what about mixers? little ones.

[Josh Bass]

how does 9-12v affect. . .uh. . whatever it affects, vs the full 48v?

[Fischer Spooner]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

how does 9-12v affect. . .uh. . whatever it affects, vs the full 48v?

Yeah!

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

you might try craigslist for possible mixer sales. Lots of musicians and garage studios looking to upgrade, you could pick something up local for cheap.

Great idea! Very fruitful.

Do most mixers provide 48v phantom? Is it ok to use regular old audio mixing boards for this application?

Best, Fischer

[Fischer Spooner]

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?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Fischer Spooner

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?

It depends on the specific microphone. The industry standard calls for 48 volts. Some mics are really picky about it and don't work properly if the voltage presented to them is not within a range of a few volts on either side of that. Others will work at a lower voltage but with degraded performance figures. Still others work fine at anything from about 12 volts up to the full 48. The only way to know for sure about a particular is to look at the mics specs. If it says "12-48 volts" you're probably safe with a lower voltage, but if, like the AT 4053a specs, it says "48 +/- 4 v" you probably need full power.

[Josh Bass]

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?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

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?

Increased noise, lower output, and increased susceptibility to overload would be the main symptoms, I suppose. If the ME66 works and you don't notice any problems, then it works - that's the ultimate test.

[Jay Massengill]

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.

[John DuMontelle]

Originally Posted by Fischer Spooner

my professor in location sound at my film school sez that mixers cost 1500 bucks, but i suspect he is two sheets to the wind.

can i buy a mixer that is acceptable for less? i am a bit panicked because i bullshitted my way into a shoot as the sound guy--and I don't want to mess it up.

all i have is a mk12, not even a real boom or mixer. my professor insists you have to have a mixer. i don't have a credit card that will take the 1500 charge, so i can't rent. is there a sort of entry level mixer that might serve me well for the next half dozen short films i make in the coming months?

You can buy a Sound Devices 302 mixer for just over a thousand dollars and well below the one thousand five hundred dollar price ceiling.

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.

[Fischer Spooner]

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?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Fischer Spooner

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?

Quite a few people dislike Behringer, both for their low quality control compared to many other manufacturers and I've read they have a reputation for "borrowing" designs from other vendors and have had more than their share of lawsuits as a result. If you seach this forum for "Behringer" you'll find some other member's - far more expert than me - comments in those regards. Whether their reputation is deserved or not, enough pros feel negatively about them that if you're worried about your professor's statement that you won't look like a pro in the eyes of the producer/director if you show up on the set without a mixer in your kit, showing up with a Behringer isn't going to be much of an improvment. Personally, if you're only going to be running one or two mics or working off a boom, I'd go with something like a Sound Devices MixPre instead. If I needed more channels and had mains power I'd look at something like a Mackie compact model or if battery is a must, I'd give a very close consideration to the Shure or Wendt field mixers or the Sound Devices 302 or 442 mixers. They're an order of magnitude or two more expensive than the Behringers but they're an investment in professional quality that will serve you well for years AND hold their resale value well to boot so I'd bite the bullet and figure out a way to swing it unless it was just plain not possible. Starting cheap with the thought of upgrading later usually is the most expensive strategy in the long run and since I gather this is something you'll be using in your professional career for the forseeable future you need to think long-term.

[John DuMontelle]

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.

[Fischer Spooner]

Originally Posted by Steve House

If I needed more channels and had mains power I'd look at something like a Mackie compact model or if battery is a must, I'd give a very close consideration to the Shure or Wendt field mixers or the Sound Devices 302 or 442 mixers. They're an order of magnitude or two more expensive than the Behringers but they're an investment in professional quality that will serve you well for years AND hold their resale value well to boot so I'd bite the bullet and figure out a way to swing it unless it was just plain not possible. Starting cheap with the thought of upgrading later usually is the most expensive strategy in the long run and since I gather this is something you'll be using in your professional career for the forseeable future you need to think long-term.

I have gotten to the point now that I am really not too worried about what someone may think. I am a lot more (justifiably) worried about my finances, and I think that is a good priority. This thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ight=Behringer has a lot of people enthusing about the 1002. It leads me to believe that audiophiles' considerations aside, the 1002 is a good value, even an amazing value.

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.

[Fischer Spooner]

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.

[Dan Keaton]

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.

[Glenn Chan]

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.