Wyatt Tuzo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm just curious. I don't really do bag work anymore... I'm having a hard time understanding why automix capability seems to make-or-break feature for so many. I feel like many of the recent conversations here (Nomad, 664, Maxx, etc.) seem to come back to this repeatedly. I have used automix ONCE in my career, and that was for a table read where they wanted every reader to have their own mic (and I wasn't provided a script beforehand) Am I missing something? How could this be SO useful, to SO many people, SO frequently that they are willing to walk away from a recorder that otherwise perfectly suits their needs? Wyatt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) " How could this be SO useful, to SO many people, SO frequently that they are willing to walk away from a recorder that otherwise perfectly suits their needs? " it is subjective. There are actually several different ways that auto-mixers may operate, and they often are considered advantageous in various circumstances, particularly if the mix is being delivered live. This feature is much more prevalent in the contracting branch of sound, where products have been available, and popular, for years; also popular in live (and like live) broadcasting... " I don't really do bag work anymore... " I don't think auto-mixing is primarily a traditional bag mixing option, though Shure did once make an automixer that could be easily used in a typical bag situation... learn more about automixers by looking up DanDugan Edited October 2, 2012 by studiomprd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Futterman Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 If you have a lot of mics and are recording something that is unrehearsed such as a conference, then I can see the use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 " recording something that is unrehearsed such as a conference, " or mixing a presidential debate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Martin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Unscripted reality or doc work with many "talent" wired up is another great use. No way to anticipate some lines from some cast members. An automixer can really clean up a mix rather than keeping many mics open to stay on the safe side. It also works to keep background noise levels constant no matter how many or few mics are open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I understand the principles behind automix, and I understand these scenarios (as I outline in my experience using it). What I'm still baffled by, is that people are demanding their new recorders to include automix as if It's a necessity to the work they do every day. Assuming there aren't a huge percentage of people here who's day-to-day does't involve conferences or the like, Iv'e begun to suspect that people are trying to use automix in OTS/verite style shooting. Am I mistaken? The time I actually used automix, I ended up intentionally disabling individual channels and mixing by hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Unscripted reality or doc work with many "talent" wired up is another great use. No way to anticipate some lines from some cast members. An automixer can really clean up a mix rather than keeping many mics open to stay on the safe side. It also works to keep background noise levels constant no matter how many or few mics are open. I started my last post prior to Matt's response. I suppose this is what I was having a hard time with. I personally haven't seen this as ever being a realistic option... To me, It just isn't transparent enough to rely on for this type of situation. I've also found that bleed into adjacent mics can make the automix algorithm to go wack-a-do. For panels, for podiums... I get it. For reality TV, I don't. But yeah... I suppose I was just curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 " What I'm still baffled by, " ahem... " To me, It just isn't transparent enough " it is subjective... and it is faster and more accurate than a person mixing can ever be... you got problems with the sound on Late Night with David Letterman ?? (or any of the many other shows successfully, and happily, using Dugan's stuff?) " Iv'e begun to suspect that people are trying to use automix in OTS/verite style shooting. " probably... and why not ? I used an FP-410 for that in the last millennium and before ISO's were practical... Use it these days for a live radio program, on remote, with 4-6 folks on headsets all talking -and even arguing- spontaneously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm certainly no expert on automixers but a multitrack recorder with an automix function (perhaps with an easily deploy-able manual override or 'lock open/close' option) would be a nice feature to have for anyone booming and mixing a bunch of unscripted mics. Imagine if it was so effective that it could be controlled from an interface small enough to hold in hand or even attached to a boom pole when operating and the rest of (the fully capable) system could sit in a back-pack. I know i will get rubbished for this suggestion but consider the capability of a bag based set-up today compared to the size of a similarly capable system from a generation ago. I for one don't consider being a beast of burden (with all the associated wear and tear) as necessarily vital for doing a good job - it happens to be so at this moment in time but i'd like to think this could evolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taskin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I have tried it for the first time when it came with the new firmware update for my 788t. I found it effects the dialogue its self way too much and has no real settings on the 788t. It might have been possible to make it less audible if it had some Attack and Threshold settings or something. Anyway I can definitely live without it, not a huge deal for me personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srgtfury Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 In addition to the above, isn't auotimix a big, badaboon to the OMB's boom...? Is automix, on the Nomad, the sort of thing that can be performed and sent to whatever tracks/outputs that are available, whilst keeping all, otherwise processes and bus assignments unmolested? Thank you very much Fury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Have you actually tried to mix multiple radio mics whilst waving a boom around? Mix assist is a godsend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 In addition to the above, isn't auotimix a big, badaboon to the OMB's boom...? Is automix, on the Nomad, the sort of thing that can be performed and sent to whatever tracks/outputs that are available, whilst keeping all, otherwise processes and bus assignments unmolested? Thank you very much Fury Not quite sure what you are referring to. Any of the recorders/mixers that provide an auto-mix feature I think only applies to the MIX. So, if have multiple sources you are trying to mix to a given track, the auto-mix function "auto"mixes those sources to that track. If the same sources are being recorded iso pre-fader to their own tracks, the auto-mix feature won't touch those tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taskin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Have you actually tried to mix multiple radio mics whilst waving a boom around? Mix assist is a godsend. It is only good for making a bad mix without using your hands, thank god! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 " It is only good for making a bad mix without using your hands, thank god! " I disagree, your welcome, and just call me Senator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taskin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 " It is only good for making a bad mix without using your hands, thank god! " I disagree, your welcome, and just call me Senator. Well I can only comment on what I heard from my 788t. It just sounds like a badly setup noise gate. It is choppy and sometimes it takes about a second to open up while you clearly miss entire words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srgtfury Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Have you actually tried to mix multiple radio mics whilst waving a boom around? Mix assist is a godsend. Hi Mac, Zackly...pun intended. Hi Jeff, Zackly, so isn't this, to some degree, at least, a boon for the OMB to free up a lotta energy on booming, or whatever? Thank you very much Fury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I've used auto mix more than a handful of times and find it very helpful in reducing over all noise floor and omitting ambient human noises. Dugans sounds great compared to the shure and much more transparent. Can Senator or someone comment on the quality between a 788t and a Dugan? I would assume that the Dugan is better being its a 2-4 space unit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Martin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I have only ever used the Dugan, which is a beautiful piece of gear. Works flawlessly with no chopped off words, doesn't sound or act like a gate at all. Never used the 788's mix assist, which may not be as elegantly implemented. If the Nomad's automix feature is half as good as the Dugan, I'd be very happy. I know they have put a lot of time into it and I thought I read somewhere here that they hired a new person to work solely on this. I have high hopes, but we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dugan is the Prosche-Ferrari-Rolls of the auto-mixers, but in the right situations, the SD works pretty darn well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taskin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dugan is the Prosche-Ferrari-Rolls of the auto-mixers Well I sure hope so, considering the price So can you really set one of these up and sit back read a book during a long feature job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastermixaudiomedia Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I would assume that the Dugan is better being its a 2-4 space unit! Pretty awesome that they've managed to get 16 channels worth onto a Yamaha YGDAI card... been telling my department that we need to get one for our Yamaha LS9-32 which would get great use out of it's functionality... DUGAN-MY16 Automatic Mixing Controller Card That being said I'm really looking forward to the Zaxcom implementation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Have you actually tried to mix multiple radio mics whilst waving a boom around? Mix assist is a godsend. If this was directed toward me, then yes. I did so for about a decade before moving to narrative work. When I was working in that realm, the impossible wasn't expected. Either you got something or you didn't... Your reputation as a mixer was based largely on such. For me, I always saw it as a fun challenge. A dance. As for the Dugan vs. SD vs. Zax question... I could be fairly certain that a dedicated box by the inventor of the technology would out-perform an all-in-one solution such as the Nomad or 664... But that wasn't really what I was asking about (Mike). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well if I am sat down, I don't mind the challenge. But i defy any one of us to react as quickly as a good mix assist does when someone unexpectedly starts talking - SD claim 1 ms, with a release of 50ms. It doesn't sound gated and has been implemented very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Not quite sure what you are referring to. Any of the recorders/mixers that provide an auto-mix feature I think only applies to the MIX. So, if have multiple sources you are trying to mix to a given track, the auto-mix function "auto"mixes those sources to that track. If the same sources are being recorded iso pre-fader to their own tracks, the auto-mix feature won't touch those tracks. I think that's what S.Fury was saying, only you put it directly and clearly (the essence of effective language use) rather than obfuscating with pedantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.