Jump to content

633 vs MAXX- Yet again


judykarp

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I moved from a 702T to a Maxx, so single card all the time. I had some corrupted files with the 702T before, due to DIT problems, and it had to be scrapped (no amount of recovery software could fix them). I had an instance with the Maxx where DIT pulled the card reader before transfer, and while one of the WAVs was corrupted, the MARF was perfectly intact and all I had to do was run Zaxconvert and I had sparkling fresh WAVs. It more saved the DITs ass on that shoot, but I was thankful it was there. I have zero problems running a single card in Maxx, and just did a month-long tour/torture test on my Maxx going across the country (twice).

I've had my Maxx since early August and other than some early OS issues, it has been rock solid. I've never lost files, it's never acted funky, and day in and day out its been my primary recorder. I think I have 120 or more (guesstimate) shoot days on it now and it's been fantastic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both machines have fail safes for data loss in their own way, however 2 > 1... no way around that.  If Maxx could "instantly" re-mirror on metadata changes, or deliver mp3 "immediately" (or at all) when wrap is called I'd be more interested.  My personal choice (which I believe is interesting), is 633 for small jobs, and Nomad for big jobs and cart.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal choice (which I believe is interesting), is 633 for small jobs, and Nomad for big jobs and cart.  

 

Quite interesting indeed!

 

I think that both the 633 and the Maxx are excellent machines, especially considering that in this specific niche, they just outright blow their competition. They both have their pros and cons. Being able to analyze that and determine which one suits your needs best is part of being a professional in this business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I always have backup on the transmitters.... nothing is ever lost... never worry about anything.

If a card is formatted it can be recovered almost 99% of the time...

 

 

 

Well that's kinda the whole point of having a secondary media source for a backup, for that 1% of the time when mechanical things break. The MARF setup seems rock solid and reliable, as much as anything in the digital realm can be considered solid as a rock, but hey, is it not still relying on the integrity of a single, solitary card?  

 

Feature, doc, commercial, student film or bar mitzvah, I would not want to be the one explaining to the director that there's no sound available for that shot.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean O'Neil

Brooklyn NYC 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The MARF setup seems rock solid and reliable, as much as anything in the digital realm can be considered solid as a rock, but hey, is it not still relying on the integrity of a single, solitary card?  "

 

Yes you are relying on a single card but it is far more likely that a recorder will freeze up than the media will go bad in the MAXX. If you have a freeze you are not recording on anything and you better start explaining.

 

As Rado pointed out the only sure backup is Zaxcom recording wireless. With that safety net explaining to a director is never going to have to happen. I think it is fair to say MAXX dual recording is in many aspects as good or better than multi card recording in FAT32 format.  As no one has ever lost audio on the MAXX I do not see this as a relevant concern at this point. If you want a 100% guarantee on the audio use our wireless system and you will have all of the bases covered.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The MARF setup seems rock solid and reliable, as much as anything in the digital realm can be considered solid as a rock, but hey, is it not still relying on the integrity of a single, solitary card?  "

 

Yes you are relying on a single card but it is far more likely that a recorder will freeze up than the media will go bad in the MAXX. If you have a freeze you are not recording on anything and you better start explaining.

 

As Rado pointed out the only sure backup is Zaxcom recording wireless. With that safety net explaining to a director is never going to have to happen. I think it is fair to say MAXX dual recording is in many aspects as good or better than multi card recording in FAT32 format.  As no one has ever lost audio on the MAXX I do not see this as a relevant concern at this point. If you want a 100% guarantee on the audio use our wireless system and you will have all of the bases covered.

 

Glenn

 

Hi Glenn,

 

The OP brought up her concerns about the Maxx only recording to a single source. That too is a major concern for me while recording out in the field.

 

I whole heartedly applaud your innovation and design in the implementation of a recordable transmitter. I also look forward to the day when this technology is implemented in all high quality transmitters, and you are thusly compensated.  However, I do find it ironic that you were able to find the space in a small transmitter for a recordable, removable card, and yet in a dedicated recorder multiple times the size, chose (for whatever logistical reasons, design, cost, etc.) not to include a secondary recordable source. Bear in mind that my concern of lost media is not necessarily with your Zaxcomm product, but with the third parties that we all rely on: Delkin, SanDisk, Trancend, etc.  And this is before we bring up the subject of counterfeit cards.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean O'Neil

Brooklyn NYC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The OP brought up her concerns about the Maxx only recording to a single source. That too is a major concern for me while recording out in the field."

 

The MAXX makes a dual recording so data safety is not the issue. Since the copying of media is a trivial matter and most of the time the data stays with the sound person as the camera audio is the source of the deliverable there is little need for 2 medias in the recorder. Any concern is unfounded due to the track record of the MARF system.

 

It is ironic in this case that dual FAT32 recordings made by the same device do not offer the same protection of recorded audio that MAXX does recording MAXX and FAT32 systems at the same time.

 

MAXX was designed to be a modern replacement for SD302, SD442 and SD552. All of those products have no recording or record to one media and worked fine.  

 

Nomad is a dual recorder and is intended more for double system sound and may be the better choice for many people. Either way there is choice and that is a good thing. 

 

With A Zaxcom system there is recording in the bodypack transmitters, recording in the mixer and recording in the camera link and recording in the camera. 

 

If only the MAXX is used by itself the recorded data is more secure than that of dual card recorders where a CPU crash is the most likely cause of data loss to all media at the same time.

 

 

Glenn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MARF seems like a fantastic option to have.  I personally still feel better about handing off a card to a DIT knowing I have another card as well, knowing of instances recently where inexperienced DITs have transferred files incorrectly and then wiped cards.  

 

Asking because I don't know...can MARF save the day here or a wiped card is wiped and nothing can be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a growing number of people who don't comprehend how to purchase equipment. The way most of us have done it for years is to define our needs and then choose equipment that best serves those needs.

The new paradigm, it seems, is to see a piece of gear and then begin demanding that the manufacturer redesign, retool, remanufacture, and remarket that gear to each person's specific needs and desires.

I submit that the former paradigm is the more efficient way to conduct business -- both for us and for the manufacturers. While customer feedback is valuable, reimagining a device that has already undergone the design phase, the tooling phase, the manufacturing phase, and the marketing phase seems a bit on the nonproductive side.

This current discussion is a prime example. There appears to be a cadre of people who are trying hard to turn the Maxx into a Nomad rather than to just buy a Nomad.

I live in the "have your data and hand it off too" world so I made my buying choices accordingly. If I still lived mostly in the "love the 302 but it would be nice to have a backup recording" world, the two machines mentioned here would be prime candidates without me expecting the manufacturer to redesign, retool, remanufacture, and remarket the device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backup, backup, backup, backup,backup paranoia. It's safety to have a backup, but not in paranoia mode.

You pay $3,000 for a recorder and another $3,000 for cards.

This is ridiculous guys.

 

And to all manufacturers: Have a solid recorders. It's not fine someone to pay the most expensive recorders in the market and have ridiculous failures with media. Recorders have only one job to do. To record with safety the audio. If the (your) recorder can't record with safety the audio then (you) failed as high (and expensive) quality manufacturer.

 

The things are easy. Not complicated.

As for 663 and Maxx: I wish sometimes if I had the NeverClip feature and Sound Devices simple menu, but the world is not always perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judy : " I am now the owner of both a 633 and a MAXX.  I do mostly documentary work and am trying to decide which is my main recorder and which is my backup. "

I'd like to hear the long story!

only you can decide which pieces of your available kit you will choose for the gig sat hand.

that decision is yours alone, and will be at least a bit subjective, especially as you have overlapping choices.

and you can come back in another couple of years and let us know what works best for you.

 

JB: " define our needs and then choose equipment that best serves those needs. "

exactly! a voice of reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MARF seems like a fantastic option to have.  I personally still feel better about handing off a card to a DIT knowing I have another card as well, knowing of instances recently where inexperienced DITs have transferred files incorrectly and then wiped cards.  

 

Asking because I don't know...can MARF save the day here or a wiped card is wiped and nothing can be done?

 

Yes MARF can and has saved the day and that is one of the best parts of MARF. The DIT can wipe out the directory and the audio can still be recovered easily via Zaxconvert.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to explain the "longer story"  that goes with my original post.  Not sure if anyone is interested, but I certainly do consider very carefully my choices before I buy equipment and know exactly what my specific needs are.

 First, both recorders are amazing in their separate ways.  I know that.  For years I used my 302 and 744T and that combination worked for 90% of my run around jobs.  For cart work, I used my 552 and and my 744T.  Now that everyone is expecting multitrack recordings, I found myself doing more bag work with my 552 and 744- so I wanted to both simplify and make things lighter.

When I bought the MAXX, the choices were the 664 and the MAXX and I (very gladly) opted for the MAXX, based on size and weight.  A month later, the 663 came out.  I bought it immediately and sold my 552 and 744T.

I assumed that I would use the 663 as my main recorder and keep the MAXX as a backup  and/but there are so many things that I like about the MAXX and my question re second media/backup was just that, a question, not a criticism, implied or otherwise.  

Of course, I would like someone to design my dream machine, built to my unique specifications.  Both of these choices come very close.

Judy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

When I bought the MAXX, the choices were the 664 and the MAXX ...

...

If those were your choices, it would seem that a Nomad would be the ideal blend of what those two machines offer -- not criticizing, just curious.

BTW: My earlier comments weren't aimed at you. They were in response to those who seem miffed that manufacturers won't redesign equipment to satisfy their every whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good points so far in this thread. I personnally got used on having two cards in my nomad and would not feel confortable handing away any card that do not have another backup even for a minute. Any lost data would be absolutelly devastating for my career. I understand the concept the the double backup but it is still ON THE SAME CARD that can be dropped in a coffee or whatever. If there s .01% chance of that happenning i don t want to go there.

I had an experience a couple of months ago where nomad didn t deliver all the files on mirror card (older software version + scene names containing a dot = not all takes on mirror delivery card ) that we were able (thank god i backed it up) to retrieve from the backed up primary card.

It is very appealing to have a compact machine like the maxx but for double system work i'll stick with the nomad.

Is there a way to backup a card directly on a drive without having to bring a whole computer to set? When you backup a maxx card does it backup the marf files as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This current discussion is a prime example. There appears to be a cadre of people who are trying hard to turn the Maxx into a Nomad rather than to just buy a Nomad."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Staying germane to the OP's dilemma, I don't see where anyone is trying to turn the Maxx into a Nomad, or any other dream machine.  I was just weighing the pro's (633: multiple recording cards) with the con's (Maxx: a single recording card) between the two units she was having issue with.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean O'Neil

Brooklyn NYC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My comment wasn't aimed at any particular person, but more in general to those who think Zaxcom should add a second drive to the Maxx, which would, of course, require redesigning, retooling, remanufacturing, and remarketing the unit.

 

Based upon my workflow and work style, I'm in the camp that prefers separate main and mirror drives, so I totally understand anyone with that preference, whether it's for personal piece of mind (which isn't always totally logical, e.g. someone who is afraid to fly so they drive instead), or delivery requirements.  Therefore, I own a Deva for cart work and a Nomad for more portable requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the lack of a second card slot. I think it’s complicated. Zaxcom’s MARF is a great recording system once you get to know it and it does inspire a lot of confidence after you put it to the test a few times and realize that your recording is very safe on that media. I’ve come to regard the Maxx and even the Nomad as a single-record-media device despite it’s mirroring system.. but it doesn’t bother me much and this is why: As we know, both Nomad and Maxx can “mirror” secondary output files which means that the system can be set to translate the recorded audio from the MARF filesystem and create standard BWAVS alongside the original recording. However, this does not happen in realtime, even when using the “Continuous” mirror mode. The “mirroring” always lags behind the realtime recording, sometimes just slightly, sometimes by a lot, depending on the armed track count and available processing power per your settings. It will never be completely mirrored and available on the media until sometime after you stop recording. If you abort the mirroring before it completes a segment the mirrored BWAV is lost. It’s all or nothing. The MARF recording is fine and after a reboot of the recorder it recovers without any issue, just like it was designed to do, which is amazing. 

 

I did a test with my Maxx to figure this out. 

 

I placed a lav in front of a radio tuned to NPR and setup the Maxx to record with the mirror mode set to “Continuous". After about 30 minutes of recording I came back to check: still recording with no issue, mirroring status at 99%. I then physically ejected the CF while still rolling. The Maxx then stops rolling, obviously, and showed an error where the mirror status used to be. I then took the CF straight to my iMac. The MARF drive was not readable by ZaxConvert and the mirrored BWAV was present but reported as zero kb in size and would not play in Quicktime. I took the CF back to the Maxx and let it reboot with the card in place. On the boot up screen it goes through the usual boot diagnostic but instead of loading the home screen it initiates an automated recovery process. After it finishes you have to reboot it one more time. I just shut it off and took the CF back to the iMac. ZaxConvert then had no trouble translating the MARF into a BWAV and I confirmed that all audio was present, in perfect condition, right up to the very moment I actually ejected the CF. Awesome. 

 

The “Mirrored” BWAV, which never finished past 99%, was still zero kb and unplayable. Perhaps a specialized file recovery software could recover the audio data (though probably not the metadata) of this 99% mirrored BWAV or maybe even Zaxcom’s own recovery software but I did not investigate this further. Zaxcom’s recovery software is for PC only. (ZaxConvert is available for Mac and PC)

 

I conclude from this that Zaxcom’s products present a very robust recording system that is fault tolerant to an impressive degree. However, it’s still a single recording drive based system. I view the mirroring system as a delivery method provided for convenience and nothing more. Ultimately, I also believe that it’s unfortunate that the Maxx was given only one CF slot for the singular reason that having a second dedicated card slot for file delivery prevents another type of catastrophic loss that has nothing to do with filesystems: actually losing the card. Every other Zaxcom recorder other than the TRXs and ZFRs have this protection built in. With careful on set practices it is not an issue. But, as noted, crap happens and arguably more often on just the kind of smaller, potentially less traditionally organized jobs that the Maxx was designed for. As a result of this I’ve come to take very seriously the data hand off when using my Maxx and if I am unsure if there will be a laptop on set I bring one so I can make the transfer personally. The Maxx forces you to do this important work or at least take responsibility for it in a way that the Nomad or 633 does not.

 

Will I sell my Maxx and get a 633 just for this reason? No, but it does mean I have to consider file transfer a little more carefully especially if I’m trying to integrate my Maxx onto a project where Sound Devices recorders are being used and there is a data manager who is only familiar with one method for sound transfer.   

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...