Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Moderator Alex H.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    7,792
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Movies by Matt View Post
    The constant upgrading is tiresome, no doubt.
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrantly View Post
    And for sure, the constant upgrade paths are just silly when the gear you've got is getting it done.
    If you look at the big picture, professional field audio has gotten off pretty easy in the last 15+ years. We've really only seen one major paradigm shift that evolved in two stages. From small field mixers that fed straight to camera to multi-track field recording, with a stop in the middle where the mixers and recorders were separate devices.

    In that same time frame, camera technology has had so many major shifts that I've lost count. It's much more expensive to own and keep up with camera tech than it is audio. A good shotgun mic is going to last a long time. A good radio system is going to last a long time, as long as the frequency band isn't auctioned. (Digital "wi-fi" systems like the Sennheiser AVX or RØDELink are still very new technology, not exactly up to snuff for high-end production, so I'm not including them here.). And a solid recorder? We're still on WAV/BWF recording at 48/24, and up to 192kHz for specialty recording such as SFX. No constant shift in codecs. It was 48kHz WAV 15 years ago and it's 48kHz WAV now.

    So the expense for sound can be one, big, very painful expense, but it's an investment that has a much longer shelf life than a camera. The 7-series recorders are old technology in the grand scheme, but you'll still find them out there on professional sound carts and in pro sound bags. They can be called outdated, but they still record pristine audio at 48/24 BWF.

    That doesn't change the fact that I'm getting more and more calls that specify 6-series mixer/recorders, but when it comes to upgrade paths the sound world has not been burdened nearly as bad as the camera world.
    Nobody notices audio... until it's not there.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Default
    Thank you very much everyone for all your feedback. Ironfilm can you tell me in what ways the Mix Pre 6 would be better than the Mix Pre 3, aside the extra inputs, extra track mixing, and 192 kHz as opposed to 96 kHz. Do any other features stand out about the Mix Pre 6 over the Mix Pre 3? Better preamps? Thank you in advance.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Moderator Alex H.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    7,792
    Default
    The MixPre-3 and -6 both have the same Kashmir pre-amps. They both have built-in Bluetooth for use with the Wingman app.

    The MixPre-6 has:
    - 192kHz sampe rate
    - an additional pre-amped input
    - combo 1/4", XLR inputs for very flexible recording with different sources (MixPre-3 is XLR only)
    - an assignable "star" button (*) which can be assigned for auick access of a few different functions
    Nobody notices audio... until it's not there.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Default
    Thanks very much for clarifying Alex. I think for my purposes then I'd go with the Mix pre 3. As it seems to check all the boxes I already need.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    458
    Default
    Sound Devices has a nice chart comparing features of the MIXPRE 3, 6, and 10T:

    https://www.sounddevices.com/product...ure-comparison
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    158
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Natteau View Post
    Thanks very much for clarifying Alex. I think for my purposes then I'd go with the Mix pre 3. As it seems to check all the boxes I already need.
    I doubt you'll be disappointed: I part-exchanged my Mixpre-D and a separate recorder (in this case, only a DR70D, though I did use the digital out for very quiet sources with low-noise mics) for a Mixpre-3, and have been hugely impressed by the sound, size and flexibility.

    Cheers,

    Roland


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    116
    Default
    I have the 702 and was wondering if I'm going to loose sound quality if I went with a smaller lighter recorder like the mixpre -6. I'm also thinking that the future of sound is with 'ambisonic' and with mic's like the Sennheiser Ambeo starting to appear that need 4 channel capture the 702 may need retiring. Sometimes I just want a very compact and descete sound capture system based on a DPA 4060 pair rather than my MKH 30/50 and blimp but the 702 is a big and heavy lump.
    Last edited by Shirozina; 11-11-2017 at 05:49 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    158
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Shirozina View Post
    Can the Mixpre-3/6 monitor MS like the 7 series? I have the 702 and was wondering if I'm going to loose sound quality if I went with a smaller lighter recorder like the mixpre -3 or 6
    Yes, the Mixpre-3/6 can monitor MS as stereo while recording the original M and S channels, and it can also decode MS and record LR. Not sure what this has to do with the second part of your post, but the preamps and ADC are excellent, so I doubt that you will be losing sound quality: the 702, of course, has additional functions/options, connections (inc. digital in/out), and sampling frequencies, which may or may not be relevant to your planned use and, arguably, it may be more robust.

    Cheers,

    Roland


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    116
    Default
    After reading exhaustive reviews I ordered the 6 as a potential 702 replacement. If it's as good as claimed I can sell the 702 and come out with cash to spare which sounds too good to be true?.......


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    964
    Default
    Not really too good to be true, the 702 is very old, and if you needs is only some of what a 702 does but matches better with the MixPre6 use case then it makes sense to change.
    Am a Sound Recordist in New Zealand: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/
    Follow my vlog and adventures in sound: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCni...FiSCQNfIaw9SJw


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •