Analog or control surface mixer?

[Philip Perkins]

Wait--but there IS a diff between what I hear on the input of a recorder hooked up to what I call a "big iron" console, which may or may not have biggo trafos in it, and what I hear on my mixer recorders!  Maybe not a good vs bad thing, but definitely a more immediately pleasing, "warmer" (uh-oh, straying into audiophile airspace here) sound, TO ME.  Music engineers are all over this sort of diff, and tailor the signal chain to work with the sound source this way.  Baggists still have a choice to go with a more "analog" setup if they want (like 664, say vs 788, or using a sep mixer as a front end), but all the stuff made for us location types these days seems to cleave to the "fast clean uncolored" school of design, which is prob a good thing overall.  I just miss mixers that had a definite "good" audio personality, very possibly a misplaced sort of nostalgia.

 

In other news, I just did a gig at a venue that had just replaced a fairly old Yamaha digital board with a brand new CL5.  The difference was really dramatic--so much more open, punchy, detailed etc.  Yay Yamaha--a big advance in consoles in that range.  (Yay also for the remote stage rack, sending a single CAT 5 to the console instead of a copper snake.)

 

philp

[larry long]

Gentlemen,

I mixed on a Cooper 106 for years feeding a Nagra, Dat and later Disk Recorders. I switched to Ron's Solice and now it looks like I'll be moving to the Mix 12 because I simply need more tracks. I always preferred the analog till capture mode and two independent devices for safety. I have the fully capable Nomad in my bag for emergency and with today's shipping I can replace gear easily if it fails in the field.

For me, arguing the esoteric nuances of analog vs control surfaces and their components is mute due to the fact that everything I do is wireless. Having been a fan of the Cooper boards I find that putting a SD MM1 ahead of a transmitter gives me the warmth and control that I like to hear from my boom mic's.

Getting everything into the recorder in the most flexible, streamlined and bullet proof fashion is paramount.

Just my 2 cents.

Larry Long

PS

I can't wait for the new Deva!

[old school]

Getting everything into the recorder in the most flexible, streamlined and bullet proof fashion is paramount.

Larry Long

 

I agree with this. Whatever works for you is the answer to analog or control surface or digital mixer.

CrewC

[Jeff Wexler]

I agree with this. Whatever works for you is the answer to analog or control surface or digital mixer.

CrewC

Too easy...  but you're right!

[old school]

Ha. I am a master of the obvious Jeff.

For the record I am a fan of analog mixers. I use my old Cooper 106 in my home studio and I love what I get from it feeding my ProTools rig. For work and $$$ I use a analog PSC Solice feeding a Deva 4 and it works well for me. I came close to a Mix 12 at one point in time because I wanted to tap the full power of the Deva. If I came across a digital mixer that made sense to me, ( I do like the Presonus Studiolive 16 AI) and it matched my needs for the job I can easily see going that direction. Really it is as Larry stated these days. What is a blessing and perhaps a curse is we have more choices now than ever before. 

CrewC

[tonetripper]

Well I wrestled with this concept for some time before biting at the control surface aspect.  The jobs (in IA) have been running the gamut at this point.  A couple of shows I've had to resort to having a bag at my disposal for circumstances where the actor is driving a vehicle with another in the passenger seat and camera shooting from behind with focus puller and director (of course no space for me).  In this case the CL9 has been great for the quick pace of TV.  I just simply unplugged the USB and plugged in the CL8, VR field that is in the bag (the brains of the operation) and popit in the trunk with antennae.  For this sort of wave of filming (and it seems to be happening more and more) this setup makes perfect sense.  Also the time that is needed to track select and be on top of the end product for post has been great with the CL9.  I also have employed EQ at points (as dangerous as some may think) when the background steam or other shit going on with SFX has been kind of crazy enough for me to take the chance to filter and or make the dialogue more intelligible.  Routing is also dead easy with the control surface setup.  Generally I don't EQ much unless I have a really buried wire (due to clothing choices) and I want to push the top end a bit or the background demands that I take a chance in doing so.

 

On the other hand I've done some second unit with some very whispery actors and have come up short in the audibility of the pre-amp noise of the 788.  That has been the struggle.  In the future I'm going to try to have a cart that is analog based, locked and loaded with a separate bag for those "bag" type moments.  There is ofcourse an issue with this as the bag is not nearly as FAT as the cart.  At the end of the day it's hard to say 100 percent what is preferable with post as they do love to build the audio and the noises on sets seems to be noisy enough that is seems like your bashing your skull in thinking why you spent all that money on such a beautiful sounding machine.  I guess at the end of the day it comes down to those quality moments where a control surface doesn't measure up to the beauty of a dedicated analog mixer preamps and limiters.  It is the downside of the control surface. 

 

If you are doing nothing but television and the plunge to buy a dedicated mixer seems to be a large mountain then the control surface is a great way to go and keep working.  It's funny we are the least thought of people on set (well most sets) until it all gets into post and then the voices start to drive around to the knives with the coats that hang on other people's backs (I jest ) then you start to recognize that having a dedicated mixer with beautiful pres and limiters is the way to go.  Depends on the job, but really we are all about fidelity given the limitations.  Might as well make it count.

 

I'm making do with the 788 CL9 CL8 combo but it's on the laundry list of upgrades to get the dedicated mixer.  Tough to do if the jobs aren't there completely to take the plunge, however the return comes pretty quickly if the jobs come, so if you build it they will come.  Great thread!

 

Paul

[Glen Trew]

Unfortunately, just saying they all contain "a mix of ICs and discreet components" only serves to obfuscate the issue. Cars all contain "a bunch of nuts and bolts" but that doesn't address the differences between a Lincoln and a Ferrari.

If you are contending that there is no sonic difference whatsoever between a Deva's preamp and a Sonosax preamp, I don't agree.

If you're saying that any difference has minimal effect on the final product a location sound mixer delivers, then I can buy your argument.

The final product that production sound mixers deliver is the original production tracks, which should be as distortion-free as possible, including added noise, clipping, "warmth", etc, and as much original dynamic range as practical. Beyond that, what happens between then and the audience's experience is out of our hands.

 

Obfuscation is the result of the arguments given about the sonic differences between a stand-alone mixer system and a control-surface/mixer/recorder system.There are none, necessarily.

 

You mentioned that the higher end [stand-alone] mixers have "discreet [analog] circuitry" that give them the edge (their circuits are actually a combination of discreet and integrated components), which is why I pointed out that the digital mixer/recorders do too. Likewise, while there are some mixer/recorders that have circuit layouts that compromise sonic integrity (no names mentioned here), some stand alone mixers do too. Regardless, unless the standalone mixer has digital outputs, the analog line inputs of the recorder are still being used.

 

There is a danger with generalizing about the sonic quality of stand alone mixers vs. control-surface mixer/recorders, with terms like "big iron", "open", "punchy", "warmer", "pleasing" and the like. Associating these terms with a particular category of devices vs. a different category influences people -- particularly those starting out -- to "hear" and embrace the same, which leads to misconceptions, which can lead to hearing the difference of Monster Cable copper vs. Radio Shack copper.

 

From using most of the mixer designs and different brands made for film/video production sound, I am well aware of sonic differences  between them (though I believe that the biggest factor behind claims of differences is from lack of familiarization in optimizing the setup of different devices, i.e. gain structure). However, when used to record original tracks (almost always what production sound mixers do) the first criteria and benchmark for any of them should be how true they are to the sources (in the case of a preamp, the microphone). According to quotes from Ray Dolby, this was the foundation of all Dolby products. A mixer should not be a plug-in filter that alters the source just by being inline, even if it's adding "warmth" or "punch" or "musicality", which, like it or not, is distortion. These types of distortion are best left to the final mix, but if desired on the original recording, then it should be done with microphone choice... "I want this actor to have a close warm soft sound, so I'll change the Schoeps MK41 to the Neumann KMR-81" is a lot more practical than "I want this actor to have a close warm soft sound, so I'll change the Sonosax SXST mixer to the Cooper CS-106.

 

Now, to address the poster's original question: It depends. 

 

The most significant advantage with a standalone mixer is in utility. A stand-alone mixer is more flexible as it will give you more options. It can be used with pretty much any recorder. It can even allow more inputs and outputs than the mixer alone because it allows use of the recorder's inputs and outputs and the mixer's inputs and outputs at the same time. For example when the 8-input Sonosax SXST with AES output module is used with a Deva recorder, you now have a 16 analog mic/line input mixing system with more outputs than I care to itemize. Conversely, when a control surface is used with it's mating recorder, only the inputs and outputs of the recorder are available.

 

On the other side: A control surface mated with a digital mixer/recorder is less expense, usually smaller, lighter weight, lower power consumption, and, uh... that's all. But in many cases, that's enough.

 

Glen Trew

[studiomprd]

GT: " hearing the difference of Monster Cable copper vs. Radio Shack copper. "

actually it is: hearing the difference of Monster Cable oxygen free copper vs. Radio Shack copper.

[Glen Trew]

GT: " hearing the difference of Monster Cable copper vs. Radio Shack copper. "

actually it is hearing the difference of Monster Cable oxygen free copper vs. Radio Shack copper.

I've often thought that should be an episode of "Ghost Hunters".

[al mcguire]

" The final product that production sound mixers deliver is the original production tracks, which should be as distortion-free as possible, including added noise, clipping, "warmth", etc, and as much original dynamic range as practical.

 

You would really have to add " Compression " to that list, under " distortion-free as possible "

[Constantin]

These types of distortion are best left to the final mix, but if desired on the original recording, then it should be done with microphone choice... "I want this actor to have a close warm soft sound, so I'll change the Schoeps MK41 to the Neumann KMR-81".

Actually, as a side note, I know at least a couple of guys who don't apply EQ to accomodate the actor's voice, but to define their own sound, hoping, I guess, to be recognizable by their sound.

[Constantin]

On the other side: A control surface mated with a digital mixer/recorder is less expense, usually smaller, lighter weight, lower power consumption, and, uh... that's all. But in many cases, that's enough.

Some would claim that such a combo would also add less noise to the sound, especially when there are several channels involved in the mix track and the mixers's outputs are analog. However, that might be a copper vs. copper discussion

[Mick]

A lot of good input here, but it occurs to me that as long as we're using the quality gear that we do then none of this really matters. By the time the recording gets to post and then is manipulated for broadcast, minor differences in the actual original recording have long since disappeared. The only comparison I see is in the ease of use for the sound mixer.

[Jeff Wexler]

A lot of good input here, but it occurs to me that as long as we're using the quality gear that we do then none of this really matters. By the time the recording gets to post and then is manipulated for broadcast, minor differences in the actual original recording have long since disappeared. The only comparison I see is in the ease of use for the sound mixer.

Well, Mick's comment brings us full circle, actually, to the spirit of the original post (which did not really make much mention of sound quality, post-production, etc.). The question was more on the lines of "what do you use?", "what do you like to use?" --- stand alone mixer or control surface. If you like what you are using and you like the result, that's what you should do. 

[Philip Perkins]

Well, I did like the sound of my analog production mixers, but it's clear I didn't like them well enough to eschew the speed/weight/size advantages of a mixer-recorder.  Will PSC or AD or Sax make a small digital console that sounds as good as a Yamaha CL5 but is in a Cooper/PSC/AD type formfactor and DC powerable?  Staying tuned….

 

philp

[Glen Trew]

" The final product that production sound mixers deliver is the original production tracks, which should be as distortion-free as possible, including added noise, clipping, "warmth", etc, and as much original dynamic range as practical.

 

You would really have to add " Compression " to that list, under " distortion-free as possible "

Hi Al! Yes, compression is definitely a form of distortion, as is the simple act of riding gain. But nearly all compressors/limiters have the ability to adjust the parameters or disable them, instead of being a constant function of the mixer. Also, that criteria is covered in "...as much original dynamic range as practical".

 

gt

[studiomprd]

GT: " a form of distortion, as is the simple act of riding gain. "

exactly... take that, Audio Snobs!

[tonetripper]

I stand firmly planted between both. I've used the 788 CL9 setup for a few years now and am just now upgrading to the SXST. The reason for this is simple. Dynamics. I want to have less physical control of the dynamics through the use of the input limiters. The limitations of the control surface is the need to adjust the mic pres in order to deal with the peaks and valleys of levels. The limiters can only contain so much on the 788 without, to my ears, hearing the breakup and my need for creating continuous background level in my ISOs without hearing those adjustments for those loud/soft moments.

I have had great success with the control surface because I'm comfortable with being inside the machine, but at the end of the day I need the EQ, I need the limiters and need the tactile aspects of the "big iron" as it were. Also I think it's purely selfish as I want to hear my mics as they are meant to be heard. Saying all this I'm not afraid of the control surface. I've made it work to good effect thus far. They both have their advantages. Deep down, however, the sonosax is priced so high for a reason.

[Jeff Wexler]

What tonetripper is saying here further illustrates what I was saying earlier on regarding this topic. The big difference between using a control surface as your mixer or a standalone mixer for your mixer is this: you have to be happy with the preamps, the dynamic range, the equalization and available process (limiter, expander, compressor, etc.) and of course THE SOUND that you will be mixing. With a control surface which is by its very nature "controlling" the host recorder/mixer, all of the above (preamps, EQ, etc.) are in the recorder. With a standalone mixing panel, these all important components and functions are in the mixing panel that is feeding the recorder.

 

So, in toneripper's example, if the SD 788 provided the exact same preamps, dynamic range and headroom, equalization and effects that the Sonosax has, then a control surface for the 788 would be just fine. If you cannot find these things in a recorder/mixer you want to use, you pretty much have to look for a standalone mixing panel to give you what you want. The compromise for the convenience (light weight, compact, low power consumption, etc.) of a control surface over what it is that you really would like to be hearing, may easily win out (as toneripper has said his 788 - CL9 setup has been for him up until now).

[RPSharman]

I test drove a new BMW about a year ago. I hated it. Turns out they switched to drive by wire, and couldn't replicate the "feel" of the driver being "attached" to the car/road.

I ended up buying a used BMW, which was the most incredible car I've ever driven. It turns out to have been a mistake because of my move, but that's another story.

The point is that both were fine cars. Both were comfortable and reliable, and would get me to work. A Toyota Yaris would also get me to work... Cheaper. But only one of them "felt" right.

We sit at our mixers all day, and while a control surface might perform its function well, and in the end would not "matter" in terms of the sound, I like the "feel" of my PSC Solice. It makes me happy. I notice the difference. I care about the difference. So as long as it's practical, I'm sticking with analog.

[taylormadeaudio]

I'm really happy to run across this thread - I've been busy and not as present here as in months past, but this thread brings up a lot of internal debate for me.

I recently finished mixing a season on an episodic production that was insanely challenging - probably the most difficult job I've ever done.

I started the season with my tried and true Cooper 208 / Metacorder / 702T setup, with some difficulty when it came to mobile (car INT.) recordings and multitracking -- it was looking like the usual two-plant-mic into 702T solution to which I had become accustomed was no longer sufficient for the shooting style and workflow of this 1-hour show.

I deliberated to exhaustion, and then about half way through the season, over a 1 week hiatus, I rebuilt my cart, omitting the 208 and Metacorder rig, building in a 788T/CL8/CL9 combo instead (still utilizing the bag-cart hybrid setup I prefer, but with WAY better multitracking functionality in the bag.). The 702T became a handy 2-trk backup with negligible addition to weight or workflow.

So yeah, my cart lost a lot of weight (good) and the overall functionality improved tenfold at least... So, where's the bad?

Well, when you get used to driving a BMW every day, there are certain aspects of the drive that just have a certain "feel" (as Robert so eloquently stated.)

I'm not saying the CL8 or CL9 are on par with a Yaris, but nor are they BMWs (the 788T is def. more on par w/ BMW, by the way - I absolutely love the 788T, always have.)

Here's the thing - I MISS the Cooper -- there, I said it. I know it adds some unnecessary signal path, but WHAT ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS SIGNAL PATH! Yeah, I miss it. It's like taking Mulholland instead of the 405. I've made due with the CL9 -- there are some boom op / talkback / PL issues I still need to address, but for the most part, the CL9 has adequately replaced the 208 - much in the way (let's say a Jetta) could adequately replace an M5.

I miss the 208 layout. I miss the preamps, the channel strips with all those dedicated switches (choices) that Andy Cooper built into every one of his panels. I miss being able to have conversations with my boom ops while we're rolling...

I miss my Cooper.

It's not collecting dust, mind you -- it's currently being used to record some stellar djembe and dunun tracks, as well as a trap kit / accordion / bass project I'm a part of. I've been asked several times if it's still for sale (yes, there was a brief period of lapsed judgement when I was considering selling it to help offset the cost of the SD trio) but upon waking from that haze, I re-realized just what a work of art that Cooper really is - a piece of history - and I have one (still pinch myself from time to time)... there's NO WAY I could part ways with my Cooper.

This thread has sort of reaffirmed some of my initial thinking as far as designing a quick connect / disconnect system for cart to bag to cart workflow, and as I understand there are now products on the market that address the very interconnectivity issues that were initially going to cost me a good way into 4 figures to resolve. Sure, the custom multi-cables will still cost some extra jing, but I'll get to drive my BMW on Mulholland again : )

So, I guess just a thank you for this post and all of you who have contributed to it. I'm continually humbled and honored to be a member of such a fine community of professionals, and once again thanks Jeff for having such a great forum.

Hope my ramblings contribute in some way : )

Happy 2015

~tt

[old school]

So, I guess just a thank you for this post and all of you who have contributed to it. I'm continually humbled and honored to be a member of such a fine community of professionals, and once again thanks Jeff for having such a great forum.

Hope my ramblings contribute in some way : )

Happy 2015

~tt

Glad you're a member Taylor. Happy New Year.

CrewC

[afewmoreyears]

Taylor..

 I miss being able to have conversations with my boom ops while we're rolling...

 

With A 788/CL9 you can have conversations with boom ops while recording....do it all the time...

[taylormadeaudio]

Taylor..

I miss being able to have conversations with my boom ops while we're rolling...

With A 788/CL9 you can have conversations with boom ops while recording....do it all the time...

...even when all 8 inputs are needed (like, 7 lavs and a boom?)

With the Cooper, there are dedicated inputs/outputs for PL and slating, etc... I'm sure there's a workaround for the CL9 setup, but having the slate mic going into one of the inputs (usually # 8 ) - if that input/track is armed, then one is essentially interrupting and recording to that track when speaking to boom ops while recording, yes?

I guess I could get more creative with my routing, but with the Cooper, I didn't have to.

Anyhow, thanks for your input (pun intended)

I guess I need to dive deeper into the 788T/CL9 before I post such ignorant drivel.

: )

~tt

[taylormadeaudio]

Glad you're a member Taylor. Happy New Year.

CrewC

 

Thanks Crew,  Likewise  : )

 

~tt