SQN, Sonosax, or Sound Devices?
Markus Mietling
qualified for mobile stereo recording of classical music (strings,
winds, choir, and the like): the SQN 4s, the Sound Devices 302, or the
Sonosax SX-M32?
2., is there any other serious contender I haven't heard of?
Thanks for opinions :-)
Charles Tomaras
"Markus Mietling" <mietlin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:icthi595lhdoh8uj7...@4ax.com...
How about the 778t/CL8 combo. Great mic pres, great headphone amp, lots of
flexibility over a three channel mixer and a two track recorder.
Oleg Kaizerman
direct digi outs to any bit bucket like m-audio
"Markus Mietling" <mietlin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:icthi595lhdoh8uj7...@4ax.com...
Scott Dorsey
>Subtle price differences aside, what do you think would be best
>qualified for mobile stereo recording of classical music (strings,
>winds, choir, and the like): the SQN 4s, the Sound Devices 302, or the
>Sonosax SX-M32?
They are all reasonable choices. I like the way the Sonosax feels best,
though. All are worth auditioning.
>2., is there any other serious contender I haven't heard of?
Millennia Media Mixing Suite. Now discontinued but still available used.
User interface is horrible, sound quality can't be beat.
Audio Developments AD-146 also. It's a very versatile thing.
And don't forget the homebrew passive attenuator panel!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Soundhaspriority
"Oleg Kaizerman" <kaiz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgb2hn$elb$1...@aioe.org...
Markus,
I use a MiniMe with two 744T's slaved. The MiniMe is the clock master,
because it has no clock input. They both sound terrific.
These days, the choice in preamps is between "small geometry" chip pres, and
discrete long-tailed front ends. At AES, I spoke with a chip designer who
told me that discrete designs measure better, but he did not know if there
is an audible difference.
The preamps of the 744T are closer to "big iron" preamps than the other
choices. They have discrete Class A inputs that draw some current. I don't
know if this makes a difference, but if you audition, you might find the
744T is smoother. The 788T has chip inputs, but better A/D. OTOH, the 744T
can sample at 192, which some classical recordists prefer.
The MOTU Traveler MKIII also sounds marvelous. There are many excellent
choices these days. But I don't think the Sonosax and SQN offer advantage
proportional to the price, because, like most mixers, they run off AA's,
which constrain the design by limited power.
The 302 has very good transformers, but transparency is preferred for
classical.
The 744T has better specs than the MiniMe, but I can't hear the difference
where I record.
Ranking in loose personal preference:
744T
788
MOTU Traveler MKIII (must be MKIII)
Apogee MiniMe
SQN-4, Sonosax SX-M32
SD 302
I don't think you can have a problem with any of your choices. Mikes are
always the crucial choice.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Vinc.
http://www.pro-sound.com/Aeta/SAETMIXY.html
Very good sound, the preampl seems to be better than sonosax's preamp.
It works also as USB interface.
You should try it.
Vinc.
engaudio
Here's my order of preference.
SQN4S (I own one and love the sound if it, good lower midrange, think
"british sound")
Sonosax (natural "clear" sound)
SD302 (similar to the sonosax)
They all have advantages and would happily use any of the mixers but
my favourite is the SQN for the sound.
BTW: Not sure about Bobs theory of: "...I don't think the Sonosax and
SQN offer advantage
proportional to the price, because, like most mixers, they run off
AA's, which constrain the design by limited power...."
hmmm... what about the SD302?
Regards,
Grant.
Listen to the SQN here: http://naturesounds.co.nz/podcast.html
Soundhaspriority
"engaudio" <enga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c45c2a4-b16e-4351...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Grant,
The 302 has the same problem. In fact, to get enough gain, the
designers resorted to a "passive gain" strategy, where the input transformer
actually provides voltage gain. Of the units I use, 744T, MiniMe, Traveler
III, and 302, the 302 is the only unit with an obvious sound signature. The
guys at Sound Devices say as much; when they introduced the 700 recorders,
they touted the pres as more advanced than their mixers, and they stated
why: they had the power budget to do better. They keep the transformers in
their mixers, because production sound almost constantly encounters emi
problems with no time to fix. The transformer is the ultimate in noise
rejection, not transparency.
One could compliment the 302 by saying it sounds like a good transformer
preamp. I try to use it for vocals. But classical recording is a world apart
from pop. The small number of engineers who record symphony orchestras do
not, as a group, use transformer preamps. They use the heavy iron: Millenia,
Grace, and a few others. They want transparency at any price.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"engaudio" <enga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c45c2a4-b16e-4351...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Grant,
About power budget. It all goes back to a thing in calculus called the
Taylor Expansion. It means that, with any device, the more power you are
allowed to run through it, the more linear you can get. Designers have been
working at replacing the power budget with nifty circuit tricks for years.
But at any point in time, it still holds. With silicon semis, there is a
basic nonlinearity in the device centered around 0.6 volts. The lower your
power rail is, compared to the 0.6 volt threshold, the harder it is to keep
distortion down. Also, the smaller the power budget, the smaller the "die",
the little chunk of silicon. When the die is small, the resistors on it get
modulated by heat. When the die is big, or the resistors are external,
thermal modulation goes down -- but then, more power is needed.
I had a very interesting discussion with an engineer from THAT
Corporation, who make leading edge mike preamp chips. The guy was very
candid: In bench measurements, discrete will beat a chip pre. He had no
reason to be less than candid, because he was selling chips. He could tell
me the truth because no box designer is going to switch from THAT chips to
discrete pres based upon what he says. The decision is already made.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
fabian oliver
very, very good.
Mixy preamps has lot of gain, very low noise, and a nice color.
If you are going to record music think about, voice is easy, music is
not.
I use it as front end of my Cantar when i need extra gain.
Fabian
On Dec 16, 9:19 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "engaudio" <engau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
fabian oliver
But is much expensive than Mixy-D50.
Fabian
On Dec 16, 9:19 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "engaudio" <engau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The Immoral Mr Teas
> qualified for mobile stereo recording of classical music (strings,
> winds, choir, and the like): the SQN 4s, the Sound Devices 302, or the
> Sonosax SX-M32?
I 'm glad you raised this question, and hope that jacques at sonosax
is watching. For me the SX-M32 was eagerly awaited and looks good in
many many respects (particularly, for production sound purposes, as a
direct competitor to the 302, which I own) ... and still looks to be a
great machine. HOWEVER, unlike it's bigger brother the R4, it's
digital out has only the option of 48kHz/96kHz OR 48kHz/192kHz ...
which makes it of little use to me (requiring at least the choice of
96 and 192) or to yourself ... there is no 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 ...
There are a few other points - suggesting that the unit was built
around the idea of sound for video/film and ignoring other potential
users, such as myself fx recording but particularly music recordists -
that mean that it isn't going to be the sidecar to the R4 that I
always expected it to be (and the R4 NEEDS a sidecar - preferably 4
channels, clocked AES out)
I would, however, look at the R4 (download manuals of that and the M32
from sonosax) and perhaps the Nagra since nobody's mentioned it. Other
than that, any of the SD 7 series (the 702 might be sufficient if you
only need two preamps/channels) or even my current solution, a
selection of nice preamps line in to a microtrack or similar recorder
(but you might have to ask the musicians to start again when the thing
freezes up!)
Jez Adamson
joseph green jlgreen.mail
i hesitate to open a can of worms here, but the recording technique
you employ
will make or break you. stereo is correct, however, with an array of
sections, wind/voice/strings you should consider micing each section
separately, which means more tracks than 3 or 4. now, what to do? if
you get some extra mics in there, mono, you will add some punch into
the final mixdown and catch solos in the pieces. in my opinion,
stereo is okay, but some mono recordings of orchestras, and big jazz
ensembles,
early dizzy gillespie mono recordings, or even mass oriented mitch
miller (who was a great engineer, btw) sing along records pack a
serious punch. modern producer engineer musicians like lindsey
buckingham use what he calls 'super mono' which is, narrowing the
stereo field and filtering in strong mono sources
to enhance the soft spots and glue it together so it sounds solid
know what pieces you're going to record, and develop a plan.
Scott Dorsey
>OOOpss. I forgot: Nagra VI.
It's not a mixer, though. You could use it as one, but it's not all that
convenient. And it has no EQ at all, which you every once in a while might
need for spotmiking.
I have to admit that sometimes I drag the Nagra BMII out of the closet. It's
all germanium but it really doesn't sound all that bad, and the noise rejection
is fabulous.
Soundhaspriority
"joseph green jlgreen.mail" <jlgree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:448a09f2-d914-4ea8...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 8:33 pm, The Immoral Mr Teas <teais...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
i hesitate to open a can of worms here, but the recording technique
you employ
will make or break you. stereo is correct, however, with an array of
sections, wind/voice/strings you should consider micing each section
separately, which means more tracks than 3 or 4. now, what to do? if
you get some extra mics in there, mono, you will add some punch into
the final mixdown and catch solos in the pieces. in my opinion,
stereo is okay, but some mono recordings of orchestras, and big jazz
ensembles,
early dizzy gillespie mono recordings, or even mass oriented mitch
miller (who was a great engineer, btw) sing along records pack a
serious punch. modern producer engineer musicians like lindsey
buckingham use what he calls 'super mono' which is, narrowing the
stereo field and filtering in strong mono sources
to enhance the soft spots and glue it together so it sounds solid
know what pieces you're going to record, and develop a plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the MOTU Traveler MKIII, as opposed to the original Traveler,
rises to the necessary level of excellence.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
maskhat
how about a Nagra LB?
Two very good quality preamps and an ADC without compromises,
Very portable, and you don't need a recorder to hook up. Which is kinda
important thing if you are thinking of using a small consumer type
portable recorder as apart from Sony's one, there's no digital in.
Not cheap though.
I used also 302 for classical recording, but not recommend for their
preamps quality. Very good for voice/speech but lack of body for musical
purposes.
Masaki Hatsui
Switzerland
Fernando
Did you evaluate Deva's and/or Cantar's for classical music recording?