SD 552 and Sonosax ES64 Mixers

[Baithak]

Sonosax has finally released their 64 mixer:
SONOSAX

And here is the new Sound devices field mixer/recorder:
552 Production Mixer | Sound Devices, LLC

Maybe should be posted in new products ... but then our
esteemed mod would have to move it here anyway

Cheers
Baithak

[summer_room]

Wow, thanks!
Really nice looking units, both of them

-jon

[PlugHead]

Both companies make some pretty heavy duty stuff: I'm sort of surprised to see the Sonosax not using XFRMR's? Hopefully that might help drop their prices enough to be approachable by anyone WITHOUT a swiss bank account...

I've used some Sound Devices gear on a number of jobs and they are well built and implemented - they make solid gear ready for the rigours of location environs.

[Baithak]

Hi Again Guys:

Just found out that the SD 552 is lighter than the 442 (by 330 gms), still has transformers on its inputs and is priced at a very reasonable US 2895.

What is not to like?

Great job Jon and gang!

Baithak

[rumleymusic]

US 2895.

No kiddin'?

That ain't half bad. The Sonosax is supposed to be somewhere around $7000-$10000, so I don't think that is practical for the average user.

[yoink]

We'd been looking at a getting a 302/702 combo (just received a quote today actually). The reality is we often mix to the camera inputs, so at that price, we can jump at the 552 now. We just wanted a high quality recorder for interviews, I have a feeling this will scratch us right where we itch and if that's the price, it's amazing.

Later on down the road we can pick up a dedicated recorder if we need it, but I have a feeling this will be just right.

[Remoteness]

Man, that 552 looks mighty fine.

[yoink]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

Man, that 552 looks mighty fine.

Does it ever.

And for those interested, SD put up the preliminary user manual. The 552 looked amazing, after reading the manual cover to cover, it looks even better.

[yoink]

Well, ordered the SD 552 today. Should be here within a week or two, SD is claiming end of October. Will post pictures and samples.

I'll be using it immediately (risky - but we'll have another mixer on hand for a backup - though I imagine I won't be going back) on a run and gun documentary short, and then shortly thereafter I'll be using the recording features to produce a short podcast. So all in all lots lined up to put it through its paces.

[Baithak]

End October should not be a stretch given that they had two of them operational at AES last weekend. Good luck and please keep us in the loop.

Baithak

[yoink]

It arrived last week (552), picked it up today.

! haven't had much of a chance to play around with it - but so far it's pretty good. The layout is impressive and while I have only used a 302 before it, the main functions are very easy to use and remember even if they require two or more button/switch selections at once (for example to switch between mic/line and engage phantom power etc.) Some serious thought went into the design.

As is the focus of a production mixer, the setting of levels is quick and easy. The PFL toggles for each channel are well placed. The metering, in typical fashion, is stellar.

I love the sweepable HPF.

I found SVEN (the name SD gave to the voice that reads out the menu options) quite hard to understand initially, but was quickly up to speed. Moving through the menus, which seemed to be cumbersome at first glance, was surprisingly easy AND your setup is saved on the SD/SDHC cards so that even if the device goes out on a rental or someone else uses it, you can get right back to where you like it.

That being said, I don't have an SD card available right now (don't ask)... I'm picking it up tomorrow and will post as I go.

Overall initial impressions were almost entirely positive. Typical SD quality, great layout for production work and excellent sound quality.

[tourtelot]

Both should be excellent pieces of kit! I had a Sonosax for years; sounded fabulous but it became obvious that it did not have the versatility that I needed in my day-job as a production dialog mixer. It made way for a Yammy 01V96 which I love for production work on-set. Does it sound as good? Nope. Does anyone notice? Nope. Not even me.

The little Sonsax's preamps should be pretty pristine, and at least on the older panels, the per-channel limiters were sweet. They worked great and you couldn't hear them.

The Sound Devices stuff is awesome as well; I own lots of it and there is very little that ever disappoints. Sound Devices has a user's forum here for what it's worth: Forums | Sound Devices, LLC. The pre-amps in my 788T are so good and noise-free that I use them direct out as mic pres only. Yummy! The pres in the older 442 mixer are very good as well. Hard to go wrong with the 552 is my guess. Do realize that if you use it for a recorder, it is very basic. It's actual intent is for ENG/Video guys to back up the mix that they feed to video cameras. It is only two track and it records MP3s so don't expect it to be more.

Regards,

D.

[David Spearritt]

.... still has transformers on its inputs ....
What is not to like?

Umm ... the transformers.

[yoink]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

Do realize that if you use it for a recorder, it is very basic. It's actual intent is for ENG/Video guys to back up the mix that they feed to video cameras. It is only two track and it records MP3s so don't expect it to be more.

Regards,

D.

Records up to 24/96 BWAV. But you're correct, it's just a backup recorder.

[GES]

-Can this device be used as 5 channel mic-preamp (pre-faders) and at the same time record a backup stereo file (post-faders)?

-How good are the preamps? the same quality as in their recorders?

Thanks

[Baithak]

"Both the 442 and 552 have balanced direct output connections. 442 directs are pre-fade only; the 552 has menu-selected pre-fade or post-fade direct outputs."

So, yes the 552 can be used to output direct outs and the stereo mix simultaneously.

Re the 552 pre quality and comparison to the 7 series recorders:

" The 702, 702T, 722, and 744T mic inputs have 114 dB of dynamic range, and the 788T microphone inputs have 123 dB of dynamic range. The figures on the 788T approach the theoretical limit of A-to-D performance.

The 552 is a capable performer, as well. It has 103 dB of dynamic range and is suitable for most applications. Its A-to-D performance is the biggest difference, with the 552 having a bias toward increased power efficiency and the 788T having a bias towards increased performance, especially noise performance. When the widest bandwidth and lowest noise recording is required, choose the 7-Series."

I just sold the 442 and 744 and replaced them with a 788. Sound quality with the built in pres is superb.

Baithak

[GES]

thanks!

[yoink]

Originally Posted by Baithak

"Both the 442 and 552 have balanced direct output connections. 442 directs are pre-fade only; the 552 has menu-selected pre-fade or post-fade direct outputs."

So, yes the 552 can be used to output direct outs and the stereo mix simultaneously.

Re the 552 pre quality and comparison to the 7 series recorders:

" The 702, 702T, 722, and 744T mic inputs have 114 dB of dynamic range, and the 788T microphone inputs have 123 dB of dynamic range. The figures on the 788T approach the theoretical limit of A-to-D performance.

The 552 is a capable performer, as well. It has 103 dB of dynamic range and is suitable for most applications. Its A-to-D performance is the biggest difference, with the 552 having a bias toward increased power efficiency and the 788T having a bias towards increased performance, especially noise performance. When the widest bandwidth and lowest noise recording is required, choose the 7-Series."

I just sold the 442 and 744 and replaced them with a 788. Sound quality with the built in pres is superb.

Baithak

I think it should be noted that while the 552 can only record with 103db of dynamic range, Sound Devices certainly isn't saying the pres are limited to that - pay close attention to the wording. The above quote is from an article attempting to clear up that the 552 isn't a replacement for their dedicated recorders. It isn't certainly isnt. Though, after using it nearly daily since its release, I can say the backup recorder works well for what it was intended to do.

Back to the issue at hand. Consider that they recommend using a 302 or 442 with the 722 and 744 as a front end (on the 722 and 744 product pages no less), and you can imagine that - while in the comparison of recorders the 7 series absolutely comes out ahead - the dynamic range of the 552 pres is beyond the 103dB range that the internal recorder and A/D converters (for the AES outs) can resolve.

I'm not saying the 552 sports better pres than the 788T (which a beautiful piece of kit), but since SD has claimed that the pres on the 552 are slightly improved over the 442, it's a reasonable assumption. However it is just an assumption to be clear.

I can say the 552 pres perform better than the dynamic range our RME converters can resolve and sound so good, we bought the SD power supply and use them in our small studio (on the direct outs) for Voice over work and low-noise work with dynamics that require high gain. It also means that ADR work is that much easier since we use the same pres for that work as we do for the work that got us there in the first place.

In the field, I would love to mate this to a 744 for proper recording.

---

More importantly, having now used the 552 for some time, it's a phenomenal piece of production gear. There's a cosmetic issue with the new carbon fiber shells, but that doesn't affect how it sounds and works - and it's clear that SD really did make a serious point of optimizing battery consumption for use in the field. In "regular" usage I've never changed a set of batteries because they ran out. Merely, charged the ones I was using and swapped in some new ones. I haven't even seen the battery meter drop to the red!

Also of note, there have been complaints about the returns on the 442 when coming from certain cameras, I can say the 552 performs very well in that arena. We use the SD Hirose breakout cable.

For what it was designed to do: work in the field without much thought of fiddling this thing is great. But it's performance has been so good, we've been using it as a studio preamp as well during post.

[Tvaudioman]

Originally Posted by yoink

---

More importantly, having now used the 552 for some time, it's a phenomenal piece of production gear. There's a cosmetic issue with the new carbon fiber shells, but that doesn't affect how it sounds and works

What is the cosmetic issue with the shell you refer to? Thanks