Jump to content

Zaxcom Deva announcement


Jeff Wexler

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Keep in mind that nearly all digital recorders that we use in location film/video production these days are "recorder with a control surface", including the Nomad, Maxx, 633, and 688. It's just that the control surface is screwed onto the front of the recorder and cabled internally to the mic pres, along with the metering and function controls. So, really, an external control surface is just adding additional surface area to accommodate more controls and ergonomics. I suppose it could be welded on to the recorder, but that would only take versatility away from the system as you would no longer have the option of a smaller, more portable package, and it would sound exactly the same.

gt

I get that but what i was referring to is that i like a mixer with mic pre in the mixer and OP on xlr where you can plug something in, at the last minute, and switch to any IP or OP that has the functionality of say my sonosax. That with an internal recorder appealed to me as opposed to a control surface, that sure has the same routing ability but usually through a menu system that on some machines is a bit clunky IMHO. The original Deva 32 was a point of difference but clearly not a popular one. Its hard to explain but is about the feel of the setup as opposed to everything is possible as long as you go three deep in the menu and click boxes.

Tony

But you already have the Sonosax, so what else do you need?

I have all inputs and outputs of my recorder (and all other gear) come up on a patch panel, so adding something last minute feels pretty much like on a mixer. I don't really see a big difference. What I do miss, though, is a full size EQ with various knobs to fiddle.

There are already quite a few cart mixers available, but there is - afaik - only the Cantar and the Deva 16 with more than 8 inputs. So there is room here for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tony Johnson said:

I get that but what i was referring to is that i like a mixer with mic pre in the mixer and OP on xlr where you can plug something in, at the last minute, and switch to any IP or OP that has the functionality of say my sonosax....

Tony

Except in the case of an analog mixer (like the Sonosax SX mixer series) the differences being described are just a matter of where the XLR inputs and XLR outputs are located, how many controls there are, where they are located, and whether or not selections are made by manual switches or menu selections. All of these design options can exist whether the mixing panel and recorder are in the same box or in two separate boxes linked by a serial cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Glen Trew said:

Except in the case of an analog mixer (like the Sonosax SX mixer series) the differences being described are just a matter of where the XLR inputs and XLR outputs are located, how many controls there are, where they are located, and whether or not selections are made by manual switches or menu selections. All of these design options can exist whether the mixing panel and recorder are in the same box or in two separate boxes linked by a serial cable.

Well, not exactly the whole story regarding standalone mixing console vs. hardware interface to the recorder. It is absolutely true, as you say, that if you want to continue using an analog mixing panel (Sonosax, Cooper, Audio Developments, Solice) then a mixer/recorder connected to an interface is out of the question. I would add that this applies as well to those who want to use a standalone DIGITAL mixing console (Yamaha, Behringer, Roland, Allen&Heath, Soundcraft) --- the recorder in these cases need only be a recorder (does not even have to be a mixer/recorder or have a user interface, like the Sound Devices 970 which lacks the mix engine). The key thing to consider when looking at any of the mixer/recorder setups that use an interface (and I believe this is Glen's principle point), the interface is just a CONTROL surface --- it is only as good sounding, functional and feature rich as the host recorder. In its simplest form, an interface provides mixing with linear faders when the host recorder may have only rotary faders. In its more complex form, the interface can provide physical, tactical and in some cases visual user interaction in a manner that is not possible with just the recorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel 100 mixers would come up with 100 different designs for their own recorders/mixers/radios/ or combination of all the aforementioned if somehow given the chance.  I'm also sure no one would think the others design/product would be as as good as theirs. Just the nature of our breed I suppose. Having used many of the systems out there I find that I can use them all well. As much as I love gear It will not make the recording better than the decisions made prior to hitting the record button. Now back to our regularly scheduled redesigning session.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Constantin said:

But you already have the Sonosax, so what else do you need?

 

More channels. Where Sonosax do 12 i need 16. Four of those could be tied up with private lines and VOG. But I do love the functionality and versatility of the Sax. To me the mixer and faders plus the wireless system is the essence not the recorder which to me can be a faceless box as long as it records. Crew sums it up nicely where we would all have a different combination if we all had a choice. 

One change i have made recently is to have two systems on the go all the time with my Nomad bag cart at the ready where i can jump from one to the other. I totally don't get the want to break out the main recorder and go over shoulder that seems so time consuming and disruptive. The Zax system allows you to operate like this easily as you can share wireless and zaxnet. Bring on the dedicated Cart based system.

Tony 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‚Äé2‚Äé/‚Äé6‚Äé/‚Äé2016 at 7:46 PM, Tony Johnson said:

More channels. Where Sonosax do 12 i need 16. Four of those could be tied up with private lines and VOG. But I do love the functionality and versatility of the Sax. To me the mixer and faders plus the wireless system is the essence not the recorder which to me can be a faceless box as long as it records. Crew sums it up nicely where we would all have a different combination if we all had a choice. 

One change i have made recently is to have two systems on the go all the time with my Nomad bag cart at the ready where i can jump from one to the other. I totally don't get the want to break out the main recorder and go over shoulder that seems so time consuming and disruptive. The Zax system allows you to operate like this easily as you can share wireless and zaxnet. Bring on the dedicated Cart based system.

Tony 

sonosax sxr4+ is 16 channels recorder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

sonosax sxr4+ is 16 channels recorder

I think when Tony is talking about his Sonosax he is referring to the Sonosax standalone mixing panel (which is only 8 or 12 I believe). Rado, your reference to the Sonosax SXR4+ recorder is not relevant to Tony's explanation of what he would like to see in a mixing panel. In Tony's words: "the recorder which to me can be a faceless box as long as it records".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

I think when Tony is talking about his Sonosax hev is referring to the Sonosax standalone mixing panel (which is only 8 or 12 I believe). Rado, your reference to the Sonosax SXR4+ recorder is not relevant to Tony's explanation of what he would like to see in a mixing panel. In Tony's words: "the recorder which to me can be a faceless box as long as it records".

copy. Maybe they can add more faders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my last search of the Sonosax site, they had a 10 channel mixer in the same vein as traditional 8 channel model. The 12 channel model is more of a fixed application machine. It's sad, because I really want a 12 channel analog mixer with a Solice or Sonosax form factor. SImon Hayes had his AD 149 built (probably still cheaper than a Sonosax), so that's an option, but still really cost prohibitive and bigger. His old method of a 2nd mixer might be a better option, given the deals available on analog mixers these days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, RPSharman said:

On my last search of the Sonosax site, they had a 10 channel mixer in the same vein as traditional 8 channel model. The 12 channel model is more of a fixed application machine. It's sad, because I really want a 12 channel analog mixer with a Solice or Sonosax form factor.

A Sonosax mixer is really a thing of beauty and it's the best sounding mixer I've ever auditioned. (Although, as you probably remember from the tests you participated in, the Solice is within a whisker of being as good.) But, the Sonosax is priced like a Ferrari so I hesitate to press a recommendation on anyone facing college costs for children. However, if you think a 12-channel board would fit your needs exactly, you should contact Jacques Sax and ask what might be involved. A considerable amount of hand work goes into making that board and it's a small company; it's entirely possible they may be able to accommodate you at something like a reasonable price. At least, reasonable within the context of the cost of the standard model.

You might also want to contact Ron Meyer to ask about a 12-channel Solice.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have brought up the issue with Ron on previous occasions. It would be something to consider if he could sell a handful, as they are a bit less modular than you'd think on the inside. Then there's the issue of my current Solice mixer having little value in today's market.

I'm quite sure Ron's wheels are turning, but the smart money would be NOT producing another board and concentrating on his bread and butter with higher sales volumes. Sad but true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really loving this diversion to discussions of standalone analog mixing panels but it has become quite a departure from the original title: "Zaxcom Deva announcement"  ---  should we do anything about this or not? We might want to consider keeping this sort of on the topic of the new Deva (though I realize there may not be much more to talk about because we don't really know that much at this point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, VAS said:

I am smelling two versions. One for cart and one for bag type scenario.

Curious about the overall concept, since the desktop Deva 32 requires OS to record and the other not.

Vas, there is still confusion around, even with regards to the original Deva32 as  shown at NAB: when you say "the desktop Deva32 requires OS to record" the statement further confuses what Deva32 is/was and what the new Deva will be. First of all, by saying "OS" (operating system) I am assuming you mean some standard computer OS (like MacOS or Windows) --- the Deva recorder does NOT require standard commercial Windows, Mac, Linux, or any computer, for ANY of its recording features. Like all file-based recorders (Zaxcom, Sound Devices, Aaton, Sonosax, etc.) there IS an operating system for all of its functions, this is how they work, but it is a dedicated custom OS unique to the recorder. The confusion, regarding Deva32, is that a standard OS (either Windows or Mac) IS required for the Graphical User Interface display on large external video monitor. None of this has changed. As Jack points out, the main change is that the recording function has been moved out of the mixing panel to provide a full-featured standalone recorder that can be used off the cart. When using the new Deva in a cart based setup, you will still have the full 16 fader mixing panel, the large screen GUI, just as with the original Deva32 as as shown at NAB. 

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.


√ó
√ó
  • Create New...