Nomad additional 8 rotary fader option

[RadoStefanov]

Bash, it is called smaller liter nomad.

[Tom Visser]

Fader is a hard pan left or right. Switchover at 12 o'clock position?

But yeah, I can see where this would be difficult. What happens to centre panning. How would the fader stay in position etc etc.

*deep sigh*

The removal of pan, PFL and LF roll off hardware controls is the one design decision on Nomad I can never truly get behind.

 

I agree - add input trim to that list for me, basically, I need to operate my mixer without the LCD screen present.

[VASI]

After the Nomad we like to have smaller mixer/recorder. Zaxcom introduce Maxx. 4 channel input, 6 track recorder. Then "we need two extra faders for Maxx"..

 

SWEET

 

[James Arnold]

My greatest wishes for the Fader Pack all surround button presses on the new module over-riding whatever the current state of the Nomad is.

For instance: REC and STOP will do just that, whether you're in a menu or not. Pressing the PAN button will take you to the pan screen regardless of which Home view you're looking at. And that the Extra Function key can INSTANTLY call up any setting you want, and not be over-ridden by the fact that you're in some menu or routing page when you need to make a change (essentially: no more hitting back repeatedly).

And yes, I think it would be really cool if somehow faders could be re-assigned for panning. Perhaps the fader range is divided in thirds--Left third=Pan L, Right third=Pan R, Center third=Pan C. This would make me a really happy sound mixer.

e.

I concur. Maybe we will see some of this stuff.

[James Arnold]

I agree - add input trim to that list for me, basically, I need to operate my mixer without the LCD screen present.

I imagine that out of all our moaning requests this is the most likely. I'm going to guess that the top faders will be assignable to input trim and Zaxnet etc.

" why it won't glue to the bottom "

because...

Where is the 'ignore' button again?

[macrecorder]

James, go to your 'ignore' preferences in your account, add said troll, and zap, gone from threads.

[James Arnold]

James, go to your 'ignore' preferences in your account, add said troll, and zap, gone from threads.

I wasn't exactly serious, but thanks. I'd still rather have The Senator on hand, even if he is insisting on behaving like an ass(hat).

[soundslikejustin]

Fader is a hard pan left or right. Switchover at 12 o'clock position?

But yeah, I can see where this would be difficult. What happens to centre panning. How would the fader stay in position etc etc.

*deep sigh*

The removal of pan, PFL and LF roll off hardware controls is the one design decision on Nomad I can never truly get behind.

This idea (as well as the left-third, centre-third, right-third idea later in the thread) means the knob would have to permanantly be a panner. Otherwise, your fader could be say at unity, go into pan mode, turn to the left, come out of pan mode and your fader is suddenly at -40 OR it would mean you couldn't fade the input down...

I think using the knobs as Zaxnet trim is great, though.

[Rob Lewis]

The REAL question is how much more ridiculous can requests for this many channels get, how far can we take a machine that sits in a bag.  Manufacturers are answering the call to out of control production requests.  We are not mixers anymore, we are warm bodies that hit the red button.  Thats all production wants anymore!  Am I wrong here?

[Solid Goldberger]

10 Wireless x $75/day = $750 rental.

They can call me a Sound PA as long as the check clears.

E.

[James Arnold]

This idea (as well as the left-third, centre-third, right-third idea later in the thread) means the knob would have to permanantly be a panner. Otherwise, your fader could be say at unity, go into pan mode, turn to the left, come out of pan mode and your fader is suddenly at -40 OR it would mean you couldn't fade the input down...

I think using the knobs as Zaxnet trim is great, though.

I was thinking more along the lines of assigning a fader to be a pan knob in the same way that you can currently assign faders to be trim control or Zaxnet control. Not switching between modes during use.

I can still foresee problems with how that might work physically though.

[fieldmixer]

If the knobs were specifically menu allocated for panning, wouldn't soft pan be possible? I have to say as much as I love nomad, being unable to "soft pan", especially when mixing music, which I have been doing often the past few years, severely limits the artfulness of my mix. Could Howy/Glenn confirm or deny the likelihood of this? Many thanks.

[johnpaul215]

Why are people still panning so much, especially when running a recorder? I understand boom/lav on an interview, or with just a mixer, otherwise mix. When ONE person has to record 12 wireless mics, they can apply the saved money to pick through ISO tracks instead of us using some hairbrained logic how to mix and pan a dozen mics and boom with actually booming..... And also make sure that mono mix sounds good for IFB.

[fieldmixer]

Personally working on any tv show that has a musical Instrument component, I want to make a good sounding stereo mix. Panning is important in those cases. If my mix sounds awesome and needs not get posted it gets noticed. That is one reason why.

[James Arnold]

Why are people still panning so much, especially when running a recorder? I understand boom/lav on an interview, or with just a mixer, otherwise mix. When ONE person has to record 12 wireless mics, they can apply the saved money to pick through ISO tracks instead of us using some hairbrained logic how to mix and pan a dozen mics and boom with actually booming..... And also make sure that mono mix sounds good for IFB.

I'm not sure what shows you work on JohnPaul, but the average TV show here may involve multiple Lavs and/or a boom. No recorder (at least not paid for). Being able to choose how and when to pan 4 lavs in a mix is standard stuff. By no means impossible on Nomad, but as with LF roll off and PFL it's all harder than it was on older mixers - personal opinion of course. Although I'M RIGHT ; )

[TimPitot]

Quoting soundslikejustin: "Shut up, Mike. I'm not unhappy or displeased (I don't even own a Nomad)"

Why are you so concerned, for others (since you don't own a Nomad) to start re-designing something which isn't even available yet on a recorder you don't use, etc., etc. Are you just trying to "help" Zaxcom design this stuff?

It would be like me wanting to know why Sound Devices put the meters and display on the right side when I think it would be better for me on the SD 664 I don't own and don't use.

Ummmm, what?

[Tom Visser]

Why are people still panning so much, especially when running a recorder? I understand boom/lav on an interview, or with just a mixer, otherwise mix. When ONE person has to record 12 wireless mics, they can apply the saved money to pick through ISO tracks instead of us using some hairbrained logic how to mix and pan a dozen mics and boom with actually booming..... And also make sure that mono mix sounds good for IFB.

 

Panning has really evolved to the modern version of buss assignment.  L and R busses.  Watch some TV, you never have 12 people speaking simultaneously.  The majority of edited TV is 1 or 2 shots.  I feel mixing is still as relevant now as it ever was.  I don't mind if we move past the pan pot or pan switch paradigm.  I really like PSC's Alexis's way of approaching mix busses with each channel give 4 individual buss assign switches.  Sure the ISO recording is a great asset for post to go in and make surgical adjustments, but I feel that as an industry and as a trade, we sometimes assume that our backup ISO are more useful than they really are, especially on rapid fire shows with quick post cycles and limited budgets.

[johnpaul215]

Respectfully, this is about panning on a Nomad that IS a multi track recorder, not my 442. If you're not using a Nomad, then this argument doesn't apply to that job.

When mixing dialog to one track, that's what will eventually be used on TV in most cases (dialog center channel). On those jobs, I mix for what the camera "sees", but the discreet ISO recording is there in case something great happens (or I mess up).

The idea of reality shoots where you have a multitrack recorder, but put boom on one camera channel and 3 lavs on another is silly. Post is still going to have to do some work on the audio anyway. When I mix a film, I do a mono dialog mix and most of that is what ends up in the final product.

If I was asked for something specific, I would do it, but many projects dig into the ISO files now, and probably still use 2 channel camera hops out of habit. On some doc/reality shows, I feel like I am mixing for IFB and reference audio because I know they take the time to pick through everything.

[fieldmixer]

Ok so back to "soft panning". Not many would argue, well, maybe one person, that soft panning availability is an important asset to mixers and mixer/recorders. With the upcoming addition of a fader panel, The potential for the added faders to act as full function pan pots might be there. My original post was to take a pulse and hear back from the manufacture. I do my fair share of multi tracking reality, but also music docs and recording music. Soft panning is something sorely missed in the nomad. if that function were made available I would buy the expander pack for that alone. Anyone else with me on this?

+1's are duly noted by zaxcom.

[Wandering Ear]

Personally i have no need for soft panning in the nomad. What i need is an efficient way to change my input to output routing. None of the "panning" i do in the field has a stereo relationship, but are actually discrete mono tracks.

[soundslikejustin]

Personally i have no need for soft panning in the nomad. What i need is an efficient way to change my input to output routing. None of the "panning" i do in the field has a stereo relationship, but are actually discrete mono tracks.

So, what if you could use one of these extra knobs as a bus selector (kind of like the fader-flip effects mode on a lot of DAW controllers) where you turn the knob between different outputs (like panning, but the range is broken into 6 sections instead of 2)?

Essentially a shortcut to the output matrix, controlled via a rotary encoder.

Maybe this is how the ENG panning (whatever it's called) screen could work - instead of panning between a stereo pair (LCR), it could swap between all output busses (1-6)?

[Tom Visser]

I think most all of us are actually talking about routing… but even a pan pot, does have the distinct advantage that you can make dynamic on the fly buss assignments and make it a gradual, less noticeable change in the matrix due to the variable nature of the pan pot vs pan switch or menu matrix selection.

[Wandering Ear]

So, what if you could use one of these extra knobs as a bus selector (kind of like the fader-flip effects mode on a lot of DAW controllers) where you turn the knob between different outputs (like panning, but the range is broken into 6 sections instead of 2)?

Essentially a shortcut to the output matrix, controlled via a rotary encoder.

Maybe this is how the ENG panning (whatever it's called) screen could work - instead of panning between a stereo pair (LCR), it could swap between all output busses (1-6)?

I'm not against the idea, but i don't use all 6 output busses this way. It also could get confusing what output you are routed too, and it'd be impossible to do combinations. Also, i really like the pan copy option. I use out 6 for coms routing.

I might use an lcr option if it was available. Usually when I'm changing routing this quickly, i am only feeding 2 channels to a camera or 2.

[Mark Orusa]

Although I don't have the need for panning either, I don't see the harm in having it as an option. I think the ability to assign these additional rotary knobs as panners is a good idea. And why not variable, "soft" panners?

 

Mark O.

[Olle Sjostrom]

To me, the biggest con against using the faders as pan is that then this fader extension thing doesn't solve the problem of virtual faders... there's 10 inputs but only six faders, now extended by 8, but those extra faders are now assigned as pan knobs so now I have to mix virtually anyway? And still there are pan knobs missing for two channels. Does not compute to me. And I agree with johnpaul that panning that many inputs is a bit redundant. I'd just be panning center and mixing mono anyway..