Zaxcom vs. Dugan - Which is the Best Automixer?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2022
- Bonus Clip: Hear how these Auto-mixers handle ambient room tone/noise • Nova vs. Dugan PT2 - R...
Tough room: 3-Talent Mics / 4-camera shoot in a wide, reflective office building with open ceilings exposing a large and very loud HVAC system. In this video, we'll hear how 2 different Auto-mixers compare in this extreme setting. Be sure to stick around to the end to hear the 8-Series Cedar SDNX de-noiser (an $1800 plugin) compared to the Zaxcom Nova's built-in Noise Reducer. Let me know what you think in the comments!
What the heck's an Automixer?
Automix is a useful processor for location sound mixers to manage multiple mics without 'riding' individual input faders. The software (or hardware) detects which mics are being spoken into, and automatically makes fast, transparent crossfades. This can be especially useful in unscripted programs, eliminating late/missed cues, and can reduce ambient noise and feedback (as the other mics are ducked in volume when not being spoken into). Auto-mixers are NOT all created equally, some are quite smooth while others can sound very unnatural - especially when processing dialogue against loud background ambience.
🤓 For this comparison, I was able to play the takes back in sync from all 3 Zaxcom transmitters using Zaxcom's super-cool "ReRecord" feature (as if the scene was unfolding live again). I split the 3 Lav signals (via AES) between the Nova and the Sound Devices 888 and used tone generators to make sure the outputs were very close in level.
Products shown in this video:
▸ Zaxcom NOVA Mixer / Recorder: geni.us/nBs9MK
▸ Zaxcom MRX414 4-Channel Receiver Module: geni.us/ArfcBS
▸ Zaxcom CL3 Camera Link Transmitter: geni.us/XPtf
▸ eSMART 98W Battery: geni.us/ZAVU
▸ Sound Devices 888: geni.us/fqv0y
======================
More of my videos:
K-TEK JET X BAG REVIEW VIDEO: • K-TEK Stingray "JET X"...
BEST LAVS FOR TV/FILM: • Best Lavalier Micropho...
TIPS FOR HIDING LAVS: • 5 Basic Tips for Hidin...
TOUR OF MY SOUNDCART: • Sound Cart Mini-Cart Tour
5 WAYS TO CAPTURE DIALOGUE IN A CAR: • 5 Ways to Capture Dial...
WHAT'S IN MY SOUND BAG?: • What's In Your Locatio...
======================
▸ Edited in Adobe Premiere Pro amzn.to/2Qv8TpD
If you need production sound in Boston, MA, New England or beyond, contact me: Jim.Keaney@gmail.com // HubLocationSoun...
Follow my shoots on / jimkeaney
Join the facebook discussion group: / hublocationsound
As an Amazon, B&H, Trew Audio affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Automixes and gain sharing algorithms are amazing to me. So awesome how smooth they are
You had a great interview with Dan Dugan. Very interesting! Put a link here to it.
I was just about to say it needs a CEDAR added and then you did.
Interesting test, didn’t seem to different, I feel like the Dugan was better but think I’m bias.
Didn’t know you could have a Cedar built into these mixers, only ever used in as a stand alone unit on a sound desk. It really took a lot more low end out then I thought it would.
Sounds like you heard what I heard too. Overall subtle differences in the Automixers - and didn't make much difference against the loud noisefloor. Yes, currently Cedar is only avail in the Sound Devices 8-series (for location recorders). Also available in a portable Box called the Cedar DNS. The 8-Series Cedar plugin seemed a little too aggressive in my opinion, really gutted the low end - like you mentioned.
I'm listening on some JBL studio monitors at a comfortable listening volume. The fluttering in the Zaxcom Automix is definitely a lot less noticeable when you're not on cans, but the Dugan still beats it, no contest. Dugan's attack is quicker and smoother to attenuate out the unneeded mics. The Zax automix works well in scripted content when you're actively mixing because the transition from one speaker to the next is quite good, but the fluttering/pumping can be a deal breaker for unscripted work.
This may be a hot take, but I prefer Zaxcom's noise reduction over the SD Cedar plugin, at least in this instance. The performance is about even, but you don't have to spend your next 2-4 paychecks with Zax's noise reduction. I only like reducing 2-3 db. Anything past 4db, and I can really start to hear it tear into the voice.
Agree all around. A/B-ing them like this proved to me that the differences ARE more subtle than I thought (headphones certainly help). It's funny, I've had the 888 for over a year and almost never use it - so applying the CEDAR plugin here gave me the same reaction - like... "wow, this is pretty aggressive... and thinned out... wait there's no 'amount' control"? I wish I had one of the Cedar DNS boxes to compare it. I believe those have more controls.
@@HubLocationSound ive heard of all the implementations of dns, the sound devices plugin is functionally the worst, but I have no experience with cedar other than examples online.
@@blaine691 Update: I since purchased the Cedar DNS (hardware) unit, and it's really nice (albeit pricey). Just 'kissing' the dialogue with -.5db of reduction removes the woof-y/low hum/hvac noise-floor very transparently.
@@HubLocationSound I rarely get the chance to use Zax auto mix on two booms, but the difference is day and night compared to with lavs. I'm not noticing any pumping today
Useful comparison, thanks!
Killer demo. The Zax auto mix seemed a little jumpy compared to Dugan. But what do I know? I still like MixAssist better in some ways.
I dont thin kyou have enough isolation in your headphones. the background noise is way too high.. unless you like that