A good high end portable digital mixer at DVinfo.net

Sean Freeland · February 1st, 2006, 11:33 AM

I have been using a Shure FP33 mixer in the field, but am now able to upgrade and would like to get a digital mixer with limiter, compressor and digital lvl readout. Budget is not a problem but would like a good mixer with good sound quality. What does anyone recommend?

_______________________________________________________
"Without sound everyone goes def."

Ray Sigmond · February 1st, 2006, 11:42 AM

On B&H I saw the Sony DMXP01

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Richard Alvarez · February 1st, 2006, 12:00 PM

Sound Devices gets great reviews. Check out the 442 and the 302
http://www.sounddevices.com/products/442master.htm

Dan Keaton · February 1st, 2006, 01:17 PM

I highly recommend the Sound Devices 302 or 442.

However, these are analog mixers, but they do have limiters and other features.

The sound level is presented via a very effective arrangement of LEDs.

Steve House · February 1st, 2006, 03:07 PM

Just a note - compression and similar processing is generally best applied in the final stages of post, not when making the original recording in the field.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · February 1st, 2006, 03:22 PM

To a very limited extent, I have to disagree with Steve. If you find yourself unable to control the sound in the field, and hardware devices help gain that control, then go ahead and commit to the processed sound in the field. It also might be that hardware helps deal with certain issues such as compression, feedback, etc. In those cases, and being sure you know your content...go ahead and committ. But if you have no control, don't have time to check everything 3 times, and don't know the subject...be as cautious as possible, and apply in post.
Real world scenario;
you have a speaker that talks very loudly, and very softly, at both ends of the spectrum. Because of the loud voice, you've got to keep gain artificially low. (-18dB or more) In post, you attempt to bring up the quiet passages, but because of the gain and signal to noise, you've now raised the noise level significantly, whereas if you'd recorded with light compression in the field, you could have greater gain and potentially more efficient s/n ratio, and therefore better audio to work with in post.
But overall, my experience for "average" or "common" recording scenarios is to do all your EQ, compression, and sometimes even room tone, in post.

Jim Feeley · February 2nd, 2006, 01:45 PM

You don't need a digital mixer. Note that the Sony digital field mixer (the DMX P01) has been discontinued (or so I was told by some Sony folks). And as others here have pointed out, you don't need (or even want) compression on a field mixer. But a limiter is handy...as are good meters, and so on.

I own a Sound Devices 302 and like it a lot. I also have an older PSC M4 A+ that works OK (and a small Sound Devices MixPre that I also like). But I'm most happy with the 302.

There are other good mixers, but as a FP33 replacement, the 302 is a pretty close fit.

Best,

Jim

Ty Ford · February 2nd, 2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

Just a note - compression and similar processing is generally best applied in the final stages of post, not when making the original recording in the field.

Were it not for the input and output limiters in the Sound Devices 442, I wouldn't have bought it. I count on them to be inaudible and to save my butt on a regular basis.

It's an analog mixer. I can feed two (well, three actually) cameras simultaneously, if needed.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Steve House · February 3rd, 2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Were it not for the input and output limiters in the Sound Devices 442, I wouldn't have bought it. I count on them to be inaudible and to save my butt on a regular basis.

It's an analog mixer. I can feed two (well, three actually) cameras simultaneously, if needed.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Oh yes, the role of limiters is a given - when I was referring to "processing" I meant things like compression or other manipulations of the signal.

Ty Ford · February 3rd, 2006, 06:33 AM

Ah, well some folks consider limiting processing. There is also the question of delay. That's normally considered a process, but the Sound Devices 744T allows delay to be adjusted separately for each channel to allow for source to mic distance differences. I don't think I've been in a position to use that feature yet.

Other location audio guys use one of the Yamaha digital mixers, I think because of all of it's input and output capabilities. Those are on carts and run on AC, typically not on batteries.

Regards,

Ty Ford

February 1st, 2006, 11:33 AM	#1
Sean Freeland New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7	A good high end portable digital mixer I have been using a Shure FP33 mixer in the field, but am now able to upgrade and would like to get a digital mixer with limiter, compressor and digital lvl readout. Budget is not a problem but would like a good mixer with good sound quality. What does anyone recommend? _______________________________________________________ "Without sound everyone goes def."

February 1st, 2006, 01:17 PM	#4
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	I highly recommend the Sound Devices 302 or 442. However, these are analog mixers, but they do have limiters and other features. The sound level is presented via a very effective arrangement of LEDs. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

February 1st, 2006, 03:07 PM	#5
Steve House Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5,742	Just a note - compression and similar processing is generally best applied in the final stages of post, not when making the original recording in the field. __________________ Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams!

February 1st, 2006, 03:22 PM	#6
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	To a very limited extent, I have to disagree with Steve. If you find yourself unable to control the sound in the field, and hardware devices help gain that control, then go ahead and commit to the processed sound in the field. It also might be that hardware helps deal with certain issues such as compression, feedback, etc. In those cases, and being sure you know your content...go ahead and committ. But if you have no control, don't have time to check everything 3 times, and don't know the subject...be as cautious as possible, and apply in post. Real world scenario; you have a speaker that talks very loudly, and very softly, at both ends of the spectrum. Because of the loud voice, you've got to keep gain artificially low. (-18dB or more) In post, you attempt to bring up the quiet passages, but because of the gain and signal to noise, you've now raised the noise level significantly, whereas if you'd recorded with light compression in the field, you could have greater gain and potentially more efficient s/n ratio, and therefore better audio to work with in post. But overall, my experience for "average" or "common" recording scenarios is to do all your EQ, compression, and sometimes even room tone, in post. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

February 3rd, 2006, 06:33 AM	#10
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Ah, well some folks consider limiting processing. There is also the question of delay. That's normally considered a process, but the Sound Devices 744T allows delay to be adjusted separately for each channel to allow for source to mic distance differences. I don't think I've been in a position to use that feature yet. Other location audio guys use one of the Yamaha digital mixers, I think because of all of it's input and output capabilities. Those are on carts and run on AC, typically not on batteries. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

February 1st, 2006, 11:42 AM	#2
Ray Sigmond Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 119	On B&H I saw the Sony DMXP01 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

February 1st, 2006, 12:00 PM	#3
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Sound Devices gets great reviews. Check out the 442 and the 302 http://www.sounddevices.com/products/442master.htm

February 2nd, 2006, 01:45 PM	#7
Jim Feeley Supports LPFM Radio Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern California USA Posts: 170	You don't need a digital mixer. Note that the Sony digital field mixer (the DMX P01) has been discontinued (or so I was told by some Sony folks). And as others here have pointed out, you don't need (or even want) compression on a field mixer. But a limiter is handy...as are good meters, and so on. I own a Sound Devices 302 and like it a lot. I also have an older PSC M4 A+ that works OK (and a small Sound Devices MixPre that I also like). But I'm most happy with the 302. There are other good mixers, but as a FP33 replacement, the 302 is a pretty close fit. Best, Jim