field mixer ??

E

eofeapr

Well-known member
Hi all

I'm at that transition where I'd like to improve field audio for video and I'm trying to decide on a good field recorder/mixer.

I'm using the DVX100 please give your your honest opinion regarding the ' MR8MKII ' by Fostex.

The plan here is to bring along a laptop and capture the audio to either Audition or similar software. And at the moment I am using an AKG shotgun and Crown 100 lavs till I get my wireless AT mics which may have to wait a bit at 1200.00 dollars for matched pair.

Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts.


cheers
joe
Gen 1:1
 
Haven't used one but looking at its info on the Fostex site I'd say pass it by. It's a recorder, not a field mixer. It records at 44.1 kHz sample rate, audio for video should be recorded at video's 48kHz sample rate. You're wasting money on built-in effects that you should never, ever, use when recording for video. If you're a garage band this might be for you. But not for film or video work. Just my opinion.

Get a proper field mixer and record through the laptop's sound card or get a portable USB or Firewire external audio interface with mic preamps.
 
Last edited:
thnx steve,, although I'm a lil new to sound I can see your advice makes perfect sense.

any recommendations on the mixer or interface,, and should I opt for the interface solution what do I look for in a preamp to know it's sufficient for video??
 
I would never use a computer as a field recorder at all.

Best option is a proper field recorder with a mixer.

At the inexpensive but good end is the Fostex FR-2LE recorder and the small Sound Devices mixer.

Going up - the Tascam HD-P2 recorder is good as is the original Fostex FR-2.

At the pro end, look at the Sound Devices recorders and the new Nagra VI and the new Nagra LB.

Probably, use the Sound Devices mixer with any of these.

I have gone for the Nagra VI myself (the LB is half the price of the VI - but the VI is 6-track and the LB is 2-track).

I hope this helps.
 
In general I agree with what John said, although direcdt to laptop recording (with a good quality interface) is becoming more common, even in the big-time feature world. Boomrecorder and a multichannel interface into a laptop is becoming a not unsual sight on the mixer's cart on a number of sets. But it is a static location, hardware intensive, style of working that is less well suited to the conditions in the doco/indy film world than is a bag kit containing a field mixer and recorder.
 
I'd say hold off on the recorder for now and just get a good field mixer like the sound devices 302. You can record great sound right to your DVX. I would also not buy audio technical wireless. Wireless should be a last resort only and if you have to get cheaper wireless, get the sennheiser g2 ew100 system for $500 per channel and replace the crummy stock lav with a countryman EMW wired for g2.
 
seunosewa said:
A camcorder is much better than a laptop for audio recording. Much much better. Why? Noise. Thanks.
Click to expand...
You can't legitmately make such a blanket statement. SOME camcorders will have less noise than SOME laptop recording rigs, it's true. After all, most OEM internal soundcards and motherboard-integrated audio sections are pretty bad. But then, most camcorders, especially lower cost consumer camcorders are also pretty bad. Even professional camcorders aren't immune to poor quality audio sections - the much touted, and expensive, Red camera has an audio section that is so marginal most users feel it's only suitable for recording a guide track to help sync up double system sound or for ADR. OTOH, laptops running Metacorder or BoomRecorder and professional grade multichannel USB or FireWire external interfaces from vendors such as Echo, RME, MOTU, etc are making substantial inroads into recording for major feature films and network broadcast. You can find credits on the websites of the publishers of the software
 
Seriously, I mean it. try running some tests and you'll see. The only bad camcorders for recording audio are those that don't allow you to set the audio levels manually. In such camcorders, the AGC causes background noise to seem louder than it is. However, if your camcorder allows you to set the sound level manually, and you set it to something that makes sense, it's better than a laptop.
 
seunosewa said:
Seriously, I mean it. try running some tests and you'll see. The only bad camcorders for recording audio are those that don't allow you to set the audio levels manually. In such camcorders, the AGC causes background noise to seem louder than it is. However, if your camcorder allows you to set the sound level manually, and you set it to something that makes sense, it's better than a laptop.
Click to expand...
Well, you're correct about the wisdom of disabling AGC in most cases. But the noise that of concern is not the presence of background noise from the environment and the pumping of its levels caused by AGC action. I'm thinking about the internal electrical noise in the circuits themselves - hiss - plus quality measures such as dynamic range and distortion. Circuit noise is present even when the mic is unplugged, the inputs are shorted and nothing is getting in. Most camcorders are pretty marginal compared to good quality recording interfaces.
 
Hi,
if i'm using a 3 or 4 channel mixer, how will i sync up the multiple channels of audio in post if i'm using a recorder. also, i won't be continuously recording as i will be starting and stopping video recording. anyone?
 
longshanks said:
Hi,
if i'm using a 3 or 4 channel mixer, how will i sync up the multiple channels of audio in post if i'm using a recorder. also, i won't be continuously recording as i will be starting and stopping video recording. anyone?
Click to expand...

Mixers, well, mix. They will take 3 or 4 channels of audio and mix them down to 2 channels. Sync between the tracks isn't an issue since they're recorded simultaneously. You might also want to keep the various mics isolated - that's usually best if you can manage it - by using a multitrack recorder such as the SD744 or SD788 while the mixer serves as the front end if it has direct outs on the input channels. Again, sync between the tracks isn't an issue because they're laid down in parallel all at once. Sync between the camera and the recorder IS an issue and there are a number of solutions for it - the old fashioned clapper slate at the start of each scene is the most common. In a run-and-gun doco situation someone stepping in front of the camera and clapping their hands is a good substitute. Even with professional quality gear you need to watch out for sync drift over the course of shots longer than about 10 minutes and there are a variety of means to control that, depending on your circumstances (and budget).
 
Well this is all very good info, now, since I know a lil more, the questions becomes more complicated.
Price is an issue at the moment, I cannot justify a 2 or 4 thousand dollar package.
But i am in need of better control over my audio since I am actually starting to get calls for small jobs in my area from 'not very fussy' customers most of which who don't really know the difference.

Originally I thought of going ' mic to USB gadget of sorts to laptop PC' but even at my skill level (non-excistant) I can see how 'funneling' the audio into one track is not the best idea.

Thus, for now would it be wise to go field recorder with dual mic input capable of giving me a couple of tracks I can sweeten up in post ???
OR ,, go with a field mixer offering a decent pre and two two tracks ??
Hum,,, maybe you guys are rubbing off on me because my gut tells me mutitrack recoder is best solution..


Please let me know what you think.

cheers
 
seunosewa said:
Seriously, I mean it. try running some tests and you'll see. The only bad camcorders for recording audio are those that don't allow you to set the audio levels manually. In such camcorders, the AGC causes background noise to seem louder than it is. However, if your camcorder allows you to set the sound level manually, and you set it to something that makes sense, it's better than a laptop.
Click to expand...


That statement is too general to say it's false but if a proper chain from preamp to firewire input is what is on the table compared to say a DVX with a good preamp in front then the laptop option will record a better track. That doesn't mean it is the best option, as a lot of non-theatrical productions can use in-camera audio quality just fine and in-camera audio will save you hours of syncing.

Also I wouldn't recommend using a laptop as your only recording source. Alot of pros are using Boom Recorder BUT they are also backuping up to another device. OSX and modern HDD may be fairly stable but not enough to stake our reputations on them.

Lastly there is the portability factor. You might save some cash recording to a laptop instead of a seperate recorder but the smaller crews combined with the rush factor on lower budget projects makes setting up a cart system more difficult and time consuming. If you don't have a ton of mics to record to seperate tracks then a bag recorder is just a much more efficient option.

Laptop recording can be a fine choice just be aware of the downsides you are getting yourself into: stability, setup time needs, power needs, crew needs (bag recorder can be one man op, laptop needs two if you are booming), & sync time in post. So, again, if you aren't using more then a few mics at a time multi-track laptop recording really doesn't offer that much of an advantage.

Cheers
 
eofeapr said:
Well this is all very good info, now, since I know a lil more, the questions becomes more complicated.
Price is an issue at the moment, I cannot justify a 2 or 4 thousand dollar package.
But i am in need of better control over my audio since I am actually starting to get calls for small jobs in my area from 'not very fussy' customers most of which who don't really know the difference.

Originally I thought of going ' mic to USB gadget of sorts to laptop PC' but even at my skill level (non-excistant) I can see how 'funneling' the audio into one track is not the best idea.

Thus, for now would it be wise to go field recorder with dual mic input capable of giving me a couple of tracks I can sweeten up in post ???
OR ,, go with a field mixer offering a decent pre and two two tracks ??
Hum,,, maybe you guys are rubbing off on me because my gut tells me mutitrack recoder is best solution..


Please let me know what you think.

cheers
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, not a recommendation for indy productions, but you can easily record multiple tracks into a computer, either desktop or a sufficiently powerful laptop. For example, I have an Echo AudioFire 8 and just purchased an AudioFire 12. I don't have a need to do it right now but if I wanted to use both daisey-chained together, I could record 20 tracks simultaneously into a laptop with a firewire port.
 
seunosewa said:
Seriously, I mean it. try running some tests and you'll see. The only bad camcorders for recording audio are those that don't allow you to set the audio levels manually. In such camcorders, the AGC causes background noise to seem louder than it is. However, if your camcorder allows you to set the sound level manually, and you set it to something that makes sense, it's better than a laptop.
Click to expand...

I have tried it - and you're just plain wrong. As Steve said, with the proper equipment and software, recording to a laptop can be superior to many cameras and is superior to all cameras in one main way - multi-track. Cameras at best can record 4 tracks - I have recorded as many as 10 tracks on several projects (shorts and feature length narrative movies). I have run a combination of 2 booms, lavs on all the actors and a plant mic or two and can iso record each to its own track. There are many many benefits to this - but the first one is that when you're summing audio (in a two-track scenario usually boom to one channel, wireless to the other) if any wireless mic takes an rf hit or you get clothing rub or any other extraneous noise, your whole wireless track is blown

Any dialog editor I've ever worked with prefers iso recording.

So, while you can certainly record to many cameras successfully (DVX100, HVX200, etc.) to say that recording to a camera is always better than a laptop is just patently wrong. Sorry. And, on the shoots I work, I will rarely recommend that they record anything to the camera other than a scratch track for dailies.

Phil
 
[/QUOTE] I don't have a need to do it right now but if I wanted to use both daisey-chained together, I could record 20 tracks simultaneously into a laptop with a firewire port.[/QUOTE]

Whoa !! 20 tracks ,, that is huge !!!
 
OK I looked at the Audio Fires and sorry for totally lame question(noobe to audio) BUT how am I using this to record with XLR mics ?? will I now need adapters for the mics ??

You say if you wanted to you can get 20 tracks via daisychain, that makes sense but I'd have to guess it's all 1/4 inch gear and instruments,,, mostly...
 
eofeapr said:
OK I looked at the Audio Fires and sorry for totally lame question(noobe to audio) BUT how am I using this to record with XLR mics ?? will I now need adapters for the mics ??

You say if you wanted to you can get 20 tracks via daisychain, that makes sense but I'd have to guess it's all 1/4 inch gear and instruments,,, mostly...
Click to expand...

Yes, sort of. There are AudioFire 2, 4, 8, and 12. Disregarding the SP/Dif inputs, the 4 and the 8 each offer 2 dual purpose mic/line inputs with preamps and 2 or 6 1/4 line level only inputs. The 2 and the 12 only have 1/4 analog line level inputs. If I connected the 8 and 12 I own together via their firewire ports it would give me a total of 20 analog inputs (and outputs), 2 of them either mic or line and the other 18 line only. But I have a mixer upstream to feed signal to the line inputs via direct outs on each input channel so the mics go to the mixing desk, the mixing desk to the interface, and the interface to the computer. The Echos only have recording level controls as trim controls on the mic preamps, for all of the other channels it's assumed you will have a mixer feeding them to set levels, equalize, etc. Another benefit of this arrangment is an incredibly flexible array of signal routing options, since all those channels are full duplex, capable of playig back through all 20 outputs while at the same time recording a different signal into all 20 inputs - can you say mixing and processing in the analog domain while bouncing tracks <grin>. Now 20 tracks is way overkill for where I'm at these days, even 12 tracks is overkill if truth be told - I only recently got the 12 as a replacement as the 8 is going on a trip back to the factory for a power supply that was blown out by an incredible thunderstorm a few weeks ago that blew through the surge protector and damaged a number of pieces of gear. I'm earmarking the 12 for my main editing desk and the 8 will be used for other things when it gets back. But if the need arises at some point in the future they can be connected together as I've described.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top