Sound devices mixpre

egproductions

egproductions

Veteran
So I had the option of using the mixpre or my Xl2 for a shoot. I tried to see if I could hear the difference by recording the same audio with the same mic on both. I couldn't hear a difference except maybe maybe the mixpre sounded a little noisier. And also the mixpre has some feature that helps audio not overmodulate.

Because the audio was so similiar I went with the on camera preamp for simplicity. Was I not hearing something I should have been or do you think the XL2 can compete with that quality mixer just fine?
 
First off..
"So i had the option of using the mixpre or my Xl2 for a shoot"

Last time i checked (note sarcasm) the mix pre isn't a recorder.

"I couldn't hear the difference"..

totall assuming here, you mean you ran one mic direct to camera and the other
through the mix pre to the same camera?

Were your settings correct? 0 on the mixpre -20 on the xl2 ..sending it a good hot signal?
NOT going through the cameras pre's?

What were you listening through to determine this "find"?


That camera although ive only used it a few times years ago had very unimpressive sound.
If you run 2 mic's through the mud (IE: that camera) one isn't going to magically
come out the other side clean and spanking new just because you ran it through
an external mixer.

If you want to judge the true difference. listen to your "direct to camera" feed..
then listen to
just the mic/mixpre/headphone out.

It's irrelevant what happens to the sound "after" it leaves the mixer..
its the quality of the sound EXITING the mixer.


owner- SD 302, SD442, SD 788T, soon to be SD CL-8
 
Thats good advice in order to test for a comparison of which product is better, however in the end I have to test the best final product that I can achieve. If I was reviewing which preamp is better, then I would use your testing method.

I was going through the unbalanced line-in of the XL2 which will give you the cleanest input available for the xl2.

Are you sure you used the XL2 a few years back and not th XL1 or 1s. The XL2 was given really good audio capabilities so if you are saying it was "unimpressive" I have a feeling it wasn't the XL2. (an easy mistake if you are in fact mistaken)

I did this test with both an Rhode NTG-2 and a Sennheiser ME64
 
it was the xl2.
It's all point of view though..

I record to F-900's, varicams, 788T's for a living.

As long as you're happy thats all that matters though.

And im not ripping your mic choice (ive actually recommended that rode to a couple people)
but once again, if you start off with an "ok" (IE: not wonderful) sounding mic,
you arent going to be able to notice subtle things down the road nearly as much.
 
Well if you not comparing preamps what are you doing? The MixPre is a preamp. Don't know the XL2 but it would be hard for camcorder to impress someone used to dedicated recorders, so I wouldn't take it to much to heart. At best you will have DAT level recording with not so great audio front end. It's hugley better than what was available on camcorders a few years back but it's still not going to compare well with a quality stand alone recorder.
But that is probably beside the point. You are going to record on the camera because it's easier and fits what your doing better. So you did a fair test. You will maybe not hear that much difference. A lot depends on how things are set up. Is your mic mounted on the camera? If so go direct and have a good time. When you start booming then revisit the MixPre. One box is not going to change your life. Good sound is a chain of right decisions. And what is "right" changes depending on a lot of factors.

One big plus with the MixPre is that IF properly set up you can record quite hot and still be "blowout proof". It has very good limiters. But if you don't set it up correctly then your not going to get much advantage and you will have the hassle of another box with batteries and one more place in the chain to cause problems. My best advice is always hire a sound person that has the equipment they need. Film is a team sport. Would you like to face the Dallas Cowboys by your self or with a nice BIG offensive line to protect you? Working with out a crew (that knows what they are doing) is pretty much the same choice.
 
I'm really not concerened about how I am doing things. I am booming the audio and making sure the mic is close, scooping and running hot for the tests without overmodulating. I know the limiter is really good on the mixpre but was asking with all things being equal, what is going to give me better sound the mixpre going into the line-in of the xl2 or mic going into the XLRs of the XL2. I couldn't hear a differnce on headphones or on my speakers and was wondering if anyone knows which method is going to yield better results. Even if My audio could be better by doing something differnt, the point is that the test is with equal setting/setup so the differnce should be audible one way or another.
 
I'm really not concerened about how I am doing things.
Click to expand...

So why di you post the question?

I know the limiter is really good on the mixpre but was asking with all things being equal, what is going to give me better sound the mixpre going into the line-in of the xl2 or mic going into the XLRs of the XL2.
Click to expand...

The MixPre, but all things are never equal.

I couldn't hear a differnce on headphones or on my speakers and was wondering if anyone knows which method is going to yield better results.
Click to expand...

Just because you couldn't hear it doesn't mean there wasn't a difference. The question isn't what is better (you already said you don't care how you do things...). The question is it worth it to you. Your the only one who can make that decision.

Even if My audio could be better by doing something differnt, the point is that the test is with equal setting/setup so the differnce should be audible one way or another.
Click to expand...

Bad assumption. Your ability to hear things is based on your hearing (ever go to a rock concert?) and how developed your hearing is. Sort of like wine tasting, if you don't have a developed palate it all tastes pretty similar. With experience you look for different tastes and it's a whole new experience. If you have spent a lot of time in sound you hear differently than people with untrained (inexperienced) hearing. I don't have "great" ears but I can easily hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings. There is a filmmaker on this list who is recording concerts to low bitrate MP3's. He probably wouldn't hear the difference between his MP3's and uncompressed wav files of the same event. Or maybe he could but just doesn't care how he does things? The point is that you may not hear a difference and even if you do it might not be a big enough one to make it worth it for "you". But the bottom line answer is YES it is a better signal chain, it will produce ,potentially, better recordings. I say potentially because "it" is not creating the recording, YOU are. And the camcorder of course. Better equipment doesn't produce better results it only gives you the potential to produce better results.

This is way too long a response but this kind of question comes up a bunch so ...

Cheers
SK
 
"So why di you post the question?"

I already explained why I posted the question...it wasn't for tips on how to get better audio, it was a simple question as to what setup is prefferable for the best audio quality

"The MixPre, but all things are never equal."

What are you talking about all things are never equal?....I could have the same audio setup but there is one method of going througha mixpre and the other setup which is going str8 to camera.

"Just because you couldn't hear it doesn't mean there wasn't a difference. The question isn't what is better (you already said you don't care how you do things...). The question is it worth it to you. Your the only one who can make that decision."

I know it doesn't mean there wasn't a difference, all I said was that I couldn't hear a difference and was wondering if there was something I wasn't hearing or if in fact the XL2 might have better onboard audio. And the question is what is better because I'm looking to improve this one aspect of my sound recording process. When I said I am not concerned how I am doing things, I was talking about that I am not concerned about how to improve my audio in other ways than what I was asking at this point in time.

I understand that I might not be hearing things I should be and that my hearing is probably not developed enough, thats why in my original post I wrote "Was I not hearing something I should have been or do you think the XL2 can compete with that quality mixer just fine?"

I don't know if its my personal experiences in this audio forum but almost everytime I post a simple question i get blasted and critisized about my audio processes unrelated to the question I posted. Did I say anything in my original post that might have told you that everything else in my audio is anything but the ideal setup or that my audio setup even mattered? Its a question about how to do things like if you were to ask me "whats better, editing DV footage in an uncompressed timeline or editing in a DV timeline because I can't see the difference and my footage is the same?" I wouldn' have told you "well if your footage looks crappy to begin with its not going to look good in an uncompressed timeline or a DV timeline, you have to make good decisions throughout the whole process"

I'm not angry at any of you, and I don't mean to turn this into an argument more of a debate. Fair?
 
I just did a week long shoot on location with an XL2. I fed it with an SD 302. I attenuated the output of the mixer to -40 and plugged into the xlr inputs. This was per the advice Ty Ford gave in some earlier threads. I believe he owns an XL2 and of course we all know he knows what he's talking about.
Would the line input on the camera give you better sound? Perhaps, but there is a sacrifice you make using the rca line inputs especially if you're out in the field doing run and gun or very active shooting. Rca jacks don't lock in like xlrs and adapting from xlr to rca makes the connection even more clunky and potentially pulled loose. If you feed enough signal into the camera preamp so you're well above the noise floor you're in good shape. Line up your tone with -20 on the camera and you have lots of head room before worrying about hitting the dreaded over zero. The camera has a mark on the side meter at -12 but don't line your tone up with that. You'll reduce your head room by 8 db. I was peaking my audio at that mark and often beyond and it sounded pretty good. Never did hit any overs even though it did get loud. I believe the Mix Pre has line out only so you would need to attenuate the output before going to the camera xlrs. You could use two xlr barrel type attenuators right at the output of the Mix Pre. By the way, the gain pots on the camera were turned up less than a third of the way so I really wasn't introducing any hiss from the camera audio circuit.
I think many of the problems encountered (IMHO) with cheaper camera audio circuits boils down to improper gain staging and/or not inputting a hot enough signal in the first place. Or lining up the output of the mixer to the wrong mark and reducing the available headroom.
Bernie
 
"So why di you post the question?"

I already explained why I posted the question...it wasn't for tips on how to get better audio, it was a simple question as to what setup is prefferable for the best audio quality
Click to expand...

That question has been answered about five times in this thread. But if you actually read the responses you would also see that it's a bad question. To a great extent there is no right answer because "best audio quality" is not a very defined goal. Best for who? One would suspect that best for you would be the right answer but you keep saying you don't care about how you do things or if changing X would improve the sound. So what are we supposed to use as a reference for "best". As far as I can tel the purpose of this thread is that you want to go direct to camera and you want others to tell you it's the right thing to do so if it doesn't work out it was our fault for steering you wrong.

"The MixPre, but all things are never equal."

What are you talking about all things are never equal?....I could have the same audio setup but there is one method of going througha mixpre and the other setup which is going str8 to camera.
Click to expand...

Ones going in line the other through the mic pre, they are not equal. You can't set the gain the same because you using two different circuits and there is no way for you to know they are set "equal". You might get close if you set up a noise source and then set the gains so they both were about the same level on the meters but that is still not exact. Noise level has to do with circuit quality AND gain staging. You don't want to take that in to consideration so it invalidated the whole test. This keeps being said to you in different ways and you keep saying you don't care...?

"Just because you couldn't hear it doesn't mean there wasn't a difference. The question isn't what is better (you already said you don't care how you do things...). The question is it worth it to you. Your the only one who can make that decision."

I know it doesn't mean there wasn't a difference, all I said was that I couldn't hear a difference and was wondering if there was something I wasn't hearing or if in fact the XL2 might have better onboard audio.
Click to expand...

AND you were told more than once that the MixPre has better audio circuits that the camera. YES either your not hearing it or the camera is not recording it.

And the question is what is better because I'm looking to improve this one aspect of my sound recording process. When I said I am not concerned how I am doing things, I was talking about that I am not concerned about how to improve my audio in other ways than what I was asking at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Again "improve" in what way? The signal path is of higher quality with the MP BUT if you yank out a connector because your hauling around another box it wont "improve"
your sound. Will good boots make you a better hiker? NO but they might help, it depends on other factors.

I understand that I might not be hearing things I should be and that my hearing is probably not developed enough, thats why in my original post I wrote "Was I not hearing something I should have been or do you think the XL2 can compete with that quality mixer just fine?"
Click to expand...

NO, the XL2 doesn't compete with a quality mixer used correctly.

I don't know if its my personal experiences in this audio forum but almost everytime I post a simple question i get blasted and critisized about my audio processes unrelated to the question I posted. Did I say anything in my original post that might have told you that everything else in my audio is anything but the ideal setup or that my audio setup even mattered? Its a question about how to do things like if you were to ask me "whats better, editing DV footage in an uncompressed timeline or editing in a DV timeline because I can't see the difference and my footage is the same?" I wouldn' have told you "well if your footage looks crappy to begin with its not going to look good in an uncompressed timeline or a DV timeline, you have to make good decisions throughout the whole process"
Click to expand...

The problem you want black and white decisions about grey questions. Is it better to go walking in short or long pants? That is a similar question. What is the "right" answer? I think even you would agree that you could not answer that with out knowing more. And if you started asking if I'm high risk for skin cancer or if I was planning to walk in Greenland or LA and I kept telling you "I don't want to talk about that stuff, I just want to know which is best". You would start getting frustrated with me and maybe even "blast" me.

I'm not angry at any of you, and I don't mean to turn this into an argument more of a debate. Fair?
Click to expand...

It's your thread. But I think you would get more out of it if you reread the posts because I think you will find that not only has your question been answered but a lot of other useful information is there that might answer other questions.
 
I agree that there is a lot of great information through out the previous posts and I appreciate all the time you guys have spent trying to help (and succeeding) I know that my question has been answered and i'm not debating that.

I'm not going to waste time debating how things played out and for my own sanity just agree to disagree on certain points (like the whole all things being equal thing) It's really not something that needs to be debated more than it has been. I feel that at some point it just turned into an disagreement about words and not audio.

Thanks again and I hope I didn't aggravate you too much with having to quote and rebuttal. I know how reading something can get someone worked up for silly reasons.
 
Hey EG,

No worries. The XL2 pres are not that bad. I've recorded some pretty nice music video with them and was surprised by the audio.

Haven't even bothered to try the unbalanced inputs yet.

Regards,

Ty
 
egproductions said:
...
I'm not going to waste time debating how things played out and for my own sanity just agree to disagree on certain points (like the whole all things being equal thing) It's really not something that needs to be debated more than it has been. I feel that at some point it just turned into an disagreement about words and not audio.

Thanks again and I hope I didn't aggravate you too much with having to quote and rebuttal. I know how reading something can get someone worked up for silly reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I used to work with inventors doing testing design etc. and a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to set up a test of something that is actually valid. It is very easy to make some small assumption that just skews it all to hell. That was the point I was trying to make about the "all things being equal" bit. It's important to know that your results are only so valid. People post all kinds of outrageous claims (positive and negative) based on some "test" they did.

So in your case the test tells you about a specific set up and if you keep doing things the same way then there appears to be no difference going direct or through a mixer. That is valid. What your test doesn't say is which would be better if each were optimized and there for doesn't address which is intrinsically "better". And that is I think where the language thing got in the way. You seemed to be asking the "intrinsic" quality question but were referencing your test which doesn't say much if anything about that. I probably didn't say it clearly but my basic point was if you can't hear the difference go with what is simpler, cheaper, easier. You seemed to want people to say that that was also the intrinsically better choice. I'm not going to say that because A) it's not true and B) it will get used by someone as an excuse to not have a sound person and just go direct and in many cases that is not the best choice.

In film there is always compromise so "the best" is not the same situation to situation. Going direct, if you get some decent levels, is not a "bad" choice, it is often the "best" choice.


Aggravation is fleeting, and yes the back and forth can escalate in unfortunate ways. No worries.

Cheers
SK
 
I'm glad we are on the same page now. I was thinking exactly what you are saying even if I didn't articulate it as well as I should have. This is what I wrote in my second post:

"Thats good advice in order to test for a comparison of which product is better, however in the end I have to test the best final product that I can achieve. If I was reviewing which preamp is better, then I would use your testing method."

I've definitly learnt a lot and audio is an area that I need to vastly improve in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top