Zaxcom nomad chat!!!!

I got curious to see what is actually out there. One thing is there is a slew of two track portable recorders, I mean LOTS.

Anyway in the $5K ish and below more than two tracks non toy (any recorder using compressed files designed to work up demo songs) recorders. Also they need to have Mic ins with Phantom and record at 48/24 and higher and be portable, as in battery operated.

You have
Zaxom at $3,300 - 4 tracks and ? for the 6 and 8 track versions and $6,800 for the 12 track version. I'll guess that the 8 track is close to my $5K limit, so three entries.

Tascam DR-680 at $799 for 8 tracks (pointed out that really only 4 Mic ins +two TRS and two digital, so a 4+2+2 tracks) or the really nice looking HS-P82 8 track for $4,999.

and Sound Devices 744T for $4,095 four tracks and the 788T eight tracks for $5,995 So really only one falls in the net.

Any I missed? Nagra and Cantar don't have anything that qualifies. Fostex is also too high and it looks like their eight track is discontinued so?

I guess I should throw in the Edirol R-4 Pro at four tracks for $2,295. I do it grudgingly because I think it is seriously challenged (PC talk for lacking) in the "professional" part of the qualifications but...
 
Last edited:
Noiz2,

As good a recorder as the DR-680 is for the money, it isn't really a 8 track recorder when used for video. There are only 4 XLR inputs with phantom. There are 2 more 1/4" phantom powered inputs.

Grant
 
wbrock001 said:
The only zaxcom gear I own is a zfr100 with an sta100 stereo adapter...and it has worked well for it's purpose. But going in I was a bit shocked to learn that they use a proprietary compression so that all audio, mono or stereo, is compressed to near 400kbps...and that stream is what is then transmitted. I was shocked because they vaguely talk about it then don't give any real details about it in any literature...it wasn't until I emailed them and specifically asked that I learned the true nature of how they handle audio. But I do have to admit that it still sounds pretty good. So if I end up getting the 702 then I could compare and see if I can hear any difference.
Click to expand...


Since Zaxcom was mentioned in another thread I looked into their specs... according to their specs, they use 200KHz bandwidths for their radios. Shannon's law gives the max theoretical bit rates that can be achieved for a given bandwidth and SNR. With that in mind, for a SNR range of 7-100, that yields for an SNR of 7, a max bit rate of approx, 3*200Kbits/s or 600Kbits/s... given a 48KHz audio sample rate, and a 24 bit sample, that yields a 1.1 Mbits/s stream...

In other words... something's got to give... enter compression... a 50% lossless compression can be achieved, and so if you say the compression is down to 400Kbits, then it seems like they 'do better'... but still there is no free lunch... there's probably some form of Forward Error Correction as well, which adds back to needed bandwidth... again no free lunch...

If you are in the market, ask if the compression is lossy or lossless...
 
Good point, I corrected the description.
ggrantly said:
Noiz2,

As good a recorder as the DR-680 is for the money, it isn't really a 8 track recorder when used for video. There are only 4 XLR inputs with phantom. There are 2 more 1/4" phantom powered inputs.

Grant
Click to expand...
 
If you throw in a MixPre-D, or any stereo preamp with s/pdif outs, the Tascam DR680 becomes an 8 track. Still 6 ain't bad out of the box (with 2 trs-xlr adapters).
 
There's another really expensive unit out there from Sonosax that is coming out soon. I think they have it at Location Sound in Los Angeles. Sonosax stuff is always spendy, but good quality.

For over the shoulder stuff, size and weight are usually two big things when considering a purchase, so don't forget that when comparing all the recorder/mixers out there. Another thing to consider is...when is the Nomad really going to come out?
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Since Zaxcom was mentioned in another thread I looked into their specs... according to their specs, they use 200KHz bandwidths for their radios. Shannon's law gives the max theoretical bit rates that can be achieved for a given bandwidth and SNR. With that in mind, for a SNR range of 7-100, that yields for an SNR of 7, a max bit rate of approx, 3*200Kbits/s or 600Kbits/s... given a 48KHz audio sample rate, and a 24 bit sample, that yields a 1.1 Mbits/s stream...

In other words... something's got to give... enter compression... a 50% lossless compression can be achieved, and so if you say the compression is down to 400Kbits, then it seems like they 'do better'... but still there is no free lunch... there's probably some form of Forward Error Correction as well, which adds back to needed bandwidth... again no free lunch...

If you are in the market, ask if the compression is lossy or lossless...
Click to expand...

Yes, it also immediately cuts out anything above 17khz, so no using their wireless systems for recording bats I'm afraid!
 
wbrock001 said:
Sorry, I was just joking...I'll make that more clear next time.
Click to expand...

Ah.. I see. I should have realized as much.

Although you can record right onto the transmitter. I was almost involved with a sound effects recording gig for roller coasters and other amusement park rides, and I was considering using the transmitter's recording ability to put a bunch of transmitters all over a roller coaster, since I would probably use high quality lavs as my mics, and just put the transmitter close to the mic. That way I wouldn't have run a bunch of cable all over the place. I could monitor the wireless with a Deva, and remotely control everything, and keep it all in sync with timecode, but the gig fell through (thanks unnamed game publisher). I was really looking forward to working on that at the time.
 
That sounds pretty cool. I know the zfr100 has been very useful for me as a backup for wireless. So are you saying that most of the zaxcom technology works then...just a few hiccups still? And do you own all this zaxcom equipment? If so, why did you choose it over anything else out there? Was it the integration? Thanks!
 
Of the Zaxcom stuff I have used, it has all worked just fine. I don't own any of it because I don't use it enough to necessitate a purchase, and with the past connections I have, it's easy for me to get rental or loaner Zaxcom gear really quickly (full disclosure, I sold a TON of Zaxcom gear in the past, and know it intimately). Sometimes there are issues with certain units not working properly. I haven't personally experienced them, but I know others who have, and they do have legitimate issues. If I were to put together a full on production cart for TV or feature work, I don't know if I'd go all Zaxcom or not, to be honest with you. I know guys that do have all Zaxcom stuff, and really love the whole Zaxnet/deva/deva mix 12 combo. Some guys don't like it. It's all personal taste. Their stuff isn't cheap, so for many it is simply cost prohibitive, but it's worth at least checking out if you can swing it.

Note: I no longer sell, represent, speak for, or get paid by Zaxcom. I've just dealt with them more than most people because of my past work experience at Coffey Sound.
 
I don't see how the Tascam DR 680 should have more professional features than an Edirol R-4 Pro. The latter has TC, the former not. I think the Roland/Edirol R-44 should be added to the list. It's 4 channel, 4 XLR in phantom and has four dedicated gain and 4 level knobs, whereas the DR 680 only has one(!) knob. That in my opinion disqualifies it as a standalone unit for bag use. I myself have used the R-44 for some years and have been very happy with it. But it really depends on the work you do.
 
I have both the R4 Pro and the DR-680. For me, I have never needed TC, as none of the cameras I use have it. And I have never needed to ride multiple faders simultaneously. The Tascam's one knob is easy to use, you just hit the button of the track you need to adjust then turn the one knob. Not ideal, but not a big deal. For me the DR-680 has more features, more tracks, better sounding pres, and is 1,200.00 less than the 4 track R-4 Pro, so that's why I choose it. But if you need TC the R4Pro at 2,000.00 is the cheapest way to go I believe.
 
sonidista said:
I don't see how the Tascam DR 680 should have more professional features than an Edirol R-4 Pro. The latter has TC, the former not. I think the Roland/Edirol R-44 should be added to the list. It's 4 channel, 4 XLR in phantom and has four dedicated gain and 4 level knobs, whereas the DR 680 only has one(!) knob. That in my opinion disqualifies it as a standalone unit for bag use. I myself have used the R-44 for some years and have been very happy with it. But it really depends on the work you do.
Click to expand...

I have not used either in the field but I did have a chance to play around with the Edirol. The battery life is horrible, the very fragile feeling knobs stick out with out any protection, I forget the rest of the issues. I kept asking questions and I think I was pissing off the rep because they kept having to say no. To me it felt like a toy, but that is just my impression. I use a Marantz and I have heard people say they thought it felt like a toy so... I was intrigued till I looked at it and played with it and then found so many things I asked about, and use, missing.

So you can put it on your list if you want. I think I mentioned it on mine. TC is a non issue 99% of the time for 50% of the people and 100% of the time for the other 50% so I consider it an added bonus for most and a require mend for a very few.

Well the Nomad only has one knob for trim the SD recorders don't have level controls (they are just trims). I don't really see the point. Mac has the window buttons on the left and Windows has them on the right. You can argue with UI but they are all "professional". The Edirol only has unbalanced RCA outs, it doesn't have line ins those would all be considered pretty standard on "pro" gear.
I don't mean to trash the box it is supposed to sound very good but if your going to start attacking something for not having "pro features" your in a glass house.
 
Noiz2 said:
TC is a non issue 99% of the time for 50% of the people and 100% of the time for the other 50% so I consider it an added bonus for most and a require mend for a very few.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said Scott except the above.
If you are doing a film shoot, telecine most of the time uses time code to sync.
I realize there are exceptions and some large movies use a clap board but I have to think that's a minority.

Almost all of my video shoots that request my recorder are also using time code to sync.
Sometimes time code recorder is connected to a time code camera.
Other times the time code recorder is used with a non time code camera and we use a time code slate
which is then used to sync in an edit program like final cut.

I realize most hobbiests might be fine dealing with syncing each clip by hand but I can't tell you how much quicker it is
via a time code slate and the "aux time code" function in final cut.
Bam - bam - bam - done.

So at least in my case time code isn't necessary only 1% of the time,
I would say it's much more in line with 70-90% of the time.


(here's a pdf I found that explains how to sync using a timecode slate in final cut if anyone is
interested.
http://louisianafilmsound.com/DSLR/DSLRSync.pdf
If you want to skip getting files into final cut, you can start reading at step 7)
 
Last edited:
Ah maybe too broad a generalization. And my big budget film post knowledge is five or six years old so things may have changed. Of the three major post houses in the Bay Area only one had a TC DAT (the format production was coming in on then). I don't know about telecinies but post sound is sunk up by the sound department and we are working to the cut picture so TC is only goes so far and your working in feet and frames.

The DSLR crowd, at least in my experience, isn't using TC. But TV is probably using it all the time. If your working in a way that your syncing to full takes and having that be the audio that goes to post sound then it makes more sense.

But I was really including everyone so FX recordists also. In a strictly professional market it's probably a much higher percentage.

My main point was it's not a dividing line with all professional recorders having TC.

Probably overstated it a bit ;~)


Rippie said:
I agree with everything you said Scott except the above.
If you are doing a film shoot, telecine most of the time uses time code to sync.
I realize there are exceptions and some large movies use a clap board but I have to think that's a minority.

Almost all of my video shoots that request my recorder are also using time code to sync.
Sometimes time code recorder is connected to a time code camera.
Other times the time code recorder is used with a non time code camera and we use a time code slate
which is then used to sync in an edit program like final cut.

I realize most hobbiests might be fine dealing with syncing each clip by hand but I can't tell you how much quicker it is
via a time code slate and the "aux time code" function in final cut.
Bam - bam - bam - done.

So at least in my case time code isn't necessary only 1% of the time,
I would say it's much more in line with 70-90% of the time.


(here's a pdf I found that explains how to sync using a timecode slate in final cut if anyone is
interested.
http://louisianafilmsound.com/DSLR/DSLRSync.pdf
If you want to skip getting files into final cut, you can start reading at step 7)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top