it that the pre-amps are night and day better? Better build quality? Better analog to digital converters? Lower self-noise in the signal path? More audio processing features built-in?

Here's my guess:

• More durable build quality as in solid metal or carbon fiber body, bigger, more durable potentiometers (the fader knobs)

• Cleaner pre-amps with more gain

• Better analog to digital and digital to analog converters. In practical terms this should result in being able to capture a greater dynamic range in terms of amplitude (just like on cameras where a camera with more dynamic range can differentiate between a wider range of luminance values and often makes for more pleasant highlight rolloff)

• More routing options, and especially more pro grade outputs (XLR outs, sometimes just stereo, but sometimes even more). At a practical level, this makes it so that you can meet requirements that often come with higher budget shoots. For example, while you'll record the production audio on your pro-level audio recorder, you'll also send a stereo mix to camera

• Often, more robust powering options either built-in or by using robust connectors for external batteries and AC adapters.

• High quality timecode generators

I have my suspicions and I think it might be time to test two of these hypotheses: Cleaner pre-amps with more gain and better analog to digital converters.

To do that, I sort of wanted to dip my toes in the water without making a huge financial commitment. So the very kind folks at B&H have arranged to lend me a Sound Devices USBPre 2. No this is not exactly a field recorder, it is more of an audio interface that you would normally pair with your desktop computer. However, it has the same pre-amps and AD converters that all of the 7xx series recorders from Sound Devices have. So that allows us to compare the difference of those two dimensions in the real world.

The USBPre 2 looks like a pretty interesting desktop audio interface. In terms of specs, it is better spec'd than my current Focusrite Saffire Pro 24DSP in terms of AD dynamic range and amount of gain. But specs, of course, never tell the entire story. And in fact, this would be a step back in some ways from the Focusrite in terms of the signal processing that the Focusrite offers - real time compression and EQ. And while I don't use the EQ all that much, I do sometimes use that compressor when recording live like on Google Hangouts. No biggie. It isn't like I have to get rid of my Focusrite if I were to invest in the USBPre 2.

Its on it's way so standby for updates over the next few weeks and let me know if there are any specific questions or curiosities you might like to explore in the test.

Re-designed RODE Video Mic Pro

In 2010, RODE introduced their Original Video VideoMic Pro, a cold shoe mount small shotgun microphone. According to today's press release, this is their best selling microphone. That's interesting, I would have expected the NT1A large diaphragm condenser to be their best seller among the beginning home music recording crowd.

One problem with the original Video Mic Pro was the isolation mounting. It essentially used rubber bands that worked decently, but had a tendency to fall off or break over time. And, they weren't the best at isolating the mic from camera or boom movement.

Earlier today, RODE announced an updated version of the VideoMic Pro with Rycote Lyre with two new headline features: a redesigned capsule, and a new Rycote suspension system.

Now those of you that know me, know that I'm not a huge fan of mounting a shotgun mic on top of my camera. That technique has its place, but I rarely do it because it doesn't sound all that great for two reasons: 1) it is usually too far from the talent and 2) it also picks up whatever happens to be behind the talent (and that can include audio reflections off a wall if that's what is behind the talent).

However, like I said, there are cases when you don't have any other choice. When I met up with Dave Dugdale at NAB this year, I saw that he was shooting with his Video Mic Pro on his Sony A7s. Totally get it. He didn't have a lot of other options since he was trying to stay light for a full day of walking around the show floor and the audio quality expected from this setup was good enough for what he was doing. Totally legitimate.

However, in cases where you're shooting at a location where it would be practical, I like to take that mic off the camera and boom it over the talent. This solves both problems: The mic is now much closer (within 40 - 60cm of the talent) and it is pointed down so it only captures the talent and not everything behind them. I showed this in one of my older episodes and will do it again in one of my upcoming episodes.

In that light, RODE was kind enough to send me an evaluation copy of the new Video Mic Pro a while back so that I could evaluation it. Frankly, I've only spent a few minutes with it so far because I've been busy working with the RODELink system, but I'm hoping to have a closer look at it in the next few weeks here.

The new mic is just a tiny bit larger than the original and the foam windscreen is larger so the original dead cat furry cover won't work with the new mic. But I would hazard a guess that RODE will have a new version of the dead cat available before too long.

Let me know if there are any specific questions you'd like answered about this mic and we'll be sure to cover that in the episode.