Sound Devices: Mixpre-D, 302, 702 ---- help me

S

shortnstout

Well-known member
Hi Everyone,
I shoot a lot of situations currently with DSLRs (with Zoom H4n) and also video cameras (HVX-200 and C300). I do anything from docs, to commercial, narrative, to long conferences, and I'm making enough money now to go to the next level of professional equipment. I need much more professional sound than the zoom h4n is offering me, which I believe is mostly because of the preamps. I have friends who bought a SD 702 and are amazed at the sound improvements. Because I shoot with so many situations and cameras (and I'm often alone), I'm wondering if the MixPre-D might be a more sensible solution. I've heard of going Mixpre-d to DSLR, and also Mixpre-d to Zoom-h4n. I know this won't get you up to SD702 quality, but how good is it? Would the mixpre-D preamps greatly improve the sound quality if I added it to a standard video camera as well (like the HVX or C300)? I feel I can only justify the expense of a mixpre-d if it will help things beyond just a dslr rig, as i plan to be shooting with them less in the future. I'm partly confused because I only see people using it with dslr, not on video cameras with pro inputs. At this point i don't see the advantage of a SD 302 over the Mixpre-D as I won't be using 3 inputs often.
Thanks!!!
sns
 
My .02 -- MixPre. But take it to a better device than Zoom H4N. I personally have ditched the Zoom in favor of the Roland R26. It is larger however the front knobs make it so much more useable. And better display. I think it is worth the difference over the Zoom.
 
I have a 702 it sounds way better than my FS100 onboard - but the main reason I had it was for DSLR work

Ive kept it to..

-Work with DSLRs
-Do more serious porjects
-be able to (for example) leave it hooked into a PA at a conference - where one would not want to tether the camera

With DSLR this thing saved my ass - as the DSLR crapped out mid interview at least I kept my audio and could cover the Gaps in vision with BRoll

I like the idea of recording on my 702 and passing that to my FS100 - to give a double file

also the longer record times you can leave the audio running

OF course you may if you are spending some bucks consider a Pix 240 - giving everything that a 702 give plus the ability to record pro res and take from cameras ...

S
 
You get more than good preamps out of any SD device. Just as important is control. It is pretty much impossible to ride levels on something like a zoom, or even a video cam for that matter. Whenever possible I use a 302 in front of a video cam, and especially in front of a cheapo recorder; in my case either a 680, or a dr100. The 680 doesn't need the better preamps, but the ability to ride levels is much better. You also get a host of other features including better limiters, tone functions, better metering to name a few.

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
You get more than good preamps out of any SD device. Just as important is control. It is pretty much impossible to ride levels on something like a zoom, or even a video cam for that matter. Whenever possible I use a 302 in front of a video cam, and especially in front of a cheapo recorder; in my case either a 680, or a dr100. The 680 doesn't need the better preamps, but the ability to ride levels is much better. You also get a host of other features including better limiters, tone functions, better metering to name a few.

Grant
Click to expand...

+1
 
Can the SD 702 output to a 5Dmk3 or standard video camera the same way a Mixpre-D can? Is there anything I'd be missing? Can the 702 function as a mixer or is it only really for recording to itself? I'm considering if spending extra on a 702 gets me extra flexibility.
Also, can anyone say if the 702T is really worth all that extra $$$?
 
The 702 has line out, tape out, headphone out, that being said any DSLR camera is a God awful audio recording device. I wouldn't want to mix on a 702 recorder with a real mixer available. The 702T is only worth the extra money if you are syncing time code devices together.
 
Agreed, that all DSLRs are crap audio recorders. But, I'm looking for something that can be a good buy for many situations and some gigs I do are run n' gun doc style with quick turnaround so it would be a cool option to go right into my 5dmk3 sometimes. Thanks for all the advice. What is the main benefit of a mixer like the 302 or MixPre-D over doing it on the 702-- is it all about the form factor, nobs, leds, etc-- or are there other things that make a 302 necessary with a 702? My sound will mostly be for controlled interviews that I want to sound stellar.
thanks!!!
 
Hi
Lots of ways to approach your goal. After getting the good advice offered here I would reccomend renting. You may be able to apply the rental towards purchase.
I own an SD 702 and a H2n and like them both. They are worlds apart however. There are many variables in quality and features. The biggest variable is how you will use it for your unique way of operating. For that renting gives invaluable additional information. Check out the manuals, reviews, DVXUser, Rent.

Good luck - I think you are on the right track doing your research.
 
Better real video cameras (Not the DSLR type) have better audio than people realize. What is missing are ergonomics, adjustments, limiters and readable meters. SD302 fixes all that, and that is the reason I use it always when possible with XF-305 and XH-A1 video cameras we use. I never even try to stuff audio into a DSLR, but use SD722. WIth a separate sound person it is advisable to use SD302 mixer even in front of SD7xx recorder, as the gain riding is easier and the meters better.

So the order of preference would depend on what comes first, getting better audio from the video cameras (SD302) or getting good/great audio with DSLR (SD702).

It is possible to pass audio through SD702 to camera, but it is not a mixer. With a good camera and levels correctly set the camera track would work fine as the final audio and SD702 file as a backup. This way there would be no synch issues either. With DSLR SD702 would naturally be the track that would be used.
 
If you use a MixPre-D directly into a camera, you are giving up higher audio resolution options that an audio recorder gives you. You can't record a 24-bit 48kHz WAV file inside of a Canon 5D mkIII.

The MixPre-D is a great tool for use with HDSLR cameras, but I think many people who are researching it tend to expect more from it in performance than they will hear when they start using it. Yes, the preamps are better in a SD mixer, but you likely won't hear an immediate night and day difference over the other equipment you have used.


Personally, I would be wary of only using a 702 and a camera. But I'm an audio person, and I know what a good field mixer brings to the table and how to leverage its controls to my advantage. If you're totally green, it's not going to click immediately. You just have to get the stuff (rented or otherwise) and learn how to use it.
 
I love the 10 second pre-roll offered by the SD 702T. Very valuable in case of wildlife.
Slowly DSLRs will all have timecode. Investment in SD 702 is for longterm. Since you also have the C300, it is better to built in capabilities which you may not use at the moment. In situations when you can use with some help or with bigger projects, the SD702T will be of great help.

David W. Jones said:
The 702 has line out, tape out, headphone out, that being said any DSLR camera is a God awful audio recording device. I wouldn't want to mix on a 702 recorder with a real mixer available. The 702T is only worth the extra money if you are syncing time code devices together.
Click to expand...
 
David W. Jones said:
The 702 has line out, tape out, headphone out, that being said any DSLR camera is a God awful audio recording device. I wouldn't want to mix on a 702 recorder with a real mixer available. The 702T is only worth the extra money if you are syncing time code devices together.
Click to expand...

Slowly DSLRs will get the timecode sync. Also since you have the C300, you may require it when you are in projects with larger teams. Better to have some amount of redundancy and get the 702T. Else, when you need that, the cost of acquiring will be more.

The 10 seconds of pre recording time of the 702T is great. Especially for a wildlife guy like me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top