Shooping A Field Mixer

P

percoplus

Active member
I am a videographer doing more work with bands, recording them in various showrooms and clubs. I currently have two camcorders - Canon XHA1s, a Zoom H4n, and a M-Audio Microtrack II. With all of those I can record a max total of ten tracks, not that I ever will. On gigs, I usually try to get a line feed from the house soundboard (whatever I can get). I have two condenser mics that I can point at the stage.

What I don't have is a way to effectively monitor what I am recording. To make matters worse, I work alone for now, manning two cameras and recording sound.

I have no experience with field mixers. I have used a small Xenyx 802 mixer on gigs, but it's not portable and only has a single stereo out.

I am wondering if and how a field mixer might help me. I have been reading the forums and reviews on the various models, but I have not seen one in action. I think a 4 track might be a good starting point, but which ones offer the most versatility and preserve multiple outs to the recorder/s? How would I configure it?

Pricewise, I would hope under $1k but I may be dreaming.
 
A mixer, kind of by definition, takes multiple audio channels such as mics and mixes them down to stereo or even mono. But in many of the better mixers the individual channel inputs also have post-fader, post-equalizer, direct outputs as well as sending their signals to the main mix bus. On my Sound Devices 442, for example, I can run 4 mics at once. I can take a direct out from each input channel and feed it to a track in a multitrack recorder, giving me an isolated track for each mic plus I can take a mixed stereo output from the main outs and send it to a camera's audio inputs for a scratch track or for dailys. As far as doing that un a battery powered field mixer under $1000, not very likely. The current version of my 442 is the 552 ... you gain another channel but it will set you back something on the order of $3000.
 
Okay here are my 2cents. Use a firewire mixer like Alesis Multimix 8, 12 or 16 or Mackie onyx 8i, 12i or 16i along with a macbook and a program called BoomRecorder. This will allow you to record anywhere from 1 to 128 channels at one time. You will be able to record multiples of each track. You can set the recording level at varing decibels lower. Thus allowing you a safety net if something happens to peak on one other channel.

If you have a macbook/ macbook pro all you would need is the BoomRecorder program http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/ and a good firewire mixer as i mentioned above. For other firewire interfaces that work with the program look at the compatability link on the BoomRecorder site.

The reason I suggest this setup is that you can't manage 2 ameras and mixer at once. It is easier to set this up and walk away and come to check on it throughout the event. Better yet after you set the program up and start start the recording process you can have someone can watch this program while you watch the cameras.
 
Since you are just using it for monitoring, you want to be able to power some mics, preview individual channels, and so on. There's lots of inexpensive mixers that will do that. The question is, do you want a digital mixer, with a laptop recording setup, or an analog mixer, with a dedicated recording box. Then you have to decide whether battery power is what you want, or whether you will always be near an outlet. Or both, and so on. There's so many products, you really need to narrow it down to what you need now, and what the upgrade path is, if any. SD makes good recorders, but there are many options. I normally don't *absolutely* need more than four mics, so an edirol is fine, or even a zoom. I'd rather have an edirol and some really nice mics than an expensive field mixer, but, hey, I'd rather have all of them.
Now, budget "basically analog" mixers, there is the Behringer UBB1002 which has phantom power, and can be battery or ac powered. I actually like some of Behringer stuff, but, hey, it is under $100.
Another cheapo is the Edirol M-10MX--no phantom power, but a slick digital option built in. There really are a lot of choices.
For digital mixing, I use RME, but there are a ton of good, cheap mixer plus recording interfaces out there for under $600 and some are in the $400 range.
Again, it depends on what you want it for. And, in general, more $$$ buys you better sound quality. The Edirol 4 track flash recorder is not a mixer, but it is very handy. And the Zooms are great for the money.
 
I'm guessing the approach you describe below regarding multiple tracks at varying record levels it to help avoid digital clipping. That makes sense. However, unless you're splitting the signal prior to the preamps, it will not address overloading the input.

I'll do some research on the alesis multimix. Sounds like a handy tool.

Cedric Akins said:
Okay here are my 2cents. Use a firewire mixer like Alesis Multimix 8, 12 or 16 or Mackie onyx 8i, 12i or 16i along with a macbook and a program called BoomRecorder. This will allow you to record anywhere from 1 to 128 channels at one time. You will be able to record multiples of each track. You can set the recording level at varing decibels lower. Thus allowing you a safety net if something happens to peak on one other channel.

If you have a macbook/ macbook pro all you would need is the BoomRecorder program http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/ and a good firewire mixer as i mentioned above. For other firewire interfaces that work with the program look at the compatability link on the BoomRecorder site.

The reason I suggest this setup is that you can't manage 2 ameras and mixer at once. It is easier to set this up and walk away and come to check on it throughout the event. Better yet after you set the program up and start start the recording process you can have someone can watch this program while you watch the cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the intereseting idea on the firewire interface. I actually picked up a MOTU 8Pre interface a while back. Nice tool, but I don't have a laptop to connect it to, yet. seems like I could probably get a Macbook for the price of a mixer, and then some. I have been on the fence with switching to a Mac for some time. I do everything else on a pc.

That said, it seems a good field mixer would outlive a computer, and would keep me portable.Tough choices ahead.
 
gpforet said:
I'm guessing the approach you describe below regarding multiple tracks at varying record levels it to help avoid digital clipping. That makes sense. However, unless you're splitting the signal prior to the preamps, it will not address overloading the input.

I'll do some research on the alesis multimix. Sounds like a handy tool.
Click to expand...
There is no need to split the signal before the preamps. It is routed digitally. If you over load the signal at the preamp then you will need to adjust the input volume. Once you have the volume set at the proper level then you will need to adjust it to keep from clipping and the other optional cahnnels can be set via the program to keep from clipping.
 
I understand. It is common practice in location recording to split the signal before the preamps in order to set each input gain independently. That way, you have one preamp running at high gain to capture the nuances of a soft signal, and another set for lower gain to capture the really hot stuff without overloading the input pres.

Splitting after the signal is coverted does not offer this insurance.

Cedric Akins said:
There is no need to split the signal before the preamps. It is routed digitally. If you over load the signal at the preamp then you will need to adjust the input volume. Once you have the volume set at the proper level then you will need to adjust it to keep from clipping and the other optional cahnnels can be set via the program to keep from clipping.
Click to expand...
 
gpforet said:
I understand. It is common practice in location recording to split the signal before the preamps in order to set each input gain independently. That way, you have one preamp running at high gain to capture the nuances of a soft signal, and another set for lower gain to capture the really hot stuff without overloading the input pres.

Splitting after the signal is coverted does not offer this insurance.
Click to expand...

Only nimrods and people that aren't sound mixers do this. Usually people operating a video camera without a sound mixer do this.
 
I've been called worse. But if I've got only one chance at getting the sound, and I have the channel available, then I'll be the nimrod, rather than think I can predict transient level spikes and react quicker than the signal hits the pre. This has been the case with fight scenes where the words spoken were whispered under their breath, interspersed with shouting.

But seriously, my point was that if the pre is hit too hard, then splitting it downline after conversion will not undo the harm done.

BRH said:
Only nimrods and people that aren't sound mixers do this. Usually people operating a video camera without a sound mixer do this.
Click to expand...
 
Nimrod

Nimrod

BRH said:
Only nimrods and people that aren't sound mixers do this. Usually people operating a video camera without a sound mixer do this.
Click to expand...
Then I suspect that there are many "nimrods" here by your definition. Nice to hear that you work in such a perfect world that you have adequate resources and time to do everything right. Must be nice.
 
BRH said:
Only nimrods and people that aren't sound mixers do this. Usually people operating a video camera without a sound mixer do this.
Click to expand...

Nimrod was a nice, and weird looking pipe lighter. Do you actually think pipe lighters can operate a video camera?

The one true thing about all sweeping proclamations like that is that they are always wrong.

I find it simply amazing the number of major films who have had their production sound done by "people that aren't sound mixers". I'll have to tell them to turn in their guild card.
 
So far, the Edirol R-44 and the Tascam DR-680 are the only units that offer what I am looking for. Anyone have anything different in the $1k price range? I don't think I need time code
 
I just realized I fat-fingered the title of this thread. It's "Shopping a Field Mixer" not "Shooping." I have been doing that a lot lately.
 
percoplus said:
I just realized I fat-fingered the title of this thread. It's "Shopping a Field Mixer" not "Shooping." I have been doing that a lot lately.
Click to expand...
I think "most" of us know what you meant. But if you are looking for time code the tascam hd-p2 or the fostex fr-680 are good units but they are 2 track recorders.
 
BRH said:
Only nimrods and people that aren't sound mixers do this. Usually people operating a video camera without a sound mixer do this.
Click to expand...
Gee, I do this when I record an orchestra and megabucks are at stake. You have the option of a clone backup or a lower gain backup. Some of my clients insist on it in the unlikely event of a mega-hardware failure--you have a separate preamp+24 track recorder running parallel. Nimrods R Us!
Buy a $200 used laptop with firewire (like the Dell X1), optionally fit an SSD drive, and hook it up to your FW Interface. Run Reaper for solid live recording performance. Stereo down mix ( or pre-split) to a Zoom for Backup, or pop for the Edirol. Exciting times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top