which for 99% of users has been a non issue!
yes thats fine if you are "the 99% of users" who wish to record at 20-50% of the bitrate the unit is claimed to support. Obviously your "99%" stat is hyperbolic but that doesnt mean we cant ask for the vendors to support their units at the features they advertise, which would give us more confidence using the unit at all bitrates
not sure if it was Paul but SD said to not use micro sd cards which majority of his test were with micro sd.
it was Sound Device's default tech support email. At the current time, the majority of tests in that thread (not all by me) are with full size SD cards of appropriate spec, see below
jerryfreak, I have to say, I've been really surprised by your posts on this.
I've never experienced any problems, either with my SD 32g card or my Sandisk extreme 64g card. I tend to write 6 tracks (no stereo mixdown) at 24/48, and sometimes 24/96, and nobody else I know has either.
likewise at the low utilization you mention (<1MB/sec in your usual 6x 24/48). Ive recorded in those same conditions flawlessly with $5 U1 rated cards. Thats not the issue. The device cannot successfully write "high" bitrates of 2-4MB sec on the vast majority of cards that can routinely handle 40-60+ MB/sec sustained writes on multiple controllers
If you have some time please test the full capacity of your current cards at 8 channels of 24/192 (4.5 MB write rate) and report to the thread, the data would be very useful. The more individual machines and firmwares we have data on, the better.
This isnt a witchhunt, its sadly necessary because after several years on the market Sound Devices has literally listed exactly one proprietary card, which apart from being considerably more expensive than other cards of same spec, anecdotally has a 100% failure rate from reports ive heard from users here (1 of 1, but still...). I cant consider that acceptable support. After close to 200 hours of testing, i have personally found one card (32gb extreme pro micro), which at that short recording time means ive only managed to prove that card can write 1:45 straight without error (and was able to replicate). Sadly i misplaced that card (damn tiny micros) so after all that testing i still dont have a card in my bag that i am comfortable with
I'm not doubting you, obviously, but the "abysmal" claim seems a little over the top, at least given my own experience. The Tascam Dr-70d was "abysmal." In comparison, the SD has been "rock solid."
current tests (8 channel 24/192):
# of full size SD cards of appropriate spec tested: 7
# of these cards that worked: 1
current tests (8 channel 24/192):
# of full size SD cards of appropriate spec tested: 6
# of these cards that worked: 1
Unfortuantely SD is not paying me to test their gear, so our sample size is still really small. Both of those numbers is what i personally would consider "abysmal". And these are with current 2019 cards on a device deemed 'stable' with the slower media that existed 2 years ago
Has Paul not responded here about this?
the post below yours was the first time he has acknowledged it here.
SD support did not give me any answers other than "buy some more cards to test" and "dont use microSD",the latter of which seems like a catch-all generic answer as actual testing shows no difference in this regard. You would assume that if Sound Devices had tested even as many cards as I have in the last few weeks, they would have some recommendations for cards that work
this might affect a very small number of people, those who are recording 8-tracks or more at 192 kHz/24-bit.
thank you for acknowledging it, but you may want to mention that people who choose to use the device at its stated specs are using it at its own risk and should anticipate higher failure rates (although Im not sure >80% is a failure rate that the target market is comfortable with....)
I know that sounds snarky but at the current time it represents the facts at hand. I personally dont record at 192K nor do i personally have a need to record mixdown tracks on the fly.
to put it in perspective the mixpre is choking on almost every card tested, at under 10% of their real-world sequential write speed. Sometimes as low as 5% of their real-world sequential write speed. Many users are writing these cards successfully at 1-5% of the speeds and that works... but is not a lot of cushion. While 32-bit float offers some advantage im not sure i personally would risk increasing my datarate 33% and risk catastrophe. Thats the same reason i dont record at 96K in the field - doubling the data rate is tempting fate for buffer errors.
I know that the mixpre has been in use successfully for a few years, its unfortunate that nobody took the time to fully test the unit. (I've only had one for a few months now) People tend to take for granted that gear they buy has been adequately tested and is robust. I know for some people the shows they attend have dozens of pairs of other microphones recording the same thing. Thats not the case for everyone, I tend to treat every field outing as mission critical. I usually never take a digital recorder into the field unless I can demonstrate it can record for 100s of hours on the bench without a hiccup. Ive been testing field recording and DAT>wav transfer setups for close to 20 years and have rejected many because of dropped samples, resampling, channel swapping, lack of stability, etc.
I want to believe that Sound Devices is pro gear and provides support accordingly. I expect more than say, m-audio and creative labs for the cost of thier gear. I encourage everyone to test their cards and report, we are already observing trends such as much higher failure rates on the back half of cards, and often failures within < 2minutes of starting write on a new file. This is info that can help them solve the problem, so we all win.