EricL Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I guess this a bit of a "for the sake of argument" type question. When it comes to powering a mic directly off the mixer I understand the need for high quality pre-amps. But what about when you're dealing with wireless and you're patching into your board at line-level from the receiver? Would you notice any difference between using a highend board like a Cooper vs something like a Mackie Onyx? Just curious I guess. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I guess this a bit of a "for the sake of argument" type question. When it comes to powering a mic directly off the mixer I understand the need for high quality pre-amps. But what about when you're dealing with wireless and you're patching into your board at line-level from the receiver? Would you notice any difference between using a highend board like a Cooper vs something like a Mackie Onyx? Just curious I guess. Eric It might depend on whether the line input is just a padded down path thru the mic preamp or a true line level input that bypasses the preamp. In either case the tx preamp will have the greatest affect on quality. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricL Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Good to know. Is that usually called out in a product's literature? If it's just a padded pre-amp or if it's a bypass? And in that case which would be better? I'm assuming pre-amp bypass since it wouldn't go through two pre-amp circuits. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 " pre-amp bypass since it wouldn't go through two pre-amp circuits. " answered your own question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 "Better" is always a tough word in this business. Bypassing the preamp on a line input may indeed be "better" - but it may be a challenge to hear the difference in any other environment than a recording studio perhaps. My contention has always been that if you are deciding where to spend your money, and buying a Cooper or Solice or Sonosax will prohibit you from buying 2 high-quality matching microphones versus just one, or perhaps it prevents you from buying some extra wireless or an 8-track recorder to be better prepared for bigger jobs, etc., then I say use a Mackie. While there is NO QUESTION a $10-20k board will be "better" in a controlled environment, I find being prepared for the inevitable by having more gear is a better choice than spending over $10k on a mixer. Just my opinion. Robert P.S. - The Mackie pads the preamp on the line inputs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricL Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Good to know. I've been out of the game for 4 years now (working on getting to a financial happy place) and i have no kit anymore, kind of depressing, but the good part is i get to start over from scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'd love to know why the Yamaha is seen as superior to the Mackie. Is it because it's digital? My AD conversion is handled with a Sound Devices recorder and through my RME FF800. The RME unit is a dedicated AD converter with an excellent reputation, and I am confident it is of equal if not higher quality than those found in the Yamaha. And I would be happy to put my Mackie's preamps up against the Yamaha. Mackie has been in the mixer business for many years, with constant improvements to their preamps and circuitry. It's very frustrating to feel I am perceived as "less than professional" because I have chosen a mixer that provides wonderful routing options, fits nicely in my rack-based cart, is reliable and easily replaceable, and costs under $1000. I have an excellent supply of quality microphones and wireless, I record files like anyone else, my tracks have been praised by post production, and I am proud of my results when listening to the final product with my own ears. I simply can't believe that this would be any different if I were using a Cooper. For anyone starting out in the current production environment of multiple cameras, ensemble casts and short schedules, I feel that unless you are financially prepared to buy everything you need PLUS a $10,000+ mixer, then the first thing I would save money on would be the mixer. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricL Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah, I just watched the Zaxcom video from Coffey, i have to say that is insanely cool. Expensive, but cool. If you were running a Deva, Mix 8 and 4 wireless, with just those a 2.5% rental fee would be close to a grand. Guess I'll just continue on and hijack my own thread. I'm still quite awhile out until I can get back out there, damn student loans, so while i have a regular day job and pulling in decent money and can slowly snag the stuff I know I want like CMC641, krm82i, COS-11s, boom and various accessories. I'm currently stuck in Columbus, Ohio (if anyone needs a boom op or assistant for weekends or evening I'm around :-) ) so I'll probably have to travel and be a bit of nomad, but just base from here since I have a house and a wife so i guess i have to come back here every once in awhile. All my experience has been in the narrative film, just happened that way, but I'm not against working in other forms. I'll probably go with something like the SD442 for a mixer, i used to have a 302 and loved it, but since the 442 has direct outs I'd like to go with that instead to have the direct outs plus a mix out and still keep the portability. Then rent a recorder from there unless a long gig came up that would cover the cost, or maybe do a firewire interface(Motu Ultralite?) to boom recorder if portability wouldn't be an issue. Why can't life be easy and there be one choice? Nagra 4.2 and PD4 are recorders that i used the most since the SD7 series was just barely released when i stepped away. Slowly but surely I'll figure something out. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm sorry you obviously took offense to my comments and turned them into a personal attack, which was not my intent. As Eric says, there is no standard so whatever works for you good for you. I think the only negative thing I mentioned about both the Mackie and the Yamaha was that they needed AC power, or a conversion to enable DC powering. RVD Sorry for lashing out, Richard. I didn't take it as a personal attack from you in particular. It's really just a vibe that I feel sometimes from the community at large, not just JW Sound. I know it's not about me as a person, but perhaps my judgment regarding gear. Part of that seems to be that people are on board with the Yamaha as a professional piece of location sound recording gear, but not so much with the Mackie. I think that's unfair. As for the actual audible and physical differences of "professional" versus "other" location mixers, and whether that is worth the extra cost, we agree to disagree, and that's cool. 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.