Jump to content

NeverClip... in simple pictures


soundslikejustin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Never seen anybody record classical music with Zaxcom.

 

Nicolas Bartholomée, one of the most important person in classical music recording using Deva V.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Nicolas+Bartholom%C3%A9e

 

Their website, Little Tribeca :

http://www.littletribeca.com/

Go to English - Service - Studio & Equipment

 

Sure, Deva's pre are not the same as Nomad, but I understand that the quality of Zaxcom's pre are suitable for classical recording.

 

At least here in Europe, there's several classical recordings made by Cantar, Nagra VI, or Sonosax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicolas Bartholomée, one of the most important person in classical music recording using Deva V.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Nicolas+Bartholom%C3%A9e

 

Their website, Little Tribeca :

http://www.littletribeca.com/

Go to English - Service - Studio & Equipment

 

Sure, Deva's pre are not the same as Nomad, but I understand that the quality of Zaxcom's pre are suitable for classical recording.

 

At least here in Europe, there's several classical recordings made by Cantar, Nagra VI, or Sonosax.

 

Interesting thanks -

10 'analogical' tracks at 192K is this possible on a Deva?

But no analogical Neverclip on a Deva/Fusion.......

post-2842-0-69879500-1381064468_thumb.jp

post-2842-0-69879500-1381064468_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

I have a couple of questions about NeverClip.

 

  1. Can a NC input accept a greater analog input signal than a non-NC input? In other words, does it have a greater maximum input voltage limit compared to a non-NC input?
  2. Regarding the additional 20db of gain, as wouldn't that raise the entire signal including noise? Furthermore, wouldn't applying compression or attenuation an output or card track simply negate the added 20db of noise?

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mark: " I have a couple of questions about NeverClip. "

this is feeling like Deja-Vu, and the (several) discussions are being complicated and getting confusing with speculative, less than completely accurate diagrams of what folks think they may have figured out...

Mark, if I may be so bold as to suggest you ask the questions directly to Glenn, Howy, (or perhaps Jack), so you may interactively discuss your issues, and see if you can satisfy your quest for precise answers, as they are going to be your best possibilitye to get accurate information and correct answers.

 

and, in the end, you will also be wise to find a means to experience, and compare NeverClip for yourself, in real life....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple of questions about NeverClip.

 

  1. Can a NC input accept a greater analog input signal than a non-NC input? In other words, does it have a greater maximum input voltage limit compared to a non-NC input?
  2. Regarding the additional 20db of gain, as wouldn't that raise the entire signal including noise? Furthermore, wouldn't applying compression or attenuation an output or card track simply negate the added 20db of noise?

Mark O.

 

  1.  In some way, yes. You can conect an analog signal 20 dB higher than with a normal input, The reason  for call it never clip is for, at common pre amp setings, and with high acoustic level sound, the output  of a microphone will distort before the input of the recorder reach its maximum capacity. So the input will "never clip".

   But this is a tricky theme if you dont understand the way never clip works.  In reality, the converters receive the same "normal" maximum voltage level, they can not convert voltages over the normal 0 dBFS. The essential is to have diferent gain settings before the converters. The amount of difference is what specifies the maximun extra headroom that you can add. The  converter in the low path ( with a lower pre amp gain) is what make posible to add into the digital domain the signal portion of the higher than 0 dBFS voltage that the microphone outputs.

 

  2. to the first,yes, but only for the loudest part of the signal, so the noise is totaly masked and inaudible. This is somehow tricky too. in reality what makes the  low path (low gain) noisier is the normal theory. You are recording this signal with a sub amplification of 20 dB so the signal gets recorded 20 dB nearer the noise level compared to that of  the high path converter. this under level recording is used to restore the cliped portions in the high level path, To reconstruct the cliped parts the low level signal needs to be digitaly amplified to match the level of the high level signal (raising the signal level and the recorded noise level), then, the clipped sections (loudest audio segments) reconstructed with the low level signal has 20 dB more noise, but this is into the digital realm.  Once you atenuate the signal, the loudest part`s noise go down to the normal level, but the noise of the parts with a sound level under the normal clip level go down 20 dB lower than the normal noise  level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In some way, yes. You can conect an analog signal 20 dB higher than with a normal input, The reason for call it never clip is for, at common pre amp setings, and with high acoustic level sound, the output of a microphone will distort before the input of the recorder reach its maximum capacity. So the input will "never clip".

i don't know, this doesn't sound right. There is still the preamp to be considered. There is no reason why it should be able to accept 20dB more than other preamps. And 20dB of what? Spl? There is no reference.

I always thought of the advantages of NeverClip to be in the quiet part of audio. Any good preamp and a-d converter is capable of handling loud sounds well. The quality differences come into play with very quiet sounds. So I would be impressed if NeverClip inputs could handle sounds well that are 20dB quieter than other inputs could handle.

The related advantage of NeverClip is that when you have gained the input to record a quiet scene, but then suddenly an actor starts to scream or whatever, there is enough headroom to not clip the signal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, If my conclusions are the real deal, the tecnological advancement of never clip is making the process automatic. The use of 2 converters with diferent preamp level setings is a common practice in Live event recordings .

this is not actually true. I mean, it is true, but there is no technological advancement on the part of Zaxcom, except for putting the technology into one of "out" recorders.

Digital gain ranging is a pretty common technology, and has existed many years before NeverClip. For example, the Neumann digital microphone range has been using this since their inception, which was in 2006 or 7 or even earlier. also the StageTech TrueMatch converter (as mentioned in the sampling rates thread) uses pretty much the same technology, but it forgos the preamp stage and instead has 4 a-d converters, working in a similar way to the Zaxcom way. The TrueMatch doesn't need the preamp (as StageTech claims) because it can convert the entire dynamic range of almost any mic, as its own noise floor is lower than that of microphones. They claim a dynamic range of 153dB with 28bits.

That is true NeverClip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know, this doesn't sound right. There is still the preamp to be considered. There is no reason why it should be able to accept 20dB more than other preamps. And 20dB of what? Spl? There is no reference.

I always thought of the advantages of NeverClip to be in the quiet part of audio. Any good preamp and a-d converter is capable of handling loud sounds well. The quality differences come into play with very quiet sounds. So I would be impressed if NeverClip inputs could handle sounds well that are 20dB quieter than other inputs could handle.

The related advantage of NeverClip is that when you have gained the input to record a quiet scene, but then suddenly an actor starts to scream or whatever, there is enough headroom to not clip the signal

I asked Glenn if the preamp of a NC transmitter has a greater input voltage capability, and he said it does not. So the preamps on the NC and non-NC transmitters are probably a very similar or the same design.

 

If both AD converters use the same preamp, how could using two converters improve the noise floor? Isn't the noise floor determined by the quality of the preamp?

 

I think two separate preamps feeding two separate AD converters would be necessary to gain an improvement in noise floor. I asked Glenn if there was two preamps and all he could/would say is, "the same input is connected to two different inputs with a difference of at least 20dB". He noted his pending patent.

 

Until the patent is issued this is all speculation and good techie talk.

 

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're listening to an input, and it goes into the range above what the outputs can handle (the headphone amp included) it will sound distorted.

If you're listening to an output, it is as you've always listened.

If you're listening to an ISO with attenuation then yes, it will sound softer than your outputs and inputs.

Without ISO attenuation, listening to inputs and tracks (assuming they are pre-fader) will be the same.

 

Neverclip sold me on Nomad, and for my purposes, I wouldn't roll without using ISO attenuation because of the advantages of avoiding limiter distortion. Even then, I still engage card track limiters as a safety net.

 

However, in order to monitor I have to route my HP to neverclip card tracks and crank the headphone amp to compensate (not a fan of this method)

 

Alternatively, I route my analogue inputs directly to my output busses and monitor them which allows me to better hear what the ambient noise will sound like when the levels are brought back up in post. I prefer monitoring this way since I'm often hopping a non-attenuated signal to camera for scratch.

 

The problem with monitoring outputs instead of neverclip tracks is when you play back a take, the card tracks do not route themselves to the output bus. I'd love an option to do this because the headphone selection, while robust, is one of the clumsiest parts of Nomad's UI and it's a pain to keep switching back and forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Glenn if the preamp of a NC transmitter has a greater input voltage capability, and he said it does not. So the preamps on the NC and non-NC transmitters are probably a very similar or the same design.

 

If both AD converters use the same preamp, how could using two converters improve the noise floor? Isn't the noise floor determined by the quality of the preamp?

 

I think two separate preamps feeding two separate AD converters would be necessary to gain an improvement in noise floor. I asked Glenn if there was two preamps and all he could/would say is, "the same input is connected to two different inputs with a difference of at least 20dB". He noted his pending patent.

 

Until the patent is issued this is all speculation and good techie talk.

 

Mark O.

modern mic preamps can acept at least 24 dBu of input voltage, about  17 Volts of amplitud,  that is more than any microphone can output without distort, so it is not necesary a new preamp.

 

 "...two different inputs with a difference of at least 20dB"

 

 Wow, that confirms my assumption :),

 

regarding the noise, it seems that you are confused, the noise have two components,

 

1- the noise added by all the analog electronic components before the cuantizer. that includes the preamp and the external analog circuitry necesary to setup the converter chip. The noise floor for a very good preamp at minimum gain seting is about  -130dB of it`s maximun input level without distortion.

 

2- the cuantizing noise. this have 2 parts:

      a) error in the measurement of the sampled signal cause the 24 bit scale can not  represent all the posible values. The       measurements need to be rounded. This noise is mathematicaly calculable and is at -144dB, 

     b ) the induced error in the cuantization produced by the real/non perfect components, and the timing errors in the previous sampling stage, like the jitter.

     

so all this ends with a noise floor about -117 dBFS in the final product.

and never clip adds 20 dB of headroom . That ends with 117+20=137 dB of dinamic range.

 

 

Now, you only need to put a -20dB atenuator before the low converter to make the 20 dB diference, as I said before, and  your diagram  will be correct   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know, this doesn't sound right. There is still the preamp to be consider

ed. There is no reason why it should be able to accept 20dB more than other preamps. And 20dB of what? Spl? There is no reference.

I always thought of the advantages of NeverClip to be in the quiet part of audio. Any good preamp and a-d converter is capable of handling loud sounds well. The quality differences come into play with very quiet sounds. So I would be impressed if NeverClip inputs could handle sounds well that are 20dB quieter than other inputs could handle.

The related advantage of NeverClip is that when you have gained the input to record a quiet scene, but then suddenly an actor starts to scream or whatever, there is enough headroom to not clip the signal

lot of confussion, it seems you dont understand my posts. I suppose it is because you lack the necesary knowledge, sorry, I am not intending to be rude.

 

"I always thought of the advantages of NeverClip to be in the quiet part of audio.."

 

"The related advantage of NeverClip is that when you have gained the input to record a quiet scene, but then suddenly an actor starts to scream or whatever, there is enough headroom to not clip the signal"

 

My posts explain exacly  this topics, I have been accepting and I have been promoting this same caracteristics of never clip. and I have been trying to explain how this is posible. My explanation works, because it have been working for years with  some extra manual work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is not actually true. I mean, it is true, but there is no technological advancement on the part of Zaxcom, except for putting the technology into one of "out" recorders.

Digital gain ranging is a pretty common technology, and has existed many years before NeverClip. For example, the Neumann digital microphone range has been using this since their inception, which was in 2006 or 7 or even earlier. also the StageTech TrueMatch converter (as mentioned in the sampling rates thread) uses pretty much the same technology, but it forgos the preamp stage and instead has 4 a-d converters, working in a similar way to the Zaxcom way. The TrueMatch doesn't need the preamp (as StageTech claims) because it can convert the entire dynamic range of almost any mic, as its own noise floor is lower than that of microphones. They claim a dynamic range of 153dB with 28bits.

That is true NeverClip.

Digital gain is only a multiplication operation, I would not call it a technology.  This post have lot of confussion, mixing diferent and unrelated cases.  Sorry, I can not give you an answer to that.

 

 

153 dB of dinamic range is by faaaaaaar more dinamic range than any microphone will have ever. 

 

regarding the input voltage of the never clip inputs, there is a video  where Glenn S. says: " ...the microphone output wil distort before the input of the recorder..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital gain is only a multiplication operation, I would not call it a technology. This post have lot of confussion, mixing diferent and unrelated cases. Sorry, I can not give you an answer to that.

that's fine, I didn't actually ask anything.

Nevertheless, the Neumann digital mics, the StageTech TrueMatch and Zaxcom's NeverClip are all very much related as they all contain more than one a-d converter per input and they all employ a gain ranging system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i apologize to you, ill try to write more carefully, I readed to quick and mixed some things in my response.

 

  I got into this thread because some people didnt bilieve that never clip was capable of doing what it states. I have explained a way of  obtain the same results.(I believe that it is the same methot that neverclip is using), All the known information at this moment   agree with my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.The problem with monitoring outputs instead of neverclip tracks is when you play back a take, the card tracks do not route themselves to the output bus. I'd love an option to do this because the headphone selection, while robust, is one of the clumsiest parts of Nomad's UI and it's a pain to keep switching back and forth.

Doug that already exists. All you need to do is create a HP matrix and call it label it as "PLAY". Then when you hit play Nomad will automatically switch the headphones to the "PLAY" matrix - when you hit stop nomad will then automatically jump back to the HP matrax you were at previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug that already exists. All you need to do is create a HP matrix and call it label it as "PLAY". Then when you hit play Nomad will automatically switch the headphones to the "PLAY" matrix - when you hit stop nomad will then automatically jump back to the HP matrax you were at previously.

I just saw that in the NomadReleaseNotes.txt. It was added in version 6.15.

 

i apologize to you, ill try to write more carefully, I readed to quick and mixed some things in my response.

 

  I got into this thread because some people didnt bilieve that never clip was capable of doing what it states. I have explained a way of  obtain the same results.(I believe that it is the same methot that neverclip is using), All the known information at this moment   agree with my theory.

I should be clear that I don't doubt that NeverClip does what it's name implies. I just have a strong aversion to using things I don't understand. My understanding is becoming clearer, though.

 

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is becoming clearer, though.

 

Mark O.

 

I wish I could say the same. I think I've read everything on this board and on the Zaxcom site regarding Neverclip and I still don't get it, so I also don't use it. I've come to the conclusion that I have a genetic malformation which prevents me from understand this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could say the same. I think I've read everything on this board and on the Zaxcom site regarding Neverclip and I still don't get it, so I also don't use it. I've come to the conclusion that I have a genetic malformation which prevents me from understand this thing.

If you're using a Zaxcom recorder or Zaxcom wireless with NeverClip then you ARE using it whether you understand it or not. I'm pretty sure it isn't a feature you can turn off --- it is the way the preamp > A to D converters work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mark O: " So the preamps on the NC and non-NC transmitters are probably a very similar or the same design. "

I don't buy the cause and effect implied.... it is a separate, different question (for Glenn)...

 

all these diagrams of what individuals either think, or wish NeverClip is are pretty much guesses, and until the patent information is available, this will all be just daydreaming...

 

All this speculative arguing about something that you are either using, or not using; if you are using it, and it provides satisfactory results, why are so many folks so intent upon nit-picking it apart..? If you are considering equipment with, or without this technology, all this techno-babble really doesn't make any significant difference, as none of this says, or really even implies that NeverClip does not work properly, or causes any negative sonic issues.

 

How many of us care, or even notice that the gas pedal on our vehicles no longer actually directly control the flow of fuel into the engines as they used to..?  just as always, the gas pedal works, and, in fact it is working better than it did the old way!

 

mark O: " I just have a strong aversion to using things I don't understand. "

Andre: " I still don't get it, so I also don't use it. "

that's not logical, it is dumb...

I don't quite get GPS, but it works, and I use it...

do you actually understand what an FET is and how it works ??

do you actually understand, and get, delta-sigma conversion ??  dithering ?? aliasing ?? superhetrodyne receivers ?

do you understand catalytic converters..? 

have you tried NeverClip, and found that it didn't work ??  as many folks use it daily, with no problems or complaints, it would seem that there isn't much, if any, risk in trying it...

Edited by studiomprd
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...