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

The original mixpres and the new mixpres aren't really the same product. The older mixpres are preamps to feed a recorder and the new mixpres are really meant as recorders. I'm not sure why they used the same name. I don't think anybody would say that the new Kashmir preamps are better than the older analog preamps, but they both produce fairly uncolored sound with enough gain for any condensor mic that I've ever used. I do trust the limiters on the older equipment more than the newer digital equipment.

I did an A/B test on the Schoeps and Audix mics awhile ago. The Audix had just a hint of "tininess" in the upper range, but I would never be able to tell the difference if I wasn't doing a direct comparison. Neither of the mics are very sensitive, but I do remember the audix being more susceptible to handling noise, especially without the cut1 or GVC that is available with the Schoeps.
 
I wasn’t saying being a mixer was cheap.


I was just saying, that if you want the best hyper cardioid in the business, a Schoeps CMC41 kit is $1800 new. Cheaper than a cruddy dslr. Meaning, if someone loves sound recording, it is attainable at the highest level of quality. That is rather wonderful. They don’t have to be a professional, and they don’t have to be rich even.

You want the best lens in the biz, you’re looking at $20K-$30K? That is, if they even sell them individually.

Stills lenses are more affordable, obviously. I think the Otus lenses and some Leica’s are amazing, but run, what? $3500?
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
I wasn’t saying being a mixer was cheap.


I was just saying, that if you want the best hyper cardioid in the business, a Schoeps CMC41 kit is $1800 new. Cheaper than a cruddy dslr. Meaning, if someone loves sound recording, it is attainable at the highest level of quality. That is rather wonderful. They don’t have to be a professional, and they don’t have to be rich even.

You want the best lens in the biz, you’re looking at $20K-$30K? That is, if they even sell them individually.

Stills lenses are more affordable, obviously. I think the Otus lenses and some Leica’s are amazing, but run, what? $3500?
Click to expand...

You're missing the big picture here. A single hyper cardioid is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a look at what six channels of Lectrosonics SRC will cost you, combined with a new Sound Devices 888. Throw in you need probably a dozen different lavs, IFBs, camera hops
bags, carts, bowtie antenna, miles of cabling. Many of the pro sound mixers I know are easily in at $100k plus. Most of the pros I work with have half a dozen shotguns, another half dozen cardioid cariants, 3-4 different boom poles, mounts, wind protection, etc.

To do sound at a pro level, IMHO, you are in for at least $10k-$20k at the bottom end for a basic ENG kind of kit. Jump to big shows and features, $100k-$250k and up. Really no different than being an owner operator with an Arri, Venice, Monstro.
Sound mixers just need more little pieces than we do. But the overall tab is almost the same.
 
puredrifting said:
You're missing the big picture here. A single hyper cardioid is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a look at what six channels of Lectrosonics SRC will cost you, combined with a new Sound Devices 888. Throw in you need probably a dozen different lavs, IFBs, camera hops
bags, carts, bowtie antenna, miles of cabling. Many of the pro sound mixers I know are easily in at $100k plus. Most of the pros I work with have half a dozen shotguns, another half dozen cardioid cariants, 3-4 different boom poles, mounts, wind protection, etc.

To do sound at a pro level, IMHO, you are in for at least $10k-$20k at the bottom end for a basic ENG kind of kit. Jump to big shows and features, $100k-$250k and up. Really no different than being an owner operator with an Arri, Venice, Monstro.
Sound mixers just need more little pieces than we do. But the overall tab is almost the same.
Click to expand...
Oh, i know. I started down that path early on. Spent about $20K on a few mics, and i hadn’t even gotten into proper mixers or wireless yet.

What i was saying, if a hobbyist or just someone that loves good audio recording, can get the best mic for dialogue recorder for under $2K brand new. To me, that is cool. It means that if i wanted to, i could go out and buy one next week if i wanted. But i cannot do that with cine lenses. It isn’t an apples to apples thing, just more a fun thought. If someone wanted to run out and buy a top cinema prime, that would be $15K to start.

Not sure how i am missing the bigger picture as i never said anything about mixers. Just the idea of almost anyone being able to own a great microphone. Sound mixing at the highest level is crazy expensive. Some of the characters on Game of Thrones had more than 5 lavs on them due to noisy costumes. But i wasn’t talking about sound mixers.

Sometimes i see a Master Prime on ebay, and i think it would be cool to just own one awesome lens, but even used i really can’t afford one. I can hardly justify the $4K for a zeiss standard speed these days, but i could go out and get a Schoeps or DPA. Just the thought of the best of something being affordable. Like going out and buying the best car is going to start at $90K. Or the best suit, or shoes, or watch, or painting. Idk, we don’t need these things, certainly not all of them, but if someone really loves sound recording, they have the opportunity to buy in for relatively affordably. Idk, i think that’s kind of cool.
 
Last edited:
I dunno... with an MKH50, MKH60, six RodeLink wireless lav mics and a Zoom F8 I've got everything I could need to record sound for my solo shooter gigs. Once Zoom comes out with an F8 that does 32-bit float I'll be all set, never having to worry about audio. Even for indie filmmaking, that should be more than enough sound kit.

Granted, I don't shoot big Hollywood films. Those people certainly need the "big guns" in audio equipment since there's no room for error and every minute wasted on set amounts to literally thousands of dollars going down the drain. But, really, how many of us in DVXuser are shooting the next Marvel movie?

Whereas me upgrading from a C100 to a C300 III will make an obvious and significant difference in image quality, I can't really see where I would upgrade my Sennheiser + Rode sound package to make any kind of significant difference in audio quality (aside from the 32-bit float for stress relief).
 
Marvel asked me to mix audio on their next big movie, but I had prior commitments ;).

But I think James' point is sound. If I wanted to record voiceiver at home for my indy sci-fi epic, I could spend a few $k and buy the same set-up the big boys would use (minus the room they record it in). But if I wanted to go out and shoot background plates on ARRI/Venice/Monstro, I would spend as much on the camera/lens rentals for a weekend as I spent buying the audio gear.
 
Ok, I get it, you were just talking comparitive analysis of single components. In building my audio kit, the one that keeps messing me up is wireless. Mics are cheap. A new Sound Devices Mix Pre 10 II or a used 633 are cheap. But even the used SRcs are still $2,500.00 per channel used. And I need 4-6 channels
since it's very "out" to use wired lavs on anythomg anymore. But for the price of one Zeiss Prime, I could have a full audio kit.
 
puredrifting said:
Ok, I get it, you were just talking comparitive analysis of single components. In building my audio kit, the one that keeps messing me up is wireless. Mics are cheap. A new Sound Devices Mix Pre 10 II or a used 633 are cheap. But even the used SRcs are still $2,500.00 per channel used. And I need 4-6 channels
since it's very "out" to use wired lavs on anythomg anymore. But for the price of one Zeiss Prime, I could have a full audio kit.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan. Yeah, I have nothing but love and respect for audio engineers and sound. They are 51% of the movie to me. A big reason why I don't own a bunch of my favorite mics, is because I'd rather work with a sound person that has put their time, energy, and money into a kit that gets the job done. If I have gear, I eventually take a gig that robs a sound person. If I don't have gear, I can't ever say yes to those, even if I think I need the money. I just have enough audio gear that I can get a good pilot track, via the MKH416, or a G3 hop. There are some jobs in the news and Docu world that have long relied on the camera operator to mic the person being interviewed, so I still do some of those on occasion, but not going to go into a indie thing without a sound person. And luckily, I don't often get asked for that, since most people understand the importance of good sound too.

still rolling.
 
Out of boredom, I looked at what stock the sound store up the street has, and found the Green Screen Schoeps. Haha, looks like it would go well with a Komodo. Haha.
49974413331_66e56c0947_z.jpg


https://vintageking.com/schoeps-cmit-5u-shotgum-microphone-chrome-green

they have chroma green MK41, as well.
 
About 50% of my work is doing sound for corporate and docs. I also do some no budget narrative. Offering up services as both a camera op/DP and sound is not a good business decision, but I have one set of clients that know me as a sound guy, and another that know me as DP/lighting so it somewhat helps to keep me employed. About a third of the shoots are your standard Arri Mini corporate shoots a full crew and AC's, but on many of my doc style shoots I am often bringing in far more and expensive equipment than the DP. The cam operator may be using an FS5/7 ( or even a dreaded DSLR), but I am supplying boom and lavs on four or more people while supplying IEM, timecode, and hops. Good wireless gets expensive really fast. Basically, I never feel like my cost to payment ratio is better as a sound guy. I love that a good mic is relatively affordable, but that is mostly because it means my ears aren't going to be tired by the end of the shoot. Most of the cheaper mics are just irritating. Even the 416 makes me want to pull my headphones off halfway through a shoot.
 
Cpreston, you are making me want to go buy a Schoeps. Stop it! Haha.
 
My primary mics are Schoeps. At the time I was buying, I didn't hear much else that was compelling. Neumann's shotguns actually sounded "better" to me, but they weren't nearly as transparent. My ears do not like the Sennheiser frequency bump. AT's mics are decent but not exciting. The Audix HC was actually a good alternative for booming interviews. Now, DPA seems to have some great mics out based on what I've heard, Rode has upped their game, Sanken has some more alternatives, Sennheiser keeps updating their mics. Schoeps is probably overrated, but I feel set. That is the real difference between mics and camera gear. When you get settled on a mic, you don't feel the need to upgrade it like you do with the next generation of camera equipment. I guess that makes it comparable to a lens.
 
But recorders and wireless get updated all the time. Not as frequent as low end cameras, but comparable to cinema cameras.

Of the Sennheiser family, I only particularly like the MKH50. Dead quiet, warm, and good off axis with ample focus gives it the right kind of reach as an on camera mic that can double as an interview mic. Not to mention highly moisture and RF resistant. I should have settled on that instead of the MKH416, and regret it. The MKH416 requires a dedicated boom op to really shine.

That said, nothing every sounded quite as pleasant as a well placed Schoeps.
 
Last edited:
it is that CCM41 LG that is perhaps tempting me from a MKH50. love the smaller footprint, as cameras keep getting smaller.
 
Had to do it, had to try:

Schoeps = Leica
Sennheiser = Zeiss
DPA = Arri Signature
Audio Technica = (Modern L and cine, not K35)
Neuman = Cooke
Sony = Sony
Oktava = Lomo
Sanken = Angenieux
Rode = Sigma
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top