VASI Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why not Rado? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why not Rado? Why not what? Please quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 It makes no sense to buy this compact unit and have to buy extra device for outputs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why not Rado? Because I want to simplify my setup. Less power less interconnections smaller size. Less points for a problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 The unit from Studio Technologies gets power from the Ethernet (so from R4+). Agree about more outputs, but it is not crucial for me. I will connect the output from R4+ (AES Out) to Audio Ltd 1010 Transmitter (if the Audio Ltd supports AES in) or Zaxcom camera link. If I will need extra outputs, then I will add this small box from Studio Technologies. With this design I don't see a space for more outputs. Maybe a good option is if the Sonosax come with different models. One model as exist. One model without the battery, but extra outputs. Just like the concept from SX-M32 mixer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkal Taskin Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why is more outputs so hard? Its not that small. This machine would be perfect with an M32 with more channels. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Thomas Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why is more outputs so hard? Its not that small. This machine would be perfect with an M32 with more channels. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Maybe because they've finalised the hardware design (I'd expect it is once they've got a load of boards printed up, components ordered, parts machined). The extra AES in on the left isn't a duplicate of those on the accessory port- it's possible to run 14 channels in. I'm going to keep hold of my M32 for straight to camera jobs, and as a smaller 3 channel expander for more preamps if necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkal Taskin Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Maybe because they've finalised the hardware design (I'd expect it is once they've got a load of boards printed up, components ordered, parts machined). The extra AES in on the left isn't a duplicate of those on the accessory port- it's possible to run 14 channels in. I'm going to keep hold of my M32 for straight to camera jobs, and as a smaller 3 channel expander for more preamps if necessary Good idea, I am on the look out for a second hand one as well, very useful little tool Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAX Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 What do you need on the second output? Same as AUX, and ballanced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAX Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Thanks for the nice video. Yes, the soft are proto... not all working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcvonstuerler Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Hello JAX, like we can read hier, minimum 2 stereo out. 2 unbalanced chanels out on mini xlr like the existing aux is perfect to send through RF a ref. audio to cameras for previews, sync through audio waves etc... and we need a balanced out to send high quality audio over cable to camera or other. I think, we all need to have the both possibilities. Personaly, i'm working for TV report/doc where i need to send the definitive sound, mainly 2 channels, directely to the camera(s). otherwise i'm also working on movie(doc & feature) for the cinema where a need to send a provisional sound to the camera and to the combo/monitoring etc... So minimum 2 out are not a luxus but a need for many of us on the field. To have it i'm ready to wait a little bit more, no problem. The working days today are very long through the "endless" of digital world... so a very small, light and smart pakage and naturally sounding like a Sonosax, is essential. Thanks for earing us and congratulation for this promising R4+ Marc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted April 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Mr Sax, thank you for being here. I believe that there is two possible scenario that would meet everyone needs. First let's define that there is two different thing to address. Physical outputs and then source material for those outputs. Physical outputs: Indeed, having a total of 4 analog outputs would meet our needs. Two of those can be unbalanced while the other two would nice if they were balanced. Source audio for those outputs: Two possibilities here: 1- a simple matrix that enable to assign each individual inputs to any of the four outputs, in pre or post fader mode. Very flexible and simple to work with. Also all assignment are made via a single menu page. 2- a stereo mix buss for two of the outputs, accessible via an input menu setup ( I visual to each input ) and two individual auxiliary sends that can send each input individually in pre or post fader to an individual output. Also there is a question that remains for me, is there a set of input and output limiter on each input and output? Thank you very much for your time and I hope that the above is possible to implement. That would make me seriously think about the complete package. Pascal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkal Taskin Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I agree with all the points above, at least 4 outs and signal routing flexibilities are incredibly important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcvonstuerler Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Thanks Pascal for the precise and clear formulation. That is definitely what we need. I agree to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAX Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Yes, I anderstand, but the SX-R4+ is totally full, and also balanced outs need power... I think we will made a option with balanced outs in place of RJ-45, maybe with a different routing possibility, or made a external box with a lot of outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted April 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 What about replacing the ta3 aux out by a ta5 with 4 unbalanced out. Dante is important and having an extra box is not really appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 and we need a balanced out to send high quality audio over cable to camera or other. http://www.695.com/html/edu-vid-gr-loops.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcvonstuerler Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 It's fine to have the battery inside the machine but really not a priority. We all working with external Battery solutions and distro box for the wireless etc... Using the actualy battery space for more outs options seems to be a good idea. Save the RJ-45 Dante ! TA5 instead TA3 why not. I prefer the idea of a R4+ with many outs option (a complete operational R4+) instead differents Versions of the R4+ or using of more external Boxe...please not, not for Bag use! Thanks for staying open about this Mr Sax. Best Rgds, Marc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I agree with everything said about the outputs and battery on here. I'd much rather see a four channel output and no internal battery, than what it is now. This machine is beautiful. I think a lot more people than those who've "spoken" here agree too. Just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkal Taskin Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I too would rather have more outs than Dante or an internal battery. I have no use for Dante actually and an internal battery is good option but definitely not necessary as I have to carry a bigger one for the wireless anyway. Also, is it true that channels 5 and 6 are not part of the mix chain? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcvonstuerler Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 and yes Olle, it's important too to say: This machine is beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted April 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 It is beautiful indeed and that is why I am being so persistent. I have used Sonosax mixers before and they are amazing sound wise. This really hits the mark size wise and , if outs get sorted out, could be the answer to bag/cart hybrid system. My two cents: Dante is important, internal battery is nice but if it means no outs then out is the internal battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Thank you for getting involved mister Sax. While talking about the outputs I would like to address the need for Communication button and microphone on the front of the recorder. Also can you explain the mic pres? Are they the same as the micpres in your flat top mixers? Or are the pres different? Is the timecode Ambient ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Hi Jaques, I wonder if it might be possible to make a 4th module to go in the stack. Maybe this 4th module could be half height of the recorder and the extra IP module, and it could contain a number (maybe 6 or of analogue OPs. Could this be a solution? I really like the concept of this machine, but I wouldn't dream of buying one with the current only 2 x analogue OPS. Kindest regards, Simon B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted April 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I would submit that a fourth module is an good idea but I would make it a much smaller one. It would attach itself at the bottom of the unit and simply be a single XLR chassis height. This way, the unit in a bag doesn't become ridiculously sized and awkward to bag. But again, replacing the ta3 by a ta5 with 4 unbalanced out, would work I believe for most people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.