I'm trying to choose a mixer and wondering if 3 or 4 channels will serve in the long run. Slowly getting into wildlife video making. Most often I'm solo so it is challenging but really fun.

I can't decide if the 4 channel is worth the extra money and weight. For a 3 channel the Azden FMX 32a is appealing. Using a Canon XA10. The things to mix are

1. ambient sound, being captured with a sony stereo ECM-MS2
2. my voice live, via an unchosen wireless lav
3. (sometimes) distant sound using some mono device

If a mono shotgun is used, I wonder if the stereo mic would best be disconnected since the focus would be on sound originating farther away. However the resulting mix (with my voice) would be mono.

When needing the shotgun, would it make sense to have a mono mix of my voice and the shotgun? 3 channel mixer would do.

On occasions when distant audio is needed, would the result be better with a mix of my voice, the shotgun and the stereo mic (4 channels)?

You didn't mention any sort of budget. If you are looking at Azden, then it appears that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It isn't clear to me what benefit something like that Azden mixer would provide for the $$$? I would not expect that the mic preamps in the Azden are of any significant better performance than what is in your camcorder.

If you are recording ambient/nature sounds you want to be going for equipment (specifically microphones and preamps) that have better than average noise performance. Azden would be my last choice for that requirement.

ECM-MS2 is not noted for being a low self-noise microphone, either. But I guess you have to start somewhere. Note that there are online forums specifically for nature recording where they discuss the kinds of mics and other equipment users have found to give the best performance for the $$$/

Would you say which forums? My impression of dvinfo is that there are tons of expertise and activity.

it appears that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel

That's not nice. Feels like a kick-down. What else is there in that price range that would provide more value?

The XA10 only has 2 xlr inputs, so the mixer is intended to add another channel or two, not somehow improve the audio beyond what the camcorder can record. If they are roughly equivalent in quality as you suggest, then they would be a decent low end (as they now feel) match, no?

ECM-MS2 is not noted for being a low self-noise microphone, either. But I guess you have to start somewhere.

Are you trying to inflict pain here? : - )

Didn't we go through most of this in a thread you started a little while ago? Or is a case of you just didn't like the answers to your questions so you thought you would have another try?
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/510782-new-external-mics.html

That's not nice. Feels like a kick-down. (RE: the Azden FMX-32 being the bottom of the barrel.) What else is there in that price range that would provide more value?

The XA10 only has 2 xlr inputs, so the mixer is intended to add another channel or two, not somehow improve the audio beyond what the camcorder can record. If they are roughly equivalent in quality as you suggest, then they would be a decent low end (as they now feel) match, no?.. Azden products in general don't have the best of reputations and are rarely found in professional kit. Buying cheap is money thrown away, IMHO, and is something someone on a budget can't afford to do. The most economical approach is to buy the RIGHT product rignt from the beginning while finding it at the best possible price.

A 3-channel mixer is not going to do what you described... Sony stereo mic, that's two channels. Mono lav, that makes 3 channels. "Distant sound using some mono device" makes 4. IF you want to mix all those sources together to a stereo output, 3 channels won't cut it. Not saying that it makes sense to do that mix in the field, especially if you're trying to operate the camera as well, just that assuming you were going to try, a 3-channel mixer won't suffice.

Why a wireless lav on yourself? Lav yes, but there's no need for the expense and potential reliability issues of wireless. Unless there's the true need for mobility on the part of the subject without the encumbrance of a cable, hard-wired is the way to go. Static setups don't need wireless.

Be aware that mixing of various sources in the manner you seem to want to do is usually done in post, NOT while recording in the field. This is why they make multichannel recorders. Once mixed, you can't un-mix 'em, so if you mix during recording there's no going back if it turns out it doesn't sound right when you review it back in the editing bay. If the mix doesn't work, your only option is to go back out and reshoot.

Would you say which forums? My impression of dvinfo is that there are tons of expertise and activity.
There are several similar forums with significantly more traffic and content. This DVinfo Audio forum is one of the slower forums for production sound. Furthermore, recording nature sounds is a specialty that is beyond the scope of any of the production sound forums including this one.

That's not nice. Feels like a kick-down. What else is there in that price range that would provide more value?

If you came here to have everyone agree with you then you are wasting your time (and ours). The fact is that Azden has the reputation of making low cost but also low-quality products. If we DIDN'T warn you about this then you would complain that we didn't warn you. There isn't much else in the price range because it is the bottom of the barrel.

The XA10 only has 2 xlr inputs, so the mixer is intended to add another channel or two, not somehow improve the audio beyond what the camcorder can record. If they are roughly equivalent in quality as you suggest, then they would be a decent low end (as they now feel) match, no?

As others have pointed out by now, trying to produce a decent audio mix of the kinds of things you mention is very difficult to do IN REAL TIME while shooting. When it is done properly, it requires a sound crew with an experienced mixer and good advanced planning. The much easier way is to record all the "wild" (non-sync) sounds separately and mix them at your leisure during post-production editing.

Are you trying to inflict pain here? : - )
No, we are trying to be honest and steer you right. If you don't want to learn from OUR mistakes, then spend/waste your own money and time and learn from your own mistakes.

You keep coming back here asking questions about how to implement a production process that none of us think will work (based on first-hand experience). I don't know what kind of answers you want from us.

Why a wireless lav on yourself? Lav yes, but there's no need for the expense and potential reliability issues of wireless. Unless there's the true need for mobility on the part of the subject without the encumbrance of a cable, hard-wired is the way to go. Static setups don't need wireless.

Was wondering the same thing myself. Since I spend time in front of the camera, I was considering avoiding the dangling wire and tangle with tripod legs and other things. Still hard wired is maybe a better idea. The camcorder has some good focus options. One is focus memory, that allows focus preset on a subject, so that I can switch to it (when multitasking with sound an everything else).

The question about the 4 channel comes from this. I don't think I need the stereo sound when recording something at a distance using a mono shotgun or something. That leaves mono voice and mono far off subject. Afraid they will mix to a dull sounding mono.

This is the crux of the 3-4 channel decision. If it will sound ok, the 3 will do (lighter, cheaper too). If not (true stereo needed at a minimum for aesthetics), then I need the 4 channel.

Is there any field mixer worth using (by way of compromise in quality) under $500? Once I learn post production, it will be incorporated, but my vids are hands on and so I need the live vocal track.

I am open to hardware suggestions (and would very much appreciate them). The wallet constrains though, so quality reduction and doing nothing are the only choices.

With one lav and a one mono shotgun (or other mono mic) Those tracks could be recorded on separate tracks and mixed in post.. (possibly using a mono-to-stereo simulation plug-in.. but that's for another thread altogether) So two channels and tracks would work in that configuration. If you record the ambient with a 'stereo' mic, which uses two channels, than a three channel mixer would be needed. (two for stereo ambiance, and one for your narration.. this configuration would have to mixed at the time of acquisition.

...

Is there any field mixer worth using (by way of compromise in quality) under $500? Once I learn post production, it will be incorporated, but my vids are hands on and so I need the live vocal track.

....Just because you're hands-on does not mean your narration has to be recorded at the time of shooting. Camera original is virtually never the finished product in serious productions. There's absolutely no reason your commentary can't be added after the fact in the more relaxed environment of post-production where you can think about what you're saying and get the wording exactly right, then record it in as many takes as it takes to get it sounding exactly right.

There's absolutely no reason your commentary can't be added after the fact

Yes there is. The reason is right here.

If I'm handling a live arthropod, reptile or picking apart a plant in the field and talking about it, how would post production audio overlay what I am saying live? Yes it is multitasking, but the XA10 makes it very do-able.

Are you saying "No I can't do that!" What the heck? Maybe you are assuming that this work is some sort of avocation and that I should not submit work that is less than professional in quality. I'm a naturalist, not contracting with anyone.

Thanks Rick. Just saw the pseudo-stereo plugin at Audacity. Not sure how it sounds but they're saying its a heck of a lot better than straight mono playback. That means a 3-channel will work. Appreciated : - )

Yes there is. The reason is right here.

If I'm handling a live arthropod, reptile or picking apart a plant in the field and talking about it, how would post production audio overlay what I am saying live? Yes it is multitasking, but the XA10 makes it very do-able.

Are you saying "No I can't do that!" What the heck? Maybe you are assuming that this work is some sort of avocation and that I should not submit work that is less than professional in quality. I'm a naturalist, not contracting with anyone.

"Avocation" would mean it's a hobby with the product shown mainly to friends and family - I'm assuming you're trying to go beyond that. Doesn't matter if it's paid work done for someone else or your own work done for your own purposes, my assumption is you want anything going out to the public with your name on it to be the best that it can possibly be. So I'm assuming it's a vocation, not an avocation, and you want to produce work that looks and sounds as professional as you can make it.

looks and sounds as professional as you can make it.

Well isn't budget a factor that impacts my ability in this regard?

So if I can afford a max of 500 for a field mixer, you say don't us it to mix more than 2 channels because it is not as good as I can make it?

I'm not stuck on Azden, but without a suggested alternative...

I don't see anything, even used that offers a significant improvement in that price range.

" its a heck of a lot better than straight mono playback"
- Only in certain instances... depends on the audio.
A pseudo-stereo effect would probably work on atmos' and such, but narration should be mixed dead-center in the stereo field.
Not familiar with the Audacity FX. There's other free stereo simulation plug-ins as well. Search and you shall find.
... As I recall, the 'Sheppi Spacial Enhancer' and 'Voxengo Stereo Touch' are decent on some material.. Both are free VST (PC) plug ins. Warning, a little goes a long way. Mono compatibility should always be checked as well.. but that applied to most everything

....

If I'm handling a live arthropod, reptile or picking apart a plant in the field and talking about it, how would post production audio overlay what I am saying live? Yes it is multitasking, but the XA10 makes it very do-able.

Are you saying "No I can't do that!" What the heck? Maybe you are assuming that this work is some sort of avocation and that I should not submit work that is less than professional in quality. I'm a naturalist, not contracting with anyone.

Thanks Rick. Just saw the pseudo-stereo plugin at Audacity. Not sure how it sounds but they're saying its a heck of a lot better than straight mono playback. That means a 3-channel will work. Appreciated : - )I wouldn't try to mix in the field at all. To do so needs an audio operator who can give it his or her undivided attention, monitoring the audio and constantly adjusting the faders. I'd spend your $500 on a decent mic preamp such as a used Sound Devices MixPre or if you can find a few more bucks in your pocket a new Sound Devices MixPre D. I'd also suggest you get an inexpensive recorder such as the Zoom H4n. The preamp gives you better control than sending the mics directly to the camera, better limiters and such. When you're on-camera handling a critter or addressing the audience I'd use the lav and record your speech to the camera. If you want to deal with double system you could go to the recorder but recording in camera is simpler. If you're shooting a distant subject like a moose bellowing in the bush, etc, and want to comment in real time you could put your lav on one channel and the shotgun on the other, not mixing them but recording them in parallel as two mono tracks (just because they are labelled left and right when recording stereo doesn't mean that's their only uses.). Dialog is always mono centred between left and right so you don't need to record it in stereo, you pan the mono track equally into the left and right channels in post. Same for that moose bellow - its source is mono and a stereo recording is pointless, you can pan it to the proper location on the screen in the stereo soundtrack built in post. I would record ambiance, background sounds, and SFX as wild tracks on the Zoom and not necessarily at the same time you're shooting - professional soundtracks are assembled from a large variety of sources recorded at different times and places. In post is where you put it all together into a coherent whole.

Well this is all really helpful. Lots to think about. Thanks! Now to turn what would have been some lousy recordings into less lousy ones :-)

I'm always a tad wary of getting into these "in depth" audio threads as it's certainly not my speciality, not that I'm a complete dummy, mind, however, a few issues have popped up a number of times in this thread so far and it's ringing alarm bells...............


.... I don't think I need the stereo sound when recording something at a distance using a mono shotgun or something. That leaves mono voice and mono far off subject.......

First, I'm staggered at the fixation with stereo, why?

Decent mixed down 2 channel audio is better than crap stereo any day, IMHO.

Second, been there, done that in the field, and there is now way in Hell I'd try to mix and shoot at the same time. You're already busier than a one armed paper hanger just doing the video, there isn't a chance of riding a mixer at the same time, ditch the idea entirely.

Steves suggestion of a seperate 2 channel recorder is a very viable option, do it. That's 4 possible channels of sound, if you can't get something workable out of that in post you might as well give up.

Third, and this is a biggie -


............when recording something at a distance using a mono shotgun or something.....

Er, how much distance? How big a shotgun?

My Sennheiser ME67 is the size of a small rocket launcher and I wouldn't rate it for anything less than deafening at more than 12 feet, to be frank.

{My good luck is that practically the only two critters worth micing here, Tuis and Bellbirds are, indeed, deafening even at 20 feet! Being on the recieving end of a Bellbird male singing contest is really something. The Kea is also worth a go, but as you can practically pick them up in your hand, not such a challenge}

If you want "distant" you've only got two possibilities:

Get the mic(s) where the sounds are coming from (requires being able to mind read whatever you're shooting - how's your Moose?).

OR

A parabolic relector, with all the inherant problems they introduce, not least the inconvenience and never, ever, being able to shoot video and audio at the same time as a one man band, you're right back to the problem with a mixer, only worse.

Not that it's insurmountable. You'll get infinitely superior sound doing it with a PR as a production on it's own, NOT with the video - heck, it's not as if you need to lip sync it!

Not cheap mind, check this out:

Braodcast Lil' Ears Products (http://www.parabs.com/Broadcast/BroadcastLilEars.htm)


Just my 2 cents worth as a support wonk and not an audio one.


CS

Whoops, either my Broadband is having a melt down or the servers are - double post, sorry.

Nick,

I agree with every single thing these guys have said to you. They are not being condescending. Audio is complicated and requires great experience and study to be good at it. Technical discussion boards are full of threads were someone asks what seems to them a few simple questions. The proper answer may require years of experience not easily conveyed in a few sentences. Listen to what they said with an open mind and do your part, go look into their advice and study it. Learn how to apply it to your budget and opportunities.

Off the soap box now. My two cents on your question. As they said, cheep audio gear makes for poor recordings. I don’t buy used or cheap equipment (most of the time). But I earn my living at this stuff, I have to produce a quality product or starve. You don’t. Maybe e-bay or Craig’s list could be away for you to buy quality components for a big discount. But you will have to know WHAT it is you need and what you are buying. In a rare post from me, above this one, I wrote about an old mixer available on e-bay for about $200.00. It was much more than that when in production. The point is, I would rather have an old Sure product used, than any new Azden. When I wrote the post above I expect some guys to disagree with me, and they will. That does not mean they are all beating me up.

Listen, research and learn, I have seen guys with little experience, like you (no judgment) go on to learn how to make some really cool, and pretty good productions.

Steve


PS Chris, your post had me laughing out loud because my sick mind saw some guy standing in the jungle with all of the gear hanging on him that me and TWO other guys run and gun with. One man, covered and held down by blue Porta Brase bags, microphones and tangled wires, trying to stand in front of a tri pod mounted camera with no operator. Then a Monkey ran up, grabbed the boom mic, and started beating him with it. The screams of horror were well recorded for a minute but the video only lasted a second until he was out of frame and it was all for NOT. OK, I’m sick, I’m out, that’s my take. Still laughing.

I see real problems with making production decisions in the field, in difficult circumstances when it comes to blending all these sources. If you really want to do this kind of thing - then record each source so you can sort it in post.

A question - have you been trying out these ideas? Quite a long time ago now, I did a little audio work for a TV broadcaster here in the UK who specialised in 'survival' type programmes - and in the short time I was there, I noticed one thing, over and over again. Location sound recording of real animals rarely sounded like the viewers imagined, so much of what was heard was generated from other sources. The chances of recording the sound of animals at a distance in a way that sounds real is virtually zero. The examples I worked on were not exactly exotic - they were cows. Cows regurgitate their food, and spend ages re-chewing it, and the sound recorded on location was useless. Their mouthes were chewing away, but the recorded sound - even if the wind could have been totally cut, was thin and it sounded like a low hiss - not like chewing at all! The sound the viewers heard was re-recorded locally on a farm, where the mics could be got close in - just a few inches from their mouth - not the 60 odd feet distance we saw in the video. I even did some great eagle wing flaps with old fashioned leather motorcycle gauntlets - the noise the birds actually made sounded nothing like I expected. My best advice is to cheat! Record the local wild track in stereo to set the scene, and add your real or recreated key sounds in mono - dead central. Create the soundstage carefully, and then mix in your commentary track. trying to do this when you are shooting is frankly a bit stupid.If you want quality audio, the mics will be in close, and possibly so close they can be seen - so sound needs doing as a separate task quite often. Good sound may mean poorer pictures and vice versa.

Do you know the sound a centipede makes with all those legs, going across a leaf? No - nor does anyone else!

Indeed. It seems completely unrealistic to expect to record decent sound of animals while shooting video. as Mr. Johnson explains, >99% of the sounds you hear while viewing video of animals was produced by Foley artists who specialize in animal and "nature" sounds. Or else the sound was captured separately in a special, staged setup to optimize the recording environment.

Since you said you are a naturalist, you seem to be approaching this from the POV of a "content expert" and not as a "media producer". But you seem to have a very unshakable conviction of how your workflow should operate. Every once in a while you reveal something that gives us an insight into where you are coming from. Perhaps it would benefit everyone if you were to walk us through a couple of scenarios of the kinds of things you anticipate shooting. Please be liberal with details, even those you don't think are relevant.

From what I have read so far I do NOT think that your issues are budget or equipment related. I think you have formed some sort of expectation of how to do things or how things are done that is not based on actual reality. You can NOT tell how things were done by watching a finished production on TV. It is NEVER as easy as it looks.

Well I'm not stuck on the Azden, in fact just looked on ebay this morning at some used alternatives. I saw a few old model shures and high mile SDs. In my price range, they look in rough shape. Hate to commit to something that would need repairs.

There is the thought that Azden may to be trying to improve their image, presumably by improving their products, though I wouldn't know. The new version of the 3 channel has redesigned circuitry and seems to have reasonable specs, at least compared to some of the old Shures available that I looked up.

Oh well... Maybe I'll hold out a bit for something a bit better. Would love that SD 302. Maybe a reasonable used one will come up that has a warrantee.

Went out today to try out the Sony ECM-M2S in a bit of wind. That was eye opening. The fuzzy sock it comes with

Sony MS Stereo Electret Condenser | Stereo Microphone | ECM-MS2 | Sony USA (http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-MS-Stereo-Electret-Condenser/en/p/ECMMS2)

does not block wind noise any better than the upgrade foam I added to the old Canon DM-50.

Would this below

K Tek Zeppelin Tiny 3" Fuzzy Slip on Windscreen Zfsot | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/K-Tek-Zeppelin-Tiny-3-Fuzzy-Slip-On-Windscreen-ZFSOT-/330771663357?pt=US_Pro_Audio_Microphones&hash=item4d038709fd)

improve over the freeby provided by Sony to make the $100 worth it? Somehow I thought the furries would be much better than foam, but at least with the one Sony provided, no difference.

Nick,

Used Gear: I have a buddy that avoids the risk of anonymous e-bay by monitoring Craigs list everyday. For him it is a game and he likes it. He has a home recording studio for music. He gets to meet the seller and test the gear before he drops the cash. He makes some good scores this way. It looks like your in Dallas? That is probably a big Craigs list market. It is tough times, you might be surprised by what is getting dumped out there.

Dead Cats:
Wind suppressors are essential. But they all work to varying degrees, they are suppressors, nothing will completely remove the effects of wind on a microphone, especially a shotgun mic. You make adjustments in the field and do the best you can to record a clean signal, then you clean it up further in post.

TV example of glaring production layers and builds:
Everyone here has told you NO ONE man is going to do what you want to accomplish in one attempt and all by your self. One of the cool things about video production is we "manipulate time". We can work off line to create segments of a production out of order and assemble it later so it appears to the viewer it is all happening in real time. A good example of this is the television show WIPEOUT. In reality it is probably filmed something like this:

Jill, the obstacle course field host (and eye candy) probably does her quick little introductory interviews of all 24 contestants before ANY action really starts, even though only a few of them will be used.

Then she is on site as a color commentator when the action takes place.

Now here is the important part! The two men that are the main show hosts may not be on site at all (sometimes they are). They don't need to be. It is all an illusion. The show is filmed, the loggers and editors go to work, and so DO the script writers. Those two men are no where nearly as spontaneously funny as they appear to be, no one is. After the vast majority of the work has been done, those two guys show up at a studio, stand in front of a green or blue screen, and READ script. If you have never seen it check it out because you are trying to figure out how to record field action in a one shot production. It's not going to happen. But if you check out this shows glaring production layers you might get some tips.

Steve

Went out today to try out the Sony ECM-M2S in a bit of wind. That was eye opening. The fuzzy sock it comes with does not block wind noise any better than the upgrade foam I added to the old Canon DM-50.

{snip}

I thought the furries would be much better than foam, but at least with the one Sony provided, no difference.

There's an old saying: "It's free, and worth every penny." You can have cheap, or you can have good, but you can rarely have both. Good furries are not free, zeppelins are even less free.

...
Went out today to try out the Sony ECM-M2S in a bit of wind. That was eye opening. The fuzzy sock it comes with

Sony MS Stereo Electret Condenser | Stereo Microphone | ECM-MS2 | Sony USA (http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-MS-Stereo-Electret-Condenser/en/p/ECMMS2)

does not block wind noise any better than the upgrade foam I added to the old Canon DM-50.

Would this below

K Tek Zeppelin Tiny 3" Fuzzy Slip on Windscreen Zfsot | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/K-Tek-Zeppelin-Tiny-3-Fuzzy-Slip-On-Windscreen-ZFSOT-/330771663357?pt=US_Pro_Audio_Microphones&hash=item4d038709fd)

improve over the freeby provided by Sony to make the $100 worth it? Somehow I thought the furries would be much better than foam, but at least with the one Sony provided, no difference.The secret of good wind noise reduction (note REDUCTION, not ELIMINATION) is dead air space around the mic. Simple pull-on 'fuzzy sock' doesn't provide that very effectively. A fuzzy over a blimp is the optimum approach.

Now that's something I didn't know. Thanks.

I agree, this is really helpful.

Been reading about the benefit of an airspace around the mic, like those created by cages. Can't seem to find a kit that would achieve that for the small Sony shotgun mic, but wondering if this combo would accomplish something similar.

Miniscreen™ Windjammer™ » Rycote (http://www.rycote.com/products/miniscreen/miniscreen_windjammer/) ("kit contents" shows both parts)

Since the Sony only has slot length extends 4.5 cm from the front of the mic, this would seem to fit. It claims 30 db of wind noise reduction if both parts are used.

Would that eliminate most of the wind noise if it is steady at 10-15 mph (as when at the lake recording birds)? Does the entire mic need to be contained somehow?

"Does the entire mic need to be contained somehow?"
-- Turbulent air can also sneak in via the connector, filter / pad switches, ect., so a full enclosure is best. I will often put tape over the switch holes and connector when using a Softie which doesn't enclose the entire mic. Many of the Neutrik connectors have an O-ring which helps to seal the XLR connection.

Rycote makes windjammers that don't need a miniscreen like that one mentioned above. I had a Sanken-made wind block similar to the Rycote Miniscreen and didn't like it; the heavy material contacting the mic on both ends seems like it makes too solid of a connection to the mic. The Rycote Windjammers have lighter weblike material contacting the mic along a longer area, which seems like a better approach for isolating. But none of them will do anywhere as well as a blimp like my well-liked S series.

For 10-15 mph winds, you are probably okay most of the time with just a Windjammer, but you would benefit from an S-series or other blimp if you wanted to eliminate almost all the wind noise.