Multi channel signal flow/mixing on set...

H

HansonD

Active member
Hi,

For my first topic starter I'm gonna go ahead and dive into an issue that has been puzzling me lately, and also confusing my search for a new mixer purchase...

The problem:
It's obvious that multi-track (3+) digital recording on set is becoming standard practice these days. I mean when you're running a 744t or deva on set the obvious thing to do is give each mic in your setup its own channel if possible. It's not uncommon to get a request for discrete tracks from post so that they have as many options as possible for cutting. However, while new recorders are heading full steam in this direction it seems to me that 90% of mixers out there are still 3/4/6IN x 2 OUT designs. What gives? Stereo mixing is an essential feature of a mixer (wouldn't be much of a mixer if it didn't) but I feel that discrete outs is also becoming just as important these days.

There are a few out there though (I know that many of you are shouting out 442! as you read this) that have direct outs per channel. I was amazed by the 442 when I got my hands on it and it seemed to be the perfect companion for feeding the 744T with discrete signals. But I soon discovered that those direct outs on the 442 are pre-fader auxs, I can see how this would be desirable for feeding other types of equipment but for on the set mixing to a multitrack recorder I would definitely want my mix to translate onto the harddrive. I mean what the hell? The only real control of the direct out signal is on the little bitty retractable trim pots, and not the big ergonomic faders... it seemed rather counter intuitive to me.

So I kept looking for a mixer that provided this seemingly simple functionality. Honestly I'm surprised to see how few mixers actually have been designed to get discrete signals out of the box. SQN has a routeable, dual bus machine, as does Kamesan, and possibly Cooper but all these super-pro level pieces are completely out of my league for the time being.

My biggest lead so far has been on the PSC AlphaMix. PSC is a brand I know many of you have mixed feelings about but I'm impressed with the feature set of the alpha. It has some interesting features that I haven't seen anywhere else, and it also has, to use PSC's parlance, individual line-outs per input. This grabbed my attention and I was curious to know if these were pre or post fader outs, so I emailed PSC. Ron myers responded a day later and told me that they are normally pre-fader (big knob) outs however he had a look at the schematics and found that it would be an easy, non invasive modification to make the line outs post-fader (he said they even tested the modification and that it worked perfectly). So as of now I'm seriously considering the alphamix.

Hopefully there's enough topic here to get some talk going. What are your opinions on multitrack recording on set? How do you get a discrete signal path to hdd and how do you fine mix for it? Would post-fader discrete outs really be desirable or am I getting sidetracked by an unnesecary feature? I'm looking for opinions and suggestions alike.

cheers
-d
 
d-

Are you going to be doing bag work (ENG/run and gun) or sit and mix movie/TV work? If you're going to sit and mix, then look at the Alesis FW mixers - up to 16 channels out post fader (which btw, is a problem for some of the more experienced mixers, who seem to prefer pre-fader or switchable).

The prices are right on the Alesis mixers - combine it with Boom Recorder and a Mac and you've got more tracks than any Deva. ;-)

Phil
 
Thanks for the suggestions phil,

I'm really looking for (and this is maybe why I'm having trouble) a mixer that I can throw in a bag and mix on my feet (single system) if I need to, as well as functioning as a full featured mixer for multi track double system recording. Basically for the time being I can only invest in one piece of gear and I want it to be versatile for any kind of shoot (within reason) that I may take on. Functional direct outs really doesn't seem like too much to ask for in a bag mixer, atleast in my mind.
 
buy used pd-6-
it can record up to 6 or work as mix 6 to 2
the mix is what usiallu editors take at first
the isos are only if something going wrong , noone like to remix your beutifly post fader jumping signals , they deal with mix and use the isos whicj may be low by 6-db what not so bad with 24 bit .
i mix , that what they pay me for
 
the sqn and i had afew in my life are post fader from the factory but could be changed wto prefader as well
the psc , it probably not aproblem as ros said , he would need make disconection from the main bus of the 3 and 4 then it real easy to make it post fader , the problem you will not be able to see it on the meters , then you will need another switch - these modifiacations would cost as to buy aditional recorder |:-)

if you intend work on films - look at allen and heath , the 14,4,2 with converter could give allot of different out ( ihave one like that )
allot of power for 1300us , with good preamp in front for boom mike ( i use the 302 or 442) it is very powerfool tool .
 
Ron actually said the modification would be under $100 for an existing alphamix, or free if I were to get a new one from a dealer. Seemed reasonable to me.

I kind of want to avoid going with a tabletop only mixer as a lot of the work here in Chicago is single system to camera recording, and I really don't think I would make good use of so many channels. So I want to buy the gear with that in mind but have it capable of feeding a second recorder when I need it.

Any oppinions out there on the Alpha's sound and build quality? (specifically the alphamix, not previous psc products)
 
can he make it would be switch from post to pre or this is for life , he would need place som jumper to tke the 3 and 4 from the main bus other wise the main bus outs become not usable at all
i dont think it so grate idia ( never liked it on my sqn iv ) but if you like it - why not( .
about quality - didnt work much with that one so dont know how long it lives , the privius model was quit desaster.

francly hate the meters on psc - even the usiall bbc ppm are more friendly .
 
Good topic.

I think you don't find this feature in portable mixers is you don't find much demand for iso tracks for bag mixing jobs. You do find a demand for it in narrative cart mixing jobs where they want the individual tracks for post but also want a two channel mix for the telecine. In those cases you will find a Deva or Cantar being used.

There is definately a change going on and I don't think the mixers have caught up with it yet. Heck, a lot of guys are still using DAT. Shifts in production like this involve many people changing their workflow and getting that kind synchronicity throughout the post chain is difficult. People like staying with a process that they know works rather then switching to a potentially better but less tested method.

Here is Seattle we still don't have a smooth workflow for getting file based recordings to telecine yet.

Cheers
 
Many worries when you get a Hollywood production coming into town that wants instant dailies. For the in-town stuff no one seems to care which is why our telecine house won't invest a couple thousand to save us all some time.

And they wonder why Seattle's film industry continues to struggle...
 
Not to derail the thread, but two questions to Oleg: you said you use a SD mixer in front of your A&H board... you like Sound Devices preamps better than Allen&Heath's? Or is it just so your boom op can hear? Also just out of curiousity, what A/D converter do you use?
 
yes this is the main reason and limiters that a@h doesnt provide , for wierless mics it is not aproblem as you can adjust the input will never go into dangerous levels with reciever output adjustment
 
HansonD said:
But I soon discovered that those direct outs on the 442 are pre-fader auxs, I can see how this would be desirable for feeding other types of equipment but for on the set mixing to a multitrack recorder I would definitely want my mix to translate onto the harddrive. I mean what the hell? The only real control of the direct out signal is on the little bitty retractable trim pots, and not the big ergonomic faders... it seemed rather counter intuitive to me.
Click to expand...


When multitracking, for most flexibility and quality in post, you want the strongest signal for each track, not mix-level signals - the whole point is not to be limited by mix concerns. Recording pre-fader signals is therefore standard. In the music world, a lot of consoles can record mix automation at the same time, so you get the best of both worlds; or, a lot of devices can record a mix as well as the discrete pre-fader inputs. It doesn't seem like the field-mixing world has quite caught up in terms of automation - but if you're running a dual system, could you, say, use a 442 to record a mix to the camera and discrete pre-fader tracks to a 744T? That's basically what I do, just with a ProTools rig instead of a field-mixer/recorder setup.
 
"...but if you're running a dual system, could you, say, use a 442 to record a mix to the camera and discrete pre-fader tracks to a 744T?"

Say Word. Great advice.
 
thats about what every one does at least at my eria as the camera sound is alwais the main (iam taking about 200 or 900hd sony )
these 2 tracks are usially what would go to the film anyway , then the isos are only if something bad hapens
if you run total dual system ( from reason you dont record to the camera or it is film one)
they also expected get mix and isos , then 2 or 1 chanels on 744 become mix and another 2 or 3 prefader tracks ( for bigger recorders that is the same , just more isos)
no one really like dealing with isos in the real world - iyts good they are there but noone really like to remix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top