Recorder v Mixer

[Richard Crowley]

Thanks.
So, the Zoom F4 (and I guess also the F8) isn't/aren't a replacement for an analog mixer with analog limiters.

There are probably SOME applications where the digital limiting function in the F4 and F8 would be adequate. But I would rather have a REAL analog control of things like input sensitivity/gain, limiting, etc. Especially if I were doing a wide variety of things where one doesn't know what to expect nexe.

 

[graywolf]

Thanks.
So, the Zoom F4 (and I guess also the F8) isn't/aren't a replacement for an analog mixer with analog limiters.

One thing to think about, if you do not run your gain at the ragged edge, and leave a bit of head room, it probably does not matter that much. If you run with the limiter light flashing, you really do need an analog limiter on the pre-amp input.

As usual, it is more a case of knowing your equipment, and how to use it for best results, than what equipment you have.

 

[OzGizmo]

In recent times I find it interesting that people will comment on a piece of gear (critically and opinionated) without it even being released....
Poor form people....

You wouldn't comment on a movie or a book in the same terms prior to its release so why audio gear?

 

[Richard Crowley]

You wouldn't comment on a movie or a book in the same terms prior to its release so why audio gear?

You apparently don't follow movie or book discussions in recent years.

 

[Joshua_G]

There are probably SOME applications where the digital limiting function in the F4 and F8 would be adequate. But I would rather have a REAL analog control of things like input sensitivity/gain, limiting, etc. Especially if I were doing a wide variety of things where one doesn't know what to expect nexe.

One thing to think about, if you do not run your gain at the ragged edge, and leave a bit of head room, it probably does not matter that much. If you run with the limiter light flashing, you really do need an analog limiter on the pre-amp input.

As usual, it is more a case of knowing your equipment, and how to use it for best results, than what equipment you have.

Thank, both of you.
I should rephrase my statement:
The Zoom F4 (and I guess also the F8) isn't/aren't a replacement for an analog mixer with analog limiters in many situations where a proper limiter is called for.

 

[graywolf]

Thank, both of you.
I should rephrase my statement:
The Zoom F4 (and I guess also the F8) isn't/aren't a replacement for an analog mixer with analog limiters in many situations where a proper limiter is called for.

Actually, I think they are more recorders with some mixing functions, rather than mixers with some recording functions like, say, a SD 633. You can also know up front that they are not going to be bullet proof. But how many of use are going to haul it through war zones, natural disasters, and the far reaches of wild county, and really need it to be bullet proof?

What I see in the F4 is a recorder with those mixer functions, plus a 4 channel computer audio interface. More and more it looks like it will fit my needs/usage perfectly, as well as I can tell with out a hands on review available. If $650 was pocket change for me, I would pre-order one. However it is not pocket change for me, so some thinking, planning, and saving is in order.

 

[IronFilm]

Here is the link where I found the guy writing about modifying the FP42 into a ENG mixer:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.movies.production.sound/2009-10/msg00587.html

Shure apparently considered the FP42 as a Field Mixer (AC/Battery). There is also a couple of posts in that same thread from a guy who worked for SD. Apparently the Mixpre (FP24) was designed by him when he worked for Shure. He also designed the FP33. Seems like there was a somewhat incestuous relationship between Shure and SD.

Interesting stuff you come across when you are looking at real old posts. Especially, old newsgroup posts.

Ohhhhhhh.............. that is very helpful! I might keep an eye out for some Shure gear now ;-)

Also handy knowledge:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=170131.msg2111975#msg2111975

I have 2 of the Shure FP33 mixers and have found them to be great little mixers, but i feel the Sound Devices is just a little higher in quality.

Shure made a....
FP21 = Sound Devices Mix Pre
FP31 = 3 inputs to 1 output mono (portable)
FP41 = 4 inputs to 1 output mono (desk top)
FP32 = 3 input to 2 outputs stereo (portable) poor s/n, phantom power is not 48v
FP32A = 3 inputs to 2 outputs stereo (portable) better s/n, phantom power is not 48v
FP33= 3 inputs to 2 outputs stereo (portable) good s/n, phantom power IS 48v selectable.
Used by TV crews for many years worldwide, reliable good small mixer.
FP42 = 4 inputs to 2 outputs stereo (desk top) ...... the one you have.
+ many other mixers also with similar numbering.

And why do the early Sound Devices look like / have similar function to the Shure mixers?..... Several of the Shure design / manufacture engineers left to make their own company....Sound Devices.

So Shure mixers will most times be just a little less in price than the equivalent SD mixer. With the announcement of the Zoom F4 and when it comes to market it should drop the price on second hand mixers as well.

I predict (and this is just a personal prediction) the FP33 on the second hand market will be about 50-60% of the new price of the F4. The SD302 will be about the same price as the F4.

Cheers for the summary!

 

[IronFilm]

Thanks.
So, the Zoom F4 (and I guess also the F8) isn't/aren't a replacement for an analog mixer with analog limiters.

If it really really really really matters, then you're also being paid enough to justify buying a Sound Devices 688 instead.

For many practical purposes, the Zoom F4 can replace a mixer if you want the weight/cost savings.

I'm sorry but get some perspective. A good field recorder cost over $10,000 not very long ago. Last year the cheapest multi track field recorder would have been the DR-680, with no time code, one track at a time level setting and really bad battery life, 4 XLR ins and a higher price tag.

What actually compares to the F4? other than the 680 you have to hit some of the SD products in the $5K range. So you can say anything you want about Zoom, my personal experience doesn't incline me to trust in their quality, but "pricey" is not a complaint till you can find something comparable at less than 5X the price.

You can say "over my budget", but not pricey. I paid more for my MixPre, the F8 is less than a microphone in the upper mid price range. The F4 is slated to cost less than most peoples boom mic.

Agreed, to get some perspective on this I have:
Sound Devices 522 (though a 442 would do the trick here too) + Tascam DR680
http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/

Prior the the Zoom F8 (and now F4) there was nothing cheaper!!

And I'm planning to next year "upgrade" to an F4(or F8).

Because yes, I suspect in day to day usage I'd find it preferable over my current bulky clunky combo of 552+DR680.

In short, the Zoom F4 is crazy cheap for what it does!

But if that is out of your reach, just get a Tascam DR60D mk2 or DR70D instead and be happy with it As they too are insanely cheap (US$135 or sub US$200 is what I've seen them respectively on sale for, brand new), and offer a tremendous amount of bang for your buck.

 

[Noiz2]

Here is the link where I found the guy writing about modifying the FP42 into a ENG mixer:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.movies.production.sound/2009-10/msg00587.html

Shure apparently considered the FP42 as a Field Mixer (AC/Battery). There is also a couple of posts in that same thread from a guy who worked for SD. Apparently the Mixpre (FP24) was designed by him when he worked for Shure. He also designed the FP33. Seems like there was a somewhat incestuous relationship between Shure and SD.

Interesting stuff you come across when you are looking at real old posts. Especially, old newsgroup posts.

:~) I know Philip! I'm too far away now or I would go over and take a look at it. small world.

Cheers
SK

 

[OzGizmo]

You have to realise that a definition on 'field mixer' many years ago would actually mean 'NON studio mixer' and if a studio mixer was the size a table then anything that could be carried would be the field version.
The Nagra 7" recorders were also regarded as portable, not that you would call it that these days.

 

[Joshua_G]

If it really really really really matters, then you're also being paid enough to justify buying a Sound Devices 688 instead.

For many practical purposes, the Zoom F4 can replace a mixer if you want the weight/cost savings.

Agreed, to get some perspective on this I have:
Sound Devices 522 (though a 442 would do the trick here too) + Tascam DR680
http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/

Prior the the Zoom F8 (and now F4) there was nothing cheaper!!

And I'm planning to next year "upgrade" to an F4(or F8).
…

Not exactly so.

First, when no quality limiters are needed, indeed, the Zoom F4 ($649.99) will do, as well as the Tascam DR-701D ($519.99) will do.

However, when quality analog limiters ARE needed, there are options which aren't as expansive as the Sound Devices 688 ($5,749) or the Sound Devices 522 ($3,399), (the Sound Devices 442 is out of production).

One such option may be, for 4 channels mixing, the TW-LP4S ($630): http://www.ebay.com/itm/TW-LP4S-ENG...587161?hash=item3d261f3f99:g:GYoAAOSw8w1X7-mL ;

Or for 6 channels mixing, the TW-LP462 (GPB 540, which equals about $732): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...es_552_552_Portable_5_Channel_Production.html ;

Each with a quality portable recorder, like the Tascam DR-60DmkII ($179.99) or the Tascam DR-70D ($259.99).

"upgrade"[/I] to an F4(or F8).
…

I fail to see the benefit of the Zoom F4 ($649.99) over the Tascam DR-701D ($519.99). The benefit of the Tascam over the Zoom is that the Tascam has also HDMI input which can sync the recorded audio with the timecode coming from the camera. DSLRs don't have a dedicated BNC timecode out.

Because yes, I suspect in day to day usage I'd find it preferable over my current bulky clunky combo of 552+DR680.
…

To avoid bulk, at the cost of digital limiters, which are better be avoided, indeed, the Zoom or the Tascam are preferred.

 

[graywolf]

You have to realise that a definition on 'field mixer' many years ago would actually mean 'NON studio mixer' and if a studio mixer was the size a table then anything that could be carried would be the field version.
The Nagra 7" recorders were also regarded as portable, not that you would call it that these days.

Portable means it can be picked up and carried from point to point. Mobile means it can be used in motion. Field connotes it can be used away from AC power.

One of my pet peeves: The English language has lots and lots of words, very few of them mean exactly the same thing despite what teachers tell kids. Then again it is a live language and meanings change, often deliberately. Sigh.

 

[Noiz2]

To avoid bulk, at the cost of digital limiters, which are better be avoided, indeed, the Zoom or the Tascam are preferred.

I would actually disagree on many of you points.

First, when no quality limiters are needed, indeed, the Zoom F4 ($649.99) will do, as well as the Tascam DR-701D ($519.99) will do.

These first two are at least partially incorrect. The F4/8 does not have bad "quality" limiters it has digital ones. So there are some limitations on what they can deal with, BUT from what I have seen and heard they do an excellent job with what they can deal with.

I fail to see the benefit of the Zoom F4 ($649.99) over the Tascam DR-701D ($519.99). The benefit of the Tascam over the Zoom is that the Tascam has also HDMI input which can sync the recorded audio with the timecode coming from the camera. DSLRs don't have a dedicated BNC timecode out.

Here you fall in to the "what I do everyone does" trap. HDMI is semi useful for folks doing DSLR shoots. But Zoom is aiming at a professional market and hardly anybody doing DSLR shoots is paying the crew a living wage so not really the market they are aiming at. IF you are working on a set where everyone is making a good living IF you need TC you need BNC connectors. You also need to be able to generate TC because a lot of the cameramen will expect you to provide the signal they will jam to. And the DR-701D TC drifts like a ship with out a rudder. So except when it's constantly jammed with HDMI TC it is not going to stay in sync.

Back to the limiter. How many channels do you actually need? If you are doing film work two would probably be the max since past stereo (for FX recording) everything is probably going to be wireless. Your wireless sets either have limiting or will crap out before you clip on input to the recorder (if you have set them up correctly). Lectrosonics have the limiter built is, I'm not sure about Sennheiser but probably also true). The mic pre is in the transmitter so that is where your analog limiter would have to be.

So an F4/8 with a MixPre has you covered for 99% of the time. The original MixPre and the 442 are indeed no longer produced, which means they can be had at a better price!

And I would add that I am a fan of Tascam and not one of Zoom. I really wish the F4/8 were Tascam products, I probably would already own one. I have held off because I don't trust Zoom and want to see more reports from real field experiences. So far what I have seen has been almost all positive, discounting some early firmware glitches.

 

[OzGizmo]

The Tascam DR-701D has a 3.5mm output NOT a balanced output.
3.5mm connections are NOT suitable for broadcast work as a main program output.......... EVER

 

[Joshua_G]

What are you going to use the output for? It's a recorder with built in mixer, not a stand-alone mixer.

 

[nosys70]

why not the zoom H6 ?

 

[Noiz2]

What are you going to use the output for? It's a recorder with built in mixer, not a stand-alone mixer.

To feed the camera. Even low budget films want you to be able to feed the camera. For non production sound work you generally don't need the output but for production work almost always.

 

[Noiz2]

why not the zoom H6 ?

For what? It's a hand held recorder.

So this is another "depends on what you are doing" situations. I personally don't see a use for more than two tracks (or maybe two and two safety tracks) in a hand held recorder. You really shouldn't be doing complex set ups or production with one. The form factor is awkward and you don't have enough display and control. Not that it can't or hasn't been done but it's not the right tool for the job.

 

[OzGizmo]

What are you going to use the output for? It's a recorder with built in mixer, not a stand-alone mixer.

Im using the output to feed camera / s for Broadcast or training video production so it MUST be +4 out to match SNG / ENG trucks / links. Or feeding the output into a Media DA splitter to feed other broadcasters with press / sporting conference interviews.

Currently using SD 442 or Shure FP33 or SQN 4 channel mixer often there will be a need to do a recording for radio news broadcasts etc.
Often split the tracks L / R to feed the cameras for post production, or voice on L and Fx on R for live TV broadcasts.

So why not use 4 of the SD664 one for each kit?....... Just do the numbers $$$$$$$
Or Zoom F8's ..... No XLR outputs (just flying leads) or return audio monitoring
Virtually all of the Tascam range.... (not suitable)
Zoom H6?..... are you kidding me, anyone that even has a thought like that hasn't been in the industry for more than a few short moments.

The Zoom F4 'seems' to tick ALL the boxes for cost, versatility, size and weight...... Just waiting to see on its release

 

[Rick R]

The F8 has bal. line out via mini XLR (TA3) connectors. Unfortunately they are -10dB (DUH). I don't know about the F4, but it's probably the same. Both F4 & F8 front pots can be switched between record gain and fader.