Nagra VI / Sound Devices 788T shootout

[Teddy Ray]

That is not a given

Last post(I promise this time!)...but it most certainly is a given. We are all subject to this, from the most experienced to the guy that is fresh out of the gate. This is a phenomenon we must be aware of in ourselves, and act accordingly.


Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests


Again, thank you Micheal. This was quite eye opening for me.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by marvin100

This is exactly how John Willett defended his "authoritative" statements on the superiority of Nagra pre's to me some months ago--in the thread, I asked repeatedly if he had anything to back it up (I was genuinely curious--and thus am now quite thankful that this post has finally appeared), and his response was, after much hemming and hawing, to PM me with similar hearsay..."I know a guy who knows a guy who's mother-in-law blah blah blah."

Fortunately, I believe the users of this board expect higher standards of evidence.

Now that's a vast exaggeration - and you will note that the comments on this thread agree exactly with what I said earlier.

With the Zaxcom it was talking in depth to a friend, a well respected recording engineer, who owns one and uses (used) one.

I don't post heresay - it's either personal experience or experience by someone I know and trust who has imparted the information to me personally.

[marvin100]

I'll repeat what I wrote in response to John's PM some months ago:

Originally Posted by Marvin100

Well, this is hearsay (anonymous hearsay, at that), and of no use to me or anyone but that unnamed [source] and you, though its use to you is of course dependent upon your faith in your source, a faith I'm sure you know better than to expect anyone outside the confines of that alleged admission to share.


It should come as no surprise that I can't in clear conscience take that anonymous hearsay into consideration, so I consider this PM an admission that yes, your claim is based on what you "think." Laphroaig for me, Lagavulin for my brother--whom I'd probably avoid drinking with if he claimed his Lagavulin was "better" rather than that he "likes it better." You can see the difference here, can you not?

[MichaelPatrick]

Discussing how to collaborate constructively is sometimes helpful, but it is distracting. We all have unnamed expert friends, but they should come here and speak for themselves or remain silent. Back on task... I'll post the Gordon preamp clips later today.

[Hornblower64]

Perhaps it's time to chime.

This is definitely the most difficult test of a recording chain; a large orchestra, large choir, and multiple soloists, in a very resonant space, with only two channels. An interesting thing to note, if one were in attendance live, is that the sound in the hall was far more murky than the recording, a testament to the Josephson microphones, and Michael's skill and taste as an engineer. In this the recording doesn't represent the event, but photographers do the same thing. Anyone who parrots "the camera doesn't lie" has not used one very much.

The things I had said to listen for in my previous post were not arbitrary; attacks, decays, hearing details in a complex texture, composure, solidity, naturalness, all were noticeably better in the Nagra samples. These are not gross differences, like compression, creative EQ, or heavy handed panning. These are more commonly used in recordings that do not aim for a documentary approach; really just a different style and philosophy; both equally valid. But for me they cumulatively have a dramatic effect on the realism of the recording. This is an important difference to me.

The two recorders are not really competing; the prices and capabilities are very different. If I needed more than six channels, or were to carry the recorder over my shoulder, I might choose differently; both excellent tools.

It is interesting that people who do video always have clear, unambiguous terms to describe an image; focus, color balance, noise. Instead of saying warmer, they might say it is tinted more yellow than blue. As audio professionals we could do much better in this respect.

Soapbox dismounted, flame-suit on.

[MichaelPatrick]

David, as the SD788T owner I guess I'll also say what I think...

When sonics alone are considered the Nagra has a clear edge, for the reasons you said. When I listened on a reference playback system the overall sound is more refined and the sound stage and instruments are more stable. The SD presents some instruments with more body, but air, image quality and stability make the Nagra a better choice for people who want the best recording possible from just one box.

When I bought my 788T I knew it was sonically good, but I didn't know how good until now. I'm very pleased it holds up so well against the Nagra. My SD744T and SD788T make the best recordings some of my clients have ever had.

For flexibility and features the 788T has a clear edge with the routing options, more channels, more preamps, I/O and so on. IMO it is a better all-around tool that compromises not too much in sonics.

When I make a reference or audiophile capture I've always put something like a Forssell, DAV, Grace or Focusrite Red on the most critical two or four channels. I'd do that in any case until I found something better. After using it, the Nagra would be a candidate among top preamps for sure.

My decision calculates like this: For the price of a Nagra VI why not buy a world-class outboard preamp and a 788T with all its features. That way I get top level performance in every respect plus 8 excellent, if not best, built-in preamps.

Thanks again for your collaboration on this. It was fun and informative.

[Hornblower64]

An opposite, but equally valid approach.

I wanted the best possible one box solution, to which I could add external preamps and converters as my budget allowed. I like the style and ergonomics better also, but that's just a nice bonus. I've also never used more than five microphones on any recording, so only having six channels is not a limitation for me.

I think this test gives everyone what they need to make an informed decision with which they can be confident. No bad choices.

[MichaelPatrick]

In the opening post you'll find a link to all the clips, which now includes those taken directly from the Gordon Model 5.

[marvin100]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

My decision calculates like this: For the price of a Nagra VI why not buy a world-class outboard preamp and a 788T with all its features.

Keep in mind that the Nagra VI is cheaper than the 788t in Europe. The opposite, of course, is true in the US. If I were in Europe, I might have compromised the SD's routing flexibility and additional pre's/converters for the price savings of the Nagra. As it was, I got my SD in Hong Kong for under $6k US, quite a bit cheaper than either would be in Europe, so I'm happy as a clam and frequently make use of all eight pre's. I've also decided against spraypainting my 788 red

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by marvin100

Keep in mind that the Nagra VI is cheaper than the 788t in Europe. The opposite, of course, is true in the US. If I were in Europe, I might have compromised the SD's routing flexibility and additional pre's/converters for the price savings of the Nagra. As it was, I got my SD in Hong Kong for under $6k US, quite a bit cheaper than either would be in Europe, so I'm happy as a clam and frequently make use of all eight pre's. I've also decided against spraypainting my 788 red

Good to know. I'm not as cosmopolitan as I thought; please keep lessons coming.

[didier.brest]

I listened to the first samples (dona nobis pacem) and the last ones (Ode to Joy) from the Nagra and from the Gordon-Lynx. I hear that the Gordon-Lynx is better in the first samples but can hardly hear some difference in the last ones.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I listened to the first samples (dona nobis pacem) and the last ones (Ode to Joy) from the Nagra and from the Gordon-Lynx. I hear that the Gordon-Lynx is better in the first samples but can hardly hear some difference in the last ones.

I can't imagine why and I appreciate that you mention it. I'll take a look. I did notice that I forgot to include stats for the O2J_clip_1 files in the OP. I'll remedy that tomorrow.

May 23 update: I checked and the files are as they should be. Also completed PCM stats for all clips in the OP.

[mosrite]

Keep in mind that the Nagra VI is cheaper than the 788t in Europe.

Yes I mentioned this in an earlier post. I also mentioned the fact that the Nagra has a transformer input selection if you are using ribbon or dynamic mics, this was not picked up on either, perhaps it isn't an issue for most folk here.

Just listened to the Gordon samples.

The SD is certainly not in the same league as the Nagra VI or the Gordon/Lynx combo.

Please have a listen to the Cello at the end of DNP CLIP2 (around 40secs in). The SD simply cannot resolve the details of that instrument in that space and consequently lacks immediacy and realism. Both the Nagra and Gordon/Lynx can do this. The drum, the cello, the room all captured with all the details you would expect. Also, the Nagra's openness seems to elevate it slightly above the Gordon/Lynx to my ears.

In short, the SD offers a simplified sound, the Gordon/Lynx a nice rounded sound and the Nagra an open detailed sound.

I think that the Nagra VI ADC is excellent and this seems to be proved to me the more I listen to it. My feeling, when up against the ADC of the Nagra VI, is that the Lynx is perhaps not letting us hear the full potential of the Gordon preamps.

The Gordon pre through the Nagra VI ADC might give it that edge that I would expect from a preamp of that caliber.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Yes I mentioned this in an earlier post. I also mentioned the fact that the Nagra has a transformer input selection if you are using ribbon or dynamic mics, this was not picked up on either, perhaps it isn't an issue for most folk here.

Just listened to the Gordon samples.

The SD is certainly not in the same league as the Nagra VI or the Gordon/Lynx combo.

Please have a listen to the Cello at the end of DNP CLIP2 (around 40secs in). The SD simply cannot resolve the details of that instrument in that space and consequently lacks immediacy and realism. Both the Nagra and Gordon/Lynx can do this. The drum, the cello, the room all captured with all the details you would expect. Also, the Nagra's openness seems to elevate it slightly above the Gordon/Lynx to my ears.

In short, the SD offers a simplified sound, the Gordon/Lynx a nice rounded sound and the Nagra an open detailed sound.

I think that the Nagra VI ADC is excellent and this seems to be proved to me the more I listen to it. My feeling, when up against the ADC of the Nagra VI, is that the Lynx is perhaps not letting us hear the full potential of the Gordon preamps.

The Gordon pre through the Nagra VI ADC might give it that edge that I would expect from a preamp of that caliber.

The Aurora is probably a weaker link in the Gordon chain. I wish we had time to put a control on the ADCs. It would have been nice to separate them from the preamps in order to learn more about them. Maybe next time.

[ljudatervinning]

It would be really interesting to hear the difference of the ADC alone. My guess is that they will all be very close.

[mosrite]

It would be really interesting to hear the difference of the ADC alone. My guess is that they will all be very close.

Interesting yes but perhaps not that useful. After all, the majority of people buying an SD788T or Nagra VI will want to know the sound they can expect to achieve without having to resort to supplemental equipment.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Interesting yes but perhaps not that useful. After all, the majority of people buying an SD788T or Nagra VI will want to know the sound they can expect to achieve without having to resort to supplemental equipment.

Indeed, that was the rationale for our shootout approach, although I'll admit that my inquiring mind still wants to know because I'm a born sucker for both quality and features.

[AB3]

Revivng an old thread. In the U.S., would the Zaxcom Fusion 12 make more sense sonically and money-wise than the Nagra VI?

More tracks. Approximately the same amount of money in the U.S.

I am assuming the Zazcom pres are a little better than the SD 788T.

But perhaps, mic position, etc. have more meaning than any of these pre differences.

Best,
AB

[tourtelot]

Why would you assume that?

D.

[AB3]

Which part of my post? That the pres might be better in the Zaxcom? Just an assumption based on reading and talking to people that have used both. It could easily be a false assumption.

Do you have experience with both?

Originally Posted by tourtelot

Why would you assume that?

D.

[tourtelot]

Only the 788T. Just curious. Thanks.

D.

[AB3]

Please feel free to share your experience with the 788t. Also, can you record all eight tracks at 96k?
THANKS,
AB

Originally Posted by tourtelot

Only the 788T. Just curious. Thanks.

D.

[tourtelot]

I use the 788T primarily as a backup recorder in my "day job" a a production sound mixer in the TV business. For this, it works perfectly making up to three copies of the dialog at 48K/24bit.

But I also use it along with the CL9 fader package to record music of up to 8 inputs. This would typically be small ensemble jazz and classical. For my purpose, I am usually happy to stay at 48/24 (sometimes even 44.1/24.) The bit depth helps with the occasional clip (I try hard to NEVER clip but sometimes, well, you know.) and the folks that I deliver to aren't interested in the higher sampling rate. It will, certainly, record all eight tracks at 96K.

What I find interesting in this thread is the folks who say that either A or B sounds better knowing what A and B are. That is absolute heresy for anyone doing real A-B comparisons. Nothing will be revealed without doing these tests double blind as far as I am concerned.

I love my 788T; no need to say otherwise. Does it work for me? Yes! Am I content with the quality of the recordings that I get with it? More than happy. YMMV.

D.

[AB3]

Thanks for taking the time to write this up. What would most interest me about the Zaxcom is if I can record 12 ISO tracks.'

However, the SD788t is a lot less money, so it is tempting - and maybe I can get away with 8.

I agree - if you have good converters, 48/24 is great. The 24bit I find is critical.

I also agree that the test is faulty. It has to be double blind.

At the same time, if it is such a struggle - does it really matter. Doesn't the particular mic, the particular source, the mic position, etc end up meaning more than comparing some of these high end recorders pres?

I can see if one has noticeably less headroom, is noise or something. But I have not hear that about Sound Devices, Nagra, Zaxcom and other high end units.

But 12 tracks is 12 tracks. I need to find out if I can ACTUALLY record to 12 iso tracks on a Fusion 12.

Best,
AB

Originally Posted by tourtelot

I use the 788T primarily as a backup recorder in my "day job" a a production sound mixer in the TV business. For this, it works perfectly making up to three copies of the dialog at 48K/24bit.

But I also use it along with the CL9 fader package to record music of up to 8 inputs. This would typically be small ensemble jazz and classical. For my purpose, I am usually happy to stay at 48/24 (sometimes even 44.1/24.) The bit depth helps with the occasional clip (I try hard to NEVER clip but sometimes, well, you know.) and the folks that I deliver to aren't interested in the higher sampling rate. It will, certainly, record all eight tracks at 96K.

What I find interesting in this thread is the folks who say that either A or B sounds better knowing what A and B are. That is absolute heresy for anyone doing real A-B comparisons. Nothing will be revealed without doing these tests double blind as far as I am concerned.

I love my 788T; no need to say otherwise. Does it work for me? Yes! Am I content with the quality of the recordings that I get with it? More than happy. YMMV.

D.

[9sbean]

Originally Posted by AB3

But 12 tracks is 12 tracks. I need to find out if I can ACTUALLY record to 12 iso tracks on a Fusion 12.

Thanks for bring this up. I like 788T but Fusion 12 is more convincing with 4 more tracks.

There're 8 mic pre and 4 more line input. And the following are quoted from Zaxcom site:

Audio is recorded in two separate file formats, MARF and FAT32. The main CF card records in Mobile Audio Recording Format (MARF), which is designed to be fault tolerant, ensuring that if power is lost during recording all audio up to that point is recoverable. The MARF system and its audio-centric operation has eliminated several of the reliability issues associated with FAT32 recordings.

Have no experience with MARF, but did experience digital file error disaster. Looks very nice to me.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by AB3

Revivng an old thread. In the U.S., would the Zaxcom Fusion 12 make more sense sonically and money-wise than the Nagra VI?

More tracks. Approximately the same amount of money in the U.S.

I am assuming the Zazcom pres are a little better than the SD 788T.

But perhaps, mic position, etc. have more meaning than any of these pre differences.

Best,
AB

I would not, personally, go for the Zaxcom over a Nagra or SD.

Zaxcom ergonomics is good and so is their digital engineering, but they fall down on the analogue side from what I hear.



Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

What I find interesting in this thread is the folks who say that either A or B sounds better knowing what A and B are. That is absolute heresy for anyone doing real A-B comparisons. Nothing will be revealed without doing these tests double blind as far as I am concerned.

Here the sound difference was sensitive enough for self-suggestion not being so important.

[AB3]

Based on your own hearing? Or based on what someone said? What did thy say? I have not heard anything to indicate that the pres in the Zaxcom are any less than a Nagra or Sound Devices. If so, how?
If I only needed 6 ISO tracks - the Nagra may be the choice. But that is at least 2 ISO tracks short for me.

Six inputs (4 mic - 2 line) - Nagra - $8200 U.S.
12 inputs (8 mic - 4 line) - Zaxcom - $8500.

Specs can be misleading - but there they are FWIW:

FUSION 12 Specs:Input
Analog Inputs 8 Mic/Line-level with 48V phantom power
4 line-level
Connectors XLR
Analog Dynamic Range 117 dB
Mic-level Range -56 to -26 dBu
Line-level Input Range -10 to +8 dB
Distortion 0.001%
Frequency Response: 20 Hz to 22 kHz at 48 kHz sample rate
THD + Noise 0.001%
Input Clipping Level +28 dBu
Input Limiters 8
Digital Inputs 8 (4 AES pairs with samplerate conversion)
Digital Input Connector DB15 mini
High Pass Filter adjustable, 30 to 240 Hz

Output
Analog Outputs 7 Balanced 0dBu
1 Unbalanced 0dBu

NAGRA VI Specs:

Digital inputs 2 x XLR AES-3 shared with analogue inputs 5+6
Analogue inputs 4 x symmetrical XLR Microphone (Dynamic, +48V Phantom) / line


Microphone input sensitivity 2.8, 10 and 30 mV/Pa selectable
Limiters Selectable on microphone inputs, individual or in pairs. Active at -8dBFS, max +36dB for -2 dBFS
Line input sensitivity Adjustable from -6 dBm up to +24 dBm for 0 dBFS recording
THD at 1 kHz <0.1% Mic, <0.01% line (measured on AES out)
Frequency response Mic, 10Hz - 48 kHz ± 0.5 dB, Line ±0.2 dB (measured on AES out)
Input noise with condenser mic 0.88 µV (-119 dBm)
Input noise with dynamic mic 4 dB (measured ASA "A" loaded 200Ω
Signal-to-noise ratio >114 dB
Input level adjustment range 50 dB Mic and from -6 to +24 dB Line
Input filters LFA (with vortex filtering)
Slate microphone Electret behind the front panel

Outputs
Analogue line output 2 x XLR 4.4V max (+15 dBm)
Digital output XLR AES-3 (24 bit or 16 bit dithered)
Headphones 2 x Stereo 6.3mm (¼”) Jack 50 Ω
Internal speaker 1W


Any more info would be very helpful.
THANKS,
AB

Originally Posted by John Willett

I would not, personally, go for the Zaxcom over a Nagra or SD.

Zaxcom ergonomics is good and so is their digital engineering, but they fall down on the analogue side from what I hear.



Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[tourtelot]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

Here the sound difference was sensitive enough for self-suggestion not being so important.

Maybe. Does that justify making a conclusion based on a faulty test. I don't think so.

D.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

What I find interesting in this thread is the folks who say that either A or B sounds better knowing what A and B are. That is absolute heresy for anyone doing real A-B comparisons. Nothing will be revealed without doing these tests double blind as far as I am concerned.

For anyone wanting to do responsible double-blind testing the clips are still available for download. I encourage it and would love to see the results.