Jump to content

Sonosax SX-R4+


pvanstry

Recommended Posts

With all the downsides of certain manufacturers analog pre amps I can care less about the dynamic range. Or anybody's patents.

My OneUnit has no micpres.

AES42 is patent free "or very little licensing required "and available to everybody. I can sacrifice the extra dynamic range for zero problem operation and the purest sound. And honestly guaranteed 115dB dynamic range is just fine.

When analog mic goes though analog cables and front end and then AD conversion it results in "coloured " sound.

Some people like distorted tube preamps I like the cleanest most realistic sound representation possible.

But this is just my opinion.

 

Edited by RadoStefanov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What if Sonosax went ahead and patented their way of doing it - if it is truly different from Zaxcom's way, then Sonosax should be free to register its own patent. 

ON another note, I don't believe the art and craft of achieving higher dynamic range can be patented. 

Achieving higher dynamic range is not patentable, but HOW it is achieved is. Also, if Sonosax had gone ahead to patent whatever way Sonosax is achieving higher dynamic range, the application for granting the patent would have confirmed that they were doing it differently than Zaxcom --- when you submit anything for consideration of awarding s patent, there has to be a search of all possible existing and pending patents and surely the Sonosax way would have been put up and compared to Zaxcom. All of this takes a lot of time and money and obviously this is not the route that Sonosax decided to take. We could infer that Sonosax believes they were achieving the higher dynamic range in the same manner as Zaxcom, but it may not be...  we'll never know unless Sonosax wants to comment. It could very well be that it just was not worth the time, efforts and cost, considering the number of sales that can be expected in the US. Better just to ship to the US a unit which in no way can be infringing on anyone's patented processes.

Also, to put in perspective (particularly for all those disgruntled people who wish we could just have a sort of free market with everyone sharing everything, not worrying about the competition or the sales potentials, etc.) consider why we haven't seen any other company come out with a digital hybrid wireless to compete with Lectrosonics? I think it should be obvious to everyone that Lectrosonics has a patent (probably several) on the processes involved in digital hybrid wireless transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still surprised that Zaxcom even got the patent in the first place. Using two converters is an old concept which e.g. Neumann have been using for years in their digital mics. Zaxcom must be doing something slightly differently or they were simply the first to patent this. And Sonosax thought, perhaps, this is such an old concept we can use it, too. 

Perhaps, Zaxcom will eventually approach Neumann, too, to keep them from selling their mics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though patent discussion was moved to the another thread, I want to add some input as everyone continue to talk about.

NOTE: to continue this discussion about patents in general, please go to this LINK

An irony of fate that Neumann Solution D technology is also patented according to their datasheet. But it seems different than what achieved Zaxcom with their Never clip technology if I read correctly.

A/D conversion: Neumann process (patented),
28-bit internal word length

Digital signal processing: Fixed-point,
variable internal word length 28 bits to 60 bits

Really intrigued to understand how it hadles the signal with this "variable internal word length" behind that microphone...

And just wondering if it is because of their patent that Schoeps, Sennheiser or other manufacture doesn't introduced a digital microphone with dual AD converter.

Someone knows of the history behind ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though patent discussion was moved to the another thread, I want to add some input as everyone continue to talk about.

NOTE: to continue this discussion about patents in general, please go to this LINK

An irony of fate that Neumann Solution D technology is also patented according to their datasheet. But it seems different than what achieved Zaxcom with their Never clip technology if I read correctly.

Really intrigued to understand how it hadles the signal with this "variable internal word length" behind that microphone...

And just wondering if it is because of their patent that Schoeps, Sennheiser or other manufacture doesn't introduced a digital microphone with dual AD converter.

Someone knows of the history behind ?

 

Sennheiser and Neumann is the same company.

Sennheiser did not put it in their MZD8000 because of space requirements and also because it does not matter that much.

There are great classical recordings done with mzd8000 where dynamic range is extremely important.

115dB is fine.

Edited by RadoStefanov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His latest mail states that they has US versions coming where the disputed technology has been turned off so they have lower dynamic range, but that they could always be switched to the "EU version" if the owners move out of the US.

So such patents are not always bulletproof, sometimes its for the better imo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patent IS bulletproof. The "workaround" that you suggest would be a potential violation and infringement of the patent and if Sonosax makes it easy for the user to enable the feature on units in the US, this too would be a violation. Units shipped to the US for primary use in the US should have the (possible) infringing feature completely disabled. If the user in the US want to travel out of the US with the unit, the feature should be enabled by Sonosax at the factory and shipped to the use outside the US. The thing that is so ridiculous about all of this is that we don't even know if the method Sonosax is using is an infringement of Zaxcom's patent --- we can only speculate that Sonosax knows that it is which is why they are disabling it on US units. Why not just license NeverClip from Zaxcom for US units so that everyone gets the same machine and no one has to worry about infringement or breaking the law. Lots of companies license technology they use in their products when it is technology that is not theirs to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaxcom Neverclip is a completely different method from the Neumann method and not relevant to the Neverclip patent.

completely different? I thought both systems were using two a-d converters with different, but overlapping dynamic range weighting. How these two signals are combined in the dsp is surely different, but if looking at it from further away, surely the two a/d converters are the key component

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"surely the two a/d converters are the key component" --- this is true but nobody has a patent on the simple use of two A/D converters. As you and others have pointed out, the utilization of two A/D converters to extend dynamic range is not new nor exclusive to Sonosax or Zaxcom. A specific method employed while utilizing these two converters has been patented, by Zaxcom, that is the issue at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"surely the two a/d converters are the key component" --- this is true but nobody has a patent on the simple use of two A/D converters. As you and others have pointed out, the utilization of two A/D converters to extend dynamic range is not new nor exclusive to Sonosax or Zaxcom. A specific method employed while utilizing these two converters has been patented, by Zaxcom, that is the issue at hand.

of course, I agree, I was just countering Glenn's statement that both systems are completely different. And from his perspective it must surely feel like they are, as he will be intimately familiar with every detail, but in the broader sense they are actually relatively similar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that is so ridiculous about all of this is that we don't even know if the method Sonosax is using is an infringement of Zaxcom's patent --- we can only speculate that Sonosax knows that it is which is why they are disabling it on US units. Why not just license NeverClip from Zaxcom for US units so that everyone gets the same machine and no one has to worry about infringement or breaking the law. Lots of companies license technology they use in their products when it is technology that is not theirs to use.

I think it makes sense for Sonosax to not get too caught up with the unresolved dispute and its more important that the units -which are packed with many other great features- are quickly sold without delay regardless of the size of the dynamic range. Those of us who do not own a R4+ nor a Zaxcom Never Clip unit can still work perfectly well in any job and record great sound. I personally would still buy this unit even if there was no such feature to begin with. So if the dispute is eventually solved in either way, the units can still work as they are or modified.

However, if I was a US customer who hopes to own a Sonosax recorder, I would be slightly pissed off with Zaxcom by now, but thats just me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if I was a US customer who hopes to own a Sonosax recorder, I would be slightly pissed off with Zaxcom by now, but thats just me...

Unfortunately, it's not just you, but in my opinion, Zaxcom has every right, if not duty, to defend their patent. That's what the whole idea of intellectual property is about. I believe that in this day and age we need to strengthen intellectual property laws and regulations not weaken them. 

Edited by Constantin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it's not just you, but in my opinion, Zaxcom has every right, if not duty, to defend their patent. That's what the whole idea of intellectual property is about. I believe that in this day and age we need to strengthen intellectual property laws and regulations not weaken them. 

I agree if its truly their invention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree if its truly their invention.

agreed, but that's a different discussion. Only a company like Sennheiser (with Neumann) has the pockets to challenge an awarded patent. But they don't really have an overlapping product so won't bother, and Zaxcom's patent may well be justified anyway

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...