The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Sony digital mixing console? Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 29th May 2003
  #1
Lives for gear
Sony digital mixing console?

A friend of mine was interested in purchasing the Sony board. He would like to know how much of an upgrade from a Soundcraft Ghost it would be?
Old 29th May 2003
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 

It is a whole other world up from the Ghost, or any othewr digital mixeer in it's class, IMHO. better pres, better eq, comps and gates on every channel, total recall, automation of every function... I LOVE my DMX.

Now, if he is looking at an Oxford.. heh
Old 29th May 2003
  #3
Lives for gear
 

How about comparing two boards in a similar price range... the Yamaha DM2000 and the Sony DMX...

I've played with both a bit, but not enough to be able to compare and contrast the two. Both seem to be pretty awesome board, but I don't have the real-world experience with them

--Ben
Old 29th May 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by fifthcircle
How about comparing two boards in a similar price range... the Yamaha DM2000 and the Sony DMX...

I've played with both a bit, but not enough to be able to compare and contrast the two. Both seem to be pretty awesome board, but I don't have the real-world experience with them

--Ben
The DMXR-100 is "high end" in terms of sound quality mic pre's digital eq compressors etc. There are limitations in the fact that it only has 12 mic amps with phantom. I bought mine nearly a year ago and have to confess I am very very happy with it. I haven't tried the DM2000, but have been reliably informed from someone that has extensive experience of both that the Yamaha is in his opinion just a more modern 020R complete with many of the drawbacks (soundwise) of the original. Although the DM2000 has more features than the DMXR-100 its still a mid price console in terms of sound.


Regards


Roland
Old 29th May 2003
  #5
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
I haven't tried the DM2000, but have been reliably informed from someone that has extensive experience of both that the Yamaha is in his opinion just a more modern 020R complete with many of the drawbacks (soundwise) of the original. Although the DM2000 has more features than the DMXR-100 its still a mid price console in terms of sound.
Don't we 'love' posts like these? No hands on experience but a strong opinion because somebody told something about the device in question.
Even as a DM2000 owner I really don't have a brand loyality but the DM2000 is lightyears above a 02R when it comes to it's digital implementation. The A/D D/A is not important for me, so I cannot judge this reliable. I have no prejudices about the DMXR-100 and don't want to tell anything negative as I don't have experiences with it.
Old 29th May 2003
  #6
Rab
KMR Audio
 
Rab's Avatar
 

Just to underline the last post, it is absolutely incorrect to say the DM2000 is "just a more modern 020R (sic) complete with many of the drawbacks (soundwise) of the original". The DM2000 is a great mid-price digi console, the sound quality is vastly improved compared to the old 02R (be fair, how old was the hardware on that desk!?) and the HUI DAW support works well. The scribble-strip feature is also cool.

Stepping down a gear, I'd be just as happy with an 02R96. Again, I'd say it's fairer to call this a cut-down DM2000 than an updated 02Rv2. And if you're worried about the DM2000 sounding like a "mid-priced" console, I think you'll find the DMXR100 is currently £5k cheaper.

Try, then buy.
Old 29th May 2003
  #7
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
I have a DMX and love it. The DMX is now a $13000 board and I think the DM2000 is $18000 so they aren't exactly apples to apples in terms of price.
drew
Old 29th May 2003
  #8
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
I have a couple of cascaded DMX R-100 and couldn't be happier with the consoles. They are very (here comes that word) "transparent". The mic pres and converters are very "neutral" not a lot of color, which I like in a console. If I want color I use outboard pres and converters. I've had the boards for almost 3 years after upgrading from a pair of 02Rs. They are running 12 hours every day and I have had no major downtime problems whatsoever. The DMX is a straight forward console without a lot of frills and it has limitations like every 3 year old piece of digital gear, but sound is definitely not one of them. I'm not looking at another console for a long time.

You can find out more about the DMX HERE

Can't comment about the sound of the DM2000, don't have enough time on it.
Old 29th May 2003
  #9
Lives for gear
 
doug_hti's Avatar
 

Michael,
As a PTHD user (I think you are), do you truly think this console is a serious bang for your buck compared to getting a ProControl and a couple nice pres, a stereo comp, and a another converter (beyond 192s).
I'm on the fence about this board as well. Can someone compare the pre, eq, and comp, control section (compared to PC) on it, not from the standpoint of "color" but from quality, what does it compare to?
Old 29th May 2003
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 

My sonic problems with the DM2000 are the same problems I have with every yamaha ( with the possible exception of the PM1D, I am undecided there) They just do not feel right to me, yes that is very subjective, but the fact is that I just dont seem to get my best work done on them because i hate the way the interface is, the look, the "feel" the layout.. I have heard some great work done on yamaha consoles ( as have everyone here) but for me , it just doesnt happen on yamaha. The Sony on the other had, had about a 5 munite learning curve, and was a near instant "fit " for me. YMMV, and I am guessing for the DM2000 owners out there, it did.
Old 29th May 2003
  #11
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by doug_hti
Michael,
As a PTHD user (I think you are), do you truly think this console is a serious bang for your buck compared to getting a ProControl and a couple nice pres, a stereo comp, and a another converter (beyond 192s).
he is an R1 user.... but i heard nuendo is integrating with the R1 now [isnt that what you said michael?] andi would be interested if the nuendo control surface doesnt peak some interest for wireworld now? or if you are thinking any more about the madi interface to fully cascade the DMXR's.
Old 29th May 2003
  #12
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by doug_hti
Michael,
As a PTHD user (I think you are), do you truly think this console is a serious bang for your buck compared to getting a ProControl and a couple nice pres, a stereo comp, and a another converter (beyond 192s).
I'm on the fence about this board as well. Can someone compare the pre, eq, and comp, control section (compared to PC) on it, not from the standpoint of "color" but from quality, what does it compare to?
No, I'm not using PT. My multitrack is a Euphonix R-1. So it's more like a "classic" set up with a separate multitrack machine and a console. I don't know how much $$ a ProControl is, but I think you can't go wrong by having as much different outboard units as possible. I have tracked (and mixed) a bunch of projects on the DMX, using the onboard pres and converters and it sounds great. IMHO the mic pres compare to a John Hardy M1 or the Grace (both of which I have as well). I would compare the dynamic section to that in an SSL, it does the job well but again, not a lot of color. In terms of personality, I think a console should be as neutral as possible, otherwise you're stuck with that particular "personality" in each channel, kind of like an old NEVE console. I'd rather go for an outboard unit that fits the situation.

Hey I got a couple of weeks off, so if you want to make the trip, come by and do a mix and check it out for yourself.
Old 29th May 2003
  #13
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
he is an R1 user.... but i heard nuendo is integrating with the R1 now [isnt that what you said michael?] andi would be interested if the nuendo control surface doesnt peak some interest for wireworld now? or if you are thinking any more about the madi interface to fully cascade the DMXR's.
Nuendo is part of the Euphonix TransferStation and it integrates with the R-1 in the way that the TransferStation saves R-1 tracks as AES31 files and Nuendo can open a complete R-1 project, track names and all, even un-consolidated tracks, works like a charm. On the other hand I still can't figure out how to sync Nuendo to the R-1 with better than frame accuracy (I hear that has been fixed in Nuendo V 2.0).

With the DMX/R-1 combination around I don't think I will go for any "control surface" anytime soon. The main machine is still the R-1 and Nuendo would be used for track over run (more than 48 tracks at 48K). Right now I'm using the Tascam MX2424 for track over run and it locks perfect to the R-1.

I got the MADI cards for the DMXs and MADI is now the main format in my studio. The R-1 has a MADI patchbay built in, so it is very easy to route all the MADI units and store the settings for a particular mix.

What can I say, I'm a meat and potatos kinda guy and grew up with 2" machines and hardware consoles. My current setup is the closest to that in a digital world. If I need the plug-in world I use my DP or Nuendo DAWs and bring the treated tracks back into the R-1.
Old 29th May 2003
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by nkf
Don't we 'love' posts like these? No hands on experience but a strong opinion because somebody told something about the device in question.
Even as a DM2000 owner I really don't have a brand loyality but the DM2000 is lightyears above a 02R when it comes to it's digital implementation. The A/D D/A is not important for me, so I cannot judge this reliable. I have no prejudices about the DMXR-100 and don't want to tell anything negative as I don't have experiences with it.
In implimentation sure, but when they launch the console to the public and say "We know how much you all loved the eq of the 02R................."

No I don't have any experience of the DM2000, but the people who's opinion was given to me were people who I know well for their ability and knowledge in the field.

The comments passed were to a direct question of whether the eq sounded like the original 02R and if the dynamics were as useless. As I pointed out in my post the DMXR-100 has limited facilities compared to the DM2000, if you want several on-board reverbs more channels than you know what to do with + bells and whistles the DMXR-100 won't give you that, buy the DM2000. If you want a console with really good mic amps, really useable eq and dynamics that you can use go for the DMXR-100.

Regards


Roland
Old 30th May 2003
  #15
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
In implimentation sure, but when they launch the console to the public and say "We know how much you all loved the eq of the 02R................."

No I don't have any experience of the DM2000, but the people who's opinion was given to me were people who I know well for their ability and knowledge in the field.

The comments passed were to a direct question of whether the eq sounded like the original 02R and if the dynamics were as useless. As I pointed out in my post the DMXR-100 has limited facilities compared to the DM2000, if you want several on-board reverbs more channels than you know what to do with + bells and whistles the DMXR-100 won't give you that, buy the DM2000. If you want a console with really good mic amps, really useable eq and dynamics that you can use go for the DMXR-100.
Concerning EQ ... the DM2000 has an additional EQ algorithm which sounds different and can IMO been used more precise. I guess your sources didn't tell you this. Furthermore you now have independent gate and compressor per channel.
And I need a lot of channels for digital connected synths, samplers, FX, PT and ASIO stuff. The combo of two 02Rs with a DMC1000 in the middle I used before had more channels in total.
So far for your 'more channels than you know what to do with'.
For a composer/producer with a more experimental approach the DM2000 is fantastic as you can freely route I/Os and channels and save the patching along with the memory.
I always critcized the summing in the 02R being a problem when you deal with a lot of channels. The DM2000 adds channels wonderfully without becoming flat sounding.
Old 30th May 2003
  #16
Lives for gear
 
StuartMac's Avatar
 

OK, stupid question time....how do you get around the latency problems when using outboard dynamics and eqs at mixdown on the Sony?
Old 30th May 2003
  #17
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

The Sony Oxford R3 has an automatic delay/latency management system that is in place and working for outboard latency (and comes in handy if doing live gigs were the crowd is clapping behind the beat, and other acoustical delay issues). Fine for outboard gear inserts, but for tracking it's a total pain. My time spent on the Neve Capricorn, and even O2R's, I never had vocalists complain about latency, but I had major problems with it on the Oxford, and the Baby Oxford. It seemed to have less latency when using higher sampling rates, and with close mic'ing (cut back on the acoustical delay). It was quite noticeable to me on tight punches.

I'm not sure about the DMX because anytime I've been stuck on one, I just use it to monitor on the mains (I sent cues to myself, and the vocalist, and went direct by passing the console at that stage). I've asked other engineers that worked the same rooms, as well as the assistants, and they don't seem to notice it during tracking and inserting gear (¿?- never understood how they didn't hear it). I'm in the minority, but I HATE the Sony EQ. I noticed no difference between the sound of the EQ's and Compression from the Oxford to the DMX. The compression is somewhat useable, but blows apedick compared to the Capricorn. The 24 Mic pres do not have enough headroom for me to consider them "pro". The fact that you lose basically half the console if you plan on doing 96k turns me off. Again, I'm in the minority so your mileage may vary, but if I can't get a console that expensive (refering to the Oxford) to do what I need it to do in a 2 month lockout period, it's never going to.

After reading what I just typed, I've come to the conclusion: I'm Sony Illiterate.
Old 30th May 2003
  #18
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by StuartMac
OK, stupid question time....how do you get around the latency problems when using outboard dynamics and eqs at mixdown on the Sony?
Not a stupid question at all.

The R-1 is hooked up to the DMX via MADI. It also has analog outs. So each track that needs external processing is send via one of the analog outputs of the R-1 to the particular piece of gear and then returned to the DMX via an analog input. That input is going to have latency compared to the MADI input direct from the R-1. So I dealy each digital (MADI) channel by, in my case, 64 samples (at 48K) and they are back in time with the analog inputs, to the point that the sound almost cancels when put out of phase, except for the difference between analog and digital signal path.

Quote:
Originally posted by e-cue
My time spent on the Neve Capricorn, and even O2R's, I never had vocalists complain about latency, but I had major problems with it on the Oxford, and the Baby Oxford.
In almost three years and about 1000 vocal tracks, I never had a problem with latency when recording on the DMX. The latency through the console is less than the physical movement of a singer to the mic by about a foot, and definitely way less than the 02R. I had more latency problems with the Mitsubishi 850 and an SSL. Of course there will always be latency when converting from D>A and back, like inserts etc., but that can be easily dealt with.
Old 30th May 2003
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by mwagener


In almost three years and about 1000 vocal tracks, I never had a problem with latency when recording on the DMX. The latency through the console is less than the physical movement of a singer to the mic by about a foot, and definitely way less than the 02R. I had more latency problems with the Mitsubishi 850 and an SSL. Of course there will always be latency when converting from D>A and back, like inserts etc., but that can be easily dealt with.
I would further add to Michaels comments that I have never had latency "issues" with the Sony DMX, however I do know there were serious latency issues with some of the Capricorns. Possibly that is why so many have appeared "cheap" on the second-hand market.

What I am saying, (and I think Michael would probably agree) is that using the DMXR-100 you are quite able to compete quality wise with anything out there (ie Neve, SSL, Euphonix, Studer, Sony Oxford) be they digital or analogue.

Everything Yamaha, has always held for me a Yamaha sound, thats not a bad thing sometimes, but it can be limiting. I've many times heard people ask for valve, Neve, SSL, API or a neutral sound, yet to be requested to give it that Yamaha sound.

Regards


Roland
Old 30th May 2003
  #20
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
...What I am saying, (and I think Michael would probably agree) is that using the DMXR-100 you are quite able to compete quality wise with anything out there (ie Neve, SSL, Euphonix, Studer, Sony Oxford) be they digital or analogue.
Roland
Yes, I definitely agree
Old 30th May 2003
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by mwagener
Yes, I definitely agree
I know where you're comming from Michael! heh

lol

Roland
Old 31st May 2003
  #22
Lives for gear
 

I am purchasing a Sony DMX-R100 I am using it with an Otari Radar 2 Should I go TDIF out of the Radar to the Sony DMX-R100 or go Analog out to the Sony. Digital makes sense to me.
Thanks Steve
Old 31st May 2003
  #23
Lives for gear
 
StuartMac's Avatar
 

I wondered this too. Given that one of the main benefits of the RADAR is its convertors, doesn't it make sense to go analog into the Sony?
Old 31st May 2003
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by StuartMac
I wondered this too. Given that one of the main benefits of the RADAR is its convertors, doesn't it make sense to go analog into the Sony?
The Radar was particularly known for its AD convertors, so going out of the Radar analogue wouldn't really benefit you. The Radars reputation was built on the 16 bit AD convertors of the mk1, I have used the mk2 personally think I prefered the original.

However the convertors in the Sony are excellent, so I would go the digital route (coupled with the fact it becomes, hopefully, only 1 AD conversion). One minor word of caution, the Sony is a little bit fussy about clocking so make sure you get it properly locked up.

Regards


Roland
Old 31st May 2003
  #25
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

sfghdhfg
Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
I would further add to Michaels comments that I have never had latency "issues" with the Sony DMX, however I do know there were serious latency issues with some of the Capricorns.
Well, I certainly can't argue with what you've heard about the Cap, but I've worked on 3 of them (between 2 different studios), 2 Oxfords (between 2 different studios), and 3 baby Oxfords (between 2 different studios) over long periods of time. The latency WAS a noticeable problem to me and my clients on the Oxford, as well as some of my assistants. The most obvious situation being one were I was transferring from analog to several different formats via the "console". (that one had a tech scratchin' his head for several hours)

Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Possibly that is why so many have appeared "cheap" on the second-hand market.
The main reasons Caps are so much cheaper now compared to when they first came out are several: When AMS and Neve merged, they virtually dropped support of the console. Upgrades that were promised were never meet, tech would continually complain about the support they got, etc. Another reason is because the cap doesn't support 96K, and hasn't show much sign of having future expansion ability. The fader caps would get loose and basically fly off after getting worn for a couple years. The internal talkback mics always have board interference. Some of the meter bridges were fragile, and would flicker with blasting music on the mains.

After all these problems, I still prefer a Cap to a Oxford ANYDAY: tracking OR mixing.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Grahamdwc / Product Alerts older than 2 months
110
Harold LaRue / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
CordovaRandall / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
4
George Necola / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1
George Necola / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump