• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

What is best little mixing board for doing remotes?

J

joshzz

Previously we did all our remotes (high school games,etc) using analog Scoop Reporters but now plan to use a wireless connection and one of the software Codec type tools Audio Compass, Ustream or Skype... We're leaning slightly towards Audio Compass because based on their website, it appears they offer comprehensive tech support..

We plan to use a laptop connected to a small, mixing board with two mics (Electro Voice 635A) connected to the board. What mixing board(s) would you recommend for this purpose?

Your help is truly appreciated! Thank You! josh
 
If you're careful with it, an Alesis minimix 8 would be good because it has USB audio connectivity. Otherwise I'd say just a nice old Mackie would do the trick.
 
Also, keep in mind M-audio, Lexicon and others have USB sound interfaces that offer pro mic inputs and line level inputs, plus monitoring right in the interface. If you don't plan on having many ins, you might consider just the right USB interface instead of dragging a board out and having to connect it all up.
 
The Alesis is a good board. But beware the power supplies. We got about 3 years out of ours before the power supply went south.
 
I like the Mackie series. The newer models are not too expensive. I have found, however, that many cannot properly set the gain structure. If that is a problem, you could look at a Shure, which would have only the level controls for inputs as well as a master level (simpler to configure).
 
How about a Shure M267. Simple, easy, balanced.

You may say "its only mono". Yes, that is true, but if you are using the Internet to do remotes you may very want to use mono so as to keep the overall quality good.
 
And, the true reality check these days is that you could probably find a old 267 Shure mixer on ebay for the right price too :)!

I still use one for my football remote broadcasts. They are take up very little room, are simple and rock solid. If not much complexity is needed, they are hard to beat still in the year 2010.
 
The nice thing about the Shure M-267 is that it has a built in limiter to keep you from over driving your codec. That can be very helpful for a ball game where the talent isn't watching the meter so much, and during an emotional point might start screaming into the mic.

But that and phantom power are -all- that the M-267 has going for it. There's no EQ, there's no effects, not much of a monitor system. (There is a headphone jack with a level pot.) That may be a good thing if you're sending out talent that isn't very technically savvy, because a lot of knobs tends to confuse people like that.

On the other hand, if you want a few more bells and whistles, and have somebody that knows what to do with it, the Mackie 1202VLZ is my remote mixer of choice for most applications. For even bigger remotes I use a Mackie 1604.

So it really boils down to your application and your users. Any of those mentioned will work. If simplest is best, go for the Shure.
 
Personally I like the Yamaha Audiogram6. 2 mic inputs (with phantom power) & adjustable limiters, 2 line inputs, a USB sound card and it all runs from the USB port of the computer so no power supply issues.
 
josh said:
I like the fact the Yamaha requires no electric outlet.. How is durability on it? THANKS! josh :)
Click to expand...

Well it's not a Mackie VLZ but it's not a Behringer either. The mixer is very lightweight but the case is totally plastic so it likely wouldn't take a couple of drops too well...
 
greg.hahn said:
The nice thing about the Shure M-267 is that it has a built in limiter to keep you from over driving your codec. That can be very helpful for a ball game where the talent isn't watching the meter so much, and during an emotional point might start screaming into the mic.

But that and phantom power are -all- that the M-267 has going for it. There's no EQ, there's no effects, not much of a monitor system.
Click to expand...

Also, the M267 is pretty indestructable...even sports PBP guys would have a hard time trashing one, unlike more modern mixers.
No it doesn't have EQ, effects, etc., but how often do you need that at a remote?

I think the company is long gone, but years ago a station I worked at had a couple of Zercom sports mixers. Not fancy, but they seemed pretty rugged. Maybe you can find a used one somewhere.

Both of these units, unlike many modern mixers use a standard AC cord instead of an external power supply. One less thing to deal with while on location.
 
josh said:
I like the fact the Yamaha requires no electric outlet.. How is durability on it? THANKS! josh :)
Click to expand...


I'm pretty certain that the Shure M-267 can also run with no electric outlet. If I remember correctly it takes three 9-volt batteries through a door on the bottom.
 
greg.hahn said:
josh said:
I like the fact the Yamaha requires no electric outlet.. How is durability on it? THANKS! josh :)
Click to expand...


I'm pretty certain that the Shure M-267 can also run with no electric outlet. If I remember correctly it takes three 9-volt batteries through a door on the bottom.
Click to expand...

If it's a battery operated mixer that's needed the Behringer XENYX 1002B runs on 2 9v batteries and is readily available. But then one has to remember to change/check the batteries before each remote - a pitfall not encountered with the Yamaha.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom