Ursa Mini Sound Quality

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 4:04 am

I talked to the Canadian distributor for the Fethead Phantom and the gentleman actually recommended I use the Sound Devices MixPre-D instead of the Fethead. When I told him about my interest in the Zoom F4, he said that was a good recorder with lots of features but if I wanted quality audio over features, the MixPre-D was the better choice. He sells them all so I trust his advice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 4:44 am

rick.lang wrote:I talked to the Canadian distributor for the Fethead Phantom and the gentleman actually recommended I use the Sound Devices MixPre-D instead of the Fethead. When I told him about my interest in the Zoom F4, he said that was a good recorder with lots of features but if I wanted quality audio over features, the MixPre-D was the better choice. He sells them all so I trust his advice.


I made the unfortunate mistake of purchasing a Fethead Phantom. It did not work at all on the Ursa Mini. When attached all that came through the XLR was white noise.

EDIT: BTW having used both the Zoom F4 and MixPre-D, I did not see any difference in the quality of the audio. Tests posted online by B&H and other reviewers also came to the same conclusion. The signal to noise ratio of the recorders is equal (or perhaps even greater on the Zoom). The major difference is that the MixPre-D has analogue limiters versus digital limiters on the Zoom F4 (and F8). In practice, it hasn't turned out to be a crucial difference, especially because the Zoom F4 can be set to use channels 3 + 4 to record the source from channels 1 and 2 with a -12dB (or more) pad which offers protection if there is some unexpectedly loud noise. The MixPre-D is wonderful and better for mounting on the camera (though still unwieldy), but the Zoom F4 offers more features and flexibility which is what swayed my purchasing decision.

This is a quite extensive review of the Zoom F4 that I found informative:
www.incafilms.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 7:37 pm

Jamie, as always, thanks for your sage advice. I had reviewed the thread and seen your earlier remarks, but today's note is very helpful since you mention the quality difference (with the possible exception of the analogue versus digital limiters) may be imperceptible. And as you point out channel 3&4 can help with that as well as the higher dynamic range on the Zoom F4. The beauty of the F4 is that it is a recorder. The appeal of the Fethead is the convenience of recording in camera, but only if the signal is good going into the UM46K camera. And Sound Devices MixPre-D has a good reputation as a reasonably well-priced entry to very good quality as a preamp. I'll look at the video but I've seen others before and generally was impressed. I just want to buy once-and-done.

Edit
Yes, lots of flexibility on the F4 for camera and USB interfaces. I wonder if I can interface my Zoom iQ5 mic (with Apple Lightning connector) somehow to the F4?

Image

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by rick.lang on Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rick Lang
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 6420
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Qualitya

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 7:47 pm

And audio quality is more than just frequency specifications. The quality and type of the components used in a MicPreamp can "color" the audio signal, just as a lens does. While the Zoom is nice, Imprefer the more compact style and rugged construction on the MixPreD, and its ability to have Pan control on a mono signal, and X/Y Stereo signal separation, control. As well as the ease of use, and optional digital AES3 output. The MixPre also combines a preamp with a ADC for future proofing, and for me the unbalanced line out designed for cameras like the BM Micro cameras is also an important feature I need.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 8:30 pm

The FRC-8 control panel for the Zoom F4 and F8 looks like it's out:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgxpda67pgU

https://zoom-na.com/products/field-vide ... controller

Image

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by rick.lang on Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 8:35 pm

Yes, being able to fairly easily include the MixPre-D on my rig is definitely nice. As is, the Zoom F4 looks like it will be isolated from the rig which is no problem when you have a sound guy.

What do you think, Jamie, is the F4 able to be managed by a sole camera operator?

This charming reviewer points out a possibly significant concern with the XLR-Out levels. Take a look at this video at about 00:06:30:00 please. This might preclude taking output from the F4 and feeding it into the URSA Mini 4.6K camera which I may want to do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Mar 18, 2017 5:05 am

rick.lang wrote:Jamie, as always, thanks for your sage advice. I had reviewed the thread and seen your earlier remarks, but today's note is very helpful since you mention the quality difference (with the possible exception of the analogue versus digital limiters) may be imperceptible. And as you point out channel 3&4 can help with that as well as the higher dynamic range on the Zoom F4. The beauty of the F4 is that it is a recorder. The appeal of the Fethead is the convenience of recording in camera, but only if the signal is good going into the UM46K camera. And Sound Devices MixPre-D has a good reputation as a reasonably well-priced entry to very good quality as a preamp. I'll look at the video but I've seen others before and generally was impressed. I just want to buy once-and-done.

Edit
Yes, lots of flexibility on the F4 for camera and USB interfaces. I wonder if I can interface my Zoom iQ5 mic (with Apple Lightning connector) somehow to the F4?

Image

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Zooms mic capsules like the one you link to include their own inferior pre-amp rather than using the pre-amp used for the XLR inputs the Zoom F4/F8.
www.incafilms.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Mar 18, 2017 5:14 am

Thanks, Jamie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 6420
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Mar 18, 2017 6:21 pm

The Zoom doesn't have true dual balanced transformer output on its XLR wither, the signal is only present on the hot pin, instead of on the two signal pins. This for me is the main reason to go with the MixPreD, it has true balanced transformer-based outputs on the analog XLR outs.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Mar 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Interesting comment. Zoom does say they support balanced XLR audio, but do you think they were only referring to XLR inputs?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 6420
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Mar 19, 2017 7:47 pm

Yes, single side is still balanced, but not a true balanced signal. I was reminded of this out from another where one side of the signal (hot side) was lost due,to a bad cable, and the entire signal was lost. On a true dual balanced system, the signal will still be there, but at a lower level.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Mar 19, 2017 10:25 pm

rick.lang wrote:What do you think, Jamie, is the F4 able to be managed by a sole camera operator?

This charming reviewer points out a possibly significant concern with the XLR-Out levels. Take a look at this video at about 00:06:30:00 please. This might preclude taking output from the F4 and feeding it into the URSA Mini 4.6K camera which I may want to do.


If you are seeking a camera mounted solution to run audio directly into the camera, rather than two-system recording, I think the MixPre will serve you better than the Zoom F4.

I use the Zoom F4 for two system recording, never into camera.
Two reasons:
1) Failure is not an option on a professional shoot and I simply don't trust the Ursa Mini to record audio without issues, even when fed from a good external pre-amp.
2) If I was recording into the Ursa Mini, I would want to monitor from its headphone port, but the delay on the audio out is so long that its quite distracting.

The Ursa Mini wasn't designed for professional audio recording in camera. It's a cinema camera like the rest of the line where two system audio is assumed. Fine, however, for scratch audio or personal projects (where failure can be tolerated).

It will be interesting to see whether the new Pro model is up to par with true ENG cameras built for high quality, reliable audio recorded in camera.
www.incafilms.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 12:42 am

Thanks, Jamie. More to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 6420
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 1:32 am

Yes, I am also interested in seeing how the audio is in the UM Pro.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 5:13 am

Let's be honest here Denny: You're going to end up buying the Mini Pro!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 6420
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 5:20 am

Maybe :?:
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 3:34 pm

Here is Daniel Peters brief video comparison of the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K and the URSA Mini 4.6K. At about 5 minutes into the video he gives us a sample of the audio. Pro seems to be cleaner, but the Mini 4.6K does have some character to it, so not necessarily good audio versus bad audio. It's different audio.

https://vimeo.com/groups/blackmagic/videos/210111631


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 3:51 pm

rick.lang wrote:Here is Daniel Peters brief video comparison of the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K and the URSA Mini 4.6K. At about 5 minutes into the video he gives us a sample of the audio. Pro seems to be cleaner, but the Mini 4.6K does have some character to it, so not necessarily good audio versus bad audio. It's different audio.

https://vimeo.com/groups/blackmagic/videos/210111631


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The character you are hearing is likely just Vimeo compression of the audio which also masks much of any difference in the noise floor. A true comparison would be if he shared the WAV audio files direct from camera.
www.incafilms.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 3:56 pm

Good point, Jamie.

I spent some time cleaning up my audio from Saturday's shoot and then posted the video on the client's YouTube website. The audio sounded cleaner on YouTube than I could do on my computer with iZotope. I'm sure what I did helped YouTube, but I must admit the web sounded cleaner than my edit station.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostTue Mar 28, 2017 1:14 am

rick.lang wrote:Good point, Jamie.

I spent some time cleaning up my audio from Saturday's shoot and then posted the video on the client's YouTube website. The audio sounded cleaner on YouTube than I could do on my computer with iZotope. I'm sure what I did helped YouTube, but I must admit the web sounded cleaner than my edit station.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I knew that YouTube compression would hide a certain amount of video image noise, but I hadn't previously considered how much it might do the same thing for subtle noise in audio. That's a nice bonus :D

EDIT: Also looking at Mr. Peters video again, it's a good bet that his original Ursa Mini was set to mic "high" while the Ursa Mini Pro was not. Considering that he also left the background soundtrack running during his audio test, it's not a very reliable source from which to draw conclusions.
www.incafilms.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostTue Mar 28, 2017 4:28 pm

I agree, that was so strange. Having off camera, poor quality, music muddies the waters as he tries to illustrate one camera's vocal audio against another.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by rick.lang on Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Lang
Offline

Jukka Tallinen

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:51 am

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostWed Apr 12, 2017 12:48 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:I made the unfortunate mistake of purchasing a Fethead Phantom. It did not work at all on the Ursa Mini. When attached all that came through the XLR was white noise.


I have Fethead Regular and Fethead Phantom and both work well with UM4.6K. I've used Fethead Regular with Rode NTG-2 and Phantom with Audio-Technica AT875R and Oktava MK 012.
www.jukkatallinen.com
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostTue May 30, 2017 3:46 am

Somewhere in one of the audio threads I recall someone mentioned that audio quality on the URSA Mini 4.6K was cleaner using 'Mic Low' rather than 'Mic High' so I tried that one the weekend in a client shoot. Took a lot of boost in Resolve, but it came through fairly well. Something to think about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Jun 10, 2017 10:23 pm

I think this week, I'll pull the trigger on the Sennheiser AVX with the MKE2 Pro lavalier (learning to wait for products until they include the word Pro in the product name now). In Canada (where the sidewalks are paved with loonies since they aren't worth much anymore), this wireless system is actually going to cost me more loonies than the Sennheiser MKH416 last year.

I've heard some people have had problems feeding this into the URSA Mini 4.6K, so I thought I'd ask for the last word from all the sages here. I'll be using this in situations where the mic could be about 60 meters from the camera or as close as a few meters away. So as a one man band most of the time, I need something like the AVX that automatically adjusts the gain and lets me forget about it.

One concern I have is the 19 ms delay which is slightly over one frame at 60 fps and less than a frame using 24-30fps. Is that going to be noticeable so that I would need to correct for the delay with sub-frame audio adjustments in DaVinci Resolve?

For now I'll still use the Sennheiser MKH416 in one channel and the MKE2 in the other channel of the URSA Mini 4.6K. Later this year I may feed more than one XLR mic into the Sound Devices MixPre-6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 7:16 am

The delay was a deal breaker for me.I tried out one and I felt like I could see it. I might just be imagining that because I knew it was there but it really bugged me.
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 3:26 pm

Stephen, what are you using for a remote wireless lavalier?

My problem with a delay in receiving audio from an event is that sound coming from 60 metres away is already going to have a considerable delay from the visual. It could be 1/6 of a second or 167 milliseconds so another 19 milliseconds (1/50 second or about a frame at 60 fps) isn't necessarily a deal breaker since I already have true sound about 10 frames behind. Plus there's some delay in the audio processing in the URSA Mini 4.6K camera that amounts to a few more frames.

Because the distance of my sound source can vary within a shot, its complicated to adjust my audio clip to give the illusion of instantaneous sound that the unforgiving viewer would like to see. But I think I'm going to learn how that's done in Resolve. Sometimes a fixed offset will work for an entire video clip's audio track. Other times, I may need to cut the audio clip to apply a different audio shift.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Jun 11, 2017 6:28 pm

I'm almost embarrassed to admit I ended up buying a Sony rip-off the Saramonic UWMIC9 Dual Digital UHF Wireless Lavalier Mic System
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... phone.html
I was thinking of replacing them as soon as a better hi-end system came out that I liked but I don't think I will need to. I have been pleasantly surprised at how good they are. Having two transmitters come into one dual receiver is fantastic. I also bought a TX-XLR9 Plug-On XLR Transmitter
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... /accessory
Its a bit less impressive but does the job as a reporters mic with something like a Shure SM64 on it.
You do have to know what you are doing to get the most out of them, the lack of a gain adjustment on the transmitters is a pain in the ass, but otherwise they are solid and the price is insanely low.
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Jun 12, 2017 4:05 pm

Thanks, Stephen. Yesterday I corrected my last video so the audio at a distance matches the visual cue. So video is better than reality! Like hearing the thunder the moment you see the lightning. So not afraid of a fixed time delay such as the fixed 19ms on the AVX or the correction for distance. For fun I calculated the offset due to the slow speed of sound (1225 kph at sea level at 15 degrees Celcius). And then I slipped my actual audio to match the visual cues and it was very close to theory except for one clip. If I was doing live broadcast, I couldn't do that, but in post, just one more workflow task and voilá.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostTue Jun 13, 2017 8:33 am

Actually, when it's lightning or other strong and sudden events I'd not fully compensate, just bring it close for a very dramatic effect. People register this, even if only subconsciously, and consider it quite close.
Full sync will seem unnatural…
Offline

Adam Silver

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostWed Jun 14, 2017 2:05 am

Rick,

I'm using the AVX system with a handheld microphone. I shot around 150-200 feet away. I didn't have my tripod handy, so I did it handheld using a 70-200 2.8.

I'm using the URSA Mini Pro, and I did nothing to sweeten the sound or boost it. Love the audio from the Mini Pro.

Shot 1080/24p: https://vimeo.com/221520618/1a64818126 (slightly soft)

Shot 1080/60p (Not Slo-Mo): https://vimeo.com/221520650/16aebc88ed

Adam
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostWed Jun 14, 2017 6:42 am

Adam, looks like you did this test for me. Much appreciated. Do you live near a school with a football field? What would be ideal would be if you had the camera on one goal line and then begin recording audio as you walk from the 30 yard line to the far goal line. Announcing the distance as you go I need success up to 90 yards away if I can get it. Is that possible? I was going to post tonight, that most youTube reviews appear to indicate you're only safe up to the 50 yard line, but your test at 200 feet is well beyond that.

I called a techie at Sennheiser and he recommended the ew 100-ENG G3 system as it uses analogue, not digital as the AVX employs, to go longer distances.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Adam Silver

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostWed Jun 14, 2017 3:14 pm

rick.lang wrote:Adam, looks like you did this test for me. Much appreciated. Do you live near a school with a football field? What would be ideal would be if you had the camera on one goal line and then begin recording audio as you walk from the 30 yard line to the far goal line. Announcing the distance as you go I need success up to 90 yards away if I can get it. Is that possible? I was going to post tonight, that most youTube reviews appear to indicate you're only safe up to the 50 yard line, but your test at 200 feet is well beyond that.

I called a techie at Sennheiser and he recommended the ew 100-ENG G3 system as it uses analogue, not digital as the AVX employs, to go longer distances.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Honestly, I totally guessed the distance. I could be way off. I'm off to Chicago right now for a job until Sunday night, but I can see if I can find a field early next week. Sorry about the delay. I was zoomed out to 200mm on my lens. Don't know if that gives you any idea. The guy is 5'10" tall.

Adam
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostWed Jun 14, 2017 5:17 pm

No rush Adam. You were about 132' from the talent or roughly 40 meters assuming the height of your frame's field of view is approximately 4'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Adam Silver

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Jun 15, 2017 12:44 am

When I started to go much further than that, I did start to fizzle out on the audio.

Adam
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostThu Jun 15, 2017 4:17 pm

Oh, I didn't realize you had tried going further. So your results mirror others on the internet. Golden at 30m, usable further if subject is in your line-of-sight, but will break up well before the distance I need to cover. I do have situations where the Sennheiser AVX will work, but at this point I may look further into their EW 100-ENG G3 analogue system to see if that will go much further. My client told me last night he was satisfied with what we were getting using the Sennheiser MKH416 which I have been using. But under heavy gusts of wind, that's useless, as the wind gusts here are strong enough to redline my audio (on mic high).

No need to do the football field tests next week on my behalf. Unless you want me to remember you in my Last Will and Testament.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 2:11 am

So I tried the Rugby field test Rick with my Saramonic UWMIC9
I left the audio untouched left is the lapel and right is the handheld.
First time though the handheld was on medium power but seemed to work better than high?



https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx3Bg ... U9hX0xrNFk
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 3:56 am

Stephen, that was excellent. Definitely the Saramonic system is doing a great job! I'll look into that to see if it's available in the True North Strong and Free. Just for you, I bought a bunch of Kiwi apples! Come and get'em...

Edit
Watched a YouTube video by ZY who pointed out if the 3.5mm to XLR option is used, you only get the A channel passed as XLR 3-pin audio (on the URSA Mini 4.6K) can only handle one frequency according to ZY. I need to use two transmitters on two individuals and wanted them on discrete channel A and B using one Dual Channel receiver set to record in Stereo. At times my video in post production will refer to Channel A and sometimes Channel B and sometimes both. Seems I need to set the receiver to Mono, but there's only one Line out and one headphone to monitor sound. And ZY says setting to mono puts both transmitters' audio on a single channel which I can't use.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 5:39 am

Some of these youtubers make me cross. They talk with authority about things they know nothing. (edit I see he has put a note in his description saying you can buy a dual XLR cable separately, mine came with one but it wasn't very robust)
You can easily split the channels to 1 and 2 on the UM.
My sound guy even made up some nice angled XLR connectors, one red one black. We flipped the output so Group A goes to CH1 and Group B to CH2
(forgive my dodgy phone shots )
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JeYB ... 172805.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Hzn-p ... 7-h853-p-k
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 4:24 pm

That's what I need, Stephen. So the receiver will output A and B as stereo on the Line Out, I can monitor A and B if needed on the Headphone Out from the receiver, split into XLR A and XLR B, and record as two separate channels in the URSA Mini 4.6K so my edited video will include A and/or B audio as appropriate to the shot. Perfect.

The beauty of the Sennheiser AVX is the automatic gain adjustments as the subjects approach to or recede from the camera. When you walked from one goal line to the other, how often did you need to adjust the gain on the receiver manually in the Saramonic? Sometimes I have an assistant that could do that but often I'm by myself and will need to add that task to one of the four hands I use while filming.

Edit
After looking at several YouTube videos, it seems Saramonic systems don't have good quality control. Your units obviously work to spec (100 metres in line-of-sight) but others had various problematic units failing at less than half rated distances that required exchanges.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 8:21 pm

Stephen, here's what I'm looking at for the 3.5mm to Dual XLR male 3' cable. Couldn't find a shorter cable like 1' and couldn't find a Dual right-angle option. I also wanted high quality connectors that will connect reliably (not all XLR connectors are the same).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/748828-REG

Based on your review at B&H and the value of the TX9 + TX9 + RX9, I'll likely go with the Saramonic UWmic9. Due to the apparent quality control issues, I'll go with a brick & mortar store that will stand behind the product rather than go with the only Canadian supplier, Amazon.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1331757-REG

I understand the Sennheiser EW 100 G3 system may sound better, and on paper has a longer range (150m vs 100m), but I'd need to order two of them and it just gets pricey for what I'm doing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 11:24 pm

I think bricks and mortar is a very sensible way to go Rick. I'm lucky to have a sound guy here that imports equipment to sell. Its a bit slower but he can lend me stuff if there is an issue.

He let me have a used Sennheiser EW 100 G3 system for 3 weeks while I waited for the Saramonic's to arrive in the country and to be honest the G3 analog system is getting a bit long in the tooth now, I think their range claim is a bit bogus as I got dropouts and interference buzz at close quarters that I don't get with the Saramonic's.

He also made up my cable, that wasn't cheap about $70NZD, but I thought that could be a week point so worth the money.

One of the networks I work for has gone for the Envoy system
http://www.audioltd.com/en2/en2-cx2-s-slot-in-receiver/
Its about $7,000NZD I know I can't match them in sound quality with a $600NZD setup but according to the editors I come very close. :)
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostFri Jun 16, 2017 11:45 pm

My retailer suggested the Saramonic system and the Sennheiser EW 100 G3 system may both be inadequate for using at my desired distance, but suggested the best option was a Lectrosonics UCR411 wireless kit with SMV transmitter for over $3K (the optional Sanken COS-11D lavalier mic alone is $379 USD, nearly the cost of the Saramonics Dual Transmitter system).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by rick.lang on Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Jun 17, 2017 3:00 am

Letrosonics are good but I just can't justify the expense when clients expect radio mics thrown in as part of the general kit hire.

I had my follow focus set stolen a few years ago and when I looked at replacing it I realized I hadn't had a paying client for it in 4 years. Either they wanted it for free with the Steadicam hire or do the shoot without it to save $150 extra per day it cost. Often I'd end up using it without charge to make my life easier and do a more professional job. Now if a client wants follow focus I hire it off a hire company for the job.

I feel with radio mics I provide good basic ENG mic kit but beyond that if they want more they should be hiring a sound operator. :)
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline

Adam Silver

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Jun 17, 2017 3:55 am

rick.lang wrote:No need to do the football field tests next week on my behalf. Unless you want me to remember you in my Last Will and Testament.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Well...that could be pretty cool, but okay. I won't do the tests.

Adam
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Jun 17, 2017 4:13 am

Stephen, I've been looking into that Lectrosonics stuff and it is impressive technology. I do like the transmitter weighing about 100 grams versus the 400 grams of the Saramonics.

http://www.lectrosonics.com/US/media/co ... 15-9-3.png

Carrying 400 grams for hours does seem like it might be a challenge to secure and an annoyance for the person wearing the lavalier.

As for the Envoy, that's another reason I'm glad I don't have to accessorize a Sony camera.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Adam Langdon

  • Posts: 185
  • Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:15 pm
  • Location: Ohio USA

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSat Jun 17, 2017 10:37 pm

my background is Audio....
and i've just been using the XLR inputs on the 4.6k Mini with my Rode NTG-3.
I've done interviews and onboard ambience without any issue with too much noise or problems of any kind.
Offline

Florian Duning

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:41 am

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostSun Jun 18, 2017 9:39 pm

I just want to report, that I am successfully using a FetHead Phantom with a Rode NTG-3. It helps a lot and greatly increases the SNR. I use it for interviews where dual system is not an option.
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostMon Jun 19, 2017 8:37 am

Rick I would never try and talk someone out of buying Lectrosonics, its terrific kit. I just can't make a business case for it for the moment and I'm hoping the Saramonic's will get me by until I can.
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 6834
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Ursa Mini Sound Quality

PostTue Jun 20, 2017 8:09 pm

Thanks for all the input. I think that I'm going to let it ride until next year as I've had a few unexpected expenses in the last couple of weeks that have used the funds I would have put into Audio. Still have reserves for an additional SLR Magic APO prime (32mm likely coming in the fourth quarter) and am adding a top flag to the Bright Tangerine matte box, but that's it. In the meantime, I am getting usable audio from the Sennheiser MKH416 shotgun mic with some help from iZotope plug-ins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests