Lectrosonics DPRa VS Analog Hardline - Listening Experience
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- When I think about wireless boom, I need excellent range, RF robustness, ultimate reliability and and the best in sonic quality. So what's the best way to compare the sonic quality of a digital system. Compare it directly to a hardline analog source using the same microphone and input. In this video you'll hear the sonic quality of the Lectrosonics D2 system with the new DPRa digital plug on transmitter and see how it stacks up against a hardline analog XLR input.
Download 48k/24bit Files Here
www.dropbox.co...
I have to admit, I’m blown away with the sonic quality of the DPRa when I hear it back to back with the hardline analog source!
I am sorry to say that I immediately picked Source B as the better sounding signal. The multiple back and forth clips only confirmed my choice. However Source A sounded very good too and without the A/B comparisons I would not have questioned its excellent sound quality. Interesting to know there is still a good reason to go hard lined as needed. BTW, this is an excellent video, well thought out and well produced.
Thank you Allen! Happy holidays to you!
Interesting! I couldn't really tell the difference besides the pop in source A that someone mentioned. So I took the files into RX and there I could detect a few more pops in A that I didn't catch on YT. I also noticed that B is 0.7 dB louder which I think might be a factor in preference. I also made spectrograms and layered them on top of each other after compensating for the gain, and it's really hard to tell the difference except for a roll off in B above 20k. I would say the difference is within 0.5 dB or so. Not that a spectrogram tells everything but still. Spectrogram: imgur.com/a/Lc5Ak3N
Very interesting, thanks for sharing those results Manne!
Manne, very detailed analysis! Thanks
Nice way to setup the a/b test. Also, Batman called and wants his utility belt back.
LOL! Tell him I said he can’t have it back.
Listened to this on my phone speaker (Pixel 3a, midrange) and also on my computer speaker which is a small Bose consumer thing. Both were clear as to the better sound quality -- hardline was no contest there. The difference is discernible and I have a preference every time for the hardline.
With all of this stuff this is DEGREES of difference, so different projects will have different expectations for sound quality of the deliverables. For most work, the plug transmitter will meet and exceed their standard of required quality.
For all work that I would consider requiring "studio quality" recording practices, IMO features and narrative projects, any manufacturer's plug-on transmitter can not deliver sound quality that will stand toe to toe with the picture quality these pieces are achieving. The sonic capabilities of our recorders' preamplifiers is far greater than what our wireless systems pass through to them. I'd have to listen again to be certain of this, but I'd wager the detriment to sound quality is worse through a plug than recording hard-lined to a pro-sumer level machine like the Zoom F8.
The tonal quality of the voice in the upper-midrange on the plug is harsher and more forward. The voice lacks the resolution of a hard line. The hardlined voice is more robust, smoother, more "relaxed sounding" to my ear, the voice sits more cohesively into the space, and the space is better defined.
I would compare the Lectrosonics DPR to MP3 compression in terms of the type and amount of sound quality detriment it imparts onto the recording. There is a clarity, cohesiveness, and naturalness that is lost in MP3 compression. The MP3 still sounds like music, but the master uncompressed track sounds more like music -- smoother, more natural, more full, more cohesive.
As with MP3, in many applications "good enough" is good enough. But we are nowhere near the point that you'd hear me say any manufacturer's wireless transmitter matches the quality of a hardline to a professional-quality preamplifier.
I have just hear it and on my phone. I do prefer B but A is very usable. There is just a bit more freedom in the high end with B. I would normally think that was the compander but it’s a digital transmission and shouldn’t have a compander. I haven’t used them is there a digital compression setting the the sennhizer?
Source B all day. Sounds like the EQ is night and day between the 2. better lows and not too tinny high mids in the hardline. Also hear a pop in Source A at 0:36. Guessing it's the wireless since its a continuous clip. I will say that Source A still sounds great! I'd love to hear how it sounds going through a MM-1.
Great ears! I also hear a difference but not as much as you describe, just less definition in the highs and low end seems more smooth on the hardline. No EQ added of course for this test. Makes we want to A/B digital hybrid wireless now as well to see what are the gains sonically since wired boom is just not practical for any modern film set any more.
@@MichaelWynneCAS Sorry not EQ. Not sure exactly what you'd call it since it's not the mics frequency response since the hardline sounds great. I love the A/B tests! It is also very hard to describe sounds of mics. I remember being in a Q&A with a very renowned mastering engineer and people kept using descriptions like "rich", "creamy", "warm" and "sheen" and his response was always "ya, whatever that means..." lol He was a grumpy old man but let me sit in on his mastering sessions and watched him cut wax. Legend
@@jonboo words are pretty tough sometimes for describing how sound resolves to our brains.
Check out the spectrogram posted in the comments. The two recordings are nearly identical in frequency response, yet the tonal presentation of the voice is very notably different.
@@ScottBeattyProSound wow that's awesome. I checked it in my spec analyzer too and saw that they were very identical. I'd say maybe it was placebo effect but I chose source B right off the bat. It must be that .7 dB difference Manne was talking about. Crazy. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'd love to hear a three way comparison too with an MM1 being used prior to a LMa/SMQV/UM400/etc transmitter. Especially if it is a very dynamic scene.
Thanks for doing this comparison - nicely done!
"To Start Us Off"... A sounded good until you hear B and notice the high's are crisp.. Also, when the plane is passing over, when you cut back and forth you hear the difference in the high's as the plane generates a "White" noise like sound sweep... Still, sounds good..
Very astute observation on the plane Mark!
listen in my studio and i though A was the analog. that's weird. if you have some time left, maybe a new test wire vs A20 tx.
Good idea! I’ll need to get my hands on an A20TX to do that.
Just listening on my phone speaker right now, but my guess is source A is the DPR, and source B is hardline. Good test, thanks for sharing
Thank you 22Sound!
I’ll start by saying that I listened to this on my phone speakers. Obviously that will make a big difference in what I hear.
Neither sounded markedly “better” than the other. What I noticed was A had more top end, making B sound slightly darker.
I trust your ears Dan, solid observations!
@@MichaelWynneCAS Yeah, felt A had more topend, so thought that was the hardline for that reason
Yes, on a mobile device, can’t tell them apart. With air air pods start to hear a difference....but better? Hard to say. At least to this average user. Generally though, after I know, maybe can start to hear a difference, but not before and both just sound good. I feel like my ears actually adjusted and heard them both the same after the first color change.
@@philpritchard5173 nice observations. It's amazing to me how our ears naturally adjust to all kinds of environments.
@@MichaelWynneCAS So this is interesting. I finally had a chance to listen in my mix environment. I'll still say that both are very much useable, but the hardline sounds more natural. On studio monitors, the hardline has better low end response, as the DPRa had a build up in the low mids.
Thanks for the video, Michael. I’d be curious to hear the Digital Lectro without ever leaving the digital domain (tracked via AES / no 2nd preamp).
Excellent point about paying close attention to the A/D conversion stages Jim. So for this demo the 822 is being recorded to its internal micro SD so the only A/D should be in the PDRa, but to your point sending it out AES I’d imagine should be a an exact duplicate of what is being demonstrated here.
@@MichaelWynneCAS oh cool... I missed that bit about using the microSD to capture. So yeah, this is as clean as the transmission can get. 👍
@@HubLocationSound without removing the splitter, but that would also eliminate the ability to listen to exactly the same performance from exactly the same mic. I think this was a decent way to go about this test.
I would say both are definitely good enough. I have a UH400 and used the HMa this summer. The audio quality is good, but what struck me is that the limiters are kind of harsh compared with SD limiters. Are the limiters sounding similar as previous version? Or can you set the gain lower since its transmission is fully digital now to get a better dynamic range? The recommended settings with occasionally peaking for digital hybrid to get the signal as strong as possibly is definitely to hot for me.
Happy holidays!
Most users we've talked to feel that they can set the gain a bit lower due to the lower noise floor of the DPR, and thus stay away from the limiters more often. Hope this info helps!
@@lectrosonics Wonderful! Glad to hear that. Has that to do with the digital out of the receiver or with the unit itself? I thought that one of the reasons why you recommend people to run their Digital Hybrid transmitters fairly hot was to get the best transmission power. Maybe you don't need to run the transmitters hot to get a strong signal if it is digital?
@@Dustbrigade You are correct - with FM-based systems, the range of the system is somewhat dependent on full modulation - if a transmitter is severely under-modulated, you will see shorter range from that system. With digital transmitters, the signal is fully modulated all the time, so the audio gain setting of the transmitter has no effect on range. But the other thing is that these modern digital systems have lower noise floors and thus better linear dynamic range, so you can be a few dB down in your modulation, and still have excellent signal to noise in your system.
@@lectrosonics Splendid, thank you for sharing this. I was thinking that was the way, but I am glad that you confirmed it.
Oh really? How many db less noisefloor do you have on this transmitter compared to let's say, a HMa? -125db (A weighted) EIN is pretty good
@@Dustbrigade don't forget that the 125 dB (A) figure for the HMa is with full limiter engagement. The overall dynamic range figures are similar, but most users report hearing a lower noise floor - it is likely the signature of the noise floor being different.
Great test for me . Thank you, Michael !!
Me to!
I love shootouts, and although I guessed B was the hardline, I can't exactly say why. How did you set up the gain settings? They are almost perfectly matched. Great video!
Hi Kevin, thank you! Happy Holidays. Just some healthy input to both and some subtle volume adjustments in post to get the levels even
Wow interesting! I do like A a bit more. Jumping from A to B, the sudden slightly brighter sound of B feels a tiny bit "harsh" to me, while A provides a more natural & smooth feeling. Great test!
Nice observations, And great ears to!
Great test, tx very much! This is exactly the comparison I've been hoping for before we kit up for some location stuff. I agree with others here that the sound quality is excellent in both cases. I also detected less definition and overall dimensionality with source A, but not nearly enough to make it a deal breaker. Happy holidays from Switzerland 🌲.
My pleasure, Happy Holidays to you as well!
Yeah - can’t hear the difference at all. Very nice.
How many receivers can the transmitter transmit to?
If it works the same as digital hybrid I believe it would be unlimited Daniel, which is the case with most receivers.
As many as you can afford lol
Cool video. I love having this knowledge available when the heat is on. Can you post the link to the file? Happy Holidays
Sure thing Lloyd, once you download and listen let me know what you think!
Hi Lloyd, Check the video description, the download link is below the first paragraph now!
@@MichaelWynneCAS Awesome. Really close and amazing considering all the tech involved. The midrange is really good and probably all people care about with dialog. The subtle difference for me is the extreme bottom and top. My question would be, is the plug on response the same as a SMDWB? I guess I'm just wondering if they tailored the response differently knowing it would be on mics other than lavs.
Also, is the DPRa a new purchase? I thought you had all analog wireless.
@@LloydPuckitt I’m trying to coordinate a live stream with Lectro over the holiday let’s ask Karl this question for sure!
Great comparison, very much looking forward to getting wireless for my booms.
I was quite surprised how close they were, next I got to do a range test with the digital hybrid and then I may just be sold!
@@MichaelWynneCAS On these same lines, I've been seeing the Sound Devices MM-1 used on booms, is that a setup that you've used?
@@b-rollaudio5368 yes sir, that with a SMQV typically, I hand some HMa’s but it’s hard for me to get away from the sound of those analog limiters and ease of adjusting trim levels to suit the scene.
@@MichaelWynneCAS ever get push back from your boom ops from using an MM1?
Funnily enough, I'm trying to encourage the mixer I'm working with on this next tv series for 13 weeks, to let me use my MM1 to boom with....
@@SoundSpeeding yes I’ve heard some say they don’t prefer it but most go with the flow. Congrats on the gig!