Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sound Devices v. Zaxcom

I bought a SD 702t along with the RedOne. This are the reasons:

1. TC synching is as easy as it gets. Slaving the camera is thing of seconds.

2. Sound quality of the SD is out of question.

3. The power consumption of the 702t is very low.

4. The recoding media CF card is the same as I use with the RedOne.

5. Backuping on a Nexto is a breeze and is done on set.

6. The device is light weight and has a steep learning curve. A newbie will feel familiar in 2 hours of use.

7. Sounddevices are pretty reliable. A backup device is only needed in very critical circumstances. You cannot say that about the RedOne.

A 744t without the in-build hard drive is a good alternative to the 702t if power consumption is of any concern. I heard the wireless mics work with the 2 line channels of the 744t making it with out an extra mixer a very capable, but small on-location recording system.


Hans
 
We have a 788T and just love it! Perhaps no piece of gear we own hits the sweet-spot intersection between extraordinary power and ease-of-use as the 788T.

Stephen
 
Hans, how do you handle mixing? The SD702 specs call for adding a 302 mixer. That's added weight and bulk. At list prices (yes, I know about list prices) the 788t and mixer just isn't too far from the Zaxcom price.

Learning curve is a point. Anyone out there who has used both products extensively who can match Hans' points, comparing any of the current SD700 (t) line with Zaxcom?

Hans, I'm assuming that you did NOT mean to use the word "steep" as you did. Does "easy" or "fast" work better?
 
Tim Duran said:
Hans, I'm assuming that you did NOT mean to use the word "steep" as you did. Does "easy" or "fast" work better?
Click to expand...

If X is the knowledge and Y the time than "steep" means that the knowledge increases in a shorter time frame than if the curve would be "flat"... You are right "fast" would be the appropriate word.

------

The 702t is stereo only. If you want to record more than 2 mics you need a mixer. Than, of course, the advantage of light weight and low power consumption is gone.

The 788t is not only much more expensive but it's also bigger and heavier, plus it needs much more power. The possibility to record 8 channels is great but if you record 95% of the time either stereo ambient noise or dialog with max. 2 wireless lavs a 788t is an overkill.

A good friend of mine is a freelancing soundguy. He owns a 788t and he lives 2 minutes away. I rented his SD in the last year once.

It really depends what you are doing. If your are a freelancing sound engineer you want a 788t, if we talk about the SD range of recorders. For someone like me who is much more a kind of filmmaker/producer in the digital age a 702t will do most of the jobs.

Hans
 
Rob Castiglione said:
There are lots of misconceptions about sample rates. Is 192khz better than 96khz?

See what Dan Lavry has to say: http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
Click to expand...

I think you will find Nyquist was right and Dan's paper is also very good in his assessment. Id be interested to hear an Identical recording direct from a Mic source off both devices to make an assessment. Perhaps one at 48k 16bit and 24bit and one at 96k 24bit. If what is said is true and many sound pros seem to say it is, 192k is hindrance and doesn't help. Can any one help provide some samples ?
 
Dave Blackham said:
Id be interested to hear an Identical recording direct from a Mic source off both devices to make an assessment. Perhaps one at 48k 16bit and 24bit and one at 96k 24bit. If what is said is true and many sound pros seem to say it is, 192k is hindrance and doesn't help.
Click to expand...
I have worked on projects where people attempted dialog recording at 96K/24 bit, and it made no difference. In fact, the ludicrous thing was, 90% of the audio they recorded was from wireless mikes... which are, by their very nature, limited to no more than 20KHz (and realistically below that).

96K also takes up more file space and is a bigger workload for most processors. I think it's total overkill for dialog on any film, even major A-list productions. I know of very, very few preamps and mikes that can really go much above 20kHz.

I know of sound effects recordists who do routinely capture effects and ambience tracks at 96K, at least in cases where the tracks are later varispeeded, processed, and tweaked. The theory is that the tracks hold up better, and it's hard to argue with this reasoning. And there are also classical recordists who record orchestras at 96K (or even 192K), but I think these are largely for limited audiophile releases.

I would worry more about mike selection, mike technique, and the acoustics of your location more than recording frequency. There's also a good discussion of the pros and cons of 48K vs. 96K at this link on JWSound.net. Suffice it to say that not one of the pro mixers there was in favor of 96K for dialog.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I have worked on projects where people attempted dialog recording at 96K/24 bit, and it made no difference. In fact, the ludicrous thing was, 90% of the audio they recorded was from wireless mikes... which are, by their very nature, limited to no more than 20KHz (and realistically below that).

96K also takes up more file space and is a bigger workload for most processors. I think it's total overkill for dialog on any film, even major A-list productions. I know of very, very few preamps and mikes that can really go much above 20kHz.

I know of sound effects recordists who do routinely capture effects and ambience tracks at 96K, at least in cases where the tracks are later varispeeded, processed, and tweaked. The theory is that the tracks hold up better, and it's hard to argue with this reasoning. And there are also classical recordists who record orchestras at 96K (or even 192K), but I think these are largely for limited audiophile releases.

I would worry more about mike selection, mike technique, and the acoustics of your location more than recording frequency. There's also a good discussion of the pros and cons of 48K vs. 96K at this link on JWSound.net. Suffice it to say that not one of the pro mixers there was in favor of 96K for dialog.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, We have mics made by Josephson, Schoeps, Neuman, Sennheiser, Microtech Gefell, STC ribbons, specially set up Valve mics so have a fair selection to choose from with some very good preamps. I think for practical purposes 48Khz 24bit is about as far as you need to go even with the very best mics.
 
JonathanF said:
Some people say CD's are better than vinyl too.
Click to expand...
I think that's a different issue. There's a different feel with vinyl, and I have an open mind to the point where I'll concede that analog tape, digital, and vinyl all can sound different. But there's a difference between good digital and bad analog, and bad digital and good analog.

The main issue is that the post pipeline for any post audio crew in the world is not going to be able to handle 96K audio for lots of dialog. To me, it's just useless overkill for real-world purposes. And it might potentially create very costly problems as you get down to the final mix.

Some of the finest-sounding films in the world were done at just regular 48K. (And let's not forget all the Nagra films prior to the early 1990s, and the films shot on DAT in the years after that time.) Multi-track digital merely gives you more options, but not necessarily an improvement in sound quality per se.

It's more about the microphones, how they're positioned, and the room in which they're used.
 
Marc Wielage said:
It's more about the microphones, how they're positioned, and the room in which they're used.
Click to expand...

If there can be one line of advice on Audio recording it is this.

It really needs to be a sticky in top place of the list of things to prioritise. Im posting this to try to get it to the top of the list and have more people see how important it is.
 
Marc Wielage said:
There's a
The main issue is that the post pipeline for any post audio crew in the world is not going to be able to handle 96K audio for lots of dialog. To me, it's just useless overkill for real-world purposes. And it might potentially create very costly problems as you get down to the final mix.
Click to expand...

I record all dialog at 192k. It sounds much better, and gives post more options. They always thank me for this.
I can hear the difference in the final product.
 
I know many mix houses in LA who will strongly disagree with you, Mr. (or Ms) Trailangel. Give me the name of a single major mixing stage that prefers 192K audio vs. 48K.

Even with extraordinarily good microphones, like a Schoeps 641, they top out at 28K -- at best. The preamps and mikes can't even get remotely high enough to warrant this sampling frequency. Tell me what preamps and mikes you're using.

Me, I'm using a Deva 5.8 and a Mix-12, and sometimes a 744t for run-and-gun situations (car interiors, etc.). Plus a lot of wireless mikes, because that's the reality of what we shoot here in LA. I prefer to go with a wired boom under controlled situations, but 48K is the absolute limit for dialog, especially multitrack.

I can see many valid arguments for 24-bit audio, despite the noise limits on location, and that's an accepted standard throughout all facets of the post sound business.
 
24bit, 48K is plenty for dialog. Now for certain FX recording, symphonies, etc. maybe there is valid evidence for doing higher sampling rates. I have yet to encounter a situation where 24bit, 96K was required for dialog. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it required.
 
This is getting a bit silly.

You only need 48KHz for dialog recording.

That said, if you can record at 96 or 192KHz, then there really isn't any reason not to.

I find the argument that 24/96 recording is a problem in post specious. Heck 24/96 audio works in iMovie for crying out loud.

Data storage isn't an issue for any system made in the last decade.

Processing isn't a problem for any system made in the last 4-5 years.

As far as post houses "requiring" anything... post houses take whatever you give them and make it work. Either that or they go out of business fairly quickly. And let me assure you post houses get some true BS brought in their doors. It can be a real mess.

So, while you don't need the extra data, it hurts nothing, and can occasionally save your rear.

Would I buy an audio recorder today that only recorded 48KHz ? Nope.

Would I double my mixer/recorder budget just to get 192KHz recording? Not a chance.

96KHz is enough overkill for me thankyouverymuch.
 
Although I agree with what you're saying Alexander, the one thing I would say is to not simply record everything at whatever sampling rate you want and let post figure it out. While I agree that most audio post facilities can handle 96k at this point, they still may have reasons why they want you to record it at 48k. If the audio post house has been selected prior to production i always have a conversation about workflow and what they want for deliverables. If 24 bit, 48k is what they want, that is what I'll deliver. If they were to request 96k, that's what I would deliver. At this point, file sizes aren't the problem, it's simply a question of smooth workflow and of course delivering quality audio files. There could be other scenarios too. Perhaps you are asked to record 96k but they will most likely convert to 48k on import. As long as those conversations happen at the beginning everyone will get what they want.
 
Stated above, but seemed to be glossed over.

24/48 is an industry standard.
No working post house, and no experienced producer asks for anything more.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
As far as post houses "requiring" anything... post houses take whatever you give them and make it work. Either that or they go out of business fairly quickly.
Click to expand...
Talk to the guys on the Pro Tools Digidesign User Conference. Trust me, if you have over a hundred (or hundreds) of tracks, all struggling to handle 192K audio, things will crash and burn very quickly. The Digi 192 interface cannot handle tons of tracks at this standard, and it will make no difference in the final deliverables to Dolby 5.1, DTS, or any other standard. HD videotape can only do 48K. Blu-ray can only do 48K (at least in surround, with very rare exceptions like TruHD).

This is a workflow issue. It will not affect sound quality at all. And it will drive picture editors, dialog editors, and sound mixers crazy to have to deal with 192K dialog (particularly with music and effects standardized at 48K/24-bit). Any conversion down to 48K will eliminate any advantage it had in the first place, and could conceivably introduce SRC errors.

Again: even a $4000 microphone can't record anything remotely about 25K, let alone double that, nor do I know of any preamps that can do this in the real world. Check the Nyquist Theory.

This was also discussed at length on sound mixer Jeff Wexler's forum. Roger Morris' comments above are exactly what I've experienced and heard for the past two decades here in LA.

Getting good sound is much, much more than just frequency response. This is a vanishingly small aspect of it. I'd worry much more about the noise of the location, what mikes are used, the skill level of the boom op, sound perspective changes, matching booms to wireless mikes, and all the real-world issues that happen ever day. Those things have far more impact on dialog quality than recording at 48K or a million K.
 
It's better to have than not. When shooting Red HD.. the audio needs to be HD as well. Next will be 3D audio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top