SoundDevices and Sonosax onboard limiters

[gotsoul]

Hi everybody,
I'm in the market for a portable recorder, need to use it for production sound, sfx recording, and some much more rarer music recording.

I've just finished a production using a Sonosax SX-R4, and was very pleased with the results, here are the pro:
- very nice sounding pre, really great, warm, "good for movie" sound.
- ease of use, very compact, AA batteries easily repleacable anywhere.
- very good sounding analogue limiters: that impressed me a lot, every shout, noise, bang or whatever sounded very natural back in the studio, you just can't hear the limiting, but you're not clipping the AD stage either.

That's my question:
- I need more channels, sometime.
- I work alone most of the times, and the Sonosax can't output a proper separate-mix on the fly.
- Location sound is utterly unpredictable.

For these reason I'm leaning towards a Sound Devices 788t.
enough tracks.
mix on the fly

but I've been told that the limiting stage is very bad, meaning that you can hear the sound getting "pushed down" in a bad way, and also gets in action quite fast.
Since I can't find any explicit info about this, I guess also that the limiters are digital, not really bulletproof for clipping defense.

So....

- How you would you sonically describe the SD 788t pre's ?
- Can you compare them to the Sonosax pre's ?
- Can anybody comment on the SD limiting stage ?

well...that's enough for the moment !
Hope somebody can shed some light

L

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by gotsoul

but I've been told that the limiting stage is very bad, meaning that you can hear the sound getting "pushed down" in a bad way, and also gets in action quite fast.

The limiter of the 788 used to "crackle" but this was fixed long ago. The limiter-parameters can also be adjusted to your taste unlike other machines. They are not digital (that wouldn´t make sense at all, wouldn´t it?), they work in the analogue domain.

Best is you listen to them yourself. Terms like "warm" etc. far too subjective.

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

The limiter of the 788 used to "crackle" but this was fixed long ago. The limiter-parameters can also be adjusted to your taste unlike other machines. They are not digital (that wouldn´t make sense at all, wouldn´t it?), they work in the analogue domain.

Best is you listen to them yourself. Terms like "warm" etc. far too subjective.

Do do a test yourself. The 788 is a very deep machine that can be set up in many ways. The analog input section of the machine is very different from the 744 etc earlier machines, the 788 doesn't have analog limiters and also does not have input transformers on the mic inputs, so it sounds different (but still great). This has been upsetting to some folks who were expecting it to sound like an 8-mic-input 744T.

Philip Perkins

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by philper

788 doesn't have analog limiters and also does not

Where did you get this info? The limiters are working in the analog domain (before any A/D is done) only the control is done by a DSP.

From the 788 manual:

Input Limiters
Analog inputs incorporate an advanced, analog/DSP-controlled hybrid limiter to prevent input
overload. In normal operation and with proper gain settings, the limiters should rarely engage.
When activated, these limiters prevent unusually high input signal levels from clipping the analog
input stage of the preamp.
The 788T is equipped with 16 Input Limiters, a pre-fade and a post-fade limiter for each input. Limit-
ing is applied only at the stage of the signal path where the level exceeds the set Limiter Threshold.
If the threshold is exceeded at both pre- and post-fade stages, each limiter will act independently of
one another.
The Input Activity LEDs illuminate yellow when an input is being limited at either stage. When a
fader accessory is connected, the 788T will indicate pre-fade limiting and the fader accessory will
indicate post-fade limiting. The Input Limiters are active for both mic- and line-level inputs.
Enable or disable the Input Limiters using the soft Lim (HDD) key while in the Input Settings Win-
dow. This enables/disables both the pre- and post-fade limiters. The 788T offers several adjustments
for its peak limiter to tailor the sound to the user’s desire: Threshold; Knee; Ratio; and Recovery.
The Limiter Threshold adjusts the maximum peak level at which the limiter will engage. Sounds
louder than this threshold are attenuated. This threshold is adjustable in the Setup Menu option
INPUT: LIMITER THRESHOLD from -12 to -2 dBFS in .1 dBFS increments.
The Limiter Recovery adjusts how slowly the limiter brings its gain back up after a peak is lim-
ited. A shorter recovery follows the envelope of speech better than a longer recovery, but at
the expense of low-frequency distortion. Recovery time is adjustable in the Setup Menu op-
tion INPUT: LIMITER RECOVERY from 50 msec to 2000 msec in 10 msec increments.
Setup Menu option INPUT: LIMITER KNEE allows the user to control the ratio at which the signal is
limited and whether the limiter has a Hard- or Soft-Knee. The limiter ratio is either infi nite: 1 or 20:1.
The hard knee setting leaves all program material below the threshold completely unaffected and at-
tenuates only those peaks above the threshold. The soft knee setting attenuates the program material
slightly before the threshold (about 6 dB) for a more gradual tape-like sound.
Inputs can have their limiters linked or grouped according to the Input Linking settings. This is ideal
for working with stereo or surround sources. See Input Linking

.

[gotsoul]

thanx !

to apple-q: no, it owuldn't make sense...but that's what it is !
"analog/DSP controlled hybrid limiter" is a really foggy definition...I really can't understand what it really is.

From my point of view replacing harware limiting circuit with something DSP/based is a good way for cutting cost.
Also, the DSP gives you the possibility to change the limiter setting, and this is good.

But I can't help but thinking that all this processing will help after DA conversion...

I may be wrong, I'm really just assuming, maybe somebody has more info ?
somebody from Sound Devices ?
I'll try to get in touch with them.

"warm": you're right, too subjective !
Let's say that I've found the Sonosax pre's to be be very detailed, very dynamic and open, but maybe with a little "slowness" in the transient wich very appreciable, from my POV, in a movie recording.

to philiper:
great to know the different pre's topology.
I'll try to do a test, but it's quite difficult here in Italy (without shelling cash for rentals !)

I've seen that you've also been attracted by the Tascam DR-680, wich is in a really different ballpark moneywise.
How would you compare the two ?
Seems to me that you're also an ULN-8 owner as I am: do you think that the quality is similar between an ULN-8 and a 788t ?
I'm not talking "absolute quality", to be more specifical: I feel the ULN-8 pres are very clean, very fast, very sparkiling on transient, maybe a bit too much detail for location sound: and also would be great to have a different quality of pre in the 788t, just for variety.

Well...thanx again !

L

[Dustin Moore]

I'm not an expert but the idea of a limiter is to keep the levels down
so that the A/D does not clip due to the input being too hot. The gain
adjustment has to be done in the analog domain before the A/D.

The logic that sets the gain based on levels, thresholds and knees can
be done digitally and fed back to the gain circuit.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by gotsoul

thanx !

to apple-q: no, it owuldn't make sense...but that's what it is !
"analog/DSP controlled hybrid limiter" is a really foggy definition...I really can't understand what it really is.

From my point of view replacing harware limiting circuit with something DSP/based is a good way for cutting cost.
Also, the DSP gives you the possibility to change the limiter setting, and this is good.

But I can't help but thinking that all this processing will help after DA conversion...

Again: All the actual limiting is done to the ANALOG signal (pre-ADC). It doesn´t make sense to limit a signal that is already distorted by the ADC. As far as I understand it it´s like a VCA that is digitally controlled.

I have a 788 and I use it frequently. The limitter sounds different than that of the 744T but I so does the limiter of the MixPre or the 442.

But again: This is all theory. If you like the "warmth" of the Sonosax you like it because you listened to it. You shoud do the same with the 788 to find a real conclusion.

All else is theory ;-)

[gotsoul]

All else is theory ;-)

I agree !

glad to know that you own a 788t, that's first hand experience.

and thanx for sharing some technical info, now it all makes more sense

about pre's, I have to get better at describing...!

Will mail Sound Devices and report in case I have more info.

Have nice day

L

[thierryd]

Originally Posted by gotsoul

Hi everybody,

- How you would you sonically describe the SD 788t pre's ?
- Can you compare them to the Sonosax pre's ?
- Can anybody comment on the SD limiting stage ?

well...that's enough for the moment !
Hope somebody can shed some light

L

I own a 744T which I've always liked for sound. I would describe it as clean more than "warm", but as others have said you should listen for yourself.
I've recently rented a 788T+CL9 for a 38 day filmshoot and it's great too. Not exactly the same as a 744T, but very good as well.
I've never used a Sonosax recorder so can't comment.
As for the limiting stage of the 788T, it is different than the other SD products, but they have a good starting guide about the limiters here:
788T Limiter Overview
I've used their recommended settings from this document and liked what I heard, but I work with headroom anyway so the limiters are for the "just in case" situations and they don't have to work hard for me...

Greetings,

Thierry

[gotsoul]

great links, thanx a lot

[minister]

If you record at 96k, the 788 will have NO limiters. A DSP thing.

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Again: All the actual limiting is done to the ANALOG signal (pre-ADC). It doesn´t make sense to limit a signal that is already distorted by the ADC. As far as I understand it it´s like a VCA that is digitally controlled.

I have a 788 and I use it frequently. The limitter sounds different than that of the 744T but I so does the limiter of the MixPre or the 442.

But again: This is all theory. If you like the "warmth" of the Sonosax you like it because you listened to it. You shoud do the same with the 788 to find a real conclusion.

All else is theory ;-)

The limiters in the 788 are very different from those in the 744, and that is a fact. The 744 etc have a transformer in their front ends which radically alters the sound, that is a fact too. There have been numerous complaints about the 788 limiters, these are available to read on the various forums. To my knowledge there have never been complaints about the 744 limiters, ever. A very good place to talk with people with a lot of real-world experience behind all the SD recorders is the forum at JWsound.net.

Philip Perkins

[ljudatervinning]

The 744 does not have transformers.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by philper

The limiters in the 788 are very different from those in the 744, and that is a fact. The 744 etc have a transformer in their front ends which radically alters the sound, that is a fact too. There have been numerous complaints about the 788 limiters, these are available to read on the various forums. To my knowledge there have never been complaints about the 744 limiters, ever. A very good place to talk with people with a lot of real-world experience behind all the SD recorders is the forum at JWsound.net.

Philip Perkins

Hm, so those are the real world "facts" from JWsound?

1) Yes there were issues with the limiters (like I said before). It started to "crackle" when hit hard. But as I said this has been resolved. It was an issue with the way they were controlled and a software fix resolved the issue around summer last year.
I would have sold mine by now if this wasn´t the case.

2) As someone pointed out before: The 744 has transformerless inputs, just like the 788. (BTW: the 788 is even less noisey than the 744).

3) If transformers "radically altered the sound" they would be useless for such a device. I don´t know of any mic pre that "radically" alters the sound. If it did I would send it back for repair or call it an effects unit. Transformers can add a certain character but they should not radically alter the sound.
My MixPre which does have input-transformers but does not sound "radically different" than my 744 or my 788. Yes it is more noisey than my 744 and my 788 but that´s about the only "radical" difference. Heck, some people record classical music on 788.

There´s a lot of wrong info floating around on the net so the only way to find out is to check out a 788 in reality. ;-)

If you are looking for good mic pres and you liked the Sonosax I also recommend to check out the Aaton Cantar (transformer based, all analog limiters) too as a second alternative. Sounds very nice.

[minister]

Originally Posted by philper

The 744 etc have a transformer in their front ends which radically alters the sound, that is a fact too.

From the manual:

Dual function input connection. Input type set with switch above. Active-balanced analog microphone- or line-level input for input 1. Transformer-balanced two-channel AES3 input (1 and 2).

How does it radically change the sound when it is only used for the AES input?

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by minister

If you record at 96k, the 788 will have NO limiters. A DSP thing.

When would you record location sound at 96k? At least here in Europe, I feel most is done in 48k.

As to the 788T: it's a great device once you've learned the numbers of the menu. Deva menu is a bit quicker to navigate.
You can adjust the 788T's limiters' parameters to taste. And as you're usually recording at 24 bits, you don't need to set your gains as carefully high as you'd do with 16 bits. In post, most stuff ends up somewhere around -18 dBFS anyway - so if you set your peaks to, say, -8 dBFS you're very ok.

[minister]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

When would you record location sound at 96k?

Originally Posted by gotsoul

Hi everybody,
I'm in the market for a portable recorder, need to use it for production sound, sfx recording, and some much more rarer music recording.

Just laying out the facts of the device in case it is a concern, ma'am.

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by minister

Just laying out the facts of the device in case it is a concern, ma'am.

Right, I missed the SFX and music part.

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Hm, so those are the real world "facts" from JWsound?

1) Yes there were issues with the limiters (like I said before). It started to "crackle" when hit hard. But as I said this has been resolved. It was an issue with the way they were controlled and a software fix resolved the issue around summer last year.
I would have sold mine by now if this wasn´t the case.

2) As someone pointed out before: The 744 has transformerless inputs, just like the 788. (BTW: the 788 is even less noisey than the 744).

3) If transformers "radically altered the sound" they would be useless for such a device. I don´t know of any mic pre that "radically" alters the sound. If it did I would send it back for repair or call it an effects unit. Transformers can add a certain character but they should not radically alter the sound.
My MixPre which does have input-transformers but does not sound "radically different" than my 744 or my 788. Yes it is more noisey than my 744 and my 788 but that´s about the only "radical" difference. Heck, some people record classical music on 788.

There´s a lot of wrong info floating around on the net so the only way to find out is to check out a 788 in reality. ;-)

If you are looking for good mic pres and you liked the Sonosax I also recommend to check out the Aaton Cantar (transformer based, all analog limiters) too as a second alternative. Sounds very nice.

My errors here are mine and do not reflect on JWSound.net, which is a far better forum than this for production sound issues (as witnessed by the discussion above, for better or worse) and I encourage anyone interested in location sound for film and video to join it. I mistakenly thought that the transformer balancing done for the AES inputs of the 744 (which use the same connectors as the analog inputs 1/2) extended to the analog inputs as well. Thanks for the correction. About the sonic diffs between the limiters and whether or not there are audible diffs between Sound Devices pres with and without transformers, we will continue to disagree about that--I hear differences between all my Sound Devices gear, not bad diffs but diffs nonetheless and yes I have used the 788. I agree with many users of heavy iron preamps (Neve etc) that the transformers are very much part of the personality of the preamp--they sometimes even swap out trafos to suit what they are recording--nothing is wrong with those pres, they just sound very different, in great part due to the trafos. You seem like a knowledgeable person, so why not tell us who you are, as in sign your posts, so we can know for sure?

thanks

Philip Perkins

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by philper

You seem like a knowledgeable person, so why not tell us who you are, as in sign your posts, so we can know for sure?

"Know for sure"? You need my name before you "know for sure" that the points I made are valid?
What difference would that make? I thought this is about facts and information. All I posted was valid info so why are you saying JWsound " is a far better forum than this for production sound" from "people with real world experience" implying that the things posted here and their authors are not?

Back to the facts:

You said that the 788´s input "radically alters" the sound because of the input transformers. Now you say you mixed up the info with the AES-ins. But the 788 now still sounds "radically" different compared to the 744? Or are we comparing Neve pres now to the 788 now? What´s your point? I don´t get it. What´s the conclusion of your postings?

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

"Know for sure"? You need my name before you "know for sure" that the points I made are valid?
What difference would that make? I thought this is about facts and information. All I posted was valid info so why are you saying JWsound " is a far better forum than this for production sound" from "people with real world experience" implying that the things posted here and their authors are not?

Back to the facts:

You said that the 788´s input "radically alters" the sound because of the input transformers. Now you say you mixed up the info with the AES-ins. But the 788 now still sounds "radically" different compared to the 744? Or are we comparing Neve pres now to the 788 now? What´s your point? I don´t get it. What´s the conclusion of your postings?

On this forum people often post their names so we can find out who we are talking to and where they are coming from in the business. I was curious about how you came about your experience etc--it often seems to make discussions less contentious and more collegial.

I believe JWSOUND.NET IS a better forum for production sound info than this one, which is a post production forum, by dint of who posts there--mostly production sound people, not posties. Check it out for yourself. I have spent a lot of time on both forums and work equally in post and production, and so come by my opinion honestly I think.

About the change in sound that I hear between SD recorders and mixers, I think I was pretty clear about what I hear, at least on my own gear (some of which is transformered and some not). (You yourself said the 788 was quieter than a 744, thats a diff right there.) I did not compare Neve pres to the 788s, I used them as an example to counter your assertion that perceiving a radical difference in a piece of audio gear due a transformer being involved meant that it was malfunctioning, when in fact that transformer is often one of the main reasons that piece of gear is being used and is a very desired aspect of its sound.

Philip Perkins

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by philper

On this forum people often post their names so we can find out who we are talking to and where they are coming from in the business. I was curious about how you came about your experience etc--it often seems to make discussions less contentious and more collegial.

I believe JWSOUND.NET IS a better forum for production sound info than this one, which is a post production forum, by dint of who posts there--mostly production sound people, not posties. Check it out for yourself. I have spent a lot of time on both forums and work equally in post and production, and so come by my opinion honestly I think.

About the change in sound that I hear between SD recorders and mixers, I think I was pretty clear about what I hear, at least on my own gear (some of which is transformered and some not). (You yourself said the 788 was quieter than a 744, thats a diff right there.) I did not compare Neve pres to the 788s, I used them as an example to counter your assertion that perceiving a radical difference in a piece of audio gear due a transformer being involved meant that it was malfunctioning, when in fact that transformer is often one of the main reasons that piece of gear is being used and is a very desired aspect of its sound.

Philip Perkins

I guess we use the words "radical difference" differently. I would not use the word "radical" to describe the sonic differences between a 744, 788, a cantar or a deva. The difference is actually far from "radical" IMO.

But maybe I´m deaf in the first place after 15 years of sound mixing on nagra 4.2, nagra IV-S, deva2, 744, 788, cantar, deva IV...
but what do I know, better check with jwsound...

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

I guess we use the words "radical difference" differently. I would not use the word "radical" to describe the sonic differences between a 744, 788, a cantar or a deva. The difference is actually far from "radical" IMO.

But maybe I´m deaf in the first place after 15 years of sound mixing on nagra 4.2, nagra IV-S, deva2, 744, 788, cantar, deva IV...
but what so I know, better check with jwsound...

I'm sure you know your own mind and your own gear, and we differ on what "radical" means in this context. No one called you deaf. Come share what you've learned in your 15 years rolling all those machines on JWsound. See you there.

Philip Perkins

[DeafDave]

Just getting back to the original subject of this thread ...

@gotsoul - what did you buy in the end?

Has anyone else used the Sonosax SX-R4?
Or can you recommend discussions about the machine online?

Im very interested in reading more user experience of the SX-r4 before making a decision about what multitrack recorder for tv and film sound to buy.

I want the flexibility of cart or a bag set up so the SX-r4 looks really good for that - combined mixer/recorder - I do need to read the manual though to make sure it will do what I want

Im not sure yet how complicated it is to set things up and change settings quickly through the menu

It looks like a great machine and Im thinking of using it with the Sound Devices 552 mixer

That would mean a system with 9 mic pres (4 on the sx-r4 and 5 on the 552) with really good limiters as well as the 8 + 2 tracks on the sx-r4 and the 2 tracks on the 552 of course

You could hook up the 2 outputs of the 552 to the digital inputs on the SX-r4
So that might be the 4 mic inputs on the 552 going onto their own track on the sx-r4 and you have the option of 4 more mic inputs on the sx-r4 and tracks 5,6,7,8 to put them on to!

It will be nice having more tracks to record to(Ive worked with just 2 for years) and not having to mix radios and risk clothes rustle or drop out or phasing affecting other mics being mixed together

Looking forward to hearing your opinions and recommendations...

[frywolny]

Hey!
Since I'm trying to work in film and classical music field I'm also very curious about SX R4. The problem I see reading manual is not input section but output and monitoring. It seem that it has only one st out (with additional mini jack). Also monitoring is more limiting then in Sound Devices. It's a pity 'cos after firmware updates it can mirror tracks to CF and has metadata implementation. If anyone has more experience with this machine please share it with us.
Cheers
Wolny

[stuartprovine]

Originally Posted by apple-q

I guess we use the words "radical difference" differently. I would not use the word "radical" to describe the sonic differences between a 744, 788, a cantar or a deva. The difference is actually far from "radical" IMO.

But maybe I´m deaf in the first place after 15 years of sound mixing on nagra 4.2, nagra IV-S, deva2, 744, 788, cantar, deva IV...
but what do I know, better check with jwsound...

The decaf tastes just as good. Just sayin'.

[philper]

Originally Posted by frywolny

Hey!
Since I'm trying to work in film and classical music field I'm also very curious about SX R4. The problem I see reading manual is not input section but output and monitoring. It seem that it has only one st out (with additional mini jack). Also monitoring is more limiting then in Sound Devices. It's a pity 'cos after firmware updates it can mirror tracks to CF and has metadata implementation. If anyone has more experience with this machine please share it with us.
Cheers
Wolny

I checked it out and thought it (SX4) sounded great. However it just didn't do enough of the boring but necessary monitoring/output etc etc stuff I needed for the paying jobs I do. A 744T and a small mixer are a lot more flexible in that regard, although not as compact.

phil p

[frywolny]

Thank you Phil. It's a really shame that Sonosax underestimated monitor design, which it's not the most difficult circuit to change. Having 8tracks with that quality preamps for the price would be fantastic. 744 is great for film but 4tracks for classical recordings is bit tight. 788 is beyond my budget.Ehh
Best!

[gato sapato]

I usually record with a 788T, but a couple of months ago I had to go on a documentary shoot with the Sonosax, and so from the short experience I had with that recorder I can only give you my impressions and not a very scientific comparison between the two.

First things first, I found the overall sound quality excellent. Very subjective of course - I don´t think it is better than a 788T, just equally impressive, equally top-class results.

Initially I thought not being able to adjust the limiters could be a limitation, I found out during recording that it is not, the fixed settings worked extremely well for recording very dynamic (and sometimes very loud) dialogue and some fx.

I think sound quality is about the only issue where these 2 recorders are similar, the Sonosax is a more limited machine in every other way, monitoring, metadata implementation (which might have evolved meanwhile, don´t know), I/O.

Some problems I see: in a very quiet recording situation, the buttons you need to operate the monitoring section (to solo an input for example) or the menu are noisy (clac clac) and will probably end up in the recording. When you are using external power there is no way to have an alarm warning you about low voltage, and even worst, there is no auto-save on the file you are recording if an accident happens. I also think AA batteries are a serious drawback if you are shooting long takes with all four inputs with phantom power activated, juice doesn´t last long.