|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
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?
|
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. |
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. |
February 3rd, 2008, 07:04 AM | #5 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
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. |
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.
|
February 3rd, 2008, 02:22 PM | #8 |
Fred Retread
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 1,227
|
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 |
February 3rd, 2008, 06:17 PM | #9 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol U.K.
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
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. |
|
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. |
February 3rd, 2008, 10:03 PM | #11 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Quote:
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. |
|
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 |
February 4th, 2008, 12:10 AM | #13 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
thats why i bypass all camera audio all together and use a separate 24bit recorder |
|
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. |
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
|
| ||||||
|
|