Zaxcom Maxx - Here's the latest

[pindrop]

The gain is available with the trim knobs.

You just need to turn it on in the advanced menu. This gives you the option of turning it off if you don't need it.

OK but the trim has a limited fixed range from min to max, and by increasing the maximum gain by 10db it also increases the minimum gain by 10db so for example it was a quite awkward for me when filming normal dialogue and presenter on military parades with marching bands, and religious ceremonies with drums recently, as I'd get caught out by the gain range of the trim being too limited to accommodate the dynamic range I was presented with comfortably. I sometimes ended up scrambling to loose the extra 10db with a menu 4 deep. What I was getting at in my earlier post was whether the +10db could be incorporated in to the range of the trim rather than being turned on in one step by a menu choice several layers deep. Something similar I imagine to the transition from optical to digital zoom on many cameras.

[Constantin]

But isn't this highly dynamic material exactly what NeverClip was intended for? What's the point if you're still fiddling the gain like mad? I thought this was a thing of the past with NeverClip

Aside from sending your mixes to camera or into a broadcast system, when you're importing the recordings from Maxx into an editing station and apply the gain there, would that not work?

[pindrop]

But isn't this highly dynamic material exactly what NeverClip was intended for? What's the point if you're still fiddling the gain like mad? I thought this was a thing of the past with NeverClip

Aside from sending your mixes to camera or into a broadcast system, when you're importing the recordings from Maxx into an editing station and apply the gain there, would that not work?

Maybe but I'm not using Neverclip. I don't feel I can ask a production company, the edit, or post production to increase their workload to achieve something unless I understand pretty thoroughly how it works myself. I haven't as yet, come across an explanation that makes me feel I do understand it well enough. I have some understanding of it's component parts but not entirely how it all fits together and importantly how I can or should work with it in a practical way, and the manual is very minimal to say the least.

Otherwise I'm just going to get questions about why my iso's are generally so low which I can't convincingly (even to myself) answer. One could easily come unstuck attempting to bluster through in a technospeak kind of way.

There's the extended dynamic range of two AtoDs combined, there's the use of the least significant bits of 24 bit and there's iso attenuation. But the trims nevertheless affect the level of the iso's but are not necessary to them but are determined by the requirements of the mix output? There are input limiters but they're not necessary as the dual AtoD's are always working giving 137db of dynamic range? Is the use of the LSB's switched on by turning iso attenuation on? There's also a choice to be made about what degree of iso attenuation to use?

I'm due to do some testing soon and I'll see if I can arrive at a better understanding of the theory and practice.

[fieldmixer]

Good questions.

[Olle Sjostrom]

I wouldn't really call it an increase in workload to ask post to add 10dB to the clips, so you can guarantee there's NO clipping in production. It's a simple batch processing thing, probably a lot faster than syncing with timecode.

I don't own a maxx or nomad, but just by reading all the threads I can understand that gain and metering works a little bit differently, just so Neverclip does its thing. And why one wouldn't want to use neverclip... I dunno.

[Constantin]

Yes, but it can be difficult, when post gets back to you inquiring about low levels, to explain it all to them. I agree, it's not that much work for them and they have to do some gain matching anyway, but I wouldn't feel all that good if they asked me why my recordings are all so quiet.

Also, many times the post personnel isn't even known while shooting so I'd have no way to explain anything to them. Instead they may get back to production or even the director complaining about the low levels, and I won't get hired again.

[pindrop]

I wouldn't really call it an increase in workload to ask post to add 10dB to the clips, so you can guarantee there's NO clipping in production. It's a simple batch processing thing, probably a lot faster than syncing with timecode.

I don't own a maxx or nomad, but just by reading all the threads I can understand that gain and metering works a little bit differently, just so Neverclip does its thing. And why one wouldn't want to use neverclip... I dunno.

As I understand it it's not necessarily a fixed batch increase in gain that would be wanted because it depends on the extent to which Neverclip has been hit, so to speak.

Let's say you've selected 12db of iso attentuation and there are particularly hot levels for a short period of time with a +10db of increase in unexpected level, then the iso level may be -2db so you wouldn't want to batch apply +12db of gain to it.

If it's a batch operation then it would need to be a kind of batch normalization, that could reduce the dynamic range that would otherwise be there.

Zaxcom in a way kind of spans two worlds, one of drama productions and one of ENG (documentary) for want of a better term, and it's great on a high end drama where there's a budget and time to spend on individually trimming everything, but with ENG I feel I need to be careful about delivering something that there's not the time or resources available to deal with.

Of course Neverclip 'never clipping' is desirable but I feel I've got to be very clear about what I'm delivering and how best to handle it.

[macrecorder]

I think this is a very pertinent question: what do the people who hire us actually expect us to deliver? In the fast-moving world of television, outside of major drama, the answer is invariably -  nicely mixed 2 track audio, often as not on the camera, and one which will  be as close as possible to broadcastable standards. Over the years, since iso's became the norm, in addition to a mix, I have made a point of enquiring afterwards whether they went back to the iso's at any point. The answer has always been no, and if so only in the event of a major glitch. Even when I have advised post that they should use the iso's in a particular situation because I knew the mix was unsatisfactory, I can tell on broadcast that they have just used the mix. So do you really think that in this kind of workflow they will go back to the iso's because you tell them that they might have to do a little work, but there is no limiting on the iso's and so they are much better than the mix you supplied? Really? You're telling the producer, as far as she/he is concerned, that you don't rate your mix, and they will have to do a lot of post on your work? Good luck with that and your future employment prospects. They may well retort that they are paying you to supply a useable mix, with iso's as backup, and not the other way round. And they may be right.

 

So where should we focus our energies - on recording beautiful, unlimited iso tracks, or putting all our effort into a good mix which may have occasional compression/limiting (it's going to be compressed on broadcast anyway)? Obviously both is the answer, where possible, but I do find that my overriding priority is the mix, and the whole debate about neverclip and iso attenuation doesn't really apply significantly here. Good recording will occasionally need limiters, I don't actually have a problem with that, we have been doing it for years. I do think we all record too hot anyway, and could easily back off and give ourselves more headroom, without any significant penalty. That is one of the advantages of 24 bit recording, and will decrease the amount of limiting enormously. As for those unexpected situations - well, one of our skillsets is dealing with that, now we have another tool, but it's not the only one in the toolbox, others have served us well over the years. Deciding whether to use that tool, and how the end product will take advantage of it isn't just a recording decision, it is far more likely a workflow decision, one affected almost entirely by the production budget and timeframe. A little limiting, or more work for post - which do you think the producer would choose?

[pampasound]

Great points everybody!...I'm really enjoying this discussion, very realistic views on the subject.

[pindrop]

I think this is a very pertinent question: what do the people who hire us actually expect us to deliver? In the fast-moving world of television, outside of major drama, the answer is invariably -  nicely mixed 2 track audio, often as not on the camera, and one which will  be as close as possible to broadcastable standards. Over the years, since iso's became the norm, in addition to a mix, I have made a point of enquiring afterwards whether they went back to the iso's at any point. The answer has always been no, and if so only in the event of a major glitch. Even when I have advised post that they should use the iso's in a particular situation because I knew the mix was unsatisfactory, I can tell on broadcast that they have just used the mix. So do you really think that in this kind of workflow they will go back to the iso's because you tell them that they might have to do a little work, but there is no limiting on the iso's and so they are much better than the mix you supplied? Really? You're telling the producer, as far as she/he is concerned, that you don't rate your mix, and they will have to do a lot of post on your work? Good luck with that and your future employment prospects. They may well retort that they are paying you to supply a useable mix, with iso's as backup, and not the other way round. And they may be right.

 

So where should we focus our energies - on recording beautiful, unlimited iso tracks, or putting all our effort into a good mix which may have occasional compression/limiting (it's going to be compressed on broadcast anyway)? Obviously both is the answer, where possible, but I do find that my overriding priority is the mix, and the whole debate about neverclip and iso attenuation doesn't really apply significantly here. Good recording will occasionally need limiters, I don't actually have a problem with that, we have been doing it for years. I do think we all record too hot anyway, and could easily back off and give ourselves more headroom, without any significant penalty. That is one of the advantages of 24 bit recording, and will decrease the amount of limiting enormously. As for those unexpected situations - well, one of our skillsets is dealing with that, now we have another tool, but it's not the only one in the toolbox, others have served us well over the years. Deciding whether to use that tool, and how the end product will take advantage of it isn't just a recording decision, it is far more likely a workflow decision, one affected almost entirely by the production budget and timeframe. A little limiting, or more work for post - which do you think the producer would choose?

Nail on the head

[Derek H]

These are valid points. Some smaller production companies barely know what to do with double system sound, there's no way they can be expected to do anything meaningful with something as mysterious as "gain".

If I were a Maxx or Nomad user I doubt I would mention anything about neverclip to anyone at that level of production. With some (many) production companies it would only cause confusion and doubt. I would prefer to just deliver good audio with mix tracks at a normal level and if they end up having to boost an occasional iso track I can't imagine it would be a problem if the end result is good sound for their project.

[Wandering Ear]

I agree with many that we have to mix and record to the needs of the job, which vary drastically. However, there is a lot of talk about "asking post to do more work". We are talking about adding gain, which is no big deal! it's not blanketly or uniformly, it's where needed. Loud sections will peak where they should, without distortion, and quiet sections may be a little quieter than sometimes, but using attenuation doesn't mean your levels are in the dust. The amount of attenuation is also adjustable.

Iso attenuation is a great tool to help us deal with high dynamic range content, but it is just a tool, like many others we use.

If you haven't already, i would encourage everyone thinking about this to try it out, then bring the files into pro tools, or any daw / editor and play with them. You may be pleasantly surprised, and realize you are not creating a headache for the editors.

At the end of the day, use whatever tool you think is best to deliver the best quality sound you can. I prefer iso attenuation to heavy limiting, but to each his own.

[glenn]

 "So do you really think that in this kind of workflow they will go back to the iso's because you tell them that they might have to do a little work, but there is no limiting on the iso's and so they are much better than the mix you supplied? Really? You're telling the producer, as far as she/he is concerned, that you don't rate your mix, and they will have to do a lot of post on your work? Good luck with that and your future employment prospects. They may well retort that they are paying you to supply a useable mix, with iso's as backup, and not the other way round. And they may be right."

 

The  implication here as I read it makes no sense to me. It seems like you are advocating that NeverClip tracks are bad because they are better than the mix track if used in post. And if you deliver great iso tracks you may not work again or as much.

So you are as I read it touting the superiority of hard limited distorted iso tracks over clean iso tracks with extra dynamic range because they will make your mix seem better in comparison . Sorry, I think it is crazy to promote bad iso tracks as a path to job security. NeverClip tracks free from any limiter distortion with extra dynamic range are a vastly better choice to the current system of iso tracks that are tainted with distortion from analog hard limiters.

 

"So where should we focus our energies - on recording beautiful, unlimited iso tracks, or putting all our effort into a good mix which may have occasional compression/limiting (it's going to be compressed on broadcast anyway)?"

 

The question implies that creating Neverclip iso tracks somehow requires effort and that it is an either or situation. The fact is that NeverClip iso tracks require no effort at all to generate. Just set the iso tracks for the amount of extra headroom required and go. Thats it. Once set you are good to go until you want to make a change. 100% of your time as a mixer is focused on making the best mix possible. Your iso tracks will also be the best possible with 136dB dynamic range and free from all limiter distortion. 

 

 

 "Good recording will occasionally need limiters, I don't actually have a problem with that, we have been doing it for years. "

 

Not any more. Clipping is bad, limiters are just less bad. They distort the audio and are never associated with "good recording". In the past limited audio has just been the catch all for improperly set input trim. With NeverClip input limiters are not necessary or desirable. It is far easier to mix on a unit with never clip because only the fader is necessary to mix the sound. Input trim controls are not necessary to control the mix allowing more focus on the mix rather than making sure your input amps are not clipping. 

 

"I do think we all record too hot anyway, and could easily back off and give ourselves more headroom, without any significant penalty. That is one of the advantages of 24 bit recording, and will decrease the amount of limiting enormously."

 

Without Neverclip it will also lower the signal to noise. Inputs with Neverclip provide extended dynamic range to both the mix and the ISO tracks making both sound more natural and less compressed. People worry about an input noise difference of 1 or 2 dB between preamps but when presented with average dynamic range increase of 20dB there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of how that extra 20dB will make an audible difference in audio recorded every day.

 

 "Deciding whether to use that tool, and how the end product will take advantage of it isn't just a recording decision, it is far more likely a workflow decision, one affected almost entirely by the production budget and timeframe. A little limiting, or more work for post - which do you think the producer would choose?"

 

The implication that a choice needs to be made is just wrong. NeverClip offers many benefits with no downside and no extra work for anyone. Post can use Neverclip ISO files just as easily as the files generated by other devices. In fact the Neverclip files having no limiter distortion are a much greater asset to post than without NeverClip and will reflect in a very positive way for any sound mixer that cares to record them.

 

In summary, A recorder with NeverClip and a input dynamic range that is 20 dB greater than other recorders without NeverClip will always provide better sounding iso and mix tracks than recorders that utilize input limiters to prevent input clipping. The elimination of the need to constantly adjust input trim controls along with faders to control a mix will allow a sound mixer to concentrate on producing a better mix track. This combined with input and output meters that always show an accurate representation of levels free from the distortion effects of input and output limiters will provide the sound mixer with the best feed back to produce an excellent mix. If the iso tracks are needed in post there will never be a decision to be made if there use might be helpful or not due to input limiter distortion.

 

Glenn

[VASI]

The culprit is: 3 bit

 

[Eric D]

Can someone please explain how to link the output compressors of the Maxx ?

 

The linking is available for the inputs, but I can't find this feature for the output compressors .

I can't believe such a feature doesn't exist on this kind of equipment ...

 

Thank you,

Eric

[studiomprd]

" People worry about an input noise difference of 1 or 2 dB between preamps "

style over substance.

[Constantin]

The presumed problem, I think, arises when the material turns out to be not very dynamic, but ISO attenuation has still been set to -20dB or whatever. When presented with such tracks, post could assume that they were recorded badly.

However, I always considered it fairly standard practice to record a fairly hot mix (only sometimes hitting the limiters), while recording the ISOs some dBs quieter. Reading various posts about this here, made me think this was fairly standard practice.

However (again), if users find that they hand in tracks that may appear too quiet, this is a very real problem, especially when there is no audio post. It must be acknowledged and dealt with in some way, not be put down. Whether this is a misperception or not isn't really relevant since it is a very real issue for some. I don't think anyone here intends to belittle the quality of NeverClip, but they are just trying to grasp how to deal with the side-effects in real life.

But, like I said, providing a hot mix, and "cooler" ISOs is pretty common and an editor should be able to deal with it. Maybe it helps to attach a huge-bold-fonted note with sound files, briefly explaining NeverClip

[Ze Frias]

However (again), if users find that they hand in tracks that may appear too quiet, this is a very real problem, especially when there is no audio post.

 

If there is no audio post, won't they just use the mix and not even look at the ISOs? As such, there's not much importance on recording ISOs.

 

I think the usage of ISOs is fairly imperative when dealing with high budge productions, were everything is remixed from the ISOs. At such point, then, Post would love the fact that there is such a high dynamic range due to NeverClip, even if they have to raise the the clips a few dBs.. At least IMO anyway.

 

I think Glenn makes excellent points regarding the true purpose of NeverClip and how it should be looked at, and used.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Constantin]

But we are not talking about high budget productions. They would always have proper post and there'd be no problem. It's about those cases where there is very limited audio post, or none at all, or if it's only being done by the editor.

The editor might also look at the ISOs and try to work with them

[Wandering Ear]

But we are not talking about high budget productions. They would always have proper post and there'd be no problem. It's about those cases where there is very limited audio post, or none at all, or if it's only being done by the editor.

The editor might also look at the ISOs and try to work with them

It's just as easy for an editor to deal with isos too. The attenuated isos can be used just like any other iso you deliver. Have you recorded material with a large dynamic range and then looked at it in an editor? The only difference in using iso attenuation is your loud content will not be clipped/limited/distorted while your quiet content retains the same sn ratio. Thats it, no different.

It could be argued this is even more of an advantage in low budget productions where they don't have the resources to fix those problems in post or rerecord.

[Constantin]

Yes, I said that I record my ISOs a bit lower, anyway, even without NeverClip. I said others apparently perceive lower ISOs as an issue, and I was trying to understand why and also said that this perception should be taken seriously and that it should be dealt with in some way.Personally, I don't even have a NeverClip enabled recorder.

[Ze Frias]

Good points all around. I just don't see it being a 'negative' as it is being portrayed a few comments above.

[Wyatt Tuzo]

I think the usage of ISOs is fairly imperative when dealing with high budge productions, were everything is remixed from the ISOs.

Who says that this is how all "high budget" productions are handled? Any way... You know when having your levels in the dirt can hurt you (even on high budget productions)? when the director, producers, and studio can't make out the dialog track of their dailies.

[glenn]

Who says that this is how all "high budget" productions are handled?

Any way... You know when having your levels in the dirt can hurt you (even on high budget productions), when the director, producers, and studio can't make out the dialog track of their dailies.

 

I am not certain what that has to do with anything related to this thread. You might want to start a fresh one.

 

NeverClip has no bearing on the mix track levels delivered to dailies except to eliminate any input limiter distortion from them.

 

If I am misunderstanding your point please elaborate on how this relates to the topic of the thread.

 

Glenn

[Ze Frias]

Who says that this is how all "high budget" productions are handled?

Any way... You know when having your levels in the dirt can hurt you (even on high budget productions), when the director, producers, and studio can't make out the dialog track of their dailies.

Sorry, did not mean to be absolute in my statement, not every high budget picture does this, but as far as I understand, most major motion pictures do. Regardless, it was an example of the implication of the usage of NeverClip. I still see no disadvantage to its usage and the result of extended dynamic range.

I don't understand the second part of your comment.