C300: C300 ii: External mixer/preamp or in-camera?

[seanadl]

Edit: The thread title should say C500 II - NOT c300...

Hi all,

The audio that comes out of the camera seems pretty decent to me, especially for the basic 1-2 people interview set-up I mostly use it for.

However, is there is significant gain in quality to be had in throwing a seperate mixer/recorder to the mix?

 

[NorBro]

IMO, in normal circumstances (meaning you're not 20' away trying to squeeze out every bit of gain you can from a high-quality preamp/mixer) there is no significant noticeable difference most regular people would notice (especially with any music mixed in later).

But if you added a recorder you could have the option of 32-bit float recording, which would be a significant advantage in your overall production because of its technology.

[Also, high-quality audio acquisition is usually affected by a number of variables; microphone, its positioning, good mixing, production location, even the talent.]

 

[puredrifting]

An external mixer recorder like a Mix Pre or an F6 will sound better than the camera's mic pre-amps. Will you or your audience be able to tell the difference is the question?

Generally, it depends on the type of shoots you do. If you are doing narrative shoots, you should have a pro sound mixer in your crew and record scratch to your camera and your
audio to a separate recorder. 32-bit Floating Point Audio can be really handy for when you screw up big time. It's interesting that none of Sound Devices high end pro audio recorders
have 32-bit FP audio while all of the low end Mix Pres do. Most high end recorders are manned by a pro sound mixer while most low end recorders are manned by
videographers and cinematographers, in general.

If you are shooting documentaries or corporate interviews, it's almost always better to have a sound mixer but if you
cannot because of lack of budget, or crew size restrictions, I would record in camera. Trying to shoot and manage an external dual system sound workflow takes more effort on your part and requires more
attention that will subtract from the time and attention you put into your lighting and camera work.

Especially for interviews, your choice of microphone, microphone placement and treating the environment will make a larger difference than recording to your camera versus an external recorder.
The Canons are among the best sound recording cams on the market IMHO. I've used the Canons on a lot of different shoots and if you are careful and know what you are
doing with audio, the results are generally good to excellent as far as the camera's factor in the overall sound.

 

[cpreston]

I split the difference on most of my shoots and use a sound devices mixpre to send line level signal to the Canon cameras. I have never been able to hear a significant difference between an internal and external recording as long as the Canon gain is below 8 and I am not clipping the preamp. Above 8 and I can start to hear the preamp hiss from the Canon. I don't feel any qualms about telling an editor to use the in camera audio on a Canon even if I have a backup recording.

 

[seanadl]

I split the difference on most of my shoots and use a sound devices mixpre to send line level signal to the Canon cameras. I have never been able to hear a significant difference between an internal and external recording as long as the Canon gain is below 8 and I am not clipping the preamp. Above 8 and I can start to hear the preamp hiss from the Canon. I don't feel any qualms about telling an editor to use the in camera audio on a Canon even if I have a backup recording.

Do the MixPre's have XLR out to send to the canon?

 

[puredrifting]

Do the MixPre's have XLR out to send to the canon?

Only the Mix Pre 10 and 10 II have Mini XLR outputs and 3.5 mm output.
The Mix Pre 3, 6 and 3 II and 6 II have a 3.5mm output only.

I use the 3.5mm output on my Mix Pre 3 to send to the XLRs on the C200 and C300 MKII utilizing a high quality 10'
3.5mm stereo to dual XLR breakout cable and it works and sounds fine. Unbalanced is only good up to about 10'. Over that length
and you really want to be using balanced XLRs on both ends.

Alternately, I've also used a 6 foot 3.5mm cable to send the Mix Pre 3 output to the Ch 3-4 input on the C200 which is also a 3.5mm input
and it too works fine.

If you can afford it, the Mix Pre 10 II is worth the extra money. BNC TC I/O and XLR outs plus eight XLR inputs comes in handy. I only use
my little Mix Pre 3 for single or dual interviews but if you get into bigger stuff, you need more channels.

 

[cpreston]

I actually have a mixpre-d, which I believe have been discontinued. They can be found used, though. I use mine on all of my OMB or small crew shoots for interviews or events. Big LED's for levels. Feeds two or more cameras. Transparent limiters. I just stick it on an arm and clamp it to a leg off of my tripod.

 

[puredrifting]

I actually have a mixpre-d, which I believe have been discontinued. They can be found used, though. I use mine on all of my OMB or small crew shoots for interviews or events. Big LED's for levels. Feeds two or more cameras. Transparent limiters. I just stick it on an arm and clamp it to a leg off of my tripod.

That was a great product (yes, I believe discontinued?). You can find used Mix Pre 3s for just a few hundred dollars,
which have better Kashmir pre-amps and internal recording ability but the build quality isn't nearly as good as the Mix Pre D.

 

[Guest]

That was a great product (yes, I believe discontinued?). You can find used Mix Pre 3s for just a few hundred dollars,
which have better Kashmir pre-amps and internal recording ability but the build quality isn't nearly as good as the Mix Pre D.

You like the Mixer 3 preamps better than the original Mixer D ones? I suppose it was the 302 that had the fancier preamps then?

 

[ahalpert]

Doesn't the answer depend on how much gain your mic requires? I've got an Audix Hypercardioid mic that sounds really good to me for vocals but requires a lot of gain. My Zoom H4n has relatively crappy pre-amps. I bought a Zoom F6 before the lockdown but have yet to test it.

If the mic required less gain, I probably wouldn't care about my pre-amps as much

 

[NorBro]

Definitely does, but that's why they are related because sensitive microphones usually will sound better for people (as in louder) because if you're using the internal preamps of a camera or a recorder, you don't have to blast them as high.

Your Audix (SCX1-HC?) may need them pretty high up there, while something else much more sensitive will barely need the dial(s) turned halfway.

 

[Guest]

Doesn't the answer depend on how much gain your mic requires? I've got an Audix Hypercardioid mic that sounds really good to me for vocals but requires a lot of gain. My Zoom H4n has relatively crappy pre-amps. I bought a Zoom F6 before the lockdown but have yet to test it.

If the mic required less gain, I probably wouldn't care about my pre-amps as much

That is what i loved about the Sennheisers. One good mic goes a long way, as it is such a small part of even a cheap basic video package.

Audio Technica was very good, but they never gave that sound. Even running a juiced link into a dslr there was a difference. (Just not sure how much it mattered to everyone else though, haha, so i would often just go with the Audio Trchnica to save on wear and tear on the Sennheiser.

After moving to LA, i got rid of most of my audio gear, because there are so many hard working sound people i’d rather work with than spend thoushands on audio gear producers don’t even notice i have.

Right now, i have the MKH416 and a couple Audio Technicas, a wireles lav (which i bought as a hop primarily), and a dynamic. Just enough for those one man band or passion projects. I severely miss the MKH50 though.

 

[puredrifting]

You like the Mixer 3 preamps better than the original Mixer D ones? I suppose it was the 302 that had the fancier preamps then?

From my understanding from the sound mixers, it's mainly that the Kashmir pre-amps are much newer technology than that used in the older products.
I like how they sound but I am not A/B ing them with the older gear, which I bet someone on YouTube has?

 

[puredrifting]

Doesn't the answer depend on how much gain your mic requires? I've got an Audix Hypercardioid mic that sounds really good to me for vocals but requires a lot of gain. My Zoom H4n has relatively crappy pre-amps. I bought a Zoom F6 before the lockdown but have yet to test it.

If the mic required less gain, I probably wouldn't care about my pre-amps as much

If you have the SCX1 HC, that's the model I have and it works great with the Mix Pre 3, doesn't seem to require much more gain than my Sennheiser or Røde?
The H4N is old tech and pretty noisy/crappy, even when mine was brand new, I thought it sounded like garbage. Your F6 is in a whole other league of quality.

 

[Guest]

Thanks. Yeah that makes sense.

JCS had some interesting posts about the Mixpre3 and the Zoom F4. He basically said the Kashmir sounded better in some ways straight from the card. Whereas the F4 required some tweaking in post to get that smoother sound. Yet, the Zoom F4 was technically better.

For what i do with audio, i’d likely prefer the Mixpre3ii

I had the SD 302 and the Mixpre (og), and a Cooper Sound CS104, and hands down the Cooper sound was my favourite. But the SD633 was just so composed, i really liked that one too, but it was one i used at work for a few months. The only thing is that the Cooper was way too big for camera work, and i sold it sadly.

Currently, i am looking the Zoom F6 and the Mixpre3ii. I almost picked up a Zoom H4N, which i have bought theee of those and always end up giving them away. Oh, i sold one of them, after i broke the mic grill.

Oh, there was one more brand that i used, the tascam DR680(?model?) and the DR701(?). Crazy price for the DR680. So many channels. Sounded ok, but lacked any real luster. The DR701 was boring sounding, and not in a precise clinical way, but just a stale biscuit kind of way.


And juiced link, of course. I actually like that sound better than the H4N. It had a sort of laziness, it felt. Didn’t have any polish, or hifi sound about it. You know that Sound Devices 633 sound (or any of the higher end models).

 

[ahalpert]

If you have the SCX1 HC, that's the model I have and it works great with the Mix Pre 3, doesn't seem to require much more gain than my Sennheiser or Røde?

Really? I feel like I need to turn the gain way up for my Audix SCX1 HC. And it doesn't have a lot of reach, so it needs to come in close. But even close (like over someone's head in an interview medium or CU), I still feel like I need to push the gain relative to other mics.

That being said, I really like the way it sounds. (I even like the way MY voice sounds through it, and I usually hate hearing my own voice! (Doesn't everyone?))

 

[Guest]

That’s cool to hear your opinion about the Audix.

I had read about those, and was considering them, but i started going back into camera. But i was always curious how they sounded.

 

[ahalpert]

I've never used the Schoeps CMC641, but I read reviews comparing the Audix to the Schoeps that basically said, "these mics sound equally good on-axis but the Schoeps sounds way better off-axis while the Audix loses its accuracy/warmth/whatever off-axis." And I thought, well, I'm only going to use this for stationary interviews so I don't need to worry TOO much about off-axis, and it's WAY cheaper.

I can confirm it sounds great on-axis and not as great off-axis.

 

[puredrifting]

I second the Audix. We should clarify something here though. Both the Schoeps CMC641 and the Audix SCX1 HC present the sound as "uncolored". To me, that means that the mic and recording end up sounding like the
source really sounded in real life, to my ears. IMHO, many other mics present the sound colored, especially the Sennheisers. The MKH50 and 60 color the sound quite a bit, albeit in a pleasing way to most ears. But if you are
in search of the most neutral recording, the Schoeps CMC641, for interior interviews or dialogue, to me, sounds the most neutral. The Audix is pretty close.

It's like comparing a picture shot with Log versus REC709. Both can look great but the Log, ostensibly, presents the image in more of a way that allows more manipulation whereas the baked-in footage will largely end up
looking like the baked-in look. In post, it would be difficult and time consuming to make the MKH50 recording sound "neutral" but it's easy to make Schoeps CMC641 recording sound sound punchier like the MKH50, if you wanted to?

As far as the Schoeps CMC641 and the Audix SCX1 HC, I find they sound close, but not identical. As far as off axis, I, like Abe, rarely hand boom narrative scenes, so that point is moot mostly for me. I mostly am using the Audix for sit-down interviews
and it works pretty well. I like it slightly better than the mics in it's price class like the AT 4053b. I also like that it's so ridiculously tiny and light weight. I'd rather have the Schoeps but at 1/3 the cost, the Audix is
very good. One more consideration is, when I have shot in the tropics in Brazil and in New Orleans where it was very humid, the Schoeps has a tendency to not work in super high humidity. My sound mixer in Brazil
was using his CMC641, and the sound literally fell apart as the humdity went up and he switched to the MKH50. The Audix doesn't have this same sensitivity to extreme humdity that the Schoeps has.

 

[Guest]

True about the MKH’s sounding coloured. In particular the MKH50 has a certain baritone to it compared to others in its class.

That is part of the reason i like it as an on camera mic. That warmth extends out further than orther mics, and the off axis sound is good while having a lot of focus on what is in front of the lens. Then it can pop off the camera and do sit down interviews just as well as many short shotguns, but with better off axis sound in difficult indoors situations. Just moving the mic back 6”, the sound can be more relaxed.

Cmc41 kit was fantastic, and it is easy to see why it is the defacto standard dialogue mic. I had an old beat up one several years ago, and i am sure it wasn’t the best example of that mic, yet it still handled sonics beautifully. Like the clearlest, coolest, sweetest, purest water you can imagine.

It is crazy that the best mics in the business cost only as much as a used CP.2 “cine” lens.