Help in buying M/S microphones

[Smaestro]

Hi all, I'm looking to build a mobile recording and mixing rig based, and I'm looking to buy (at least) 4 M/S microphones. The goal is to have a rig capable of handling 16 channel audio (4 mics, the rest mic or DI), and multiple videostreams to record, mix and wirelessly stream any music from rock gigs to choirs. I haven't settled on an interface yet, but the four mics will be connected to an interface and a laptop, with a large external battery for outdoors mobile recording.

Two mics that fit the bill are the Sennheiser MKH418S and the Sanken CSS 5, and I'm kinda already convinced that these would suit my needs. However I am open to other ideas and suggestions, and I also don't want to have 4 identical mics so a bit of variation is good.

Budget is around 10k. Looking for rugged build quality, low self-noise, high max SPL and high flexibility in recording setup (which is why I'm going for M/S). Any suggestions are welcome.

 

[SIY]

Possibly naïve question: why a dedicated M/S mic rather than just setting up a figure 8 and a cardioid (which can also be used in other configurations)?

 

[Smaestro]

No that’s a great question. I want this to be ultraportable (large backpack) and I think four mics cover my bases.

So I look at it as having mainly 4 cardioid mics, that happen to capture figure 8 as a nice bonus for environment or settings where that works better.

An alternative that I consider is mics with selectable patterns, like the AKG C414. But they aren’t made to be used outdoors, I don’t know if there are rugged versions of that.

 

[cinemakinoeye]

If you want to record MS in the field, and portability is a consideration, one of the most versatile options is the Audio-Technica BP4029 MS stereo condenser short shotgun. I’ve owned this microphone since March of 2008, and it’s been my go-to microphone for most stereo sound effect, ambience, and dialogue recording to this day. I love MS since it is so versatile and I can collapse to mono or adjust the stereo spread without phase problems in postproduction, unlike other stereo recording formats. Since the BP4029 has a built-in decoder, you can record stereo in wide mode, stereo in narrow mode, or separate mid and side channels. While there are certainly better, more expensive microphones to be found in this categories, the noise differences are not as dramatic as they may seem on paper and this is a good solid workhorse. I prefer to have a greater variety of microphones in my kit to cover a wider range of use cases than have fewer best of breed microphone and give up the flexibility of my location sound recording kit.

Even more portable is the Sanken CMS-50 compact stereo condenser shotgun that I use most often as an on-camera microphone, it is quite small and light, measuring 5.4″ and 4.6 oz. It does not have a stereo decoder built in, it is strictly a discrete MS microphone. This little critter provides high sound quality and the price tag to go with it.

 

[cinemakinoeye]

Possibly naïve question: why a dedicated M/S mic rather than just setting up a figure 8 and a cardioid (which can also be used in other configurations)?

A separate cardioid and figure-of-eight microphone configuration is undoubtedly perfect for MS recording. However, it is bulkier than a dedicated MS microphone.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Are you familiar with double MS recording? Used for some surround work. You have a single figure 8 together with a front facing cardioid, and a rear facing cardioid. You end up with 4 channels from three microphones. Another idea is some of the microphones that have 2 outputs which allow you to choose the pattern after the recording is done. A couple of those open up quite a few possibilities. Lewitt (LCT 640 TS) makes one as do some others.

Double MS | SCHOEPS Microphones

schoeps.de

The Double Mid-Sides Array

M-S miking is already a versatile technique, but it can be built upon to provide surround-sound recording and a whole lot more besides!

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Blumlein 88]

I tend to forget about these. They do what the old Calrec soundfield mike would do. You can choose the pattern after recording, and that pattern can point in any direction. You can extract multiple channels from one recording.

Core Sound TetraMic™ 1st-order Ambisonic Microphone — Core Sound

The first portable, single point, stereo & surround sound Ambisonic soundfield microphone to be available for under $900 fully configured for most multi-track recorders and audio interfaces. Individually calibrated, each TetraMic is the finest performing microphone of its type in the world.

www.core-sound.com

 

[Smaestro]

Very nice, thanks for all the suggestion! I’m going to check it all out.

 

[Smaestro]

If you want to record MS in the field, and portability is a consideration, one of the most versatile options is the Audio-Technica BP4029 MS stereo condenser short shotgun. I’ve owned this microphone since March of 2008, and it’s been my go-to microphone for most stereo sound effect, ambience, and dialogue recording to this day. I love MS since it is so versatile and I can collapse to mono or adjust the stereo spread without phase problems in postproduction, unlike other stereo recording formats. Since the BP4029 has a built-in decoder, you can record stereo in wide mode, stereo in narrow mode, or separate mid and side channels.

Thanks again for sharing your experience. My experience with AT has been good so far, and the €600 difference is not nothing, so I'll order the BP4029 first. I don't think noise will be much of an issue. Along with your experience with its reliability, this seems like it'll do what I need.

Are you familiar with double MS recording? Used for some surround work. You have a single figure 8 together with a front facing cardioid, and a rear facing cardioid. You end up with 4 channels from three microphones. Another idea is some of the microphones that have 2 outputs which allow you to choose the pattern after the recording is done. A couple of those open up quite a few possibilities. Lewitt (LCT 640 TS) makes one as do some others.

I tend to forget about these. They do what the old Calrec soundfield mike would do. You can choose the pattern after recording, and that pattern can point in any direction. You can extract multiple channels from one recording.

Core Sound TetraMic™ 1st-order Ambisonic Microphone — Core Sound

The first portable, single point, stereo & surround sound Ambisonic soundfield microphone to be available for under $900 fully configured for most multi-track recorders and audio interfaces. Individually calibrated, each TetraMic is the finest performing microphone of its type in the world.

www.core-sound.com

I was not familiar with the "extended" microphones with 3 or more capsules and the pattern options they give. It is a very nice development. I have looked through all that you sent, so thank you for all that. IMO:

• The 2-output Lewitt LCT 640 TS is a no-brainer, really like two C414s in one housing, while staying very practical. It doesn't seem to be weatherproof in any way, but this one I can see myself using in all types of settings.
• Mics with 3 outputs is a little too much effort with regard to inputs and mandatory matrixing, for not that much more than the LCT 640.
• However, going further to 4 outputs, the Tetramic is amazing ?! It does take up a lot of inputs and also requires extra work with the mandatory matrix, but the ability to have it work as multiple cardioid mics and an Omni or 360 simultaneously is incredible.

I started off wanting 4 of the same mics, but I might let that go. One LCT640, 2 or 3 BP4029, and 1 or 2 Tetramics might give me a really nice balance of options.

While there are certainly better, more expensive microphones to be found in this categories, the noise differences are not as dramatic as they may seem on paper and this is a good solid workhorse. I prefer to have a greater variety of microphones in my kit to cover a wider range of use cases than have fewer best of breed microphone and give up the flexibility of my location sound recording kit.

I agree on more versatile mics vs the best or most expensive mics. What matters to are the pickup pattern options and smoothness, max SPL, noise, and build quality. Sound not as much, as long as its FR is smooth.

As a funny cheap vs expensive anecdote: Last week I re-recorded a soft 'delicate' male vocal. It was originally done on a U47 in a very nice studio, but the artist wasn't happy with the result. Not an issue of the mic or the room, but he had lacked a good feeling while there. We re-recorded in a comfortable but acoustically mediocre bright reflective room. I used a SM57 with a oversized wind guard loosely hanging over the end. This amateurish-looking setup worked well to avoid the room. After mixing his vocal in, the artist was relieved that the recording finally sounded like him.

Examples like the above prompt me to start this mobile outdoors recording business. I have the idea that the outdoors can get the best out of people. Though I may need to make some campfires in these colder months...

Anyway, I have more to do before I have a rig. I'll post an update when I'm a step further.

 

[ChrisG]

Some notes from me...

- Mics can work fine over a pretty wide temperature range. However, condensation can be a real problem. Allow the mics to acclimitise to the ambient temperature before use.
- The Austrian Audio OC818 is worth looking at.
- Shotgun mics do weird things to off-axis sources, which can make a mess of a room's acoustics. A good supercardioid is probably the better choice IMO.
- You've mentioned recording rock shows. Part of the sound of that genre is close-mic'd sources. Are you hoping to get a split from the mixing desk, or will you need some suitable mics of your own?


Chris

 

[Smaestro]

Thanks Chris for your input, very valueable.

The off-axis sources are very important, and I did see that some polar patterns were a bit wonky. At the same time, if the wonkyness is just a static weird FR of the Side channel, then I can just measure some mics and use a corrective EQ.

About rock, while I did want a "do it all" setup, amplified (rock) music is not important (specifically because I don't see any band paying extra for audio recording if they already have a mixer setup). Further refining the business idea, is to do acoustic recordings outside where there is no power.

But a bit different, In my search I came across this Zoom H2n recorder. It's a weird model, seemingly a cheap device ($200), with a whopping 4 mics on board, 2 for M/S and 2 matched in X/Y.
This particular entry-level in the Zoom range is much richer specced (in number of mics) than the "higher" models (H4, H6, H8) who do have XLR-inputs, but only 2 X/Y mics.

H2n

Handheld recorder with five built-in mics and four different recording modes.

zoomcorp.com

And even the "upgraded" version, with color LCD screen, the H2 Essential, only has a 3 mic M/S setup.

H2essential

H2essential Handy Recorder

zoomcorp.com

So these H2n's are very strange and probably very overlooked as they are the cheapest in the whole lineup. Now I can't expect too much for the price, but if they were decent. Working with these H2n for recording would make the workflow so much easier. No laptop, no interface, no cables, no power source (they run 5+hours on 2 AA batteries)...

Since they don't have a decent output (well a 3.5mm stereo jack), adapting these mics for a live streaming setup will require either:
1. Accepting on board mixing and use the 3.5mm jack (yuck) connected to an interface
2. Do some ASIO4ALL tinkering to get these working as multiple interfaces (as each mic is an interface) connected to a laptop

Anyways, I ordered two to see how good they are.

 

[unpluggged]

And even the "upgraded" version

It's not an upgraded version, the "essential" series are stripped down and cheaper compared to the corresponding regular models.

Do some ASIO4ALL tinkering to get these working as multiple interfaces (as each mic is an interface) connected to a laptop

Leaving aside the ASIO4ALL stability and performance, how would you sync the interfaces' clocks in this scenario?

If your use case is professional/commercial, I would play it safe and choose equipment that's intended for such applications. If it's just for fun, there is a compact M/S mic from Shure, the MV88+. I have it myself. It's a USB mic with settings adjustable via software: gain, pickup pattern (cardioid, omni, figure of 8, stereo with adjustable width, raw M/S), EQ, compressor, limiter, low-cut filter, and with a headphone monitoring output that can be used as an analog line out. Sounds pretty decently (there are some recordings available online). You can configure it via software, and it will store the settings. It's USB-powered, but does not require a USB host to operate (in this case, the audio can be recorded from the analog output).

 

[Smaestro]

It's not an upgraded version, the "essential" series are stripped down and cheaper compared to the corresponding regular models.

That doesn’t seem correct. Comparing the H6 for example, the Essential version is the newer device, with more features, such as

• Using the BTA-1* Bluetooth Adapter, sync with wireless timecode devices via bluetooth
• Bigger and nicer screen

while having the same specs otherwise.

I checked at 3 online stores and the Essential versions are typically 10-20% more expensive than the non-essential. Also see the attachment for H2 prices, Essential is the most expensive of the three.

While checking I realised I misread the specs; the H2 essential has a rear cardioid as well as a front cardioid, and of course the side mic, so it’s a dual (front and rear) M/S setup.

* H2 Essential: 2x M/S (with shared side mic)
* H2n: 1x M/S 1x X/Y

I cancelled one of the H2n and replaced it with an Essential.

If your use case is professional/commercial, I would play it safe and choose equipment that's intended for such applications.

I agree. I wouldn’t do either of the options I’ve listed, unbalanced 3.5mm aux isn’t something I would work with either. I just listed the options because it’s technically feasible, not because I’m considering them. I’m sorry, that was unclear.

If it's just for fun, there is a compact M/S mic from Shure, the MV88+. I have it myself. It's a USB mic with settings adjustable via software: gain, pickup pattern (cardioid, omni, figure of 8, stereo with adjustable width, raw M/S), EQ, compressor, limiter, low-cut filter, and with a headphone monitoring output that can be used as an analog line out.

It’s not for fun, although I hope to enjoy myself!

For background: I produce artists and I want to record them in nature, in part because of the acoustics and in part because it can bring out a better or different performance. That’s the idea.

There are some other ideas unrelated to sound engineering too that will make the experience more inspiring for the artist.

As an aside, I have had the MV88+, great mic. It doesn’t do omni btw. I recommend it to content creators for its great features and app. It’s only con is that it’s pretty noisy, too much for sound therapy (quiet instrumental) or ASMR.

So where I’m at - Pro vs Cons
On one hand, using mobile recorders is ultra fast to transport and set up. I want a quick workflow because then I can spend more time on the creative part.

On the other hand, the lack of monitoring means that after sound check and during breaks, I must download the recordings to laptop (by USB) and make a quick mix to see of we’re still on track (pun unintended). Also there’s no monitoring for the artist, but that fits my idea of being unplugged in nature.

Syncing the start of songs will also require some attention, but that’s okay, and that seems to be addressed on the Essentials with the wireless timecode implementation.

As long as the recorders have decent flat mics, low noise and high reliability, this might work even better. We’ll see if the Zooms fits that bill. I’m not expecting the world, but I’ve been positively surprised by Zoom gear before.

 

[woofersus]

If you like the 4-channel tetrahedral array concept, Rode also makes one for around $1k and I'm pretty sure Sennheiser makes one too for a little more. I think some of this will come down to how you value speed and spontaneity vs flexibility. If you want to capture ambient/environmental sounds as an important part of the end-result I'd be tempted to go with one M/S array and one multichannel ambient microphone. Then you can use one, the other, or both depending on the situation, and mix ambient sounds at the level you want. The MKH418s is probably a good, simple solution, especially if you want to be ultrafast.

If you want to consider individual microphones to make your own m/s array take a look at the Shure KSM141. Selectable omni/cardioid pattern, selectable gain, selectable LF rolloff, compact, reasonably rugged. I've used and liked them very much for a variety of small-diaphram condenser purposes.

A pair of C414's would be fantastic but I don't think I'd use them outside either, though mine has survived a couple of falls.

 

[unpluggged]

I checked at 3 online stores and the Essential versions are typically 10-20% more expensive than the non-essential. Also see the attachment for H2 prices, Essential is the most expensive of the three.

Weird. I still regard them as cheaper alternatives overall. Several reviews of at least the H1essential and the H4essential were not very complimentary, to say the least, e.g. by Curtis Judd. Not sure about the H6e, though.

BTW, as it looks to me that you are interested in spatial sound, not just M/S stereo, there is also the Zoom H3-VR Ambisonic recorder, that might also be of interest (but it seems to have been discontinued).

I also recommend to check out this YouTube channel, the guy is mainly into outdoor ambient recording, but it's worth looking at.

Syncing the start of songs will also require some attention, but that’s okay, and that seems to be addressed on the Essentials with the wireless timecode implementation.

I was talking about the clock sync to avoid the recorders drifting away of each other. And in the context of using them as audio interfaces for live streaming, I'm not sure the wireless timecode feature would be of any help, so it looks like you would have to resort to the even less optimal solution with feeding them to anoter interface by analog in this case.

As an aside, I have had the MV88+, great mic. It doesn’t do omni btw.

Oh, so you are familiar with it Yes, I seem to have mixed things up a bit, there's just cardioid and 8-figure capsules, of course. I managed to get some great outdoor recordings with the MV88+, and even it worked nice for a mini-recital of a friend of mine, who is an opera singer (it was not a proper recording, I just was sitting in the audience and used it to record a couple of pieces on my phone, and I was surprised with the quality).

 

[Smaestro]

If you want to capture ambient/environmental sounds as an important part of the end-result I'd be tempted to go with one M/S array and one multichannel ambient microphone. Then you can use one, the other, or both depending on the situation, and mix ambient sounds at the level you want. The MKH418s is probably a good, simple solution, especially if you want to be ultrafast.

If you want to consider individual microphones to make your own m/s array take a look at the Shure KSM141. Selectable omni/cardioid pattern, selectable gain, selectable LF rolloff, compact, reasonably rugged. I've used and liked them very much for a variety of small-diaphram condenser purposes.

A pair of C414's would be fantastic but I don't think I'd use them outside either, though mine has survived a couple of falls.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm taking them on board! I like the idea of having one ambient mic to round off the set. (bolded them for easy reference)

Weird. I still regard them as cheaper alternatives overall. Several reviews of at least the H1essential and the H4essential were not very complimentary, to say the least, e.g. by Curtis Judd. Not sure about the H6e, though.

Good reference, I looked at the H4 Essential review by Curtis Judd. A big 'con' right away is that the built-in mics and XLR preamps are noisy (although better than the older models). That's unfortunate but to be expected. It's probably not better on the H2 models. But the question is of course, "how" noisy is it? I'll have to find out.

I also recommend to check out this YouTube channel, the guy is mainly into outdoor ambient recording, but it's worth looking at.

Wow, he has great ambient recordings. Also with the H1n. The ambient wind noises are good at masking device noise but even the ones with less noise are good. He doesn't say if he does noise reduction in post but he might.

BTW, as it looks to me that you are interested in spatial sound, not just M/S stereo, there is also the Zoom H3-VR Ambisonic recorder, that might also be of interest (but it seems to have been discontinued).

I believe it's still available! I have no problem ordering it, in Europe at least. I might get one IF the H2 is nice.

I was talking about the clock sync to avoid the recorders drifting away of each other. And in the context of using them as audio interfaces for live streaming, I'm not sure the wireless timecode feature would be of any help, so it looks like you would have to resort to the even less optimal solution with feeding them to anoter interface by analog in this case.

You're right, the timecode is embedded to the WAV file as metadata, so no WAV file, no timecode.

I perhaps wrongly assumed that the amount of drift in current devices is negligible on shorter recordings (60 mins). So I don't know if drift is a real problem or a theoretical one. I googled around a bit and while I do find a lot of people having issues with 'drift', it always seems to boil down to the difference in 24fps and 23.97 fps in film and not an audio thing. Then again, nobody is recording full bands with 4 handheld recorders so that's down to availability bias...

I guess I'll just let a H2 record for 10 hours and see what we end up with. To keep time I'll just use my Casio wristwatch I suppose.

As you guys have noticed by now, nothing is set in stone. My usual business partner dropped out of this plan two weeks ago (for having a kid on the way). Yet in the same week, I met an interested companion from a different corner. I don't need one, but it might be an opportunity, and it might change the demands.
So for now even if the Zooms aren't cutting it, it may hopefully be a nice mock/practice setup. If I can have a mobile 'practice' setup to figure out what I need for roughly $1000, that could potentially save me multiples of that when I invest in a full setup. So I'm not ignoring all your advice, it is in fact much appreciated!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Drift will almost surely be an issue over 60 minutes with 4 unsynched recorders. At one time Audacity could make very precise speed changes to a few parts per billion to fix such issues. It has less precision in this since a few years ago. There might be other software that could fix it, but I'm not sure right off hand.

 

[ChrisG]

Thanks Chris for your input, very valueable.

The off-axis sources are very important, and I did see that some polar patterns were a bit wonky. At the same time, if the wonkyness is just a static weird FR of the Side channel, then I can just measure some mics and use a corrective EQ.

NB: EQ will apply to everything captured, regardless of angle.


Since we've moved towards outdoors/acoustic/battery-powered, this pair of articles will be valuable reading:

On the Go: Moving From a Laptop to an iPad — AudioTechnology

[...]Read More...

www.audiotechnology.com

Going Further — AudioTechnology

[...]Read More...

www.audiotechnology.com

Since those were written, iPads have been upgraded with USB-C connectors, which expand their capabilities considerably: my iPad Mini 6th gen can directly power a Behringer UMC404HD, which has inputs for 4x real microphones. Far better performance than a Zoom H-series.
Alternatively, if I introduce a USB hub with Power Delivery, I can use a USB battery to power everything.

Higher channel count interfaces are available, of course, but you end up moving towards mains (or DC, which can be okay if you have a suitable battery for that) powered devices, which reduce portability.

Finally, you could look at the Zoom F6, which has 6x mic inputs in a neat little box, and can also be externally powered.


I know all of these solutions are more expensive than a couple of handheld recorders, but IMO the improvements in sound quality and usability are too great to ignore.


Chris

 

[Smaestro]

Drift will almost surely be an issue over 60 minutes with 4 unsynched recorders. At one time Audacity could make very precise speed changes to a few parts per billion to fix such issues. It has less precision in this since a few years ago. There might be other software that could fix it, but I'm not sure right off hand.

Ok, then the H series are out. I reallllly don't want to spend any time syncing tracks. The wireless timecode serves to remedy that, but I don't want to be wondering if the wireless timecode is reliable enough. The lack of monitoring (for me) will also make it impossible for me to set the mics up predictably.

NB: EQ will apply to everything captured, regardless of angle.

True, I had a brainfart there.

Since we've moved towards outdoors/acoustic/battery-powered, this pair of articles will be valuable reading:

On the Go: Moving From a Laptop to an iPad — AudioTechnology

[...]Read More...

www.audiotechnology.com

Going Further — AudioTechnology

[...]Read More...

www.audiotechnology.com

Since those were written, iPads have been upgraded with USB-C connectors, which expand their capabilities considerably: my iPad Mini 6th gen can directly power a Behringer UMC404HD, which has inputs for 4x real microphones. Far better performance than a Zoom H-series.
Alternatively, if I introduce a USB hub with Power Delivery, I can use a USB battery to power everything.

Higher channel count interfaces are available, of course, but you end up moving towards mains (or DC, which can be okay if you have a suitable battery for that) powered devices, which reduce portability.

Finally, you could look at the Zoom F6, which has 6x mic inputs in a neat little box, and can also be externally powered.

I know all of these solutions are more expensive than a couple of handheld recorders, but IMO the improvements in sound quality and usability are too great to ignore.

The articles are interesting. For audio he either uses a Zoom F6 or a Nagra Seven (2 inputs).
My minimal requirement is 8 inputs. A mobile power source is then indeed a must. The Zoom F8 does everything, and doesn't break the bank at below 1k.

I'm organising my thought process below:

The options
There are 3 viable options:
1. Laptop / Tablet + Interface (ex: Laptop + any 8 XLR interface)
2. Field recorder (ex: Zoom F8)
3. Mixer-recorder (ex: Zoom Livetrak 20)

Pros and cons
1. Laptop/ Tablet + Interface
Pro: Ability to properly mix without transferring files.
Con: The least reliable. (Ie. Unexpected updates, dropouts). Laptops aren’t weatherproof.
I have also never gelled with tablets. That’s a bit irrational but I just don’t like the feel of working with one.

2. Field recorder (ex: Zoom F8)
Pro: Solid as a brick, efficient workflow
Con: No multiple headphone/monitor mixes.

3. Mixer-recorder (ex: Zoom Livetrak 20)
Pro: Easy to work with Headphone monitor mixes. Has use in other projects.
Con: Takes up space, not weatherproof.

Weighing the Pros and Cons
I don't like the laptop or tablet route anymore. It's not robust enough.
The field recorder is the clear winner IF I'm sticking to the "no monitor mixes" thing.
However, I think I should reconsider. Acoustic acts still want to record with a click, with a prerecorded drum part, scratch vocal or vocal harmony.

The Zoom Livetrak mixer-recorders are also a good alternative. Especially the “rack” mounted version has nice carrying handles, and a compact form because of the omission of the faders.

Zoom L-20R LiveTrak - ZOOM Europe

Zoom ontwerpt en produceert een uitgebreid assortiment recorders, multi-effectprocessors, effectpedalen, drummachines, digitale mixers en samplers. Onze i…

www.zoom-europe.com

Livetrak L-20R vs F8

Equivalent input noise Actual measurements: −128dB EIN (IHF-A) at +60dB/150Ω input
Power AD-19 AC adapter (DC12V 2A)
Power consumption 24 W maximum
External dimensions 438 mm (W) × 158.2 mm (D) × 151.7 mm (H)
Weight (main unit only) 2.49 kg

The Livetrak records all channels to SD, but is also flexible to record to a DAW in interface mode. The Zoom F8 is more robust in that it records to two SD’s for redundancy, and in 32bit float, where the Livetrak records to one SD and in 24bit fixed. I don't need all 20 inputs, but the smaller versions of the Livetrak have faders and end up not being that much smaller.

Powerstation
A compact mobile power station like this will power this for at least 10 hours

Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station

The Jackery Explorer 300 is the ideal portable power station for short camping trips, off-grid living, and for powering small appliances when power outages.

www.jackery.com

It weighs about 3.5kg, size is 23x20x13cm. Capacity is 293Wh
(Operational time: 293Wh / 24W = 12.2 hrs)

Monitoring
Giving the band headphones goes against the "nature" look I'm going for (there will be an optional video shooting service too), but wireless IEM's are invisible enough.

Total kit
The total weight of this is 6kg. The volume of the mxier is 10L, of the powerstation 6L. I can easily pack this in a 60L hiking backpack.

Then add 4 mics with wind filters, 6 wireless IEM's, and hang the 4 mic stands and the 8 XLR cables on the outside.
If I'm not forgetting something, this seems like a robust and mobile kit.

Note: The Zoom devices mentioned are not "final", they serve as placeholders for the idea. I haven't checked if brands like Tascam offer similar products but I will.

Curious if you guys see mistakes in my reasoning or otherwise. Thanks again for reading this and for the input.

 

[woofersus]

A mixer-recorder is sooo bulky. This part is really just preference, but I don't think I could be happy with that. I guess there might be some smaller ones out there I'm not familiar with as I haven't done that kind of thing in a while, but the other issue is as soon as you get a small mixer you wish it was bigger and buy another one, lol. Mixers are like TV's.

If you really don't want to work with a tablet, what about an interface and NUC in a small case with a compact control surface plugged into it? I guess I'm not sure how much space that saves but there are a few pretty small ones out there. If you don't want to deal with computers that's out but I thought I'd throw the idea out there.

The field recorder seems like a slam dunk if you can live without the monitor mixes. It's tough to set all that up in such environments anyway, IMO. It all gets to be a lot of gear and wires and setup time pretty fast as you add capabilities.