Jump to content

Sonosax SX-R4+


pvanstry

Recommended Posts

Concerning the control surface -

What about those manufacturers to find an agreement of put together a universal control surface protocol?

From users' point of view, it is more benefic to be able to use one brand's mixer controler on the other recorder, like Cantarem on SX-R4+ or RC8+ on Cantar, or Zaxcom's mixer panel with SX-R4+ (if they agree...:mellow:).

I personally think it is a huge resource consumption that each maker makes their own controller to each recorder that sells maybe 1/100 or even less of Avid Artists series controller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Masaki Hatsui said:

Concerning the control surface -

What about those manufacturers to find an agreement of put together a universal control surface protocol?

From users' point of view, it is more benefic to be able to use one brand's mixer controler on the other recorder, like Cantarem on SX-R4+ or RC8+ on Cantar, or Zaxcom's mixer panel with SX-R4+ (if they agree...:mellow:).

I personally think it is a huge resource consumption that each maker makes their own controller to each recorder that sells maybe 1/100 or even less of Avid Artists series controller.

 

I really like the idea of that

The Nagra VI, Roland R88 and AETA Mixy will all work with (basic) midi control surfaces. However, there aren't really any available which work well for us, in having the build quality, fader sensitivity, compactness and powering flexibility. I also had a look at the avid controllers, which use yet another protocol...

Having had had a look at the CL-12 it's really nicely integrated with the 688- they've thought about how it would be used with that machine. I can see the way the Sonosax controllers may work differently in the the user interface is already on the touchscreen or a separate device using the wifi connection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Masaki Hatsui said:

From users' point of view, it is more benefic to be able to use one brand's mixer controler on the other recorder, like Cantarem on SX-R4+ or RC8+ on Cantar, or Zaxcom's mixer panel with SX-R4+ (if they agree...:mellow:).

Well, I think there are some that wouldn't bother to collaborate together and other not... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea if one universal controller at all.

In the DAW controller world there is the almost standard protocol - HUI - which works with lots of different software, but only the proprietary controllers, like the S series in Avid's case, offer really tight integration and controls and feedback that's not available on a generic controller.

As all recorders are based on different hardware and software, a common controller would probably only be able to control the most basic functions.

And lastly, it would take some competition away, and possibly won't lead to frequent updates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's certainly more knowledgeable person than me, but:

on DAW basis, MIDI control protocol has a certain latency causing some issues controlling from a controller. I wonder if this is the reason why every manufacturer tends to develop their own control protocol.

Avid use EuCon which is supposed to be a proprietary protocol developped by Euphonix which is more accurate, faster than MIDI protocol, is now supported by several DAW software.

Of course each recorder has its own size / ergonomy so there's always better fitted hardware for each one. But couldn't be a big help for our software developer of having a basic control protocol to share, not to develop from zero? And for us user not to throw away every controller each time we change a recorder?

 

1 hour ago, Patrick Tresch said:

Well, I think there are some that wouldn't bother to collaborate together and other not... ;-)

Yeah, like Sonosax who stopped talking to their competitor. Did they actually tried to collaborate? :mellow:

Frankly speaking, we, as an user would better make a suggestion to our developer. These kind of comments are nothing but pouring oil on fire. If you are a close friend of Jacques Sax, you'd better encourage him to meet Zaxcom's Glenn Sanders, talk to each other. That story of conflict between these two companies was less beneficial not only to each companies but to each users.

Masaki (who knows Patrick very well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dears, I don't want to make again the history. I'm totally open person, and we have already tried to talk. We have a open dialog with all our competitors, except one. Please, STOP this discussion NOW, and DELETE my name if possible! Jacques Sax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, please, let's not drag anybody through this mud, not Jacques Sax, not Glenn Sanders, not Patrick, Masaki or Constantin... I don't want to delete anything or silence anyone, I don't want these topics to descend into personal insults or criticisms of any of the companies or people who make the wonderful gear that we use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys - it's NAB in a week - that's the time when Jon Tatooles and Glenn go mud wrestling - I've seen the video. Maybe we could get Jacques and someone from Aaton to make up a tag team? I can't wait for the video ;-)

 

My mistake - it was IBC!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry if my phrases was somewhat provocative. I understand the pain how Jacques feeling after that story happend.

Well, I just wanted to give some user's point of view even if few would not agree with me, to let talk to each other in this small industry.

For example BWF metadata (bext chunk or iXML) was standardized after several meeting and agreement to implement every informations we need to. Why not make a standardized control protocol? This will not exclude the concurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a complete non-starter, cloud cuckoo land stuff. Given the physical differences, the protocol differences etc etc all you could get is a cumbersome, ill-adapted controller which would constantly be the subject of complaints as the software on the machines it controls changes. Look at the beauty of the styling of the Sonosax product and how it fits with the recorder, you would never get that integration with a third party product. Superslot makes sense, this doesn't. Enjoy the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read carefully my comment. I don't think of a third party adapted controller for SX-R4+. But given the scale of each company, which are aroud 10 employee I guess, if for example Sonosax and Aaton exchange each other their knowledge to make use of their each controller - one rotate knob and one fader type Cantarem - there maybe no need to develop again a fader controller but use their effort to other thing. That accelerate the develop speed to bring more option for us every user, if not you have to wait another one or two year to come every product anounced.

But given the reaction of this thread, I'm somewhat dreaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a universal controller standard, please not HUI (WAY too latent and glitchy) or EUCON (don't want to be dependent on AVID for anything more than we are already)....   I kind of like mgrs rolling their own, in response to what their own (mostly pros) users want, not what will work in the MI or post markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair enough, Masaki. I can see that a collaboration between two companies with a similar philosophy makes more sense than attempting a universal controller for all comers. However, whether that would be more efficient, or just make more (compromised) work, is a moot point, one which only they can answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohannesO said:

Can only the RC8+ function as an 8 ch rotary fader pack, or can the AD-8+ do that as well? I'm guessing not - just analog trims/gains, right?

As they've implemented fader control on the 4 main knobs on the R4+ now, it'd make sense for them to do that with the RC8+/AD8+ too.  I suspect the RC8+ was made for this reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that it can be done on the AD8+ as well. Maybe it would make sense to have the RC8+ as a cheaper option when all you need is control, and get the (more expensive, yes?) AD8+ when you need both control and preamps. You certainly need more control when you have more inputs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Richard,

If I'm not mistaken, the power distribution is passive, the five Hirose sockets are wired in parallel and not connected to anything internally. You would simply use one socket as a DC input and use the four remaining sockets as DC outputs. With your R4+, you could wire the switched DC output to any DC socket on the RC8+, wire the remaining four DC sockets of the RC8+ to four wireless receivers and have them power up when you power up the R4+. With the available 7.2W / 0.6A on the switched DC output, you could power 3 SRb receivers and perhaps an LM or T2 IFB transmitter.

I don't know if there's resettable fuses or power filtering caps on the sockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jlempen said:

Hey Richard,

If I'm not mistaken, the power distribution is passive, the five Hirose sockets are wired in parallel and not connected to anything internally. You would simply use one socket as a DC input and use the four remaining sockets as DC outputs. With your R4+, you could wire the switched DC output to any DC socket on the RC8+, wire the remaining four DC sockets of the RC8+ to four wireless receivers and have them power up when you power up the R4+. With the available 7.2W / 0.6A on the switched DC output, you could power 3 SRb receivers and perhaps an LM or T2 IFB transmitter.

I don't know if there's resettable fuses or power filtering caps on the sockets.

Thanks Jürg, that all makes sense. Also does it screw on to the recorder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Richard Thomas said:

Thanks Jürg, that all makes sense. Also does it screw on to the recorder?

Well, I had a conversation with Jacques about this and we came to the conclusion that there's no simple solution for attaching the RC8+ to the R4+ that would satisfy everybody. Maybe the SX crew will come up with something, but in the meantime, I would set up the RC8+ in my bag with Velcro hook and loop strips and the stock divider of the bag.

BTW, I've held the RC8+ in my hands and it's extremely lightweight, I would say around 200 grams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Richard Thomas said:

Also looks like there's a new interface on the web remote control, looking at this picture from Pro Sound:

That's actually the web interface of the AD8+. Every single setting of the AD8+ is programmed in the web interface when the unit is used as a stand-alone device. Once the AD8+ is connected to the R4+, its settings may be programmed directly in the R4+'s UI and the two units will appear like a single unit to the user.

The next step is to redesign the web interface of the R4+ itself in order to make all its settings available in a browser window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...