what is mixer about?

Marty Atias · April 12th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Bryan & Marcia,

Notice I did not say that audio without a mixer wouldn't be okay. I will stick with the advantages of having one though.

A mixer without a meter is a waste. The main advantage of a mixer is to monitor levels. If you cannot do that with a high degree of confidence, then save your money until you can afford a good one.

Headphones that wrap completely around your ears provide isolation from ambient noise and allows you to hear your audio without interference from ambient sounds. In-ear monitors like the Etymotics and others (see http:IFBSource.com) are small and seal your ear canal for the same effect. They do tend to be more expensive.

Bryan Beasleigh · April 12th, 2004, 12:22 PM

The advantages of having one will weigh against the simplicity of not bothering. For a one mic setup, it'll be a total waste. I admit they are a nice to have accessory, i own 2 Sound Devices. With the VX2000 modifications I have to use one.

If we say OK lets use one there goes the budget. A cheaper mixer can be more trouble than it's worth.

Mike Butler · May 4th, 2004, 01:36 PM

Beaser is right, the 7506 is an industry standard, if you use them to monitor, you'll pretty much be on the same page as the rest of the world. I haven't had that much complaint with their isolation except when I'm shooting a loud rock band. Then it's watch the meters and be conservative. Kind of wish I had an outboard squasher...even with a mixer you'd need mighty quick hands to catch the occasional rogue peak.

As for..."but is the fact that they're stereo a positive or negative? " most of them are stereo anyway, including the Sony. It can be a bit distracting at first when you are only recording on one channel, like when I use the wireless lavalier on a talking-head-shot, but you get used to it.

May 4th, 2004, 01:36 PM	#18
Mike Butler Machinist Mate Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Southern Connecticut Posts: 644	Beaser is right, the 7506 is an industry standard, if you use them to monitor, you'll pretty much be on the same page as the rest of the world. I haven't had that much complaint with their isolation except when I'm shooting a loud rock band. Then it's watch the meters and be conservative. Kind of wish I had an outboard squasher...even with a mixer you'd need mighty quick hands to catch the occasional rogue peak. As for..."but is the fact that they're stereo a positive or negative? " most of them are stereo anyway, including the Sony. It can be a bit distracting at first when you are only recording on one channel, like when I use the wireless lavalier on a talking-head-shot, but you get used to it. __________________ I ain't straight outta Compton, I'm straight out the trailer. Cuss like a sailor, drink like a Mc. My only words of wisdom are just, "Radio Edit."

April 12th, 2004, 12:05 PM	#16
Marty Atias Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 91	Bryan & Marcia, Notice I did not say that audio without a mixer wouldn't be okay. I will stick with the advantages of having one though. A mixer without a meter is a waste. The main advantage of a mixer is to monitor levels. If you cannot do that with a high degree of confidence, then save your money until you can afford a good one. Headphones that wrap completely around your ears provide isolation from ambient noise and allows you to hear your audio without interference from ambient sounds. In-ear monitors like the Etymotics and others (see http:IFBSource.com) are small and seal your ear canal for the same effect. They do tend to be more expensive.

April 12th, 2004, 12:22 PM	#17
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	The advantages of having one will weigh against the simplicity of not bothering. For a one mic setup, it'll be a total waste. I admit they are a nice to have accessory, i own 2 Sound Devices. With the VX2000 modifications I have to use one. If we say OK lets use one there goes the budget. A cheaper mixer can be more trouble than it's worth.