Jump to content

664 vs. Nomad Lite


Twade

Recommended Posts

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

Not exclusively, we were more monitoring general conversations in the room. The delay could have been a factor we didn't think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not exclusively, we were more monitoring general conversations in the room. The delay could have been a factor we didn't think about.

We found with a 3 ms delay (our wireless), that with headphone listening and with sound sources in the same area, the sound was surprisingly altered due to comb filtering. Even with the sound source (person speaking) in the next room, the slight leakage through a door was sufficient to alter the perceived sound. The rule for headphone listening is if you can hear the sound source at all with the headphones turned off, the delay (comb filtering) will alter the sound more than anything else in the signal chain. It doesn't sound bad but the tonal difference is major.

Doing the same test with no delay other than distance, will also affect the sound due to different distances causing comb filtering. The comb filtering will be at totally different frequencies with a 3 ms delay plus the same distances, so you definitely cannot compare an analog to digital sound chain with a source in the same listening area. Either get the sound source in the next county over or listen to prerecorded sound.

Best Regards,

Larry Fisher

Lectro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I learned early on with the original Deva (first device that I had used with any latency) that I could no longer use speaking with my own voice while wearing headphones to test anything other than the simple presence of signal. This goes for the wireless as well since digital wireless and hybrids all have a latency factor. Even if you are able to isolate leakage from the headphones you are wearing, your own voice is "heard" by you in several other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True comparison is:

1. In studio.

2. The same microphone.

3. The same sampling rate and bit rate.

4. In the same gain.

5. The same voice.

I think this a "test" for two different mic preamps. The mic preamps is interdependent with the microphone.

So if one microphone doesn't sound good in one machine that no mean the mic preamps it's sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hope that everyone gets to hear the difference between audio that is hitting an analog hard limiter and audio that comes out of our Neverclip input."

Sorry, but that is very misleading comment and smells of product centric bias.

Whilst I don't wish to in anyway demean the 'Neverclip' technology, it should be noted that there are analog limiters and then there are analog limiters and the variations in results are enormous. It should also be noted that the use of limiters in any mixing/recording environment is largely dependant on how they are used.

For example, a skilled mixer/recordist can lightly ride the limiters on an SQN mixer all day long and you would be hard pressed to ever hear the difference.

Mark O, on 16 October 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

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.

I don't understand anything you are trying to say. Why don't you explain yourself instead of insinuating that users here are ignorant of the benefits and operation of a limiter?

Neverclip is not a limiter. It precludes a sound mixer from needing a limiter on the input. Once in the digital domain there are look-ahead limiters available for card tracks and outputs. These limiters are adjustable to suit the taste of individual mixers. I think having these options is much better than a mixer I can ride the limiters on "all day long".

If you have anything else to say about limiters, make your point clear. No one will appreciate your arrogant responses.

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark O, on 16 October 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

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

Mark O.

I don't understand anything you are trying to say. Why don't you explain yourself instead of insinuating that users here are ignorant of the benefits and operation of a limiter?

Neverclip is not a limiter. It precludes a sound mixer from needing a limiter on the input. Once in the digital domain there are look-ahead limiters available for card tracks and outputs. These limiters are adjustable to suit the taste of individual mixers. I think having these options is much better than a mixer I can ride the limiters on "all day long".

If you have anything else to say about limiters, make your point clear. No one will appreciate your arrogant responses.

Mark O.

I think you are slightly misinterpreting Mr Foy here. It's my fault perhaps for bringing up my SQN in association with Rofins post which discussed the dynamic range of that particular mixer in relation to Nomad and Neverclip. SQN's have no input limiters - only output and non adjustable at that. In my personal opinion these are incredibly transparent and barely effect the sound at all when used judiciously (hence the 'riding the limiters all day long' comment, something I'm happy to do on an SQN, but not on a 552) but are great to have to protect from overload. Combined with the great dynamic range of the SQN you have a device that is hard to clip. Unless recording a specific sound effect I NEVER take these limiters off.

Without using the input limiters, but with output and card limiters engaged I have had a couple occasions of what sounded very much like a clipped output signal on my Nomad. In the rough and tumble of the shooting day I didn't have a chance to check back off camera. In this case either 'Neverclip', or the Nomad limiters/limiter settings are not protecting my output as well as my old SQN. This could be operator error, but I get what Steve is saying when he suggests that there are limiters and limiters. This is not meant to dispute any of the fantastic technology Glenn has put into Nomad, but has merely been something I've experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close. I have worked with some people who did the "Boston Pre Party" comparison CDs and have had many discussions about how to make an unbiased comparison. I think they set the gold standard and I can get pretty close to their science, with a couple of changes in methodology to compensate for the specifics of what we do in the dialogue recording world.

I am thinking about doing a comparison in the following way between my Nomad, 702T and a 664. I'll probably throw the zoom H4n in there for a baseline.

1. In a controlled environment (studio), and in a realistic environment (on set outside, on set indoors, on set terrible room indoors). Male and female voices.

2. Same microphone, split into both preamps at the same time. A transformer isolated splitter would color things on one leg, so a passive split would be best, with the phantom power supply upstream of the splitter.

3. Both a lav and a Boom should be used to represent the two main types of recording we do. Why not throw a transmitter into the mix as well as a hard wired mic?

4. A couple of different mics should be used. I have a CMIT and a 416, andalso plan to throw in a KM 184 and a 414 in for good measure. I'm going to try to get a Rode and a MKH60 from some local soundie friends. I really wish I had a MK41 (in so many ways)

5. The meter should read the same, and should be calibrated within .1db preferably with pink noise. I don't think we have a fighting chance of this with our field gear. There would most likely need to be a micro adjustment in post. Any change in the audio from a gain change in post will be less of a factor than if we hear things slightly louder in the comparison

6. Same bit rate, sample freq, of course. But same NP-1 based power supply at same voltage as well.

7. Double blind. The person setting up the test will not making the files and key, nor will the listeners know what the sources are until the entire test is over. So, listeners will see "Shotgun pre 1, shotgun pre 2, etc. And then things like Shotgun pre HP 1, Shotgun Pre HP 2. But, the numbers will not be constantly the same pre.

What does double Blind Mean?

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and who belongs to the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analysed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.

Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.

And sound engineers have a huge unconscious bias. Yes we do.

True comparison is:

1. In studio.

2. The same microphone.

3. The same sampling rate and bit rate.

4. In the same gain.

5. The same voice.

I think this a "test" for two different mic preamps. The mic preamps is interdependent with the microphone.

So if one microphone doesn't sound good in one machine that no mean the mic preamps it's sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the files created, have someone else randomize them and make a key. Listen, rank, repeat. Then use the key to see what you ranked. The person who made the test (sadly me) will not be able to do an unbiased ranking.

I live for fancy-smancy ;)

Double blind tests sound all fancy-smancy but if you don't know which preamp you are listening to, how will you know which one sounds better?

Best,

Larry F

Lectro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double blind tests sound all fancy-smancy but if you don't know which preamp you are listening to, how will you know which one sounds better?

Best,

Larry F

Lectro

Sorry. I should have used the "sarcastic font" alluded to in previous posts.

Cheers,

LEF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is to be a shootout, there should certainly be a group of listeners participating. Both normal levels as well as overdriven inputs should be tested. Neverclip vs a 664 hard limiter and our Soft knee compressor vs 664 hard limiter will tell an interesting tale of 2 mixers. We can get you the Nomad software with Neverclip file recording so that the files can be compaired to 664 isolated files.

The outputs of the 664 should be wrapped back around to the inputs to be recorded as this may be the only way to capture the effect of the units potential output transformer coloration vs the pre transformer internal recording.

The setup needs to be carefully done to match levels. The Nomad input meters show the actual input levels while the 664 meters are post limiter so they do not correctly indicate input levels near full scale when the 664 limiter is engaged.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outputs of the 664 should be wrapped back around to the inputs to be recorded as this may be the only way to capture the effect of the units potential output transformer coloration vs the pre transformer internal recording.

Glenn

Maybe we should record the outputs of both machines through a mastering grade A/D converter. Then it will tell the whole story. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I figured (hoped) there would be some geeky suggestions. Thanks Glenn!

I want to apple to apple as much as possible, maintain scientific control, while still simulating real world conditions of Mic to pre to file. Oh, and I don't want this to take up like a month of otherwise billable time. I want to keep the scope limited to pre to file, leaving any output transformer, limiter whatever tests to some future test if I see fit/demand. So, limiters off. Outputs, headphone amp, other things out of the test. I'm assuming the limiters are defeatable on the 664. All other components to the data set are for scientific control, spread and variance. Naturally the AD on each unit is "in the mix" as defeating the A-D converter would enable the output transformer. As most things suck so hard audio-wise on the camera A/D side, the nuances of output transformers doesn't interest me nearly as much.

I will calibrate the inputs based on what they are on the file. My planned levels are traditional "go for Gold." I'm still scratching my head a bit on the never clip of course, having never used it. So, yes

I would like to post the files here to allow whoever to make a judgement for yourself. Much as they sell the Pre Party CD. Not just any group, but the jw sound group!

As this is unbudgeted, and non-profit based, I will not have all of the resources that would otherwise be afforded such a test. I would love to throw an SQN, Nagra, Cantar, Super-CMIT etc if anyone feels like sending them to me.

I am in no affiliated with any manufacturer or distributer. Just a sound guy who owns Zaxcom, Lectro, Zoom, and Sound Devices equipment and uses the hell out of them. Well, maybe not the Zoom.

If there is to be a shootout, there should certainly be a group of listeners participating. Both normal levels as well as overdriven inputs should be tested. Neverclip vs a 664 hard limiter and our Soft knee compressor vs 664 hard limiter will tell an interesting tale of 2 mixers. We can get you the Nomad software with Neverclip file recording so that the files can be compaired to 664 isolated files.

The outputs of the 664 should be wrapped back around to the inputs to be recorded as this may be the only way to capture the effect of the units potential output transformer coloration vs the pre transformer internal recording.

The setup needs to be carefully done to match levels. The Nomad input meters show the actual input levels while the 664 meters are post limiter so they do not correctly indicate input levels near full scale when the 664 limiter is engaged.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those types of microphones should theoretically eliminate 100% of this debate. Or would neverclip be somehow more magical in these scenarios? I'm still trying to wrap my head around this new proposed implementation in 4.0. I kind of thought it to mean more like you can't clip the digital bus kinda thing by going past digital zero.

crossposting from a German forum:

interesting article by Neumann´s Stephan Peus, AES 2001, "The Digitally Interfaced Microphone", englisch, 11 Seiten

http://www.neumann.c...ad=lect0042.PDF

sounds pretty familiar ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those types of microphones should theoretically eliminate 100% of this debate. Or would neverclip be somehow more magical in these scenarios? I'm still trying to wrap my head around this new proposed implementation in 4.0. I kind of thought it to mean more like you can't clip the digital bus kinda thing by going past digital zero.

I think Mattias is pointing out the similarities in design between the Neumann dual-stage A/D in their AES mic and the dual stage A/D that constitutes the 'Neverclip' input. I too have made this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are slightly misinterpreting Mr Foy here. It's my fault perhaps for bringing up my SQN in association with Rofins post which discussed the dynamic range of that particular mixer in relation to Nomad and Neverclip. SQN's have no input limiters - only output and non adjustable at that. In my personal opinion these are incredibly transparent and barely effect the sound at all when used judiciously (hence the 'riding the limiters all day long' comment, something I'm happy to do on an SQN, but not on a 552) but are great to have to protect from overload. Combined with the great dynamic range of the SQN you have a device that is hard to clip. Unless recording a specific sound effect I NEVER take these limiters off.

I understand now that the SQN only has limiters on the output. Isn't it true that the faders on the SQN adjust the gain at the same time as the fader level, thus helping to prevent overloading? That system, not needing a separate gain knob, always seemed like a novel idea to me. Or do they just not have gain settings?

I'm not trying to bite Mr. Foy's head off, but his responses had attitude attached. A simple explanation would have sufficed.

I have to say that until Nomad V4.0 firmware comes out the "limiters" on card tracks and outputs are really just compressors - 4:1 ratio max. If you set the threshold too close to 0dBFS you can easily experience clipping. V4.0 will bring 20:1 ratios to all limiters. Of course, the newly mentioned Neverclip ISOs will make ISO card track limiters unnecessary.

In my experience with SD limiters, the 442 had decent ones. When I fed the 744t from the output of the 442 I always thought I would get a slight bit of clipping every now and then. I wasn't sure if the 744t was just showing the red light if the signal was within 3 db of full scale, or if the signal actually clipped. It's nice having one box and not having to think about mating devices.

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are slightly misinterpreting Mr Foy here. It's my fault perhaps for bringing up my SQN in association with Rofins post which discussed the dynamic range of that particular mixer in relation to Nomad and Neverclip. SQN's have no input limiters - only output and non adjustable at that. In my personal opinion these are incredibly transparent and barely effect the sound at all when used judiciously (hence the 'riding the limiters all day long' comment, something I'm happy to do on an SQN, but not on a 552) but are great to have to protect from overload. Combined with the great dynamic range of the SQN you have a device that is hard to clip. Unless recording a specific sound effect I NEVER take these limiters off.

Without using the input limiters, but with output and card limiters engaged I have had a couple occasions of what sounded very much like a clipped output signal on my Nomad. In the rough and tumble of the shooting day I didn't have a chance to check back off camera. In this case either 'Neverclip', or the Nomad limiters/limiter settings are not protecting my output as well as my old SQN. This could be operator error, but I get what Steve is saying when he suggests that there are limiters and limiters. This is not meant to dispute any of the fantastic technology Glenn has put into Nomad, but has merely been something I've experienced.

+1 Well put, thank you J1mbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not trying to bite Mr. Foy's head off, but his responses had attitude attached. A simple explanation would have sufficed."

Gee Mark, who made you the 'attitude police' ?

"If you have anything else to say about limiters, make your point clear. No one will appreciate your arrogant responses."

Wow, talk about pot kettle black !

Just to make it crystal clear, I wasn't trying to offend anyone and as I stated up front, "I don't wish to in anyway demean 'NeverClip' technology" but I make no apology for challenging what appeared to me and others here (Rofin, Wyatt Tuzo, macrecorder, Armin Siegwarth, karl191, soundslikejustin and J1mbo) as a conveniently unfair comparison.

I must say I am really at a complete loss as to how anyone could misinterpret my comments as suggesting that "a limited signal sounds better than an unlimited signal" or that "I like the sound of limiting" let alone that I was somehow "insinuating that users here are ignorant of the benefits and operation of limiters" when essentially all I said was "that it should be noted that there are enormous variations in results based on the limiter in use and how it was used."

Anyway, at the risk of sounding arrogant and attaching attitude, it appears that a few people here allow their emotional attachment to a particular piece of equipment or technology overrule the objective analysis section of their brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, at the risk of sounding arrogant and attaching attitude, it appears that a few people here allow their emotional attachment to a particular piece of equipment or technology overrule the objective analysis section of their brain.

I would add that some likely let their personal financial investment in a particular piece of gear overrule the objective analysis section of their brain. I suspect we're seeing some of that in this thread.

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...