Is a $4,000 Audio Recorder needed if the Mixer does all the hard work?

F

filmmakerguy

Member
So I am thinking in terms of getting good audio on a feature length indie movie. I know someone who uses a Sound Devices 744T Audio Recorder ($4,319) with a Sound Devices 302 Mixer ($1698) and he gets amazing audio. Does a lot of pro assignment work. I have been doing a lot more research in audio and what I am find is the mixer does all the heavy lifting. It is where the pre-amps are, it has the ability to remove noise/hiss, block out certain frequencies that contain common unwanted noise (air conditioners/wind), and has limiters that can prevent clipping even if someone is yelling. It also can record backup tracks at lower DBs if needed. It's pretty much a must to have a good mixer if shooting a feature after all the research I've done. But after the mixer does the job, do you need to plug it into a super expensive recorder? $4k for a recorder seems like a lot. Why not just plug it into a Zoom F4 Field Recorder ($649)? Seems like the 302 with F4 would be a good combo.

Sound Devices 302 Portable 3 Channel Field Mixer
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876,92051678642,&Q=&A=details

Sound Devices 744T 4-Channel Portable Audio Recorder with Time Code
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...&m=Y&c3api=1876,92051677802,&is=REG&A=details

Zoom F4 Multitrack Field Recorder with Timecode - 6 Inputs / 8
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876,92051678882,&Q=&A=details
 
I was going to include the 633 in my post but didn't want to complicate it. But yeah I have been considering that as well as another option. One thing I read is that some pro sound recorders have regretted purchasing the 633 over going the typical route of a 302 and 702 or 302 and 744t. Haven't read a lot as to why they regretted it. Maybe because you look more pro with two versus one in your bag and can make more money per gig/attract certain gigs. Maybe it helps you match up audio better, if you fill in for another audio guy who was doing their audio before and now you come in with similar gear for a paid pickup day. You could be an audio guys backup he refers in if he can't make a day since that setup is more common with pros versus the 633, there could be concerns it won't match. Or more room to grow out your kit/what you can record if you have mixer and recorder separate. Honestly don't know.

Something to consider is...

Sound Devices 633 Mixer/Recorder = $3328

or

Sound Devices 302 Mixer $1700 + Zoom F4 Audio Recorder $650 + Sanken CS-3e $1450 = $3800

So for $472 more, you can be using it with the Sanken CS-3e shotgun mic. From what I hear it's the world's greatest shotgun mic according to a number of people (reviews). They supposedly used it exclusively to shoot the movie Benjamin Button because Brad Pitt speaks very softly and they needed a shotgun mic that could properly capture that.
 
Read this on another forum just doing a google search for Sanken Benjamin Button, so apparently it was the Viper cams also making noise it helped to filter out........

"Just stumbled onto this link and thought I should chime in. I am a boom operator mainly for feature films. I work with a lot of different mixers and on a regular basis I have the opportunity to use a lot of different shotgun and location sound mics including the Sennheiser 816, 416, 70, 60, 50, 406 (the 406 is an extremely underrated mic), and the Schoeps CMIT and CMC641, etc- pretty much everything but the new Rode mic, I would wager. Nothing sounds as good as a Schoeps CMC641 in my opinion, but due to today's realities of poor locations, loud camera fans or shutters, wide and tight camera angles and the sort, it's a mic that I can't use as often as I would like. When I can't use the CMC641, which is most often, my first choice is always the Sanken CS3e. I first used it in 2006 while filming The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, and it was the go-to mic for most of that film due to the extremely loud cooling fans on the Viper system cameras.

It is a mic whose performance continues to literally amaze me on a weekly, if not daily basis. The off-axis rejection is stellar and has saved the sound on literally dozens of scenes that I've done. It is definitely a mid-range forward mic, as compared to something like a Sennheiser 60 which tends to be flatter and "more natural" across the spectrum, but it manages to still be rather smooth in comparison to a 416; that is, it pretty much never sounds harsh as compared to a 416 which can be rather "prickly" and painful to my ears at times. All this and the on-axis bass response is incredible at close range or at a distance, and it sounds great indoors, even in small rooms with a lot of echo. The pattern is rather tight and falls somewhere between an 816 and 416, which means that in the wrong hands, it can be easy to miss your target, but you get used to it. That said, I have had a great number of times where when micing multiple actors, I've had to use the side of the mic at closer proximity to one of the actors in a manner where you would think it would sound totally off-axis and unbalanced in comparison to the other actors who were more on-axis, especially for a mic with such a pickup pattern, yet the mixer had no idea because it sounded great.

The amount of "suck" that this mic has (suck being the ability to be a long distance from your target, yet still have the target sound on-axis and focused) is what is so amazing about this mic. It's rivals the 816 for the amount of suck you get, but with less than half the size and weight of an 816. This is what constantly amazes me about this mic, and I will frequently say to mixers after a take, "Damn, have I told you yet today how much I love this mic?"

On my last project, our CS3e went in for repair and I felt almost crippled without it and the product did suffer a bit. While we made it through, when the repaired mic came back to us, it went back into immediate use, and improved the sound of the location we were in."
 
What's interesting is his post is implying that super caroid (Schoeps CMC641) with it's more heart shaped/rounded pattern may not be ideal for modern filmmaking styles because of close camera setups to the talent and picking up camera noise. So although they are the recommended mics for indoor dialogue shooting, on Hollywood shoots they are needing to use shotguns (Sanken CS3e) indoors because of these camera setups.
 
filmmakerguy said:
Maybe because you look more pro with two versus one in your bag and can make more money per gig/attract certain gigs.
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not.

Professionals aren't hired because of how "pro" they look, or whether they have one box or two in the bag. This is the same flawed mentality as folks who want to buy a mattebox and follow focus because they think it'll make them look more professional and that people will tkae them more seriously. Do you know what the tools do and why/when you would need them? No? Then don't spend your money on them.

The difference between mixer+recorder and standalone recorder is getting blurred. You need to understand the actual differences and where they aren't so different.

A mixer deals with three main jobs: pre-amps, level control, and signal routing (inputs to outputs). Mixers have different configurations of input channels and outputs. In the world of field mixers, you might have somethingmlike the Sound Devices MixPre-D that has only 2 inputs channels two output channels. Or, you might have the 302 that has three inputs and only two outputs. Or perhaps you have the Sound Devices 442 that has four inputs and two outputs, but also has direct outputs for each input (post pre-amp, each input has a clean out that can feed a multi-track recorder). Mixers that have more inputs than outputs have to mix the inputs down into the two-channels of output. Mixers can be used to feed field recorders, and can also be used to feed cameras, or both at the same time.

Recorders pretty much do one thing: record. The recorder may have pre-amps built in so that they can function independently, but a recorder generally has the same number of input channels as it has record tracks. The Fostex FR2-LE has two pre-amped inputs and two record tracks. Same with the 702. The 744 has 4 ins and 4 record tracks. See the pattern? Some recorders, like the Tascam DR-680, have rudimentary mixing capabilities and offer an extra pair of record tracks for the mix, but dedicated recorders generally aren't designed to handle true field mixing and aren't good choices if you also need to send a mix to camera.

By the way, if you put a SD302 in front of a 744t, you only have 2 ouputs from the mixer. What are you doing with the other two inputs/record tracks on the 744t? Now, a 442 in front of a 744t makes a lot more sense.

But here's where things get blurred: newer products like the Sound Devices 602 and 688 are true mixer/recorders. They take the concept of a field mixer and fully integrate the function of a multi-track field recorder. It's the best of both worlds, including good pre-amps. Plus, it cuts down on the amount of stuff in the bag, and less weight means less fatigue when working from a bag. These devices have controls for active mixing on the fly as well as multiple outputs to feed cameras and other equipment.

I know several working professionals in sound who work off the 688 and nothing else, and they get plenty of work. Nobody asks them why they don't have two big boxes in their bags or on their carts. They get work because they know what they're doing and they get good sound.

The downside of the 603 is that, despite the number of record tracks, it has only 3 pre-amped inputs. The other three ins are line-level only. That can be pretty crippling in the field.
 
I'm curious…

Why not hire someone? They already have most of the gear you need and (probably) megatons more experience capturing production sound.
 
filmmakerguy said:
What's interesting is his post is implying that super caroid (Schoeps CMC641) with it's more heart shaped/rounded pattern may not be ideal for modern filmmaking styles because of close camera setups to the talent and picking up camera noise. So although they are the recommended mics for indoor dialogue shooting, on Hollywood shoots they are needing to use shotguns (Sanken CS3e) indoors because of these camera setups.
Click to expand...

Again, this plays off several misconceptions (or flat-out wrong information).

First and foremost, professional sound people rarely travel with just one mic. Each will have his/her choice mic locker, stocked with a variety of mics for different applications. The sound pro knows the strengths and weaknesses of each mic, and knows how to choose the right tool for the job.

Supercardioids are not "the recommended mics for indoor dialog". Hypercardioids are often recommended on the forums, especially for beginners, for most interiors simply because they are more forgiving in reflective spaces. That doesn't mean that shotguns are off limits indoors. Again, experienced professionals know which mic is right for an individual space, rather than living by the "hypercardioids inside, shotguns outside" idea. I have used a shotgun for interiors many, many times. I also have a hypercardioid in my kit, as well as a standard cardioid.

Most shotguns can suffer in very reverberant spaces, as the same physics that give them great off-axis rejection actually work against them when there are lots of reflective surfaces. But short of shooting in a bathroom, or a smaller living room with hardwood floors and drywall and nothing to break up or absorb the sound, a shotgun can be used for an interior if the boom op knows how to play the mic to its strengths.

The article you linked doesn't refute others who use hypers or supers for some interiors. It's one person's opinion, and it isn't wrong but it isn't the only right one. It just bolsters the argument that the rules are sparse and loose. The funny thing about sound: if it works, it works. After 25 years across several outlets (live stage, studio, film and TV), I can tell you that holds true no matter where you are.

Also, make no mistake: camera noise is certainly nothing new. Noisy gates and motors on film cameras are as old as motion pictures, but only became an issue when sound recording was introduced. Gates and motors got somewhat quieter over time, but never disappeared completely. What used to be a gate or motor is now a cooling fan. Shooting in close quarters on location is also nothing new.
 
filmmakerguy said:
I know someone who uses a Sound Devices 744T Audio Recorder ($4,319) with a Sound Devices 302 Mixer ($1698) and he gets amazing audio.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that he does get "amazing audio" but I doubt it's just because of the equipment he uses. It's because he knows how to use and get the best out his equipment, which is an entirely different thing. Amazing audio is way more about operator skill than it is about equipment.

That, and when did be obtain his 744T? He's probably had it more than a decade. And if you ask him, he's probably using it because he already has it. If he didn't own anything right now and had to buy new, he might not be buying a 744T / 302. My guess is he'd be looking at a 633 instead.
 
I'm deliberating on what direction to go, equipment wise, for my next feature to be shot next summer. In 2009 I shot a film with the HPX500 and HVX200 , plugging mics (AT 4053 hyper and 4073 shotgun) directly into the cameras and hiring a boom guy to both boom and monitor. I did hire a local sound pro for one day who had a typical mixer setup and was unable to tell his audio from my own. In 2011 I shot another feature and used the same method as for the prior film. I was quite satisfied with the audio. Then in 2013 I shot my first feature silent film script and last year shot another. Not having to worry about sound for those two films was great, but the next script calls for dialogue so back to the audio forums. My current camera, the FS7, has good preamps , 24 bit audio and up to four inputs. I know I need a good boom op, but why should I use a mixer?
 
If you are using only a single, boomed mic, and you're happy with what you've gotten, then that's completely up to you.

Hiring a PSM has a few advantages:

1) The PSM can monitor with heaphones, watch the meters, and control levels all from the same place, rather than relying on the camera op to watch meters and make adjustments.
2) Mixer and boom op (whether those are two people, or one doing both jobs from a bag) are not tethered to the camera and have much better freedom of movement.
3) The FS7 may have decent pre-amps in your estimation, but nothing beats a dedicated recorder where much of the R&D actually went into the pre-amps.
4) Potential of working with multiple mics and record tracks (meaning lavs in addition to boom), which you do not want to try and deal with in-camera (see #1 above, #5 below).
5) A skilled PSM can do a much better job of signal management than a camera op, not just because of quality of gear but - most importantly - because of dedicated knowledge and experience.
 
mainstreetprod said:
My current camera, the FS7, has good preamps, 24 bit audio and up to four inputs. I know I need a good boom op, but why should I use a mixer?
Click to expand...

If by "mixer" you mean a piece of equipment, then 1) its preamps will be considerably better than your FS7 preamps, 2) limiters (I've had my ass saved by the limiters in my MixPre-D enough times to understand the value of good limiters), 3) flexibility and ease of use (in particular, good meters and good pots).

If by "mixer" you mean a person, then 1) lack of attention blindness toward audio (when concentrating on camera moves and/or framing, it's really almost impossible to hear much of anything, let alone hear detail, because all of your concentration is on something else), 2) a sound person has the ability to pay attention to the actual sound detail being recorded, so picks up the crap that a non-dedicated soundie misses, like background street noise, airplane overflights, distant lawn mowers, etc., and 3) ability to do real-time monitoring so can slowly and smoothly adjust levels when talent gets too quiet or too loud (most talent will give you different levels during rehearsal and when filming).

Ideally you want both.

I don't doubt that you've gotten away without having to use either up to this point. But... how long will that last? IOW, what is your "plan B" for when the unexpected happens? Because you know it will eventually. And the plan B for most film crews is a dedicated sound crew. Because that's usually much cheaper than having to pull all the people and stuff back together for a reshoot. Just sayin'.
 
Alex H. said:
If you are using only a single, boomed mic, and you're happy with what you've gotten, then that's completely up to you.

Hiring a PSM has a few advantages:

1) The PSM can monitor with heaphones, watch the meters, and control levels all from the same place, rather than relying on the camera op to watch meters and make adjustments.
2) Mixer and boom op (whether those are two people, or one doing both jobs from a bag) are not tethered to the camera and have much better freedom of movement.
3) The FS7 may have decent pre-amps in your estimation, but nothing beats a dedicated recorder where much of the R&D actually went into the pre-amps.
4) Potential of working with multiple mics and record tracks (meaning lavs in addition to boom), which you do not want to try and deal with in-camera (see #1 above, #5 below).
5) A skilled PSM can do a much better job of signal management than a camera op, not just because of quality of gear but - most importantly - because of dedicated knowledge and experience.
Click to expand...

Alex & Bruce,

Thanks for the detailed posts, very helpful info. We've survived this far with only a boom op, but with the latest production ending up in theaters I'm a bit concerned about the next one having dialogue. It's one thing to run your own sound when the final product is only on DVD, it's another when you sit in a theater and hear things in Dolby surround. So I'm inclined to bite the bullet this time and hire out the sound, especially since we will now have the budget. One complication is that I really need someone who lives in Nashville as we tend to work about 4 days a week over several months, and shorter days than most productions.

Just wondering what you guys thing about putting lavs on the talent AND booming them. Then in post having the luxury of picking the best sounding track. Does anyone do this?
 
mainstreetprod said:
Just wondering what you guys thing about putting lavs on the talent AND booming them. Then in post having the luxury of picking the best sounding track. Does anyone do this?
Click to expand...

One boom, skillfully swung, can cover most things. A second boom op makes things easier on more complex shots.

As far as adding lavs to all principles, the plus-sides:

- You do have a choice in post.
- Lavs can save a shot if the boom happens to swing off-axis.
- The boom can save the shot from the lav tracks if something goes wrong (rub, RF, etc.).

The downsides:

- You have a lot of tracks to keep up with in post. Scott (Noiz2) will tell you that this is a PITA for audio post, and it is. But it does have the advantage of extra coverage.
- Lavs don't necessarily intercut with boomed mics in a seamless manner.
- Lavs mean extra work on-set to avoid fabric rub and other things. A skilled PSM knows how to work with the Wardrobe Dept. to coordinate efforts, but just know that this is an extra place where things can go wrong.
- Same goes for RF interference. Wireless can and will fail at some point, likely at a terribly inconvenient time. This is just the nature of the beast, though, and PSMs know how to work with that.

That said, while some features only work a single mic, some lav everything as well. And some directors prefer to do that. Most narrative shows that are on the networks (Law & Order, etc.) lav everyone plus run boom, and they're working on tight turnarounds. It really comes down to the comfort levels of your PSM and your post audio person.
 
The other main issue: I'm used to audio being there already when I sit down to edit. How well does the software work that pairs up my video files with the sound guy's audio files?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top