Jump to content

Maxx vs 633


RadoStefanov

Recommended Posts

You are right.As I mentioned in the review we only listened to the sound straight out of the box.I have not listened to recordings on my Post system. it might be that Maxx has a better headphone monitoring that makes it sound better then 633 in the box.

But definitely maxx sounds better when bypassing its limiters "thanks to No Clip" compared to the limiter artifacts of the 633

 

please give us sound files (BWAV, 24 bits) or it didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As a matter of course, I don't buy the argument that the Maxx sounds better than the 633, as there are too many variables to colour one's opinion. If you told me that you listened to the same EXACT recording of the EXACT same performance using the EXACT same input devices and then played back both examples of each recording device via a separate post-audio system in an anechoic chamber, then I might listen to your argument. Even then, it's purely subjective."

 

Sound quality is subjective to a point. In this case there is nothing to argue about. MAXX has 136dB input dynamic range and the 633 is rated at 114dB. We at Zaxcom worked very hard to perfect our Neverclip system. In doing so we wanted to advance the art of sound recording in order to solve the age old problem of limiter distortion. It is a fact that there is much more dynamic range that can be captured by a good microphone than a single A-D converter can capture without clipping. Audio quality can be judged in many ways. Not only under typical circumstances but under the conditions of channel overload with limiter action. Elimination of the limiter artifacts of pumping and background noise fluctuation is an important factor of sound quality. Solving the problem of limiter distorted mix and ISO track recording was our goal and we were very successful providing a new patent pending tool. Just compare a Neverclip track to a limited track and it is easy to hear the difference between dialog and the background ambience between the two when mixing high dynamic range audio. Post will get a better mix track and ISO track with the MAXX and the production sound mixer no longer has to use the input trim knob and the fader together to make a good mix. The fader can now do it all allowing the sound mixer to make a better mix.

 

The extra dynamic range provided by the NeverClip hardware and software are measurable and audible. I will never argue that vanilla is better than chocolate (even though it is) but with 22dB more dynamic range and a system in place to take advantage of it. This is not "purely subjective" in any way.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound quality is subjective to a point. In this case there is nothing to argue about. MAXX has 136dB input dynamic range and the 633 is rated at 114dB. We at Zaxcom worked very hard to perfect our Neverclip system. In doing so we wanted to advance the art of sound recording in order to solve the age old problem of limiter distortion. It is a fact that there is much more dynamic range that can be captured by a good microphone than a single A-D converter can capture without clipping. Audio quality can be judged in many ways. Not only under typical circumstances but under the conditions of channel overload with limiter action. Elimination of the limiter artifacts of pumping and background noise fluctuation is an important factor of sound quality. Solving the problem of limiter distorted mix and ISO track recording was our goal and we were very successful providing a new patent pending tool. Just compare a Neverclip track to a limited track and it is easy to hear the difference between dialog and the background ambience between the two when mixing high dynamic range audio. Post will get a better mix track and ISO track with the MAXX and the production sound mixer no longer has to use the input trim knob and the fader together to make a good mix. The fader can now do it all allowing the sound mixer to make a better mix.

The extra dynamic range provided by the NeverClip hardware and software are measurable and audible. I will never argue that vanilla is better than chocolate (even though it is) but with 22dB more dynamic range and a system in place to take advantage of it. This is not "purely subjective" in any way.

Glenn

Thank you for your dissertation on NeverClip, but I think that you missed the point, Glenn. If you go back and re-read what Rado was implying with his 'unscientific' and 'subjective' comparison on what device "sounds better", you would understand the point I was making.

P.s. - chocolate has more dynamic range. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As a matter of course, I don't buy the argument that the Maxx sounds better than the 633, as there are too many variables to colour one's opinion. If you told me that you listened to the same EXACT recording of the EXACT same performance using the EXACT same input devices and then played back both examples of each recording device via a separate post-audio system in an anechoic chamber, then I might listen to your argument. Even then, it's purely subjective."

 

Sound quality is subjective to a point. In this case there is nothing to argue about. MAXX has 136dB input dynamic range and the 633 is rated at 114dB. We at Zaxcom worked very hard to perfect our Neverclip system. In doing so we wanted to advance the art of sound recording in order to solve the age old problem of limiter distortion. It is a fact that there is much more dynamic range that can be captured by a good microphone than a single A-D converter can capture without clipping. Audio quality can be judged in many ways. Not only under typical circumstances but under the conditions of channel overload with limiter action. Elimination of the limiter artifacts of pumping and background noise fluctuation is an important factor of sound quality. Solving the problem of limiter distorted mix and ISO track recording was our goal and we were very successful providing a new patent pending tool. Just compare a Neverclip track to a limited track and it is easy to hear the difference between dialog and the background ambience between the two when mixing high dynamic range audio. Post will get a better mix track and ISO track with the MAXX and the production sound mixer no longer has to use the input trim knob and the fader together to make a good mix. The fader can now do it all allowing the sound mixer to make a better mix.

 

The extra dynamic range provided by the NeverClip hardware and software are measurable and audible. I will never argue that vanilla is better than chocolate (even though it is) but with 22dB more dynamic range and a system in place to take advantage of it. This is not "purely subjective" in any way.

 

Glenn

 

 

Sometimes better to let the users discuss the pro's and con's, exercise restraint, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important chain (or stage) is microphone and mic preamp for me. Parameters like frequency response, equivalent input noise, input impedance, accuracy in high frequencies etc.

 

Dynamic range of dual A/D is beautiful onto digital part of machine, but first we have the microphones and mic preamps. The LSB (least significant beats) are less audible than thermal noise. Thermal noise is fundamental and cannot be eliminated. A high input impedance versus frequency have less effect on the sonic quality; allows greater maximum output and reduces microphone distortion and give noticeable transparency. A well made mic preamp will give you a low as much they can equivalent input noise (744T / -133 dBu).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post soundslikeJustin!!!

Laying out what you like as a user. I don't argue your points because they are valid for yourself and your needs.

The only thing I would argue is that the quality of the screen Is not subjective. We tested the 664, 633 and Maxx next to each other outside in the Vegas sun. We pointed them in different direction and tilted them in different angles. Even the sound devices users agreed that Max screen is a little better then 633 and a lot better then 664.

But again thank you for inelegantly adding to the conversation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes better to let the users discuss the pro's and con's, exercise restraint, etc.
I disagree. I like having the company people chime in with accurate info. There are plenty of times very solid mixers mixed up specs or info when posting. We all know that Glenn is from Zaxcom, and not an unaffiliated end user. We know the people from the other companies too. I understand that they are all passionate about their respective products and want the info out there. Disclaimer: I may have a different perspective on this because my father was an engineer and inventor and was very much the same way. Next to the family, his work was the most important thing in his life. He loved to talk about it with people, especially when he was frustrated that his inventions weren't being fully understood. How could you not chime in if you care?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I like having the company people chime in with accurate info. There are plenty of times very solid mixers mixed up specs or info when posting. We all know that Glenn is from Zaxcom, and not an unaffiliated end user. We know the people from the other companies too. I understand that they are all passionate about their respective products and want the info out there. Disclaimer: I may have a different perspective on this because my father was an engineer and inventor and was very much the same way. Next to the family, his work was the most important thing in his life. He loved to talk about it with people, especially when he was frustrated that his inventions weren't being fully understood. How could you not chime in if you care?

 

Great perspective but agree to disagree here.  Everyone is passionate about their favorite tools and hearing the perspective of unbiased end users is always more preferable (at least to me).  It all starts to get diluted at some point when the dead horse is beaten to a pulp.

 

Excellent choices out there and I think everyone is grateful for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I may have a different perspective on this because my father was an engineer and inventor and was very much the same way. Next to the family, his work was the most important thing in his life. He loved to talk about it with people, especially when he was frustrated that his inventions weren't being fully understood. How could you not chime in if you care?

Did your father compare his inventions publicly to a competitor's product and tell everyone how much better his invention was?

I find it unpleasant. It would have been sudficient to simply put the Maxx's number out there. Everyone is able to read specs and up to that point there was no talk about specs.

I just want to take a pause here and simply say to all... Have a Joyous Holiday Season and may you all be blessed with good health in the coming year.

+1!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TimP: " What is the point of this thread? "

guess it has been a while...

I think we can all agree that NeverClip is real, and an advance in A-D strategy using current technology.

we may not all agree on how important it is for us individually, but as we all have noticed the bar keeps getting raised, and better products will continue to evolve...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is able to read specs and up to that point there was no talk about specs.

 

- And the next problem is, we can read the specs, but they don't "tell us" the sound quality (how it sound) because from specs to a line going outside from monitor or loudspeaker is the "theme". If you see (and we know) most products have close or similar specifications, but doesn't sound the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is rather strange. Why Rado, why? Who cares really?

But I will say, the few times my 788's have had a freeze in all the years I've owned them, I have never lost the entire take like you say SD recorders do. The files have been intact up to the point of freeze. Never any issues there.

And you could count the freezes on one hand in many years of recording, so no big deal.

Remembering all recorders have freezes, even those from all manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used the 664, 633, Nomad, Maxx, 788T, 552--if I had the budget, I would own them all! For the work I mostly do, the 633 was the obvious choice. I very nearly purchased a Maxx but I didn't like that I couldn't route Post Fader iso tracks to record (I'm told that this has been changed or is soon to change) and I'm still waiting for a more elegant panning solution (which I really feel could be implemented with software and I expect someday it will; that's the great thing about Zaxcom!) Then the 633 was announced and I chose to go with the machine that makes the most sense for me as it is, rather than waiting for what may be in a future update of Maxx. None of these machines perfectly replaces the others, and I suspect that's no accident!

Edited by thebrengun
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...