This week, we’re going back in time to talk about one of my very first sound setups I bought. Before my current Sound Devices Mix-Pre 10 ii setup—and before my Sound Devices x Zoom F8 setup—I briefly mixed and recorded audio using a combo of an SQN Mixer and a Marantz PMD661. In this blog, I’ll talk about the origins of this setup, its pros and cons, and why I eventually moved on.
Origins of the SQN 4S Mixer x Marantz PMD661 Setup
When I graduated from university back in 2012, I knew I wanted to start freelancing as a Sound Recordist. With only a small budget to kickstart my journey, I opted for some familiar equipment I’d used during my university days. This included a Rode NTG3 shotgun mic and a Marantz PMD661 audio recorder. At my university, the kit stores only carried recorders—like the Marantz—so I wasn’t too familiar with mixers at that point. It was only when I began working on productions with other sound recordists and doing my own research that I realized I really needed a mixer.
I eventually opted for the SQN 4S Series iii mixer, which offered up to four input connections and a few output options, including one that could connect to my Marantz recorder. I chose the SQN mixer because I had firsthand experience with it on a few shoots where I borrowed and rented one. A bit of online research confirmed that it would be my best, most affordable option. At the time, these mixers were quite popular as solid, analogue-based units available at good prices on the second-hand market. In fact, they held their value for years—for example, I bought my SQN around 2013 and sold it in 2016 for almost the same price I originally paid, thanks to the steady second-hand market value.
Pros
I had a great time using this setup, and although it may have been short-lived in the grand scheme of things, there were plenty of pros:
Affordable Solution
One of the biggest advantages was the cost. Combined, this setup would have cost me well under £1,000—especially when compared to alternative all-in-one options at the time, such as the Sound Devices 664 or 633, which ranged from £3,000 to over £6,000.
Sounds Great!
The combination of the SQN’s excellent analogue preamps with the Marantz’s superb recording capabilities delivered sound quality on par with many of the more expensive options available at the time.
Easy to Use
The fader knobs on the SQN were a joy to operate, and the soft, rubber buttons on the Marantz made it very user-friendly. Both machines provided clear visuals for audio levels: the SQN’s analogue meter and the Marantz’s digital dB meter ensured I was always recording at the right level.
Cons
Of course, no product is without its drawbacks, and this setup was no exception.
Two Units
Having two separate devices to mix and record audio isn’t the most practical solution—especially when it comes to packing light and simplifying your setup. Streamlining into an all-in-one solution (like I use today) makes things simpler and lighter, although it typically comes with a heftier price tag—especially back in 2013.
Only Two Recording Channels
Even though the SQN Mixer could accept four inputs, I was limited to recording just two channels of audio since the Marantz recorder was a 2-channel device. This meant I couldn’t record individual microphone tracks. I had to choose between a stereo mix of all microphones or split the stereo mix (for example, panning the boom mic to the left channel and the radio mics to the right). While this approach did provide some post-production options, having both a full stereo mix and individual microphone recordings would have been the ideal workflow.
No Timecode Sync Options
Unfortunately, neither device offered timecode sync. At the time, this wasn’t a dealbreaker since most of the productions I was working on didn’t require it. However, with the arrival of the Tentacle Timecode boxes in 2016—which revolutionized timecode sync—that limitation became a significant drawback and one of the reasons I had to move on.
Moving On…
Around 2016, I decided it was time to evolve my setup as the business was changing, and so was the technology. As mentioned earlier, timecode sync was becoming more prevalent in productions, and my old setup couldn’t keep up. I was also limited by the 2-channel capabilities of the Marantz and needed more options.
At that point, I still wasn’t ready to invest thousands of pounds into new equipment. Had I been, I might have jumped on an all-in-one solution like the Sound Devices 664—which I almost bought from eBay several times! Instead, I researched more affordable alternatives. I eventually settled on the combo of the Sound Devices 442 Mixer and the Zoom F8 Recorder. This setup offered everything I was looking for at a price I could manage. The 442 provided all the input and output options while still delivering excellent analogue preamps, and the Zoom F8 Recorder offered far more input options, timecode sync capabilities, ISO recordings, and so much more.
Summary
In summary, I have fond memories of my time with the SQN Mixer and Marantz Recorder setup. I made a bunch of short films, corporates, and promotional videos with it—all of which still sound great today! They both sounded fantastic, and I still miss how easy they were to use. Unfortunately, technology advances, and we all have to move on eventually. I couldn’t afford to let them sit on a shelf, so they had to be sold. Maybe in a few years, I’ll repurchase them purely for nostalgia…
Dan Guest
Sound Recordist
Comments