788t at 96k or Zaxcom Fusion 12 at 48K

[AB3]

I am debating this. I can get an SD 788t and later get another one and they will sync sample accurate - and have 16 tracks at 96. Cost about $12,000 plus.

Or I can have 12 tracks at 48K with a Zaxcom Fusion 12 for about $8500. (I only need 12 tracks)

Will there be any significant sound difference between the SD at 96k and the Zaxcom at 48K?

Zaxcom is suppose to have better pres (for the 8 channels - the other 4 are line in)

Thanks for help with this.
AB

[EarlG]

With these high-end machines there should be little-to-no discernable difference between 48 and 96 kHz. It really comes down to what the customer wants, and to post effects which may sound better at 96.

My understanding is that the Fusion 12 can do 12 tracks @96 kHz, although screen performance degrades when using many effects simultaneously. At 192 kHz the number of tracks is limited to 6.

I believe the Fusion is in a class of its own, and that its preamps are superior to those of the SD. But personally I am going to delay purchasing until April 9, when Zaxcom announces its new Nomad at NAB. There's some discussion about it here.

[AB3]

I spoke to Zaxcom today - they said it will only go to 48K with 12 tracks at once unfortunately,

However, it may still sound better than the SD 96k tracks.

Best,
AB

[AB3]

How many tracks will the Nomad be?
I like the name.
Best,
AB

Originally Posted by EarlG

But personally I am going to delay purchasing until April 9, when Zaxcom announces its new Nomad at NAB. There's some discussion about it here.

[EarlG]

AB, thanks for the info about the track limitation. Silly me, I was just going by the manual. What was I thinking I guess the same applies to the Deva.

You certainly have a point in comparing the sound quality of the two recorders at different sampling rates. Of course, post always requests 48 kHz, but that's not always acceptable in music production. Upsampling isn't an option, either. So I consider 96 essential, even though technically the advantages are beyond the hearing threshold.

Details on the Nomad are still sketchy, but there are hints of 4, 6 and 8-track units.

Thanks again,
Earl

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

However, it may still sound better than the SD 96k tracks.

Why? Just because Glen Zax said so?

LOL

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EarlG

I believe the Fusion is in a class of its own, and that its preamps are superior to those of the SD.

Hey, we have a new category of specs:

believing.

[AB3]

I said MAY. I don't know. That is why I am asking. Maybe someone has experience with both and knows.

If it was just because Glen Zax said so, I would not need this thread.

So if you have information based on experience, please share it.

It is theoretically possible that an audio recorder at 48k can sound better than another one at 96k - but it depends on many factors.

One thing I know - the SD will not record 12 ISO tracks. the Fusion 12 will.

Let me add too - the big advantage of the SD788 is that I can link two of them together for 16 tracks and they will be synched sample accurate.

So I am asking for help. I don't know the answer.

Originally Posted by apple-q

Why? Just because Glen Zax said so?

LOL

[EarlG]

Hey, we have a new category of specs: believing.

Given the consensus of certain ENG crews, I believe [expect, imagine, presume, suppose] that they could be right. I can't offer any physical evidence as such. But scientifically speaking, sampling rates of 96 KHz and above are prone to inaccuracies and irrelevant to instruments, microphones, speakers and the human ear. Hence, AB is right in querying the sound quality (preamps and converters) in relation to differing sampling rates of these recorders.

...the big advantage of the SD788 is that I can link two of them together for 16 tracks...

I agree. Hopefully, we'll also be able to do this with multiple Nomads. All indication is that it's pretty well-priced, in which case two units will be especially feasible. Of course, there's no telling what SD has in store for NAB. But as much as I respect the 788T, for me the Fusion is the clear winner despite its limitations.

[AB3]

I am a total gearslu&^%^.
That is all there is to it.
I am leaning towards the Fusion 12 - even though two lithium batteries and the charger unit for it will cost about $500 itself!

The Nomad is going to be a more economical unit and will not be on par with the Fusion.

And yes - I know for a fact that a 96k sampling unit wth a lesser mic pre, higher jitter clock, etc. can sound much worse than an awesome 48k designed unit.

I am not saying SD is the former. Because I have no heard both, I do not know if the SD at 96k sound better than the Zaxcom at 48k - and I may never know. And life may still be awesome.

Best,
AB

Originally Posted by EarlG

Hey, we have a new category of specs: believing.

Given the consensus of certain ENG crews, I believe [expect, imagine, presume, suppose] that they could be right. I can't offer any physical evidence as such. But scientifically speaking, sampling rates of 96 KHz and above are prone to inaccuracies and irrelevant to instruments, microphones, speakers and the human ear. Hence, AB is right in querying the sound quality (preamps and converters) in relation to differing sampling rates of these recorders.

...the big advantage of the SD788 is that I can link two of them together for 16 tracks...

I agree. Hopefully, we'll also be able to do this with multiple Nomads. All indication is that it's pretty well-priced, in which case two units will be especially feasible. Of course, there's no telling what SD has in store for NAB. But as much as I respect the 788T, for me the Fusion is the clear winner despite its limitations.

[David Spearritt]

ENG crews specialty is dialog. This is not something that stretches a modern digital recorder in the slightest. I wouldn't put much weight in their word. Find a musician/engineer who uses one.

I know that this group uses a Zaxcom for some of their recordings, which I have.
Willkommen bei L'Arpeggiata - Christina Pluhar

They are find sounding recordings.

The sound quality of all the modern hi-end location recorders is unquestionable.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

I am a total gearslu&^%^.
That is all there is to it.
I am leaning towards the Fusion 12 - even though two lithium batteries and the charger unit for it will cost about $500 itself!

The Nomad is going to be a more economical unit and will not be on par with the Fusion.

And yes - I know for a fact that a 96k sampling unit wth a lesser mic pre, higher jitter clock, etc. can sound much worse than an awesome 48k designed unit.

I am not saying SD is the former. Because I have no heard both, I do not know if the SD at 96k sound better than the Zaxcom at 48k - and I may never know. And life may still be awesome.

Best,
AB

Why don't you rent both units for a day listen to all that horrible jitter and crappy mic pres in the 788 that the fusion will outperform at 48k?

I would if I was making such an investment.

The clock in the SD products is outstanding and designed by Ambient.

It's quite crazy to assume that the 788 sounds inferiour because it does 96k. I've rarely read such a weird path of decision making on this board.

why not buy a DAT machine then. I guess the jitter will be even less at 44.1k 16bit? no? since it's far older technology it might sound far more analogue too, no?

[philper]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Why don't you rent both units for a day listen to all that horrible jitter and crappy mic pres in the 788 that the fusion will outperform at 48k?

I would if I was making such an investment.

The clock in the SD products is outstanding and designed by Ambient.

It's quite crazy to assume that the 788 sounds inferiour because it does 96k. I've rarely read such a weird path of decision making on this board.

why not buy a DAT machine then. I guess the jitter will be even less at 44.1k 16bit? no? since it's far older technology it might sound far more analogue too, no?

Totally. Too big an investment to not do a lot of testing re what YOU like. They both sound great--see which one you prefer for sound and for ergonomics. Never mind the blogs and webboards.

phil p

[EarlG]

I wouldn't put much weight in their word.

Good point. ENG recordists are intrinsically incapable of accurately evaluating the equipment they depend on for multi-million Dollar projects. Plus, there's no way that some of them could actually be musicians who, as we know, alone are discerning.

And yes - I know for a fact that a 96k sampling unit wth a lesser mic pre...

AB, I was replying to apple-q's remark about Glenn (double n to those who at least know his name).

[EarlG]

...horrible jitter and crappy mic pres in the 788...

Nobody here is saying that.

It's quite crazy to assume that the 788 sounds inferiour because it does 96k.

Nobody here is saying that.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EarlG

...horrible jitter and crappy mic pres in the 788...

Nobody here is saying that.

It's quite crazy to assume that the 788 sounds inferiour because it does 96k.

Nobody here is saying that.

You might have noticed that I was being sarcastic to illustrate my point.

[charles maynes]

96k should sound better than 48k on any of these machines- unless you are perhaps using cheap microphones. Its not just for post guys. 96 vs 192, to just about everyone, will be a much more difficult to compare experience though.

The 788 doesnt have limiters at 96k.- If that is an issue- it is an issue-

[AB3]

You have totally misunderstood what I am trying to say. I am talking theory, not reality. The SD at 96k may sound better than the Zaxcom at 48k. But the opposite may also be true depending on other factors - of which I do not know without actually testing in my own space. I was hoping people with their experience with both might chime in.

I am in no way denigrating SD. It could be any product.

I am talking about the theoretically point that there are SOME (I hope not SD) units at 96k that sound worse than other units at 48k. I am certain of that fact. But as to SD and Zaxcom, I DO NOT KNOW.

No one is assuming the SD sounds worse at 96k than the Zaxcom at 48k. It is a question being asked. NOT assumed.

Originally Posted by apple-q

Why don't you rent both units for a day listen to all that horrible jitter and crappy mic pres in the 788 that the fusion will outperform at 48k?

I would if I was making such an investment.

The clock in the SD products is outstanding and designed by Ambient.

It's quite crazy to assume that the 788 sounds inferiour because it does 96k. I've rarely read such a weird path of decision making on this board.

why not buy a DAT machine then. I guess the jitter will be even less at 44.1k 16bit? no? since it's far older technology it might sound far more analogue too, no?

[EarlG]

Given numerous credible opinions on the subject, it's reasonably indicative that the Fusion is at least on a par with the Nagra VI, in which case we could expect similar results to those discussed in the recent Nagra/ SD comparison thread. My opinion is that the Nagra has more substance, although certainly the SD excels and neither recorder would be distinguishable except in a comparison like that. I also feel that the audible benefit of a SD 96 kHz sample over a corresponding Nagra 44.1 kHz sample is utterly inappreciable. And while technically there is a difference, 48 kHz would definitely even it out. Further, although R8Brain Pro is very good, it would have been preferable to have resampled the audio with iZotope RX Advanced and without additional effects. Of course, the resampled recording would have been better still had it been captured at 44.1 kHz in the first place (that's another huge benefit of the ZAX format). So really whatever anyone may hear between the two recorders at varying sampling rates is likely nothing at all.

What I'm suggesting is still hearsay, but at least it's a bit further from gainsay So I'll boldly allege that 48 kHz on the Fusion would be easily as good as 96 on the SD, while vice-versa the sampling rates alone would be of little consequence. With that in mind, the Fusion's 48 kHz limitation at 12 tracks is no real loss, particularly when you gain an additional four tracks. Now all this philosophizing has left me with a need for a couple of Schoeps CMD 2 capsules for those extra tracks...

[AB3]

EarlG - you have been really helpful.

I have another question regarding the Fusion. What battery (ies) to use?

I understand that it will work with an IDX NP-L7S (about 4.8 aH)

I see camera ratings on how long that battery lasts - but not recorder ratings.

I was also informed about a Frezze FNP-1S. Not sure how long that one lasts either.

And then there are these IDX Enduras 6.3 aH but with a V mount - so not sure it can even go on the Fusion.

So what battery would last the longest???

By the way - this is two negatives on the Zaxcom - EXPENSIVE BATTERIES and CHARGER NEEDED. Sound Devices 788t can use an inexpensive L mount battery and the unit acts as a charger itself.

Also, on the issue of no limiters on the SD788t at 96k, I could argue that at least in specs, it appears to be an extremely quiet preamp. And at 24 bit 96K, the level should be low enough that at least for most of my circumstances, I am not sure I would want to use limiters.

THANKS,
AB

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EarlG

What I'm suggesting is still hearsay

exactly. I assume you have neither used the deva nor the 788. but still you come to the conclusion based on a weird equasion containing the nagra that the deva will most likely sound better.

probably one of the most questinable theories I've ever read on this board.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

And at 24 bit 96K, the level should be low enough that at least for most of my circumstances, I am not sure I would want to use limiters.

THANKS,
AB

you are mixing up things. quatization noise corresponds to bit depth not sample rate. even at 44.1k the system noise will be the same as at 96k.

[AB3]

apple-q - Other than the obvious suggesation to check out both units, what other info do you have about the 788t, if you think it would be preferable.

You mention the clock designed by ambient in the 788t, do you know if it is superior or inferior to the clock in the Zaxcom? Any other information?


THANKS.

[AB3]

Originally Posted by AB3

apple-q - Other than the obvious suggesation to check out both units, what other info do you have about the 788t, if you think it would be preferable.

You mention the clock designed by ambient in the 788t, do you know if it is superior or inferior to the clock in the Zaxcom? Any other information?

And as far as the dynamic range - I understand that the combination of quiet mic pres and the 24 bit part should have something to do with allowing a fairly low level for the recorded sound. I understand that the 96k is not the critical part of that equation.

You have a way of taking a thread and making it into a contest rather than discussing substance in a civil manner.

I am not going to bother with this thread if that is where it is headed.

Should we start over?

Why do you think the SD 788t would be as good sonically as the Zaxcom?

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

I am talking about the theoretically point that there are SOME (I hope not SD) units at 96k that sound worse than other units at 48k.

this might be true when you compare a Zoom H2 @ 96k with a Deva. Simply because of a crappy analogue front end. The difference will be exactly the same if the H2 ran at 44.1.

i'll say it again. if you are ready to purchase ANY dealer out there should be willing to let you test and listen to both units for a day or two.
Use your ears. Building crude theories about why one machine sounds better than the other theoretically is a weird way of decision making.

You seem to want to convince yourself based on theoretical assumptions and questionable theories that one or the machine just must sound better.
Imagine making your decision based on these hearsay infos. Even if you bought one of the machines now, you still would not know which one sounds better.
But if you prefer to believe instead of knowing, so be it...

[AB3]

Ok - I am done with this thread. You obviously have nothing else to offer.
Sometimes people have experienced two units that are very professional units, but are aware of features in one that are not in the other.

If I was making a decision based on crude theories, I would not need this thread.

But I am done here. I will check it out on my own.

Have a good life.

I am unsubscribing to this thread.

Originally Posted by apple-q

this might be true when you compare a Zoom H2 @ 96k with a Deva. Simply because of a crappy analogue front end. The difference will be exactly the same if the H2 ran at 44.1.

i'll say it again. if you are ready to purchase ANY dealer out there should be willing to let you test and listen to both units for a day or two.
Use your ears. Building crude theories about why one machine sounds better than the other theoretically is a weird way of decision making.

You seem to want to convince yourself based on theoretical assumptions and questionable theories that one or the machine just must sound better.
Imagine making your decision based on these hearsay infos. Even if you bought one of the machines now, you still would not know which one sounds better.
But if you prefer to believe instead of knowing, so be it...

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

apple-q - Other than the obvious suggesation to check out both units, what other info do you have about the 788t, if you think it would be preferable.

You mention the clock designed by ambient in the 788t, do you know if it is superior or inferior to the clock in the Zaxcom? Any other information?


THANKS.

I use the machine almost daily and I have used Cantars, Deva 2, Deva 4, 744T.
apart from the deva2 (which had the worst pre amps ever made) I'd use any of these machines on a job any time.
for me the 788 was the best combination of size, weight, features and sonic quality. and I don't use the word "compromise" here. I say best "combination",

But this was for my purpose. I record sound effects mostly at 96k and production sound at 48k.

The SD machines have one of the cleanest pres on the market. The Cantar is famous for it's sound too.

Again, you can go on endlessly argueing about why in theory any one of these machines sound better or worse than the others. unless you do a double blind test, you wil NEVER find out.

[AB3]

Thank you for your response. I do not know if I can get a SD 788t and Zaxcom Fusion in my studio at the same time. I would love to. If I do, then that would trump anything on this thread or the internet, for sure.

I did like the option of 12 iso tracks on the Fusion 12 though it has be at 48k max, but if it is going to sound worse than the SD 788t at 96k, then I would spend the extra money - get two SD788ts and have 16 tracks at 96K and have them be sample accurate.

I might just go that route.

I do not think there is anything more to be said here.

Have a great weekend. I am going to unsubscribe to this thread.

Originally Posted by apple-q

I use the machine almost daily and I have used Cantars, Deva 2, Deva 4, 744T.
apart from the deva2 (which had the worst pre amps ever made) I'd use any of these machines on a job any time.
for me the 788 was the best combination of size, weight, features and sonic quality. and I don't use the word "compromise" here. I say best "combination",

But this was for my purpose. I record sound effects mostly at 96k and production sound at 48k.

The SD machines have one of the cleanest pres on the market. The Cantar is famous for it's sound too.

Again, you can go on endlessly argueing about why in theory any one of these machines sound better or worse than the others. unless you do a double blind test, you wil NEVER find out.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by AB3

Ok - I am done with this thread. You obviously have nothing else to offer.
Sometimes people have experienced two units that are very professional units, but are aware of features in one that are not in the other.

If I was making a decision based on crude theories, I would not need this thread.

But I am done here. I will check it out on my own.

Have a good life.

I am unsubscribing to this thread.

The advice I was offering was that you should not make this decision based on info from people who say "theoretically the deva should sound better at 48k".

I made up my mind by using the machines but I am not going to say something like "machine x sounds better than machine y" because it would be based on opinions. But at least I have used them all unlike some of the "theoretical physicists" in this thread who conclude the deva sounds best without even havimg used one.

have a nice day.

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

ENG crews specialty is dialog. This is not something that stretches a modern digital recorder in the slightest. I wouldn't put much weight in their word. Find a musician/engineer who uses one.

lol
I'm an IASTE 695 sound mixer.. AND engineer/drummer[for even longer]
have recorded dialog and music on em.
I can safely say the 788 sounds great.[I own two and a 744t]