Video

This is exactly the point I was after. Even if the source is a modern, perhaps less-compressed digital master destined for the vinyl plant - the results will be inherent to the medium the sound is reproduced in, and in the case of vinyl, the forced dynamic requirements make it more pleasurable to listen to. Thanks for watching!

There are definitely records I prefer on digital, and now, that I have a set of ribbon tweeters (see the latest video featuring my Adam A7V's), I'm finding some previously intolerable productions are in the realm of enjoyability.

Correct, Delta Sigma DACs approximate sub-sample values when translating to analog (I am also an electrical engineer, so welcome to a new facet of this channel). While I agree that is a bit imprecise, how would you suggest improving on the translation in the absence of sampled data? (In this case, I used a 96kHz/32-bit floating point signal downsampled - with mastering grade dithering - to 44.1kHz/16-bit to hopefully account for some of the differences, but I doubt that is perfectly a match. Still, I doubt it is so imprecise the data in this video could be disproven with anything but hearsay.)

Oh the effort in flipping a vinyl. Don't get blisters !!

It makes me pay attention to the music, so I don't mind; but to each their own. Nothing is wrong, if you're enjoying the music.

You seem to be a bit confused. Outside of DAT, tape is an analog format; and even then, it’s often limited to 48 kHz. Many digital audio workstations, and my digital studio, work at 96 kHz. It isn’t always better, but while digital formats have the ability to reproduce better, the qualities that would enable that simply aren’t used in common practice.

The first recordings in digital form, were made in the mid-1970s. I haven't even mentioned all of the many disadvantages of analog.

@@secretfader If your analog R/R deck is recording, "48Khz", then the low frequencies are absent.

Exactly. I, too, find comfort in the process and routine of vinyl records. Thanks for watching!

Maybe not technically, but there are merits as you seem to have picked up from the video. Thanks for watching!

If nothing is connected and the battery is functioning correctly, yes. If not, it is defective.

Is anyone making the argument tape sounds better than other formats? It was the source for many years… Not that I suggested it did sound better. Just different.

Theoretically, yes, that would be the dynamic range in an ideal environment. However, you’ll find that is impacted by the grounding, motor noise, bearing friction, and cartridge surface noise (which varies by calibration) and a whole host of issues. What I gave here is a measurement from the system I have, and reflects a more real world number for many folks systems. It’s mostly the labels who demand louder masters; the artists often back off when fans ask for better: even Metallica has learned louder isn’t always an improvement.

That’s not good! If it isn’t shutting off when no devices are connected, definitely reach out to Smallrig support (or, if recent, where you purchased it). I have a full recap of my experience in a video on my channel. Hopefully this helps!

So I did reach out to Smallrig, and they are in fact, sending me a new battery.

@@carloschavez6208 Sounds like you had a better agent. Hopefully it all works out this time!

It was all through email, they did required to send a video and an explanation of the problem. Yes unfortunately I couldn't go back to B&H because it was 4 months after.

Everyone’s got their preference, but it doesn’t contain more total dynamic range. That’s a fact.

Thanks! I’m still developing my style, so I hope you’ll stay tuned. I’d say the main reason at this point for shooting in RAW or an in-camera log profile would be for future post production scenarios. HDR standards are still developing, and it’s a question of how long you hope the project will go before it looks or sounds behind current trends. Now though, in camera colors look really good: so you do need to less tweaking for fast deliveries (especially for web). Maybe look up the Atomos support for RAW, rent a Ninja for a day and see what difference it makes. There’s no replacement for research.

Thanks for watching, and I'm very glad you enjoyed the story. More episodes in this series are on the way.

It’s mostly a factor of the requirement for less compression, as I mentioned. You can test this theory by getting access studio tapes from the 60s-80s; those were the source for many vinyl LPs, and still sound great when converted to high resolution digital without remastering. In fact, many recordings that weren’t “remastered” still sound better to my ear, regardless of format, due to the higher dynamic range index. Thanks for watching!

For what it’s worth, the output is 16-bit on the FX3. It’s the ProRes codec which captures at a compressed 12-bit. I’m not sure there is quality being lost, but I’d like to evaluate further to be certain. Nevertheless, this is one of the cheapest cinema grade RAW rigs, so that’s cool.

Thanks for the heads up, though that was one of the first first things I did on my Ninja Ultra! I’ve had issues with less than ideal cables causing record issues though, so you might test that.

@@secretfader YOu are right. Will change the HDMI cable "

Thank you! Rendering can sometimes be recovered through careful color grading, but there’s no ignoring the fact that a straight conformance looks better when there is more data to sample from.

Glad you enjoyed it! Which are you trying to make? Pottery or film? I can confidently say both have become more readily accessible in recent years.

What would you like to know? File size comparisons, tools to capture, or something else entirely? I’d love to hear so I can answer accordingly.

I’ll do you one better, WHO is ProRes RAW?

Thanks for the comment. Hopefully your day is better than mine was yesterday.

Indeed. I’d say professional camcorders ruined them, but many probably never got to that level. Thanks for chiming in!

It’s the additional color data being conformed to a Rec 709 rendering space. ACES is more useful if you’re matching multiple cameras as part of an overall color management workflow, these where straight out of the same camera with only the codec (and recording color space) being different. In an HDR space, both expand to look similar. In this case though, the extra values were collapsed into the 709 rendering. Just so you’re aware, CZcams uses 420 subsampling, too, not 422.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of color space and bitdepth. What's different between both these takes is that the internal video has the "sony" image processing applied and the raw skipped all that and gave that control to mr secretfader. He can do whatever he likes to the image since it's just bater data. The problem with the internal is that it's been processed already. You're now basically trying to do better or undo what the image processing did. It also has twice the color resolution (444 instead of 422) it's decoded back to 16bit linear from the atomos 12bit log, which is in itself a big change causing the much richer tonal range. So basically when it comes to raw, you only go with it when you want full control of the image. You now have to tweak the colors, the wb, the exposure, the sharpening and especially the noise reduction. But if you want a quick turnaround or a simple flow where you do not push the image or have to do all that extra stuff, go with internal. You even skip the color correction in editing by adjusting the saturation, black level, color phase and even depth from the picture profile menu for a "fully corrected" image to your liking. This turned into a whole essay 💀

Sounds like a lot of folks are growing more comfortable with the whole setup, with you leading them in the right direction. After all, it really does mean a better product for them at the end!

As do I. The Ninja adds quite a bit of bulk to my rig, but worth it when capturing important stories. I’m following up with a guide in grading for SDR and HDR. Thanks for watching and stay tuned for more.

It depends heavily on the light wattage, but 2 hours sounds very reasonable with that load. I am able to run my Ninja, FX3, and F6 audio recorder all day (and then some) but they are all fairly low power devices.

If it never shuts off, no wonder. I am currently recording no use drain all day.

@@secretfader I really like my (org) VB99 and I don't need another yet but if I did I still buy the original based on what I've seen and heard

Same, the Pro just brings new bugs without enough connectors to make the hassle worthwhile.

Little bit after a year purchasing a brand new smallrig VB99, USB-C connector has some slack, which causes loss of electrical signal, leading to power interruptions during charging through this port. I believe it requires opening up the VB99 and soldering a new USB-C port. How should I proceed? Have you ever had to open a VB99?

@@fabianoslack4269 Nope opening battery is a high risk low gain process so I've never open a battery

Completely agreed. That shotgun requires what some call obscene amounts of gain, but I am a dynamic guy so who cares. I have yet to get my hands on a Sennheiser in this studio space, but the MKH50 would be great tester. Especially if the lav is flat (like here) double micing and mixing for intelligible human voice timbre is the way to go.

Thanks, friend! More are on the way, including BTS from a recent short-form documentary shoot and a review on the new Smallrig VB99 batteries.

Thanks, Matt. I haven't tried the Sound Devices recorders, but I've often heard the MixPre is a solid choice. What impressed me the most from the F6 was that I didn't need my CloudLifter to get decent levels out of the Heil dynamic mics, but I'd like to do a technical analysis of both recorders. Given that I've already bought into the Tentacle ecosystem, I will probably get the Track E. Still, you use the kit you have, and I'm taking my Rode NTG-2 and PinMic Lav on a shoot tomorrow, so I expect to upload at least one BTS video from that shoot. This was shot on my FX3, using the Atomos Ninja Ultra, in ProRes Raw on the G Master II 24-70 at approximately 35mm. I think it was on the Peak Design Travel Tripod at the time. Thanks for watching!