Rolls MX422 - Mixer de Áudio de Campo Profissional de 4 Canais

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

I've had my MX422 for just over a year. It's been used maybe a total of 20 times. After use #5 I found that the CH-2 was giving me issues and the meters were not working. So sent it for repair (note the unit was only 2 months old) had to pay for shipping for repair. They supposedly fixed it. All was good in the studio, put the unit back in my Petrol PS602 mixer bag and the trims were giving me issues, seems they're very very delicate and their positioning in the rear makes it virtually impossible to operate in field bag.

I take my audio into a digital recorder (Marantz PMD671) for recordings with my Canon 5DMii (since Cam's audio is bad)

I called and wrote Rolls, they tell me again to ship the unit (at my cost) and they'll look at it again, I've asked for a new replacement unit since I can't trust this one and they tell me "no, can't do that". I feel I've got a lemon and they will only patch it. Ask to speak to the owner/president and got an email that say that they don't speak with customers... what type of customer service is that? In my business if a customer's unhappy I (the owner) speak with them to resolve the issue.

I'm selling my MX422 and getting the Azden (just wish it took 9V batteries and switched like the Rolls since I now have 10 extra 9V batteries.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

It works just like it's supposed to. The only negative thing I can say is that the trim knobs on the back are small but I also have giant fingers. If you have normal fingers and not sausages like me, you should be fine.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

use in news, and broadcast aplication, etc

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

Lots of great features including balanced XLR inputs and outputs, a basic limiter, phantom power, 1k tone generator and slate mic all packed in a decent sized package. I purchased mine with the idea that it would be a nice entry level field mixer for ENG and commercial video production.

Unfortunately the mic preamps are very noisy, the UV meters are substandard and I can't image the MX-422 will be very durable in the field. The mixer feels like it was cheaply produced and it didn't help my confidence when I found a few typos in the owner's manual. I would have gladly paid a little more for better quality materials in the same unit.

If a company such as Mackie would produce a mixer with these features it would be a much better product.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

This is the best field mixer I have ever used and for the money it out performs other mixers that are four times the cost. This is an excellent product. I highly recommend it. It comes with a bag also what a bargain!!!!!!!!!!

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

Is the well-read one the opinions and the truth is that after having used, for more than 15 years shure, sound devices, wendt field mixers, saw the ROLLS MX442 with distrust but the truth is that it is surprisingly clean and it does not seem to me that that sounds for anything badly,processed by a normal eq of pro tools and I list is not easy hear the diference (always voices & others are well processed in sound post production), even more I find it more clean that the shure FP32A , the problem is that often is recorded to càmara in way mic input and this it is really the motive of hiss and lowers sign due to the fact that it is necessary to use low levels not to saturate, ALWAYS RECORD WITH THE SOUND ENTRY OF THE CÀMARA IN LINE IN +4dB, this is the only and really good way and have good dinamic range, which does not know this is sonidista beginner.( the only exception to record in mic input is with some early model of RED cameras)
I do not say that other mixer are a farce but for quality vs price I have not run up with anything better that mx442, it is a bit delicate and is for personal use, do not recommend it for rental, to finish it came with a double batteries option that allows to change on the fly, this for those who are employed at programs that include long interviewed it is the difference between work more relax specially if they are rechargeable bateries

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

I thought the gain had little head room. On my cheaper end mics it stunk but my higher end mics it performed well. WHATS WITH THE BACKWARDS CASE? POUCH ON THE WRONG SIDE. Its not Sound Devices 422 but its a good entry level mixer for any low buget film maker. It works just buy it!

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

Although most of the work I do is in the studio, I sometimes take sound jobs on shoots when equipment is provided. Usually video, and usually sound goes mixer-to-camera.

A quick aside: They say "It is the poor workman who blames his tools." It rings true and rolls of the tongue nicely, and perhaps it is true. But the wisdom in it is more subtle than the glib, no-excuses attitude with which it is normally spoken. You see, it's not that a great workman can make magic happen with any tools. It's that a great workman knows better than to use tools like the Rolls MX422. I, in the most painful way, am a better workman than I was only a few weeks ago.

The first time I used this mixer was a super low-paying, just-bang-it-out shoot, and thanks to highly static conditions, a lot of care, and more than a little luck, I got something halfway decent. I guess I got cocky, and I did another gig with it some months later.

As you may know, the audio systems built in to most pro-sumer and low-end-of-pro video cameras are less than great, and they have nothing resembling professional monitoring systems, so you don't really know what you're getting, and it's always a bit nerve wracking. But it always worked out for me before...

Of course, I had previously been using mostly the PSC Alphamix (which will spoil you and, if you can afford it, I cannot recommend it highly enough) and the Shure FP33 (which is the absolute baseline of decent quality, and if you're not at least using that, I swear you're probably better off plugging the mics right into the camera).

Anyway, the Rolls MX422 is really stingy with the headroom, lacks powerful gain, and adds way too much white noise. It's actually weird how perfectly spectrally diffuse the hiss is. Not really any buzzes, pitched hums, what have you (unless you used the UNGROUNDED power supply, which will give you plenty-o-buzzin'n'hummin').

I used the Rolls MX422 on a direct-to-camera shoot. Days later, I'm getting panicked emails from the video editor and his assistant about how low-level and high-noise the audio is, even though I calibrated accurately, and set levels such that I occasionally peaked on a loud word. I received an OMF from the editor on which to perform a sound mix, and it was all I could do to tame the noise with EQ and draconian application of frequency-responsive dynamic processing.

At first I was deeply ashamed of how badly my work on the project came out, until I had the client over for an ADR session. We used his mic and mixer for consistency, but plugged it into a MOTU interface (just an A/D D/A interface, no junky built-in pres), which is very low-noise, like a decent studio piece always is.

In this controlled environment with the MX422 cranked 80%-90% at all 3 gain stages (trim, channel, master), with a decent Rode shotgun condenser mic about 20" from the actors' faces, the average peak was around -28 dBfs, with a very loud cough hitting around -8. What's more, each gain knob has a point at which the noise steps up disproportionately to the gain increase, so I couldn't turn up. And because you have to crank every gain stage, you can't set the trim safe, set the channel high, and then rely on the master limiter. You have to stick your neck out with the trim to get anything close to a decent signal.

Although it was some relief to me and my professional self-esteem, the fact that the MX422 is a poor kit piece does not take me back in time to a place where I can fix this project. Buy something better or don't buy anything. A good Workman spends what a good tool costs, or doesn't buy the tool.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

The only reason this mixer gets 3 stars is that if you know its bad points and how to overcome them you can get fair results with this unit.

Bad points:
1. Poor positioning of the trim pots. They are placed between the XLR connections on the bottom of the mixer, which is rather inconvenient. Also the trim pots are a little noisy when turned all the way up.

2. Poor XLR connection placement. I would prefer the XLR connections to be on the sides of the mixer. This keeps you from using any of the professional aftermarket bags.

3. The bag that was supplied with the mixer is poorly constructed. The pouch is located on the wrong side. It appears that the company was more concerned with the name being seen than the bags usefulness.

Good Points:
1. Price was a huge factor in my purchasing decision. Considering the 302 and the FP33 were more than double the price I picked what I could afford at the time.

2. There was a bag supplied with the mixer. And once it is looped through the mixer properly it holds the mixer very securely.

3. Two battery power compartments for a total of four 9v batteries. There is no need to replace the batteries in the middle of the shoot. You can just simply switch and keep on shooting or holding for sound.

Overall the mixer is a good mixer with some quirks, but works well enough to get good clean sound, when properly operated. It is fair to say that if the trim pot and XLR connection placement were on the sides of the mixer I would have given it 4 or 5 stars.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

Of course it´s not a sonosax but it works great in easy and fast situations. Good for promos, internet videos, etc...

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

I don't recommend this product for the following reasons:

The gain meters are small, hard to read and don't seem accurate.

The trim knobs are poorly placed between the XLR inputs making it hard to get your fingers in there to make adjustments.

The trim knobs don't seem to have much effect on volume and have to be turned up all the way in order to be effective.

The carry case is poorly designed and if you're not careful, the unit could fall out.

The overall feel and look of the unit is cheap.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

The good:
Good basic mixer at an excellent price point. Fairly good build quality, rugged and reliable. Solid construction, smooth sealed pots. Decent sounding Pre’s. (noise level fair)
EIN. -115db. Good battery life, approximately 10 to 12 hours on 4 x9V (5-6 hours times two with switch) 3 channels driven with 1 mic phantom power.
The bad:
The worst metering in the world. Tiny analog view meters that you can’t see, take up too much room and are not accurate or aligned properly and can’t be adjusted.
No warning for low battery power. Sound deteriorates without warning.
No PFL
No direct outs resulting in only 2 outputs in total
Not enough gain. 65db which is standard on most small format and larger consoles. For film work you need extra clean gain as often the source is not ideal. Sound Devices has an ample 81db of gain.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

Is better than I expected.

Comments about Rolls MX422 - 4 Channel Field Audio Mixer:

This is the best field mixer I have ever used and for the money it out performs other mixers that are four times the cost. This is an excellent product. I highly recommend it.