The Future...

[Philip Perkins]

I don't think that people in our tiny market are going to go for an integrated wireless+mixer+recorder setup, our work demands a lot of mix 'n match flexibility with gear.   I do know that on the music side of my work the changes have been huge lately--$2000 for the Mackie DL32R and so on (32x32, can record directly to media in MT, can be a USB interface for DAW software, full EQ etc, can be addressed by multiple iDevices, could work w/o a snake--place the "box" on the stage and run a headphone extension to where you sit with your iPad to record, and so on).   I'm not thrilled at all about working off an iPad, but everyone else seems to be and the price point for the number of channels is pretty amazing.  But….no TC, no ext clock, no digital input.  Virtually none of these boards have these features…too bad.  Those things are mainly what's making me hold onto my JoeCo, for now.

 

philp

[Jeff Wexler]

Hey, Philip, I have been blown away reading about things like the Mackie DL-32 system --- truly astonishing capabilities for the cost of what we pay for one good microphone. The digital revolution is in full swing and never ceases to amaze. There is a sort of porta-studio if you can call it that from QSC, several offerings from Behringer, and who knows what's on the horizon.

[Philip Perkins]

I'm seriously thinking of bolting from my analog setup to something like the D32L if I can figure out some way of clocking the thing, or decide it doesn't matter anymore.  (Like when shooting concerts with a lot of non-genlockable dinky-cams.)   Below is a test setup for an upcoming 18 channel live recording with a lot of extra submixing for monitoring and live electronics processing--this sort of ad-hoc rat's nest I could stand to leave behind in a heartbeat.

 

philp

[Reinout Weebers]

Besides all the technical improvements I wish for a better understanding of our jobs. Sometimes I really hate to have to (again) defend the audio part of the audio visual experience we are creating. Let our colleagues be aware of the importance of our part.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Olle Sjostrom]

There was (or still is) Rosendahl's Bonsai Drive. Although it's just a video/audio recorder, not a mixer.

I would not like to see that, btw. I would like to keep video where it belongs, and away from sound on set. I don't want to become the DIT who also does sound

That's not my wish either. Just that I've been battling with ignorant and grumpy producers on a project lately, where my idea was to work as normal (aka record on mixer, send mix to camera have ISO on mixers, deliver ISOs and mix to editing so sound mixing can isolate tracks if they'd like). No go. They said it's too much extra work. 

If I had a video recording capable mixer,  I could record on my mixer, with a snake just as usual only with video feedback, and have all the tracks isolated with the picture. No more discussions about sync ever again. I'm already doing file names, track names what have you. If there's a video track in there somewhere, I don't care. As long as it doesnt get in the way of my work. If it helps...

[Vincent R.]

I don't think that people in our tiny market are going to go for an integrated wireless+mixer+recorder setup, our work demands a lot of mix 'n match flexibility with gear.

If zaxcom offers a maxx with two receivers instead of the transmitters, my guess is it would be a hit seller.

[dominiquegreffard]

If zaxcom offers a maxx with two receivers instead of the transmitters, my guess is it would be a hit seller.

+1

I think the biggest factor restraining the devellopment of "intergrated receiver" recorder is block selection. Now that broadband is here, not much of an issue anymore.

The other factor to take into consideration is equipment failure. When everything is integrated, the whole thing can goes down forcing you to basically carry a second complete bag.

But yeah vincent, i m with you on this one. Basically a 633 or a maxx with 4 recievers would be pretty neat. Heck, i'd even put a space for a np1 with some power distribution. (That s what i really loved about my alphamix back in the day)

Oh well.. I m pretty happy with what s out there anyway so it would all be icing really.

[Tom Visser]

I still feel there is a market for a 3 channel unit that would be the sweet spot for an entry level unit and then something to handle 90% of the smaller ENG / EPK type situations.  Basically the "recording 302" idea.  If it were a Zaxcom unit with a built in receiver (new card slot form factor), that would be sweet too.  A Sound Devices unit with a single built in SR slot, equally sweet.

[Derek H]

I wonder if the next Deva will have slots to accept the same receiver modules that the new RX12 uses...

[Lucas]

Maybe something customizable in the vein of a portable 500series-lunchbox format. 

You get (let's say) 4 to 8 slots to decide what to put in: Pre's, Tx, Rx and what not..

That way you can adapt it for each gig to come and you can expand your units as you go.

[VASI]

That was my thinking when I was asked from Jesse Parker about the future in recorders back in IBC. Modular concept. As an example you have the basic box with screen, record/playback/stop etc buttons and all the basic controllers (except from faders). Next you can attach on this board the mic preamps or any modular box you want; like line level only or AES42 board -s. So you have the basic master module and then you add whatever you want. As Lucas said these modular / slot / 500 series format and with wireless boxes is something which I am thinking over the years. Happy to see someone pointed out.

[Tom Visser]

The problem with modular is that it is best suited for larger frames and fixed installation where optimizing every little bit of real estate to bring down size, weight, power draw, heat, etc... is not done with such razor thin tolerances.  I have also found that the longer I am in the biz, the more I hate swapping bits and pieces from one bag / cart to another and sometimes rebuilding a kit entirely the night before a job where I should be resting.

 

If I could instantly put together a dream garage full of stuff...

 

A all-in-one-not-modular-you-get-what-you-get-and-don't-get-upset 3 channel (boom + 2 wires) with backup recording rig ready to go or given to my assistant to handle overflow days...

(ideally I'd like to be able to take this naked {THE GEAR} into a full rain storm)

 

A 4 to 8-channel reality / unscripted bag

 

An 8 to 16-channel cart with video monitors

 

Obviously in some markets you don't find yourself on a cart one day and running around the jungle with a bag the next, but in smaller markets like myself, I find I have no control over the type of job that comes to me.  It would be silly for me to maintain both the ultimate bag and ultimate cart, so some cross-over utilization of the gear is necessary, but I think that everyone could / should have a little 3-channel unit whether as a last resort backup, car / splinter work, or maybe your just that ENG warrior that doesn't need anything else.

 

If the big bag and cart could share receiver "cards" then I'm all for the modular idea, but at some point, I'd just rather have a fully integrated, mixer, receiver, no interconnects, no DC distro cables, solid chunk of aluminum that I can fling over my shoulder and head out the door and make a great future door stop (if they even have swinging doors in the future).

[VASI]

Tom,

 

The one unit / built in has some negatives.

 

- Hardware update & service: You need to send the package back in service center or manufacturer. You end up without recorder and wireless. For example if you have a problem with input 1 you need to send all the package back, but with modular design you just send the input 1. Also you can update the master module (from 8 tracks to 16 tracks) without to buy a new device or to send it back to manufacturer.

 

- Compact: I don't think this only for cart based idea. You want 3 channel recorder. One boom, two wireless. In a modular design you can have the first module the mic preamp. The rest two (or one) modules will be the wireless. Imagine to have a smaller size device from available small (SD633, Maxx, Sonosax SX-R4 etc) products. One power share, no cables between modules etc.

 

Imagine to have a mic preamp from Sonosax module, one module from wireless from Zaxcom and master module from Sound Devices with the beautiful menu philosophy etc.

 

One problem I can see with modular design is:

 

- You have to deal with as you said with full rain, humidity etc

- Different manufacturers

[Tom Visser]

I'm ok with the downsides of an all-in-one unit.  For one, I would always have backup, in the form of my larger kits, or if cheap enough and I was primarily an ENG guy (which I'm not), would make business sense to keep two in inventory.  Besides, making all-in-one units is good engineering sense.  You reduce or eliminate the risk of failure or poor performance via worn or damaged cables, RFI, relying on 3rd party components to ensure operation (such as a DC distro or unknown battery source), increasing weather sealing and creating a known thermal envelope...  The whole "open source" concept is great and all, and maybe that is the way of the future, but I like the technologies and ideas coming out of companies like Zaxcom and Lectrosonics, and the things that make them superior to the rest of the wireless sphere.  Things like remote control of transmitters, digital encryption of wireless signals, weatherproof and waterproof designs, flexible slot-in receivers that can be transformed to DSLR hops, multichannel transmission on ISM band, body pack recording, automated frequency coordination, et al.  These companies are business entities and they are out there to stay in business by making a profit.  They have to protect their intellectual properties and leverage their assets to best suit the health of the company.  A modular approach would potentially piece meal the value of each of these companies and give the consumer control of how they monetize the technology.  There's a saying, the consumer knows best and is always right.  As a former sales guy myself, I really don't know if that is actually true.  Sometimes you just have to leave the design aspects up to the experts and understand that the whole is going to be better than the sum of the parts haphazardly tied together.

 

Regardless, I suggest all-in-one units makes sense for 3-channel ENG rigs, but would likely be more difficult or impossible to do with larger kits where individual requirements are too varied to make a one-size-fits-all device.  Here is where there is some opportunity for modularity, and when I say that, I'm primarily talking about wireless since most of us only require 1 or 2 channels of mic preamps for the most part.  Lectro already has that to some extent by migrating the slot-in-camera concept to the bag as well as the new digital encrypted line + older V module frames and Zaxcom is now also moving that way with their card based receivers, currently available in the RX12, but one could easily imaging RX8 and RX4 units in the future.

[Matthias Richter]

I would like a recording TX like Zax with the form factor of an Audio Ltd Mini-TX with the runtime of the small Sennheiser TX.

Had to wire some ladies with skimpy dresses where I thought about a hybrid made from these 3 models (the TX!! not the ladies)

[studiomprd]

in the future: the sound goes over the Internet from the set to the (destination) post... (images, too!)

[Constantin]

In the future, scientists will figure out a way how to shut up Senator.

[Jeff Wexler]

In the future, scientists will figure out a way how to shut up Senator.

"Beam him up, Scotty" and once he's up, leave him there!

[RottenCarcass]

Everything 75% cheaper ... hey, look what happened to the price/performance of digital cameras, it hasn't hit sound... but it will! Just a matter of time. Yes, nobody believes it today, but nobody believed it about cameras either and yet here we are. Get ready to see your $50-$100K investment matched and made obsolete by $5K worth of newfangled stuff. I've seen it happen with cams, lights and so on. It's already starting... I've been using my new Tascam DR-70D and I gotta tell you... is it a Sound Devices quality, no, but that's not the question, the question is does it do the job well enough - the producer just wants results, and the 70D delivers for what it is. Baby steps - price/performance will keep going... if I were SD, I'd start sweating...

[Jeff Wexler]

Hey, Rotten, I have to disagree with you on this. Price and performance certainly is a factor with digital camera and of course with anything relating to computers (think of the amounts of money some of us have spent on computers and peripherals in the past). I think you have to look specifically at the items that make up the $50 to $100K investment you mention. It really is all about volume (no pun intended) for the manufacturer --- how many of these things am I going to sell? Let's take a look at one item: a Schoeps microphone. As long as there is some group of people who want this microphone, they will continue to purchase it even if it costs $2000. Could I get a different mic that is just as good? Doubtful. Because it costs $2000. not a lot of people are going to buy it so Schoeps has no reason to reduce the price. Now, you could go into Guitar Center and buy a SHURE SM-58 for $50. and you would be one of very hundred thousand people who have bought that microphone.

 

As long as we continue to use highly specialized gear and do not succumb to using gear that was designed for the mass market Garage Band crowd, the prices will still be fairly high.

 

Professional cameras have held their prices because they provide the specialized functions that professionals need that are not needed by the person that wants to shoot their next vacation in 4K with their Sony Handycam.

 

I will give you this --- there will continue to be the trend to use mass market consumer gear (low cost) for certain kinds of jobs and these devices will be able to produce a product that is acceptable to the client who has hired you, the professional. To that extent, your argument does make sense for the future.

[VASI]

in the future: the sound goes over the Internet from the set to the (destination) post... (images, too!)

 

A complete scene from set to post production in half hour from 5.000 miles away.

[Michael Miramontes]

In terms of technology, and recently according to Stephen Hawking (well not literally but along the same lines)....

 

[daniel]

a mini cantar x3

or

a dante based lightweight recorder with linear faders connected to a backpack with all the (dante) wireless channels and pre amps (if needed)

and 

the aforementioned dorsal wireless to be controllable from tablet etc.

 

dan

[studiomprd]

Rotten: " it hasn't hit sound... "

I disagree, and point out: ZOOM

[Vincent R.]

Zoom, tascam, Rode, even K-tek (booms price wise). The new Tentaclesync TC and all we need is a bit better option for a G3 prized wireless solution and we are there...