Need advice please - Sennheiser mkh60 + Sony m10 + external P48 supply or mic preamp?

M

miiko12

Member
Hi!

After having looked at many many forum threads I still couldn't find an answer for my "problem"
I'm far to be an expert in the field of sound recording so, please, bear with me :)

So, I'm trying to build a good sound recording setup for film (mostly for outdoors locations and dialogue)
So far, I have in my possession the following material:
- Sennheiser mkh 60
- Sony pcm m10
- (planning on buying the rycote s series windshield)

Now, the sony pcm m10 doesn't provide a phantom power so I have to buy one and I'm hesitating between two different choices:
- Sound devices mm1 or mixpre-d (for the m10 line-in)
- Denecke ps-1a (for the m10 mic-in)

Ok, so I'm aware that these are totally different units and that a mixpre-d would be the best choice quality wise but I'm trying to know if, considering the good quality of the sony m10 preamps, the increase in quality would justify the high cost of the SD units over the Denecke power supply?

If anyone has approximately the same setup or have any experience with this material, I would really appreciate any advices or suggestions!!

Thanks a lot :)
 
Last edited:
Since the MKH-series have a pretty high output, at least in regards to noise I don't think you will experience much difference between your M10 and a SD-mixer. If you ever want to use lower output mics though, it might be a tad noisier. Regarding sonic quality, even if I don't have an M10, I have tested the mixpre against a marenius and one or two other mixers, and found that even if there are subtle differences it's not big enough to compete with things such as reliability and practicality of use.

With the last comment in mind, I recommend the Mixpre because it has good metering and it will be much easier to monitor your signal (handhelds have a screen that is hard to monitor in a good way when holding a boom, and the MM1 does not have good metering). The knobs will speed up gain changes, and it also has great limiters and cut off-filters which is very important in my opinion (good to have in dynamic fictional work, but especially if you sometime want to do a doc, interview etc). It will also be more flexible, allowing you to go direct in to a camera if you want, and will likely be a withstanding piece in your kit that wont be obsolete when getting another recorder.

Unless you want the digital side of the mixpre-D, I would look into a used original mixpre. The metering is not as good, but sufficient in my opinion (it was a popular mixer for over 10 years after all), and can probably be gotten a bit more cheaply now that the new model is out.
 
Jema said:
Since the MKH-series have a pretty high output, at least in regards to noise I don't think you will experience much difference between your M10 and a SD-mixer. If you ever want to use lower output mics though, it might be a tad noisier. Regarding sonic quality, even if I don't have an M10, I have tested the mixpre against a marenius and one or two other mixers, and found that even if there are subtle differences it's not big enough to compete with things such as reliability and practicality of use.

With the last comment in mind, I recommend the Mixpre because it has good metering and it will be much easier to monitor your signal (handhelds have a screen that is hard to monitor in a good way when holding a boom, and the MM1 does not have good metering). The knobs will speed up gain changes, and it also has great limiters and cut off-filters which is very important in my opinion (good to have in dynamic fictional work, but especially if you sometime want to do a doc, interview etc). It will also be more flexible, allowing you to go direct in to a camera if you want, and will likely be a withstanding piece in your kit that wont be obsolete when getting another recorder.

Unless you want the digital side of the mixpre-D, I would look into a used original mixpre. The metering is not as good, but sufficient in my opinion (it was a popular mixer for over 10 years after all), and can probably be gotten a bit more cheaply now that the new model is out.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for your input!
The mixpre (d) sounds indeed very convenient for location recording and seems ultimately the best way to go. If I'm lucky I may find a good deal on a used mixpre :)

But let's say that (until I can spare enough to afford the SD :() I have to use a simple power phantom supply like the denecke, could I simply connect the mic out from the denecke to the m10 mic in with a mono xlr to mono mini-jack? Or would I need a high to low impedance transformer cable like this one? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/589872-REG/Pearstone_8111240_LMT100_Low_to.html

And, more generally, would there be any other downsides to go that route except for the convenience of use?
 
I have this same microphone and a Sony PCM-D50. I purchased a Denecke PS-2 which works great with the Sony (my current Denecke has been modded by Richard Crowley here to go unbalanced stereo out - minijack). The quality of the pre-amps are really exceptional on the Sony's and the Denecke phantom power units are very low noise compared to most. So it really comes down to whether or not you feel you need the external mixing pots and hardware levels. The Denecke costs $129. The Mixpre-D is $749. Hmmmm....
 
yoclay said:
I have this same microphone and a Sony PCM-D50. I purchased a Denecke PS-2 which works great with the Sony (my current Denecke has been modded by Richard Crowley here to go unbalanced stereo out - minijack). The quality of the pre-amps are really exceptional on the Sony's and the Denecke phantom power units are very low noise compared to most. So it really comes down to whether or not you feel you need the external mixing pots and hardware levels. The Denecke costs $129. The Mixpre-D is $749. Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info yoclay!
It's good to hear from somebody who's using this setup and seems happy with it!
One more question though if I may: why did you get your denecke moded? Does the output have to be unbalanced in order to work well with the sony? (sorry if this is too much of a noob question...)


tyreeford said:
Hello Milko,

You don't want an impedance transformer.

Get the Deneke.

Get one of these.

Instead of a mixPre ot mixpre-d, consider starting with a Sound Devices 302.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links Ty!
The SD 302 sounds good indeed (a bit pricey for me maybe :)) but do you reckon it would be a better investment for the future instead of a mixpre(d)?
Let's say that for the near future I'm going to use this sound setup for zero to low budget indy features and I won't probably need a 3 channels mixer. From what I've read, the preamps are the same in the mixpre and the 302 so wouldn't the 302 be a bit overkill (for my use)? Or am I missing something else?
I appreciate your help!
 
The 302 is slightly different from the mixpre in many more ways than just an extra preamp. A search here or on google should result in a comparison of the functions between them. If the Digital side of the mixpre-D isn't required, then the 302 is a better and more versatile mixer, but in the end it's a matter of usage and price.
 
Jema said:
The 302 is slightly different from the mixpre in many more ways than just an extra preamp. A search here or on google should result in a comparison of the functions between them. If the Digital side of the mixpre-D isn't required, then the 302 is a better and more versatile mixer, but in the end it's a matter of usage and price.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, thanks! I've just read a bit about the differences between these two units. I didn't know they were 'that different', should have checked before asking, sorry.
 
For M10, I would definitely go for MixPre-D without the least hesitation.

You might already know this, but in case not: You can connect MixPre-D to M10's line-in, and connect M10's line-out back to MixPre-D. You can now monitor both MixPre-D and M10 via a single headphone jack on MixPre-D. You can then use a specially made tripod mount from SD to attach M10 to MixPre-D, thereby combining the 2 devices into a single recording unit.

(If you do use them as a single unit, don't forget pressing the Pause button another time to start recording, and if you leave M10 unattended, keep in mind that M10 can't be locked down in a continuous recording mode as far as I know)



FYI - Why not 302? Some extra in case you don't already know yet


  • 302, though labeled a 3-ch mixer, must mix 3 ch inputs down to at most 2, as it only has 2 outputs. So, just like MixPre-D, 302 can also only let you record up to 2 audio tracks.



  • MixPre-D, though labeld a 2-ch mixer, can accept up to 4 ch inputs despite that it also only has 2 outputs. What it can't do as compared to 302 is that it can only apply preamp, limiter, filter to up to 2 channels (throughout input to output), not 3 of them as 302 can.



  • 302 is not much heavier than MixPre-D, but takes noticeably more bag space (and thus looks as if heavier).



  • For a half day continuous use of MixPre-D, 2x 1850/2000mA rechargeable AAs are enough, but the battery life on 302 seems to be much longer.



  • If you wish to have the 3rd channel support from 302 beyond the capability of MixPre-D, heed the fact that 302 costs $550 more than MixPre-D does at B&H. And for $550, you can certainly afford or almost afford a brand-new 4-, 6-ch or even 8-ch portal field recorder with good preamp, or another field mixer (another MixPre/MixPre-D for instance). Additionally, heed the fact that you at the time only have the need for supporting just 1 mic. Conclusion: I definitely would not go for 302.
  • IMHO, MixPre (original design) is not worth buying any more, unless you can find a very attractive price. 2 relevant features that the original design lacks: 1) tripod mount socket (with it, you can conveniently combine MixPre-D and a DSLR into a single video/audio recording unit) and 2) the capability to connect to a computer as a universal USB preamp/mixer (no software required, purely plug-n-play, at least if you run latest Windows).



  • Also IMHO, buying a simple 1-channel phantom power supply just so as to make M10 work with 1 shotgun mic is at best a temporary solution (with dubious build, mechanical, and audio quality that would not give me much confidence in the long run). Buying MixPre-D is a long-term, possibly life-long, investment (with the highest possible quality that I would ever want in the field). I think a MixPre-D will most likely outlast the use life of a M10.


(Well, if money would indeed be so big an issue, how about trading your expensive mic, if you are its (only) owner, for NTG-3 + MixPre-D? Just a thought.)
 
Thanks a lot for your detailed answer henryqiu! Very helpful indeed!

I wasn't aware of some of the points you made and in my case it'd make sense to go for a unit that is convenient for field recording and future-proof at some point.
Will have to think a bit more about it and, at the end, it'll all depend on my needs I guess...

(At first, I was actually thinking on getting a rode ntg3 with the mixpre but I got a good deal for a used mkh60 so it kind of broke my budget... That's why I was looking for a more affordable option)
 
henryqiu:


  • Also IMHO, buying a simple 1-channel phantom power supply just so as to make M10 work with 1 shotgun mic is at best a temporary solution (with dubious build, mechanical, and audio quality that would not give me much confidence in the long run). Buying MixPre-D is a long-term, possibly life-long, investment (with the highest possible quality that I would ever want in the field). I think a MixPre-D will most likely outlast the use life of a M10.
Click to expand...

Dubious build, mechanical and audio quality? Guess you never used a Denecke PS-2. You could run over these with a tank and they would still probably work. They are legendary. They have better low self noise than almost any phantom power units out there with the possible exception of the one from Core Sound and certainly on a par with the horribly designed XLR1 unit from Sony costing 3x more.

Don't believe me? Listen here:
http://thesoundmyheadmakes.blogspot.com/2011/03/quickie-shootout-744t-vs-pcm-d50-with.html


miiko12 said:
Thanks for the info yoclay!
It's good to hear from somebody who's using this setup and seems happy with it!
One more question though if I may: why did you get your denecke moded? Does the output have to be unbalanced in order to work well with the sony? (sorry if this is too much of a noob question...)
Click to expand...

I got the unit modded so that it goes directly to minijack out for stereo, instead of the Y cable with two male XLR's which typically comes out of the back of the unit. I am speaking about the PS-2 dual/stereo unit, not the one you are looking at. This eliminates too much cabling with an additional Y-adapter cable otherwise also required, allows for interchangeable cable lengths depending on the job and keeps the unit compact. It has been adapted to deal precisely with my needs of going into a portable recorder. The unadapted system could also be used for balanced line-in to many mixers, but I find most mixers today already have phantom power, so it is unneccessary to have a unit like this for that kind of usage. However, the process of going from a dual balanced xlr input to an 1/8" minijack means automatically that there will be a ground issue. What to do with it? That process is known as unbablancing. It doesn't make it work better, it just makes it work.

Here Richard explains what he did:
http://www.rcrowley.com/Denecke/PS2mod.html


Hope that clarifies things.

Again, it all depends on what your needs are. Personally, as a DSLR user with a Juicedlink 454 and this Sony configuration I find my needs are met. I am interested however in the new Fostex RC-302 because if I want to run dual system, have decent pre-amps, a built in recorder, one button for simultaneous recording of audio and video and the possiblity of using a simple off camera mixing unit, it seems like a nice step up. Very likely it is on par with the SD-302 or the Mixpre-D in terms of audio quality and control, but with the additional recording capacity and good DSLR adaptability. But hey, I am sure people will jump all over me for saying that....never mind. Have a listen and judge these things for yourself.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit misguided information. The 302 is, in every way, a much more capable and much more future-proofed device. Not that I don't love my MixPre-D, but the comparison is way off.

henryqiu said:
FYI - Why not 302? Some extra in case you don't already know yet
  • 302, though labeled a 3-ch mixer, must mix 3 ch inputs down to at most 2, as it only has 2 outputs. So, just like MixPre-D, 302 can also only let you record up to 2 audio tracks.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a 3-channel mixer. Just as a 16x2 mixer is a 16-channel mixer. This is about inputs. Why is this a disadvantage? 3 inputs to two outputs is actually a pretty flexible setup.


henryqiu said:
  • MixPre-D, though labeld a 2-ch mixer, can accept up to 4 ch inputs despite that it also only has 2 outputs. What it can't do as compared to 302 is that it can only apply preamp, limiter, filter to up to 2 channels (throughout input to output), not 3 of them as 302 can.
Click to expand...
By using the return on the MixPre-D as an auxiliary input 3&4, you sacrifice return monitoring from your record device. That's a pretty big deal if you want to make the MixPre-D a 4-input mixer.

The 302, on the other hand, has both a stereo return for monitoring AND a mix input for a secondary mixer... such as a MixPre-D... making it a 5-channel mixer.

Again, how is this not advantageous over the MixPre-D? Being able to make the MixPre-D into a 4-channel mixer is an advantage over being able to make the 302 a 5-channel mixer?

henryqiu said:
  • 302 is not much heavier than MixPre-D, but takes noticeably more bag space (and thus looks as if heavier).
Click to expand...
Okay, so it's larger. Actually, the MixPre-D sinks down in my bag, making the controls a little more difficult to access unless I put a block of foam or wood underneath to make it flush with the top of the bag. The 302 does not have this issue.

henryqiu said:
  • For a half day continuous use of MixPre-D, 2x 1850/2000mA rechargeable AAs are enough, but the battery life on 302 seems to be much longer.
Click to expand...
Battery life on the MixPre-D isn't the best. I've been on shoots with mine and have had to change batteries twice in a day.

henryqiu said:
  • If you wish to have the 3rd channel support from 302 beyond the capability of MixPre-D, heed the fact that 302 costs $550 more than MixPre-D does at B&H. And for $550, you can certainly afford or almost afford a brand-new 4-, 6-ch or even 8-ch portal field recorder with good preamp, or another field mixer (another MixPre/MixPre-D for instance). Additionally, heed the fact that you at the time only have the need for supporting just 1 mic. Conclusion: I definitely would not go for 302.
Click to expand...
If you buy only for what you need right now, you won't have room to grow.

Both the MixPre-D and the 302 allow forward compatibility with better recorders later on. However, think about where you want to be in the next couple of years. Do you see yourself involved in projects that need more than one mic? Cost aside, if it's down to either/or, get the 302.


henryqiu said:
  • Also IMHO, buying a simple 1-channel phantom power supply just so as to make M10 work with 1 shotgun mic is at best a temporary solution (with dubious build, mechanical, and audio quality that would not give me much confidence in the long run). Buying MixPre-D is a long-term, possibly life-long, investment (with the highest possible quality that I would ever want in the field). I think a MixPre-D will most likely outlast the use life of a M10.
Click to expand...
This is an important point, except for the comment about quality (there are some fantastic, single-channel pre-amps out there). Though... if you will ever be in a larger scenario where you have a sound mixer and a separate boom op, something like the Sound Devices MM-1 is a good tool to have.

The 302 does more than the MixPre-D, plain and simple. Yes, it costs more, but it is much more flexible in both inputs and outputs and has more finite control over both input and output levels. I love my MixPre-D and have no plans to get rid of it. It's great for small projects, and can be very useful on larger projects. However, there are projects where a 302 is simply the wiser choice.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Dubious build, mechanical and audio quality? Guess you never used a Denecke PS-2. You could run over these with a tank and they would still probably work. They are legendary. They have better low self noise than almost any phantom power units out there with the possible exception of the one from Core Sound and certainly on a par with the horribly designed XLR1 unit from Sony costing 3x more.
Click to expand...

No matter how good it is, it's merely a power supply, and its only usefulness is to power up a mic. If it's an ideal device, then its use won't alter the audio quality in any way. Consider the mic + the power supply to be a single, self-powered mic (with some extra cabling).

With it, the recording chain is: a self-powered mic --> the mic in on M10. The quality of this chain is dubious to me, and I don't have nearly as much confidence in M10's built-in preamp/limiter as I do in MixPre-D. Mechanically, MixPre-D is much easier to monitor and operate.
 
henryqiu said:
No matter how good it is, it's merely a power supply, and its only usefulness is to power up a mic. If it's an ideal device, then its use won't alter the audio quality in any way. Consider the mic + the power supply to be a single, self-powered mic (with some extra cabling).
Click to expand...

The Sound Devices MM-1 has the same pre-amp as the MixPre. While it has no metering, which is a challenge, it does have monitor return input as well.
 
Alex H. said:
This is a bit misguided information. The 302 is, in every way, a much more capable and much more future-proofed device. Not that I don't love my MixPre-D, but the comparison is way off.

....

The 302 does more than the MixPre-D, plain and simple. Yes, it costs more, but it is much more flexible in both inputs and outputs and has more finite control over both input and output levels. I love my MixPre-D and have no plans to get rid of it. It's great for small projects, and can be very useful on larger projects. However, there are projects where a 302 is simply the wiser choice.
Click to expand...

302 is a "much" better device than MixPre-D "in every way"? I don't think so. Far from the truth.

At least, my computers can talk to MixPre-D effortlessly and the build quality of my MixPre-D (such as operating temperature -20 to 60 degree C, and so on) is on par with other SD field devices: at least on these 2 counts 302 is no better at all. MixPre-D does do a few things that 302 doesn't, too. However, I won't delve into more details now, as I'm no longer interested in 302 once I heard MixPre-D announced.

No doubt, almost always we only get what we pay for. So, if there were really little out there to justify the $550 extra cost of 302 as opposed to MixPre-D, then SD wouldn't be able to market it at that price level after MixPre-D was released. But by reading the extra info provided here, I don't really see how anything mentioned here is in conflict with what I wrote earlier. I was intending to provide "some extra" (my original words) information (in case the OP has not already known all this, as I had clearly indicated already), such that nobody would assume that a 3-ch mixer would let one record 3 audio tracks or that a 2-ch mixer would take only 2 inputs, and so on so forth. What's wrong with that? Did I have to provide a comprehensive comparison?


However, even with all the information combined, for pairing with a recorder like M10, I would still go for MixPre-D without the least hesitation.


It's okay if someone believes my those "some extra" comments were "way off" (note: as clearly indicated, I didn't even intend to do a comphrensive comparison). Personally, I don't think the $550 extra cost of 302 is justifiable and don't consider 302 to be a better device (it's merely a different old design for similar purposes). However, though it's nice to ask OP to give 302 a thought, recommending 302 against MixPre-D would be way off from the need and reality as described by OP. Of course, with due respect, this is just my own opinion. Please feel free to disagree.

If I didn't make myself clear enough already, again here is why (Note: no matter how much 302 is better than MixPre-D, the following are just facts):

1) The real need (at least at the time of this writing) is to support just 1 shotgun mic and 1 2-ch $200 recorder.

A simple phantom power supply is already enough. A 1-ch preamp with phantom support is more than enough. MixPre-D is already doubly more than enough. And 302 is more than doubly enough.

2) The extra cost of 302 as compared to that of a simple power supply or a 1- or 2-ch preamp/mixer is hefty.

If the OP goes for 302, it'll be like buying extra features for a hefty extra cost that are not being needed or used at all (and thus money wasted). If the OP does not go for 302, the saving (at least $550 or more) will be roughly enough to buy 1 or 2 4-ch recorders, or another 2-ch field preamp/mixer from SD. Or even a brand-new 8-ch field recorder DR 680 ($645 at B&H website), which supports up to 6 audio inputs with phantom power, has good preamp on each of those channels, and can record all of them onto separate audio tracks and/or internally mix them down into 2 extra tracks. Of course, none of the devices is perfect - feel free to point out the cons of owning any one of them.

3) Becoming a (more) professional audio person does take some time learning and practicing.

If that's true, how long would you expect it to take for the OP's need to actually outgrow the capability of a 1-ch power supply, that of a 1-ch preamp, and that of a MixPre-D? If the OP's audio need grows a lot, the next top-priority upgrade would most likely be on the recorder part. And when even a MixPre-D is barely enough, a > $550 saving today will give OP a better position when time comes to deciding what's the next best step up when more audio experience and beter understanding have already been acquired.

4) Assuming MixPre-D will be no longer good enough in the future, nobody can be sure at this time, the year of 2012, that OP, years later, will only need a mixer to support up to 3 mic/line-level inputs.

Why not 4, 8, or more mics? Should OP spend 1000s of $$ on an expensive SD mixer/recorder NOW, just so as to be "future-proof"? The "perceived" need for supporting up to 3 audio inputs (no more, no less) is merely speculation at the time. A buy decision based on pure speculation is no better than gambling.

However, feel free to recommend 302 or a simple power supply.


= My own experience:

The OP's current situation is about the same as I once faced earlier. I was once torn between MixPre (original design) and 302 (as well as between them and an old $1800 SD unit, which was out of production later), when I suddenly heard MixPre-D officially announced. I pre-ordered a MixPre-D and never looked at 302 or MixPre again.

MixPre-D is 1-generation better than 302 or MixPre. For up to 2-ch preamp/mixing needs outside (or even in) a studio environment, I really can't imagine what else one'd ever need that can't be found from MixPre-D (with the right accessories such as cables, of course).

I bought my M10 for just 1 main purpose of turning MixPre-D into a standalone, portable recording unit with a 3-4+ hour continuous running time on a full charge. It's about 3 times the price of a ZOOM H4n, which has about the same capabilities. But the extra cost is justified with the peace of mind in the equipment.

If I do need multiple channel support, neither MixPre-D nor M10 nor 302 will be enough. I do want/need separate tracks, so 302 will not be good enough to me whenever and wherever MixPre-D is not good enough (it'd be good to be an expensive backup unit though). The truth is: if I use 302 to support 3 mics (or inputs), at least 2 of the 3 channels will have to be irrevocably altered, which may be acceptable to some or for some time, but not to me all the time. If I use 302 to support 1 or 2 mics, I'd rather use a smaller, much cheaper MixPre-D, as it won't let me lose anything that matters. Additionally, for computer recording, MixPre-D is a nice (albeit expensive) way to go.
 
yoclay said:
I got the unit modded so that it goes directly to minijack out for stereo, instead of the Y cable with two male XLR's which typically comes out of the back of the unit. I am speaking about the PS-2 dual/stereo unit, not the one you are looking at. This eliminates too much cabling with an additional Y-adapter cable otherwise also required, allows for interchangeable cable lengths depending on the job and keeps the unit compact. It has been adapted to deal precisely with my needs of going into a portable recorder. The unadapted system could also be used for balanced line-in to many mixers, but I find most mixers today already have phantom power, so it is unneccessary to have a unit like this for that kind of usage. However, the process of going from a dual balanced xlr input to an 1/8" minijack means automatically that there will be a ground issue. What to do with it? That process is known as unbablancing. It doesn't make it work better, it just makes it work.

Here Richard explains what he did:
http://www.rcrowley.com/Denecke/PS2mod.html


Hope that clarifies things.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link and the explanation! I think I understand now!


Many helpful comments here with pros and cons, personal experience, etc. It's very helpful and informative! Thanks a lot for that!
Not 100% sure yet but I think I'll to try and find a good deal on a used Mixpre-d or Mixpre (as I already have an Apogee Duet for my computer sound interface) and if I can't, I'll just get a Denecke ps-1a for now.
For the time being, I'm putting aside the SD 302 as I probably won't need all its functionalities in the near future. And maybe in a few years, when I'll need a more "complete" mixer, I'm going to buy one (hoping money won't be much of a problem then:))

Oh, and something I maybe should have mentioned but where I live (Switzerland), Sound Devices units are much more expensive than in the US and BHphotovideo doesn't accept to ship it here ("due to manufacturers restrictions")
Just for example, the SD mixpre-d costs around $1100 and the 302 $1800 !!!

Anyway... thanks again to everybody for chiming in! It's been very helpful!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top