Why would a mixer help? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

All Things Audio
Everything Audio, from acquisition to postproduction.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 2nd, 2008, 09:42 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 426
Why would a mixer help?

If I already have an SD702t and I'm getting good recordings out of it, what are the reasons a good mixer would help?
Matt Buys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2008, 09:57 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 595
This post should answer your question...
Chris Hocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 03:15 AM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
hi chris, thats a nice link you gave, but the arguement still holds true

-the 702 is more than enough for recording especially with a one or two mic setups.
-the 702 has knobs that are smaller than the 302 but still do the same job.
-the 702 has excellent limiters, low cut filters, phantom powering, channel assigining, just like the 302

if you're gonna use say one boom, no you dont need a mixer, if you dont need to mix say two lavs and one boom, you dont need a mixer, your 702 is plenty for that.

the link raises the question about using a camera or a mixer to camera, that topic has nothing to do with using the recorder alone. recording directly to camera without a mixer is of course a bad idea because of the noisy preamps. Using an external mixer, or an external recorder is way better of course.

but is the recorder good enough, well its more than enough.
Roshdi Alkadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 04:56 AM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 595
Sorry, I should have created a link to the entire thread.

Quoting Ty, "as good as the 702 is, the knobs aren't particularly well-positioned so that they can be adjusted during a scene".

Sure you can get away with just using the 702 standalone - plenty of people do. But if you do sound day in day out, then you want to make you life as easiest as possible, and also achieve the best possible results. By adding something like a 442 into the chain you gain better meters and better controls. Not vital, but if you're sole purpose as a career is getting the best sound possible, then it may be worth the extra investment. It's really up to the operator. Can you live with the existing controls and meters? If you can, then great! If not, then is that a good enough reason to invest in such an expensive piece of gear (especially when you're already got existing tools that pretty much achieve the same results)? Well I guess that's really up to you.

But in answer to your question Matt - better controls and better meters are two very good reasons a good mixer would help.
Chris Hocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 07:04 AM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roshdi Alkadri View Post
hi chris, thats a nice link you gave, but the arguement still holds true

-the 702 is more than enough for recording especially with a one or two mic setups.
-the 702 has knobs that are smaller than the 302 but still do the same job.
-the 702 has excellent limiters, low cut filters, phantom powering, channel assigining, just like the 302

if you're gonna use say one boom, no you dont need a mixer, if you dont need to mix say two lavs and one boom, you dont need a mixer, your 702 is plenty for that.

the link raises the question about using a camera or a mixer to camera, that topic has nothing to do with using the recorder alone. recording directly to camera without a mixer is of course a bad idea because of the noisy preamps. Using an external mixer, or an external recorder is way better of course.

but is the recorder good enough, well its more than enough.
While the SD7xx series of recorders are superb and have preamps as good as those on the SD mixers, there are still some other considerations. If you have both a recorder and a mixer in your kit, you're ready to handle either single system direct-to-camera or double system gigs. If instead of the 702 you have a 744, to record mics to all 4 channels at once you need to add outboard mic preamps for channels 3 & 4.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams!
Steve House is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 08:23 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol U.K.
Posts: 244
If you want to provide a mix, then you need a mixer. It mix's.

A lot of TV just wants a finished mix for post production.
Sometimes the sound is handled by the picture editor in today's cost conscious world. No dub, music is added in the edit too. They are busy and will make a mess of it if you offer them too many choices. That is why one records to camera if possible for general program making excluding drama. and ideally mix's the levels and mic's for them. A mono mix or a basic two track mix if suitable. Simplicity is the order of the day.

If you are just doing little home projects then you may not need a mixer as you say. In fact I am surprised you need a SD702t. You may have the cart before the horse, but if it works for you then fair enough.
Jimmy Tuffrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 01:23 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
but of course if you're using the 702 for its 24bit feature for that extra dynamic range and more bits to work with during post and combining multiple tracks for less noise and more headroom, then its better than using any camera's audio abilities.
Roshdi Alkadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 02:22 PM   #8
Fred Retread
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roshdi Alkadri View Post
... recording directly to camera without a mixer is of course a bad idea because of the noisy preamps ...
I'm not so sure this is true for a lot of cams. My notion is that if "line in" and "mic in" share the same switchable jack you can't record any input to the cam without going through its preamps. "mic level" goes through the preamps, and switching to "line in" merely attenuates a line level input to mic level, which then goes through the preamps. Am I wrong?
__________________
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge
"My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me
David Ennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 06:17 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol U.K.
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ennis View Post
My notion is that if "line in" and "mic in" share the same switchable jack you can't record any input to the cam without going through its preamps. "mic level" goes through the preamps, and switching to "line in" merely attenuates a line level input to mic level, which then goes through the pre-amps.
That does seem to be true... It makes using line level even worse than mic level. Rubbish cameras.... Cannon XL1 and XL2 are good though as they have line in on phonos which avoids the pre's.

Have you tried the DSR 450, think that is the right name, it's the new Sony with the little screen on the side. Monitoring via the headphone out has a serious delay and sounds awful. Rumour has it that you can monitor it from it's phono outs though...yet to try.
Jimmy Tuffrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 08:46 PM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
once you go through line in to the camera you bypass all the camera's internal preamps. thats the idea of using a mixer, since the mixer generally has better preamps than most cameras, it'll be quieter than the camera's preamps.

the camera's preamps are only used when going through mic level.
Roshdi Alkadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 10:03 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roshdi Alkadri View Post
once you go through line in to the camera you bypass all the camera's internal preamps. thats the idea of using a mixer, since the mixer generally has better preamps than most cameras, it'll be quieter than the camera's preamps.

the camera's preamps are only used when going through mic level.
I wish that this were true of all cameras, but it's not.

Many prosumer cameras accomodate line level by putting a pad in front of the mic preamp, instead of bypassing it. In other words, you feed it line level, it pads it down to mic level, then you go through mic preamps.

Stupid, ain't it.

What Roshdi wrote is generally true of pro cameras.
Seth Bloombaum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2008, 10:08 PM   #12
Fred Retread
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 1,227
That's what I said above, Seth. If the mic and line inputs are separate jacks, you're probably bypassing the preamps, if it's one switchable jack you're probably not.
__________________
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge
"My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me
David Ennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2008, 12:10 AM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum View Post
I wish that this were true of all cameras, but it's not.

Many prosumer cameras accomodate line level by putting a pad in front of the mic preamp, instead of bypassing it. In other words, you feed it line level, it pads it down to mic level, then you go through mic preamps.

Stupid, ain't it.

What Roshdi wrote is generally true of pro cameras.
That is pretty stupid, darn, for so many years i was told that mic level is bypassed when going through line in, but its actually padded (for most cases).

thats why i bypass all camera audio all together and use a separate 24bit recorder
Roshdi Alkadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2008, 04:13 AM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol U.K.
Posts: 244
As said before a mixer is for doing pro work. If you have the luxury of doing it your way with no deadlines or pressure and you are using pro sumer cameras and have plenty of time for re syncing audio to picture then you may not really need one.

Having said that as you can a afford a SD702t I am surprised you are lacking a mixer.
As a sound man I've always felt the mixer to be my spiritual home. Even if I could do without it I like having it there.
Jimmy Tuffrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2008, 08:39 AM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
and i do have a mixer, i just dont find using it when using one mic into one channel, i dont usually mix more than one boom for dialogue
Roshdi Alkadri is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network