Zaxcom Deva announcement

[Glen Trew]

On February 10, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Waelder said:

A Sonosax mixer is really a thing of beauty and it's the best sounding mixer I've ever auditioned. (Although, as you probably remember from the tests you participated in, the Solice is within a whisker of being as good.) But, the Sonosax is priced like a Ferrari so I hesitate to press a recommendation on anyone facing college costs for children. However, if you think a 12-channel board would fit your needs exactly, you should contact Jacques Sax and ask what might be involved...

Or call your favorite Sonosax dealer. Trew Audio has sold several 10 and 12 channel SXST (also known as SX8D) mixers.

 

gt

[glenn]

Analog mixers are in my opinion not the way to go at this point.  If the recorder has an excellent mic pre with excellent dynamic range then there is no down side to a digital console or a mixer/recorder with a mixer control surface. Here are some of the other reasons.

As they age analog console inputs will sound different due to the tolerance of components and the aging of capacitors.

All digital solutions cost about 1/4 to 1/3 the money

Each channel will sound exactly the same forever on a digital solution,

Setups can be saved and quickly recalled,

AES signals from digital wireless can stay in the digital domain. 

Digital solutions can use a fraction of the DC power

Lower maintenance and repair costs for control surface solutions

DIgital solutions offer better routing and more busses

 

Glenn

[Patrick Tresch]

 

Quote

As they age analog console inputs will sound different due to the tolerance of components and the aging of capacitors.

Each channel will sound exactly the same forever on a digital solution,

Digital solutions can use a fraction of the DC power

Lower maintenance and repair costs for control surface solutions

DIgital solutions offer better routing and more busses

 

Isn't it so that this mostly depends on how poorly the analog mixer is built? And all comes down to cost savings?

[Jeff Wexler]

"As they age analog console inputs will sound different due to the tolerance of components and the aging of capacitors." Glenn

"Isn't it so that this mostly depends on how poorly the analog mixer is built? And all comes down to cost savings?"  Patrick

Glenn is correct on this, ALL analog components age and original performance spec is diminished, this is a physical and electrical fact. Patrick is right that if high quality components are used in manufacturing, this helps mitigate the problem and you will have many years of near spec performance --- in the case of cheap components, the degradation may be quite evident after a fairly short period of time. My longest running experience with analog mixers has been with Cooper Sound mixers, an original CS-106, CS-104 and lastly the CS-208 (still in use today, purchased 17 years ago). All of these mixers used very high quality components (one of the reasons why we were willing to spend $14,000. on a mixing console when we could have bought a Mackie for $400.). That said, I did have capacitors replaced in my CS-106 when I noticed that things were not sounding exactly right --- yes, it is something you can hear if you listen closely.  

 

[glenn]

This is true for all analog consoles including Cooper Sonosax and Audio Developments.

Glenn

[Constantin]

There still are analogue parts on a digital recorder, the inputs and outputs. Do they age as well?

[Jeff Wexler]

I will add something to this discussion, quite esoteric, but may interest those who like to think about these things. There are recording artists even today, who record at studios that use TUBE equipment because they like the sound that  active tube electronics can produce. Also, understanding the characteristics of tubes, I know that in Jackson Browne's studio they fire up all the equipment and wait a specific amount of time (which they have learned over the years from measurements and listening) for the tube equipment to be at what they consider its optimal performance range. Then it is also acknowledged that as the day goes on, the sound will change, and in certain instances they opt to stop recording and carry on the next day. This can get a little ridiculous, of course, and this whole problem can be "solved" in part by using solid state digital equipment...  bottom line, in our world, the degradation that occurs over time (a really long time I might add) with an analog mixer from Cooper, Sonosax or Audio Developments, is not really very significant. We are denied, of course, that predictability, stability and longevity of digital circuitry that Glenn refers to.

[glenn]

Yes they do. The amount of them is somewhere under 1/20th of that of an analog board. They are also less critical in a digital mixer as the EQ, compressors and such are in the digital domain. Since these are the circuits designed to alter the sound the values are much more important. 

Glenn

[al mcguire]

If you have the budget and the parts a well built analog mixer will work as designed forever. 

[old school]

I love analog but I am now also a fand of well built mix control systems and their corresponding recorders/systems. I can't wait to see what Zax does when it introduces the new 32. As for analog consoles, I'm wearing out faster than my Cooper 106.

CrewC

[Philip Perkins]

I prefer the sound of all analog mixers of a certain quality level, and haven't really found much dimunution in quality or change in sound in them over the years--maybe my hearing is just that bad or I record material that doesn't showcase the diffs.  In any case the bang for buck equation in large complex mixers is now heavily skewed towards digital, mostly due to everything about them EXCEPT the sound, which is fine, great, and not like analog.  Is it worse?  Not to me, just different, and the features only offered by digital have quickly moved from "nice to have" to "required".  I work with a lot of computer-based musicians, and an interesting fact I have discovered is that the big systems in use (FOH, big moni) are now all digital; but the small systems (personal mixing, monitoring etc) are still preferred to be analog.  So Mackie still sells a whole lot of 1402s, thus.

[Constantin]

It's also interesting to note, I think, that even though digital equipment degrades much slower, its shelf life is much less than that of an analog mixer. I bought my 744T eight years ago, but now it feels kind of old, and I rarely use it. An analog mixer doesn't age like that, a 20 year old mixer may need to be refurbished, but it's still a perfectly suitable mixer today. Who still uses their digital recorder from 20 years ago?

[cjh]

just been catching up on this thread, I have one note that may be of of interest re control panels having physical output pot controls for such things as IFB, VOG, etc. I run with a Fusion / Mix 12 set up on my cart, a system I am very happy with, the mix 12 has 4 output pots so you can quickly physically control the output levels, great. Not so in practice, they are digital pots and have a very different linear value to standard analogue pots, most of the level variation is in the last quarter turn of the pot and worse than that when you pot them down the system noise level stays the same, just the program level varies. This means at low to mid levels your sig to noise ratio is terrible. I found it unacceptable and don't use the pots at all, I did get the very good remote audio 6 channel ANALOGUE output accessory for my Fusion and that fixed everything. I hope this is sorted on the newer zax panels!

C.

 

[glenn]

The output pots are totally software controllable so we will look at the taper.

Glenn

[ao]

15 hours ago, glenn said:

Yes they do. The amount of them is somewhere under 1/20th of that of an analog board. They are also less critical in a digital mixer as the EQ, compressors and such are in the digital domain. Since these are the circuits designed to alter the sound the values are much more important. 

Glenn

digital designs are based on specific chips,  which become obsolete, making products unrepairable.  in my market,  there are many mixers who reluctantly moved on from their ever fragile and unreliable cameo mixers and bought sonosax boards.....  

[Jeff Wexler]

Okay. This thread has become derailed enough that we should refrain from continuing this discussion under the present topic heading. I am very interested in many of these issues, analog vs. digital, manufacturing considerations, longevity and obsolescence, and so forth, but it should take place in its own topic thread. Let's stick to discussions regarding the new Deva as the the title of this topic dictates. If people do continue way "off topic" I will try and move the discussions to their own topic (but please try not to make me have to do this).

Thanks.

[Patrick Tresch]

(Warning : I'm not a sound engeneer)

I was wondering if sound mixer still actually mix today or do they record tracks and mix only for the video village? What I understand is that 15 years back mono delivery was still the standard...  so the mixing/recording job was a key part of the sound design. I can uderstand why the tools are changing based on the needs.

[pkautzsch]

Lots of threads about that question on JWS. For example, here: Do we still need a production sound mix track...?

22 minutes ago, Patrick Tresch said:

(Warning : I'm not a sound engeneer)

I was wondering if sound mixer still actually mix today or do they record tracks and mix only for the video village? What I understand is that 15 years back mono delivery was still the standard...  so the mixing/recording job was a key part of the sound design. I can uderstand why the tools are changing based on the needs.

Back to topic...

[Patrick Tresch]

32 minutes ago, pkautzsch said:

Back to topic...

Ok so we should wait for the announcement I suppose.

[Philip Perkins]

4 hours ago, Patrick Tresch said:

(Warning : I'm not a sound engeneer)

I was wondering if sound mixer still actually mix today or do they record tracks and mix only for the video village? What I understand is that 15 years back mono delivery was still the standard...  so the mixing/recording job was a key part of the sound design. I can uderstand why the tools are changing based on the needs.

Whoa!  Trolling alert!   Dude, there are SO many threads on this forum already re: why a location mix is or isn't important these days…..we don't need to get into this again do we?

10 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

It's also interesting to note, I think, that even though digital equipment degrades much slower, its shelf life is much less than that of an analog mixer. I bought my 744T eight years ago, but now it feels kind of old, and I rarely use it. An analog mixer doesn't age like that, a 20 year old mixer may need to be refurbished, but it's still a perfectly suitable mixer today. Who still uses their digital recorder from 20 years ago?

In a blind test comparison of tracks from your 744 and your current (other) recorder I think you would be very hard-pressed to hear a difference.  The diffs between 744s (or  Deva IIs for that matter) and current machines all have to do with features and operation, not how their recordings sound.

[Jeff Wexler]

Thank you, Philip, for at least making the attempt to get this back on track. To Patrick who says: "Ok so we should wait for the announcement I suppose." you need to follow these things more closely, not just look for keywords where you can jump in and talk about something only distantly related. As for "the announcement" you need not wait for it, it has already happened --- that is why this topic was started. Done.

[Patrick Tresch]

Post nr1 ?

[Robert Bluemke]

Here you go Patrick:

 

[Constantin]

In a blind test comparison of tracks from your 744 and your current (other) recorder I think you would be very hard-pressed to hear a difference.  The diffs between 744s (or a Deva IIs for that matter) and current machines all have to do with features and operation, not how their recordings sound.

Yes, that is basically my point. The sound quality of digital gear doesn't degrade much, but still its life expectancy is much shorter than that of well-made analog gear

[Philip Perkins]

25 minutes ago, Constantin said:

Yes, that is basically my point. The sound quality of digital gear doesn't degrade much, but still its life expectancy is much shorter than that of well-made analog gear

How do you figure?  My 744s are pretty old, but I've cycled them back to SD for upkeep regularly.  The INHDD could go, but is replaceable.  Pots, connectors and the CF mounting teeth can be swapped out.  So the machine basically operates and sounds like it did when it was new, plus a few scratches on the case.  It seems to me that digital mixers will age better than analog unless the analog board gets regular upkeep?  Or do you mean that older digital gear doesn't have the loads of new features that are in more current gear?