Jump to content

SD what's up next?


ChrisH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why not separate the components? Think modular.

How about...

A bare bones 4, or 8 or 16 track (software upgradeable) recorder with full time code cababilities.

An 4-8 in/4-8 out mixer with dial faders, etc. to feed the above recorder. Easily upgradable with more components 4 channels at-a-time (buy the basic unit with empty bays and upgrade when you can afford it).

All control-able with a hard-wired iPad?

Full 100mm slider big-ass mixer options available of course...

Like any good drug dealer you (SD or however) can suck someone in with something good and cheap (?) and then continue to sell them upgrades for years.

Sorry, that's not a drug dealer, that's a software company....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All control-able with a hard-wired iPad?

I like the idea of being able to use an iPad to control smaller devices like the 788. Especially for entering metadata. If only zaxcom would do that with the nomad, you'd could get Diva/Fusion style touchscreen for cart or even bag use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly anachronistic me, I'd like to see something like the Sax SX4 done right, a tiny 4 track+digital inputs (like to use w/ MixPreD), but with as much internal routing mojo as a 744, but with more "User" presets. Way small when you need just a few inputs, easy to add channels via AES when you want more.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of being able to use an iPad to control smaller devices like the 788. Especially for entering metadata. If only zaxcom would do that with the nomad, you'd could get Diva/Fusion style touchscreen for cart or even bag use.

The main issue with controlling stuff with an iDevice is that Apple wont let third party manufacturers connect/control their hardware via a wired connection. So things like the CL-wifi get born. Then you also need someone (or better yet, a team) who is proficient in writing iOS software, and how that interacts with the main unit and it's software. Zax could probably do it, but they have a lot of other stuff to do first, and Howy is just 1 guy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Sonosax do that already with their big mixer? I am surprised with all this talk about how Sound Devices should make a cart based mixer/recorder --- aren't there a lot of people already using the 788T on a cart? I get a little bit of a different view of this because the majority of mixers I know use a Deva on the cart, either with a full digital mixing panel (like the Yamaha), a hardware interface (MIX-12 or MIX- 8), or an analog board (usually a Cooper, Sonosax or Solice). I think the same thing can be done with a 788T with the add-ons that Sound Devices provides.

It can be used on one, but the 788T wasn't really designed for a cart. It was designed to be a very small, portable mobile recorder with a small footprint. The CL-9 mixing panel interface that surfaced felt kind of like an afterthought, a simple box with that added (plastic) linear faders but not much else.

My idea (and it sounds like Chris had it too) was to build a dedicated cart mixing panel with good craftsmanship and all of the bells and whistles that are needed on set (communications channels, output/playback routings, good EQ, etc) that were mostly left off the CL-9. While at it, since the recording technology is small enough, why not put the recorder right into the mixing panel? Sonosax did attempt this at one point but if I recall correctly it was A) only an option on their $25,000 mixer, B) primitive in its recorder functions (eg metadata etc) and C) never fully developed to its potential or promise. By having the recorder right in the mixing panel one then does not need a recorder on one shelf and a string of cables to connect it to a mixer on another shelf, etc etc -- it can make a cart much more simple, tidy, and streamlined by getting rid of a recorder shelf/platform altogether. The bigger footprint of a cart mixer might also allow for more detailed displays, etc etc...there are a lot of possibilities. Yes, you need a backup, but I don't see how it's different from how it is now where you need a backup for all your essential machines. I don't think I would go off to do a long project without at least two recorders and two mixers, so this doesn't strike me as terribly different. Jon shot the idea down in years past for a reasonable fear of not a big enough market for such a thing, but I think it'd be a great addition and a great step forward to have a dedicated tool for the specific job of cart mixing, rather than fudging or compromising with tools that are made for a variety of different jobs. My .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Noah. Although there could be a modern analog mixing / recording console done today, and I would surely appreciate that, I'm sure that I'm in the minority. Whatever comes or could come would likely be based on a digital DSP mix engine. As such, adding the recording features would really be a rather moderate addition to the device. There is some advantage to modular components, but like you mention, the reduction of cabling requirements would improve reliability, footprint, and general ease / pleasure of use, not to mention overall system cost. I'd rather have a cart built and a bag ready to go, and not have to scavenge components from either one to outfit the other.

As an aside, there are many reasons that this mixer is not appropriate for our craft, but just looking at the design aesthetic, the build quality, and the assuredly outstanding sound quality,it makes me wish that Studer would pay attention to our little corner of the market.

Studer_OnAir1500.jpg

studer_nano_score.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried unsuccessfully to talk Mr. Tatooles into this idea a few years back. I also like the idea of eliminating the need for a recorder in a separate box on the cart (and all interconnects, power, etc). Now that the recording technology is tiny, putting it in the mixing panel would be a great way to lighten up/simplify a cart setup.

I wonder if there'd be a way to do it modularly: market a standalone mixer with a big LCD panel, and then for X additional dollars, have a plug-in module that would enable it to record X number of audio channels, with full metadata, to 3 kinds of media simultaneously. It could be done. The only question is how big a market there would be for such a thing. And let's not forget the issue of something that would work for bag mixers or carts. The 788/CL9 comes close, but I think I'd rather see the recorder just be a brick with touch screens, or at least pieces that could be detached to make it lighter when necessary. And I'd like to see the mixer be a full-size, no-compromise design that's all-DC -- sort of a location-sound-specific version of the 01V96, DC controlled, but made with half the weight and omitting live sound features we don't need.

I concede Chris' confusion between Lectro and SD. More than once, I've said, "if I ever won De Lotto, I'd like to buy Lectrosonics, Sound Devices, Denecke, and PSC, and combine them together into a single company." To me, they all have interesting (slightly overlapping) pro sound gear, good reputations, and good products. Trying to find a way to make that profitable and continue to come out with future-proof products in an uncertain economy... that's the tough part.

I do think Glenn Sanders is on the right track (no pun intended) with one company that makes wireless mikes, mixers, and recorders, and I especially admire the idea of the Nomad being upgradable. That's a very forward-thinking idea: just buy the number of channels you need right now, and upgrade the machine later. I also like the idea of networking the recorder, the wireless, even the slates and the mixer and (dare I say it) the camera. It can all be done, but it'd require an industry-wide standard, plus WiFi and/or BlueTooth that was 100% reliable and had minimal delay loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is definitely a lot of personality in how mixers build their carts up.

Chris may be on to something. It seemed like a fair amount of location sound mixers were using the Fostex 824 with any mixer feeding it. There is not really an equivalent modern replacement (still 12volt rack mount but with many more tracks, adding features). I suppose Zaxcom made a box that was a lot smaller with a lot more tracks. I'm sure Zaxcom could have made some Uber Deva that was rackmount size with a ton of tracks, but you would need a huge mixer to feed it. I guess the question is if there is a market to support that. How many location sound people are actually needing more than 16 tracks, and are they served by metacorders.

There is also a strong argument for the Zaxcom or Sound devices control panel approach. If I had a Cooper mixer feeding a Fostex 824 (or a 788T) and either device died, I would be just as screwed if my Fusion crapped out. In a perfect world, you should have a backup with you. Even if it is a car insert rig that can be pulled apart to patch up the cart in a pinch. Look at the threads on here that keep popping up about "how much backup gear do you bring". Seeing how prepared most people are, I don't think any setup is actually wrong.

I still think *most* of the SD units made end up in bags, considering how many seem to be owned by rental houses. That seems to be their majority market. I'm not saying they can't add a mega 16 track beast, but it is a different market. I bet most cart mixers with a 788T are using something other than the CL-9. I think that's just how people like to work. I'm sure Zaxcom sells a LOT more Deva recorders than Mix-12s (I say this as a happy Mix-12 owner), because people are using a board they select with a lot of care, or have been happy using for years.

As a camera buddy once put it, your mixer is the dashboard of your cart. You have to interact with it all day. You should really think about which one you want to interact with for 12+ hours a day for years on end. He makes a solid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue with controlling stuff with an iDevice is that Apple wont let third party manufacturers connect/control their hardware via a wired connection. So things like the CL-wifi get born. Then you also need someone (or better yet, a team) who is proficient in writing iOS software, and how that interacts with the main unit and it's software. Zax could probably do it, but they have a lot of other stuff to do first, and Howy is just 1 guy...

Why not an Android based tablet? My initial thinking is that any Android tablet is less likely to get stolen than an iPad. They are cheaper, available in sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion - reminds me that this is available as many probably already know - can a recorder with as many tracks, metadata, timecode get more minimal?

The BLACKBOX RECORDER

http://www.joeco.co....troduction.html

And I've just discovered apparently in development - an app for running it :)

http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/news.html#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly anachronistic me, I'd like to see something like the Sax SX4 done right, a tiny 4 track+digital inputs (like to use w/ MixPreD), but with as much internal routing mojo as a 744, but with more "User" presets. Way small when you need just a few inputs, easy to add channels via AES when you want more.

phil p

I'd like one of those you can mix on (the knobs are just gain controls). AFAIK the routing's pretty comprehensive, it's only got unbalanced out though. It's actually got an RS422 interface in the multipin connector (which the manual said years ago isn't in use yet), so there may have been some plans for a controller at some point.

And for less money :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments:

"It can be used on one, but the 788T wasn't really designed for a cart. It was designed to be a very small, portable mobile recorder with a small footprint. The CL-9 mixing panel interface that surfaced felt kind of like an afterthought, a simple box with that added (plastic) linear faders but not much else."

So, for those who are saying they want a small recorder on the cart but want a larger more full-featured mixer, why not ask for something like a "CL-10"? The 788T is already fairly small so a larger hardware user control surface should do it, right?

"My idea (and it sounds like Chris had it too) was to build a dedicated cart mixing panel with good craftsmanship and all of the bells and whistles that are needed on set (communications channels, output/playback routings, good EQ, etc) that were mostly left off the CL-9."

See, here is one of the differences between the Deva and the 788T. With either recorder you can add an expanded user interface(s) to use as your "mixer." Everything still needs to happen in the digital domain for all the right reasons, and control surface interface can only harness the features and functions of the recorder. When you say this external device should provide all these things that are needed: "communications channels, output/playback routings, good EQ, etc." the CL-9 can't provide all these things adequately because the recorder lacks the proper facility to accomplish a lot of these things. The best example of this is the lack of comprehensive equalization and effects available in the 788T --- even an expanded "CL-10" would not be able to provide access to these features of the recorder since they are not available as a feature of the recorder. The Deva on the other hand, does have comprehensive equalization and effects and the external user interface (MIX-12) just gives you better and easier access and control.

"By having the recorder right in the mixing panel one then does not need a recorder on one shelf and a string of cables to connect it to a mixer on another shelf, etc etc -- it can make a cart much more simple, tidy, and streamlined by getting rid of a recorder shelf/platform altogether."

If you have a recorder that provides all the features and functions you need (flexible routing for all I/O, track assignments, comprehensive EQ, metadata support) you can use a hardware interface that typically only needs a single cabled connection.

I think the makings of a work scenario that we're all talking about here is already at hand, certainly for Deva users already and not far off for Sound Devices users (if SD comes out with a hardware interface, what I am calling a CL-10).

Regards, Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there'd be a way to do it modularly: market a standalone mixer with a big LCD panel, and then for X additional dollars, have a plug-in module that would enable it to record X number of audio channels, with full metadata, to 3 kinds of media simultaneously. It could be done.

Right, although other for live sound applications (probably not the market for such a thing anyway), when would one need a full size panel mixer but not a recorder?

The only question is how big a market there would be for such a thing. And let's not forget the issue of something that would work for bag mixers or carts.

Well, the point is that what's ideal for the bag is not ideal for the cart, and obviously vice versa. I don't think you're going to get something that is going to work ideally for both scenarios. In a bag the priorities are small size and weight, low power consumption, etc, and in order to achieve those a lot of compromises need to be made that aren't ideal for cart work. Then to use said machine on the cart, we have what we have now, which is a machine designed for the bag that has a lot of outboard peripherals hanging off it with a lot of fudges to make the machine work well for a full setup, which can be more complex and demanding than a portable setup.

What would be ideal is to have something tailored for the cart that doesn't need a bunch of add-ons, patch cables, borrowed inputs, and peripheral devices. That would allow for a more elegant, efficient setup without sacrificing mixing and routing power and ability. The practice of jockeying equipment back and forth between bag and cart isn't a very good one anyway, in my opinion. While it is a bit more budget friendly, it is always stressful to have to reconfigure one's setup completely each time one wants to switch, all with the pressure of set time hovering over one's head, and on many sets impossible anyway. I'm doing a fast-paced episodic TV show now and we'd be dead in the water if we had to pull a recorder off one setup and repatch every connection each time we have to switch from one scenario to another.

I agree with the notion (presented by Tom) that even though it costs a bit more, it's more ideal to have two separate setups tailored for each one's specific needs, rather than try to have a jack-of-all-trades solution that inevitably compromises both. If it's got to work for both scenarios, it's hard to see much more than an incremental improvement on what already exists, at best.

The market factor is the one that dooms us -- are enough people interested to make it worth the risk for a manufacturer? Probably not, which is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well, the point is that what's ideal for the bag is not ideal for the cart, and obviously vice versa. I don't think you're going to get something that is going to work ideally for both scenarios."

So, with that said, we're looking at 2 different products, setups, right?

"The market factor is the one that dooms us -- are enough people interested to make it worth the risk for a manufacturer? Probably not, which is a shame."

Not a shame. Zaxcom has already taken the "risk" with the full size Deva being best suited for staying on the sound cart (no compromises there), the Deva Fusion, perfectly at home on the sound cart and reasonably used in a bag/portable way, and now Nomad, purpose built with portability, light weight, low power consumption, the most flexible configuration and routing imaginable, the perfect solution for bag work. Where's the risk, where's the compromise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for those who are saying they want a small recorder on the cart but want a larger more full-featured mixer, why not ask for something like a "CL-10"? The 788T is already fairly small so a larger hardware user control surface should do it, right?

Not really, because it doesn't address the goal -- the efficiency and simplicity of having everything in one physical machine, and the savings of real estate on the cart that follow.

See, here is one of the differences between the Deva and the 788T. With either recorder you can add an expanded user interface(s) to use as your "mixer." Everything still needs to happen in the digital domain for all the right reasons, and control surface interface can only harness the features and functions of the recorder. When you say this external device should provide all these things that are needed: "communications channels, output/playback routings, good EQ, etc." the CL-9 can't provide all these things adequately because the recorder lacks the proper facility to accomplish a lot of these things. The best example of this is the lack of comprehensive equalization and effects available in the 788T --- even an expanded "CL-10" would not be able to provide access to these features of the recorder since they are not available as a feature of the recorder.

This is another reason why a new machine is desired, rather than an alternate piece of outboard gear to connect to the existing 788T.

The Deva on the other hand, does have comprehensive equalization and effects and the external user interface (MIX-12) just gives you better and easier access and control.

That may be true, but that still avoids the factors motivating the desire for another machine. If you like your Deva/Mix 12 combination, that's great and you should use it and enjoy it, but that shouldn't pre-empt those who prefer another machine from wishing for (or suggesting) an alternate concept separate from the existing Deva + Mix 12 concept.

If you have a recorder that provides all the features and functions you need (flexible routing for all I/O, track assignments, comprehensive EQ, metadata support) you can use a hardware interface that typically only needs a single cabled connection.

And an extra shelf, and a separate power supply, and probably some other gozintas and gozoutas, and cable routing coming from a small recorder box with limited real estate, and more potential troubleshooting in the case of failure (is it the mixer? the recorder? the control interface? the cable? the power supply for this one? that one?) Plus a more convoluted way of working -- let me go through the menu functions of the recorder to adjust something on the mixer etc etc etc. No one has to agree with me, but I do see the benefits of having one larger recorder/mixer panel to work with instead of two smaller units strung together.

I think the makings of a work scenario that we're all talking about here is already at hand, certainly for Deva users already and not far off for Sound Devices users (if SD comes out with a hardware interface, what I am calling a CL-10).

Well I think they are all the work scenario that we have always enjoyed in one way or another, whether it's a MIx-12 or an outboard mixer like a Cooper and the recorder of one's choice. I think the attraction (for me at least) is less about having the recorder do all the functions the mixer traditionally did, and more about eliminating one machine from the cart and chain.

I originally approached Sound Devices about this idea because I felt like they had most of the key parts already in place for a one-box solution -- a really efficient, reliable time code generator, a really tiny recorder, very nice sounding preamps, a good multipath, multidestination recording platform, and so forth. This isn't to say that the Deva doesn't have those things. I am not very interested in making this into a Zax vs. SD debate (especially since we're debating technology that doesn't exist).

Now, as for the concept of a one-box machine, which neither manufacturer currently offers, It seemed like the one-box machine that I was craving could be cobbled together basically using elements of technology that SD was basiaclly already using in their various devices. All that seemed to be needed was a the design of a new machine and the implementation of some functions and features (but nothing that changed the primary elements that already make up their gear, save for maybe a good EQ bridge).

The attraction was primarily borne out of a desire for cart real estate. As it stands I use a separate mixer, recorder, and time code master clock/generator. By consolidating all of those devices into one all I'd essentially need is this one all-inclusive mixing panel, which would handle mixing, recording, time code, A/D etc. Add one wireless rack plus a couple of IFB sends and a couple video monitors and you've got a very small, effiicent, powerful, simply drawn up cart.

I suggested this to SD before they released the CL-9 (though I think it was privately on the drawing board already -- I don't know if that was a factor in rejecting this idea). When the CL-9 came out, I was pretty disappointed by its limitations and didn't see it as the simplified, streamlined replacement I was interested in, so I didn't buy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The attraction was primarily borne out of a desire for cart real estate. As it stands I use a separate mixer, recorder, and time code master clock/generator. By consolidating all of those devices into one all I'd essentially need is this one all-inclusive mixing panel, which would handle mixing, recording, time code, A/D etc. Add one wireless rack plus a couple of IFB sends and a couple video monitors and you've got a very small, effiicent, powerful, simply drawn up cart."

It sort of sounds like the biggest motivator here is the desire to have one less SHELF on your sound cart. You still need space for all the rest of the gear you have on your cart (outboard timecode generator ?, external A to D ?, IFB transmitter(s), video monitor(s), etc. If you could get Sound Devices to put the recorder INSIDE a mixing panel that would occupy just one shelf, I think you have introduced potentially some more problems (example, servicing the recorder and having to send the whole package in, all controls for the recorder functions and setup parameters have to be built in and accessible on the panel, etc.).

I think your concern about the interconnection between the piece of equipment that is your mixing panel and the piece of equipment that is your recorder, is a non-issue (certainly if you exclude the use of an analog mixer in favor of a hardware user interface). With the Deva, for example, there are lots of people who have solved the "one shelf" issue on their carts by using a nice Chinhda bracket to hang the Deva over the one shelf that your mixer sits on. And, as I said before, the connection for the MIX-12 to the Deva is one cable (and I believe the connection to the 788T from the CL-9 is one cable).

I honestly cannot see what would motivate Sound Devices to take all the technology and parts they put into the 788T recorder (case) and put it all inside a new bigger case that is also a totally new product, a multi-channel mixing panel, and then try and sell it to anyone other than you and possibly a few others who want to put everything on one shelf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly cannot see what would motivate Sound Devices to take all the technology and parts they put into the 788T recorder (case) and put it all inside a new bigger case that is also a totally new product, a multi-channel mixing panel, and then try and sell it to anyone other than you and possibly a few others who want to put everything on one shelf.

Agreed.

I would simply like to see an improvement on the CL-9 to make it more functional and higher quality than the existing solution (including somewhere to put a slate mic without having to steal a production channel to do so). I know that it can't create a function on the 788T which doesn't exist, but what it can do is create a mix track in addition to the 8 ISO tracks on the recorder that can only be accomplished using CL8 or CL9. I'd love a way to be able to record a mix and 8 ISO tracks from my Solice (I hope I never have to).

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The attraction was primarily borne out of a desire for cart real estate. As it stands I use a separate mixer, recorder, and time code master clock/generator. By consolidating all of those devices into one all I'd essentially need is this one all-inclusive mixing panel, which would handle mixing, recording, time code, A/D etc. Add one wireless rack plus a couple of IFB sends and a couple video monitors and you've got a very small, effiicent, powerful, simply drawn up cart."

It sort of sounds like the biggest motivator here is the desire to have one less SHELF on your sound cart. You still need space for all the rest of the gear you have on your cart (outboard timecode generator ?, external A to D ?, IFB transmitter(s), video monitor(s), etc.

It's not just a shelf. It's losing an outboard recorder, an outboard A/D, an outboard TC genny, a whole gaggle of interconnection cables that go between them all, separate power leads for each device, and a lot less moving parts. It's also a machine big enough to have all the appropriate and comfortable controls and connectors, and even concievably a more full-featured display.

If you could get Sound Devices to put the recorder INSIDE a mixing panel that would occupy just one shelf, I think you have introduced potentially some more problems (example, servicing the recorder and having to send the whole package in,v

That's true, although there's pros and cons to everything. As previously stated, you'd need to carry 2 (like everything else). But I personally don't see that as a dealbreaker.

all controls for the recorder functions and setup parameters have to be built in and accessible on the panel, etc.).

Well, there's no reason it wouldn't have a menu like all modern recorders, and with the potentially larger size, it could be an even more efficient and illuminating menu to navigate than the ones featured on the 788T or other small recorders.

I think your concern about the interconnection between the piece of equipment that is your mixing panel and the piece of equipment that is your recorder, is a non-issue (certainly if you exclude the use of an analog mixer in favor of a hardware user interface).

It's not just the interconnection. You're either forgetting points made or deliberately ignoring them.

With the Deva, for example, there are lots of people who have solved the "one shelf" issue on their carts by using a nice Chinhda bracket to hang the Deva over the one shelf that your mixer sits on. And, as I said before, the connection for the MIX-12 to the Deva is one cable (and I believe the connection to the 788T from the CL-9 is one cable).

Again, it isn't so much about the shelf itself. I am familiar with Chinhda's work ;-)

I honestly cannot see what would motivate Sound Devices to take all the technology and parts they put into the 788T recorder (case) and put it all inside a new bigger case that is also a totally new product, a multi-channel mixing panel, and then try and sell it to anyone other than you and possibly a few others who want to put everything on one shelf.

Well, it depends how many more there are. At the moment you have nothing to worry about, since when I suggested it to SD years back they apparently agreed with you. The thread was started by someone else suggesting it independent of me and I was just chiming in to say I thought about the same thing. I really can't understand why you're aggresively opposed to it (except for maybe its suggestion as an SD device instead of a Zaxcom device perhaps). As I said before, if you're happy with your Deva/Mix 12 (do you actually use that setup? I thought you were still using a Cooper but maybe I'm mistaken), rock on. I'm not trying to talk you or anyone else out of a Deva/Mix 12, just sharing a vision of something a little different. I doubt much is at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo, simply having put another 2 preamps with surface faders onto the 744t would have pre-empted any number of other products on the market. why they never did a mystery to me save maybe adhering to the misguided maxim of not cannibalizing your (other) product line, ie, refer to Jobs' quote. I resent having to tug along a separate pre-amp to allow mic inputs for channels 3&4 for music & dms ambience. And in my work I seldom need channels 5, 6, 7 & 8 of a 788.

So +1 on the previous post about getting the Sonosax SX-R4 right. I hate its display, too small for my eyes. I like the 744t display - big enough. I think there is a market out there for a great 4 channel, 4 pristine preamp recorder. Just look at what Nagra and Aeta and SX came out with. But this porridge too hot (Nagra too big) and this porridge too cold ( SX-R4 too small ) and I really dont know enough about the AETA.

my 2 bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well, it depends how many more there are. At the moment you have nothing to worry about, since when I suggested it to SD years back they apparently agreed with you."

I'm not "worried" about anything, I have just been enjoying the thought process provoked by the initial post and then your ideas about an "all-in-one" large scale mixer-recorder-panel that is just one item to go on one shelf. I do realize now it's NOT all about the shelf, but I am still puzzled by all the other things you say this would consolidate: A to D converters (aren't they already in the recorder?), timecode generator (again, isn't this in the recorder?), and I still don't get the problem of the "whole gaggle of interconnects and power cables" part.

"I really can't understand why you're aggresively opposed to it (except for maybe its suggestion as an SD device instead of a Zaxcom device perhaps)."

Most of my discussion, in deference to the title of this topic, has made reference to Sound Devices and their product line up. I only mention Zaxcom and the Deva since I am more familiar with that sort of setup. Also, I do continue to use my Cooper (analog) mixer in front of the Deva (or whatever recording device I may use) but that doesn't preclude me from thinking about and discussing such things as the Cantar fader panel, the SD CL-8, 9, the Zaxcom MIX-8, 12 and any other items pertinent to this idea of putting everything in one box. I don't feel that I was pushing Zaxcom or bashing Sound Devices --- just looking at how your ideas impact possible future plans for ANY company.

"As I said before, if you're happy with your Deva/Mix 12 (do you actually use that setup? I thought you were still using a Cooper but maybe I'm mistaken), rock on."

This topic is not about my happiness or even how I do things (or "rock on"), it is just a lively discussion about some possible new ideas for equipment and new ideas about how we might want to be doing our work in the future.

"I'm not trying to talk you or anyone else out of a Deva/Mix 12, just sharing a vision of something a little different. I doubt much is at stake."

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what it is that is different, other than the all-in-one idea, and exploring the relative merits of your idea. I'm not trying to talk anybody into any particular piece of equipment either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...