Wondering what the advantages of using the 303 over the MixPre are. I've looked at the SD website, but the combination of its tech specs layout and my ignorance has left me wanting.

Any info would be much appreciated. THANKS MUCH!

The 302 has 3 input channels, that's the most obvious difference. It supports M/S and X-Y stereo recording should you ever need it.

I almost got myself a MixPre over a 302, but I read a few reviews that said the MixPre on batteries will only last about 4 hours which was not long enough for my purposes. Although the 302 is borderline to last a production day, it typically only needs one change of batteries at most.

I don't know if the MixPre has limiters, but the 302 does and they are user configurable.

Mike,

Are three inputs really that helpful since it outputs only two tracks? BTW, the MixPre does have a limiter, but I don't think it's as capable as the 302's.

Thanks.

Depends on your application. Probably 90% of the time I'm recording one channel from the boom (low budget UK stuff), but the other 10% of the time when you need some additional plants or wireless, the extra two channels come in real handy. If it's obvious I'll need more channels I'll hire additional kit.

In terms of quality of pre-amps and circuitry I'd hazard a guess the MixPre is right up there with the 302.

In terms of output I generally use the 302 to do a mono mix and output one channel to my recorder and (if video) one channel to the camera. Essentially, the production sound I'm generally aiming for will be used on the centre (dialogue) channel of that 5.1 or 7.1 mix, all I want is voice and all I need is mono output.

Wondering what the advantages of using the 303 over the MixPre are...

The MixPre only has a "Line" out...where as the 302 allows you to adjust from +4, -10, mic level and low mic level...and steps in between.

The 302 has much better gain control. The 302 has better limiter control.

The MixPre LED meter is sad.

The 3 channel SD 302 is perfect for a Boom and two wireless lav setup.

The MixPre only has a "Line" out...where as the 302 allows you to adjust from +4, -10, mic level and low mic level...and steps in between.

The 302 has much better gain control. The 302 has better limiter control.

The MixPre LED meter is sad.

The 3 channel SD 302 is perfect for a Boom and two wireless lav setup.

Be careful the Sound Devices Line output is 0 not +4. It is very adjustable down but not up past 0

Be careful the Sound Devices Line output is 0 not +4. It is very adjustable down but not up past 0


Sound Devices manual, page 14, say it is adjustable in the setup menu so that 0VU = +4dBu if desired but you are correct that the factory default is 0VU = 0dBu. That is not uncommon, by the way ... my Mackie 1642 mixer's meters are also calibrated for 0VU = 0dBu but it's not user adjustable.

That pretty much covers it.

Get the 302.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Sound Devices manual, page 14, say it is adjustable in the setup menu so that 0VU = +4dBu if desired but you are correct that the factory default is 0VU = 0dBu. That is not uncommon, by the way ... my Mackie 1642 mixer's meters are also calibrated for 0VU = 0dBu but it's not user adjustable.

Steve,
My reading of Page 14 of the manual and the Note is the reference level generated by the mixer is adjustable from 0 to +4DB but the actual mixer Line Level is not changed from 0DB. They also say use this is if you are going to analog cameras. I am sure this is going to become more common since the digital age likes to make up rules based on 0 as 0 rather than some archaic standard where 0 = +4. This setting may still be a useful solution for those people interfacing with Canon Cameras.

Steve,
My reading of Page 14 of the manual and the Note is the reference level generated by the mixer is adjustable from 0 to +4DB but the actual mixer Line Level is not changed from 0DB. They also say use this is if you are going to analog cameras. I am sure this is going to become more common since the digital age likes to make up rules based on 0 as 0 rather than some archaic standard where 0 = +4. This setting may still be a useful solution for those people interfacing with Canon Cameras.

Not quite - you are actually changing the output level that is being delivered by the mixer when it's meters are reading 0VU when you make that adjustment. Since "line level" is just an arbitrary term meaning "that voltage you get when the meters are at zero VU," by changing the voltage delivered at 0VU you have in fact changed the mixer's line level from 0dBu to +4dBu (or you can go to -10dBv or +8dBu or something else for that matter)

I haven't used the MixPre, but the mixer I got my 302 from said the 302's preamps are superior. They are indeed very clean. I recommend the 302 highly, its versatility has saved me on more than one occasion.

...
The 3 channel SD 302 is perfect for a Boom and two wireless lav setup.Jim, isn't the 302 really a two channel mixer, in that it only outputs two channels (unless I'm mistaken)? So you can have a three input set up, but you can't output three separate tracks.

Peter,

That's what a location audio mixer (and most mixers) typically do; mix X number of channels to a stereo mix. That's why it's called a mixer.

If you had three inputs and three outputs, you really wouldn't be mixing annything. Pluse you wouldn't be able to record three channels to your camers.

Well you can record four tracks to some cameras, but that not a mix either.

Regards,

TyFord

hi there

I had the same queries a while back, Ty will no doubt remember my questions..... at the time my distributor ProKit in London (who rents equipment also, (the same gear as it happens), affirmed that the main difference between 302 and Premix was the number of input mics... well 2 to me plus the camera mic seemed plenty so I went with the Premix and don't regret it... Excellent amps, excellent limiters... (are they really different on the two units???)

Only issue ..does your camera take line.... well its better coz it avoids the camera amps... so on my Z1 I'd say either would do the do job.. So result is I'm 100% happy with the Premix...
Regards
Gareth

It's not a Premix, its a MixPre.

Unless, after seeing what side of the road you drive on over there, they changed the name for the UK.

The MixPre ONLY has line level outs. The 302 offers mic or line AND the 302 also has input trim controls whereas the MixPre does not.

Regards,

Ty Ford

It's not a Premix, its a MixPre.

Unless, after seeing what side of the road you drive on over there, they changed the name for the UK.

The MixPre ONLY has line level outs. The 302 offers mic or line AND the 302 also has input trim controls whereas the MixPre does not.

Regards,

Ty Ford

LOL Ty

Yep sorry Ty you're right..(been drinking too much Rosé..Dyslexia rools KO!!)... and even if I've not driven on the left in 20 years... we're on the right here in good ol' France...

In real terms line out is fine in most circumstances... especially when you see the cost difference between the two items...
the question really is..
Do I need to pay for the extra functions?

Sound Devices are all excellent pieces of kit.. what ever I find the MIXPRE brilliant!!!

Gareth

"Do I need to pay for the extra functions?

Well if you NEVER expect to plug into a camera that only has Mic level inputs, you'll be OK. I have a Canon XL2. It only has mic ins.

If you NEVER expect to have more than two people talking, then you don't need the third input.

The input trims are a nice feature, but not absolutely required.

I'm sure there are other functional differences, but I don't remember the details. Check out the reviews of each device I have written in my Reviews_Gear_Other folder.

Regards,

Ty Ford

"Do I need to pay for the extra functions?

Well if you NEVER expect to plug into a camera that only has Mic level inputs, you'll be OK. I have a Canon XL2. It only has mic ins.

If you NEVER expect to have more than two people talking, then you don't need the third input.

The input trims are a nice feature, but not absolutely required.

I'm sure there are other functional differences, but I don't remember the details. Check out the reviews of each device I have written in myReviews_Gear_Other folder.


Well in some ways the "Do I need to pay for the extra functions?" IS the question... budgets are budgets when shooting semi pro or low end pro video... I couldn't afford the 302..period..
BUT I have yet to be in a situation in 2 years of 'my' type usage when I need more than 2 mic inputs... mostly coz I only have 2 sets of radio mics and two shot guns...

It is really like the same situation a guy with a 402 faces when he needs to record 5 people...
It is all really horses for courses... the user needs to ask the question "What do I need my gear to do?"
If he has an XL2 and needs to shoot three guys... then it's obviously a 302.
If he has 'most' other hi end cameras (even my humble Sony 950 took line input) and only needs a boom op or max two people then the MIXPRE is an economic quality option.... that is my point.

I appreciate very much your input Ty (as a pro) so don't get my wrong here. When I asked your advice in the past it was spot on and very helpful every time.... I'm just putting the 'needs be' option and with my set up of:
Sony Z1
2x Sennheiser G2's and/or 2x Shotgun mics the Mix pre is an excellent choice.

cheers
Gareth

I'm considering the same.... Mixpre or 302..... And it's going to be the 302.
You could do a double system with this 302, has an extra lines out, and still send mic or line to a video camera. Seems like more people are in such a hurry and want it right on the camera...... I wondering if these same people really take the time to log all their footage or they just start wacking away at it..... sorry... off topic... anyway, 302 is more fexible. Limiter adjustable.

You guys forgot about the 302's input 4/5.

Hey,

Stop bustin' my chops! I told him where he could get to my complete reviews.

Ty Ford

Peter,

That's what a location audio mixer (and most mixers) typically do; mix X number of channels to a stereo mix. That's why it's called a mixer.

If you had three inputs and three outputs, you really wouldn't be mixing annything. Pluse you wouldn't be able to record three channels to your camers.

Well you can record four tracks to some cameras, but that not a mix either.

Regards,

TyFordTy, please don't shoot me in the head, but isn't the idea to have as many separate tracks as possible?

So if I record two lavs and a boom by putting each lav on a separate track and the boom on both, doesn't that make editing each lav's audio more difficult? Or is does this really not create much of a difficulty?

Thanks!

I wouldn't put a lav on each track AND a boom on both (or boom to either), unless the director forced me to do it. This, of course, if you were covering two talent.

If you did have three talent, and forced me to do it, I'd ask which one was most important and put him/her probably on one mic on one track and the others on the other track.

If I had a boom op and was mixing three mics for a movie dialog track, I might have three wireless mixed to dual mono or maybe split tracks as I did above.

If it was a big movie, I'd probably do a mono mix and also do separate tracks on a separate recorder.

Make any sense?

Regards,

Ty Ford

I wouldn't put a lav on each track AND a boom on both (or boom to either), unless the director forced me to do it. This, of course, if you were covering two talent.

If you did have three talent, and forced me to do it, I'd ask which one was most important and put him/her probably on one mic on one track and the others on the other track.

If I had a boom op and was mixing three mics for a movie dialog track, I might have three wireless mixed to dual mono or maybe split tracks as I did above.

If it was a big movie, I'd probably do a mono mix and also do separate tracks on a separate recorder.

Make any sense?

Regards,

Ty FordActually, I'm still a little confused, sorry. I'll be posting a new thread in this subforum explaining the setups I'm anticipating.

Thanks for all your help!

Steve,
My reading of Page 14 of the manual and the Note is the reference level generated by the mixer is adjustable from 0 to +4DB but the actual mixer Line Level is not changed from 0DB. They also say use this is if you are going to analog cameras. I am sure this is going to become more common since the digital age likes to make up rules based on 0 as 0 rather than some archaic standard where 0 = +4. This setting may still be a useful solution for those people interfacing with Canon Cameras.

I have the Mixpre and recently purchased the Canon XH A1. Using the Mixpre with the line in on the camera results in too low a signal. (no such issue when I use it with my PD 150) I have been in touch with the retailer I bought the camera from who is waiting to hear back from Canon on this. I have read other threads on this site which speak of the same issue with a Canon.

I'm thinking the last line in the above quote suggests that the line level on Canons need a stronger signal, that this a known fact. If someone could confirm or dispute this, that would be great.

My workaround has been to put a 50 dB pad and then go into the mike input on the Canon. If someone has a better suggestion, I'd like to hear it.

Elsewhere in this thread, someone makes reference to adjusting the line output on the mixer but I think this only is possible on the 302. Or is there a way to do it with the Mixpre?

Many thanks

You might try going from the MixPre Tape Out to the camera's RCA jack Audio In.

I haven't used that camera but Canon's specs call for +6dBV as the nominal level for the XLR set for line in and auto mode. That works our do +8.4 dBU, quite a bit hotter than a standard pro line level of +4dBU, and much hotter than the nominal 0dBU that's becoming commonplace on a lot of gear like the 302 these days,

You could do a double system with this 302, has an extra lines out, and still send mic or line to a video camera.That sounds like a very handy feature. Looking at the 302's manual (I don't have one yet), I believe you are referring to the TA3 connector, right? How would I go about connecting that to an audio recorder, i.e. what kind of adapter would I need to do that? Or would you send the TA3 output to the camera and the XLR master outputs to the audio recorder?

Thanks,
Martin

Yes, the 302 has 2 channel -10 (-15 in manual) unbalanced on the TA3 connector. You need a TA3F connector and then you need to make the cable.
PITA. Set the 302 on Full Code output tone (+20) and adjust the backup recorder to 0dbfs.
I love this Full Code out tone, as these little cameras are often not marked with a level scale, just some bars or lights.

Download manual here.

http://www.sounddevices.com/download/guides/302_en.pdf

You can also buy the cords made up from Sound Devices.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I have both a MixPre and a 422. The 422 is heavy, but takes 4 inputs. I use it for concert halls and places where weight is not a premium. The sound quality of the 422 and MixPre are about the same - to my ears. 422 uses 4 AAs whereas the MixPre only 2 AAs.

The MixPre - in my long usage of it (about 3 years now) - the batteries (2 AA) lasts (for me) more than 24 hours continuous use. I use Sanyo NiMh - 2700mAh batteries for that. I see posts saying the MixPre batteries don't last that long. That's not to my experience. Also, the MixPre is extremely light compared with the 422.

Haven't played with 302.

You can also buy the cords made up from Sound Devices.Ty,

do you have a product identifier or part number for such cables? I did bite the bullet and got an SD302 earlier this week, and it seems great so far. But I am trying to hook it up to both the camera (using the XLRs) and a secondary audio recorder (using the TA3). The closest I could find was what Sound Devices calls "XL-3", which is a 3.5mm male to TA3 female adapter cable. To feed this into my portable recorder, which at this time is the small but effective M-Audio MicroTrack, I would need to split the 3.5mm stereo (or the TA3 stereo) up into two mono phone plugs that can go into the recorder. I already got the XL-3 cable, and when I set the SD302 to a very low output level I can plug it into the MicroTrack's 3.5mm mic input, but of course this is not the ideal solution because I want to bypass the preamps in the MicroTrack recorder and feed it a line level signal (which, as I understand, I can do only when using the phone plug inputs).

A brief search has not revealed anything of this sort. Any idea where I should look, or is this the time where I look for my soldering iron and build something myself?

Thanks,

Martin

Ty,

do you have a product identifier or part number for such cables? I did bite the bullet and got an SD302 earlier this week, and it seems great so far. But I am trying to hook it up to both the camera (using the XLRs) and a secondary audio recorder (using the TA3). The closest I could find was what Sound Devices calls "XL-3", which is a 3.5mm male to TA3 female adapter cable. To feed this into my portable recorder, which at this time is the small but effective M-Audio MicroTrack, I would need to split the 3.5mm stereo (or the TA3 stereo) up into two mono phone plugs that can go into the recorder. I already got the XL-3 cable, and when I set the SD302 to a very low output level I can plug it into the MicroTrack's 3.5mm mic input, but of course this is not the ideal solution because I want to bypass the preamps in the MicroTrack recorder and feed it a line level signal (which, as I understand, I can do only when using the phone plug inputs).

A brief search has not revealed anything of this sort. Any idea where I should look, or is this the time where I look for my soldering iron and build something myself?

Thanks,

Martin

How about a Sound Devices XL-7 (TA3F -> 3.5mm TRS-F) plus a 3.5 M -> 2 x 1/4 M Y-cable such as the Hosa CMP-153 in lieu of soldering your own.

How about a Sound Devices XL-7 (TA3F -> 3.5mm TRS-F) plus a 3.5 F -> 2 x 1/4 M Y-cable such as the Hosa CMP-153 in lieu of soldering your own.Yes, that'll work great! Thanks!

- Martin

They don't make the TA3F split to two 1/4 phone plugs. I had to make my own, that's why I said PITA. I ended up cutting up some generic RCA cables, as this was the only size that fit the large hole TA3 and had each channel individually shielded. I didn't want to include the female mini-male mini connection, as this is one connection that will have an intermitent problem. I've got my 302 going out via TA3 to Fostex FR2-LE for backup.
Just don't look at all the plastic.!!! It works pretty good. Still allows main out routed to camera. Only beef about the mixer is...no 1/4 headphone jack! Mixpre has 1/4 headphone jack. Can't stand the mini.

For what it's worth, I had contact with Sound Devices and they told me that the audio quality of the mixpre, 302 and 442 is the same. The (many) differences are in the features.

Steven,

Thanks for confirming what I am hearing from my two mixers (422 and MixPre). The sounds are identical in output. Only the features are different.

****

Sometimes, I record to both my HVX202 and Sound Devices 722 recorder. No in-camera audio can do 24 bits today - but the 722 can. The difference in dynamic range between 16 bits and 24 bits must be heard to be believed. Input from mics through 422 mixer, and output to both HVX202 and 722.

I then sync the audio from 722 (after editing the audio and down-sampling to 16 bits - using Sound Forge software) - and folks always asked me "Why your camera's sounds are so good?" .... :-).

Ty,

do you have a product identifier or part number for such cables? I did bite the bullet and got an SD302 earlier this week, and it seems great so far.

A brief search has not revealed anything of this sort. Any idea where I should look, or is this the time where I look for my soldering iron and build something myself?

Thanks,

Martin

Hello Martin,
If they are not at
http://www.sounddevices.com/products/accessories.htm

Call Sound Devices directly.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Quality of pres the same.... but 422 has output transformers while the mixpre and 302 are electronically balanced. FWIW

Hmmm, very interesting. I have both the MixPre and 442 (not 422) ... It goes some way to explain why the 442 is so heavy compared with MixPre. Somehow, the output from both mixers (coming from identical sources) are almost identical. I would expect 442 to outperform the MixPre - now that I know it uses output transformers. Maybe something else is at play here.

Forgive my ignorance, but what sort of situations would you use the output (mic position) of the 302 for? I have always been told to go into the camera as line, so to avoid the preamps on the camera (?), Is there something else? Ok, maybe if the camera doesnt accept line, just mic, but then wouldnt you be using the preamp of the camera too?

It would be amazing if the 302 had the possibility of a 10 pin hirose output breakaway cable...

I am planning to do record sound with the 302 using the double system, L-R outputs to the in puts of the camera, and the tape out to an external recorder (Tascam hd p2), would it be with a cable TA3 to RCA (stereo)?

Any help would be really appreciate it
Thanks

"what sort of situations would you use the output (mic position) of the 302"

Some cameras, like the XL2, don't have line inputs, although I use attenuators in that situation so I'm at least running a line level to the camera (it's safer). Some wireless transmitters, like the AT1800 series, will only take a mic level input as well. Also, some cameras have non-standard line inputs so it's easier to match the impedance with mic level, but that's kind of rare.

The 302, has input and output limiters, 2 stage gain, upto +20dbu meter, tone and slate, 2 XLR out, VU/Dbu meter is color coded for line and peak, but shows the entire headroom too
Is roughly about 5 years old.


The SQN has 1 channel extra, only one stage gain but attenuator from -10, -20, no input limiters but 40:1 output limiters, 2xlr output and 10pin hirose, could be upto 15 years old
PPM meter means you mix to broadcast standards, but does not register the headroom after. It doesnt have a slate mic.

They both have the same panning and hi pass options.

Tough call opinions welcomed!!!!!

Lee