Topic: SD302 with a 2-Channel Recorder

[cashandkerouac]

just curious... would the use of a sound devices 302 in front of a 2-channel recorder be a good way to get a 3rd mic into a stereo mix without having to use a 4-channel recorder?  the SD302 has 3 XLR inputs and 2 outputs with the ability to pan the three inputs to left, right or center.  thanks.

[DigiGal]

It could be useful to help eliminate a hole in the center effect by enabling the use of a decca tree setup which uses 3 omni's in a cumbersome setup.  Another drawback is the mix levels would be set in the field so you wouldn't be able to adjust them in post making it similar to an "on-the-fly" SBD/mic matrix recording which is also possible with a SD302.  A 4-channel recorder provides more flexibility by allowing to adjust the mix levels in post.

[George2]

All in one 3x2 mixer recorder:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=JA_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fostex.jp%2fproducts%2fDC-R302

[cashandkerouac]

All in one 3x2 mixer recorder:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=JA_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fostex.jp%2fproducts%2fDC-R302

well that's a clever little device. 

[ts]

That Fostex is cool. To answer your original question, The SD302 is awesome device and will make superb 3 channel recordings. An old technique from the 80's was 2 shotguns and an omni center. I did quite a bit of it and always had good results. Helps with that hole in the middle that shotguns are notorious for. Hypercards and omni are also a good mix. I never tried 2 cards and an omni but plan on it this summer. Ted Gakidis makes a very nice 3 channel cable set.

Edit: oops, should have read the whole thread. I see digigal already touched on the hole in the middle and also makes a good point about the versatility of 4 channel machines. Not to much 3 channel going on in our hobby anymore.

[Gutbucket]

I really dig the 3rd channel, but am recording 4 or more total and mixing later.  Gives a lot of flexibility and ability to tweak things, not just firming up the center, but also the bottom end, and some control over direct / reverberant pickup which can be really nice.

I'm doing it either with 3 or 4 omnis, all in a row across the stage-lip, or spaced like a Decca tree or closer than that and baffled.. or two cardioids and a center omni.. or sometimes unusual setups for what we are doing like OCT (optimum cardioid triange, which uses two side facing supercards and a center cardioid).  Getting the perfect mix live would be less optimal since fine tuning the balance is a big key to the flexibility, but like TS, people used to do that a lot.  Think of all those old Nak 3>2 channel boxes.

[cashandkerouac]

thanks for the feedback.  i usually use a stereo pair of cards as my main mics, so unless they are spaced very far apart i don't get the "hole in the middle".  but sometimes i get what i call "too much air".  during playback at lower volumes the mix can sometimes sound too airy; at higher volumes, however, it fills out nicely.  i've always liked those 3-mic recordings from the 80s that "ts" and "gutbucket" reference in their responses, so i'm thinking it would be a good solution to fill in some space and add more presence to the recording without having to upgrade to a 4-track recorder.  the last time i made that leap to a multi-track machine i got a Tascam DR-680 and things didn't work out too well (compatibility problems with external batteries), so i'm a bit gun-shy about pulling the trigger on another unit.  i was thinking that with the 302 i can get another mic into the mix while still using my M10 (which has never failed me).             

[Gutbucket]

i usually use a stereo pair of cards as my main mics, so unless they are spaced very far apart i don't get the "hole in the middle".
[snip]..i'm thinking it would be a good solution to fill in some space and add more presence to the recording without having to upgrade to a 4-track recorder.

For me it's usually not as much a case of filling what would be an obvious hole in the middle.. it's more about noticing an absence solidity, eveness, detail and presence without it.  It really helps to have a mic pointing straight ahead, maximally rejecting the room behind due to it's pattern, baffleing or proximity and being able to adjust the level of that to sharpen the direct sound, detail and focus over just the L/R pair alone, though I do tend to err towards a bit wider sounding L/R setup simply because I don't have to worry about it being too wide by itself.  M/S has that forward bias thing going for it, but sort of lacks a natural sounding open spaciousness that a bit of mic spacing provides me.  I just generally like the sound of some spacing better. 

The center is the most important 'extra' channel for me and the last I'd give up before going back to a two channel recording of only a L/R stereo pair.

[bryonsos]

The center "fill" channel is nice as others have pointed out, but the feature that almost sold me on this is that you can do M/S on the fly. In the end I bought a MixPre as I couldn't afford/justify the 2X difference in cost. Kinda regret that at times, but when I did go multichannel I ended up with an R44 which I love!

[rastasean]

Well can't you do m/s--just requires a figuar 8 and a card but you won't be able to properly monitor it.

[bryonsos]

Well can't you do m/s--just requires a figuar 8 and a card but you won't be able to properly monitor it.

Yes, but on the fly is attractive, not having to decode in post. R44 will do on the fly as well, but I haven't tried it yet.

[picklemic]

Here is a recording with my r-44 set to decode ms on the fly. Works great!!!  http://archive.org/details/SMT2010-04-28.SMT2010-04-28