Mixers

[tonetripper]

Hi all,

 

I'm on a fact finding mission.  I'm interested in buying a CL9 due to my current set up and being rather streamlined as I slowly amble my way into the mixing category with my union out here in Toronto.

 

I spoke with one of the foremost mixers in my union about my setup and making the leap from boom to mixing and he didn't seem to agree with the CL9 due to outputs.

 

He suggested I buy another mixer from a mixer who's left the business (eg Cooper) but the 788 has 6 outputs on it for where ever I want to feed and is selectable according to tracks needed to be had by whatever output is selected.  I find the CL9 fits my need to be extremely streamlined for those times where you have to make yourself mobile (such as car rigs or what have you).  I just have to disconnect the CL9 and connect the CL8 which in the bag contains a VR field and the 788T.  Harry Quan has outfitted it power wise to function very efficiently of off V-Lock batteries.

 

I was wondering about some of you mixers out there what would be your feel on this quandry of making the leap?  I have a certain sum of money and have been eyeballing the Cooper 106+1 used.

 

In this day it seems that mixing has gone somewhat by the wayside from the idea of mono mixing and like.  Editors seem to want all the ISOs.  Knowing this has somewhat created my feeling to go CL9.

 

Recently they added a mixer who has the exact same setup I currently am running.  Any advice from some of the Sage membership here would be of great help.

 

Paul

[Jeff Wexler]

"In this day it seems that mixing has gone somewhat by the wayside from the idea of mono mixing and like.  Editors seem to want all the ISOs.  Knowing this has somewhat created my feeling to go CL9."

 

Yes, they want all the isos (that went into your mix) but you still need to do a mix (to track 1) if you are doing almost any sort of job: commercial, industrial, movie, webisode, whatever. If your Mixing Panel is a hardware interface (like the SD CL-9 or Zaxcom MIX-8/12) it IS just that --- an interface providing you with easier mixing capabilities (slide faders, knobs, etc.) than you have on the host machine. If the host machine has all the features, functions and I/O you need for the jobs you are doing, an interface may be a fine solution for the task of mixing. If you're not planning on mixing anything (just going to do some tracking and hand over all your isos so someone else can mix it) then why would you need a standalone mixer (Cooper, etc.) or even an interface to your recorder? The interface doesn't give you any more features or functions than the recorder itself.

[mikeguarino]

I sold my 106 when SD came out with the CL 9. I was tired of the mess of cables and the size and wight of the 106.

 

A few years later and I honestly miss my cooper very much. I miss the EQ's and the overall sonic quality. It sounds so much better than plugging directly into a 788. 

 

The CL9 absolutely gets the job done. One thing i dont like is using it to communicate to my boom ops. I use a separate system for that.

[Mark LeBlanc]

I've been happily running the CL-9 for 2 years now. Is it as impressive on set as an Analog Mixer.... No.. 

Does it get the job done.. YES..  

Now, i've started looking at Analog Mixers. The sole reason being I would like to be able to send out to ISO channels as Pre-Eq and Post-EQ to the Mix Channel. I mainly use the 788T to give a touch of high end back to buried Lav's or Boom with the full wind protection on.. It would be nice if the 788 could set the channel EQ to Pre/Post for ISO purposes..

With that said, I'm not looking to change anytime soon. I enjoy the low power consumption, small footprint. I have not encounter an of the Communication issues most guys complain about.. I use an input switch on input 8 to go from Slate Mic to Iso input if needed. On the shows I work, its rare I hit having all 8 channels recording. If I start hitting more than that then I'll switch to a Deva 16.. But for now it works great.. 

[Constantin]

Not sure exactly what it is you're asking. Nonetheless I can tell you that it is very easy for you to find out what you need by reading around. Here and elsewhere. I would recommend that, because a lot of this is down to personal taste and workflow preference. Some like, as you were saying, the simple setup the CL-9 provides. Plus with it, you get 8 isos plus up to 4 mix tracks on the 788. but it can be less than intuitive at times to use, with some functions being only accessible with two-button presses (or more). Others prefer a full-blown mixer, with a button for each feature, full EQ and various other functions, but above all for the sound. When hooked up to the 788, you'd only get 7 isos and a mono mix. Personally, I have settled on the CL-9 route for now, but I often miss my AD-149 frequently. The CL-9 is not really for mobile set-ups, though. I would consider it a cart mixer (or, rather, controller).

[tonetripper]

"In this day it seems that mixing has gone somewhat by the wayside from the idea of mono mixing and like.  Editors seem to want all the ISOs.  Knowing this has somewhat created my feeling to go CL9."

 

Yes, they want all the isos (that went into your mix) but you still need to do a mix (to track 1) if you are doing almost any sort of job: commercial, industrial, movie, webisode, whatever. If your Mixing Panel is a hardware interface (like the SD CL-9 or Zaxcom MIX-8/12) it IS just that --- an interface providing you with easier mixing capabilities (slide faders, knobs, etc.) than you have on the host machine. If the host machine has all the features, functions and I/O you need for the jobs you are doing, an interface may be a fine solution for the task of mixing. If you're not planning on mixing anything (just going to do some tracking and hand over all your isos so someone else can mix it) then why would you need a standalone mixer (Cooper, etc.) or even an interface to your recorder? The interface doesn't give you any more features or functions than the recorder itself.

Interesting you say this Jeff. At the moment I'm hoping to mix second unit stuff commercials or what have you. I already know that I can achieve most of what I need even mix wise w the CL8. I also think the eq, or lack thereof in concerns w the CL9, is somewhat why I would want to go w a more professional mixer and not an interface.

I think the big burning question is fidelity. Is there a considerable difference to your professional ears that would make producers state 'that's what separates the men from the boys' or are our ears to refined for the average consumer of our sound servings. I'm sure features or high end tv, we may be allowed to shine, the mixer would set it apart but second unit tier 2 tv is it going to make that big of a difference to the end result.

I guess I'm looking at the big picture (pun intended). I plan on making a strong move to where I'm going and I don't want to regret making the purchase thinking I should have gone analog.

Plus the 10-12 tracks whereby you can have 7 or 8 ISOs is a nice feature w the CL9.

[tonetripper]

I've been happily running the CL-9 for 2 years now. Is it as impressive on set as an Analog Mixer.... No.. 

Does it get the job done.. YES..  

Now, i've started looking at Analog Mixers. The sole reason being I would like to be able to send out to ISO channels as Pre-Eq and Post-EQ to the Mix Channel. I mainly use the 788T to give a touch of high end back to buried Lav's or Boom with the full wind protection on.. It would be nice if the 788 could set the channel EQ to Pre/Post for ISO purposes..

With that said, I'm not looking to change anytime soon. I enjoy the low power consumption, small footprint. I have not encounter an of the Communication issues most guys complain about.. I use an input switch on input 8 to go from Slate Mic to Iso input if needed. On the shows I work, its rare I hit having all 8 channels recording. If I start hitting more than that then I'll switch to a Deva 16.. But for now it works great.. 

Thanks so much Marc! Your words encourage me to keep thinking very hard about the CL9.

There is a gentleman brought in from Nabet over to IA here in TO that has the exact same setup I'm thinking of using which is contrary to the thinking the mixer I spoke to about making the leap. But you can't knock the preamps on a good mixer like a cooper or sonosax.

Although the 788s limiters are quite good.

[RPSharman]

The CL-9 uses the preamps in the 788T directly. There's no reason sound should be inferior. If anything, it should be better.

As for EQ, you should search the threads. Conventional wisdom states that EQ should be used VERY gingerly. I use only a bit of EQ, which is on ISOs too on Solice. If you use EQ in mix and prefade has no EQ, then if ISO is needed to "fix" your mix, post will have to miraculously re-create the EQ you used on set. Not an easy task.

Will most people notice? No.

[Jeff Wexler]

"I also think the eq, or lack thereof in concerns w the CL9, is somewhat why I would want to go w a more professional mixer and not an interface."

 

This gets to what I was saying about using an interface --- the interface only lets you access the features and functions of the host recorder. In your case, the host recorder is an SD 788, right? I'm not that familiar with the present 788 but I seem to remember that it really doesn't have any EQ --- maybe High Pass filter and that's it? So, if you use an interface (to the 788) you will not have the EQ and limiters that would be available to you if using a standalone mixer feeding the 788. These are things that you will only have with a standalone mixer (or with an interface "mixer" if you were using to a different recorder, a MIX-8 or MIX-12 with a Deva for example, where you would have comprehensive EQ, Effects, etc.). Whether the lack of these things will be detrimental to your work and the need to fill in for other sound mixers who have these things, this is quite difficult to determine. For me, the reasons for continuing to use my old Cooper Mixer (standalone analog mixer) feeding a totally modern state of the art digital recorder (Deva 5., pretty much boils down to the fact that I like the way it sounds, I like individual knobs and switches and so forth. But by using a very old analog mixer (rather than an interface to the incredibly feature rich Deva recorder) I am missing out on the power, flexibility and configurability provided by the Deva. Having so little experience with the SD 788 I am not the one to weigh in on what you might be missing by going the interface (CL-9) route.

[tonetripper]

The CL-9 uses the preamps in the 788T directly. There's no reason sound should be inferior. If anything, it should be better.

Sorry if I maybe wasn't clear. The preamps are just fine in the 788. Just wonder if a cooper would make the difference preamp wise in comparison.

I've also heard conflicting reports about the CL9 in concerns to the latency affecting fader movements. Ones guy told me that he wanted to get an analog mixer. He had been doin flash point here. The power sitch and footprint are the few good reasons I'm leaning that way. At least to begin.

[John Blankenship]

As concerns preamp quality, "all the above" (Zaxcom preamps, Sound Devices preamps, Cooper preamps, Sonosax preamps, Solice preamps), and more, such as Aaton preamps, and Yamaha preamps, etc., have been used to great success on a wide variety of projects.  If you go to the movies and/or watch TV, you've no doubt heard them all.  While they each may have their own subtle nuances, in most situations they're likely to make little difference in the final product. 

 

The decision is primarily one of working style -- your I/Os, how they're configured, what you're comfortable with, etc.  In many cases, weight and size also enter into the equation.  What the sound mixer you quoted originally told you was his preference, not yours.  While it's well worth considering other opinions, the decision of what's right for you can only be made by you. 

 

If you're concerned about professionalism, be assured, all the above are professional and have served other professionals just fine.

 

We currently enjoy an embarrassment of riches when it comes to equipment choice.  The only downside is when this feast results in screams of surrender from our budgets. 

[Mark LeBlanc]

Jeff,

In addition the HP filter, there is a very limited 1 band EQ on the 788. You can dial in the Frequency, Amount and "Q" setting. The Q setting is number only and doesn't really give you a "Curve".. I set mine to a setting of 5 and will generally give the high end a gentle nudge when the lav is under clothing or when I've got the boom with full wind protection on. Another mixer friend has mentioned the "Lag" in the faders. I don't really notice it, but then prior to the CL-9 I used Control Surface interfaces from various companies with Protools. Maybe got used to it and Mix with a "Pre Lag" feel..

In conjunction with an External Keyboard that I have shortcuts assigned to various functions on the 788t, I can fly around changing settings on the 788 without getting into the menu system..

One Note on the Communication setup. I don't have a private talkback from my boom op back to me, if it's something that private then he just needs to step over to my cart.. I also recently discovered a wonderful use for old Midi Keyboard sustain pedals.. You can assign the momentary switch of the pedal to various functions on the 788. I use mine to "Slate" so I don't have to have the "Shift" button engaged. This allows me to use both Com1 and Com2 at the same time by toggling both switches at once. This way I can have talk to Boom op and Utility Separately OR both at the same time.. This comes in Super handy!!

[tonetripper]

We currently enjoy an embarrassment of riches when it comes to equipment choice. The only downside is when this feast results in screams of surrender from our budgets.

Hahaha that's an awesome quote

I also recently discovered a wonderful use for old Midi Keyboard sustain pedals.. You can assign the momentary switch of the pedal to various functions on the 788. I use mine to "Slate" so I don't have to have the "Shift" button engaged. This allows me to use both Com1 and Com2 at the same time by toggling both switches at once. This way I can have talk to Boom op and Utility Separately OR both at the same time.. This comes in Super handy!!

That is something I definitely will be trying.

[Philip Perkins]

I don't think the diffs in sound between preamps in recorders and consoles or anything else will get you work or cost you work if the tracks are clean and punchy.  Beyond that what gets you work is being easy to work WITH, being organized and being fast.  As location soundies, everything we do beyond good basic tracks is in service to these concepts.  The thing you'll like about a console is that you can easily tweak EQ live, with visual feedback ( ie knob positions) with one hand while fader-riding with the other.  We've all done rehearsed scenes where the way we made the mix work was to do a live EQ change mid go--that is possible with a console in a way that it isn't w/ a CL9.   Quickly and easily EQing during rehearsals etc as well, or during those long long non-rehearsed takes where you know there will be no take 2.   And the analog sound may make you happier as you work and listen...for an old guy like me those analog boards inspire confidence.

 

philp

[tonetripper]

Ironically Philip I come from a musician/live music mixer background. I love the tactile aspect of an analog board. I was also toying with purchasing a mackie 1640i. A much bigger footprint. That, ideally suits my need for a potentially larger track count and gives me computer versatility.

Back in the day David Lee RIP used a mackie 1640 board to mix Chicago to a Nagra 1/4 inch machine before the digital push. I always found that interesting. A flat sounding board to my ears and sometimes brittle in the upper eq but with tape saturation it brought, I'm sure, a different value. There were mixers up in arms here in TO about such a low brow move but in my mind rather genius.

As a boom op I've heard all the boards w the various recording sit-ups (Deva, SD, Meta Corder, DAT-worst medium ever, 1/4 inch w Dolby Nagra) and really the board made the difference but that was normally ( latter set ups) mono mixing to post. But these days w so much concentration on wires and ISOs the mixers mix doesn't necessarily get a say about his/her master mix IMHO once it goes to post audio to build. Does a good sounding board make the difference, that lowers my track count, but makes the boom at least beautiful. Also on those rare occasions some voice just needs that 5 K tweak.

[Philip Perkins]

And then there is what big bitchen trafos do to the sound, and the expression on your face when you hear that.  They also affects how line in sources sound too, ie from RX.   Possibly an acquired taste, but I have acquired it.

 

philp

[Constantin]

You could achieve that 5K tweak with the CL-9, too, but I agree it's much easier on an analog mixer. Most Posties here will tell you anyway, to leave the EQ section well alone.

[Christian Spaeth]

I had a similar situation before I started mixing on a bigger production. The first time I used a 788 and CL8 and wasn't too happy with results, mixing up to 7 tracks on the CL8. I suppose post remixed most of my tracks. Now I use a Nomad and Mix-8 and am quite happy with it. I set notches and high pass filters on the Nomad when necessary, set gain and ride faders on the Mix 8 and if I need to go somewhere I can't take my cart (cars etc.) I just plug out the Mix 8 and mix on the Nomad. I don't think I would use a whole lot of EQ on an analog board, but then again, once you have it you probably can't do without it soon enough. I like the sound of my recorder's pres and limiters. There were a few times where I wondered if an analog board would help me increase the S/N. That might be the only real downside I can think of right now using your recorder's pres instead of an analog board.

[Constantin]

I had a similar situation before I started mixing on a bigger production. The first time I used a 788 and CL8 and wasn't too happy with results, mixing up to 7 tracks on the CL8. I suppose post remixed most of my tracks. Now I use a Nomad and Mix-8 and am quite happy with it. I set notches and high pass filters on the Nomad when necessary, set gain and ride faders on the Mix 8 and if I need to go somewhere I can't take my cart (cars etc.) I just plug out the Mix 8 and mix on the Nomad. I don't think I would use a whole lot of EQ on an analog board, but then again, once you have it you probably can't do without it soon enough. I like the sound of my recorder's pres and limiters. There were a few times where I wondered if an analog board would help me increase the S/N. That might be the only real downside I can think of right now using your recorder's pres instead of an analog board.

It may be a bit unfair to compare the 788T/CL-8 combo with the Nomad/Mix-8 combo. Or did you mean CL-9? Mixing on the cart with CL-9, then going mobile without it is just as feasible with the 788T/CL-9.

Higher S/N with an analog board? I don't think so, not if you're mixing more than one source

[tonetripper]

I'm still really on the fence. I wish I could come to a good conclusion.

I feel like my work possibilities could amp up w a good analog board amongst the feature mixers but the CL9 works for the fast paced shooting of tv work. Second unit would most likely come my way more in the beginning but I want to make lasting good impression. I can get a 106+1 for about 1000 more.

I would use subtle eq based on the tonality of rooms, voice timbre, and for thos really whispery actors I think I would prefer the musicality of the preamps on the board during those soft more intimate moments but like the fluidity of the CL9 for moving into guerrilla shooting. Arrrrrgh.

Help!

[RPSharman]

Are you talking about perception?

Are you thinking that a producer/UPM will perceive you as more professional if you have an old Cooper over a new CL-9?

I made one decision about gear based on that theory. I was heading off to do a movie at a very high rate with a top rental. The producers had complained to Director about my rate and travel costing production an additional $50k. The director stood up for me. I had mixed his last movie, and quite a few others, with my Mackie. My worry was that a producer might recognize my $700 Mackie and be pissed off paying so much rental. The movie fell apart at the 11th hour, but I ended up with a new Solice.

I never worried about it before, and I don't believe anyone since then has been "impressed" with my Solice. It just doesn't matter to them, as far as I can tell.

What they care about is good tracks with the most reliable equipment and pleasant crew.

[tonetripper]

It's more perception from this top ranking mixer here I guess I'm concerned with. He's the pres of our sound world and high ranking IA member. Gets all the monster features. I guess I wasn't sure if that would affect my position w him. He's sort of in a yea or nea sitch when it comes to me crossing over as a member in boom for the last 12 years to the mixing category. I haven't applied to move over but told by other mixers to do so and have done second unit calls in the last few years in between the reality world I've been a part of.

I know with my extensive doc and reality background I'm not about to hold up productions. I just want to streamline in and am quite acquainted with the setup I'm investigating (CL9 vs Cooper), but I've always appreciated as a boom man the sound of well made boards for location work.

Has your work shifted with purchase of your solace Robert?

[RPSharman]

My work opportunities are no different, as far as I know.

But I hear what you're saying. The work I get comes from other mixers too, and I suppose they might judge sound mixers based on the gear they own. I'm not convinced, however, what mixer you use is how you are judged.

I'd expect any professional mixer or interface would be fine. And there are at least 2 very good mixers I know of who are mixing with Mackies and are doing just fine. Many more using the Yamaha. So really, a Cooper or Solice or CL-9 or whatever is fine.

[Zack]

Just something to consider between mixer and control surface. You can use your mixer with any change in equipment unlike the proprietary nature of a control surface.

[Mark LeBlanc]

Tone, if your wanting to impress, get an iPad with CLWiFi. every producers jaw drops when they see and the flashing meters. they have never questioned about my CL-9. they do ask what the ipad is for!