I've been using my Fostex FR2-LE recorder for years now, but I recently rented a Zoom F8 cause of the multichannel feature.

I notice that with the F8, you only have to turn the level dial up about half way, maybe a little more, and that's enough to get a good level for normal voice dialogue. But with the FR2-LE, you have turn the level dial almost all the way up just to get a good level for dialogue, in comparison.

So that makes me wonder, maybe the FR2-LE just has low pre-amp power in comparison to the F8. Does anyone know?

I do not have the specs for FR2. Many preamps only have a max available input gain of around +50 dB. By comparison, Zoom states the F8's available input gain as +75 dB. Take a look at the FR2 mic input specs and that should explain it..

Oh okay, well I thought that zoom you only have to turn up about two thirds as high, so that explains it I guess. Is it worth getting the Zoom F8 though, to record more quiet sounds?

What happens when you turn the gain up? the position of the knob is irrelevant if it does what you want. Does it have enough gain to capture quieter sounds, or use lower output mics without the noise floor being a problem? Preamps with too much gain can mean that when presented with loud sound you need to work right near the bottom - just as much a problem, meaning you need mic pads engaged. Is the FRE-2 noisy? I don't have one, but not seen any complaints about it's noise performance. Are you getting hiss on your distant mic work?

No I'm not getting hiss but I was told that turning the knob up all the way almost, is not good for the mic, if that's true.

Is it worth getting the Zoom F8 though, to record more quiet sounds?

I have never used an FR2, but most folks seem to like it. A pre-owned Sound Devices mixer or preamp front-end would help if the FR2 lacks the gain or is noisy when recording low SPL sound sources.

There is also the Zoom F4 and the new 32 bit F6 if you do not need a lot of ISO tracks. Then there's the Sound Devices MixPre recorders. The 2cd generation of which was just released.

Oh okay. Well it's just if you want to record things like a whisper, that can be hard to pick up, if you are trying to keep the mic out of frame, so I thought that maybe something with a higer db level, like the F8 might be better for things like that, if it would be.

However, it has eight pre-amp ports if I remember correct, and that is why it's a lot more money, as I don't think I would ever need that many. So maybe something with just as good of pre-amps, but only a couple of ports, would be better.

That’s more of a question about the best way to record quiet dialogue. If the dialogue is too quiet and mic is too far away, raising the mixer gain really high will also increase the background and mic noise where it will stick out and not sound good.

Oh okay, so if the F8 has an extra 25 db, it can still bring up noise at that high then?

...However, it has eight pre-amp ports if I remember correct, and that is why it's a lot more money, as I don't think I would ever need that many. So maybe something with just as good of pre-amps, but only a couple of ports, would be better.
The Zoom f4 has 4 preamps identical to the f8. It’s a great little recorder.
Oh okay, so if the F8 has an extra 25 db, it can still bring up noise at that high then?
2 kinds of noise:
Self noise in the electronics.
Ambient/acoustic noise in the recording environment.

Better recorders will reduce or effectively eliminate self noise.

The best help for noisy environments is close micing. Better mics help a little, but, the best mic in the wrong place is much worse than a decent mic in the right spot. Which recorder you’re using makes little difference in noisy environments. That 25db extra comes in handy for low output mics on quiet sources.

I don't know the recorder, but I assume you can set the gain for various mics and if you've got the knob up full it usually means your using the wrong settings. I would dig into the manual to find out the options, there appears to be possible menu settings on P72 of the manual.

Oh well the manual just says to turn up the levels so they are high enough, it doesn't list any catches as to why you have to turn it up almost all the way, to get it high enough though.

I suspect you need to go into the menu and adjust the levels. so there is more involved than just turning the knobs if your microphone gives a lower output level. The traditional method would involve turning a level gain selector with a screwdriver, these days you use a menu.

The mic trim apparently is on P60 of the FR2-LE manual, the above one is my mistake that's the F8 manual

Again, I'm not familiar with FR2, but most mixers, recorders and cams, have a gain/trim level adjust (or at least switches) aside from the record volume adj.)
Nothing though is a substitute for close mic placement. Record multiple tracks, a boom and a lav. which is standard procedure anyway for most audio folks.

Oh okay. Actually there is only one level knob on the F8, where as on the FR2-LE, there are two, the gain and the fader. Could this be why you have to turn it up more, cause you are turning them up separately, where as perhaps on the F8, both the gain and fader are in the same knob, so you don't have to turn it up as high therefore, cause it adds both simultaneously?

"the (FR2) gain and the fader. Could this be why you have to turn it up more, cause you are turning them?"
> Absolutely!

FYI, The Zoom F8(n) gain//trim preamp settings is in a display menu, which sets the preamp level and the ISO tracks record level (which normally is not changed once 'record' commences). The front panel hardware fader knobs are for the L-R mix tracks 9 & 10 . There is an option however to flip layout, so the hardware fader knobs control the input gain and the mix faders are menu display based. There are also separate software volume (channel) adjustments for HPs, Submix outputs 1/2 and the L-R Main outputs. The software menu display also has pan and other settings like routing, pre/post fader, limiter, ect. The channel gain/trim will have an affect on the level of all the above post preamp adjustments (like most mixers, recorders and such). There is also a "safety" tracks option, but that's another discussion.
The Mic/Line input selection is display based on the F8n.. where as, the 1st generation F8 is selected by using either an XLR for mic or a 1/4" TRS for line.
The F4 is very similar, as probably is the new 32 bit F6.

Don't know anything about your other device, but have been using a Zoom F8 for a year and I love it. Very quiet preamps (which has been mentioned in the reviews). I especially like the Zoom iOS app, which runs on both my iPhone and iPad. It gives you an 8-channel mixing board that's a lot easier to work with than those tiny knobs. Check it out if you don't already have it.

No I'm not getting hiss but I was told that turning the knob up all the way almost, is not good for the mic, if that's true.

Amplifying the signal has no effect whatsoever on the mic.

Right, "no effect whatsoever on the mic. " itself. A mic's self-noise.. is-what-it-is.
Basically, the preamp gain setting is based on how loud source SPL is. For instance, quiet nature sounds require a lot of preamp gain, OTOH, the opposite for a live band... Obviously the device's noise floor and the mic's self noise increases with gain, However recording with a low gain setting just lowers the apparent noise, and will just need to be brought up later, plus increasing analog circuit noise and/or digital gain noise artifacts, usually audible with low level 16 or lower bit depth recordings.
FWIW, most recording consoles and live sound mixers switch the meter to read a channel's preamp input stage in the PFL mode in additiong to feeding it directly to HPs and/or monitors (PLF normally stands for "Pre-Fader-Listen" .. OR.. "Pretty-F-ck'n-Loud", my wise-ass answer when client ask "what does PFL stand for".

Oh okay, so it's okay to turn the gain fader, almost all the way up to pick up average dialogue then?

Ryan why do you believe your friends? They have fed you some utter rubbish in the time you’ve been on the forum. Clearly anybody who believes microphones receive information back FROM the mixer is a blithering idiot! You really need to invoke the plonker protection feature

Oh none of my friends told me this, I just thought of it on my own and thought I would ask. Since I noticed that the F8 doesn't need to be turned up as high, I thought maybe something was wrong with mine.

Oh none of my friends told me this, I just thought of it on my own

He told himself! ;-)

I was told that turning the knob up all the way almost, is not good for the mic,

good god lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone told him about a mixer with a gain that goes to 11. For Ryan out loud.

Well is it questionable that I thought of it myself that maybe my mixer doesn't have enough power, if I have to turn it almost all the way up?

Ryan - you're making us cringe again. "doesn't have enough power????"

You're missing the irony here - up to 11 = spinal tap. Worth watching if you've never seen the movie.

Seriously though you seem very confused about preamp gain and volume. In a way video has the same issue. You have a gain knob or switch on a camera and using too much introduces noise, but you also might have ND filters to reduce light, and perhaps even more gain hidden in a menu somewhere.

In audio and video all that matters is selecting gain or attenuation appropriately. Boosting then cutting can be destructive. Not having enough and having to boost later exactly the same issue.

The first thing your mic audio hits is the preamp. There could be a 10 or 20dB attenuator for over loud sound, but you turn up the preamp enough to get a working level into the system. Preamps come in many designs and qualities. Turning up the gain too much introduces noise. Good preamps have enough noise free range for normal use - pretty well all of them. However, if your mics are distant (as in booms) or the mic is deaf - as in Shure SM7B, for example, you need to add a little more gain, and this is handled very differently by some devices. Adding this extra gain can be hiss free in good designs but rather worse and noisier in others. The point at which noise starts to creep in is always different and is not a feature of the physical knob position, or menu gain setting. X degrees on manufacture A's gain knob could be noise free but manufacturer B could be noise free right to the top - but the top might not be enough? Maybe they knew more would equate to unacceptable noise, so simply built their preamp to not go higher, and thus be considered a bit deaf. That's when those gain lifting devices - preamps with good noise figures that can be inserted between mic and your first device to give a little help to a deaf preamp.

The volume control comes after the pre-amp, and is simply volume. Noise is either there or not by this point and this is why all decent mixers have two ways to adjust level. Before and after the preamp stage. You want maximum signal and minimum noise from the preamp gain, and the following on volume adjustment just looks after the balance between input tracks. If you have a multi-input recording device or mixer, it's 2, 3 or 4 channels that can be balanced against each other by these faders - preamp gain once set, is normally left alone and usually just gives a sensible range against the next fader(s).

Mics are sending devices - what you do with their output is up to you. turning gain up or down impacts on signal to noise ratio. The mic is oblivious. The ONLY thing they receive is power to make their electronics function. Turning the gain up so it distorts and hisses cannot hurt a microphone, only your ears.

If you can achieve the required level it's fine. Although, you may wish to check out the input trim settings for lower level sounds in the longer term, it's a balance with the noise.

I can’t understand how someone who went to film school and has been making movies for this long could know so little about the basic function of a mic/mixer.

The answer to this question is similar to most of his other questions. Use proper technique and good judgment.

In the UK - media studies and film studies, plus music and performing arts are currently out of favour for producing too many graduates who can't get work because the jobs assume graduates can actually do their craft on exit from education, and sadly most can't! I've had two people with me this week. One qualified and complete and one a first yr (of 3). The graduate was a liability to the extent I had to get pretty angry with him when he did stupid things, but the green one was able to think on her feet, do the job and be personable. I've already booked her for a project next year.

How can somebody graduate and not be able to put batteries in a radio mic pack properly, and then put it on a person? Worse still, we were ready to start and I heard "got no audio from the girl?". My 'graduate' had not had the courage to touch her, so had simply given her the pack and the mic, and walked away. She had no idea where to put it! He said they 'did' radio mics, but clearly actually putting them on real people had been glossed over. He actually said that for safety reasons they were not allowed to touch people! Madness!

If you can achieve the required level it's fine. Although, you may wish to check out the input trim settings for lower level sounds in the longer term, it's a balance with the noise.

Oh well, the trim has to be turned almost all the way up, if not all the way, for lower level sounds though, if that's what you mean.

I can’t understand how someone who went to film school and has been making movies for this long could know so little about the basic function of a mic/mixer.

The answer to this question is similar to most of his other questions. Use proper technique and good judgment.

Oh well I took the directing course in the film school, not the audio recording and engineering course. So I learned the audio on my own, while reading what others have to say about it as well. My judgement tells me to keep it turned up almost all the way to get the levels high enough then, cause not sure what else can be done.

The thing we're all thinking is that even if you studied Direction (which you seem to be a littler, er, weak on if that was the core modules) surely you spent time with the people do cameras, lighting, editing and audio? It really must have been a questionable course to have missed so many core areas for a Director and taught nothing about anything else.

I'm not being funny, but I really cannot imagine how your questions over the past months have been answered by us because your course didn't provide the info. That is shameful. It didn't prepare you for directing at all? It seems to have been a film studies course, because you are a master at analysing movies and have a huge knowledge of the content of so many movies. I have to look up most of your examples.

All the knowledge you seek is available - why don't you spend some time researching mic pre-amp gain. It's quite interesting.

Well the course covered a lot of directing when it comes to planning and storyboarding and working with the DP as well as how to operate the video equipment yourself, but it didn't go so much into how to psychologically pull performances out of the actors.

Many of the film courses around aren't that good, there are only a handful of places in the world that run courses are really worth doing for working in high end productions and these now tend to be post graduate. I know film/media students who, after graduating, look to get onto industry training schemes, so that they can work as trainees on various productions as their next step.

You need to do more than the basic course work, that they don't teach something isn't an excuse, there are plenty of books and other resources on pulling performances from actors. There are now more books available than there has ever been, so you shouldn't need to listen to what people around you say, you can find out what some of the top people in the industry say are the best working practices.

I recall going to an industry film quiz in Dublin and the team that won wasn't the directors or producers, it was the 1st camera assistants (called focus pullers in the UK).

For Ryan out loud.

Ya know, I like that. He's already hiding behind an alias. I think we should give him a third name: Ryan Outloud.

[other comments deleted by OP]

I don't think Ryan realizes it but he pretty much embodies the film school mentality. Lots of theory and classical movie study that leaves students ill prepared for the real world. This in turn leads to the sort of questions we all do our best to answer without losing our minds.

He's already hiding behind an alias.

He is not hiding behind an alias.

For clarification, please refer to https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/536862-how-does-filmmaker-decide-aspect-ratio-shoot-9.html#post1951811 (posts #131 through #133).

Hope this helps,

Many of the film courses around aren't that good, there are only a handful of places in the world that run courses are really worth doing for working in high end productions and these now tend to be post graduate. I know film/media students who, after graduating, look to get onto industry training schemes, so that they can work as trainees on various productions as their next step.

You need to do more than the basic course work, that they don't teach something isn't an excuse, there are plenty of books and other resources on pulling performances from actors. There are now more books available than there has ever been, so you shouldn't need to listen to what people around you say, you can find out what some of the top people in the industry say are the best working practices.

I recall going to an industry film quiz in Dublin and the team that won wasn't the directors or producers, it was the 1st camera assistants (called focus pullers in the UK).

Oh okay thanks. Right now I am reading Directing Actors by Judith Weston.

Excellent.

I don't think Ryan realizes it but he pretty much embodies the film school mentality. Lots of theory and classical movie study that leaves students ill prepared for the real world. This in turn leads to the sort of questions we all do our best to answer without losing our minds.

Oh but isn't it good to study movies and how they were done as well though? I feel like somethings, not everything, but some things, I like more from watching movies I like, compared to what we learn in class to an extent. Or I guess I just felt the class had a very standard way of making the movie, where as I want to go outside the box and explore other options of what can be done, and what not.

Studying the movies is good, but there is a difference between reading the text and writing the text and it's the latter that you seem to be having difficulties with.

Trying to go outside the box is a good thing, but somehow you seem to be caught in the cardboard.

It might be worth going to a workshop for people in the industry. However, these aren't cheap and the quality can be variable, so care needs to be taken in selecting them, since some are for wannabes, rather than people at various stages of their careers. I know some in the past were very good, with people coming from all over the world to attend the workshops, often with Oscar winning tutors.

I attended a one week HD workshop in LA and one of the assistants, who was a US film student, said she learnt more in one week at the workshop than she did in a year at college.

We've done a topic swap here - somehow the directing topic comments are now in the preamp gain setting topic?

That book - by the way - is a decent one to take on board.

Studying the movies is good, but there is a difference between reading the text and writing the text and it's the latter that you seem to be having difficulties with.

Trying to go outside the box is a good thing, but somehow you seem to be caught in the cardboard.

It might be worth going to a workshop for people in the industry. However, these aren't cheap and the quality can be variable, so care needs to be taken in selecting them, since some are for wannabes, rather than people at various stages of their careers. I know some in the past were very good, with people coming from all over the world to attend the workshops, often with Oscar winning tutors.

I attended a one week HD workshop in LA and one of the assistants, who was a US film student, said she learnt more in one week at the workshop than she did in a year at college.

Oh okay, well is my weaknesses the performance and the choice of shots, as before mainly, or is there anything else I need to work on?

You really need to work on everything required to direct, there's no room for weaknesses when directing, especially with inexperienced crews.

Ok but i was told before that i was wearing too many hats and to get cast and crew that are more experienced to cover their areas of expertise more, if thats true?

Just a shame the new production doesn't follow that rule. You seem to swap happily between 'they' and "I" or 'We".

When you fill in a form, what do you put in the box "occupation"?

He means for a low budget production you need to be more involved to ensure things are being done right. When you’re competent and knowledge at all aspects of film making you can do this.

Yeah sure, I can be more involved with the other departments. I try to watch everyone very carefully to make sure everything is being done well, but is there anything else I can do?

Hire people who know what they're doing, if you don't the odds are you won't have a successful productions. How good a film will be is 80% decided before a single frame is shot.

Watch to see if it's done well? Nothing is worse than somebody managing who is commenting on quality without the experience to do it better. At some point you will realise that you have to trust people to do their job. It goes back to the skills audit. If true are six technical slots that need filling, somebody needs to take control and fill them with the most able available. Your system seems to involve shuffling people around from a fixed list into holes nobody quite fills properly. The worst fit rather than the best.

Who are these other people on the team. What sort of others do you have to choose from? Do they have a very good director, camera, lighting, sound and other Tec department people on the list, or are they using keen but limited people in every department? Surely if there really is a proper budget, you cast the best actors, not those with defects, and the best camera operator, and then hire the most suitable kit. You pick the best sound person based on their skills, not the fac they have their own kit but are a bit rubbish? You're entire production company seems to be a group of mates not real film makers, who make a living from it? Like a amateur film society. They work like this. The guy with a nagra and elderly 415, not 6 always does sound, and the chosen cameraman is seriously considering investing in one of the new HD cameras now they've had time to settle down, but SD is fine for e moment. Their director worked for the Royal Shakespeare company in 1965 and knows 'actor' always has a capital A. The lighting designer has a shed full of kit built in 1958 that still does wonderful service. This is my view of what you are lumbered with.

Okay thanks, but it was aid that I have to be more involved to ensure things are being done right though.

He means for a low budget production you need to be more involved to ensure things are being done right. When you’re competent and knowledge at all aspects of film making you can do this.

Like for example, I was told that my gimbal footage was too shaky before, so next time I will want to watch that for sure, and get a better gimbal operator, but thought next time I should really pay attention. Or same goes with sound, when I hire a separate PSM, rather than doing it myself while directing.