Would any of these be a good mixer for AF-100?

Loganm187

Loganm187

Well-known member
About to shoot a short film and the very small amount of hiss I get from the Mic out on the Af-100 is bothering me so I thought I would run LINE OUT to a mixer and bypass the AF-100 pre amps. I have a RODE NTG-3 and found a list of mixers below I'm interested in...Will they fix my "problem" and give me 24 bit instead of 16 bit sound? I know very little about running/mixing sound, but I would just run an XLR from my AF-100 with "Line out" into the mixer than my mic out from the mixer. Just so I understand this correctly the sound will still be recorded to to my SD card, but will just sound better because it's bypassing the af-100 pre amps. I know some of this is standard info, but I wanna make sure I understand this correctly. Thanks!

http://www.newmediagear.com/top-5-analog-mixers-under-100-a-mix-of-mixers/
 
My advice is dont get into "field mixers" lightly.

I brought one for a specific production and discovered there is a lot to learn about audio.

I was very greatful for a lot of awesome advice I was given in this forum (and others) but I still would confess...I do not understand audio. The field mixer is an added complexity beyond mere mortals such as myself.

Ask a few sound techies how to set levels between mixer output and camera input using a tone level .... to see what I mean!

Good luck.
 
Shows you how much I know! HAHA! So even running through a mixer I'm sill getting 16bit? just with a cleaner signal because I'm not using the Af100 preamps, right? The small hiss that you can barely hear unless turned up doesn't bother me 600 dollars though...any cheaper mixers?
I have a full length shot on a DVX where I used the NTG-3 just plugged straight in playing many festivals right now and I get tons of compliments on the sound, but wanted to make my new projects with AF-100 even sound better.
 
The quality of the AF-100 mic preamps is probably already comparable to those you'd find in any field mixer or recorder under $500. The Sound Devices equipment is probably the minimum that will give you a detectable improvement in recording quality, and you will pay for that, both in money and increased complexity in transporting, wiring up, setting levels and operating the equipment in the field.

The justifiable reason for buying a cheap mixer -- one that is as noisy or worse than the AF100 used "barefoot" -- is if you absolutely must record from more than two microphones at the same time, and can accept the slight hit in technical audio quality in exchange for being able to get the multiple mics closer to the subjects. An example of this would be something like a talk show or panel discussion with several people seated around a table. Providing a microphone for each one, either a lavalier or on a table stand, will get you a closer and clearer sound even if it hisses a bit more, and I'm not putting it down, because that's a compromise that is worth making for some kinds of programs. I have a few cheap mixers myself that I use in that way sometimes.

If you record to the AF100, you're going to get 16-bit audio, at best. Its default mode is actually a compressed Dolby AC3 audio stream that is not quite equal to the quality of a CD audio recording (which is 16 bits, uncompressed). You can put the AF100 in its "LPCM" mode to avoid the lossy compression, but this may cause problems with some editing software, and you need to test your entire workflow for compatibility before using it.

If you add an audio mixer to your setup, and hope to get the best out of it, you should also assume you're going to need another knowledgeable person on set to operate it. Trying to run a camera and a mixer at the same time is sure to lead to compromises in one or the other. And actually getting a higher quality recording out of the mixer than you could with the camera alone requires pretty close attention to levels, wiring and microphone placement -- the margin for error is fairly thin because the improvement to be gained is subtle to begin with. The big expense isn't even the purchase of the mixer and associated cables and so forth, it's paying and feeding that additional, skilled worker you'll be adding to your crew. If you're going to do that, you might as well get an external audio recorder as well, which will give you 24-bit sound and more flexibility in rigging cables and so on.

I'm not trying to be discouraging here, just pointing out that, first of all, the native audio on the AF100 ain't all that bad, and second, there's more to making it better than just knowing which end of the cable to plug the microphone into. You can go as far with this as your curiosity, talent and budget allow!

- Greg
 
Last edited:
Hi not to hijack the thread, but i to have been thinking of a mixer or a recorder so i can do separate audio and video. I have just purchased a blackbird stabilizer and obviously do not like the idea of sound xlr cables sticking out of the camera as im trying to fly. Do you think something like the tascam dr100 would be a good way to record audio seperately for when im doing steadicam type shots? Anyone know if the audio quality of that would be simialr to the af's? Which I am really enjoying currently, (i owned a dvx100 and this seems a lot better!)
 
I use my trusty (old mono) Shure 367's they have 6 mic/line inputs and line/mic out and headphone jack. Either wirelessly to the AF100 or an XLR cable.

It will send tone, set it to 0DB on the 367, and set that to -20DB on the AF100 and then the sound person keeps the average at the 0DB level no peak above +5DB using the Analog meter on the 367.

This is great peace of mind for me shooting I don't have to look at the VU meters in the camera or think about audio. The sound person monitors with headphones at the 367 and you know it will then be the same in the camera.

This will work with any descent field mixer. You can also record on a separate deck/recorder at the same time from the mixer.

Other times I use a Mackie 1402/1604 or my Yamaha 03D and an 8-track recorder for live music or theater events.
 
taras4444 said:
Hi not to hijack the thread, but i to have been thinking of a mixer or a recorder so i can do separate audio and video. I have just purchased a blackbird stabilizer and obviously do not like the idea of sound xlr cables sticking out of the camera as im trying to fly. Do you think something like the tascam dr100 would be a good way to record audio seperately for when im doing steadicam type shots? Anyone know if the audio quality of that would be simialr to the af's? Which I am really enjoying currently, (i owned a dvx100 and this seems a lot better!)
Click to expand...

The DR-100 would be a good companion to the AF100. It will support 48 kbps/24 bit recording and has decent -- not outstanding, but decent -- mic preamps. You'll need to slate your shots or use something like Pluraleyes to line up audio to video in post.

Alternatively, you could consider the Tascam HD-P2, which is a larger and more expensive unit, but which has more finger-friendly controls and can sync to timecode from the camera. That requires messing with additional cables and remembering to re-sync the devices whenever either one has been turned off, but it automates the synchronizing process during editing.

The audio quality between these two machines probably isn't enough different to worry about, but the HD-P2 has a reputation for clean preamps and these can be further upgraded with the Oade Brothers third-party modification to make them truly excellent.

- Greg
 
Cool thanks man yeah I've heard about the hd-p2 as well but nice for you to make it simple for me and udnerstand the positive and negatives! So thanks buddy! Does look pretty sweet! Hypothetically, and im aware its never this easy or simple, but if the settings and environment etc were exactly the same when the sound was captured, would the dr 100/hdp2 be at least equal to the af100 sound quality or perhaps slightly better? Also My only other concern is how long can you record audio into the dr100? I've seen reviews where people mention 20 minutes and it falls out of sync or something? Do you think they are just talking about having one shot and the audio going continuously or something? I've got a decision to make now!
 
If you decide you want a decent field mixer - and are considering the the Sound Devices MixPre...then definitely spring for the extra $85 and get the MixPre-D. SO much better for the $$.
 
taras4444 said:
Hypothetically, and im aware its never this easy or simple, but if the settings and environment etc were exactly the same when the sound was captured, would the dr 100/hdp2 be at least equal to the af100 sound quality or perhaps slightly better?
Click to expand...

It could be better, especially if you record in 24-bit mode, which gives you both more headroom, and a little more room for correcting errors if your levels are a bit too low. I don't think the difference will be dramatic, and it's nothing compared to choosing the right microphones, using them properly, and monitoring the sound quality and levels well. But yes, it has some advantages over connecting directly to the camera.

Also My only other concern is how long can you record audio into the dr100? I've seen reviews where people mention 20 minutes and it falls out of sync or something? Do you think they are just talking about having one shot and the audio going continuously or something? I've got a decision to make now!
Click to expand...

I have never used the DR-100 personally (I own an HD-P2 myself.) I have heard some discussion about this on the Audio forum here, so you might want to go and ask your question again there. For short takes of under a few minutes I don't think there's a problem with any of these recorders. The issue really only arises when the camera and recorder are rolling for many minutes or hours on end. Even equipment with time code that is only synchronized once at the beginning of the take can have this problem when running for a long time. But it is fairly easy to fix in post if necessary.

- Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top