664 vs. Nomad Lite

[soundslikejustin]

Omg post has to gain tracks!?

Has post ever not had to add gain to tracks? It's sop in my book at least. Sound mixers record at a lower level than necessary just to be sure not to distort. With neverclip everything (to me) seems normal. Wi don't get all the fuss at all. Except maybe that I would agree that the dynamic range has been achieved before, but still, in the digital domain and on the recorded tracks this is pretty cool.

If post have had to gain your nominal dialogue tracks ~20dB to get them to a useable level before you're doing it wrong Nothing special, really, but it will take some getting used to, as does everything new.

[Jack Norflus]

Excuse me if I missed it, but will neverclip be an on/off option for iso's?

Yes and you will be able to choose which tracks you want to enable it for.

[Olle Sjostrom]

Of course not 20 dB, hehe; but a couple of DBS extra aint unusual IME. And if I came off as a bit demeaning, I didn't mean to. I reread your post and realized that it was just out of curiosity (right?) so I'm sorry if it got misinterpreted...

To me, just knowing that the dynamic range is indeed enough to get low talkers and loud screamers within the same fader range without trimming, is great. As is with an Sqn mixer.. However I don't like the Sqn sound :/

[James Arnold]

To me, just knowing that the dynamic range is indeed enough to get low talkers and loud screamers within the same fader range without trimming, is great. As is with an Sqn mixer.. However I don't like the Sqn sound :/

This is the bit that confuses me. I don't know the ins and outs of the technology required, but I (perhaps foolishly) assumed that SQN type performance was kind of a given, rather than something difficult to achieve. I'm still surprised that I'm able to clip the Nomad outputs more easily than my SQN. Am I doing something wrong? I'd rather not have to rely upon the card tracks to guarantee good production audio in those whisper/scream situations.

[Jack Norflus]

I'm still surprised that I'm able to clip the Nomad outputs more easily than my SQN. Am I doing something wrong?

Perhaps - I haven't had any issues clipping the outputs.

What are you sending to outputs to?

[RScottATL]

I'm a huge fan of the Neverclip idea as it eliminates the issue we've had for the longest time, setting our equipment to the "sweet spot" between noise and clipping. Yes, I understand that gain staging is something that we all pride ourselves on as professionals and one of the core tenants to our work, but it is JUST a workflow designed around solving equipment limitations. I don't see any reason why having the limitations removed is a bad thing.

Yeah, if we are feeding a 137db recording stage with a mic that can achieve a much lower dynamic range (let's say 100db), then we may not use those 137db all the time. But it gives far more flexibility for us to place our 100db in the precise dynamic space that it should occupy and mix things at an exact loudness. Most of our dialog is recorded at -20, so that loud dialog comes in around -10 and screaming kicks the limiters a bit. That leaves no room for car door slams, coughs, screaming and the rest.

I'm happy to move on to a point where our reference is -30 or -40 and we have no noise floor on the recording stage. When it's applicable, it seems like there is room for other technologies to employ the exact same methods Zaxcom is promoting to extend the dynamic range of our other tools. 137db is crazy talk if it's the only stage of the process that can use it. But what if our mics begin to be built with double capsules operating as a Neverclip-style system? What about when our radio systems use similar approaches to deliver the same dynamic range wirelessly? Then we get to spend more of our time tackling other issues and can let the gain control issues that we are so familiar with become yesterday's problems.

[Zack]

Yes and you will be able to choose which tracks you want to enable it for.

Ok great . Options are always nice and the idea of the technology sounds interesting, but I for one do not want to get phone calls (possibly complaints) from post about my levels being too low, and that they had to do "extra work" to use the iso's, because they haven't been educated yet about the technology behind it. I can imagine having to explain this over and over until maybe one day it catches on.

[Jeff Wexler]

Ok great . Options are always nice and the idea of the technology sounds interesting, but I for one do not want to get phone calls (possibly complaints) from post about my levels being too low, and that they had to do "extra work" to use the iso's, because they haven't been educated yet about the technology behind it. I can imagine having to explain this over and over until maybe one day it catches on.

Join the club! The level of "education" that the early adopters of file based production recording (and that would be ME and several others) had to do with EVERY post facility that had to deal with this "new technology", would make your head spin. When production sound people are the initiators of new technologies or methods that ultimately will serve to elevate the quality and usefulness of our tracks, we may have to field a few unpleasant phone calls and possibly explain a few things to the uninitiated. If you are not willing to make this effort you may find yourself standing in one place with very little forward movement in advancing our craft.

[Zack]

Join the club! The level of "education" that the early adopters of file based production recording (and that would be ME and several others) had to do with EVERY post facility that had to deal with this "new technology", would make your head spin. When production sound people are the initiators of new technologies or methods that ultimately will serve to elevate the quality and usefulness of our tracks, we may have to field a few unpleasant phone calls and possibly explain a few things to the uninitiated. If you are not willing to make this effort you may find yourself standing in one place with very little forward movement in advancing our craft.

Well yes Jeff, and I say this because I've heard this all before from those early adopters on the post side (where I started from). I can totally understand the advantage of "advancing the craft" when moving to file based media, but is this neverclip one of those "game changing" advances? I guess time will tell.

[Jeff Wexler]

Well yes Jeff, and I say this because I've heard this all before from those early adopters on the post side (where I started from). I can totally understand the advantage of "advancing the craft" when moving to file based media, but is this neverclip one of those "game changing" advances? I guess time will tell.

I don't think we are dealing with ANY "game changing" at this point with any of the tools we use (see my post before for my opinion on the term "game changer") but we are still faced with enormous challenges in production, some that can hopefully be sorted out with advancements in the tools that we use. My point is that if we want to continue to progress in the work that we do, and to meet these expectations and challenges, we have to continue to forge these relationships with the others in the chain that work to complete the soundtrack (a process that is first begun by us, the production sound crew). The post team needs to be a partner in all of this, not an adversary that incessantly complains that we are making their job more difficult. I think there is a built in conservativisim in much of the post world and this is something which we still need to deal with in much the same manner as we dealt with it in the early days of file based recording.

[studiomprd]

" I think there are many out there who would like to know the details of how this all works. "

We always have some folks who want to know details of things, even when they may be missing some pretty basic concepts, which is usually about all they can comprehend....

(I don't see demands that SQN explain, in detail, how they make their limiter sound so good..)

" What frightens me the most is that all this technical non sense doesn't seem to bother many sound fellows here. "

and here is an example

" 144dB is the THEORETICAL range of 24 bits. Real life performance will be limited "

most high quality (professional) audio equipment really can barely perform to 20 bits. some equipment boasting 24 bits can barely perform to 16 bits, and some not even to 16 (for example Zoom, need I say more?)

remember sound is analog by definition, and so it must be converted to electricity (AC) where it is now called "analog audio", and that must be converted to "digital audio". eventually the digital audio must be converted back to analog audio and finally to sound so that it can be "heard".

" the dynamic range is indeed enough to get low talkers and loud screamers within the same fader range without trimming, is great. As is with an Sqn mixer. "

exactly, and all this tech-talk is just about how it is done; the Nomad uses some new electronic called "NeverClip", and SQN (and others) uses some older technology called "limiter".

So, really, it isn't so much about the specifics of how it does what it does, as it is about "how it works", meaning the results, and that is something I suspect most folks will have to experience for themselves...

" what does your -20dBfs reference become ? -40dBFS ? "

sort of... as dB is a ratio, and FS is what the ratio is about, one can argue we are changing the value of 0 dBFS, and this applies to another question in a thread about tone generators generating -20dBFS...

" Yes the Neverclip files can have references of -26dBFS, -32dBFS, -38dBFS and -44dBFS. "

which is based on the NeverClip's 0dBFS, as in:

" If a track is over 0dBFS on the Nomad input meter it will be peaking some where around -20dbFS in post. "

" a Soft knee compressor with look ahead on each input and output. "

Now, I think this is huge! compressors (as opposed to limiters, which are extreme compressors!) can be useful tools, and the capability in digital processing to be looking ahead to see what will happen, allows these to be extremely smart, useful, and good sounding.

" I really only see this as necessary for those occasions of dialogue and loud peaks immediately after (that you can't adjust for)... "

and there is nothing wrong with that... in fact isn't that what a lot of us would say about "limiters" ??

Further, I would say that since we typically do not rife our ISO's (unless we keep playing with the "trim", that this extra headroom is at its most valuable on ISO tracks, which can then be used in post to deal with the stuff that got by us during production...

[Zack]

I don't think we are dealing with ANY "game changing" at this point with any of the tools we use (see my post before for my opinion on the term "game changer")

Agree, and i've seen it

My point is that if we want to continue to progress in the work that we do, and to meet these expectations and challenges, we have to continue to forge these relationships with the others in the chain that work to complete the soundtrack (a process that is first begun by us, the production sound crew).

Exactly, but it would be fantastic if we didn't have to do this systematically one by one.

The post team needs to be a partner in all of this, not an adversary that incessantly complains that we are making their job more difficult. I think there is a built in conservativisim in much of the post world and this is something which we still need to deal with in much the same manner as we dealt with it in the early days of file based recording.

I agree, and I hope they are being included/educated somehow!?

[studiomprd]

" I hope they are being included/educated somehow!? "

you answered your own question:

" we didn't have to do this systematically one by one. "

[Zack]

you answered your own question:

" you can to do this systematically one by one. "

Fixed

[studiomprd]

...and I guess we still must do this systematically, one by one !

[PLo128]

Just compared a Sennheiser 416 through a Nomad and the 664. I prefer the Nomad's sound--slightly cleaner and crisp to me.

[soundslikejustin]

Just compared a Sennheiser 416 through a Nomad and the 664. I prefer the Nomad's sound--slightly cleaner and crisp to me.

Were you listening to the unit through the headphone amp, or recorded files played back on the same system?

[PLo128]

Just the headphone amp. Shouldn't have been So stupefied by the excellent quality as to forget to request listening to a recorded file

[bmfsnd]

Just compared a Sennheiser 416 through a Nomad and the 664. I prefer the Nomad's sound--slightly cleaner and crisp to me.

Really? I had the opposite experience the other day. Sony 7506.

[Glen Trew]

Interesting.. much earlier in the year I was testing a Zaxcom Nomad 6, and had a 552 alongside it. I ran a MKH416 through both. Running through the Nomad it sounded very clinical and clean; but lacked in the high end presence to my ears. Listening to the same mic through the 552 in the same environment gave a very different experience. There could be many reasons for this.. and i'm also aware it could be trickery by my ears, but I wanted to like the Nomad when I was testing it. I did like the features, just not the sonic quality and that was a deal breaker for me. There was another sound recordist with me who also agreed on the differences, also much preferring the sound of the 552.

I obviously have not been able to compare a 664 directly to the Nomad Lite in a similar fashion, but in a very very rough test I could do of the 664 at Plaza Expo (albeit with an unusual mic and cheap headphones), it seemed to perform as expected. I am sure both machines have a sonic quality that is more than enough for the work we do, but I would still very much like to hear a side-by-side comparison before making a final choice.

~Mark.

Were you monitoring your own voice? The Nomad inputs are always digitally processed, (the 552 is not) and therefor have latency (delay) of a few milliseconds, which can affect the perception of nearby sounds when listening through headphones.

gt

[pindrop]

Just compared a Sennheiser 416 through a Nomad and the 664. I prefer the Nomad's sound--slightly cleaner and crisp to me.

This kind of test also very much needs to be conducted blind as listening tests are absolutely notorious for being colored by knowledge.

[Brian Liston]

Not just blind, double blind. Its the only way. I plan on doing just that when I'm at SD later this week.

This kind of test also very much needs to be conducted blind as listening tests are absolutely notorious for being colored by knowledge.

[VASI]

The mic preamps really depends.

Depends from microphone to microphone.

[Mark Orusa]

Then Mark, you too are completely missing my point !!!

Are you saying you like the sound of limiting? I choose no limiting over limiting.

Mark O.

[Steve Foy]

Are you saying you like the sound of limiting? I choose no limiting over limiting.

Mark O.

Not sure how you would come to that conclusion if you had actually read my post.