Do I really need a mixer???

D

djkoz

Well-known member
I have received some mixed advice from friends about the need for an audio mixer/recorder. I have just ordered a Canon XF300 video camera (much more than I really need, at the moment, at least) which comes with two audio channels (PCM digital recording, 16-Bit; 48kHz) and XLR connectors. It is my understanding that the audio on this camera is excellent. So, if I am only using two mics, is there any advantage to using a mixer/recorder such as the Zoom or Tascam, or some other device in the $300-400 price range? It seems to me this would be a wast of money. Or, do they offer other advantages with which I am not familiar?

Thanks in advance for your advice.
 
As always, it depends. But for many situations, you need a mixer and an audio person to operate the mixer. To do a proper job, you need someone on headphones, watching the meters, and riding the faders to get a good recording.

If you are doing a one person interview and you did a proper job setting levels and left plenty of headroom, you can do ok. But it's not advised.

If I do a live newsbreak with one person talking who talks exactly the same way every time, I have an audio person on the mixer. It's not just matter of recording. Someone has to be paying attention to audio. If you are shooting, then you are busy with that. You can't do both at the same time. No matter how simple the setup, someone has to look at picture and someone has to listen to audio. It shouldn't be the same person.
 
Last edited:
djkoz said:
... is there any advantage to using a mixer/recorder such as the Zoom or Tascam, or some other device in the $300-400 price range? It seems to me this would be a wast of money. Or, do they offer other advantages with which I am not familiar?
Click to expand...

First and foremost, "Zoom" and "TASCAM" refer, I assume, to recorders and NOT to mixers. There is a difference, though there are some units that combine both capabilities.

A mixer takes multiple inputs and actively mixes them, controlling both input and output levels as well as left/center/right signal routing (aka "panning"). The mixer provides a full set of outputs to interface with a variety of recording devices, including cameras. Shure FP33, Sound Devices mixPre-D and 302: these are mixers.

A recorder simply takes the inputs fed to it and records them, though the recorder may have some simple routing controls. The recorder may offer only two tracks of recording, or it may offer many more individual record tracks. Generally, a dedicated recorder has a more limited selection of outputs because it is not the primary sound processing device in the field and usually isn't responsible for feeding other recording devices (especially cameras). Tascam DR-40, Zoom H4n, Fostex FR2-LE, Sound Devices 702, 744, 788: these are examples of dedicated recorders.

There are mixer/recorder combinations out there. Sound Devices 552 is a 5-channel mixer with an internal, 2-channel recorder. The new 633 is a full-featured mixer with 6 inputs and an integrated 10-track recorder, as is the 664.

Now, to your question of need: yes, no, maybe. Understand that cameras offer audio recording only because they wouldn't sell without it. Some cameras have decidedly better audio capabilities than other, but when it comes to R&D audio is almost always an afterthought. Is the quality of sound recording you get from your camera good enough for you and your clients? Then that may be all you need.

Do you need to handle more than two mics? You'll need a mixer.

Do you want audio quality that is better than anything a camera can offer? Time for a dedicated recorder.

Do you have more than two mics and want the ability to control the mix in post? You'll need a multi-track recorder.

The advantages of using an external mixer with your camera: better quality preamps, better meters, better limiting (camera probably offers very rudimentary, if any, limiting), easier tactile control over levels on the fly, better signal routing, better quality headphone preamp for monitoring.

As for your $300-400 range, you might be making more of a lateral move. Perhaps you'll see a slight improvement, but it may not be worth the hassle for simple, single-mic setups. With DSLR, where audio is barely passable and input options are sorely limited, an external recorder is a must. For ENG/EFP where the camera offers something workable, not so much.

Last, really good production sound truly relies in having a skilled, dedicated sound person to take care of all things sound. That frees the director or camera op to focus strictly on the image and leaves the sound in capable hands (and ears) that can detect and fix problems quickly. Once you get into the world of mixers and recorders, it's time also to add a crew person.
 
Last edited:
I have done full indie drama's with no mixer and all the audio on this one had just one mic an AT875R on a boom straight into the back of the camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6-03NdlK6Y

The camera was a panasonic HPX371 and I think we had a camera FX mic on another channel but as it has four audio channels available it is quite flexible without a mixer.

Going up a level I use low cost second hand ASC three channel mini mixers for basic channel expansion or one of my Twelco stereo mixers but it is generally good to have a sep audio op to look after them although I have done fixed set-ups with a camera mic (ch1), a presenter radio mic (ch2) and a stereo mix feeding channels 3+4 on my HPX371.

It all depends on the job you have to do but for basic presentation and shooting you may find that a camera mic and a radio mic or boom straight into the camera may be all you need.
 
Some very thoughtful well stated responses here.
I think you need to determine or at least inform us of the nature of the work you are doing first.
If for instance you are doing talking heads, mostly singles, you probably don't need a mixer or extra crew.
I often simply split the same track and record one track normally, once I have a level, and then do a second safety track at -12db from there.
If there are any loud surprises, I am pretty much covered. Additionally if you are in ENG circumstances, sometimes even a seperate sound guy is a luxury.
Beyond these kind of basic scenarios, yes, I think you need additional crew and a control device which allows them to take things up a notch.
 
Surely the question really about what kind of control over your sound is needed for each job. The limiter built into many cameras works quite well to stop levels going over the top, and the display in the viewfinder perfectly good enough for the cameraman to use to adjust levels from sound sources that coming in, are under control. Once you have multiple sources, and especially if they vary in level - like the boom, then proper listening is needed to assess quality and take action, and that is what the cameraman falls down on because his concentration is primarily on visuals, not audio. This is also the point where the second person is needed to take control. Fixed mics, lava, radios - yep, I'm happy being a one-man band, but when I do boom work, it's hard enough to do when that's your only role, it's clearly impossible for a cameraman to do it properly. If your sound workload is low, then your camera is fine to get decent audio. Once what is coming in really needs ears on 100%, then that is where external control (and the person) is needed.
 
I would say you need the Mixer more than a mixer, ie the sound person more than the box.

But it probably depends a bit on what you are doing and what you want to be doing. If your doing little one man band films that are more for fun that is one thing. If you are trying to produce professional results I don't think there is an option. Of course once you have the sound Mixer they really need the mixer or recorder to have any control over the sound which is why you have them in the first place.

If your sound budget is $400 max then you are probably better off going straight into the camera. OR find a sound person with some equipment.
 
djkoz said:
...if I am only using two mics, is there any advantage to using a mixer/recorder such as the Zoom or Tascam...
Click to expand...

Sound is more than half the video experience. Some say as much as 70%. Ignore it at your peril.

I don't believe that either Zoom or Tascam make field mixers. Tascam used to, but I think they discontinued them all. IDK for sure.

But to answer your question directly, there are at least three major advantages in using a field mixer with your camera, in no particular order. First, control. Second, much better preamps. Third, much better limiters.

But like everyone else here, I think you need a Mixer if you're doing any serious work at all. Audio requires a dedicated person to listen, control, and record.
 
As has been pointed out, there are many reasons to use a mixer. However, speaking strictly about sound quality and noise floor, on the XF series cameras you can get very good clean sound without one (assuming a decent mike and decent positioning).
I have an AT4053b, XF100, and an older non -D model MixPre. Adding the MixPre to the chain makes a just-barely-detectable improvement. Someone (I assume in the C100 forum) recently found a similar result with a C100.

I do get a small but noticeable improvement over camera sound if I use the 4053b into the MixPre into a small Tascam (DR-05) recorder and use the 24-bit setting.
 
ddixon said:
As has been pointed out, there are many reasons to use a mixer. However, speaking strictly about sound quality and noise floor, on the XF series cameras you can get very good clean sound without one (assuming a decent mike and decent positioning).
I have an AT4053b, XF100, and an older non -D model MixPre. Adding the MixPre to the chain makes a just-barely-detectable improvement. Someone (I assume in the C100 forum) recently found a similar result with a C100.

I do get a small but noticeable improvement over camera sound if I use the 4053b into the MixPre into a small Tascam (DR-05) recorder and use the 24-bit setting.
Click to expand...

It was my guess that the use of a 'mixer' in this case was to provide 'signal conditioning' processing to the mic signal (along with phantom power...).
 
To me this is like asking "can't I just shoot my movie on my iPhone? It has a camera in it, after all. Wouldn't a real camera just be a waste of money?"

You can get away with not using proper audio tools if you are just messing around. I do that all the time. BUT, for something even semi-professional you need to use the right gear for the job, and even hire the right person for it. Putting audio on camera is considered just a scratch track for most just for picture editorial and then the real audio is recorded on a separate recorder and that is what is used during sound editorial. If you have to record on the camera, then putting a mixer in front of it is a must. You spent good money to get good picture. You should spend good money to get good audio. To not take audio into account is a dis-service to your project.
 
davefisk said:
To me this is like asking "can't I just shoot my movie on my iPhone? It has a camera in it, after all. Wouldn't a real camera just be a waste of money?"
Click to expand...

I've lost several corporate shooting gigs to iPhone and iPad Doityourselfers. The audio on my C100 has been excellent. I wear headphones and feed my wireless and NTG2 directly. It's sounding gr8!
 
davefisk said:
To me this is like asking "can't I just shoot my movie on my iPhone? It has a camera in it, after all. Wouldn't a real camera just be a waste of money?"

Putting audio on camera is considered just a scratch track for most... If you have to record on the camera, then putting a mixer in front of it is a must. You spent good money to get good picture. You should spend good money to get good audio. To not take audio into account is a dis-service to your project.
Click to expand...

I just think that it depends on the camera.

I would certainly not consider the xlrs and uncompressed 16-bit recording on these Canon cameras the audio equivalent of shooting video with an iPhone. In addition, I've spent at least as much on audio gear as I spent on my camera, and as a strictly solo shooter have done extensive testing on how to get the best sound out of the equipment my budget affords. But, I agree that you have the right to say that I don't "take audio into account" if you like.
 
I always record sound with a Zoom H4n and use a Rode NTG2 for a mic. I have been able to get decent sound out of that set up and it cost be around $400. But if I wanted something better I would definitely go with sound devices or the Zoom F8 multi track field recorder but that is going to run you around $1000.
 
What Dave said.

Fortunately I have choices between using my cam and a mixer and going mixer + recorder. For many projects, like interviews, a mixer + cam works just fine. A good mixer feeding line-in to your cam will provide better sound than your cam can by itself. It is very difficult to record sound with a cam by itself; the metering usually sucks, and adjusting levels during recording will usually result in some unwanted noise or shake when you bump the cam. The pre-amps and limiters are usually better as well and will have a slug of other features. The gold standard for small mixers is Sound Devices, either a 302 or Mix-Pre (D).

You can add most any small recorder that takes line-in if you want dual sound and feed it from the mixer. You might want to get a recorder that is bag friendly such as the DR-680 which also has better pre-amps than most of the econo recorders for not much more $$. For line in, that won't matter much, but the bag friendly part is very important.

Grant


davefisk said:
To me this is like asking "can't I just shoot my movie on my iPhone? It has a camera in it, after all. Wouldn't a real camera just be a waste of money?"

You can get away with not using proper audio tools if you are just messing around. I do that all the time. BUT, for something even semi-professional you need to use the right gear for the job, and even hire the right person for it. Putting audio on camera is considered just a scratch track for most just for picture editorial and then the real audio is recorded on a separate recorder and that is what is used during sound editorial. If you have to record on the camera, then putting a mixer in front of it is a must. You spent good money to get good picture. You should spend good money to get good audio. To not take audio into account is a dis-service to your project.
Click to expand...
 
Duh, no. And in this case the advice is still relevant.

Isn't it amazing that the the SD models discussed (except for the MixPre D upgrade) haven't changed in years and are still considered the best available after multiple years of production. What other electronics can you sat that about? It is a credit to SD that they got their products so right and with superior quality. I've owned my 302 for about 10 years and wouldn't trade it for anything else. You might consider a 633 combining mixer and recorder, with more channels, but I still might prefer the 302 with the LED display.

Grant
 
Didn't say it wasn't relevant but my guess is that the OP has already done whatever they have done and moved on.
But knock your selves out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top