Mixer or new mic?

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
I typically hire a sound man for bigger shoots (or any shoots I can afford to). But often I am in a position where my wife and I have to do our own sound.

I use G-2 sets (mics already on the upgrade list) for wireless, an Oktava MK-012 with multiple caps, an AT-897, and I have access to a 416 pretty much whenever I need one, even though I don't own it. I have good XLRs, a Rode blimp system, softies, a couple of sets of MDR-7506's and a gitzo boom pole.

I was wondering if my next investment should be in a new mic (maybe a better hyper?) or a mixer. I have seen some Shure FP-33's in the 550 dollar range, and I may have a line on a Wendt for about the same price.

Just wondering what purchase would make a bigger difference in my audio.
 
what kinda budget do you have at this time for new gear?

I'd stay away from the FP-3x's
I used to use them many years ago but the sound devices stuff is just so far
above it its really no choice.
I personally couldn't live without the safety net of their limiters.
I love um. (as long as you only hit them gently)


Without money being a factor I
think you need to start with a good mixer before you start worrying about upgrading your mics.
 
Last edited:
I probably have a bit over a grand to spend in the next couple of months. I was hoping to include the lavs in that amount, but I probably don't have to.

I have seen that the FP-33 doesn't stack up great against the Sound Devices. I imagine the Wendt doesn't either. But does the Wendt fall above or below the FP-33?
 
Seems like a judgment call. I think you're pretty well-covered in mics; maybe the mixer would be the way to go to expand the kit. But then, that has a lot to do with what you hope to accomplish.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I probably have a bit over a grand to spend in the next couple of months. I was hoping to include the lavs in that amount, but I probably don't have to.

I have seen that the FP-33 doesn't stack up great against the Sound Devices. I imagine the Wendt doesn't either. But does the Wendt fall above or below the FP-33?
Click to expand...

Well you'll be the only one who can decide what you need the most
for the kinds of things you do and what you feel is suffering on a daily basis
but an investment in a simple SD 302 mixer will not only improve the way you work (if there is a dedicated sound person)
but i stress this here often. RESALE VALUE.

I constantly upgrade my kit(s)
but one of the reason I can do so is the resale value of the gear I'm replacing.

As far as the Wendt depends on the model.
the X5 was the standard in reality for years, but it also had issues like channel bleed into other channels
and also leaking of audio through a channel even when it was off..etc.
But a work horse.

The smaller x3..ive never used. (I dont think i would want to)
but a mixer guy I know has one for extreme documentry stuff and seems to like it.
 
My overall purpose is to give me better quality audio in post. ( I know that's vague....bear with me)

I work with a lot of educational agencies and non-profits, and to be honest, their standards are not that high, so i am doing this for my own piece of mind, as well just trying to be prepared for whatever gets thrown my way.

I'm just trying keep raising the bar for the quality of my overall productions. I don't really want to be a sound guy (you guys work too hard, don't get enough credit, and get blamed for way too much), but I feel like I need to be prepared and equipped as well as i can in that area.

Thanks for the tips.
 
Jim Brennan said:
My overall purpose is to give me better quality audio in post.
Click to expand...

So the next question is, what don't you like currently with the audio
you have to work with in post? Does it sound thin? distorted? muffled? etc?

And the next question is, what don't you like about your currently work flow on set when you don't get to hire a sound person?
Do you always have your wife do sound for you? or are you doing it
as a 1 man band? ..etc?

Also, what kind of audio situations are you doing out in the field?
Presentations? 1 person interviews..etc..etc?
 
Well, it's more of a "I don't know how it can get better because I haven't heard the difference" situation. I'm not unhappy, I just want t to get better. I used to think the ATR-55 was a great microphone :-) Then I got something better and could tell the difference. The main change in what I get in the field from a boom (never worked with anyone else running lavs) and what our regular sound guy gets is how clean the audio is. He uses a high-end Schoeps, with Sound Devices 4 channel mixer which he runs to both the cam and his recorder. But we've only used the files from the cam since they sounded great.

Am I crazy for wanting it sound better when it already sounds good enough for my clients?

My typical field workflow for lavs is one or two of the G-2s going into an HVX (sometimes a DVX), with me watching the levels while I am watching everything else on the monitor. My wife usually conducts the interviews we do, which make up about 70% of our paid shooting time. A lot of the rest is B-roll to round out the interviews.

When we do indie film work, and I do audio, I run whichever mic I am using directly into an HVX or a Red.
 
Jim,

I have struggled with some nearly identical issues while building my own sound kit. Here are a few things that may influence your decisions.

It is pretty much impossible to use a mixer while shooting solo. The exception to that is if you are locked down on a tripod. I have one of the manfrotto trays which clamp onto my tripod and it works pretty well having a mixer lashed down to it. The point is; the mixer is great to have, but your shooting style will determine how much you will use it. If you are hiring sound out, they will probably have their own.

I upgraded my stock G2 lavs with EMWs which was a good improvement without a huge price tag. They are durable but a little harder to hide, which isn't important to me. I would love to add a wired cos-11d (soon). Since I shoot solo quite a bit, this would be a great interview option in lieu of a unattended boom.

I also own a AT897 (my first mic) and don't use it too much after upgrading to a NTG-3. The one thing the 897 does offer is a battery option for phantom. This allows you to have a wireless shotgun option if you have a butt-plug for your G2. It is also a backup just in case.

Recently, I added a AT4053b as an improvement over my Oktavas. The 4053b is simply superior to the Oktava for a $500 investment, so I would say that is the biggest bang for the buck on your list. I can't say how the 4053b compares to the high end hypers, but it is a very very good mic for the money.

Grant
 
Jim Brennan said:
Am I crazy for wanting it sound better when it already sounds good enough for my clients?
Click to expand...

No. In fact in my opinion this is the kind of attitude that makes people
strive to be better at what they do and in the end ARE better at what they do.
Never stop wanting more.

Honestly, probably not the answer your looking for and just my opinion but
I wouldnt worry about upgrading anything if its all working out ok for you currently.
I say this only if you are looking to grow as a company in the future. (get bigger/higher paid jobs..etc)
I mention this because of your comment I quoted above.

While its great to have the best gear available, having bigger crews are going
to be one of the bigger reasons your products will improve.
Why? because everyone isn't spread so thin doing multiple jobs. They can concentrate
on 1 thing. That goes for any dept.
You mention now that you're doing pretty much everything
wouldn't it be great if you only had to worry about lighting and nothing else?
I bet your final product would look even better if that was the case right?
So for the time being live with what ya got and invest your money in other areas.

Now if thats not what you are going for and your content with where you are at and you're running everything by yourself I would go for a top notch mic
running direct to camera for the reasons Grant mentioned above.
I personally wouldn't waste the money unless you were jumping to a MUCH better mic. Not one that is going to only give you a little bit better sound.
 
Thanks for all the advice. I really appreciate what a great resource the people on this site can be.

I do understand the advantages of hiring a good crew, and I do that whenever I can. I love just doing MY job and knowing that the other people on set are actually doing theirs :) Nobody can do everything and do it well all the time.

We've had a good year so far and we are looking into some other purchases as well, like a larger HD field monitor and a production van. I guess I will just put the audio money aside for awhile and see if any screaming deals come up, whether they are mics, mixers or field recorders. At least audio gear tends to hold its value. Can't say that about cameras. :grin:
 
I'll toss in my not specifically related experience. I record FX mostly, though I do some production work, so it's not exactly what your doing. I started with pretty low rent everything and moved up. Cassette to DAT was a BIG improvement, moving up the ladder in mics were good improvements, getting a really good clean mic preamp/mixer was a leap that made everything sound better. I have two that are really good. My first was a BLACK AUDIO DEVICES hand built unit (ser # 005). It sounds great is strictly a mic pre, but takes 9 9V batteries to run, and that gets expensive! Then for a number of reasons I got the Sound Devices MixPre. As I said 99% of my recording is FX so I don't need more than two channels. If I had the money and was doing it today I would get at least a three channel mixer. The MixPre doesn't take line level in and a few times I needed three inputs. But the SD mixers sound great. I did recordings to MiniDisk (a toss-away eBay sony one) that passed for DAT recordings. And it keeps you critical input stage separate from your recorder and stable. For instance there was some debate about the mic ins on the Marantz recorders. I read up on it but fundamentally it doesn't matter because I'm not going to use them. I don't recommend (the PMD671) anymore because I think Marantz's support is seriously lacking compared to Tascam. But I like the way it works and my input section is the same that I have used for years. Also the SD limiters, as Ripple noted, are a life saver. You can set them so they never really get touched but that one time you would have ended up with digital trash distortion never happens because they let you be "clip proof". It means you can get better levels because you don't have to leave so much safety room for the unexpected ? actor inspiration to scream the whispered line this take. For me it's very important because a lot of things I record you only get one take. That train only goes by once a day etc.

So my vote would definitely be for a SD mixer.
 
Thanks. I've yet to hear anything bad about the SD mixers.

One thing I have learned is that if you are working with "good enough" like I do so often (the G2's, The Okatava, Bogen tripods, an Ikan monitor), it only makes sense to upgrade if you are going to make a significant difference. And sometimes that difference isn't necessary. For example, 90% of what I personally shoot is static interviews, so spending 7 grand on a Miller tripod and head doesn't make any sense.)

It's buying my first piece of a certain kind of gear (like a mixer) that I get a little crazy. So unless someone drops something else in my lap too cheap to say no to, I'll probably hold out for an SD 302 for a mixer, upgrade my lavs and keep my eyes open for a better Hyper.

Jeeez, spending money can be so much fun. It's nice to have choices.
 
A lot of answers are given already I see. But I would also go for the sounddevice 302 or 442. Although for small things the 302 is ok enough.

And indeed the limiters are sometimes a big help.
 
If you are doing mainly static interviews, the limiters will not come into play often, as in recording a rock band. Nor will you need mixing capability if shooting only one or two subjects. All that leaves, as far as improving sound over running the mics straight in, is the quality of the preamps.

I bought an SD Mixpre for just that reason for the ambitious project of shooting a feature. I shot a lot of scenes both ways. Final verdict: Slight improvement in S/N ratio with the mixer, and some protection against spikes. No real difference in audio quality I could discern. For me , it was not enough to justify the cost, so I sold it. The HVX built in preamps are unusually good and certain mics, such as the 4053 and 4073, work very well straight in. I've also had good luck with the G2's. I've never had a problem monitoring audio myself while shooting though, you really have to keep an eye on it.
 
If you are doing mainly static interviews, the limiters will not come into play often, as in recording a rock band. Nor will you need mixing capability if shooting only one or two subjects. All that leaves, as far as improving sound over running the mics straight in, is the quality of the preamps.
Click to expand...

If you've done enough, you would know that not everyone speaks at a constant level. There are a few who speaks very softly, and at the end of each sentence would shout or laugh/chuckle. One take, your call whether you get the next job or not.
 
Mixer or new mic?
Click to expand...
Mixer.

The types of microphones that you own and have access to would cover you about 90% of the way, both indoors and outdoors. Not the best, but it'll make you proud for getting the most out of your gear at the time. G2's, just switch out the stock microphones.
 
Alan H. Chang said:
If you've done enough, you would know that not everyone speaks at a constant level. There are a few who speaks very softly, and at the end of each sentence would shout or laugh/chuckle. One take, your call whether you get the next job or not.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of interviews. Nothing the in camera limiters (on the HVX at least) can't handle. The one exception was a teen girl screaming in a movie scene- but that wasn't a static interview.
 
mainstreetprod said:
Hundreds of interviews. Nothing the in camera limiters (on the HVX at least) can't handle. The one exception was a teen girl screaming in a movie scene- but that wasn't a static interview.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm the unlucky one here then.

The HVX does have built-in limiters and works well, but the sound of the limiter whenever it's kicking in is less pleasant compared to a dedicated mixer that's built to handle unexpected peaks and overs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top