Jump to content

Sonosax SX-R4+


pvanstry

Recommended Posts

I am hanging by a thread ( this one at least ). Been waiting for this machine for a while. I put money aside for it.

BUT, if it only handles outputs the way it's predecessor did, I might not be see eager to get one. I personally need at least a pair of stereo out line level and two aux sends ( one Comtek and one for a boom op. Anything less and it might not work for me since it would alter the way I work significantly.

Really really hoping for it....

Personally I'm not too surprised by the inputs and outputs, I believe they're the same as on the original sx-r4, connector-wise at least. The machine seems to fill a bit of an odd gap, it should work well as a "bit bucket" with a mixer in front- the tablet/phone interface should really help with that. In some ways it's similar to the 788T in that respect. It also doesn't have a slate mic so I imagine it's not really designed for using on its own in that kind of setup.

Something the R4 had was a second output connector (mini jack) which was split, which could at least allow you to put an L-R mix over a hop and sum the other two and send as a director's feed

The lack of balanced outs or a return could be a bit of a pain for straight to camera jobs. I'm wondering about running a separate bag for these with the sx-m32 and a cheap recorder for backup. Or a separate box could be on the cards (like the return box for the 788 but with transformers and a multipin output)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm not too surprised by the inputs and outputs, I believe they're the same as on the original sx-r4, connector-wise at least. The machine seems to fill a bit of an odd gap, it should work well as a "bit bucket" with a mixer in front- the tablet/phone interface should really help with that. In some ways it's similar to the 788T in that respect. It also doesn't have a slate mic so I imagine it's not really designed for using on its own in that kind of setup.

Something the R4 had was a second output connector (mini jack) which was split, which could at least allow you to put an L-R mix over a hop and sum the other two and send as a director's feed

The lack of balanced outs or a return could be a bit of a pain for straight to camera jobs. I'm wondering about running a separate bag for these with the sx-m32 and a cheap recorder for backup. Or a separate box could be on the cards (like the return box for the 788 but with transformers and a multipin output)

I use my (old school) SX-PR with a Zaxcom zfr100 in the way your talking. It works very well and I do have a slight preference for the older Sonosax mic amps ( even though they are practically the same). It also means I have a backup to cover me if my SXR4 gets damaged or stops working (although this has never happened).

I think another seperately assignable dual output would be very handy ( definitely increase sales) maybe It could be on the multipin connector instead of a seperate TA3. Currently on the SX-R4 I use one channel for mono mix to iem/camera and the other for a boom feed via one of these http://www.pro-sound.com/p/STALKBOX.html . If the jobs needs multiple boom/assistant feeds then I would generally have a mixer in front that can do the job via aux's and splitters. Obviously everyone is different and another output would cover most of the preferences and ways people work which would also mean more sales.

Lisala

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I believe that a minimum of the following outs would be needed in order to attract more clients to it:

A set of unbalanced outputs ( LR mix )

A set of unbalanced aux outputs ( IFB and boom op ).

Also being able to create a mix from the inputs would be a minimum, also from the optional Ad8 preamp module input.

If that is the case, I am definitely pre ordering one...

Please complete photos set, a more detailed feature list with a description of the user interface ( ex: how to change trim on input, how to PFL individual input etc... ), is really needed in order to make a descision to pre-order...

Give us a date please Jacques...

Thank you for your great work btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will give more info and definitive pictures soon.

 

 

Please complete photos set, a more detailed feature list with a description of the user interface ( ex: how to change trim on input, how to PFL individual input etc... ), is really needed in order to make a descision to pre-order...

Give us a date please Jacques...

Thank you for your great work btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought,

Will the RJ45 audio go out as well as in?

Could you leave everything plugged into the R4+, send to a 'bigger' digital mixer, create a mix, route wherever and send a mix back to the R4+ without leaving the digital domain?

Meaning super fast bag->cart conversion

Also, if the DSP can handle 16 tracks at 192kHz, can it handle 64 at 48kHz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried e-mailing Sonosax again ( 4th time now ), they must be busy little bees…  Hopefully we will have news soon.  knowing if it does mix or not would be really appreciated at this point but i guess i am throwing dust in the wind...

 

Am i the only one, or does long term release strategies getting on every bodies nerves?

 

Getting impatient i guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am indeed a little impatient... It's in my nature.

Pierre answered my email ( it was the first time I had emailed him for this ). Not much more info, he did mention it would mix in DSP. How does that work on the output side..? But he also suggested that I look at a Sx62r. Really nice machine but Unfortunatly not enough tracks or inputs.

I really appreciated the answer. Keeping my fingers crossed, just in case it works for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that having proper mixing to camera line level outs with returns is crucial for me to buy such machine. If estate is a factor it could be accomplished with smaller TA style connector outputs. There has to be a way to feed a 2nd camera with returns as well.

i can t go back to switching recievers from bag to bag anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that having proper mixing to camera line level outs with returns is crucial for me to buy such machine. If estate is a factor it could be accomplished with smaller TA style connector outputs. There has to be a way to feed a 2nd camera with returns as well.

i can t go back to switching recievers from bag to bag anymore.

 

Bit of a way around getting balanced outs:

You can get AES out on the line out connector- putting a DA converter on the end could work an AJA ADA4 for example (and you don't need it with some newer cameras, like the Sony F5/55 and Arri Amira) 

 

You could get the return on the ch 5+6 input, ala 788T (but losing 2 channels isn't such a bad thing when you've got 16)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey all,

 

Still kind of early to know but has anybody seen the new AVB interfaces from MOTU? Particularly the 8M. They look very interesting to hook up with the SX-R4+ when more inputs are needed instead of the AD-8+ 

I have a MOTU interface at home and has been rock solid for more than 8 years.

 

I'm a novice when it comes to all these new protocols so could this actually work or am I missing something? 

 

http://www.motu.com/products/avb/8m

 

Really looking forward to this recorder, looks like a great machine. 

 

Diego

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with some of these digital interfaces is that they don't talk to each other (yet).  So AVB will only talk to other AVB things (mainly Avid) at the moment and dante will only talk to dante.

 

Quite a few mixers such as the Yamaha 01V have dante options so could be able to connect to the sonosax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante is layer 3 which means can "talk" with everyone. AVB is layer 2 which means can "talk" with AVB only.

That's a bit of a stretch, though. Layer III means it's using IP to route signals and can transverse regular routers and switches. It doesn't mean that any Layer III system will be able to talk to any other Layer III system, like Dante talking to Ravenna.

However, there's the interoperability standard AES67 that's hopefully going to make it possible for different Layer III protocols to communicate at a basic level (audio data exchange, clocking et cetera).

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...