recommendations on a field mixer

J

john deaver

Well-known member
Hey folks


I'm shooting weddings mostly and have not been satisfied with my audio during ceremonies as of late.

i changed cameras (from XH A1's to HMC-150) and altho the new cameras will record good enough quality audio the controls on the camera are abysmal and some of the functions are in the menu which is just ridiculously hard to do while rolling. i would also like to be able to use additional sources as well (mic the musicians for example) so... I would like to pre-mix everything before it goes to the camera and get it right on the front end and not mess with it on the back end.

i need about 4 channels of XLR input and at least two TRS inputs (for some theater stuff i do it would come in handy) or perhaps utilize those weird combo XLR jacks with the TRS jacks down the middle.

individual input Line/mic selection
individual phantom
prefer sliders over knobs
LED or needle VU meter
battery operated
XLR out (at both line and mic would be nice)
Headphone jack

any suggestions?

I'm flexible on all the above criteria if it will get the job done.
would like to not break the bank but i will pay for a quality piece.

As far as form factor goes some i see online are small boxes with knobs and jacks on all 6 sides and some are more "mixer" shaped and again i don't have a preference as long as it is small-ish

is there a "go-to" mixer for this type of stuff. The Stratocaster of mixers if you get my meaning.

Thanks in advance
john
 
This is a huge world you're about to enter, and there's no single good answer for you.

A few things to consider:

First, you're really better off splitting everything out. Record your sources separately when and if at all possible. Being stuck with a mix if something goes wrong (and it will) is going to make you say some very-not-nice things while you edit. You have a lot of sources. If you are running two cameras, you have 4 record channels. If you are strapped for record channels, at least try to group sources together and split them out so that you have some editing decision later. Adding an external audio recorder can also add tons of flexibility, though it requires syncing sound to picture in post.

Second, do you have some one to mix for you while you shoot? That's a lot to try to do while also operating a camera, and adding a complex mixer, much less a simple one, is going to stretch you very thin.

Portability and remote operation are two important factors. How much freedom of movement do you need? Should it fit in a bag? On a shoulder strap? Be battery-operated? Field mixers made for video/film production are battery-operated and can fit on a cart, on a desk, or in an audio bag. Sound Devices makes a really nice 4-input, the 442. This is probably your best bet. You could even look at one of their 4- or 8-track field recorders.

But if you want more inputs and more mixing capability, that would require a desk-top mixer. Behringers are cheap... they don't cost much, either. I'd also steer away from Mackie/Tapco. For small-format analog consoles, the Soundcraft M-series mixers are very nice. If you want to go digital, Allen & Heath, Alesis, Yamaha and Tascam make some consoles that offer USB or FireWire interface, so you can use the mixer to record multi-track to your computer as well. The downside to these mixers: AC only, no battery option.

And don't forget good headphones.

Last, you are again getting into something that can stretch you way too thin and can leave you with something you regret in post. The more compex your audio setup, the more need you have for a dedicated sound engineer/recordist.
 
Field mixers are going to set you back substantially more than a music mixer with the same number of channels. Any chance you could give a little more guidance on budget?
 
You're not going to find a good review of Azden gear around here.

Forgive me for being blunt, but it has to be said: If $500 is your budget, just go look at music mixers.

For a good field mixer with the features you're after, you're looking at more the $500+ per channel range.

PSC and Wendt both have 4-channel mixers around $1800. The Sound Devices 442 is pretty much the 'go-to mixer' you're asking about, and it's $2500. Those are just some bagable mixers, if you want a console style board, add another zero.

So, that said, there are a ton of music mixers in your price range with many of the features you're after.

If you're absolutely set on that price point, with portability and battery power, I guess you can look at PSC's DV-Promix line, or maybe Sign's ENG-44. Those are more pro-sumer level options.

As C2V said, if you're trying to one-man-band it all, everything is going to suffer, basically just re-read everything he said so I don't have to type it up again :)
 
ok guys

so after doing more reserch and taking ya'lls thoughts into consideration i have a few more questions

i do like the idea of a field mixer over a desktop unit but the prices on desktop units make them considerably more atractive

I have used a Behringer and mackie small form factor mixers before and liked them both but the "eurorack" Behringer i used at my old job is discontinued and i'm finding it hard to find another one with individual channel phantom that is small enough to be used on location with battery operation.

so i am back to looking at field mixers..

what am i giving up with a sub $1000 (from azden, ATI, Rolls, PSC) unit as opposed to a the SD 442

sound quality, features, build quality, all of the above?

and BTW these are at least two camera shoots, and the camera at the rear is largely stationary so that guy will become the sound guy.


thanks

john
 
So you are using two cameras? That means you have four record channels. I'd split everything out, since you're still looking at a camera op doubling as production mixer. As long as both cameras keep running and both ops keep their headphones on, you have everything covered and can mix the four sources in post. And if you are in a place that has a house system, I'd try to get a board feed to one record channel... that should cover the clergy and the readings. You then have three channels for groom (groom mic placed properly can cover both bride and groom for vows), ambience/room mic (near the back), and one near the musicians.

Cheaper field mixers mean less effective limiters, noisier pre-amps/less-than-clean sound, and lesser build quality. Some times you can find a good deal on a better, used mixer. But unless you have some one who is skilled at using one, it's another potential for something to go wrong.

And again, I'd rather have iso channels for post than to be stuck with a mix that I cannot change. Working with audio in the field, I try to split out as much as I can when we record. Even if it's just two folks on one camera, they record to separate channels. My job isn't really to "mix" them as much as it is to get them recorded properly and cleanly.

And if four channels won't cover it, a well-placed stereo mic near the musicians feeding a Zoom H4n where it can be controlled/monitored can free up that fourth camera record channel.

Just as a side note, iso channels aren't just for small shoots. Even on studio gigs I've worked with 4 DBeta decks running (program and three camera isos), each deck has four record channels. And while the program deck has the stereo and M&E splits for network delivery, the record channels on the camera isos have everything split out just in case we have to change something in post.
 
Last edited:
I've been doing weddings for some time now. in fact i have recently gone full time with this business.

in many ways how i have done things in the past is very much how you describe. iso recorded channels where one ambient mic feeds channel 1 camera 1; the grooms mic feeds channel 2 camera 1; the on-board mic feeds cam 2 audio channels 1 and 2 at different levels (one hot one low) or takes a line from the church/chapel's board.

I have done Lots of weding this way and to date have had zero complants. But.... i think it can sound better.

I'm after cleaner audio, that requires less work in post to make perfect.

As i stated in the first post my main problem is that the volume controls on my camera are hard to adjust, furthermore they almost can't be adjusted with accuracy by people with normal sized hands, and even if you could you can't without shaking the camera which is bad for us. so i really feel like i need the controls off camera. I can set the camera to line level input ( that should eliminate the cameras cheap preamps correct) and control the volume (which will change for each input constantly as the ceremony goes on) and send the ambient mic (plus a 2nd ambient close to the band) to one channel and the grooms mic to the other.

so it wont be exactly iso records but it will be more control over the stuff i've got

the second camera can serve as a backup

And i would love to have the SD 442 but i shoot 3 weddings a weekend and right now $8000 ain't in the budget.

here is a pointed question is a inexpensive field mixer 80% as good as a top of the line? thats how it works out with video cameras. i have a $700 handicam that in the right light shoots 80% as good as any $3000 camera. it just so happens that most of the time i shoot in low light and thats really where the $700 camera falls short.

so from a value perspective which way should i go. is $2500 worth it.

thanks
John

PS if i have learned one thing doing weddings is never trust the sound guy who works at the church. they mix for the room not for your audio and most of them are volunteers who have no idea what they are doing, when i take a feed from them i do so only from the handful i have worked with before at some of our areas churches that are large enough to hire a pro.
 
john deaver said:
in many ways how i have done things in the past is very much how you describe. iso recorded channels where one ambient mic feeds channel 1 camera 1; the grooms mic feeds channel 2 camera 1; the on-board mic feeds cam 2 audio channels 1 and 2 at different levels (one hot one low) or takes a line from the church/chapel's board.
Click to expand...

If the second camera is recording both channels from the on-bard mic, those are really two record channels wasted. You're only using one wireless (groom), one decent ambient mic, and then the on-cam mic. You have two mics and three record channels covering roomy sound, and only one direct source. I'd add a wireless to the priest/pastor if nothing else.

So your issue of better sound really comes down to increasing your mics and mic placement within those four available channels, not trying to mix more things together to one or two channels for a recorded mix.

Trust me... being stuck with a mix in post is a move you will regret. That said, the easier solution for you might be to get two SD MixPre boxes. These are two-channel mixers, really dual pre-amps, that will eliminate the need for the camera preamps and give you audio control away from the camera. The MixPre can also be worn on a shoulder strap and won't require so much mixing control as to be a huge distraction from operating the camera.

This solution will still leave you with two sources per camera, but it still gets you where you want to go. And if that's not quite enough, get a MixPre and a 302. With the SD 302 on one camera, you'll have three inputs and can combine two sources to one record channel and iso the other. Be aware, though, that adding even a three-input mixer starts to get into all the "stretched too thin" issues that I and others have talked about here.

Yeah, churches unfortunately often have know-nothing volunteers running their sound systems. And yes, folks working church install systems, like any other live venue, mix for the room... but spoken word is much less volatile than live music when it comes to recording the board feed. If you use that only for clergy, lectern, and pulpit, you'll be fine. That assumes, of course, that you have a clean feed that you've calibrated properly.

I also want to restate the addition of a small recorder, like the H4n, with a stereo mic (cable run to locate the recorder close to you) to cover choir or musicians. That adds two record channels for a total of six, and gives you much better coverage of the church space for the ceremony.
 
Last edited:
you don't need to spend the money on a Sound Devices 442. The SQN 4s is a great mixer that can feed two cameras, it's more simple and it's not as complete as 442 but have better pre-amps and it's very durable. You can find those used under $1000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top