Jump to content

Zaxcom Deva announcement


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, that is basically my point. The sound quality of digital gear doesn't degrade much, but still its life expectancy is much shorter than that of well-made analog gear

How do you figure?  My 744s are pretty old, but I've cycled them back to SD for upkeep regularly.  The INHDD could go, but is replaceable.  Pots, connectors and the CF mounting teeth can be swapped out.  So the machine basically operates and sounds like it did when it was new, plus a few scratches on the case.  It seems to me that digital mixers will age better than analog unless the analog board gets regular upkeep?  Or do you mean that older digital gear doesn't have the loads of new features that are in more current gear?

Yes in part. Glenn said that digital gear will technically last much longer and remain closer to its original condition than analog gear. I was sort of trying to point out that inspite of this, most of us will probably swap out their recorder every few years, whilst we tend to hang on to our analog mixer. There is no technical reason for this, of course 744Ts are still fine recorders, but they lack in features. Most, I suspect, will have upgraded to at least a 788T, and many are anxiously awaiting its successor, even though it still works fine. With analog stuff this doesn't seem to happen in a similar fashion.

I guess I saw some sort of irony in this, but it seems I am not getting that point across

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think this discussion is happening in the wrong place, but oh well. Constantin: I get what you're saying, I was trying to express the same sort of thing. It is true that digital stuff will last longer and perform reliably to its manufactured spec, but the digital world has brought with it another reality: it is much easier to add FEATURES and FUNCTIONS, even to an existing product, so we are in a situation where our older digital gear may last forever but we're abandoning it anyway because the new gear does more. We hang onto our older analog mixers because we love them and thankfully although technically they will not endure as long as the digital stuff, its longevity and usefulness is quite amazing. The other thing that I said many times (in the proper thread discussing standalone mixing consoles vs. hardware user interfaces), longevity is the least important thing to consider, in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 What Jeff said.

...also, along with Constantin's point:  Compare the practical life span of a Nagra IV with a Deva II.  Both were industry standard-setting machines, but along with what Jeff said, advancing technology can be its own undoing.

And, back on topic... It's great that Zaxcom has their ear to the ground and the new 32 will fit two distinctly different operating preferences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 14, 2016 at 6:01 AM, glenn said:

Analog mixers are in my opinion not the way to go at this point.  If the recorder has an excellent mic pre with excellent dynamic range then there is no down side to a digital console or a mixer/recorder with a mixer control surface. Here are some of the other reasons.

As they age analog console inputs will sound different due to the tolerance of components and the aging of capacitors.

All digital solutions cost about 1/4 to 1/3 the money

Each channel will sound exactly the same forever on a digital solution,

Setups can be saved and quickly recalled,

AES signals from digital wireless can stay in the digital domain. 

Digital solutions can use a fraction of the DC power

Lower maintenance and repair costs for control surface solutions

DIgital solutions offer better routing and more busses

 

Glenn

To help filter some sales pitches...

Even when using digital mixers, the original sound (such as the sound a voice makes) is analog and must be converted to analog AC voltage before reaching the analog A-D converters, and then converted back to analog AC voltage before listening to it. These analog circuits still all rely the traditional evil capacitors that can change in value over time just like they always have. While a digitally controlled mixing console does replace the routing circuits of analog mixers and control them in a less intrusive way, the line level signals being routed in analog mixers are the ones least affected by aging circuits. Thats why the line throughput of a 30-year old Nagra 4.2 can still outperform the line level throughput of some 15-year old digital mixers.

The most significant stage that can be variable due to analog circuit components, even in a digital mixer, is the first strange, the mic preamp. Even if the digital mixer boasts that it is digital throughout, that just means that the mic pre is somewhere else, like built into a digital microphone or wireless transmitter, but there is still a mic pre involved with amplifiers and capacitors, and always will be.

Regarding the idea that digital mixers will always outlast analog mixers, history has not supported that prediction yet. This is because even a digital control surface relies on hardware such as switches, op amps, contacts, etc., either in it's own enclosure or it's mother ship enclosure (the recorder). These pieces of hardward are subject to aging and wear and tear just like the analog counter parts, which is why most Cooper mixers are still in daily use and very few Cameo mixers work at all. I'll qualify that claim by stating that, in my opinion, the Cameo digital mixer was, at the time, the best purpose-built mixer made for film production, though it's hardware reliability problems gave it a short life.

Other than the obvious routing versatility, probably the most significant improvement with digital mixers is in processing functions like EQ and notch filters, which are very complex and subject to variations. The same is probably true for compression and limiting, too, which can be done with higher fidelity in the digital domain.

"Excellent" is a relative term that needs a reference point to make sense, and although there are some impressive mic pres on some digital recorders, non of them equal the Sonosax SXST in terms of low noise and huge amounts of quickly accessible gain. It's been a while since I've used a Cooper 208 or 106, but if memory serves, their audio fidelity would probably still prevail in a real world environment against their younger digital competition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 6:01 AM, glenn said:

 

Each channel will sound exactly the same forever on a digital solution,

Glenn

Nomad PreAmps loose calibration and have to be recalibrated on regular basis.

The main reason why I moved to AES42 solution so I can stick with Zaxcom and not have to use Sound Devices 644 recorder that does not have those issues.

P.S. BTW Maxx pres have Zaxnet interference from qrx235 when powered from the same power source.

P.S.2 Since we are on the DEVA 32 subject I was told Deva32 has Nomad Pres. So thanks but no thanks on deva32. Unless it has at least 2 AES42s in addition to the AES3s.

 

All the claims above have been confirmed by other users and a major reseller.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What personal attacks???

I am actually quoting what Glenn said and supporting it. Digital technology is more reliable than analog. At least in zaxcom's case. The examples above are all analog tech.

Using AES3/AES42 has never failed me.

I am a big supporter of all digital gear where AD conversion happens at the mic and stays digital all the way to delivery.

 

 

The only exception is QRX100s which " at least in my personal experience " degrade VCO after a few years. The qrx200s and qrx235s have not showed this problem after 2 years. I imagine " if the same as qrx100"  next year they will have to go back to Zaxcom to have VCO problem repaired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nomad PreAmps loose calibration and have to be recalibrated on regular basis."

If you consider once a year if necessary a "regular basis" then I guess so. ;-)

All input trim adjustments on all recorders need to be adjusted on a daily basis multiple times per day. Is there any relevance to this?

"All the claims above have been confirmed by other users and a major reseller."

This would be impossible as no user or reseller has that level of advance information regarding the new Deva.

 

Glenn

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

""Excellent" is a relative term that needs a reference point to make sense, and although there are some impressive mic pres on some digital recorders, non of them equal the Sonosax SXST in terms of low noise and huge amounts of quickly accessible gain. It's been a while since I've used a Cooper 208 or 106, but if memory serves, their audio fidelity would probably still prevail in a real world environment against their younger digital competition. "

I have to disagree with this. Any analog mixer is only going to be as low noise as the input ADC on a recorder. Unless you are using a Zaxcom recorder with neverclip you are limited to about 116 dB dynamic range and anything more will have limiter distortion. In a digital system if gain is needed on a preamp it can be added in the digital domain without any added noise from the digital amplification or the fear of clipping in the digital domain.

A good preamp is a good preamp. Analog mixers certainly have their place but like most analog things, analog consoles will go away over time because the overall advantages of a digital mixing solution are too vast to ignore. You can cherry pick the good bits of analog but the scales are tipped in the direction of digital mixing.

In terms of the Zaxcom Cameo, it was one of our best products but when key components go away things get discontinued. The better example is the Zaxcom MIX12. It is out there in use every day and will be for years to come. It is a better example of a low power, light weight, powerful and reliable digital mixer with infinite routing to 24 busses on the Deva16. 

Glenn 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, glenn said:

The better example is the Zaxcom MIX12. It is out there in use every day and will be for years to come. It is a better example of a low power, light weight, powerful and reliable digital mixer with infinite routing to 24 busses on the Deva16. 

Glenn 

Isn't the Mix12 a controller? Not a mixer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, glenn said:

...

In terms of the Zaxcom Cameo, it was one of our best products but when key components go away things get discontinued...

Glenn 

My reference to the Cameo was not about the decision to discontinue them, but about them no longer functioning, as very few Cameo mixers can still be used. The Cooper 208 and 106 and 306 have been discontinued for nearly 10 years, but almost all of them still work very well, even with analog circuitry and all of their moving parts. I'm only pointing this out because of the statement made earlier about digital mixers lasting longer because of fewer moving parts. So far, for considerations of reliability and longevity, history to date shows that the moving parts of an analog mixer vs a digital mixer is not a reason for choosing one over the other.

gt

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

Nomad PreAmps loose calibration and have to be recalibrated on regular basis.

The main reason why I moved to AES42 solution so I can stick with Zaxcom and not have to use Sound Devices 644 recorder that does not have those issues.

What exactly is the issue? can it be done by user by re-calibrating the inputs function or does it have to go back to Zaxcom?

Glenn, Rado, please explain further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, glenn said:

The better example is the Zaxcom MIX12. It is out there in use every day and will be for years to come. It is a better example of a low power, light weight, powerful and reliable digital mixer with infinite routing to 24 busses on the Deva16. 

Glenn 

 

 

the mix12 has many routing limitations too: you cannot assign every inputs to every fader and i.e. if you are using digital inputs 5-8 in the Fusion there are no chance s you can control zaxnet gain and eq for that input by the mix12. I guess it is related to the id-per-channel thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vale said:

the mix12 has many routing limitations too: you cannot assign every inputs to every fader and i.e. if you are using digital inputs 5-8 in the Fusion there are no chance s you can control zaxnet gain and eq for that input by the mix12. I guess it is related to the id-per-channel thing.

 

I agree that the Mix12 has routing limitations related to having only four options for Fader Channel Assignment. It would be amazing to route any analog or digital input to any fader on the Mix12 but that is not an option I have found with my Fusion 12. Perhaps the Deva16 has the option for infinite routing of the faders? Many times I would have been happy with faders 1-6 for digital inputs and 7-12 for analog inputs, but that is not even an option! Only four options for fader routing (#1: 1-6A, 7-12D), (#2: 1-8A, 9-12D), (#3: 1-8D, 9-12A), (#4: 1-4A, 1-8D) and I find that very limiting. Despite these limitations, I have been using my Mix12 since 2011 on many films and I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon.

-Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Warning : I'm not a sound engeneer)

I was wondering if sound mixer still actually mix today or do they record tracks and mix only for the video village? What I understand is that 15 years back mono delivery was still the standard...  so the mixing/recording job was a key part of the sound design. I can uderstand why the tools are changing based on the needs.

On films, I mix. I mix indies and they usually use my mix for the final product. When I first went from a 2-track recording to a Fostex PD-6, I wondered if my actual mixing days were over and it was just for comteks..... and if I was mixing out of habit. Fortunately a few producers told me they were using my production mix for most everything.

Reality TV totally depends on the production company workflow. Some want to use the field mix, some have is mixing for reference on camera and IFB to keep everyone in the loop with what's happening (camera ops, producers, note takers etc).

If nobody was going to really use my mix, I wouldn't have spent the cash on a Mix 12 for my Deva Fusion, and I wouldn't have used a Mix8 or Oasis on the latest scripted work I did.

Obviously different projects have different workflows. The scripted stuff I do probably doesn't have the budget to remix the whole project, and have been told they didn't need to. I'm sure some projects budget a complete post remix long before the first shot is taken. Some will try to use our dialogue mix as a source for their mix of score and whatever else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brian Kaurich said:

I agree that the Mix12 has routing limitations related to having only four options for Fader Channel Assignment. It would be amazing to route any analog or digital input to any fader on the Mix12 but that is not an option I have found with my Fusion 12. Perhaps the Deva16 has the option for infinite routing of the faders? Many times I would have been happy with faders 1-6 for digital inputs and 7-12 for analog inputs, but that is not even an option! Only four options for fader routing (#1: 1-6A, 7-12D), (#2: 1-8A, 9-12D), (#3: 1-8D, 9-12A), (#4: 1-4A, 1-8D) and I find that very limiting. Despite these limitations, I have been using my Mix12 since 2011 on many films and I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon.

-Brian

Having limitations is one way to look at this, but when comparing to an analog mixer, it's more accurate to see it as versatile options that an analog mixer doesn't have, which, in my opinion, is an important aspect in favor of digital mixers (whether control surface of stand-alone).

 

GT

Link to post
Share on other sites

When talking about infinite routing I mean any input pre or post fader with phase inversion possible on every channel to any output or track. Routing what input is on which physical fader is a very different matter, And in an analog mixer something that is a non starter. In our newer products like Oasis we allow any input to be selected on any fader. This is the direction we will be going in the future.

Glenn

5 hours ago, resonate said:

What exactly is the issue? can it be done by user by re-calibrating the inputs function or does it have to go back to Zaxcom?

Glenn, Rado, please explain further.

The calibration can be done in 5 minutes by the user. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thope said:

Hi Glen, can you please outline this process step by step? Is it covered in the manual? Do you need to do it to the maxx?

trev

It's in the manual.

I'm excited to see the form factor of the new deva recorder, and how it compares in size to a nomad.  Also will want to know what features will be unique to the new deva, or if it's mainly a higher track/fader count version on the Nomad/Oasis combo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 15, 2016 at 4:47 AM, glenn said:

Deva and Mix 12 is a combination that I would believe would outlast any analog console. There is almost nothing to ware out except faders.

Glenn

 

well my deva16 does have two analog channel that has a random odd low freq noise from time to time,I sent it back to factory last Oct and they can't find out what it was and just return it back to me,and this noise still happen from time to time. 

Link to post
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...