Sound Devices Preamp Quality??? Mix Pre 3 vs Mix Pre D and 702

N

Nicholas Natteau

Veteran
I currently own two Sound Devices machines: the Mix Pre D and the 702.

I've been thinking about selling both machines and getting just one that can do both (mix and record) after hearing about the Mix Pre 3's much vaunted Kashmir preamps. Can anyone who has used all 3 (the Mix Pre D, 702, and the Mix Pre 3) advise me on the Preamp quality of the 3 vs the D and 702. Is there a noticeable difference in preamp quality? Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
I can only talk about the Mix Pre D and Mix Pre 3 and they sounded very similar - the mix pre D does has a somewhat smoother sound but nothing that can't be EQed in the mix. The Mix Pre 3 is just a much better machine overall though(except for batteries) and its much more useful.
 
The MixPre3 would be step up from the MixPreD/702 in many ways (smaller size being a big one!). But not in all ways.... so double check you're not losing something you want.

But yeah, for most people's needs it would be a worthwhile trade for a MixPre3 instead.

However.... I wouldn't recommend getting the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 only costs a little more yet can do significantly more.

But.... you can do better than either the MixPre3 or MixPre6, as I reckon the Zoom F4 is the current sweet spot for price/performance:

http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-r...various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/
 
IronFilm said:
The MixPre3 would be step up from the MixPreD/702 in many ways (smaller size being a big one!). But not in all ways.... so double check you're not losing something you want.

But yeah, for most people's needs it would be a worthwhile trade for a MixPre3 instead.

However.... I wouldn't recommend getting the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 only costs a little more yet can do significantly more.

But.... you can do better than either the MixPre3 or MixPre6, as I reckon the Zoom F4 is the current sweet spot for price/performance:

http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-r...various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/
Click to expand...


I don't want to appear a Luddite, so here goes:

Quantity of channels not withstanding, what is it about the new recording MixPre series that would improve the audio over my 744t-302 combo? The 744 being the big brother to the 702. What features in the new MixPre series would improve my user experience? Though possibly a bit behind the times now, my older SD gear makes me happy everytime I fire it up; it just seems so perfect delivering excellent audio with great user controls.

Hey, maybe I am a Luddite, but I really can't imagine "upgrading" from what I consider the near perfect equipment for what I need; 5 into 4 channels of excellent audio combined with a great user interface. Would I really want to trade in my SD setup for an F4? You must be kidding right?. MixPre? maybe if there were clear advantages to the audio or workflow.

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
Hey, maybe I am a Luddite, but I really can't imagine "upgrading" from what I consider the near perfect equipment for what I need; 5 into 4 channels of excellent audio combined with a great user interface. Would I really want to trade in my SD setup for an F4? You must be kidding right?. MixPre? maybe if there were clear advantages to the audio or workflow.
Click to expand...

If what you have is perfect for you, then why change? Plus, Sound Devices > Zoom is a downgrade. Zoom may have created an impressive features set at a ridiculous price point, and at least the pre-amps are much better now than in any of their previous H-series recorders, but SD wins for pre-amps.

And for what you're running, a MixPre-3 would lessen your capabilities and versatility. So would the MixPre-6. The MixPre-10T, however, would give you more channels, more record tracks, and combined mixing and recording function in a single, lightweight unit. Output connections may not be as flexible, but most crews these days use wireless camera hops instead of ENG snakes, and you'd be fine there.

On a semi-related note, I do find your 744T/302 pairing a bit... interesting. It's obviously doing what you need it to do, but it would be clunky for me in the field with split mixing like that, and having to decide which two sources get mixed before recording. You'd lose one input channel, but seems like the 442 is a better overall pairing for the 744T. That's just me, though.
 
One other thing, and this is really a continuation of my thoughts from THIS POST:

When it comes to having an integrated mixer/recorder in the field, and the fact that clients are expecting that more and more (specifically Sound Devices), I think it does have a lot to do with rental costs and the fact that most professional PSMs have them now.

10 years ago, it cost the client more to have the recorder in the bag because gear rental was (still is) based on what went out the door. If it was just the mixer, and audio was recorded strictly to cam, the invoice showed only the mixer. If the client wanted ISO tracks, the recorder was billed separately. Since most audio pros are running with integrated mixer/recorders now, it doesn't cost the client any extra to have the recorder available. It's already there. Yeah, some folks bill the clients for handing over the ISO tracks in addition to the mix recording, but they aren't paying for two different pieces of gear.

All of that, I believe, has led to an expectation that the mixer/recorder will be there. And if it isn't, some production companies will send their own kits and pay labor-only.
 
Alex H. said:
If what you have is perfect for you, then why change? Plus, Sound Devices > Zoom is a downgrade. Zoom may have created an impressive features set at a ridiculous price point, and at least the pre-amps are much better now than in any of their previous H-series recorders, but SD wins for pre-amps.

And for what you're running, a MixPre-3 would lessen your capabilities and versatility. So would the MixPre-6. The MixPre-10T, however, would give you more channels, more record tracks, and combined mixing and recording function in a single, lightweight unit. Output connections may not be as flexible, but most crews these days use wireless camera hops instead of ENG snakes, and you'd be fine there.

On a semi-related note, I do find your 744T/302 pairing a bit... interesting. It's obviously doing what you need it to do, but it would be clunky for me in the field with split mixing like that, and having to decide which two sources get mixed before recording. You'd lose one input channel, but seems like the 442 is a better overall pairing for the 744T. That's just me, though.
Click to expand...


I owned the 302 long before the 744 and had a succession of bit bucket recorders before that. Even though the mixing controls are split, it actually works out really well for me, for example two wireless on the 302 and whatever else on the 744; keeps my feeble mind from confusing channels. I also prefer to have a separate mixer like the 302 for feeding line level to cam (My cam records 24 bit audio), which gives me good audio without having go dual system.

If I had purchased all this together, I would have chosen the 442, but as it is, it works well. Two tracks go to cam or the 744. Four tracks, add the 302 to the 744. I really never need more than four (yet).

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
I don't want to appear a Luddite, so here goes:

Quantity of channels not withstanding, what is it about the new recording MixPre series that would improve the audio over my 744t-302 combo? The 744 being the big brother to the 702. What features in the new MixPre series would improve my user experience? Though possibly a bit behind the times now, my older SD gear makes me happy everytime I fire it up; it just seems so perfect delivering excellent audio with great user controls.

Hey, maybe I am a Luddite, but I really can't imagine "upgrading" from what I consider the near perfect equipment for what I need; 5 into 4 channels of excellent audio combined with a great user interface. Would I really want to trade in my SD setup for an F4? You must be kidding right?. MixPre? maybe if there were clear advantages to the audio or workflow.

Grant
Click to expand...

The constant upgrading is tiresome, no doubt. I think you have a very nice and flexible setup as it is. I have a MixPre-D & a 688 but still bought the Mix Pre-6, only because it saves space and allows an ultra compact setup with my 1DC. I've had a few issues with the audio over the years on the 1DC and wanted a backup recording that the mix pre-D couldn't easily offer and for times when the 688 is just totally overkill. For a certain type of work I feel the new Mix Pre series are the best tools available. The real question is, what type of work do you do? In certain situations the workflow advantages are there for sure, but depending on how you operate, the demands of your client base, and what camera(s) you're working with, will all be key components to answering that.
 
After posturing myself for quite a few years and spending more than I wanted on audio upgrade paths, I am really happy with where I'm at. And for sure, the constant upgrade paths are just silly when the gear you've got is getting it done.

G
 
Movies by Matt said:
The constant upgrading is tiresome, no doubt.
Click to expand...

ggrantly said:
And for sure, the constant upgrade paths are just silly when the gear you've got is getting it done.
Click to expand...

If you look at the big picture, professional field audio has gotten off pretty easy in the last 15+ years. We've really only seen one major paradigm shift that evolved in two stages. From small field mixers that fed straight to camera to multi-track field recording, with a stop in the middle where the mixers and recorders were separate devices.

In that same time frame, camera technology has had so many major shifts that I've lost count. It's much more expensive to own and keep up with camera tech than it is audio. A good shotgun mic is going to last a long time. A good radio system is going to last a long time, as long as the frequency band isn't auctioned. (Digital "wi-fi" systems like the Sennheiser AVX or RØDELink are still very new technology, not exactly up to snuff for high-end production, so I'm not including them here.). And a solid recorder? We're still on WAV/BWF recording at 48/24, and up to 192kHz for specialty recording such as SFX. No constant shift in codecs. It was 48kHz WAV 15 years ago and it's 48kHz WAV now.

So the expense for sound can be one, big, very painful expense, but it's an investment that has a much longer shelf life than a camera. The 7-series recorders are old technology in the grand scheme, but you'll still find them out there on professional sound carts and in pro sound bags. They can be called outdated, but they still record pristine audio at 48/24 BWF.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm getting more and more calls that specify 6-series mixer/recorders, but when it comes to upgrade paths the sound world has not been burdened nearly as bad as the camera world.
 
Thank you very much everyone for all your feedback. Ironfilm can you tell me in what ways the Mix Pre 6 would be better than the Mix Pre 3, aside the extra inputs, extra track mixing, and 192 kHz as opposed to 96 kHz. Do any other features stand out about the Mix Pre 6 over the Mix Pre 3? Better preamps? Thank you in advance.
 
The MixPre-3 and -6 both have the same Kashmir pre-amps. They both have built-in Bluetooth for use with the Wingman app.

The MixPre-6 has:
- 192kHz sampe rate
- an additional pre-amped input
- combo 1/4", XLR inputs for very flexible recording with different sources (MixPre-3 is XLR only)
- an assignable "star" button (*) which can be assigned for auick access of a few different functions
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
Thanks very much for clarifying Alex. I think for my purposes then I'd go with the Mix pre 3. As it seems to check all the boxes I already need.
Click to expand...

I doubt you'll be disappointed: I part-exchanged my Mixpre-D and a separate recorder (in this case, only a DR70D, though I did use the digital out for very quiet sources with low-noise mics) for a Mixpre-3, and have been hugely impressed by the sound, size and flexibility.

Cheers,

Roland
 
I have the 702 and was wondering if I'm going to loose sound quality if I went with a smaller lighter recorder like the mixpre -6. I'm also thinking that the future of sound is with 'ambisonic' and with mic's like the Sennheiser Ambeo starting to appear that need 4 channel capture the 702 may need retiring. Sometimes I just want a very compact and descete sound capture system based on a DPA 4060 pair rather than my MKH 30/50 and blimp but the 702 is a big and heavy lump.
 
Last edited:
Shirozina said:
Can the Mixpre-3/6 monitor MS like the 7 series? I have the 702 and was wondering if I'm going to loose sound quality if I went with a smaller lighter recorder like the mixpre -3 or 6
Click to expand...

Yes, the Mixpre-3/6 can monitor MS as stereo while recording the original M and S channels, and it can also decode MS and record LR. Not sure what this has to do with the second part of your post, but the preamps and ADC are excellent, so I doubt that you will be losing sound quality: the 702, of course, has additional functions/options, connections (inc. digital in/out), and sampling frequencies, which may or may not be relevant to your planned use and, arguably, it may be more robust.

Cheers,

Roland
 
After reading exhaustive reviews I ordered the 6 as a potential 702 replacement. If it's as good as claimed I can sell the 702 and come out with cash to spare which sounds too good to be true?.......
 
Not really too good to be true, the 702 is very old, and if you needs is only some of what a 702 does but matches better with the MixPre6 use case then it makes sense to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top