What does Sound Devices naming scheme mean?

V

Victor Nhat Nguyen

Well-known member
The 3 sound devices that I'm looking at is 302,422, and 522. Does their number mean anything and in what situation would I use one over the other?
 
As far as i know first number is number inputs for mics/channels. Last number may refer to number of outputs. 302 is a 3 input 2 output mixer. Not sure if naming methodology applies to all their products or if that ones just a lucky coincidence.
 
302= 3 inputs, 0 direct outputs, 2 master outputs
442= 4 inputs, 4 direct outputs, 2 master outputs
 
A direct out is an out from the channel after the trim but before the mixer. The master out put is the mixed signal.

So with the 552 you could go to a seven channel recorder and have each of the incoming signals on their own tracks and the mixed signal on the other two.
 
Direct-outs are used when "tracking" i.e. recording each channel on a separate track on the recorder. As Mr Koue said, the "master" output is the MIXED output.

Where, why, how you would use those different models and features depends on what you are doing. If you are producing something for live broadcast or streaming, etc. You need "live" (real-time) mixed sound to feed to the live consumers.

OTOH, if you are doing something that is designed for detailed post-production audio mixing, then you would record each channel (microphone) to a separate track so they can be mixed-down under ideal conditions (vs. the "heat of battle" doing live mixes, etc.)

It doesn't seem particularly useful to obsess on model numbers. They may or may not correlate with specific features (or features important to YOU). It is the features themselves that are the significant details.
 
Another reason you would use the various outputs is in feature film shoots where the mixer usually provides a mixed track for dailies and discrete tracks for post.
 
Noiz2 said:
Another reason you would use the various outputs is in feature film shoots where the mixer usually provides a mixed track for dailies and discrete tracks for post.
Click to expand...
I was wondering too about the difference between both terms. Thanks for clearing it up.
Looks like I was using direct-outs on my basic setup.

I prefer to have the freedom to mix in post, rather than working with an already mixed track. Even when I record with 2 mics at the time, I set each of them into a single channel, so in post, even if I end up with a stereo audio file, I can split that track into separate channels and work from there. Not as convenient as pro setups, but works well for me (Mics > JuicedLink CX211 > Tascam DR-05).
 
drapeama said:
I prefer to have the freedom to mix in post, rather than working with an already mixed track. Even when I record with 2 mics at the time, I set each of them into a single channel, so in post, even if I end up with a stereo audio file, I can split that track into separate channels and work from there. Not as convenient as pro setups, but works well for me (Mics > JuicedLink CX211 > Tascam DR-05).
Click to expand...

If you have a good production sound mixer, a mix track is great to work with. I usually only went to the individual tracks if I absolutely had to. It's easier to work with a solid mix track, at least for me. We all have our own ways of working. It's the end product that really counts.
 
davefisk said:
If you have a good production sound mixer [..] We all have our own ways of working. It's the end product that really counts.
Click to expand...
1) That's the problem, I'm running out of budget, so I'm using entry-level gear for audio. Works well so far. Next investment would be a recorder with XLR inputs.
2) I've been used to record that way. I can't use more than 2 mics at the time as I'm usually a one-man-crew on my shoots, so anything "better" would be overkill for now.
 
When Dave said "good production sound mixer" he meant the person not the box. A better box won't get you a better mix. It's one of those silly ways english has of using the same word for two very different things.
 
Victor another thing to consider is price. The 302 is $1500 new while the 552 is thousands of dollars with some others between those two amounts and even more for yet others. So its so a question of what you can afford.
 
I would think the tascam 680 would be an ideal budget mixer and recorder but learning to mix is the key thing to good on location audio as multi tracks may cause huge problems in the edit or in audio post!
 
Victor, Pro sound in new york has 2x 552 for $1500 a piece (as of last night). You'll find one again at that price. Another new york audio house got rid of some rental 552 at 1500 not to long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top