Zaxcom Nomad (The "Non-conjecture" thread)

[Audio Daddyo]

Thanks Rado and Glen for giving your feedback on the headphone switch I was asking about.  A camera mic pointed inches from the switch can definitely accentuate a noise that really isn't a problem.  I hope that is how it will play out in the field.

Glen I appreciate that you share my concern for mechanical noises on set and of course I am not surprise that you take that into account with the products that you design. 

Thanks,

Andy

[Audio Daddyo]

This is exactly why i responded to the discussion in the first place.  Thank you for making me feel sane Glen ..... carry on sir.

Yes you were very helpful in this discussion.

Andy

[Zack]

Yes you were very helpful in this discussion.

Andy

With all do respect Andy, I thought you didn't appreciate snide remarks?  Correct me if I'm wrong please.

[Boomboom]

Goooooood.

Nobody's hurt.

Sometimes, I find my 302 monitor switch to be noisy, sometimes not.

Maybe difference between between doing an interview in a quiet, dead room, 10 feet away from subject vs. being shooting St-Patricks parade downtown.

My 2 cents: I don't feel good when I have to clench teeth while switching that monitor switch between chanel 1 and chanel 2,  10 feet away from the subject... but I know for sure how to turn that bloody knob without making noise now.

As long as you can work it out...

[Audio Daddyo]

With all do respect Andy, I thought you didn't appreciate snide remarks?  Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Will actually I did come back to Remove my comment But you caught it before i had a change to do that.  It just seemed like your responses were slightly caustic when all I was trying to do was get an answer to a simple and valid question.  I still don't think it's a closed case and I will wait until people start using it in the field.

Andy

Andy

[Zack]

Will actually I did come back to Remove my comment But you caught it before i had a change to do that.  It just seemed like your responses were slightly caustic when all I was trying to do was get an answer to a simple and valid question.  I still don't think it's a closed case and I will wait until people start using it in the field.

Andy

Andy

Fair enough sir, no worries.

[Audio Daddyo]

Fair enough sir, no worries.

Cool!  and I still like your logo.

[Zack]

Cool!  and I still like your logo.

lol

[Jack Norflus]

Do you think that's fast enough say if cast member 5 comes in and you have to re route that cast member while your booming a scene or if you put your boom away and have to reconfigure your bus'ing on the fly?

My feeling is that after you get familiar with Nomad and the routing matrix  - then absolutely yes.

[RadoStefanov]

It is a one hand menu knob operation.

I would imagine :

click twice on the menu button to get in output matrix- 0.5 second

scroll two the desired channels in the matrix and click on them  3-5 seconds.

Should not be a problem.

BTW I would sometimes  hold the boom with my left hand and put the end under my pit so I can manipulate camera or mixer/recorder. Might be a little unorthodox but it works for me...

Do you think that's fast enough say if cast member 5 comes in and you have to re route that cast member while your booming a scene or if you put your boom away and have to reconfigure your bus'ing on the fly?

[Peter Mega]

Hey Peter,

Regarding wireless return drop out ambiguity I can offer the following info as I've used the QRX/IFB along with a TRX900aa/sta150 as a wireless confidence return from camera for a few months now.

I've found that the RF drop outs for the two carriers sound so different that it would be unlikely you would confuse them.  When the 2.4 gig ifb drops out it sounds like digital gobleygook (think of really bad mp3 compression) when the UHF drops there generally is no sound.

That said, I find that the range of the ifb is fairly poor so it often isn't very useful unless you're close to the camera.  When it does come in the quality is great though, untrained ears would not be able to tell a difference. 

The ideal system would have much more range on the return carrier so that it could actually indicate the range limit of your UHF system but this is just not the case.  Perhaps the nomad will have better ifb reception. (keeping in mind that the receiver I'm reporting on here is the built in ifb of the trx, which is a single antenna design and supposedly has about 1/4 the range of an erx)

Hi Derek,

Thanks for your informative reply. Very interesting.

The fact that one needs to be so close to the camera for the return signal to work kinda defeats the purpose IMO. If I'm standing that close to the camera, I know its highly unlikely there will be any problems with my send anyway.

I still think its a cool feature but may need some refining. Lets wait and see what real world feedback is like when people start using this feature (and Nomad) in the field.

I'd look forward to reading informative feedback likes yours.

Cheers

Peter Mega

[Peter Mega]

Now the Nomad is definitely worth looking into. The Fusion's routing flexibility is leaps and bounds ahead of the SD machines. But it's that additional flexibility that sometimes make simple functions difficult in a fast pace ENG situation. For features or scripted shows, it's perfect.  I'm looking forward to seeing Nomad's capabilities though.

I'm not too familiar with the Fusion's routing capabilities but I can tell you that with version 2.14 for the 788T, it now has comprehensive output routing capabilities. Any input AND/OR track to any output and multiples there of.

Its pretty cool.

Cheers

Peter Mega

[Travis Breitenbach]

To be frank, 3.5-5.5 seconds is an intolerably long amount of time to change routing and to have ones head down in many ENG situations.

On a bi-weekly basis in the Reality TV world I find myself in a situation where I am booming, walking backward, dialing a cast member up on a receiver and changing multiple output routes at the same time. That's no exaggeration, but even in easy situations you're fading, dialing in Rx's, and routing on the fly non-stop. With a 788t, 552 or X5 it's a .5 second operation which can be done by feel. Simple stereo mix-downs are still a staple of the industry and other mixers do it with no fuss, that's why the CL-8 is an absolute essential for the 788t. Seriously, this is a huge, HUGE flaw. You cannot ignore the need for physical stereo pan switches.

It is a one hand menu knob operation.

I would imagine :

click twice on the menu button to get in output matrix- 0.5 second

scroll two the desired channels in the matrix and click on them  3-5 seconds.

Should not be a problem.

BTW I would sometimes  hold the boom with my left hand and put the end under my pit so I can manipulate camera or mixer/recorder. Might be a little unorthodox but it works for me...

[RadoStefanov]

Is that way most reality TV have subtitles??

Because you guys are trying to pan left or right in the middle of the shoot?

(: JOKE

Not a huge flaw. Not a flaw at all at least for me.

To be frank, 3.5-5.5 seconds is an intolerably long amount of time to change routing and to have ones head down in many ENG situations.

On a bi-weekly basis in the Reality TV world I find myself in a situation where I am booming, walking backward, dialing a cast member up on a receiver and changing multiple output routes at the same time. That's no exaggeration, but even in easy situations you're fading, dialing in Rx's, and routing on the fly non-stop. With a 788t, 552 or X5 it's a .5 second operation which can be done by feel. Simple stereo mix-downs are still a staple of the industry and other mixers do it with no fuss, that's why the CL-8 is an absolute essential for the 788t. Seriously, this is a huge, HUGE flaw. You cannot ignore the need for physical stereo pan switches.

[Bob]

To be frank, 3.5-5.5 seconds is an intolerably long amount of time to change routing and to have ones head down in many ENG situations.

On a bi-weekly basis in the Reality TV world I find myself in a situation where I am booming, walking backward, dialing a cast member up on a receiver and changing multiple output routes at the same time. That's no exaggeration, but even in easy situations you're fading, dialing in Rx's, and routing on the fly non-stop. With a 788t, 552 or X5 it's a .5 second operation which can be done by feel. Simple stereo mix-downs are still a staple of the industry and other mixers do it with no fuss, that's why the CL-8 is an absolute essential for the 788t. Seriously, this is a huge, HUGE flaw. You cannot ignore the need for physical stereo pan switches.

I'm sorry I don't understand why you are doing that much panning in a shot? I do a fair amount of reality work and depending on the situation my Left / Right assigns for the most parts don't change very frequently in a scene.

The situation will vary but often if I am using wires and a boom the boom is separated from the wires and boom is always on right and a mix of wires are on the left. Or if there is a host on a wire the host will be isolated from the subjects and all the subjects will be mixed down to one channel and all I do is bring up the subjects when they enter into a scene and down when they leave.

Yes I pan channels but it is almost never during a scene.

Am I missing something here?

I believe Rado that it may take 3-5 seconds to pan - but for me I really don't think it is an issue. Plus someone else here posted that when you are familiar with the routing it will go faster. I think Rado picked up nomad for the first time and without too much familiarity to the unit it too that long. Possibility after working with nomad that time may be quicker.

[RadoStefanov]

Yes first time touching nomad.

3-5 seconds calculating changing all 6 channels routing.

I do not understand why are you guys nit picking.

even with 788t and  cl8 you can not do it faster.

does one second makes a big difference?

How long does it take you to change a scene name?

Here is my humble take:

While Sound devices are releasing a video recorder and calculating how new products would not affect the sales of their old products " 766T or 744t with 4 pre amps and mixer functions" , ZAXCOM presented the most innovating product ever.  - in my opinion! Upgradable, simpler, power efficient, COOLER - temperature wise and a lot more......

And while I thank Sound devices from the bottom of my heart for all the years of cheaper then zaxcom products, I can say one thing:

The 788t is DEAD..... LONG LIVE THE NOMAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry I don't understand why you are doing that much panning in a shot? I do a fair amount of reality work and depending on the situation my Left / Right assigns for the most parts don't change very frequently in a scene.

The situation will vary but often if I am using wires and a boom the boom is separated from the wires and boom is always on right and a mix of wires are on the left. Or if there is a host on a wire the host will be isolated from the subjects and all the subjects will be mixed down to one channel and all I do is bring up the subjects when they enter into a scene and down when they leave.

Yes I pan channels but it is almost never during a scene.

Am I missing something here?

I believe Rado that it may take 3-5 seconds to pan - but for me I really don't think it is an issue. Plus someone else here posted that when you are familiar with the routing it will go faster. I think Rado picked up nomad for the first time and without too much familiarity to the unit it too that long. Possibility after working with nomad that time may be quicker.

[johnpaul215]

To be frank, 3.5-5.5 seconds is an intolerably long amount of time to change routing and to have ones head down in many ENG situations.

On a bi-weekly basis in the Reality TV world I find myself in a situation where I am booming, walking backward, dialing a cast member up on a receiver and changing multiple output routes at the same time. That's no exaggeration, but even in easy situations you're fading, dialing in Rx's, and routing on the fly non-stop. With a 788t, 552 or X5 it's a .5 second operation which can be done by feel. Simple stereo mix-downs are still a staple of the industry and other mixers do it with no fuss, that's why the CL-8 is an absolute essential for the 788t. Seriously, this is a huge, HUGE flaw. You cannot ignore the need for physical stereo pan switches.

I think this is a workflow decision depending on your specific jobs.

I have to be honest, I don't worry about panning nearly as much when using my Fusion. With a standard mixer, yes I pan quite a bit. With the Fusion, I know I have isolated tracks of everything. If I am booming and running 7 wireless mics, I am more worried about capturing everything than giving the best mix.... and possibly turning off certain mics if there is a privacy concern in my "all party consent" state (yeah, that's a legal issue on my current documentry-reality job).

Panning means you are splitting the inputs to two camera channels. Generally speaking with that kind of reality, you are not creating a stereo mix on the spot for the final product, are you? Especially if you are booming and mixing multiple wireless mics at once. The dialog will probably be mixed in post and you are giving them some separation of the sources. These recorders give post even more separation of sources. The traditional "boom on left, wireless on right" is really boom on one channel and lavs on the other.... and then it's mixed down in post.

I would not mind physical switch access, but I am not sure it's worth the real estate.  The switches may be nice, but I always prefer the panning pots (like the 442) to abrupt switches on most other mixers. Where do you stop adding things? Pretty soon you have a PD-6 with switches on every surface that requires you digging into a bag to try to change a setting.

It's also possible that the Nomad is not the device for you. The 788T/CL-8 is a great machine. Fortunately we have a few really good choices based on how we work, and how we like to work. These companies keep lighting fires under each other's toes to keep innovating. Look how many years the basic Nagra ruled the land with *relatively* slow evolution.

[RadoStefanov]

It's also possible that the Nomad is not the device for you. The 788T/CL-8 is a great machine.

788t cl8 combo ----- $6980

8 channel Nomad ifb wireless and TC included$5500

I have never expected Zaxcom to be cheaper then SD...

[Nick Jabour]

Rado, I think you would have to compare the 12 channel Nomad to the 788T/CL8.  Also you might have to add the aux knobs that are yet to be released.  But for the 788T/CL8 you got to add in all the adapters for the in's and outs, which there are slightly more for the 788T/CL8 then for the Nomad12.  So I bet they will come out to be very close in costs. I definitely don't think the 788T/CL8 in at all dead though, but it is well challenged.

I agree with Glen in that if all you use Pan for is Hard Left, Hard Right and Center as a routing option then the Nomad does this, though a quick shortcut to just switch a track/input between a couple of routing options would be nice.  Maybe while that fader is selected (via moving it) if I hold Setup and hit Bus I can rotate between a couple of routing options? 

I guess maybe this would be another thread, but does anyone use Pan to partial Pan between Left and Right for a stereo mix?

Btw do I have the same problem with the Nomad12 as I would with the 788T where I don't have an input route per track?

Anywho, I can't wait to get my hands on a Nomad for the rest of our new Zaxcom gear.

[Jonathan Reyes]

Yes first time touching nomad.

3-5 seconds calculating changing all 6 channels routing.

I do not understand why are you guys nit picking.

even with 788t and  cl8 you can not do it faster.

does one second makes a big difference?

How long does it take you to change a scene name?

W/ the CL8 you can pan it w/ in 1 sec. not 5 secs.

On most reality shows camera's mixes are primary tracks.  CH.1 and Ch.2.  You'll have to be able to mix fast. 

[Jeff Wexler]

On a bi-weekly basis in the Reality TV world I find myself in a situation where I am booming, walking backward, dialing a cast member up on a receiver and changing multiple output routes at the same time. That's no exaggeration, but even in easy situations you're fading, dialing in Rx's, and routing on the fly non-stop. With a 788t, 552 or X5 it's a .5 second operation which can be done by feel. Simple stereo mix-downs are still a staple of the industry and other mixers do it with no fuss, that's why the CL-8 is an absolute essential for the 788t. Seriously, this is a huge, HUGE flaw. You cannot ignore the need for physical stereo pan switches.

If it is a HUGE flaw for you and the way you want to work, then Nomad is not for you --- stick with what you have and continue to work the way you want to. That's the beauty of choice for us. For many others, Nomad will be the best solution for the way they work and the flaw you speak of will be an non-issue. I think anyone who declares that the SD 788/CL9 is DEAD is not thinking clearly. The Nomad is an amazing machine that will enable a style of working and facilitate a multitude of functions all in one box, things which cannot be accomplished with any combination of devices from all the other manufacturers. Those who are content to continue working with SD 788 and all the other items that may be needed to accomplish what can be done with Nomad, should continue to work with what they are comfortable with.

[TimPitot]

Partial pan (or whatever its called) good to bring in the boom under lav to add some colour if you are doing a boom/lav split.

[Splendid]

Also release date is 3 months from now.

Damn, thats hardly before the summer! I could do with this now… :-)

[Travis Breitenbach]

+1 Oleg

I really want the Nomad to be for me. The 788t/CL-8 falls short in a few ways, budget, size, weight, and battery usage (that's part of the weight issue - you've gotta carry more NP's in your bag). If the Nomad is being touted as an ENG solution - which in many ways it is, I would love for it to allow easy stereo panning.

The reason I pan so much during shots in Reality work is because we often shoot for 2-6 hours (weight!) without stopping and I try to provide maximum audio coverage. I'm often feeding two camera's so I don't have a break during tape changes.

Here's a scenario in which there is some on the fly panning going on: my Op is shooting a wide of a bunch of kids arguing outside a club, cast 1, 2, and 8 are in one little group and I have them mixed Left, cast member 11 is talking to two unmic'ed friends, but because we're wide on a long lens I have to play them off cast member 11's lav, I have this group on the Right. I'm watching my Op and can tell he's just punched into the 2nd group, so I drop all three cast on the Left, pan my boom to the Left, run in, extend my boom to get unmic'ed friends, balance it on my head as I pot it up on the mixer. Meanwhile, I'm looking over my shoulder and see that my Op is being indecisive and is going for the first group, so I drop the boom and pot 1,2, and 8 back up on the Left, then pot down member 11 on the Right, wait for a break in dialog and quickly pan cast member 8 over to the right to provide some isolation from 1 and 2, but what's this? Cast member 2 is now making a phone call (speaker phone) while still standing in the group, so I'll bring cast member 1 over to the Right and give cast member 2 the iso while 1 and 8 continue to whine to each other... That sort of thing happens in a minute or two and is simpler than it sounds. People walk around and talk to different people, operators hold shots for 20 seconds them move on to something else.

When I'm working with the 788t/CL-8 I'll admit I'm not as worried about nailing the stereo feed to camera because I have those lovely iso's. However, Reality editor's are notoriously time crunched and often work only with the stereo mix-down... Perhaps in a few years everyone will be working with 4-tracks to camera (except on toy cam shows, which there are a lot of), in which case hardware pan switches go out the window...

Perhaps there could be shortcut for stereo panning? I would ideally like to set-up the Nomad to record pre-fade iso's, while I concentrate most of my energy on controlling a stereo output for camera (I do not care about recording that stereo output on the Nomad as is general practice with the aux channels on the 788t, but if I have tracks to spare I'll do it). If this can't be done gracefully, I would consider using the outs to feed an X5 or 552 which would control output to the hops (doing what the CL-8 does), which would still probably be lighter and more battery efficient than a 788t/CL-8.

Otherwise, I'm trying to move out of reality and into commercial/fiction work, and the Nomad seems like a flexible transition tool. I just want Zaxcom to get it perfect!

[Solid Goldberger]

I'm sorry I'm getting back into this conversation late. 

The comparison here in regards to the panning/trim issue is not really between a the Nomad and the Fusion or 788t.  I think those differences are pretty clear, and everyone understands the differences at this point in the thread.  Comparing those price points is somewhat irrelevant to this particular part of the discussion.

As I see it, ENG audio refers to mixing audio to the camera as the record source (2 or 4-track as new cameras have that option).  That is an essential aspect of every job I have ever done that I'd consider "ENG".  Simply working out of a bag does not make a shoot ENG.  What we're talking about is mixing/panning to the camera as a record source.  The Isos or a backup recorder are great features of the new hardware options in the marketplace, but ultimately they are secondary to the goal of recording audio to the camera.

The real comparison is to the other ENG MIXERS in the marketplace.  I really wanted this to be a must-own product, but for me its is not.  The singular reason is that for those of us who often do true ENG mixing, the speed of pan and trim that a mixer like the SD552 provides simply isnt matched here.  I had hoped that the Nomad would be a high-end product that we could purchase that would replace all the "lower-end" mixers we use, taking the field mixer into the 21st century.  Unfortunately, IMO, this product lacks essential ergonomic essentials that the ENG Sound Mixer requires to do our jobs at the speed that is required.

That said, if I was a person looking to purchase their first recorder, or upgrade to a multi-track, I would strongly consider a Nomad versus a 744t/788t/Fusion.  Unfortunately I'm not in that situation right now, but I can definitely see the Nomad taking a lot of sales from Sound Devices (and also from the Fusion, which to me seems like it may have had its legs chopped out by its own maker).

I implore Glenn and the other folks at Zaxcom to add a hardware pan to each fader before they release the Nomad into the wild.  If they did, I can almost guarantee that they'd take over the ENG mixer industry with the low price point they are starting at.  Otherwise, it simply doesn't add enough to make me switch from my 552, and it fails to satisfy a large part of the market it hopes to compete in, that of ENG sound. 

e.