how does 9-12v affect. . .uh. . whatever it affects, vs the full 48v?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do most mixers provide 48v phantom? Is it ok to use regular old audio mixing boards for this application? Best, Fischer |
I want to know if this whole weak phantom power rumour is a red herring. The manual, which is http://www.behringerdownload.de/MX60...2A_B_Specs.pdf, only says *"Ultra-low noise dicrete Mic Preamps with +48 V Phantom Power* so far as I can tell.
Is this claim backed up by fact? |
Quote:
|
So, if I've actually used the ME66 with the mixer's phantom, and it sounded okay, I guess it's cool, then?
How do I now if I'm getting "degraded performance figures". . .noise? Not as much output from the mic? what? |
Quote:
|
The K6 and capsules run on anything from 12 to 48 volts of phantom power.
It's my understanding that the battery-powered Behringers give 48 volts when running on AC and 18 volts when running on internal batteries. When you are making audio adjustments during a shoot, the control moves are usually very subtle unless the situation dictates more rapid and dramatic control. Also remember to record ambient sound for each major setup to aid in cutting different shots and scenes together. It really is important for the boom operator to have a headphone feed. Otherwise it's like pointing a camera without having a viewfinder or monitor. |
Quote:
http://www.sounddevices.com/products/302master.htm I used to have a Shure FP-32A and my new 302 is, without a doubt, better, both the money you spend as well as the quality of audio it produces. It's much less expensive than a comparable three channel mixer from Shure. The guys at Sound Devices used to work for Shure. They got frustrated working at Shure because the company refused to move into the future, sticking to outdated technology. They left and started their own company, delivering a product which beats Shure hands down. My 302 does everything I could ever want a three channel mixer to do and more. It's tough and reliable. Your professor is right on about the price range of less than US$1,500 for a good three channel mixer. |
This dogmatic snobby guy at Sam Ash today said that Behringers are garbage.
He said the sound is bad, and they just don't sound "fat". Or I guess phat. It makes me worry that putting a Behringer in the chain adds noise, or by putting it between the camera and the mic, that the sound is losing resolution? At the same time, just having someone monitoring levels on a mixer seems like a sure recipe to better sound, even if the Behringer is muddying the signal. If you had a choice of Behringer or straight into the camera, what would you choose? Is the Behringer so bad it can actually hurt the signal? |
Quote:
|
ENG 44 four channel mixer
For what it's worth...I ran across this four channel mixer today with a list price of US$529.
http://www.equipmentemporium.com/ENG...le%20mixer.htm I'd be interested in hearing from someone who has actually used this ENG 44 mixer. A quality four channel mixer for that price seems a little hard for me to believe but...I thought I'd pass it along anyway for those on a budget. |
Quote:
Thanks, however, about the excellent pointers towards the next level of mixers--something that was missing from this discussion so far. While I am quite sure I can't afford them (how do I know? because I can't afford the Behringer, duh), I am glad to know about them. The other factor in all of this was that the professor (who actually, by the way, made a lot bigger stink about me not getting paid than about me having low quality equipment) demo'd the noise reduction facilities in Adobe Audition. To me, right now, noise is the main feature of "bad sound", and the fact that so much of it can be removed with Adobe Audition makes me frame "good sound" in a different way: if you've got the right noise reduction software, etc., it can be just as much post question as a production question. |
About the power reduction of the 1002 when on 9v, all the guys at guitar center (independently) seemed to agree: an oktava doesn't need more than 12v or so.
|
Sorry to state the obvious, but it is always better to eliminate noise at the source than to have to remove it in post.
Post production noise reduction tools can be a great tool, especially in emergencies, but to rely on it to compensate for noisy equipment is not a good idea. I have used Sony's Noise Reduction 2.0 to work wonders, but some things, like road noise are nearly impossible to remove. Excessive noise reduction drasticaly reduces the quality of the sound. I understand that the Sound Devices 302, which is a great field mixer is probably out of your budget. If you are not in the field, a Mackie studio mixer, such as the VLZ-1202 is a low cost option which has excellent sound qualities. With the Sound Devices 302, you are paying for the portability and durability as well as the quality. |
Noise reduction is like noise hiding. If there's too much noise, you can't get rid of it without severly affecting the quality of your audio. A little noise can be removed without much side effects.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network