Sound Devices 552

ESTEBEVERDE said:
All of these are great choices! I am just not sure where the sweet spot is for ENG run and Gun... What is the 552 missing for that application?
Click to expand...

well I think its safe to say the SD 442 became the "Standard" for ENG
shooting over the last numerous years..

They discontinued it to bring out the even more tricked out 552,
so my answer to your question of what is it missing would be pretty much nothing.


I decided to use my 552 today on a job just to mess around with it.

The more and more I become comfortable with all the shortcuts
its blowing me away.
I dont mean to sound like a commercial but there is something to be said about a recorder and mixer
all in one box. No interconnect cables, no extra gain stages between units, rugged..etc.
up to 96K 24bit.. 4 channels of aes digital out..etc. The list goes on.

Yes its not cheap so buy within your budget.
Just as others said, there are many options.



I will stress again though..this thing has a learning curve.
Lucky it comes with 2 cheatsheets you can mount to the bottom of the unit.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
Can't imagine $2800 USD for a mixer for location shooting? - try pricing a PSC Solice or a Sonosax if you're putting together a cart-based kit (which would pretty well have to be the case with any of the gear you mentioned). Saxcom also makes a nice little desk to accompany one of their DEVA recorders if that's your style. You plan to be putting any of your suggested options plus the AC inverter and battery supply needed to run it in a bag slung on the sound person's shoulder for run-and-gun ENG or high-mobility location film shoots, say a shooting a reporter's standup in Port au Prince's main street this afternoon?
Click to expand...

I think it is a nice box, I just think two channels is too limiting, especially when there are several four channel options. I think as a basic principle four recorded tracks is a huge leap from from two, much less than from four to six, more like jumping from four to eight.
Just my opinion, having worked two versus four for many years, I prefer four. I don't mind making my own rig and batteries, either. For run and gun, sure, go with a one box solution. But after the running is the post. I'd rather have a 744t with two aux than a 5 into 2.
 
Barry_Green said:
Why have you ruled the Edirol (R-4) out?
Click to expand...

It's not very good compared to the other Edirols - the R-4 Pro and the R-44 are excellent, though. Just the original R-4 is the one to avoid (and the first ones had i/p 4 with reversed polarity compared to the other three i/ps).
 
DrDave said:
I think it is a nice box, I just think two channels is too limiting, especially when there are several four channel options. I think as a basic principle four recorded tracks is a huge leap from from two, much less than from four to six, more like jumping from four to eight.
Just my opinion, having worked two versus four for many years, I prefer four. I don't mind making my own rig and batteries, either. For run and gun, sure, go with a one box solution. But after the running is the post. I'd rather have a 744t with two aux than a 5 into 2.
Click to expand...

If you were relying on the 552's built-in recorder as your primary recorder for a multi-mic setup I'd agree. But that's not what I see as its purpose. Rather, I think of it as for a stereo mix for dailys on a feature set, a basic recorder for a transcription mix, or a backup for single system. About the only time I'd consider using it as the primary recorder would be for run-and-gun ENG where you only have one or two mics in play at any one time anyway. If you want to record 4 tracks, it's slightly smaller than a 442 so it could replace one in a current 442/744t bag giving you 4 iso tracks plus the stereo mix for transcription or dailys.
 
John Willett said:
It's not very good compared to the other Edirols - the R-4 Pro and the R-44 are excellent, though. Just the original R-4 is the one to avoid (and the first ones had i/p 4 with reversed polarity compared to the other three i/ps).
Click to expand...
Good to know; I've had my eye on the R44 and hadn't heard anything negative about it, but I missed that he was talking about the R-4 and not the R44.
 
This is only for our Documentary Run and Gun set up.

For sit downs and for staged pieces we can use our cart system. Onyx + solid state recording via mac mini and mac pro.

I really like the R-44. But don't have enough time on it or even on sound recording to know better. For instance can it stand alone or am I back to a SD 302 for mixing with it????


I like the SD 552 specs but the price is steep.... very steep.


I am clear on mics and good there but on a mixer and a recorder I need some solid guidance.
 
Steve House said:
If you were relying on the 552's built-in recorder as your primary recorder for a multi-mic setup I'd agree. But that's not what I see as its purpose. Rather, I think of it as for a stereo mix for dailys on a feature set, a basic recorder for a transcription mix, or a backup for single system. About the only time I'd consider using it as the primary recorder would be for run-and-gun ENG where you only have one or two mics in play at any one time anyway. If you want to record 4 tracks, it's slightly smaller than a 442 so it could replace one in a current 442/744t bag giving you 4 iso tracks plus the stereo mix for transcription or dailys.
Click to expand...

Using a digital mixer, such as the RME F400 or any of the others, one could back up all the channels, create two different submixes, one with effects and one dry, route the two stereo submixes to both a flash recorder for safety and reroute back on to the hard drive for a two track bounce, and have channels left over for monitor feeds. All of that could be saved as a profile, so you just turn it on and bush the button, and it could be saved into the devices memory so it could be used in the field without a laptop. Using the newer Onyx you could also choose between pre and post on the effects side, notably EQ. I agree the 744 is in play because of the better preamps and the track flexibility.
Hooked up to a a four track zoom one could back up for example a stereo downmix on tracks one and two and add on two more tracks, spots or ambient, for the other two tracks, or backup four tracks.
 
John Willett said:
At the price the R-44 is about the best around as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...
One thing about the R-44: I always buy redundancy. So if I need a pair of mics, I buy three. I mean, what do you do when your main pair goes down? And they do go down, even the best ones. When recording, I use mic cable splitters and feed two machines, say a laptop and a 24 track HD recorder, or, better yet, a laptop and two matched 24 track recorders. Two R-44s gives you the backup you need for a reasonable price, with the terrific bonus that you can hook them together (haven't tried it, but supposedly it is true) to have eight channels. And that is pretty cool.
r44.jpg
 
I appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.

Specifically I am looking for the best ENG solution for the very best price/quality balance.

The SD 552 is a one unit deal but are there any better solutions for around the $2800 or less?

What would be the most efficient durable quality set up?
 
DrDave said:
Using a digital mixer, such as the RME F400 or any of the others, one could back up all the channels, create two different submixes, one with effects and one dry, route the two stereo submixes to both a flash recorder for safety and reroute back on to the hard drive for a two track bounce, and have channels left over for monitor feeds. All of that could be saved as a profile, so you just turn it on and bush the button, and it could be saved into the devices memory so it could be used in the field without a laptop. Using the newer Onyx you could also choose between pre and post on the effects side, notably EQ. I agree the 744 is in play because of the better preamps and the track flexibility.
Hooked up to a a four track zoom one could back up for example a stereo downmix on tracks one and two and add on two more tracks, spots or ambient, for the other two tracks, or backup four tracks.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you are more familiar with studio music recording techniques than location dialog recording for film or video. The tipoff is your discussion of recording submixes and downmixes and recording tracks with effects with a backup of a dry mix. In dialog recording you never, EVER record with effects applied in the field, with about the only exceptions being a high-pass filter to control handling noise and MAYBE a touch of equalization on some voices if you really REALLY need it. For dialog, the objective is a recording that is as untampered with, pure, and pristine as possible, with all decisions regarding effects, etc, to be made by the sound editor and sound designer in the unrushed, contemplative, and reversable environment of the post-production edit suite. IF you have enough tracks available you would not record a mix of any sort other than the stereo mic for the dailys. You record ISO tracks for each character - it's the sound editor's decision in post how they should be mixed, not the field recordist's. You don't run ambience mics and mix them into the dialog, just the opposite. You do your damndest to eliminate all ambience from the dialog tracks. If you need the ambience of that location you make a completely separate recording, perhaps even at a different time than when the scene was shot, so you don't have to worry about feet shuffling, crew burping, etc. that is added to the effects stem in post.
 
Yes, nothing like the headache editing dialog with ambience in the background. I still see amateur fimmakers trying to capture the footsteps while the actor is walking and talking. ugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top