Nagra VI / Sound Devices 788T shootout

[doorsdown]

Thank you for your response,

How can both recorder's mic pre's be acting upon the same mic itself in order to see the effect of each mic pres' capability's individually.


A microphone preamplifier is a preamplifier used to increase a microphone's low output voltage to a stronger, more usable level. A microphone preamplifier must provide stable gain for small signals without being sensitive to induced noise from cabling and without distorting large amplitude signals.[1] Some microphones must be used in conjunction with a preamplifier to function properly.

A microphone is a transducer and, as such, is the source of much of the coloration of an audio mix. Most audio engineers would assert that a microphone preamplifier also affects the sound quality of an audio mix. A preamplifier might load the microphone with low impedance, forcing the microphone to work harder and so change its tone quality. A preamplifier might add coloration by the nature of its electronic circuitry. Different combinations of microphones and preamplifiers can achieve a wide range of tone, character and mood.

So how can we really know how each Recorders mic pre would handle the voltage in the mic on its own, when they are both connected to the same mic through a splitter and another mic pre?

I' don't need to be difficult but I want to really think this through.

I have been engineer music of 25 years and own a Pro, Audio, Video & Lighting company. We also sell a lot of mic pre's for studios.

I have been researching both units for purchase for a while and am ready to make a purchase. Spending a $7,000 on a unit I want to just double check my data before buying.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Plush

I think we have to re-read the very first post to understand the chain better. ... Since the Gordon is supplying 10mA phantom current per mic channel, we know that this is sufficient for powering the mics.

In fact this way of doing things levels the playing field even more for the test.

Correct. To make it clearer I've added a diagram to the OP.

[Zilla]

I believe this test is too flawed to provide accurate comparison. The mic outputs are driving multiple, reactive loads. Neither the microphone output circuitry, nor the micpre inputs can possibly deliver their best performance under these conditions. In this test the mic is driving a network which masks and/or homogenizes differences between devices.

The truest test would be to capture samples using one test device at a time, all other components remaining the same. This requires a stable, repeatable sound source, such as a very good monitoring playback system. Only then will the actual performance of these devices be revealed.

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by Zilla

I believe this test is too flawed to provide accurate comparison. The mic outputs are driving multiple, reactive loads. Neither the microphone output circuitry, nor the micpre inputs can possibly deliver their best performance under these conditions. In this test the mic is driving a network which masks and/or homogenizes differences between devices.

The truest test would be to capture samples using one test device at a time, all other components remaining the same. This requires a stable, repeatable sound source, such as a very good monitoring playback system. Only then will the actual performance of these devices be revealed.

I disagree, although no test is 100% without some flaw, I believe the differences that can be attributed with the setup is sufficiently minor to retain validity of the test. The single largest difference we are likely hearing is the insertion of an input transformer on the Nagra, which is engaged whenever a dynamic microphone is set on the input menu. If the Nagra is set for condenser mics or phantom engaged, then it becomes a direct coupled input stage.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Zilla

I believe this test is too flawed to provide accurate comparison. The mic outputs are driving multiple, reactive loads. Neither the microphone output circuitry, nor the micpre inputs can possibly deliver their best performance under these conditions. In this test the mic is driving a network which masks and/or homogenizes differences between devices.

You've got a point in theory, but I don't think it practically relevant enough to dispute this evaluation. I've demonstrated that Mic loading is not an appreciable issue and spoken to David Josephson himself about it. He's not concerned. If there's any concern about preamps let's note that the most affected devices could be hi-z, like the Nagra which shows itself well in the outcome here.

Originally Posted by Zilla

The truest test would be to capture samples using one test device at a time, all other components remaining the same. This requires a stable, repeatable sound source, such as a very good monitoring playback system. Only then will the actual performance of these devices be revealed.

An important control would disappear if we made two captures. AB evaluation is easier and more reliable if the source sounds are acoustically identical.

A "sound source" and a "monitoring playback system" are two different things, and you seem to be equating them. Some confusion at this.

In any case, I'll take PMs if you want to dispute the method, or you can open a thread to discuss it in detail. Either would be better than taking this thread off track. Bottom line is this, if you can design and execute a test with better controls it's best to just do it. Then we'll all benefit from a great contribution, right?

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I don't think anyone suggested a night and day difference. Well personally I am becoming very doubtful of the idea that someone who is claiming to be a critical listener, and who is listening on decent monitoring, cannot hear a difference that they can articulate

I listened blind.. that is the big difference, and there is no reason to go down the attack route. None whatsoever.

[Teddy Ray]

Sharpeners and Levelers.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit..._or_a_leveler/

anyway, off to the studio. Yall have fun.

thanks, Micheal.

[Zilla]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

...if you want to dispute the method, or you can open a thread to discuss it in detail. Either would be better than taking this thread off track. Bottom line is this, if you can design and execute a test with better controls it's best to just do it.

I am in total harmony with your (more politely expressed) "put up or shut up" sentiment. You put in a lot of effort in your test, and that is appreciated. I, myself, "do it" quite often: critical testing, that is. On many occasions serial testing of two devices has reversed opinions formed following a parallel test.

I believe the track of this thread is to draw conclusions about the performance of the Nagra-v-SD (the shoot-out) by comparison of the samples provided. I maintain that these samples are influenced/disturbed by the interconnecting network of the test. This reduces confidence in any opinions that result. Questioning the testing method would therefore seem to be "on track". But I shall respect your wishes and bow out in this thread.

In parting, I would like to add that this test omits how these devices would perform with their own phantom circuitry powering the mic. This would be germane to those interested in choosing between these devices. But I suppose that can't possibly influence performance, either. Apparently the only believed influence here is the sampling rate.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Zilla

I am in total harmony with your (more politely expressed) "put up or shut up" sentiment. You put in a lot of effort in your test, and that is appreciated. I, myself, "do it" quite often: critical testing, that is. On many occasions serial testing of two devices has reversed opinions formed following a parallel test.

I believe the track of this thread is to draw conclusions about the performance of the Nagra-v-SD (the shoot-out) by comparison of the samples provided. I maintain that these samples are influenced/disturbed by the interconnecting network of the test. This reduces confidence in any opinions that result. Questioning the testing method would therefore seem to be "on track". But I shall respect your wishes and bow out in this thread.

In parting, I would like to add that this test omits how these devices would perform with their own phantom circuitry powering the mic. This would be germane to those interested in choosing between these devices. But I suppose that can't possibly influence performance, either. Apparently the only believed influence here is the sampling rate.

I didn't ask you leave. I respect your critique of the method; we just disagree. Test methods are a worthy topic that deserves work and detail. They are just not the subject of this thread.

My belief about phantom power is simple: Makers of quality devices, in all my years recording, have never provided less than stable 48v to connected microphones. It's like questioning the windshield wipers on a Mercedes. If I got a bum wiper I'd get it fixed and consider I'd seen quite an anomaly.

[David Spearritt]

Michael, I am seeing and hearing a dynamic range difference between the two. This surprises me. You say it may be the transformer inputs on the Nagra, but they shouldn't be patched in should they, are you not using the line ins on both recorders?

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Celloman

I too would be curious of the results having taken the Gordon out of the chain and just had Phantom power only and no amplifier circuits involved. But, as Plush said, it does help even the playing field and they were using mic amplification on the field recorders, just not phantom power. To get the same performance though, how else would you do it without a splitter?

Mike

I think this test is perfectly adequate. Doing better might require a deep wallet and NASA engineers. The Gordon input impedance it's not an issue; 13.5K ohms is high for a mic preamp. These mics are high output and David Josephson confirmed to me that they are not very sensitive to loading.

[Hornblower64]

The built in transformers on the Nagra are for the dynamic mic setting only, which was not used in this test.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Michael, I am seeing and hearing a dynamic range difference between the two. This surprises me. You say it may be the transformer inputs on the Nagra, but they shouldn't be patched in should they, are you not using the line ins on both recorders?

No. We used the mic preamps. See the diagram I added to the opening post to clarify the signal paths.

David just corrected me about the transformers. I thought the Nagra always engaged the transformers when set to dynamic mic mode. I was wrong. He knows his machine and says the transformers were NOT engaged.

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Michael, I am seeing and hearing a dynamic range difference between the two. This surprises me. You say it may be the transformer inputs on the Nagra, but they shouldn't be patched in should they, are you not using the line ins on both recorders?

The line inputs are not being used, but the mic inputs on both. The Gordon, although a mic preamp, is only being used as a phantom power supply, and that's it.

The Nagra inserts a transformer when dynamic mic type is selected in the input menu. If a condenser type mic is selected, then it is removed and DC coupled. (condenser can be selected and oddly enough, phantom power independently turned on / off if one wishes)

[Plush]

I think the guys did a careful test.

The naysayers here have raised red herrings. They don't seem to understand the benefits or the workings of a high quality mic splitter. The mics only "see" the Jensen transformer in the splitter which isolates the splitter from each tape recorder. Each tape recorder "sees" a 245 ohm load in to the mic inputs on each machine.

This Jensen transformer is super quality for sure.

How is this driving multiple reactive loads? The answer is it is not. In any case, the mics are each using the same type and model of splitter.

Separate tests are not as good as this one.

Also in my opinion one cannot say that each tape recorder's phantom power circuitry would provide any substantial difference in performance. Why would that be? Each recorder would be providing more than twice the amount of current required by the mics.

Since the files are so close in sound, how do the naysayers posit that they would be different? In your answer you must describe what you would expect to hear.

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Plush

The mics only "see" the Jensen transformer in the splitter which isolates the splitter from each tape recorder. Each tape recorder "sees" a 245 ohm load in to the mic inputs on each machine.

Hi Plush,

we already discussed this subject in another topic. With such a 1:1 passive splitter, each preamp sees the impedances of the microphone and of both other preamps.

It's likely not of concern here because the three preamps have large impedances. So I suspect that in this case, each preamp sees mostly the mic impedance. With an active splitter, each preamp would see the impedance of the splitter output. It would avoid useless, if not irrelevant, discussion about the isolation between preamps.

Anyway the results from this test are much valuable to me. Assuming that swithching on or off the phantom power would have a significant impact on the sound from a preamp is not something that I am keen to believe.

Didier

[Zilla]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I didn't ask you leave. I respect your critique of the method; we just disagree.

No worries, I did not take it as getting the boot. And I hope you didn't feel I was trying to bust your chops about the test. It will give many a taste of these two devices who would otherwise never have the chance. Hopefully, we can discuss testing methodologies in the future.

[5flagsaudio]

Here is my call on what I heard.

The differences are hardly night and day to my ears, but I was able to fairly consitently (80% of the time over about 30 trials) to hear a difference between the two. I feel that the SD captures the ambience and air better than does the Nagra. I'm sure that will leave me a marked man here on the forums, but it's what I hear and prefer and you can't argued with that.

[marvin100]

Originally Posted by 5flagsaudio

I feel that the SD captures the ambience and air better than does the Nagra. I'm sure that will leave me a marked man here on the forums, but it's what I hear and prefer and you can't argued with that.

I agree. I don't think it's a big enough difference for me to have a strong preference, so if I were in the market for one of these devices, I'd probably consider other factors:

1. Does size matter? SD is much smaller
2. Do I need time clock?
3. How many pre's and channels do I need?
4. Where do I live? (The Nagra is cheaper in Europe; the SD in the U.S. and some other places--I got my 788 in HK)
5. Do I need to do a lot of on-the-fly adjusting? SD's knobs are smaller & more "fiddly"
6. Do I want an active userbase? SD has an active forum and Q&A area on their site that representatives of the company (including CEO Jon Tatooles) monitor and contribute to.

There are definitely other factors. But for me, the difference in sound is so minor as to be negligible and a matter of personal taste, if anything.

Both recorders sound superb to these ears.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by marvin100

(including CEO Jon Tatooles) monitor and contribute to.

Yes, I remember when I owned a 722(and boy do I miss it) , users would post a concern and new firmware would be released immediately.

The SD Support is stellar.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

The SD Support is stellar.

Yes, and Nagra is no worse - both excellent companies.

We are just comparing BMW with Mercedes here, no rubbish.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by 5flagsaudio

Here is my call on what I heard.

The differences are hardly night and day to my ears, but I was able to fairly consitently (80% of the time over about 30 trials) to hear a difference between the two. I feel that the SD captures the ambience and air better than does the Nagra. I'm sure that will leave me a marked man here on the forums, but it's what I hear and prefer and you can't argued with that.

How dare you!

[marvin100]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Yes, and Nagra is no worse - both excellent companies.

Is there a Nagra forum somewhere I haven't seen?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by marvin100

Is there a Nagra forum somewhere I haven't seen?

Not that I know of - just saying that their support is excellent as well - and you don't need a forum for that.

[boojum]

Please, please, please let this thread not degenerate into a pi**ing match because if it does I'd have to get in it, too.

I have been sitting in the sidelines keeping my opinions about things other than the tracks to myself and would hope that others could show the same restraint. I know this is a Mercedes/BMW or Chevy/Ford deal here. So lets just eschew that.

Thank you!

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by boojum

PLease, please, please let this thread not degenerate into a pi**ing match

there is no pissing match, and no indicators that one may happen.

it is ok to disagree.

the Forum thing at SD was kinda cool because the SD folks took note of the comments there and adjusted fire immediately. Don't know anything about Nagra other than I loved my Nagra IV.

yes, these companies are both excellent, and that was evident to me in those samples.

[mathieujm]

I just listen to the 2 first clips with the 2 recorders 44k.
For me the winner is clearly the Nagra.
The SD give a little simplified sound harmonicaly. There is less air around the instruments.
I'm just surprised to notice so much differences. I don't know if the test process is in question.

The music is excellent for this test. Excellent job Mickael.

JMM

[9sbean]

Appreciate all the efforts. Now I know which to choose.

Just curious, any one tried out an Aaton Cantar X?

[Teddy Ray]

No, but I have used a Zaxxcom DEVA, and was mightily impressed.

If I had the dough, I would buy that one above them all.

[MichaelPatrick]

Some have posted opinions about how the recorders sound - the main purpose for this thread.

As an audio professional, what do you hear that pleases you most? Do you find anything that's lacking or unpleasant after comparing clips?

Maybe you could just tell what you listened for, or how you usually listen when you need to make a gear choice.

I don't think it's easy or wise to convince others what is BEST because there is no "best" with gear of this quality; as others have already said, they're both excellent tools in the hands of a competent professional.

My questions are, what tool would you rather use? What would you use it for? Why? And did anything in the sound clips help you reach your own conclusions?

It would be nice if people who read this in the future can find thoughtful opinions, listen to the clips and draw their own conclusions, and find their own path through the varied wisdom of many professional counselors. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" Proverbs 11:14