Sound Devices Mixpre-D AES digital output

Maybe it's just me, but this seems so obvious. Why hasn't it been done already?
Click to expand...
This idea is, as you might know, not new. Many also wonder why there are no analogue bit buckets with 4+ channels and just line inputs, no preamps.

The answer, I think, is that it's to small a market to be cost-effective.
 
John Willett said:
If Sound Devices said that, I would like to know the context of the original question.

I find it strange that, in effect, Sound Devices are saying that their pre-amp quality and ADC are about the same quality as a portable recorder. In which case - why buy a Sound Devices?

If the person who said that was asked a specific question and said that, under those specific conditions, that the questioner was unlikely to notice much difference, I could understand it. But I do suspect the quote has been taken out of context.
Click to expand...

I suspect he was comparing a line level in to a digital in. So you are not talking about going through the preamp (well at least not on all boxes) so you are only talking about converters. Converters are pretty good across the board so I would not be surprised if the biggest difference is clocking jitter and most people won't notice that on most recordings. In a lab I suspect the difference will be a lot clearer.

Your using SD because it has MUCH better preamps, and is far more flexible. At least that is why I use it. And if yor going into something like a handheld recorder your digital connection is going to be a lot more fragile than your analog one so for field work I would always go for the more robust connection.
 
Noiz2 said:
Your using SD because it has MUCH better preamps, and is far more flexible.
Click to expand...

Actually, I *don't* use SD at all as the pre-amps are not good enough for me. I use the AETA MIXY & 4MinX and the Nagra VI.

Having said this, though, the SD is much better than virtually anything else (though I would put the Sonosax and Aaton Cantar in the same bracket as the AETA and Nagra - but all these are more expensive than SD).

The MIXY is similar in size and application to the MixPre-D (3 x mic/line inputs + 2 line inputs / outputs: consumer analogue, pro analogue, AES3, S-PDIF, optical and USB) and built like a brick s*** house (as they say) but is more expensive because of the high quality.
 
Jema said:
analogue bit buckets
Click to expand...

There's an interesting non sequitur.

Jema said:
The answer, I think, is that it's to small a market to be cost-effective.
Click to expand...

Another non sequitur. It's the same market that's supporting the MixPre-D, the various Zoom and Tascam recorders, etc. Most of the people using a MixPre-D would be interested, especially the people who are currently using Zooms and Tascams for recorders for their MixPre-Ds.
 
John Willett said:
Actually, I *don't* use SD at all as the pre-amps are not good enough for me. I use the AETA MIXY & 4MinX and the Nagra VI....
Click to expand...

OK buy you asked "Why buy SD (over using a hand held recorders preamps)" So the "you" is a generic one answering your question, and the comparison was to the preamps on a handheld not 50 lbs of high-end gear.

That is probably a bit of an exaggeration but cary a Nagra VI around for a day and you KNOW it. Does sound great, but again you were comparing SD to a handheld not a Nagra. I would actually argue that IF you are recording with the Nagra that the built in mic pres are better than the SD pres so there is no point using a SD mixer as a front end.
 
Having just watched that video demo, I saw it has text annotations throughout correcting what he said onscreen -- and with those annotations it seems correct to me. Did you see those annotations or were they added more recently? Meaning do you agree with what the corrections suggest, or how would you set it up if not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top