Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: dogmusic on October 25, 2019, 11:12:25 AM
-
new recorder from Sound Devices:
https://www.sounddevices.com/product/888/
-
That thing looks pretty sweet! Probably around $7500 or so?
-
From the Sound Devices Sales Dept:
The 888's will begin shipping in the next week or so.
The List price for the 888 is $6,995.00.
-
the "SD Remote" app sounds like it has additional features compared to 'wingman'
i wonder if it will trickle down to the pro-sumer mixpre series
-
The final nail one the coffin for the 788.
-
The final nail one the coffin for the 788.
The 788T still works just fine though. While I like bright shiny objects at least as much as anyone else, I’m not seeing anything truly compelling that would cause me to buy a new recorder. Microphones on the other hand.
-
My guess is that the 6-series will soon be discontinued. The 633 and 688 are not selling for much less than their equivalent 8-series.
To pohaku's point: The 788 is a proven solid performer, and if you will never need 32-bit float recording or Dante, you may never need to replace it. The only problem will be getting one on the secondary market, if you don't own one already.
-
The final nail one the coffin for the 788.
Yep. It’s now listed as discontinued...
-
My guess is that the 6-series will soon be discontinued. The 633 and 688 are not selling for much less than their equivalent 8-series.
To pohaku's point: The 788 is a proven solid performer, and if you will never need 32-bit float recording or Dante, you may never need to replace it. The only problem will be getting one on the secondary market, if you don't own one already.
Yeah, now may be the time for everyone who always wanted a 788T, but couldn’t rationalize paying the freight. I expect used prices will now drop further. It is a great unit.
-
I love the aesthetic of form-follows-function with my 744 and 788. I’ll never replace them either. Nothing the new ones have that I need. These are heavier and bigger, but they’re battle-tested and will outlive me.
-
My guess is that the 6-series will soon be discontinued. The 633 and 688 are not selling for much less than their equivalent 8-series.
To pohaku's point: The 788 is a proven solid performer, and if you will never need 32-bit float recording or Dante, you may never need to replace it. The only problem will be getting one on the secondary market, if you don't own one already.
Yeah, now may be the time for everyone who always wanted a 788T, but couldn’t rationalize paying the freight. I expect used prices will now drop further. It is a great unit.
Current prices on eBay average about $3000. They might have to drop a bit more to sway those who might otherwise go for a Zoom F8n.
-
My guess is that the 6-series will soon be discontinued. The 633 and 688 are not selling for much less than their equivalent 8-series.
To pohaku's point: The 788 is a proven solid performer, and if you will never need 32-bit float recording or Dante, you may never need to replace it. The only problem will be getting one on the secondary market, if you don't own one already.
Yeah, now may be the time for everyone who always wanted a 788T, but couldn’t rationalize paying the freight. I expect used prices will now drop further. It is a great unit.
Current prices on eBay average about $3000. They might have to drop a bit more to sway those who might otherwise go for a Zoom F8n.
I would say that's on the high side - I see 788t's with extra's like CL-8 selling for around $2700 - There have been a few listed for under $2k (CAD conversion) on Trew Audio recently - I think you could get a 788T for around $1750 if you shop around enough (and this is before it being discontinued)
-
To pohaku's point: The 788 is a proven solid performer, and if you will never need 32-bit float recording or Dante, you may never need to replace it.
As a Dante-Certified technician (levels 1 2 & 3) I can definitely say that it would be VERY COOL to have a Dante-capable recorder and permission/access to utilize it! Full board feed (mic split) up to 64 channels 24/48 or 32 at 24/96, with a single Cat 5e cable!
https://www.audinate.com/resources/training-and-tutorials/dante-certification-training (https://www.audinate.com/resources/training-and-tutorials/dante-certification-training)
-
Why am I suspicious of the Zoom mic pres? Maybe they are fine for voice, but I would like to hear comparisons with the 788t or this 888 when it comes to music.
-
Why am I suspicious of the Zoom mic pres? Maybe they are fine for voice, but I would like to hear comparisons with the 788t or this 888 when it comes to music.
Maybe you are thinking of the quality of the old Zoom H-series pres, which were not the greatest.
If you are talking about the F-series, I find no fault with them with music recording.
-
Thank you. Have you had a chance to compare the Zoom F-series pres with any Sound Devices pres?
[Maybe you are thinking of the quality of the old Zoom H-series pres, which were not the greatest.
If you are talking about the F-series, I find no fault with them with music recording.
[/quote]
-
Thank you. Have you had a chance to compare the Zoom F-series pres with any Sound Devices pres?
I have a Shure FP24 preamp built in 2003, which is a rebranded Sound Devices MixPre. Preamps on both sound great, which is to say that they don't have any sound of their own that draws attention to itself. Some people like coloration in their preamps; I do not.
-
I have heard great things about that Shure preamp. And I have always thought the original sound devices mixpre was underrated. This is all good news! I wonder who the Zoom engineers are?
It sounds like they have put money into good designers.
-
Why am I suspicious of the Zoom mic pres? Maybe they are fine for voice, but I would like to hear comparisons with the 788t or this 888 when it comes to music.
The specs are a bit better on the 888 and SD uses class A discrete pres designed in-house in contrast to the chip-based pres that I think Zoom uses. Unfortunately, Zoom doesn't specify noise. I doubt there would be much audible difference in most cases, although they may have some more subjective difference in how they sound. It would be nice to hear a well controlled comp.
In any event, I don't think it is an "apples-to-apples" comparison between the 888 and the Zoom F4/6/8n, or any other "prosumer" recorder (like the MixPre series), as the 888 has a ton of extra features. It also costs an order of magnitude more...
-
Would love to hear some sample comparisions - Zoom F series - SD Scorpio series.
-
Unfortunately, Zoom doesn't specify noise.
Yes, they do. From F6 product page (same spec for F8N):
Equivalent input noise: -127 dBu or less (A-weighted, +75 dB input gain, 150 Ω input)
888 product page:
Equivalent Input Noise -131 dBV (-129 dBu) max (mic in, A-weighting, 76 dB gain, 150 ohm source impedance)
The one spec SD states that Zoom does not is THD+Noise.
-
The one spec SD states that Zoom does not is THD+Noise.
That's what I was referring to, obviously, as that is the spec Zoom doesn't provide...
-
Have you had a chance to compare the Zoom F-series pres with any Sound Devices pres?
I posted a comparison that Todd R and I did. The thread is probably a year old or so, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. If you're genuinely interested in an honest assessment of the two, you'll need to do a blind comparison (there is a plugin for foobar2000 that will facilitate this).
-
The one spec SD states that Zoom does not is THD+Noise.
That's what I was referring to, obviously, as that is the spec Zoom doesn't provide...
Got it. I'm not sure why they don't specify that. For me, the Zoom F-series preamps are subjectively every bit as quiet as the older SD preamps I am familiar with, at least for my applications.
-
Sound Devices 8-Series Recorder Comparison w/ 888 Unboxing - Gotham Audio -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStYjqxYtdE&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=Gotham+Gazette&utm_campaign=92b3fbd2f7-AES+Wrap-Up+2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cbb4c598a-92b3fbd2f7-204864945
-
Why am I suspicious of the Zoom mic pres? Maybe they are fine for voice, but I would like to hear comparisons with the 788t or this 888 when it comes to music.
Maybe you are thinking of the quality of the old Zoom H-series pres, which were not the greatest.
If you are talking about the F-series, I find no fault with them with music recording.
There was a MASSIVE leap forward from H series to F series, not just in greatly expanded feature set, but in terms of improved quality as well.
-
Join Paul for an overview of the features available in firmware v3.10 for all 8-Series mixer-recorders!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KitEZwyJBqA&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=UpG2dTUjd0PkxcFT%3A6
-
8-Series Quicktip: Say Goodbye to 4GB File Size Limits with RF64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax3gVm1nKaA
-
8-Series Quicktip: Say Goodbye to 4GB File Size Limits with RF64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax3gVm1nKaA
This is really great. RF64 is a very new spec, and I hope we see this support added in other recorders.
EDIT: See Jerryfreak's post below.
Here is the official documentation:
https://tech.ebu.ch/publications/tech3306 (https://tech.ebu.ch/publications/tech3306)
-
while spec has been revised recently, R64 itself has been around and in use for about 15 years
RF64 seemed to have grown out of sonic foundry's .W64 thats been around since around 2001 IIRC. .W64 was a staple of early 24-bit laptop tapers using vegas and sound forge
CAF is apple's answer which is used by metarecorder app among others
heres a blog from 2007 comparing the formats (older standard of R64)
http://blog.bjornroche.com/2009/11/wave64-vs-rf64-vs-caf.html
heres a 2016 gearslutz discussion for the various formats. At that time it seems RF64 was still somewhat limited in compatibility relative to .W64
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/1086321-do-you-use-rf64.html
heres a current thread on large formats
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/all-things-technical/1290097-overcoming-filesize-limitations-remote-recording.html#post14366272
-
I wonder if I would notice a different in sound quality from the Scorpio 888 to my Tascam HS-P82? Or would it be spitting hairs?
-
while spec has been revised recently, R64 itself has been around and in use for about 15 years
RF64 seemed to have grown out of sonic foundry's .W64 thats been around since around 2001 IIRC. .W64 was a staple of early 24-bit laptop tapers using vegas and sound forge
CAF is apple's answer which is used by metarecorder app among others
heres a blog from 2007 comparing the formats (older standard of R64)
http://blog.bjornroche.com/2009/11/wave64-vs-rf64-vs-caf.html
heres a 2016 gearslutz discussion for the various formats. At that time it seems RF64 was still somewhat limited in compatibility relative to .W64
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/1086321-do-you-use-rf64.html
heres a current thread on large formats
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/all-things-technical/1290097-overcoming-filesize-limitations-remote-recording.html#post14366272
Thanks for the education; R64 was not something I had been aware of.
-
Any more thoughts on this? Will it be a wow difference or minor difference - between the mic pres - audio quality of the Tascam HS-P82 and the Sound Devices Scorpio 888?
I wonder if I would notice a different in sound quality from the Scorpio 888 to my Tascam HS-P82? Or would it be spitting hairs?
-
Well - I will answer my own post. Perhaps someone else wants to know. I have been in touch with Sound Devices. The difference between the pres in the Mixpre II series and the Scorpio series is not dramatic. I was basically told, to pick the device based on ergonomics and other reasons. Given that advice, I would assume that the Tascam pres are likely very close or better than the Mixpre II pres. So I tend to think that the best answer is - pick the device that has the features one wants. This is in regard to the Tascam HS-P82 versus a Scorpio. And in that regard - the Tascam still works for my uses, but I can easily seeing it being to bulky and cumbersome for others.
-
I have been in touch with Sound Devices. The difference between the pres in the Mixpre II series and the Scorpio series is not dramatic.
What does that mean? Is the circuit different? Does it measure differently? Are the specs different?
I was basically told, to pick the device based on ergonomics and other reasons.
That's *always* good advice. Feature set is always the reason to choose hardware other than transducers.
I think people tend to overestimate the differences between (competently designed, in spec) electronics. In the comps I have heard between different preamps and AD converters, even if there is a sonic difference, that difference is slight, and there is no consensus on which sounds "better," when don in a. double blind test.
Obviously, if you know which gear is which, your brain helps you pick the gear you own, the more expensive, etc.
-
I think people tend to overestimate the differences between (competently designed, in spec) electronics. In the comps I have heard between different preamps and AD converters, even if there is a sonic difference, that difference is slight, and there is no consensus on which sounds "better," when don in a. double blind test.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
-
I think people tend to overestimate the differences between (competently designed, in spec) electronics. In the comps I have heard between different preamps and AD converters, even if there is a sonic difference, that difference is slight, and there is no consensus on which sounds "better," when don in a. double blind test.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
Yes. I think the volume differences made it hard to judge.
I was thinking more of the sax vs. sd comp we did 2 years ago.
-
Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
Yes. I think the volume differences made it hard to judge.
try that thread now, i normalized and reupped the samples
-
Unless there are drastic differences, I find it best to have equipment in my own space, with my own mics, etc. and then I can judge which is best.
Having heard from a reliable person at Sound Devices, I suspect that the Mixpre II pres and the Scorpio pres, are not drastically different in sound.
And sometimes it is a matter of taste. For instance, if I am recording a grand piano, I may want a pre that is super clean and handles harmonics with great clarity. If I am recording a lead guitar, I might want a pre with a lot of mojo. Now we are speaking of field recording. There are a wide variety on the clean side that will work. My personal experience was that I hated the Zaxcom Fusion pres. I even liked the pres in the original Sound Devices mixpre better. And I liked the pres for nature recording in the Sound Devices USBpre2. If I had the Scorpio and the Mixpre II in my own space, that would tell me a whole lot more than listening to samples on line. Nevertheless, for those that enjoy that type of thing, carry on and have fun! And it is certainly a nice thing for people to offer these samples for people, as it is not easy to do.
-
Unless there are drastic differences, I find it best to have equipment in my own space, with my own mics, etc. and then I can judge which is best.
Having heard from a reliable person at Sound Devices, I suspect that the Mixpre II pres and the Scorpio pres, are not drastically different in sound.
And sometimes it is a matter of taste. For instance, if I am recording a grand piano, I may want a pre that is super clean and handles harmonics with great clarity. If I am recording a lead guitar, I might want a pre with a lot of mojo. Now we are speaking of field recording. There are a wide variety on the clean side that will work. My personal experience was that I hated the Zaxcom Fusion pres. I even liked the pres in the original Sound Devices mixpre better. And I liked the pres for nature recording in the Sound Devices USBpre2. If I had the Scorpio and the Mixpre II in my own space, that would tell me a whole lot more than listening to samples on line. Nevertheless, for those that enjoy that type of thing, carry on and have fun! And it is certainly a nice thing for people to offer these samples for people, as it is not easy to do.
The comp sxm2d2 vs f6 isn't meant to be a true technical comparison .True it would be nice to have all the equipment in a studio . This was a spur of the moment test as we were at the same show and had identical mics on the same stand. Both sound outstanding and there is no right answer as which is better. these two units are new to the field and so are any comparisons . Listen and enjoy and if you find one sounds a bit different well thats cool.
-
Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
Yes. I think the volume differences made it hard to judge.
I was thinking more of the sax vs. sd comp we did 2 years ago.
^ I'm looking forward to giving the (revised) Zoom F6/Sax comp a critical listen.. and I very much have the SD/Sax comp from 2yrs back in mind regarding it.
Both sound outstanding and there is no right answer as which is better. ..[snip].. Listen and enjoy and if you find one sounds a bit different well thats cool.
Yes.
Yet still, because concert recording consists of so many interdependent variables, it can be helpful to dig deeper into what the apparent perceived differences are, and how that might translate to workflow processes and the resulting final output. As I recall, I was pretty unequivocal with regards to my preference in the blind SD/Sax comp 2yrs back.. and ended up being the minority position by far in the poll. That outcome was very interesting to me and helped solidify a deeper understanding of how differently folks asses, rank, and value various sonic aspects.
Upon the reveal, most choose the SD over Sax. I can understand why the majority of folks voted as the way they did, and can articulate an argument for that preference even though it is not my own.
The reasons I felt differently were 2-fold: First I simply preferred the Sax sample outright on its own merits. That represents a basic personal preference difference of course, although one which is somewhat dependent on the playback gear used to make the assessment. But more importantly, I felt that I could achieve the aspects folks found valuable with regard to the SD sample (a timbral difference, including a slightly more forward-sounding presence-range, translating as slightly improved vocal range clarity) relatively easily by applying my standard post-production workflow to the Sax sample, yet did not feel I could do the same to achieve what I prefered about the Sax sample (improved spatial aspects such as the portrayal of 3-dimensional depth) in my standard post-production workflow with the SD sample. This illustrates one aspect of of the complex variable thing. Note that I'm recalling these attributes from memory and I'm certain there are other subtle aspects I've overlooked and forgotten. Also, I see something of a parallel between how critical level-matching can be to the results of a comp and the influence of standard post production processes which are able to easily affect changes to a much greater degree.. yet only with respect to the aspects which are able to be easily addressed in that realm.
All this is fun to assess, fun to think about and discuss here.. yet in the end these sonic differences may be easily audible when we listen critically, but are for the most part relatively minor and academic in comparison to more dominant practical issues.
A few years ago I was shifting from 6ch recorders to an 8ch recorder. In my search I borrowed an R-88 for a while, considered HS-P82, 788 (had borrowed a 744), and ended up going with an F8. The recorders I tried all sounded somewhat different in careful controlled listening comparisons. But a more important qualification in that regard was if I could achieve the sound I wanted with each of them given my typical post-production workflow. I was satisfied that I could to the degree that it mattered to me. With that question answered, I was able to shift focus to the more practical (real world important) considerations such as cost, features, functionality, usability, reliability/serviceability, size, etc.
-
Gutbucket - your posts rings very similar to the advice I received from a person at Sound Devices who had every reason to have me buy the more expensive Scorpio, but said that I should consider the factors of your last sentence, in deciding between the Scorpio and the Mixpre 10 II.
-
I think people tend to overestimate the differences between (competently designed, in spec) electronics. In the comps I have heard between different preamps and AD converters, even if there is a sonic difference, that difference is slight, and there is no consensus on which sounds "better," when don in a. double blind test.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've checked out the F6/Sax comp that was recently posted?
I listened to it and formulated opinions about it but then never went and rechecked the thread.
-
I have been in touch with Sound Devices. The difference between the pres in the Mixpre II series and the Scorpio series is not dramatic.
What does that mean? Is the circuit different? Does it measure differently? Are the specs different?
It means that the difference between the 8 Series and the MixPre series preamps is mostly a matter of splitting hairs. And they're both very good.
Thus select your device based on the feature set you want.