Jump to content

664 vs. Nomad Lite


Twade

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nomad seems to be the more flexible machine in terms of input to output routing. The benefits of Zaxnet are also a factor.

Sound Devices user manuals are comprehensive, easy to read, and organized. Zaxcom's user manuals are just not on the same level. Just my opinion. Also, they do not bother updating them with software changes, which are frequent. This leaves many of the newly added features undocumented. I find this unacceptable. Also, it only adds to Zaxcom's reputation for making devices that are "too complicated" or user-unfriendly. It's a shame because this is not really accurate, but I've met soo many "eng" mixers who won't touch zaxcom stuff due to mostly rumor mill reliability and complicated interface issues. I remember one mixer saying "yeah the zaxcom stuff is cool but you have to be an electrical engineer to figure it out!".

It's a serious concern I wish they would address. It's really in their best interest.

The you tube videos are nice but when I'm on a job and need THE answer to a question there is no time to browse through videos online. It needs to be in the manual.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to options not usually found before in field mixers/recorders (like notch filters) I have to say, why not.... yes please! Addressing having notch filters available in the field has helped the final product "in my case" due to me having to deal with a very useless editor that has no ear for sound at all. He doesn't know how or what to listen for like things that should be notched out, low cut, etc..etc.. Honestly, I don't understand how this guy still has his job.... well, it's probably because I've been babysitting his ass by delivering a mix track with as much "post minded" edits in it as I see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there was a gene on the y chromosome that resisted reading manuals. I know for a fact in my household that it's an absolute part of the x chromosome.

Larry F

Having offered to coauthor a Nomad For Dummies Manual (seems the general consensus here is that this qualification is exceeded) and seeing more and more posts, requiring, really basic to advanced, to don't want to be bothered with the Zaxcom gear, posts, such a product is seemingly acutely needed. Similar, additional Zaxcom manuals-whatever they would be called, would do well to have Jay Rose's revered style (with CD), which Fury could endeavour to adopt, possessing reasonable communication and literary styles. Even the style of Scott Kelby would serve well, in this community. A very knowledgeable co-author is required, who would also have interest in giving back to the community, at cost (T&M are costly, not in the sense of any financial remuneration).

In the alternative, Zaxcom could perhaps hire Kelby, if available.

Thank you very much

Fury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my ears, Zax and SD gear sound VERY different when monitoring the headphone outs. I'm not talking about just the preamps, but even on line level sources like 411a. I even A/B'd them by tuning 2 411a's to the same transmitter, 1 into my Fusion and the other into my 744T and listen to the sources back to back. I have also done this with a Schoeps Mk41 into both machines (1 at a time of course) back to back and they sound very different. However, when taking the recorded files and playing them back on a DAW at matched levels, the difference is less pronounced. IMO they sound different but close enough that it won't matter much after that audio goes through post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my ears, Zax and SD gear sound VERY different when monitoring the headphone outs. I'm not talking about just the preamps, but even on line level sources like 411a. I even A/B'd them by tuning 2 411a's to the same transmitter, 1 into my Fusion and the other into my 744T and listen to the sources back to back. I have also done this with a Schoeps Mk41 into both machines (1 at a time of course) back to back and they sound very different. However, when taking the recorded files and playing them back on a DAW at matched levels, the difference is less pronounced. IMO they sound different but close enough that it won't matter much after that audio goes through post.

So the majority difference in what you're hearing to is in the monitoring circuits then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the majority difference in what you're hearing to is in the monitoring circuits then...

Yes, I think the headphone monitoring circuitry between the 2 sound very different. Now this is just my comparison between a 744T and a Fusion. I don't have a Nomad nor 788T to compare back to back. i would love to hear other's opinions comparing the same source back to back between a Nomad and a 788T, then a 664 when it becomes available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Nomad user who attended Gotham's demo of the unit, I'll post my observations here.

...

Max, Thank you for this very well presented comparison. This is exactly the type of "stick to the point" post that helps us narrow down our options.

Many of us who are cursed to shop amongst such an embarrassment of riches know that half of the battle is not just assessing differences between offerings, but truly sorting through our own needs and understanding what we really want/need vs. what we just think we want or ought to have. We must dig to the heart of the very personal, "indispensable vs. nice-to-have".

Beside a mixer/recorder, I'm shopping for a new smartphone/provider/plan right now and I would let you drive nails into my eyeballs for as concise and noise-free presentation/comparison on that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious--ultimately, what is the drive in enthusiasm for these lightweight, more portable multi-track recorder/mixers? Is it reality tv/documentary work? Or is it becoming increasingly expected for sound mixers to operate as 1-man-bands (seems to be the case in the indie world)? Or is it simply a matter of more filmmakers shooting unconventionally thus making cart-based mixing with a boom op less practical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious--ultimately, what is the drive in enthusiasm for these lightweight, more portable multi-track recorder/mixers? Is it reality tv/documentary work? Or is it becoming increasingly expected for sound mixers to operate as 1-man-bands (seems to be the case in the indie world)? Or is it simply a matter of more filmmakers shooting unconventionally thus making cart-based mixing with a boom op less practical?

Nearly at the forefront is one of the curses of the erect posture, of Western man, disc disease. Depending on hiring practices of the individual employer, at least, in the U,S., the workers comp policy would, at the end of the premium day, do well to have a lighter burden, brotha.

Thank you very much

fury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max, Thank you for this very well presented comparison. This is exactly the type of "stick to the point" post that helps us narrow down our options.

No problem. I would also add to that comparison that at the Gotham presentation, Jon was strongly advocating the 664s input limiters, while Nomad's NeverClip™ renders input limiters unnecessary (though the track and output limiters are still very useful). The option is there though. I don't have enough experience with Sound Devices recorders to comment reasonably on both approaches. However, reputation dictates that both machines sound excellent along the Input Stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that everyone gets to hear the difference between audio that is hitting an analog hard limiter and audio that comes out of our Neverclip input. If you compare the two you will find a major difference in sound quality.

The big news we will be talking about next week is that we are about to release Nomad software that records the full 137dB dynamic range Neverclip audio to ISO tracks so post can better take advantage of the function. This will allow post to use the iso tracks to eliminate any distortion caused by a overload problem on a mix track. We think this could be a very big advance in the art of location sound. Doing this eliminates the need for input limiters as well as ISO recording track limiters. I think this will catch on with the post department.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that everyone gets to hear the difference between audio that is hitting an analog hard limiter and audio that comes out of our Neverclip input. If you compare the two you will find a major difference in sound quality.

The big news we will be talking about next week is that we are about to release Nomad software that records the full 137dB dynamic range Neverclip audio to ISO tracks so post can better take advantage of the function. This will allow post to use the iso tracks to eliminate any distortion caused by a overload problem on a mix track. We think this could be a very big advance in the art of location sound. Doing this eliminates the need for input limiters as well as ISO recording track limiters. I think this will catch on with the post department.

Glenn

What will be the file type? What DAWS will it be compatible with. I'm assuming it's a higher (floating point) bit depth...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hope that everyone gets to hear the difference between audio that is hitting an analog hard limiter and audio that comes out of our Neverclip input."

Sorry, but that is very misleading comment and smells of product centric bias.

Whilst I don't wish to in anyway demean the 'Neverclip' technology, it should be noted that there are analog limiters and then there are analog limiters and the variations in results are enormous. It should also be noted that the use of limiters in any mixing/recording environment is largely dependant on how they are used.

For example, a skilled mixer/recordist can lightly ride the limiters on an SQN mixer all day long and you would be hard pressed to ever hear the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hope that everyone gets to hear the difference between audio that is hitting an analog hard limiter and audio that comes out of our Neverclip input."

Sorry, but that is very misleading comment and smells of product centric bias.

Of course barely hitting limiters or avoiding them will sound very good. But I believe the difference Glenn is talking about here is a signal hitting a limiter hard to avoid clipping versus that SAME signal not having to hit a limiter hard or at all because Neverclip can handle it on its own.

Comparing apples to apples (to MY ear) Neverclip sounds leaps and bounds better to that same level signal going through a limiter.

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...